Why the Restoration of the Prism Is Not a Matter of Will

Writing this triggered a collapse of idiocy within this structure I call myself.

So it’s more or less arbitrary if this is part VI or just the usual narrative flow of this negative inquiry. But I feel that this is the next natural question in the whole narrative I’m pursing: How do we restore the prismatic flow to human culture without forcing it, without imposing our will from the top down?

Here’s where the personal and the communal and the cosmic lenses merge into one seamless whole. If we can learn to cease imposing a shift in consciousness on ourselves personally, then there is no bug in the system, so to speak. That’s because it’s the personal lens that has mainly become psychotic in this culture, blocking access to wider views. And if we learn to change without force on a narrow or personal level – without introducing this divisive top-down mentality when we’re alone — then there is no other obstacle to a communal and cosmic clarity.

So what I write about are the aspects of a new vision that are wavering for me personally. I’m inconsistently accessing a clear personal lens. But I’m learning things from these wavering encounters with (specifically from these failures to retain) a new mind. Every failure reveals the nature of the confusion. (One thing I learn is it’s not “my mind”. The system of thought is a shared system of tracks for trains of thought. So whatever I learn about this situation on a personal level is applicable to everyone else (and vice versa, what you learn)). And writing is one way for a span of attention to widen enough to discover the underlying system of switches (so to speak), which keep the personal trains of thought circling on a narrow gauge, falling for the delusion that they’re running on an isolated system of tracks. And this attention repairs or alters those switches, releasing this human energy from that self-centric circularity and allowing the human (shared) mind to rediscover a wider fluidity of movement between the narrow, the mid-range and the long views.

This is important: the personal point of view is not a truly independent being. It’s a story from the microscopic point of view. The communal lens is a story from the shared, communal point of view. And the cosmic lens is a little different (as I tried to show in Part IV, “What Is Radically New”).  We need cosmic stories (myths and theories), but not as a primary point of access to the cosmic. The cosmic is mainly contacted by negation (by the realization that all of our myths and theories are cartoons of “something more” that can never be known in any conclusive sense). The cosmic lens can only be accessed when we’re in a non-Literal or metaphoric state of mind, whereby the Self is also felt as a cartoon depiction of something beyond the reach of knowledge. In other words, the Self here is not seen as an actual source of this life, but only as a cartoon representation of the whole from a microscopic perspective.

We Don’t Change by Trying to Change

We don’t change by trying to change. (The moment we have the urge to change ourselves, something already changed. And this urge arose in us spontaneously, without knowing how, without making a decision – the decision is the result of change, not the cause). The reason a “decision to change” sometimes seems to help arouse energy is because the “decision to change” is a kind of microscopic myth or creed that gives us an illusion of something we can trust as a crutch.

Read More »