Saturday, October 10, 2009

Accumulation is the Movment of Becoming: Part 11.

Thought seems so incapable of adjusting itself to the swift movement of actuality. There seems to be something in the very nature of thought itself that resists adjustment, reassessment, or change. At first glance I would usually say that people seem so incapable of adjusting their thoughts but I know this is not so, it is thought itself that is incapable, the person is just the unknowing subject of such shortcomings.

In other words, the images we create seem resistant to change. Is this due to our belief in, and desire for, permanence? Do we think of our physical body’s as permanent? What happens to the person where all image making has come to an end? Where the manufacturing of continuity, through creating images and allowing those images to assume a reality, naturally withers and finds its own end. Life has come to be thought of, and therefore experienced, as a continuous story line with me as the central character. It seems natural, even human, to live in this regard, expanding or contracting the scope of one’s story, improving upon the character or helping others improve theirs. The events of each day, the world over, are told, heard, and observed as being continuous, with the drama of yesterday, and many yesterdays before, bleeding over to today, tomorrow and the next.

The perception of evolution itself is but another manifestation of the brain’s need for continuity in all forms it beholds. In fact, the brain seems incapable of discerning between an actual moment recorded in memory and a manufactured moment, a moment created through imagination. Once held in the storehouse of memory, all is of an equal and indiscernible nature, that of images. Each individual is trained, conditioned to know how to sustain and give new life to emotion, thought, and experience, which is one of the many consequences of manufacturing and maintaining images. And, of course, the main character in the drama of each particular life, me, serves to function as the very piston driving the machine of continuity. This ‘me’ lives at, and of, the very center of continuity. ‘I’ am the very movement of continuity, as well as the landscape this ‘I’ lives, breathes, moves, and relates within. Observing the movement of me reveals the mechanics of continuity, the how behind the birth, evolution, and death of reality as we know it.

So why this drive, impulse, compulsion, desire, and need for continuity in all aspects of living? There is nowhere that continuity is not; it is the very web of human life and relationship, with nothing escaping its scope or grasp. It is expected from everyone, everywhere at all times. Why? I think that is rather obvious, isn’t it? Is it that continuity is the organizing principle of a muddled mind? That is, a mind lost in the forest of unbridled senses, perception and experience creates a logical, continuous landscape in order to orientate itself and find security in its relationships therein.

Therefore what becomes of the person no longer taking part in image-formation? Is not the image also the very content, fuel of imagination? And what are you without imagination? Not necessarily the fanciful kind, of dreaming up what will never be, but the imagining of tomorrow, the re-imagining of yesterday, the imagining of who that person is sitting beside you today? What are the effects, consequences, and inevitable outcome for the individual continually forming images? Does the active formation, and drive to fulfill or discard what has been imagined, divide, fragment the individual imagining so? Is image manufacturing the very movement of division itself, the breeder of separation in all its myriad forms? For the initial division between actuality and imagination gives rise to an exponential fragmentation within the field of imagination itself.

As attention becomes exceedingly absorbed within the images of imagination there is a disconnect with what is actual and a re-identification with the image of oneself existing in the landscape of imagination as if it were actual. For when we speak of division we speak of the dividing of attention, and the dividing of attention is a most dangerous thing. Why you may ask? For where there is attention there is actuality, or in this case, the manifesting of what will become actual. Clearly, when images are formed their life-force is that of desire; desire to infuse themselves with reality, manifest, bring themselves into the field of actuality or the opposite, never to manifest as actual. These images, and the desire that drives them, naturally divides attention, one’s energy, for one is here and also there, as an image in the field of imagination. Again, what are the consequences of such division?