Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Willy's mysterium

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    Mr. Jeffrey, were I to create a pseudonym, or handle, controlled by myself that fits best the pedagogical, it would be one who never gets it. Why? Because I
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr. Jeffrey, were I to create a pseudonym, or handle, controlled by
      myself that fits best the pedagogical, it would be one who never gets
      it. Why? Because I would always have an excuse to mount the podium and
      preach, using the guise of trying to see that another gets it.

      Let me, under the guise of helping you get it, take a different tack.
      Let's say that the situation up to here is best described by my
      showing you what getting it means, and that, despite that showing, you
      do not get it.

      You can get that picture as a picture, without knowing how it will be
      framed, right? This statement tells you that the notion of the frame
      is something yet to be shown, right? The frame will be the context,
      and to complete the frame I am going to shift from trying to show it
      to you to showing you why you don't get it. The why of that not
      getting will simply be that you are looking in the wrong place. It is
      as if I am pointing at the moon and you, in not looking at where I am
      pointing, are looking only at my pointing finger. This analogy I have
      borrowed from Buddha.


      The next part of that analogy will add the moon to it, but that is
      still not looking in the right place. Why? Because there is the
      pointing finger as separate from the moon. Well, how can they be made
      one? The can't if you look in the wrong place. This defines the 'wrong
      place' as anywhere that reason will not allow you to make the pointing
      finger and the moon one. The right place will be the gesture itself,
      the act in which both the moon and the one pointing at it are
      included. So, 'being one' takes on a different meaning, right?

      Now, what if the moon were the reflection of oneself, and what if that
      separation were taken a duality represented by the subjective and the
      objective? What could we do with such a frame? We could put a picture
      in it like the following. Ah, the completion of the frame will not
      tell you where to look, but only give you the necessary frame through
      which to see it. So, there is work yet left to do, after this, sorry.
      Also, if you do not take the time to work this out, which is to say,
      reason it out, well, I am not responsible for that.

      The frame is a process. It begins with the person looking only at the
      finger. This is subjectivity enclosed within itself. There is no
      objectivity, which is to say that it has no reflection of itself. We
      could say that this is the self not yet a self because it has no sense
      of being a self. The next step would be the acquisition of itself
      through the acquisition of a self to be reflected upon. The moon
      shines bright as the objective self as separate from itself as the
      observer. With that qualitative leap, desire is born. There is a want
      that burns as brightly as that moon to make the two one. Of course,
      they never were one. There was only one until it became two in the
      act. If the act is not seen, that duality is continually trying to
      make itself one in any way possible. Its favorite method is to imagine
      what being one would look like and try to fulfill that look.

      Oh hell, I got sidetracked and lost the ending. Oh well, I can finish
      this at some later date. Sorry about that; forget the whole mess until
      I put it together correctly.

      Mr. Willy
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.