The acentral consciousness

We are relative(s). There is no I.

Actually the closer you look at something, the more you see that there is nothing to see, no category that holds and doesn't dissolve under attention. As much as ice melts into water and looses its form, any exploration of life, by a self, by my centric self, is bound to make me realize that I am, and that which says I is not merely as solid as it might appear. 

Identity, history, physical matter, all seem solid but are not, with close scrutiny. There is no other thing than that which is - and language, as much as the hand trying to capture water, is obviously unable to capture the stream. So all the efforts made to control, enclose reality, whether in language, or through derivatives of language (technology, power, etc.) seem vain. When we quietly go back under the usual internal rambling that makes us look at things from my point of view and constantly characterize things in relation to my self, we can actually feel how little reality seems to be of personal dimensions. Things happen. They don't happen to us. They just happen. Then you interpret this as happening to you, but the more you let go of this habit, the more you realize that, well, that's just a very small part of the story. 

I noticed that when children learn language, this is actually what they do. They repeat the words used to describe stuff and say them every time "look mum a tree. Workers. The hairdresser. Oh another tree. A small child. Oh mum look a tree."  To which the mum usually answers a tired "yes I saw that, A-aron". But the mum didn't see it the way the child sees it. For the child is still in transition with a primitive, inclusive way of living, still learning to think in terms of localized consciousness. Of I vs the world outside. It does begin to say "my toy", "my doudou", etc. But it mostly sees everything as new and instantaneous. Comparison (the same tree as yesterday in the park), evaluation (but less green), appropriation (I wish we had one in the garden) only really take root once it is clear that I am different from my surrounding, once the habit of the I has settled in. It's a habit. Just a habit. If you don't believe me but rather believe some other person on the internet, check this out.

Some children fail to do that. I've met a child who wouldn't accept a name. He's now struggling with the idea of a family name. He's unfortunately considered problematic by the institutions (not just for that though). But he is, to a certain extent, quite right. Of course, he will have to comply, you can't beat that social force. But still, he, and other small children, for a while, balance in a state of grace, where they understand the adult world while still participating in the true discovery of life. This tree is not a tree, like the thousands of thousands of trees that I am going to see later, that I've already seen and don't really see. Neither is this the Ur-tree, the generic tree from a Platonician point of view that I think of when the word is uttered. This is this tree, now, in this street, at this particular moment, unique in its actual existence and expression, I manage to detach it from the rest to draw my Mom's attention on it, and the wind blows in its winds, which makes the bird fly, the dog stop and bark, the lady stop too, and then the light turns green for us, and because they stopped maybe I'm gonna be able to pet him! Adventure ! Excitement! Wonder!

And further back, the small child knows that whatever the senses convey are just a mode of representation. What I can say is really superfluous compared to the wonder of the world. It's like painting a rose with red paint (courtesy of Alan Watts). This leads to the questioning of objective reality as we still mostly conceptualise it.

This is something that struck me since I have been often accused of having no sense of reality. I never understood what that meant. What was that reality that people always referred to? I couldn't see it the way they did, I mean, sure, I could, but I often felt it was very partial too. Of course I'm not discussing the basics like gravity or the Planck constant. I could just understand that the reality people were referring to was stored somewhere in their head, was a product of memory. They would just accept a certain state of life as being somehow meant to be, and some of it could no longer be seen for what it was, in my opinion, basically a form of agreement. It seemed that the external reality that people referred to was just a consensus, a collective representation that no one really wanted to dig up and examine again. It was what the majority of the world could agree on. Not just the factual, material laws. Gravity. The Planck constant. But also "if you do this this will happen". "Things are like that". The economy works according to this and that. Yup, that's true. But that's not... How can I say. Not fundamental.

The law is a perfect system for this. It is rational and logical in its aims. Yet, it needs to be upheld on reality with such inelegant force that one really wonders why we need it so badly in the first place - with its current rigidities. Don't misunderstand me, I have the deepest respect for the artistry of trying to encapsulate fairness in a system, but it feels like we're dealing with scraps of beauty, here and there, waiting for everyone to quiet down to let them flourish. Because it is a confrontation of people, using a coded set of rules to create reality, to enforce consequence, and if you stay out of things, if you withdraw behind the so-called "technical" or "objective" professionalism of the field, the logical mechanism of the law becomes another form of institutional violence. It isolates, separates facts, rewrites the story and decides that it is true (that's what a judge's office is about). It also detaches an individual from the complex mechanisms that influence him. Not to mention that it overlooks all the debates about free will that are way too long to be developed here. It enforces the idea that there is an I, the bearer of rights, a you, either the individual or the public, and a consequential, logical, inflexible mechanism to the world of actions. And when you do that, of course, what people choose determines their responsibility - leaving everyone else's automatic reactions unchecked. In Goodwinian terms, for a Hitler to rise to power, a certain amount of "logical" conclusions, individual strategies and the congruence of a lot of compromises had to exist. Hitlering is a collective entreprise. (Thank you thank you, Lorraine out). You have to select one of the rewritings (the one indicated by "material" proofs) and say "that's what happened, hence, it fits this or that, and as a consequence, etc.". But you can never rewrite life. You can not ride the same wave. It's already gone. 

Such as the child who plays and does not listen to the mother's anxious calls to stop "you will hurt yourself, stop it", and suddenly hurts himself AND gets grounded, we think of each other as real others who know reality just as we do, who understand the rules of the world, and when they hurt themselves, and others, well, we ground them. Although I understand the logic of it, I'm not so sure about the efficiency of the process - but herein lies my tendency to see everything in everything, the porridgian mind.

We do not, however, realise that things are gone. That nothing can go differently. That all that has happen is parfait, literally, completely done, can not be modified, and that any attempt to do so is likely to produce more trouble. Yet, we cling to this idea that we can do something about the world. Punish. Make them pay. Hold a group for an enemy, a cause. And not so much question the relevance of such process, how much this perpetuate a war mentality.

Again out of the point.. The main thing about this was to discuss the fact that the closer you look at it, the more obvious it becomes that yes, there is an I, you exist, I exist as a sensitive interface to the world, and as a developper of subjectivity, with my interpretations, preferences, choices, families, etc. But that all of that is part of the play, the play of consciousness which is everywhere and nowhere, that blows though me and somewhere in the Scottish mountains, and in you, and that all of that is fun, part of the fun, the incredible joy of life - enough and whole in itself. That really, holding on to the habit makes no sense, actually makes us insane. Look now, and see that under every familiarity there is a hint of estrangement, the void of the unknown, full of life and joy but abysmal to that sense of self when it clings to the known, because I can not afford to fall back on the other side of the mirror, where we all come from, where we all started.

I'm tired and I am out of English. That's it. Empty quiver.

Part 2 might justify the title :)

<3