Can We Escape?

{Part 1 – 22/10/2016}

Escape would require some flexibility of intuition and concept (nb. pedigree of terms is arbitrary). I would imagine strengthening a substrate of awareness that acknowledges its own ignorance. I would call this substance metaphorical, and the premises of its construction metaphorical idealism (replacing “conditions of experiencing that define experience” with “defining experience by the overlapping the plurality of the conditions of experiencing”).

Danger would persist by the allure of such a phenomenon that appeared to be transcendent.

These efforts would be justified by the hope that a metaphorical form would be more amenable to redefining and realigning per any metalogical hermeneutics.

But the dominating challenge remains: How does one begin a deconstructive semiotics whilst on the wrong side of the looking glass?

Guesswork advises imitating the dream readers. But their successes are not so much. And it is unclear why the divisions in themselves, nor the relations in themselves, should be enlightening.

Returning to the form of the metaphor: What is this aesthetic? Is it a mode of the sublime within the domain of the form (cf. the concept)? Does that mean that the employment of categories for practising such an awareness is actually (i.e. as planned) heuristic, or is there an attribute that joins intuition and concept?

And does this relate to the kabbalistic “trait” of comprehension, but if so, how does that relate to the yogi “mental factor” of concentration, or the boddhi defining of realms within frames of reference within planned samma sati^[I]? Add to this the stoic criterion aesthetic, the platonic idealism, and further abreast the creative states that transcend their own capacity for explanation and that abnegate all communication into media.

My guesswork advises that all of these can be related and that some may serve as better or best frameworks. My guesswork advises that (as currently imagined) the metaphor occurs when an assumed (but not categorised) concept of a thing’s unity (forms the focii of some sort of contemplative engagement which) is implied by the flickering of forms (i.e. that would be relevant to such a unity).

A looming limitation may be that such a metaphor fails to endorse any new domains of unity (cf. the concept of clothes in Kabbalah, and the inclusion of redundant or arbitrary delineations), and which suggests a practice that abject boundaries (but here we venture towards the gravity of absurdity).

After all these, the actor is presumably empowered and alert, but the dominating challenge remains. The only solution was that the space between the totality of metaphors creates some paradoxical and enlightening attribute. Or that the (perhaps “creative power”) of the intention can conjure what cannot be said.

In any case, before this stage, I would have advised the recognition of specific wishes, such as to see the self, to see the self within its nestled cocoons, to see the world, to see the world unfolding into the self. These might be enough.

{Part 2 – 23/10/2016}

What would escape look like?

Does one imagine waking up in (a brain in) a vat?
Or a higher dimensional order of existence; upward not northward?
Does Zhuangzi^[II] wake up but can’t remember what his dream was?

I doubt these and more.

I imagine the perfect disciple, who has sat under the tree from evening till dawn, similar to the descriptions of one who studied for 6 years and a day.

But instead of seeing everything as it is seen,
reading everything as being read.

The details are in the details.
What will having aged look like?
Being being older.

{Part 3 – 10/01/2017}

Religions depend on tradition to ensure their persistence and perseverance across generations, norms, and developments in other domains of knowledge. This enables religion a strength not found in any other cultural edifice.

But staunch traditionalism also results in an atrophying of the capacity for religions to reinvigorate their self-image. And when this trend is ubiquitous, there results in an inability to re-conceive “religion” at all.

Most religions dominating the globe were born in centuries of ignorance; “ignorance” as defined by most of what most deem to be most valuable: science.

If you had never encountered religion and were asked “What sort of philosophy would chain the observed with a panorama of unobserved, such that the latter empowered the former?”, then the most obvious answer would be, “Any scientific hypothesis.”

What if you were asked, “What if the unobserved had attributes that looked psychological^[1], and if the relationship between observed and unobserved proved the universal-primacy of the person engaging the philosophy?”

Language is cluttered with religious detritus, that instead of assisting this hypothetical inquiry, bias with preconceptions and connotations.

God, souls, spirits, afterlife, good and evil, revelation, etc etc.

On the one hand, these terms distract from what we should really mean: an Infinite container of reality; metaphysical correlates of psychology; narrative based comprehension; cosmic (as opposed to anthropogenic) deontology; noumenal intuition.

And on the other hand, these terms act like gravity wells, so that if we start to try and imagine a brave new philosophy like this, we would become confused: “If we want to comprehend noumena as resembling psychology, then we would be able to communicate experiences and events as a narrative involving psychic vectors… oh wait, that sounds like angels.”

I’ve made the transition elliptical, since we would never even articulate any idea close to these, because of the monopoly of religion on any such thoughts.

Religion needs to be modernized. And this is a difficult thing since the primitive imagining of children giving voices to their dolls is abhorrent to the modern eye but necessary for a project like this one. However, this embarrassing vestige from humanity’s past, of men crafting faces and animals from stone and wood only to worship their handiwork, can be burned down and built from scratch – now that we know things that we once could never think.

I say this in general.

{Part 4 – 17/02/2017}

Judaism is not so much a religion, as it is a reality.

I wonder whether the ayin “sofit” is the Torah but that we can’t receive the letter because looking from the bottom upwards makes it overlap with tzaddik sofit.

Ayin is Chessed, and Tzaddik is Chochma.

Clothes of leather and light:

Ayin-vav-reish and Aleph-vav-reish. Also Aleph-shin:

Ayin looks like Aleph because the Torah (ayin sofit) is the blueprint, so is overlays the abstraction of reality (viz. the Torah is [somehow!] the DNA of the world, so they are related but not identical; similar to two different media [like painting vs music] of the same artwork (e.g. the Nutcracker).

The reish is reached in either case, but because ayin is the blueprint of the world, and a lower-level abstraction of ayin is zayin (Chessed at Yetzira): this means that the closest we can understand the creation of the Torah is the experience of bounty and chessed. [This is an example of tzimtzum]

Because ayin sofit overlaps tzaddik sofit, as chessed is contracted (tzitzum) from being conceivable (~atzilut) to being possible to occur (~briya), it also makes wisdom possible (tzaddik). From the world of action, to look at chessed and the Torah are the two possible ways of achieving more wisdom. [I think this is because this is the level from which the aleph-bet fits exactly, which is to say, from where it is possible to see an abstraction of the Torah [which looks like chessed in the space of zayin. This relates to the word Zot in the Torah, which made me believe in the Torah.]

Fire is aleph-shin. Esh. Aleph chains upwards to potentiate the sefira which preceded it (when we look up), Gimmel. This is like that when we express ourselves, we bring that part of our personality more into existence. But the space of the gimmel is written shin. Also, Aleph is connected to the space of the next letter, bet, which is like the different parts of our personality interact to express a greater whole which is our combined personality, but the space is written shin. Also, shin unites the aleph (nb. circular), which is like the way a central value or essential feature is what unites all the different parts of our personality into the greater whole of who I am, and each person. [Fire is the part of the world which when experienced, out of that experience comes something greater which always points in the same direction].

Torah is the fire, and we learn Torah with mitzvot, the most potent are those to each other.

{Part 5 – 20/02/2017}

How can one know an unchanging truth in a world of transience and now?

I will try this for one week and report.

Background (synopsis):

• Many cultures recognize the role of a mental application as resulting in an iterative change that occurs below conscious awareness
• Many cultures recognize the role of attaching mental conformations (e.g. kavana, sati, listening, etc) to actions/behaviours as resulting in changing perception regarding those actions, and that such changes can sum into a changed perspective/character

Method (synopsis):

• Alternate thoughts (and their associated feelings, etc) with physical focus (e.g. body part) or conceptual focus (e.g. the unknowable, the frames of stories, etc)
• Combine this with a study of how these thoughts connect as a sequence
• At the conclusion of each exercise, consider the relation to the activity for that day, and associate during that activity
• Measurements are qualitative and regard the phenomenology of the letter yud here

An example is shown here:

1. [Since have already iterated this, can “sof ma’ase” to know that the yud (which leads yud–caf in ABC) determines the hook to the 2II space at the 8II (first letter).
   1. Temporary yud ~ connecting differentials of stationary/transience in sky/earth to unify mankind in their aspirations by ensuring that both “temporal speeds” are moving positively. Thus the 2II space is to create something which would have the power to achieve this.
2. 8II: Imagine what you would say now (if free, or if shy/normally around people), what you have said/written recently (nb. Gradient of exposure/publicity), imagine what beliefs/ideas are externally received but which are non-synched with own, imagine
   1. E.g. I want to say that I’m afraid, that I feel guilty, but I would ask how they were, try and avoid talking, recently I have said “nice” things, written “speculative” things mostly private, have felt that I am conflicting with religious tradition and this has affected my expression (nb. Think of x number of examples, e.g. 1 each category).
   2. Now repeat with “pinging” space of lips, gums (mouth cavern sans-tongue)
   3. Since this is a 8II, can ~easily see the effect of 2II space: since 8II is a line in the sand, which descends into 5II, 2II. (But remember we are measuring how close the 2II is like the 2II implied by the yud).
3. 3II: Feel urge of the organ. Feel “direction-vector” of bestowal. Feel blind certainty of direction. Apply that wisdom in transferring the 8II to 9III.
   1. 9III is known as the 3 armed flame that is a 4 armed flame.
   2. Feel at least two impulses of 3II taking off from the 8II. Combine them per power of 9III.
   3. Take each impulse of 3II, and pass on that lesson to the power of the 9III.
   4. Remember that the whole purpose of your mouth/expression was to procreate/organ, and that your procreation is amongst the tongues of the flame (i.e. lamed is part of shin).
   5. Make space for 9III, by seeing a crude 3-arm of life, and then overlapping a sense of the transcending unknowable.
      1. As Sin (Shin as “S”) is like samech, so too here (re. Circle around letter shin)
   6. Pei acts as a father to shin mother (reverse gender)
   7. E.g. here my shin started as my “character” of today (good + negative conjoined) then transcending by feeling how I am moved by “winds of fate”, then learning/seeding that I want the fire to be more like what the power of the pei is encouraging
      1. Do this a few times until see that the shin can be more than just “totality + my wishes”, e.g. the fire is a burning of “revealing new domains of choice”
4. Go from the shin of transcending frame to gut with each change, then go from gut to head with each spark of a new choice/way that is considered in the light of the shin
   1. In the background (akin to 5 faces of the word “Kol, caf-lamed”) see the doorpost of nun, and finally the impossible to see the top of the head
   2. E.g. reish of “I have a choice to choose which part of my life I want to be freer in” (nb. The choice is the choice to choose).
5. Pretend that the reish is taf, as taf-tet. Go from “mission/crown” of the letter that is I amongst Torah, to presume/trust/optimism see the dew in sky (seen via Storyline in sky, using eyes (ideally) and using the third eye between ayin and tzaddik).
   1. See the dew as “the dew that is what my mission is, i.e. the dew that I wish to add to this world”
6. Feel organ as-if in sky (lamed inside tet), then inseminate the rope (chet) as you climb up/down from land/sky (nb. Storyspaces) [remembering to see (1) the space of land or sky, (2) the changes upon that, (3) the difference between the static space and the changing, (4) the difference in speed between the differences in land/sky]
   1. Want the rope to be a mother to father of dew
7. With repetitions, this creates a wisdom (yud) [that trusts the 8I, just as it would the 9I space the proceeds it in abc]

{Part 6 – 20/02/2017}

Here is a very simple and obvious benefit for anyone.

Case: How to do teshuva, and how to take on new behaviours: What I just before ‘now as I wri’ computed: (a single output, for what I inputted etc in sequence starting pei):

Need to see adoption/modification as occurring:

• Not just (per what I had been seeing) in relation to resistance or willpower
• But also as changes which occur on earth-time and also in sky-time
  • But also as changes which have been achieved, and the way those achievements are increasing/decreasing/flat-lining
• This means that so long as there is a positive acceleration occurring at sky-speed, there is less cause to admonish self for earth-time
  • Or conversely, when stagnating, seek a change which will make the sky-speed positive, and stop worrying about what you see on earth
• “It’s not good, better, best. Rather, to be better means that you are being good. And to be the best is nothing less nor more than to be good always (aka so-often as the choice is chosen, it is chosen to be good and not ‘bad’, cf. Perfect vs bad is not the same as good vs bad, and this is why confusion arises). Perfection is not an option amongst choices, except when divinely ordained.”

Here are a few more lessons derived from the sequence (synopsis):

• Our expression (esp as rations of what we think, what we allow ourselves to say to ourselves, and what we allow & how we say it to others) creates a system which as a whole takes on a power which we might not have planned. This difference is the difference between what “we think we have the right to express” and “how we express”. This power acts in our life, even if we tell ourselves “but I am honest, or but I know what I mean, etc”.
• Our dreams can be “spilled onto the earth” or we can inseminate them. To fantasize whilst knowing that the dream is already decided as being “unrealistic, null, etc”, is to masturbate, which is not poisonous per se, but which wastes the potential. The more we “spill” the more we “mature” the “ghost-spirit of dreams dreamt but not allowed to breath”, and so we create “flames in the fire that are the inverse of what we [should have freely] wished” (which make our power to dream more and more impotent).
• Although seeing ourselves as operating within a closed garden (the entirety of shin, or as samech) is restrictive and misleading, it allows us to measure the growth of dreams which have been allowed to seed (whether by being thought positively, or by affecting some action, or by spurring something, etc). Thus although we can’t normally see dreams when not dreaming, we can see their changes by comparing them to a measuring stick that is the “universe which we wish for, and the ways in which it is not”. Unless this measuring stick is seen with both “what we see ourselves as being as free-willing” and “what we see ourselves as being as determined“, then our dreams look stagnant since they are relative to a “wished for the universe” which grows proportionally to them.
• The mere/sheer act of seeing the world as “being something more” or as “being something which is moving towards something”, results in discovering choices which move us towards the “more” quoted. (shin-gimmel-reish)
• Any new choice which we feel “is leading to what I think I should go towards” cannot be truly measured against all that will happen, and all that we will only understand as-if enlightened. But so-long as choices are discovered via a direction (the fire burning upwards, no matter how the flames contort), then our choices will lead to what we would choose if Enlightened (reish, + nun, … taf).
  • Although it is good to use faithfulness/true-to-self-beliefs (nun) as an anchor, it may not lead us to discover every port which could allow us to be more self/true, on its own. Rather it must be nurtured alongside growth etc, and thus the head will swing around the spine, just as a door around the hinge.
• Post-modernism has divorced many WEIRD people and also many more from a shared nexus. In the past, before it was known that everything is relative, people’s ideas overlapped necessarily, for example, by reference to a shared mental mapping of “the world as it is objectively, e.g. a geography, but etc”. This skill is useful for other reasons too (e.g. creates HUGE new swaths for cross-modal mapping, especially since our visual hemisphere is the most elaborately evolved, this is well known and the implications and relating facts/ideas too plethoric to skim without misleading). This has been further devastated by the loss of sense of “I come from this land, or I belong to this land” (except unfortunately as a sense of power and entitlement, and not as a sense of reference/nexus).
  • By relating that which is subjective, esp. personal dreams, to these nexi, we may become better of de-isolating our dreams/personalities
• The “mindlessness” of the new age is a problem because it lacks an ability to frame against relating frames.
• Our internal-dishonesty/non-authenticity results not just from our wish to avoid pain or from our habits, they also result from what we believe is the “measurements” for changing change. It is the latter (nb. as a wisdom, not just optimism, etc) which determines the role of fear, not-looking/habits. (Cf. yud, to caf/pei).

Here are some examples of how the practical (non-meditative) portion might occur on one day:

• Elect delineated religious ritual (knowing the effect it will have on rates of acceleration in earth/sky), then while performing ritual, knowing that it is leading to a world where wisdom can be shared freely (nb. within approx frame of this wisdom, not strictly, and within recent memory of having seen the mechanism of these inside meditation).
• When censoring self in conversation, see that the censoring is being done as chapter towards chapter of non-censoring (which was heard in the night sky if not audible on earth)
• When doing something that is “a good thing that I do”, see how it brings the “dew” into the world

Here is a more “hand-waving” philosophy/benefit, which is potentially inspiring to anyone (and inspired (heard) in the letters beginning with pei):

Each person is a part of the fire, which they serve to the extent that they choose to press their bellows, add fuel, or strive to change it in any way. The fire is bigger than anyone could ever presume to control it, and yet to be alive and not leap off the bridge implies the decision (no matter if not-logical or conceivable) to take responsibility for what will be.

Each person may walk back and forth between the wood-pile and bonfire, like a servant of some chief who too wishes for the flame to be good. Or else they may choose when to walk backwards, when forwards, when to measure the sweat on their brow, and when to agree that it doesn’t matter (with the others that sit around the fire, knowingly or not).

But the more we think we’re doing the best we can, the more we become slaves to the fire, and not its beneficiaries and audience and will. The challenge for all then becomes, what choice did I not see? How can I see what I want when I already think that I know it? How can I change that which is so awesome? So much greater than my limitations?

What is needed is not just a tool for change. But a tool for change OF changes. Such a dream has never been universally agreed (as possible, let alone its instructions made accessible AND universal).

This tool would be like a spiral gate; a gate that was not only passed but which allowed new territories to be discovered (and not just explored, like normal gates) forever. It would need to allow sojourners to walk with maps that have edges, and yet never fall off the earth. It would need to apply to every leaf of life’s tree and to spread like weeds which are hindered but never volitionally stop. “Havoo godel…” it would create giants, then giants of giants, then heights not yet imagined, not even as an imagination of imagination. And their size would be just the tool, the purpose is always to serve the fire (everything is burning and nothing is burned – everything is the Burning and yet everyone is choosing; paradox).

The philosophy is this: How can this be a direction? The goal is to direct towards this direction.

[What is a well? In the world outside it is something that exists for a larger purpose, to create vistas/actions which bring options to choose. When a well is dug in the desert, then new possibilities never perhaps considered by the first well-digger are eventually witnessed. In the life inside, it is something that we submit to despite not seeing “the greater whole”, and this brings a new vista/action sphere from which new possibilities are now possible to explore. I hope that to dig a well inside, will by osmosis [cf. oxytocin, vasopressin, etc] be found and dug better by those better equipped, and those differently equipped].

^[1] By “looked psychological” is meant “mapped onto every single self-contextualizing domain”.

^[I] See ‘Walking Towards Right Mindfulness‘

^[II] Zhuang Zhou, often known as Zhuangzi, or Chuang Tzu, was an influential Chinese philosopher who lived around the 4th century BC during the Warring States period, a period corresponding to the summit of Chinese philosophy, the Hundred Schools of Thought. For further details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuang_Zhou.