WORD CASTLES

Copyright 1998 ==Gene Poole==. All rights reserved.


Speaking of Nonduality | Speed Reading| Speaking of Language | The Traps of Conventional Language | Response to Chad | No Exclusionary Principle | Nature of the Hallucination


Speaking of Nonduality

We must acknowledge the wide range of metaphors and analogies which are
available for our use, as we valiantly struggle to express both the kernel
and the shell of Nonduality.

We must also concede, when the situation of reading, speaking, or
understanding calls for such, that our dependence upon language, being
voluntary, leaves open the possibility of a non-verbalized or
non-verbalizable 'reality'; and that this alluded or implied 'reality',
described by so many, in so many ways, over the span of so many years, is
indeed 'real', but out of reach of a language which exists solely to point
out distinctions.

"What is it, that is distinct from everything?"

Two answers:

"What is distinct from everything, is the one who creates distinctions"; and,

"Nothing".

If we combine both of the above answers, "Nothing creates distinctions".
This is the same as saying that it is space (emptiness) itself, which
allows separation between objects. It is the nothingness of space or
emptiness which is inhabited by 'things', as it is the white space of this
screen which allows discernment of each letter of this lettering. It is
only space, which allows form; we call form as 'form' because of apparent
distinctions or differences, which are only apparent due to 'space'.

Language _as we know of it_ is like a scapel, either sharp or dull; if it
is sharp, distinction expresses definition; meaning is clear to the reader,
if context (space) is generous. The denser the meaning, the sharper the
scalpel must be, to separate, create or reveal distinction, and by thus
creating space, to increase the 'nothingness' of the context.

Context of nothingness is space in which understanding occurs; thus it is
seen that language _as we know it_ is a scalpel which reduces everything to
nothing, and thus to understanding or 'knowing'. 'Knowing' is thus the
inverse or the very opposite of language; language is the means to reduce
something to nothing, and it is only 'in' nothing or space 'where'
understanding or knowing occurs.

Language, then, is a function which is an outpicturing of 'enzyme'; enzyme
is a _form-specific key_ which unlocks compounds, dissolving complexity
into elements, or 'elementary particles'.

We do not live upon enzymes, but instead, upon the elements which the
enzyme liberates for assimilation; and as enzyme is not food, so language
is not nourishment, but instead, that which liberates (separates), if it is
effectively deployed.

That our speech (and participation in speech as 'listening') is automatic,
is no suprise; our digestive processes are automatic, or 'unconscious' or
'insensate'. But one who searches for liberation (separation from the
compound) by the enzymatic operation of language, must grasp the voluntary
controls of speaking and listening.

Because the search for understanding is thinking in language,
language-based enzymes may be deliberately created, to cleave the bonds
(attachment) between (p)articles of speech. It is the deliberate creation
of linguistic separators which are used to isolate elements of
speech/language. These thus-isolated elements may then be recombined or
compounded into 'new' forms of speech, which then serve to further modify
'knowing'.

What then is nourishing, is not language; language is but the spear of the
hunter. The 'game' which is hunted and eaten, providing growth, is found
not in language, but _by_ language.

Reading for understanding is to relax and to feel the spear of the hunter
to penetrate the game; it is to surrender to the skill of the expert, thus
to gain the nourishment liberated by the blade of another, who shares with
you the 'kill'.

The best hunter, kills the entire game, and then throws away the spear.

Said Lugwig Wittgenstein:

"My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to
something that is patent nonsense."

And;

"The question is not one of explaining a language-game by means of our
experiences, but of noting a language-game."

It is the language-game which is my prey; and I wish now, as always, to
share with you the nourishment which results from my hunt. As I make my
point sharp, unto that of a laser-scalpel, I use words to lyse words;
di-solving attachment, to liberate the elements of compounds, to rebuild
from these elements new compounds, which then may be assimilated; but it is
only the -binding energy- which is nourishment.

Binding-energy is that which attaches one element to another; elements form
the structure of the compound, but what is nourishing is only garnered or
assimilated by the lysing or dissolving of those compounds, which is the
releasing of the energy which attaches or binds.

It is our attachment which is karma-fat stored, and it is the enzyme of
understanding which releases this bound energy as nourishment. But the
spear of language is not the nourishment; the spear of language is the
enzyme which opens space (emptiness) to liberate the elements (dissolving
attachment) and thus free the binding-energy (attachment) which is the
stored fat. It is this bound energy which when liberated, that is our
nourishment; and it is this bound energy (attachment) to which my sharpened
spear now points.

Thus it is my attachment which sustains my life, or as it is properly
called, my 'existence'.
It is the dissolving of attachment which converts what is latent into what
is actual; and it is the actual "That I Am".

A "Liberator" is one who is a skilled hunter, so skilled as to 'bring down
the game of language' itself, thus to liberate all of what is bound by
language, thus to provide a feast of nourishment, and thus to portray the
act of hunting, as the best nourishment, that which itself nourishes the
hunter.

Those who hunt with prey in mind, often hunt so expediently as to miss the
nourishing nuances of hunting itself; thus I say, that it is not the prey,
but the hunt itself, which is the essential nourishment of the hunter. The
Hunter is one who through skill, always 'brings home the bacon' (or Tofu,
as the case may be). The effective and successful hunter is one who first
respects the true nature of hunting, and who by that respect, always
confronts the game.

The best hunter is one who deploys the enzyme of dissolvement to the
compounds of words which are the body of the game; the skilled reader, can
thus enjoy the fruits of the hunter, as acquired skill of hunting. By
exampling the enzyme, the hunter shares the essence of hunting, and thus
nourishes the reader.

"Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, and he eats
for a lifetime."

Our prey then, is our attachment, and what sustains us is our hunting
skills. What binds attachment is language; to hunt and to 'kill' language
is the Master Hunt. The hunt for a Master is the search for a skilled
hunter; but although that Master may share a taste of his kill with the
seeker, the seeker must emulate the hunting skill of the Master. The Master
is to teach hunting, not to feed the seeker. The seeker must come to the
horrific realization that 'his' nourishment must derive from
self-cannibalization; that the stored fat of karma, which is attachment,
must be 'eaten' to sustain an existence which will then end, predictably,
at the 'Last Supper'.


Speed Reading

'Speed-reading disease' as a model of synesthesia disorder:
An experimental approach 3/01/97

Speed-reading disease is a disorder which arises by the act of "Speed-reading".

Reading is 'seeing information'. The disease of reading is caused to arise,
by the seeing of hearing. The imposition of hearing on seeing allows
neither seeing nor hearing. Consciousness, when fed invalid information of
seeing, sees imperfectly. Consciousness, when fed invalid information of
hearing, hears imperfectly. Knowing which arises within consciousness which
is fed imperfect seeing and hearing, is imperfect knowing. How this is so:

Reading is seeing. Seeing is the seeing of form. The seeing of reading is
the seeing of the form of writing.

The hearing of information is the hearing of speaking. Writing is the
transmission of the speaking by the act of writing.

The reading of writing is the seeing of the artifact of the act of writing.
The writing is the act of the writer.

Action is movement. Movement is force. Force is the moving form of power.
Power is the latent potentiality within form.

Written word is form which represents the action of the writer. The act of
writing is the creation of form which is the latent power of the moving of
the action of the act of writing.

Reading is the act of attention upon the form of writing. Written form is
latent power.

Reading is action.

Reading is the action of moving the eyes from form to form. Reading is the
action of corresponding seeing to knowing.

Reading is the actuation of the latent power of the form of writing, by the
action of the seeing of the form of writing.

Knowing is understanding. Knowing understanding of written word is knowing
the understanding of the writer.

The knowing of the seeing of reading, is the knowing of seeing and hearing.

The true knowing of hearing is solely the knowing of hearing.

The true knowing of seeing is solely the knowing of seeing.

Reading one word is easy. The understanding of one word is easy. Each word
has meaning. The Understanding of written word is the knowing of meaning.

Readers are people. People make meaning. Some people make meaning and write it.
Some people read writings. Readers read and know. But what do they know?

If the writing which the reader is reading is meaning, is the knowing of
the reader, the knowing of the writer?

Thus a question arises....

The question may be stated thus: Is what is read, what is written?

The question may also be stated: As I read, am I understanding the meaning
of the understanding of the writer? That is to say...that I may be
understanding each word, but do I understand the combinations of words in
such a way as to allow a representation in knowing, which represents the
presentation of meaning which the writer intended?

I wish to share the understanding of the writer, therefore I read carefully.

If I wish to experience unmodified meaning, I will not read, unless I read
in a manner designed to carefully avoid understanding any meanings which
may modify my present understanding.

Now, what is 'Speed-reading disease'?

Speed-reading disease is the disorder of reading, amplified by the factor
of the speed imposed upon the act of reading.

The disorder of reading arises from the merging of seeing with hearing.

How is this related to synesthesia? It is related in the following manner:

Synethesia is the name of a variation of the function of consciousness
which is characterized by the modification of information of sense, by
other information of sense. Information is not knowing. Information is what
is known.

Synesthesia is said to be a 'disorder' because 'perfect knowing' is
modified to become 'imperfect knowing', as caused by the information of the
knowing of seeing being the information of the knowing of hearing.

The 'knowing' of the knower is display in consciousness. Display may
display any knowing. If the knowing of seeing is displayed as the knowing
of hearing, synesthesia results.

Readers who read carefully, read with the knowing of the disease of
reading, taking into account the inevitable confusion of knowing with
known.
Readers who read carelessly, unknowing of the disease of reading,
experience the synesthesia of knowing, which is the confusion of the
knowing with the known.

When the knowing of reading is confusing with the known, neither knowing
nor known is known. Instead of the understanding of modified knowing,
knowing is moving. Thus the disease of reading is the movement of the
display of consciousness, experienced by the reader as unknowing.

The remedy for the disease of reading, is to practice hearing.

Because written words are the hearing understanding and knowing of the
writer, the remedy for the disease of hearing may be practiced by listening
while reading. Hearing what is being read, overcomes the
synesthesia-producing effect of seeing what is heard.

Analogy: Viewing a televised videotape at normal speed permits the viewer
to see and understand the information of visual images. But the forms which
convey meaning become blurred writhings when the tape is viewed in
fast-forward mode.

Similarly, writings become writhings when viewed at a speed faster than speech.

In conclusion: This experimental model of synesthesia demonstrates that the
utilitarian usage of a mixture of sense-information may result in
distortion of knowing and thus meaning. Perhaps other forms of synesthesia
may yield to the experimental mode of analysis demonstrated above.

Send comments to: Gene Poole <Magus@cet.com>

Copyright 1997, ==Gene Poole== This document is the intellectual property
of the author. All rights are reserved by the author. This document may not
be published without the express permission of the author. Private use is
encouraged. Private individuals may propogate this document for educational
purposes only and on a not-for-profit basis only, on the condition that
this document is transmitted in its original form and format, with all text
included, including this statement and formatting information: Font-12pt
Monaco | Justify-left | Format-plain text

This document is most effective when printed and read as hardcopy, rather
than viewed on a computer monitor. -Gene Poole, author


Speaking of language...

Greeting to conscious space!

Language;

Is both a means to an end, and simultaneously an end in itself. It is a
means of reaching a goal, and if properly formulated, it expresses that
goal as and in itself as language. If the picture I paint with these words
can be seen by the reader, I have suceeded in transmitting what I see. But
if the reader is seeing what I say from a context which is different than
the context in which I see what I see, the reader will color or alter this
picture I paint with words. If you think about it, it is no different than
the dilemma of the artist who works in the media of color on canvas; no
matter how 'accurate and representational' the artist intends the product
to be, it is inevitable that many viewers will 'interpret' the product of
the artist in a way in which the artist may find to be quite divergent from
his/her intent.

Hooks;

My chosen use of selective and specific 'referants' act as 'hooks' into
the library of symbols which exist as the 'mind' of the reader. "Red" is
the name of a color; 'referant' is the name of a function of languaging.
'Everyone' knows what 'red' is... but not all readers will be 'hooked' into
my intention of expressing the relationship between 'my knowledge' and 'the
knowledge of the reader'. I understand that my 'mind' is 'merely a library
of symbols', but I must indulge in the 'controlled folly' of guessing
exactly which of the symbols which I find in my library, will invoke in the
reader, the reaction which I desire the reader to have. If I can somehow,
by skill or luck, erect a framework of symbols which the reader also
shares, I then have established that there is a commonality of Being
between the reader and the writer.

An astute writer is able to predict with some certainty, which deployed
'hooks' of language will impact the reader. Here are some examples,
applicable to this forum:

[Example:] I find that no words are adequate to express the experience
which I have while Being as "conscious nothing".

[Comment to above example:] I have used words to express my impression of
an experience which I have, and I have left it to the reader to reach for
what I am meaning. The hook I deploy is the absence of concrete
descriptors; I offer to the reader the option of any interpretation which
they can imagine. By so-doing, I honor the flexibility of the human
individual. I do not impose any requirement upon the reader, but I do
chance an unresolvable ambiguity or ambivalence. It is this chance which
prompts me to deploy this very hook; I mean to communicate, not the
uncommunicable, but instead, a style and intention which shapes my
communication. By defining my experience as first and primarily my own, I
offer nothing to the reader, yet I can predict that the reader will find
some personal resonanance with what I say. I know that the reader will be
busy filling in the blank which I have created, and thus will probably
completely miss the intention of the writer, which in this case is to
instill in the reader, the impulse to use language in such a way as to
honor and respect the essentially universal nature of the human being.
Sensed by the reader or not, I have deployed a 'subliminal hook'.

Readers reading with the intention of deriving 'concrete meaning' or
'facts' from writings, leave themselves open to such subliminal 'hooks'.
Indeed, Rumi and others deploy such hooks to acheive the effect which they
desire. Readers eventually understand that they are being 'stroked' or
'massaged' by what is being said by the author. The reader eventually may
come to the realization that it is the stroking which is impactful upon the
reader, rather than any descriptors which are employed by the writer to
convey 'facts'. This profound realization was the impetus which drove the
birthing of Marshall McLuhans' book entitled "The Medium is the Massage: An
Inventory of Effects".

Please reread the above book-title. Do you read "Massage" or message? I
have spelled the title correctly. Readers of Mcluhan, misreading the title,
misread the book. Yet Mcluhan successfully deployed several hooks, in spite
of the deliberately employed 'play on words' which he knew or suspected
would result in 'misunderstanding'. Such is the nature of the pun.

These words are 'simply or merely' the _medium_ of communication which we
employ to share complex meanings via speaking or writing. I intend to
deliberately share with you now, a factor of communication which may escape
you, and it is this; what I say or write here, now, depends upon you, the
reader, having in your extant library of symbols, symbols which correspond
this those which I now use. In other words, the meaning which you imply
from reading my writings, is in actuality, the meaning which you had
_before_ you read this. Your extant library of symbols (if you are an
english-speaker and subscribed to this list) includes all, or most of, the
words which I use now as I write this.

Writing as communication is in actuality "sign-language". Any sounds which
you hear while reading this are an emanation of your own 'consciousness';
similarly, any meanings which you derive from this, are an emanation of
your own consciousness. You indeed 'already' have this knowledge, although
I may be, as you read this, inflicting a low-level reorganization upon your
extant library of symbols. And such is my very intention, expressed by
this writing. I wish to invert the (possibly existing) priorities of
'fact-transmission' VS 'effect of massage', as you read this, to the
intention and goal of prioritizing your expression in writing to firstly
consider the _massage-effect _prior_ to the fact-effect_.

Indeed, the 'massage' we give to another, may so dominate the
communication, that the 'facts' are lost in the internal noise of the
reader who is reacting to the massage of the style or thrust of the
comunication. It has been said that 'a slap is as good as a kiss', in
regards to 'spiritual' communication, induction, and initiation. I disagree
heartily with such as statement, and further, offer neither slap NOR kiss.
Either is disrespectful to the reader/hearer, and serves to _distance_
rather than to lead to the kind of integration/reconfiguration which is the
supposed intention of 'spiritually motivated' communications. Both the slap
and the kiss, are indeed equally worthless, and as such, the statement that
"A slap is a _good_ as a kiss" is indeed true, in that neither being good,
are equal in outcome, if not intention.

Have you seen the recently released movie "The Horse Whisperer"? In
essence, the (spiritually) wounded horse will approach a human (humans
having wounded the horse) only if the horse is given all the time and space
needed to express it's natural inclination as a social/tribal being. The
'massage' given to the horse by the 'whisperer' is in effect a message that
"I am here, over here, and you can come if you like". It is not the threat,
demand, or control-message/massage of a human _wounder_. As horses can be
invited into a gentle society, so may humans also be.

Present-day radicals, myself among them, define 'our' present-day culture
as a "Dominator-Culture" or a culture based upon an unhealthy dynamic of
domination-demands and required submission-reaction. This culture of
domination not only creates a huge population of 'walking wounded', it also
offers "healing" only in the context of eventual conformity of the wounded
to the ranks of wounded-submissives. The parental command to the child to
"be good" is a capsule-course in the dominance/submission routine of our
post-primate way of Being. In this capsule, which is swallowed by most
children sooner or later, resides the implicit 'arrangement' or 'deal' or
'agreement' that _the submissive survive_, to perhaps 'become president
someday'. Once the child has thus been integrated into the Dominator
Culture, the 'agreement' stands in force as an internal regulation of the
expression of the child, adolescent, and future adult. This bitter pill is
then passed on to the future children of the present submissives, and so
on, ad infinitum. Such a 'gift of survival' as this initiation into the
Dominator Culture carries a wildly large price-tag, which the radical
(myself) refuses to pay.

The dilemma of the present day true-radical is this; to avoid expression as
either dominant or submissive, sends signals to the extant library of
symbols of _neither_ the dominant _nor_ the submissive receiver. As I say
this, neither the dominant nor submissive can understand what I intend to
say; but my 'fellow radicals' can hear me, loud and clear. I offer a 'key'
to the realm of non-dominant, non-submissive, actual living radical way of
Being; by searching their extant library of symbols, the reader will
eventually find the 'middle-way' of true radicalism.

In this writing, I imply a 'separate reality' of understanding, available
to the reader who reads carefully. If the reader reads this as carefully as
I write this, and if my extant library of symbols is at least an
approximate match to that of the reader, the reader has the key of entry
into the implied 'separate reality'. This is my intention; I intend to open
the gate to this 'separate reality' to anyone who would enter. This
'separate reality' is one of neutrality, of neither dominance or submision;
it is a reality of voluntary particpation in the welcoming of and the
rehabilitation of those who have been dominated, wounded, and thus perhaps
have taken on the protective coloration/massage-style of the
whiplash-dominant. In fact, it is observed [1] that it is exactly those
who have been abused, who take on the role of abuser. I point to an
alternative, a safe realm of knowledge, a rearrangement of the extant
library of symbols of the abused/wounded/reactive one.

The first step into this safe realm or dimension of Being, is the adoption
of the understanding that language is both massage (medium) and message. To
feel deeply exactly how a wounding massage feels in oneself when received,
is to understand exactly the very expression to bypass while in
communicating with the wounded. And everyone has been wounded.

If this first step is taken, the gate to the dimension of neutrality of
Being is opened.

Mind (simply the extant libray of symbols) is used in _reaction_ to
stimulation via the several senses. The progression of movement of these
interior symbols, the order in which they begin reaction to external
sense-stimulation, is primarily kinetic in nature; in other words, it is
the 'touch and the response to the touch', the quality of the touch, which
initiates the first and most important reaction to communication. Every
reaction which follows this initial reaction is compounded from this first
reaction; the first reaction to the 'touch' or 'massage' of another, points
the direction and sets the momentum of reaction.

A slap, applied with good intention, is still a slap, and is the language
of the wounding dominator. The dominator _demands_ that the reaction to the
slap be interpreted as the expression of 'good intention'; the slap is
repeated, over and over, until the one being slapped accepts the slap as
the valid communication of good intention. That a slap, may be delivered
with a smile, is simply the insistance of the dominator that the slapped
one acknowledge the 'good intention'. It is in this way, by this
conditioning, that the dominator assures submission to the value-system of
the Dominator-culture. In this way, the dominator engenders and perpetuates
the culture of domination. I leave it to the reader to reach for the
knowledge of the inevitable harm that such 'relationship' has on us all.

There is no impetus of spiritual evolution which calls for domination and
the language of the dominator. Many of us in this forum are quite
deliberately _fleeing_ the ugly horrors of the dominator culture as it
currently manifests as 'religion'; we feel drawn to 'spiritual life', we
flee the vicious slaps and seductive smiles and kisses of the dominators,
and resolve to maintain this open dimension of safety and healing. In this
dimension, exist many refined and aware 'souls' and their words and
intentions. It is thus no suprise, that the very essence of the
dominator-culture should appear, to challenge this opening, and to attempt
to fill this space with the ways AND means of the "dominant paradigm".

If we commit the error of defining "winners" and "losers", we instigate
action in those to whom we share such definition. This stimulation of
action is the very essence of 'searching' often alluded to in this forum;
the message to 'go and stop', to 'move and be still', is the essence of the
_double-binding_ communications of the dominator. That such has been
administered with the 'good-intentioned slap' to 'wake up the sleeper' is
somehow unseen or denied by all, or by most, involved in this forum,
perhaps because most participants are reluctant to directly confront the
aggressor who wears the smile, and speaks the words of 'spirituality',
while indeed slapping. This regrettable trait is simply the way that
wounded submissives _invert_ into agressive dominators, and by so doing,
subvert any attempt to actually create a safe space for Being. We already
have a dominating culture of 'good-intentioned slappers' and endless ranks
of wounded submissives. We do not need more of either... in fact less. But
how is healing done, if the wounded cannot be removed to the battlefield?
If the 'medics' who attend the wounded are actually wounders, massive fraud
is taking place; and the entire 'way' of the false-medic is the way of the
lie, even though 'most of what is said and done' by such a disguised agent
of the Dominator Culture may be interpreted as 'truth'.

In this act of (metaphorically) ripping the disguise _off_ of the
dominator, I am freeing the wounded to speak and to act directly and
honestly to the dominator. Nothing bad can happen here; this is indeed a
safe dimension of Being. Know that the noise and cries of the dominator, as
loud and insistant as they are, be they of joy OR rage, cannot actually
fill this space. No disguise will effectively conceal the dominator OR the
wounded; in fact, the inevitable _dance of the dominant_ and the reluctant
submissive becomes quite obvious, no matter how intentions are stated by
either side, and no matter how many smiles are pasted upon this ancient and
deadly drama. We (at least I and several others) are 'here' in this
cyberspace to create and to monitor this space and the safety of this
space. It is the factor of safety, of the absence of wolves and their
wiles, which is the intention of this writer to create and to maintain. All
opposing opinions are welcome.

I invite readers to share of their experience as a participant in the
Dominator Culture and how that may have lead them here. This is a complex
subject to address. Please do not feel intimidated by the length or style
of my communication. This I/eye is open.


[footnote-1:]
Fromm, Eric; 'The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness' also; 'Escape from
Freedom' Bettleheim, Bruno; 'The Informed Heart'
Kramer and Alstad; 'The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power' 1993
Lasch, C; 'The Culture of Narcissim' 1979


The Traps of Conventional Language

You allude to certain contrasts of ways of Being. You seem to be
'breaking out' of the rut created by 'new-age propaganda'. In reality,
there is 'no choice but choice'. Trying to describe just how 'we' (our
society) has arrived at the point of assuming that there are predetermined,
rigid 'ways/paths' is a long and cumbersome effort, so I will not go into
it. But I will say...that the movement toward I AM has been made difficult
by the many layers of prohibitions and taboos which are now built-in to our
common language. It is difficult for the natural process of realization to
occur, when there are no 'socially approved words' to literally describe
it. In fact, realization is assumed to be such a rare occurance that again,
the label of the extraordinary is what is applied. For me, what is
extraordinary is that 'we' have tolerated this isolating effect of language
for as long as we have.

Because 'we' treat our process of perception with the reagent of language,
the derivatives of perception (IE, 'learning') can be only as refined as
the used language permits.

Knowing this, some have advocated the leaving-behind of language and
thought as a way to transcend the traps inherent in those factors. I
understand and appreciate this point of view, and have used it myself from
time to time. But the effort to clear a space in which realization may take
place, may also be exercised by unleashing the power of unlimited
vocabulary. This may be accomplished by assimilating as many relevant words
as possible, from as many languages as necessary. Please refer to my hunger
here, once again.

Unlimiting vocabulary is an act of radical rebellion, and a reclaiming of
the freedom inherent in Being. It is something done "along the way".
Finally able to describe, one is validated; the register responds with a
'lock-in' confirmation. This is navigation, and as you have stated above,
it is exhilarating. It is (metaphorically) similar to navigating among
planets and stars... if one's map is censored, one will collide or miss. In
fact the target-state may be absent due to either incompleteness of the
map, or to overlays upon the map. An example of this... is that if a word
has been 'charged' with emotional content, that it causes a reaction of
either attraction (desire) or repelling (aversion). In this way, by
cleverly coupling a _value_ with a word (the word "liberal" is a good
example), the word itself comes to represent the value...and all values
induce aversion or desire in the hearer.

If the hearer understands not only the surface of language but the depths
also, a choice can be made, as to what if any reaction is had. Mandatory
socializaton (conditioning) states that one must react in such a way as to
_prove_ tribal allegience; that any other form of reaction is a revealing
of out-tribe status. In this way, one realizes that deviation from standard
speech is to threaten oneself with banishment or even worse. An advantage
of realization is freedom from this trap. Daring to use language in a
nonstandard way is not proof of realization...but realization embodies the
freedom to transcend the limiting effects of language. Thus, it is not
necessary to eliminate language or thinking.

Language is not inherently limiting, especially if one understands that
language is not the final and ultimate means or proof of anything at all.
Language-use represents certain inherent powers and talents of the Being,
and as much, represents the accepted and perhaps unrealized (self-)
limitations of that Being. One must come to grips with the undeniable fact
that language refers ONLY to language, that words are referential only to
other words. No word is the thing which it describes...(except perhaps the
word, "word". Maybe that is the why of the fascination with the ancient
"LOGOS").

No thing has meaning out of the context of 'everything'. Nothing has
meaning in itself, only in the context of ALL is meaning understood. No
particle IS a particle without a main-body to refer to; I could say here,
that I AM is the 'main-body', and as such, is the reference to which all
particles are qualified against. Thus, for me, any particle is speaking I
AM. Surrender to this is why I do not hesitate to speak I AM.

No thing has independent existence; all existence is interdependent.

Understanding that 'we' are already I AM is to realize that the only way
that we can understand anything is to admit (confess) that one is indeed
informed by ALL... that the connecton is made, and proved by the ability to
'have' consciousness. This is 'obvious'.

The traps of conventional languaging gape before us. "Enlightenment"
is not the end, it is the beginning. It is graduation from kindergarten,
NOT retirement. That it is seen as such a rare accomplishment, reveals how
'we' have been blinded to our own actual nature.

In regards to fear, it is probably fear of the reaction of 'other'. Merely
knowing that 'All is One' is not enough, is it? I would advocate daring to
test this barrior; one may discover that the membrane of separation is
composed of many layers of what is 'sacred', not only in a spiritual sense,
but mainly in the social context. Preserved 'sacredness' is like canned
food, ready to eat. But to eat what is socially sacred is heresy, is it
not? I seek to sabotage the cannery, and to thus liberate food for all.
Undermining the assumptions which are built-in to language is to sabotage a
process which itself is hidden, which up until now, may have been necesary
for the preservation of social groups (tribes). _One_ is the original
tribe/family, and we are all related in that way... entirely interrelated
and interdependent in actuality. To pretend otherwise is to re-enact the
dramas of the past.

And that is why it is so 'dangerous' to define
steps, stages, paths, states, in regards to supposed goals, such as
'realization'. If one who is assumed to be very wise states an inherent
limitation, it is generally believed. Grace knows no limitations, however.

I cannot adequately 'explain' the metaphor of 'quantum wave-forms' in this
letter, which is why I stated above that 'it' is probably incomprehensible
to most readers. But I always search for the best metaphor, and that is it.
Suffice it to say, that 'anything made of more than one thing, will
disintegrate in time'... I reduce complexes to particles. There is only One
Particle, which is I AM, which is All. All is One.

The wave-forms I refer to are the manifestations of expired doings. They
are doomed to disappear, unless they are preserved/immortalized by the
archivists of the "sacred". Among such transitory forms, is my temporal
identity. It cannot be preserved. It has been eaten by masters, leaving
nothing but That I AM.

"The shifting of potentials within a single system is neither gain nor
loss". The drama of attainment and/or loss is the mistaken assumption
otherwise. All is well.


Yesterday's "truth" is today's metaphor. Truth is indigestible (permanent),
but yesterday's truth, seen from the new heights _afforded by that truth_,
allow that truth to be assimilated, and thus new "truths" to be seen. That
is growth via eating.

Before, I would struggle to 'know' truth, as though it were a permanent
referant, an unchanging landmark, an unceasing beacon beckoning beginners,
an emanation of the Ultimate Wisdom of the Hidden Masters of Whatever
Mystical Realm I could imagine.
Now, however, this IS the realm, and I Am literally surrounded by
'masters'. It is a master-eat-master world, and each thanks the other for
the favor.

Preserving "truths" is commonly done, and is the "sacred". If I digest the
sacred, I am a heretic! I have eaten "god"! What does that make me...a
"Deiphagist"? Maybe...there is a clue to the 'transubstantiation'
here...IE, the blood and body of Christ, to be eaten as 'communion', yes? A
subtle message, that all IS transitory, to let it all go, and to BE with
the perpetually shifting Unknown. Such Being is communion and surrender to
what is, which is God.

In any event, the 'waste-products' of growth and evolution are the truths
of yesterday, which are 'sacred' only if they are indeed disassembled
completely and assimilated, rather than placed on a pedestal and
worshipped. That is the forbidden idolatry.

Eating God is the way to allow God to replace, particle by particle, via
the processs of assimilation, what we are. And that is ONLY a metaphor, and
a truth. Food in a sealed can (external 'sacred') is only canned because in
reality, it is edible, life-sustaining, and THUS sacred to life, as eaten
and when eaten. To preserve and never eat is to starve at the foot of the
apple-tree, refusing to look up at the free food a-dangling for the taking.
Eve took and ate, and became the mother of time (-eve). That was the
beginning of knowing. Eating it all (communion) is the _end of time_,
described as the 'apocolypse'. That is when everything/one becomes aware I
AM. Unimaginable trumpets blow! All Clear! All Clear!


Response to Chad

Lately i find myself wondering what i could possibly
post to the list that would express even slighlty what we
are perhaps trying to say to each other and then it hits me
its not so much what is being said as that its the the Self
speaking to It Self about It Self what possibly could be said
in such a conversation?

best
Chad

Hi Chad...

I often ask myself the same question. And in so doing, I am conversing with
myself. I guess this self cares for self. That is the conversation which I
have with self. That is the only issue which myself seems to ask; 'should I
go to sleep, or is there a reason to be awake?' I once slept, and thus
missed the mystery midnight carnival, the 'theatre of the mind' which Hesse
refered to in 'Steppenwolf'. Self compounds and displays itself in ways
which continue to accentuate and teach to me.

I have a wonderful relationship with self; my parent self becomes my own
son, and invites me to play. In this play, I realize again and again, over
and over, just how serious this play is. That a child can understand this,
and extend it to me wordlessly, stimulates me to say these words. This is
an expression of the caring which the lesson of the child holds out as an
expression of the nature and vulnerability of the child. "I once was a
child".

Returning to the state of my forgotten child, as guided by my parent self
expressing as child, I realize that my forgotten child was parent to my
parents. But my parents had forgotten their own childs, and thus could not
receive from me, the wisdom of their own parent. For a long time, this
cycle of the transmission of wisdom from parent to child was inactive. For
a long time, neither me nor my parents could hear or understand what was
being said in this conversaton between self and self. The cloak of
separation shrouded our family, all together. Each existed in their own
sphere of relating, unconnected to the other.

As long as there is the dynamic of isolation and alienation, this
conversation will be continued. It is a continual broadcast of intention.
Anyone can pick it up at any time, along the way. It is the two voices of
self, talking in a dialog of deep sharing and co-creation. Hearing this
dialog, an alienated one may find a sense of relief, an end to assumptions
of aloneness.

Eventually, everyone comes to understand that this dialog is being made-up,
imagined, synthesized, for the purpose of attracting everyone on-board.
Listening to this conversation, is to eavesdrop on the voices of love,
whose soul motive is to love out-loud, until the last lover has been
awakened and merged into the body of love.

That so many attempt to build fine castles of the words of love, while
longing for the body of love itself, shows the need for the words of love
to be spoken, remembered, shared, by those who love. Word-castles are a
fine temporary shelter from the storm of growth which is daily life; I am
glad to contribute as many words of love as I can summon, to contribute to
this plain or gorgeous building.

No-one who is awake is actually trying to make a permanent castle of words.
The flashing spires are merely to attract and guide the loved-one into the
acceptance of love as all that is. Words which accurately reflect this
intention do not limit or prohibit, they instead liberate to flight and
expansion of the bud of love into the rose whose petals are these words of
self to self. It is respect being paid to my complete nature, my bow to
myself, which I perform as I continue this broadcast. It is not difficult,
since I am awakened to love, and the voice of love gifts me with these
words.

There is no other speaker than the one who loves, and no other hearer than
the beloved.


No Exclusionary Principle

I want to propogate the 'truth' that there is NO exclusionary principle,
even though such may be found to exist in the realm of 'languaging'. Saying
it is so, does not make it so, neither does it make it not-so.

I see in the list... the consequences of attachment to language. I write in
knowledge of this, I let my arrow fly. If my bow is taut, I have the power
of the passion to drive my arrow. To gradually release the bow, 'in
consideration' of various social injunctions, is to disqualify my own
passion in favor of these injunctions. But my arrow is aimed at the
semantic 'knots' which bind the attachment to language, not 'at' any
person; you may have noticed this as my aim, although I do not try to make
it obvious.

Using language as a tool, gives me access to new and usually unused
'handles'. Knowing the provisional nature of any symbolic communication, I
am freed to use such to maximal effect. This is a process that I am
fine-tuning, and I appreciate any help.

If I speak of something, I do not confuse my speaking with the thing I
speak of, but if I speak of speaking, I am speaking of the tool which I use
to speak of that which by I speak. This is the 'obvious paradox' that most
people consider to be over and done-with, but which I find to to be the
endless well of aim-correcting (homeostatic/heuristic ?) force that I need.
A big ladle of that reminder keeps my aim... as straight as it is. Language
is a reflection... which may eventually aid us in modifying that which it
reflects.


Nature of the Hallucination

_1 Truth and truth is found _only_ in language.

_2 Words are pointers only, and have no 'reality' of their own. As
symbols, words are assigned specific meanings. The meanings of words are
understood in yet more words.

_3 The 'universe of words and meanings' is a map which does not correspond
to any 'other reality'. The universe of words and meaning is simply a
navigational aid; to find 'Truth' in words is like finding 'treasure' in a
treasure-map. The map may point to treasure, and in that regard, the map
itself may be treasured, but I ask, where is the 'actual and real
treasure'? To make this clear to yourself, ask yourself this ancient
question:

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

The (linguistically) correct answer may suprise you.

_4 Words point only to other words; there is no point of reality at which
words become things, and no thing is a word. (unless we consider that the
word 'word' is a thing. This level of semantics should be considered also,
but it is a special level or subset of language-usage.)

_5 If we use language, we are deeply indulging in 'our' culture. Speaking,
listening to speech, writing, and reading are not 'harmless' to the
indulger in those behaviours. Language-use tends to be automatic and
unconsidered, and often reflects nothing more than a living Being reacting
to stimuli in a culturally programmed way.

_5a Use of language does not and cannot 'prove' anything at all; it is
wise to keep this in mind. A useful way to understand this is to consider
that mathmatics is a special language, which itself relates only to the
language of mathmatics. No mathmatical consideration is useful beyond the
rigid rules of that special language; any 'practical' use of mathmatics is
a _product_ of mathmatical computation, not the computation itself.

Similarly, spoken or written speech is an ongoing process of computation.
Any 'practical' use of speech is a product of speech, not of the speech
itself. For example, your computer is not made of words or numbers, but of
materials specified by words and numbers.

_6 If one suggests liguistic proofs of anything, those proofs rest upon
mere words. Thus, words are proof of nothing, except _perhaps_ a living
speaker or listener. Recorded speech is not proof of a living speaker. Many
computers can 'talk'. Further, one listening to speech has no proof that
the speech being 'heard' is coming from 'without'. We all can hear internal
voices.

_7 As we all can hear internal voices, so we all 'listen' to speech as
though it is our own voice. _Internal_ disagreements between what is
'heard' and what is 'known' are then vented as spoken words. This is the
means by which 'truth' is determined; what you say is heard by me as an
internal voice, specifically my own. My reaction of 'I do not say that' is
the essence of all verbal disagreements. If your voice does not fit as my
voice, I am 'not' speaking it, and thus proceed to argue with 'you', but I
am actually arguing with myself, because it is my assuptions of what you
say that I am reacting to.

_8 "Our culture" specifies not only what is acceptable, but also what is
'real'. However, 'our culture' is an hallucination, and members of culture
are judged by the 'correctness' of their individual hallucination of
'reality'. Self-realization is the acceptance of reality as a
hallucination; for that reason, our culture does NOT confirm the reality of
Self-realization.

_9 To say "I am" is to express a halluciated 'reality'. If one says "I am"
often enough, the exact nature of the hallucination is revealed, gradually
or suddenly. Eventually (and there is no hurry!), one enjoys the fluidity
of the hallucination of 'Self' and self, as opposed to the suffering of the
rigidity of language-bounded 'reality'. This is a very important point.

_10 One who relaxes into acceptance of the reality of their own
hallucination, eventually discovers that 'Love' and 'Compassion' are the
only viable modes of conduct in relating to other entities such as
themself. Other modes of conduct initiate forceful waves of energy, which
are sure to provoke similar powerful waves of force in reaction.

Gene Poole's Home Page