Poemander

A thinnest strand, a translucent fibril elusive even to the keenest-sighted, the last frontier of the idealists and the most powerful force in the Universe – consciousness.

On the grand scale, nothing matters except for consciousness, and consciousness is the awareness of the self. And awareness of the self is the meeting with reality, the reality of the self. Here the word consciousness is used on par with self-awareness. Being self-aware is being conscientious.

The collection of individual self-awarenesses is the Universal consciousness, some call it Logos, others call it God or nature.

World is a product of the Universal consciousness 'dreamed' into existence. Individual consciousnesses are just parts of the Universal consciousness like the dreams in the dream of a dreamer.

Consciousness is not the mind, it is the great void, the dark matter of the known and unknown universes.

It was spring and the tiny strings of water were skidding down the lumps of glittering mud. Below, in the gully, a lively brook played hide-and-seek with the rays of sunlight that sneaked through the chartreuse curtain of gently swaying willows. It was all as it should be, like nothing has happened, like it was always there. Up above, a flock of wild geese winnowing their way through the cobalt-blue skies. They fly unconcerned that they didn't exist a moment ago – they have a life to live, and who am I to hold them? A dreamer? A hunter? I let go, but the image still lingers. Memories are the stamps of time. Some collect them and put in the album, some stick them to letters and send out, on their own. As those geese, they fly to the foreign lands, and there are no boundaries to those who trust their wings.

Seemingly, the night took hold while I'm still stuck in the pages of a warm sunny afternoon. You may have noticed that the night always comes from behind. And if you spin quick enough, you may be able to fan off the night, at least for a while. Spinning in the whirlpool of existence you'll see days and nights, springs and falls accelerating their gallop, faces getting blurry as if picked up by the air current that takes everything along to its wild dance. I have no one to blame – you've got a life to live. Setting them free, I'm standing on the open terrace, staring into the night. To live is a matter of honesty, honesty to your own self. If you don't know what I'm talking, stop for a while and look up. You are responsible for everything there is, no one else. Deep in the great void, past voices and episodes reveal to me what has been. I'm the next in line, Atlantes are all gone and the sky weights on my shoulders – now is my turn. Continuity is a serpentine road where the end matches the beginning – there is no escape from yourself. Click! Clacked the trigger. Now the game is mine, I'm ready to face it – show me what you've got!

Walking by the river, waiting for the night.

One obvious solution renounced I despite

Despondency of mind, discrepancy of thought.

If I could take the chances, I'd take 'em on the spot.

This spate of empty feelings, ludicrous believes,

Cold water reached the ceiling, yet my cup never fills.

I try avoid people, I know how this will end.

They stuck in their habits, no matter good or bad.

Fad, fate, conspiracy, or what? Proclaim did I not,

The malady of remedies and fallacy of last resort.

They fought as if they knew what's prime,

Like leucocyte, I slid inside viscosity of time.

Sublime each movement, fluid, liquid. Stick with it.

Each moment, every splat contains world in it.

Them, motherfuckers have no word, no sense for it.

Their stale nonsense I reject, dropping defence call out hypocrite.

Pretending if they knew their shit, you won't defeat

This lunacy – let them accomplish their feat, complete,

Bring to the end, be gone with their legacy.

There's no mercy of the sword upholding the supremacy.

And mourners all I see and their cries I hear,

As sun has set, no soul is free – embraced by the fear.

I'm gatherer of rocks unturned, a castaway, now on a tear

My white stallion cross murk gallops and dignity is clear.

Everyone is an accountant, yes, and it's not only because we count, you know: one plus one, two plus two etc. people are all accountants because that's how they are, that's how they live in society, that's how they think, talk and deal with others. Have you ever said 'thank you', or answered 'my pleasure'? Congratulations, you passed, you are an accountant. People can't help it, and I really do feel sorry for them. Humanity is changing, meant to become different, but people... People are always the same.

Coming from the word 'conter', to count, the account is a record of the object of perception expressed in words, numbers or other meaningful form. Shall we, perhaps, say that it is meaningful only because it is expressed? Anyway, accounting has always had something to do with “count”, but to a greater degree with the verb “account”, such as to consider and to recon. And to make it a little bit more interesting, recon is a short for 'reconnaissance' – a military surveillance to locate an enemy or their strategic features. Accounting is to be at war, and this hasn't changed. Geopolitical war, war between social classes, economic war or a personal war. Nothing has changed: your 'thanks' and 'welcome', debits and credits are the very same arrows and spears pointed at each-other and everyone of us.

To find out why and how this has happened, you, my dear scholar, will have to go far, very far. Pack your gunny, get a few pairs of durable boots cause the place you'll have to go is your home. Yes, to learn what is account and accounting you'll need to understand what is property. But to make your journey somewhat more exciting I should preemptively mention that your home is not what you think it is. But that's enough for now. Only remember, accountant has only two functions:

- to take the notice: know your enemy's credits, know your own debits.

-to apply judgement.

No, the jurisprudence doesn't take away the later function from an accountant, it simply can't: the accountant is right there, in the field, standing on top of the hill, counting enemy's spears, horses and catapults. Weather and fog may not be helping, but it is up to the accountant to tell the difference between a horse and an elephant, a bow and a saber.

On Property.

So, back home, Let's continue to be paper worms and dig for the meaning: 'property' comes from word 'proper' or Latin 'proprius' for 'one's own' and 'special'. No doubt most people find their home 'a special one'. However, I am always sceptical of being skewed towards Roman's interpretation – the relationship of love and hate- to say it is biased is to say nothing. Sanskrit has a beautiful word 'rta' which carries a meaning for 'proper', 'right', 'true'. Shall we than say that property is that which is proper and right? Property is also that which is true, or perhaps that which you truly have a right to? I think this is where the misinterpretation have occurred, lost in translation: there must have been a few idiots along the Silk Route (Greek for property is 'idiotis', yes, check for yourself, it also means quality and attribute). If not for those long perilous journeys under the scorching sun, we could have ended up with a completely different meaning and interpretation: “Property is that which is true and right for you”. When you are in the shop looking for a pair of shoes, are you more concerned with the right you'll have to those shoes or, indeed, the shoes which are 'right for you'? I guess it is the later unless you are a lawyer, of course, and you logic has already divagated into the bookshelf realms together with the Romans and their perilous journeys.

Reason is a justification, it is not a cause, it is an interpretation of the cause. We can only think of reasons, we do not create reasons. The age of reason is the age of interpretations. Strip it naked and you are left with the embarrassment of absurdity.

Logic is a method of justification. And there is more than one logic, like there is more than one language, but for some reason we agreed to use only one uniform logic. If my logic doesn't fit within the parameters of common logic this doesn't invalidate my logic but only suggests that I maybe using a different language. Logic exists because it is commonly agreed upon, which makes it a mere convenience, but it doesn't have to be this way. Is it convenient? Yes. But, is it colourful? No. Is it inspiring to learn and explore? No. Is it all there is? I leave it up to you. If you are wondering where we are in the course of history, I can tell that we are still building the Tower of Babel, aiming to reach for the heavens. Logic is our Tower of Babel, but behold, there is a language without words, there is Logic without reason, there is Truth without justification. It may appear to be a noble desire – reaching for the skies, there is no issue with that. The real issue is the arrogance used at delving into the mysteries of the universe, thinking that the logic and reason is enough to get you there. In the same fashion people of Babylon thought that bricks and mortar was enough in reaching for the heavens. Call it angry and jealous God, but it is the reality that will bring your delusional aspirations back to the ground, that will break and fragment the peoples, languages, ideas, concepts.

Ethics is an approach in relation to somebody or something other then you. For an individual entity, every dealing directed outwards becomes a matter of ethics. Without individuality ethics ceases to be a consideration as there is no line to separate between the self and the others. There is no ethics involved in dealing with your own self either, because rights and wrongs are always regarded in consideration to others even if require extensive self reflection. Ethics only becomes a consideration on crossing this cursory line between the self and the others. Therefore, the outreach of ethics is determined by the nature of individuality. And how broad and definitive this nature outlines the scope of moral.

Firstly, is there something such as right and wrong intrinsically, per se, outside of interpretation? This is predominantly an enquiry into the nature of existence. If existence is self-sufficient or complete, then there is no right or wrong per se because it has everything what it needs. If existence is not self-sufficient, not complete, i.e. it needs propagating which embeds the concept of choice, then right and wrong becomes an issue because someone needs to make the choice. Who is the one making the choice is a separate question concerned mainly with the bounds of consciousness and the individuality.

Now we can make an assumption that no choice equals no ethics and the existence of choice (in whatever form) entails ethical consideration (to a various degree and extent).

If existence is propagated by choice, then there could be a completely random choice or a fully informed choice and anything in between. A fully informed choice is the one that assumes a perfect and conclusive knowledge of all influencing factors and outcomes. And if this is even hypothetically possible (which should be, because there is a concept of an absolute or perfection) then the concept of choice drops out again because there is no need for choice as perfection pursues a goal with a complete determinism. Even choosing a goal is no longer relevant because perfect knowledge also entails knowing what will be (through a perfect insight or a de facto knowledge of all outcomes). However, if one perpetually knows what there was and what there will be, won't they be left with only one thing – looking for a meaning? Yes, but only if they are aware that there might be at least a single unknown, even most improbable, which implies that the system is not absolutely perfect. An absolute perfection would also have a knowledge of meaning, wouldn't it? So, in such a hypothetical case, would this perfect system have any reason to sustain itself perpetually? It seems very inappropriate, though, to talk about reasons in the context of an absolute, but perfect knowledge of all causes and effects, including past and future, will have to collapse all at once or render them all accomplished immediately. So, there cannot be any logic for such system to sustain itself, at least from the standpoint of our logic, i.e. narrowly speaking. An absolute perfect system would automatically reduce itself to nil, shut itself down, because all past, present and future causes have effectively been resolved and there is nothing left out. Such system would accomplish itself vouching space-time no longer relevant since it has all the past and future information necessary to accomplish anything now (knowing the outcome would be no different from having the outcome). Or for this matter, we can say that it will shut itself out of space-time, for these dimensions are no longer necessary or informative to such system. Beyond that, we can only speculate about what form will this system assume outside of space-time, outside of reason.

However, there is one even greater problem with the absolute perfect system: it cannot be conclusively certain of its perfection even if it ensures by all means and tests that it has a hundred per cent all encompassing knowledge. The reason for this is that the concept of infinity, even if proven not real but only conceptual, still leaves some uncertainty. This uncertainty can still result in an unknown variable. Therefore, we can say that even a perfect system can be biased, means never absolute or never deemed hundred percent full. So even if we imagine an omniscient system, let's call it God, to be a representation of an absolute perfect system, he/she/it will be at fault to claim omniscience and be, in principal, only an extended version of any other finite being.

On the other hand, we must be ourselves biased with the idea that logic and reason can extend infinitely. Shall we otherwise hypothesise that there could be indefinitely vast areas of possibilities outside of logic and reason? Considering this, we may agree that something like absolute can potentially exists in the realms beyond logic and reason, or in the realms of a completely different logic, for this matter.

Based on above, we can conclude that if there is anything like a complete absolute perfect system, it would only exist outside of space-time and outside of logic.

This means that our world existing in space-time must be either incomplete and imperfect or, otherwise, all together non-existing (non-existing to the observer in further realms, while still appearing 'real' to those inside).

For the imperfect and incomplete system, or world for our cause, there must be an element of choice implying ethics. Now, looking at random choice, is there really such a thing? A completely random choice is only possible when it is unconditioned. But is there really anything that is unconditioned or unbiased? Similar to the idea of an absolute, so is the idea of randomness should be ruled out into the realms beyond logic.

So, we are now left with the 'something in between', a sliding scale between the completely random choice and the fully informed choice (with the latter and the former being ruled out on grounds of unreasonable). This kind of choice will assume a certain degree of conditioning and a limited level of knowledge concomitantly. By implication it means a least one thing – the need for an intelligent entity (of some sort) to propagate this type of existence through choice. There must be a separate entity with a certain degree of intelligence. Thus, the world without/outside the intelligence must either be absolutely perfect and illogical or non-existing. This brings us back to where we started – individuality as a measure of rights and wrongs. Now, depending on what we consider as an intelligence will have an impact on the outreach of ethics.

Lets say people have the intelligence, then what about the machines, what about animals? What about insects, plants, cells and atoms? If we dismiss all and attribute the intelligence only to people, which in fact has been the case for the most time in modern human history, then we'll run into a series of problems connected to the idea that only people make choices and justify the existence of the world. And since we have deduced that existence needs choices to prolong itself, then the world outside people's intelligence would not exist. What about people themselves, is there any proof that someone next to you has the intelligence, or for this matter, you, yourself can prove to someone that you are capable of intelligent choices? Then the existence of people, including yourself is now under question.

I tend to think, however, that the individuality and hence the intelligence, to a varying degree, is integral to anything and everything we see or know to exist including the existence itself. However hard it is to prove that the atoms, electrons and photons or even the Universe has the individuality and thus the intelligent capability of making choices, they are still unquestionably subjected to the influences of the environment and their own inherent qualities. In the same context, I view the individuality's bounds as rather amorphous, infinitely stretchable, characterised by the inherently adaptable qualities. Therefore, I repeat the initially stated view that it is an indistinct and expandable border between the perceived self and the others that provides the scope for ethics, or no ethics for this matter.

Lets pause for now and review our assumption. We have mentioned that the absolute perfect system would be be de facto complete due to perfect knowledge of all outcomes, hence nothing else to resolve and no 'purpose' to continue. Were such a system to sustain itself it would mean one of the two things: either it is not truly perfect and is 'in search' of some hidden variable, which is rather plausible, or it sustains itself for 'no reason', which is somewhat counter-intuitive. The implications are huge:

If it sustains itself for 'no reason', this would mean that there is no right and wrong per se and existence 'doesn't care' of what happens because it is already accomplished. In fact, it's sustaining itself maybe only a mirage, a shadow or a lingering hologram, thus whatever is in this world has no value to it. In such world ethics has no value and is not needed.

If existence is not truly perfect, it must be looking for 'purpose' in order to enhance itself. This means that there is an intrinsic right and wrong, i.e. anything that enhances this search has value and is by the definition right. Looking for purpose or hidden variables becomes eventually a process of self discovery (you have already included everything you could, and now you are in search for an unknown indigent – the meaning). Therefore, anything that helps its self-discovery would be regarded as 'good'. More over, it would be plausible to imagine this type of existence 'creating' indeterministic world/s in order to enhance its self discovery process. So, “God playing dice” is not such an absurdity after all.

It makes a perfect sense to me that the idea of choice and randomness can, if not must, be introduced deliberately by the near-perfect intelligence in order to facilitate the exploration of its own possibilities. It's like organising sports games in order to simulate the competitive environment and see how far human capabilities stretch. As if in the simulator game, the only valuable takeaway is an enhanced experience, and thus greater understanding of own capabilities. An avatar may die at the very beginning of the game or may last till the very end, but the 'game- developer' is not interested in outcomes of individual games despite the fact that the players are making choices and learning during the game. A 'free choice' within the game equals to 'no choice' on a broader plane, i.e. free choice is a facility inside the game only made to facilitate the process. Ethics or moral, like the rules in the game, is only an adjustable parameter to supplement the game and of no real value for the 'Game' itself.

A purpose is the only thing there be left unresolved. All the knowledge in the world will not be enough to resolve this last and foremost ever hidden variable – purpose. Even when you prove by all means that there is no purpose, there will be a lingering feeling that something is amiss, the last piece of a puzzle. And it doesn't matter whether there is purpose or not, but it is this incompleteness that forever propels the world of ideas, the world of intent and the Universe. A search for purpose fuels the process of self-discovery, evident in everything from the smallest particle to the extent of worlds and galaxies. Without this search we are none.

The day after night, a year after year,

We grope in the dark then just disappear.

Some say it is fate and we ought to take it,

Some had this idea that we can remake it.

And I don't especially like it,

And I don't particularly care.

But I'm very reluctant to fake it,

Which makes hard to hide my despair.

Tell me, where, where have I failed,

Where, where have I gone wrong?

Have not same air I inhaled?

Have not I fared all along?

There's not much left, yet so much longer

To stretch illusion of this pride.

Despite road end I so much stronger

Spur my stallion to gather stride.

I yell, I shout in the air, never, never,

Have never I forsaken ye.

Abyss in me, cold winds dissever

Hot fumes spat up in apogee.

Nobody, I say no one, ever, ever,

Shall have us bound by decree,

Shall hold us back or bring together,

These broken pieces and debris.

And each and everyone, whenever,

Whenever their time may be.

Will have that now to make forever,

To break old fates and get us free.

When it comes to thinking as a thought process, particularly the clarity of it, most would say that it is hinged on the mental ability of some sort without realising that it is actually most dependent on the mental capacity first and foremost. The capacity is an opening made deliberately to usher in the ability which, in fact, everyone has by default. Without first emptying the space, there's simply no chance for the ability to take hold and evolve. That is why housekeeping needs to be done by deliberately clearing out the junk. There are plenty of ways how this junk accumulates, and it keeps coming in various shapes and forms: physical, emotional, mental. And instead of letting go of it, we take in more and more. We clutter our capacity with the foods that shouldn't be eaten, with anger or jealousy that shouldn't be allowed in and with obsessions or desires that should never be entertained. The capacity is an absolute prerequisite for anything meaningful to emerge because the meaning itself is a product of a vacuum, but more on this later. Figuratively speaking, we are all swimming in the same dirty bath water, looking for the meaning and not knowing that the clarity will not come unless someone pulls out the plug.

So, once the effort is taken to eliminate all the clutter, the innate abilities will slowly and inconspicuously begin to enter the space. You won't even notice them at first, but pretty soon something wonderful will start emerging from within and that wonderful something is you. Yes, it is that “you” which has been neglected for the most part, hidden deep down underneath the piles upon piles of someone else's thoughts, ideas, habits and stereotypes. You have been accustomed to think that this pile is “you”, but oh Boy (Girl), were you wrong! Now, once you have obtained yourself don't get delirious, keep the area tidy and let go as easily as you accept. And remember: the pinnacle of thinking is to create, and the pinnacle of creating is to let go. Enjoy!

It is a gross mistake to think that ancient civilisations were more religious. It is, in fact, quite the opposite – religion appears to be a relatively modern concept. Ancient progenitors didn't need a religion; religion was unnecessary back in the days when people could see things through with an unobstructed vision. It is only when this vision blurred, the religion came to life. Little by little, as the sight has worsened, the religion became a requirement – an intermediary object between the eyes and the world. Yes, the ancients personified the forces and events in the Universe which was later taken for their religiousness only due to shortsightedness of the modern interpreters. The personification of observed and experienced events was for them just one of the ways of passing and preserving their heritage, the heritage of direct-knowing or, indeed, the direct-seeing.

In zodiac is reflected the entire history of humankind, but there are not many of those who can decipher and read it. There were selected few who were entrusted with this knowledge traced back to the progenitors themselves, the instructors of humanity. They showed them and explained the hidden meaning of symbols and the zodiac, being the mapping and the imprint of our own history. This knowledge was passed in secret from master to disciple, for millennia this was preserved in the sacred texts, dance, architecture, folklore, ceremonies. And only the inability of a laymen to decipher or comprehend these monumental truths made them calling it a religion.

To my knowledge, there are less than a handful of masters alive today who still can explain these truths, yet they aren't talking and rightly so. There are still a few keepers but without the power to interpret or instruct. There are teachers, but only a few masters. The chain has pretty much snapped and we are on our own. That is why we are in a dark period, kaliyuga, left to our own devices. Yet I smell the change in the air. Humanity has been given this challenge in order to consolidate, realize own powers. We need to find our own interpretation, regain the sight of the past and the insight of the future. For that we don't need an intermediary; I denounce all the religions by breaking this hazy glass of dogma and proclaim the direct insight, the light of the sun and the purity of the heart. My flag is courage, my coat of arms is respect, respect to the powers of existence. I am my own god and so are we.

Family is “I” extended. It is as good as me and as bad as me. Family is the first level of an extrapolated “I”. Next levels are made of clans, ethnicities, countries etc. These are all extrapolations, they are as good as me and as bad as me. Family is only a springboard though, nothing less, nothing more. You can't continue holding onto it when you need to jump. Once you have jumped, you go on extrapolating your “I” until eventually everything is included and the whole world is too small. Parents need to let their children jump. Children need not be burdened by their parents' wishes. These wishes are heavier than stones and will bring them down before they even have the chance to spread their wings. Parents need not be servants to their children, neither are they their masters, none of this is respectable, for the children are guests in the parents house. Husband need not insist, wife need not be afraid, for this relationship is a contemptible one. Imbue it with respect instead, and know that love is above family.

All in all, family is the horrid artifact of humankind. Incalculable liveslives have been wasted, sucked out of potentials. There is not a thing more terrible than the unrealized potential. Unfulfilled life, this is the cause of all vice, the ugliest thing. If there is anything like hell, than it is full of embryos, seeds and souls deprived of further potential, doomed forever to exist in an unrealized state.

Humanity needs to break through the dead-ends of obligations. Not by evading the responsibilities and commitments, but by drawing a line and reestablishing the priorities. Onboard cloning, great, but as a self-regulated system of reproduction based on random probabilities (give nature a chance) – the flower of soul will grow through the concrete, thrive in the sands, yet she will whittle in the poisonous grounds of cowardice. We need to shift this archaic paradigm of fear and subordination, outgrow our socio-biological roles. We need to stop imposing morality over human relationships and return back its status of divine wholeness. Only this time there is nowhere to look for divinity but within. Can we grow up? Or do we need a push?

Everyone has been created for a particular purpose. And your creator is no one else but yourself. You yourself have created your purpose and now have no other choice but to live it or you are doomed to misery.

You have no friends. But you have misconceptions, illusions and oblivious thinking. You have no enemies either, but you have self-indulgence, fear and greed. I don't need friendship to be joyful and express kindness; I don't need enemies to remain vigilant. You don't know who is your real friend, neither are your aware of who is your real enemy. Those who you regard as friends are just the acquaintances and those you regard as your enemies are just your unhappened friends. Wise man knows that he has no friends, but he has neighbours. Wise man knows that he has no enemies either, because he had no friends to begin with.

Good neighbour is a far better concept then friendship, it doesn't blind you with the illusions. Fellow traveler is a beautiful concept, it gives you the meaning but not the chains of expectations. A host and the guest is an eternally powerful concept, it gives you the respect but does not tarnish you with the sticky loyalty. Throw your filthy friendship to the dogs, I promise, they won't even touch it.

Respect is the bedrock of congruous co-existence. Unlike the shifting sands of friendship, respect provides a solid foundation with enough space to standfor everyone – big or small. Respect is simple, it needs only one thing – the acknowledgement, the acknowledgement of existence of the other.

Teach respect to your children and nothing else would be needed from you. Don't tangle them in the web of your predispositions and peace will descend on Earth.