Quotes

Do we have enough humility to recognize the intransigence of our widely disseminated beliefs that reflect the paucity of perceptual versatility?

The Unknown, incomprehensible Void (The Unknown.) is the ubiquitous expression of the freedom we are. This Freedom, non-conforming and autonomous in its effects, is the baseline from which to experience the totality under which human potential is expressed within us. Context, however, maintains multi-faceted roles, yet ruling or managing human beings is decidedly and unequivocally not one of them. Page 51

Thinking is just one of many tools available to human beings and we must train ourselves to coexist outside the tyranny of its implied necessity. 

The Known thoroughly protects from intrusions which might upset the structured paradigm to its position, by setting the vanishing point to a horizon created to maintain a buffer to the perceptual collusion under which the human norm thrives. Page 35

Why are human beings swayed by the position by the position of their inquiry?  Are we not fooling ourselves?                                                                                                                       

The quintessential paradigm, in which inquiry presumes the relation between cause and effect, is an expected human behavioral norm incidental to the coherence from which civilized assemblages exercise their predominance.  Do mature human beings not mitigate their relationship to what we know, through disingenuous postures displayed relevant yet cloaked by the consistent nature of their assumptions? 

Do the “Why, How and because?” relegate human understanding to endless merry-go-rounds expounded through a narrative constrained by the scope of “question” rather than open to conjecture under the umbrage of unlimited possibilities available in “answer”? 

Beyond the narrow margins of inquiry, what has “question” to do with “answer”? Don’t answers reflect mollified dependences, framed out of referential contexts, convenient to familiar assemblages of discernment and extrapolated through the due diligence of “free” speech so encumbered by a norm blinded by the coherence of its advantage? And if so, don’t answers then merely reassert the position of perceptual assemblage from which the question is posed?

Is this not a circular compact? Answers to inquiry add complementary antecedents indentured to precedence of what is already known and accepted.   Page 67

The Known is the insufficient model as a counterweight to the Unknown, and language the meager compass to its interpretation.

Consider that an open mind whose perception can easily be swayed into believing it accesses its potential as choices from differentiating prospects, rather than from an unquantifiable Unknown from which potential can be induced, may not discern the dependency on recognizing aptitude born out of a range of possible delineated choices, circumscribed by perceptual norms into a defined focus, with consequential limitations to perceptual abilities it has yet to discover due to constraints not as yet evident from that chosen perch.  

Hence to merely say there are many approaches from which to perceive a single point, transcribes a conditioned narrative which outlines an approach towards possible choices and measurable outcomes, defined by linear linguistic prescriptions, postulated into a sentence of terms so as to be understood within a sociocultural pretext, taught to us through socialization, education and the measure of our experiences; in other words: a conditioned narrative with grave and tragic perceptual consequences during which no one takes responsibility and where everyone yields unconditionally to the strategic limitations they are made to experience. Page72

Yet the mystery to our perceptual addictions can be traced to our inability to decipher from our perceptual habits, the contrivances which inject us into the Known as a player to its predominance

According to Chogyam Trungpa “Buddha never claimed that he was an incarnation of God, or any kind of divine being. He was just a simple human being who had gone through certain things and had achieved the awakened state of mind. It is possible...for any of us to have such an experience.
…We find in the Sutras that…all kinds of people from different parts of India attended his talks and saw and met him, and all could understand him. They did not have to ask him questions, but they automatically received the answers. From this example we see that speech alone is not the only method of communication.” (Trungpa & Gimian, 2004, Collected Works)

The Diamond and Heart Sutras convey perceptual engagements of two realities: The Known and the Unknown. When truly immersed within the singularity of the Unknown, words cannot contrive an assemblage that might project from something that does not exist within those terms. The Unknown is neither the context nor the content of its experience. No words can justify the attempt to its given meaning nor mimic the experience of its presence. 

If you cannot recognize the inflexible designs your perception places you into, read this.

Albert Einstein said that “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used [to] …create them.” What he did not say is that you need to be mentally and emotionally equipped to handle the transition. 

To recognize a context without allowing its dictatorial rights from ruling us; from formulating a prescriptive action or channeling a perceptual habit or bias, frees us from the servitude of its necessity. So doing unbound perception from preselected tracks; and we can then recalibrate human potential and perception beyond its present limits.

Who are we? We assume we are the socialized detailed; that experiential summary characterized and depicted through a linear narrative overburdened with contextual pageantry marking significant events and compiled into a designated avatar that looks and speaks like us. But we really don’t know who we are nor what we are capable of outside the Known.  

Knowing as we practice it, is a temporal and dictatorial state fashioned, through linguistically defined patronage, creating a perceptual doctrine whose dynamism is indigenous to objects, words, contexts and the endless advocacy of drama we careen into as a matter of principle, belief or other.

Moreover, representation recognized and ascribed through linguistic terms, as a descriptive conveyance requiring empathic credence, shortchanges the necessary depth of perception for a complete and necessary sense of what we are dealing with. The unknown is not hidden from us; it is just that context and its narrated designs imposes a linear transaction which overwhelms the perceptual outline into a default setting focused on managing the world through contextual tools such as language, thinking and understanding. 

The danger to a Linear Comprehension of facts 

is that it lives inside a sentence.

And if this does not rearrange your sense of reality, 

call Alice in Wonderland 

and ask her what this really means.

And if you’re still waiting

after you’ve heard nothing in her reply, 

it’s because she understood, 

and you didn’t.

If all you do is recognize the world through the prism of language, you become a repetitive logjam in the river of perception.

Language, however, projects a contextual cognizance so convenient and effective, we forget we are merely using contextual tools at our disposal rather than to project overall awareness.

This battle, fought at the tip of the spear, meant to pierce the assumptions of the norm, is exemplified through the Diamond Sutras, the Heart Sutras, Buddhist scriptures, Yana Yoga and other qualified texts and certain meta-physical pursuits.

A focus blinds the process of discovery which is to look rather than look for and even that may be insufficiently diminished since the seer may be blinded by the preeminence of experiences which guide the perceptual premises of his search. Not so much “who” is looking but the tools employed in the looking which either empower or enslave.  

And yet, this linear trap induces perception into limited venues. What is outside empowerment or slavery? The possibility that neither express a viable position from which to discover what we have done to ourselves so as to inhibit our perceptual arrangements beyond the scope of engagement we recognize.

Perception through form, narrows its depth and scope. Form is preoccupied with form relevancy as it hierarchizes its prerogative so as to validate its presence as form. Formless offers no such discrepancy.

It’s the structured paradigm of speech which trap perception into its defined perspective and speech often is parlayed as a directive due to the comprehensive nature urging its necessity. Speech is a display of human intelligence but not a requirement of its display.

Speech is not an anatomical feature predisposing human beings to speech as much as intelligence. Someone whose expertise is overly invested in language cannot perceive language beyond the perception of its necessity.  

Does the universe operate within the context of our understanding? What are the amplified consequences to human perception devoid of the full spectrum of their available awareness? We would understand what cannot be understood by the perception of what is impossible to perceive

Most people never attain full operational viability, but don’t realize it. There are thousands of studies proving that the way humans operate within present parameters, sacks critical vitality but it will not be read that way. Humans become physically and mentally sick and unbalanced by the confines under which they are forced to accommodate, and they suffer horribly as a result. But that suffering and its consequences, will not be explained in a way to clarify an underlying cause understood by humans in their present conditions. 

Humans need freedom outside the boundaries and scope of their understanding. Not just because humans are multidimensional beings. But will multidimensional perception framed by the modality of understanding undermine the full spectrum of its outcome?  Understanding is only receptive to specific causal interpretations and cannot take central stage to our perceptual positions. 

If inferences are too limited. Understanding as we know it cannot be a precursor to an expansion of awareness. If it is, it contaminates that expansion with egocentric motives such as converting awareness into power as a linear interpretation which undermines anything else not as comprehensive. This is what undermines the integrity of the growth process. The Unknown as a precursor is a game changer. Its inferences are unlimited.  A Buddhist would agree since they sharpen the edge of awareness through chants, discussions and meditation. 

 A number of people were publicly advocating killing democrats in 2020. Well defined positions can lose their ideals and lofty goals by catering to its defense rather than its practices.  Most people take on a position as an advocation of their beliefs which they defend as if the belief rather than the believer is most precious.  Accountability holds no greater purpose than clearing xenophobia from the human spirit undermined by positions it must defend regardless of cost to its greater sense of Self. 

How were you brought up? You cannot escape from mental and emotional designs imposed upon your perception as a child. Adults reflect through behavioral routines, the perceptual stance or disorders they were coerced into as children. 

Confrontational, despotic, repressive and competitive environments stamp into children a chilling and long-lasting effect during formative years when the brain/emotive combination are evolving. Mature individuals are disfigured by those precedents. Compounded with extrinsic motivational variances, the original template from which healthy well balanced children growth into emotionally intelligent, responsible adults is severely upset. Personality disorders become rampant in later years, of which diametrical thinking is its most obvious response. These are cross racial and cultural traits. 

Polar dystrophy and other consequential patterns are found amidst the full religious, political, national and international spectrum precisely because these traits originate from authoritarian and other disturbing childhood upbringing methods and extrinsic motivating educational templates. The West has known about this for 30 years and still no actions are proposed to remediate these issues. How many times will this be said before we take responsibility for the lack of versatility in our perceptual engagements.

The legitimacy of sanity is the insanity implied. From the unknown, sanity is the illegitimate legitimized, which authenticate the knower’s conditional presence. Forging a relationship with the ephemeral disposition connected to all things, induces a warrior’s creed. 

Through the innumerable rotating doors exposes a qualified presence indistinguishable beyond its pretense which makes the known what it is: ill-equipped and unqualified.

The illegitimacy of knowing is in the absence of its authenticity. (?)

Hey! Don’t interpret what I am doing to reinforce your perceptual habits!

There are no teachers; there is only learning. And you can do that on your own. Unless you are a child of context out to unlearn the effects applied context impressed on your perceptual habits and aptitudes.

Listen, learning is a progressive assimilation etc…and so on; but first learn to learn outside of what that is in today's world.

If we are to learn to adapt, we must unlearn the conditioned habits practiced at schools today. How else can you delight in learning for its own sake?

We think we are the masters of awareness. We are merely a pawn to it. Those distinctions fall away at a point where neither master nor pawn are eligible to participate.

Inequality and equality are context empowered to each other. Exclusivity or inclusivity need each other to define one versus the other. We ensnare ourselves through differentiating terms as the experience of one versus the other is contextualized into the known and upon recognizing one we speak of the other. The victor is as much victimized as the vanquished in a reality where both are being played to be one or the other. The known through language, entraps human comprehension into a perceived resolution by deceiving us into linear perspectives.

Translation of experience into an understandable interpretation misses a whole range of experiences which do not need interpretation. Human beings who depend on objectified shared interpretations put the subjective experiential side of themselves to sleep.

If you stigmatize the ego, you don’t know its role. The reed flexes while the oak breaks. Highly flexible egos are not self-important.

I am the unimportant nobody which implies the importance of the somebody; hence I am neither. I just am. Without the need to define what that is.

Not all those who speak, speak the lingo of the lost and not all those who hear, are lost by translating what is being said into what “they” want to hear. Which one of those are you?

Talking expresses a position from which is penned a defined perspective, but a defined perspective may be anomalous to fluidity and fluidity is critical to situational awareness from which to act. In one state alternate to the common perspective, talking or descriptions do not exist; meaning the world no longer holds a prescriptive interpretation on the perceiver beyond the reflex of past encumbrances. 

Beyond what we know, observe or express; where space and time have no correlation from which to spin a perceptual defined, there exists absolutely “nothing”- just not the nothing that we understand as nothing.

Silent knowledge is not about what a person says. It is not about who a person is; that is his relationships with everyone and everything around him. And yet this does not explain it properly since the practice of exploring the Unknown lays outside the bounds of this explanation.

The Unknown, un-contextual void is the undiluted expression of the freedom we are. This freedom, non-conforming and autonomous in its effects, is the baseline from which to experience the totality under which human potential is expressed within us. Context, however, maintains multi-faceted roles, yet ruling or managing human beings is decidedly and unequivocally not one of them.

Unspoken Knowledge cannot be addressed, will not be defined, nor explained, categorized or understood. It does not need belief to support its existence since it does not exist as we know it. Knowledge such as this exhibits no obvious characteristics to those who seek it. Yet its presence could be ascertained since it is nowhere yet everywhere: Meaning there are no convenient terms we could enlist within the way of life we are largely cognizant of, to explain what cannot be explained.

Be a Warrior, quietly… you can best understand self-importance. What humans don’t get yet is that everything is equal and nothing is less or more important. The Known subdue humans through critical benchmarks when obeyed and applied to the linear end of a logical defined. Contexts and their variations such as good/bad; high/low; bigger/smaller, success/failure hooks humans like fish on a line except that some humans no longer cherish the caveats of freedom and are pulled into the boat willingly, whereas a fish does.

The ambivalence in quantum physics is the acknowledgement of the witness which alters the way particles act when observed. In the same manner yet differently, translating any aspects of the known from the Unknown, alters both who we are as witnesses in relationship to it and what It becomes due to its affiliation with a discernment tailored to an indigenous focus.  

Hence, we do not need to “understand” the Unknown since it is a vast expanse way beyond the competence of expertise and as soon as we delineate it proportionately, it takes on the perspective of that description. By objectifying the Unknown, we make it into something it is not. We create two states. The reality of the Unknown as it actually is, raw, beyond description as a whole and pre-conceptual; and our “objectified” understanding of the Unknown as we observe it through the tools available for its perception and the disbursement of plausible or implausible cognitive results palatable to preexisting frames of references.

Who are we? We assume we are the socialized detailed; that experiential summary characterized and depicted through a linear narrative overburdened with contextual pageantry marking significant events and compiled into a designated avatar that looks and speaks like us. But we really don’t know who we are nor what we are capable of outside the known. 

Do we have enough humility to recognize the intransigence of our widely disseminated beliefs that reflect the paucity of perceptual versatility?

The Assumption of Free Will. Perceptual Autonomy is a Precursor to free will. Yet most people assume they have free will without Perceptual Autonomy.

Consider that language offers a panacea though content, construct and a dimensional perspective we are hooked into. Language toes the norm, and it is personal: Many Human beings talk to themselves incessantly as they maintain their relationship and perceptual balances keyed to conforming normative constructs. 

Language is the Pied Piper which corrals one’s awareness by converting everything we see into a descriptive reality which restrains to its understandable limits, boundless human potential yet to be discovered. Moreover, what are the experiential differences between relating to everything we see thru recognition of names first rather than thru the experience of what we perceive without defining it? 

Furthermore to what degree does language assemble a contextual framework from which we perceive the world, if not thru a linear assemblage of concepts strung together into a sentence of terms, which addresses only the way we understand the experience rather than having the experience without understanding it. Language isolates us from experience, by immediately seeking an understanding of it. As a result our mind evades the deeper contents of experience, by adapting to its explanation and by equating the experience to its understanding since it is a more logical step. 

When was the last time any of us had an experience we truly did not understand? And that may be the real issue here, we betrayed ourselves into thinking that life's experiences must be understood in order for us to relate to them, but what we have really done is neglected the experiential side of ourselves thru which we discover the Unknown and confront our limitations and, rather than challenge ourselves thru discovery as we did as children, we merely appease the process into ontological explanations which satisfies the now atrophied self we call adulthood.

There may be some esoteric scientists who believe our relationship to our pre-conceptual self or reality- whatever that is since it cannot be described and can only be experienced- dictates to our conceptual ‘self’ the limits of experience we attain in our lives. 

There is no way for the conceptual ‘self’ to investigate the pre-conceptual reality, since it is unable to grasp the level of its participation thru the language made available for its distinctions. 

The intrinsic dialogue cannot pursue it unless it is shut-down and no longer maintains a semblance of reality compatible to the descriptive. And since this a highly subjective experience, scientists cannot measure it to their satisfaction to prove its existence. 

Moreover, objectified scientific research as practiced today, could not possibly accept the relevancy to something so imperceptive its very existence is hardly questioned. A pre-conceptual reality is a reality few scientists dare speak of because nothing can be said about it, or proven since it is highly subjective which, according to objectivism, shrouds the experience’s relevancy.  

Yet just because we cannot explain what we perceive within the standards of an acceptable norm does not mean it does not exist. It just means that the level of perception categorized and standardized to the norm no longer correlates to the data we are receptive to. 

And herein lies another hurdle, since language throws a veil of expediency and shortchanges the depth of experience, we assume  everything worth living can be talked about, yet there exists levels of experiences which cannot be described in words yet we act as if those do not exists. So where do we go from here?

If awareness is created through the edifice of linguistically delineated perception, are we narrowing our acuity to the limit of our lexical definitions?  We are not talking about epistemology here. When we are on automatic, as we do things we commonly do on a day to day basis: how do we interact with the objects which populate what we see? Are these objects not characterized by what they do for us? A car, a pen, paper, the road, the house we live in; the bathroom; the bedroom: words which refer to a descriptive, associative context we often take for granted.  

And even epistemology must follow the narrative of language to the limits of lexical meanings to justify the axioms of theoretical inquiry. Thinking, explaining can only be done through the convenience of language available to the mind, understood by others inside a shared reality. The structure of language is logical through patterns of a narrative promoted as the agency of understanding. 

When we explain, attempt to understand by clarifying issues within ourselves, do we not follow a narrative as if we were explaining to others in the setting of an inner monologue? If that is the case, would the limits of our understanding, be tied to linguistic patterns which define not only the content but the context where delineating parameters define the terms under which meaning can be construed? 

To what extend then, is perception really channeled through the defining linguistic characters familiar to us? Are we not understanding and explaining through familiar predefined words and expressions, the world as a description, since nothing exists out there that is not named, characterized, contextualized into recognizable patterns we dependent on to enable us to move and act? Another way of seeing it, is that we move and act in the world we know through a context of patterns characterized through familiar words and expressions, which define a world we need to understand before we can act.

Thinking employs background referencing within a tenuous logical framework, repeated endlessly until it becomes reflexive. Human beings are conditioned to think that their sanity depends on their ability to understand and explain everything in a system of definition voiced through a sensical narrative. 

This endless cycle of thought patterns reinforces the dynamics of perceptual diminution since its most critical baseline occurs not in reinventing perpetually expansive sets of adroitness and dexterity outside the convenience of familiar spaces, but in the stability of recognized context in a world chock full of contextual immersions. (In other words, Freedom as you don’t know it, is Freedom from contextual immersion.)

Student potential to this day, is not in the conversation within mainstream education circles, since selective filters derived from standards, cultural norms and perceptual positioning, enforce a competitive elitist program of study, which not even half of the population can meet successfully and in which children’s potential to excellence is hardly discussed. “Potential” today has been misdiagnosed as a derivative of training from an outside agent or personal effort, because it has been quantified through assessments, to a nominator which has social value, yet “potential” in its most authentic form, cannot be quantified because it is an unknown. What is a human being’s unadulterated potential? 

We socialize, culture, educate and in the process condition and mold children without addressing the existence of a genuine “potential” because we really don’t know what it is.  The term “Potential” today is converted into an ability to perform as in sports, or to mean “the possibility of achievement”  (Dictionary.com) and immediately, without hesitation, many of us will automatically translate  “achievement” into mainstream socio-cultural economic frame of reference: Potential for  Grades, wealth, access, financial rewards, nominal trinkets flaunted as social justifications such as car types, name brand clothes, house locations, degrees on office walls and numerous other displays of status we are taught to need and consider important, as landmarks to our social development, with all the other associated cultural denominators which fit into the construct of “Potential” as we want it to mean; as we mean it to be: a cultural transaction of possibilities to be developed into financial or social expressions of conditional wellbeing expressed as “success”.   

But what of the other “Potential” the one which endures beyond cultural norms and meanings and which exists as an undiscovered, unfamiliar, and yet to identified possibility: The potential of Human Beings when they are not pre-disposed to any type of cultural norm that binds their self-reflection into a limited definition of prospects and self-identity; what of that potential?

Authentic human potential neither seeks or gets idealized or revered since it does not address itself to social distinctions and values as understood by others who are manipulated by the norm and rewards outside of itself. And since human “Potential” in its most authentic form can only be defined in terms of what it’s not, could we look for expressions and possible attributes of this type of “potential”, outside of the realm of automatic referencing to known variables we have already conceptualized and characterized? And most importantly, how does that relate to children at school? And to babies and parenting? And from the context of moving from the predictable to the unanticipated, it could mean something extraordinary. 

Schools teach children to rely wholly on context to develop their skills in life. Hence they teach contextual submersion by the use of tools that correspond in kind: Thinking, explaining and understanding. The best way to teach is to teach to the type of learning which empower children’s pre-existing desire to learn more. Babies excel in learning and adapting. Guided discovery recognizes the inner balance children are born with, and maximizes the relationship between children’s creative intelligence and awareness in learning any subject. They learn to coexist outside context, and language is just another tool in a bag full of tools. That type of learning does not force children to become contextual tenants. They maintain perceptual versatility and remain highly adaptable. Learning systems that empower children this way find entire classrooms of children average high grades during tests. Look at Jumpmath.org.