SPONSORS



 

Thought Puppets. Dialogue with Stan Alari and Carlos Dwa.

Copyright 1998 Gene Poole, Stan Alari, Carlos Dwa. All rights reserved.


Hi Stan... you asked:

> do "I" choose? The sense of it is that all my thoughts
> just flow through my mind, how can I say that I am
> choosing what is thought?

If I have not attended to all of my (individual/family/biolgical/and
conscience) needs, my thought is ordered 'for me'. I am always diverted
'back' to remember what is yet undone. This is one level of involuntary
'thought'.

If I have attended to all of the above, I still have the 'hidden orderer'
of thought to contend with; I still have to accept that 'something' is
generating and ordering my thoughts.

If my conscience is in good order, if I have allowed the 'inner wind of
emotion' to exit the expedient 'holding area' where I keep it so that it
will not interfere with my ability to do tasks coherently, if I am 'clear'
in these regards, there is still the 'deeper orderer of thoughts' to
contend with.

Are you asking, 'what orders my thoughts?'

>"I" have had a custom of saying
> I think, however, the actual experience seems more like I
> am assuming that I have the thought. It seems more
> accurate to say I heard this in "my" mind, then I can have
> some actual dominion over what I think when I actually
> edit, revise or otherwise "editorialize" what I hear in my
> mind and what I actually say, or act on.

What you say above, expresses that you indeed have the ability to 'edit' or
to 're-order' your thoughts; but to 'edit' is to re-order what is 'already
there'. Without thought 'already there', it seems that there would be no
thought to edit.

Your thoughts (your posted question) is a thought, which I now
edit-or-realize. But with no question, I have no thought.

The question then becomes, 'what is the original question?'. In other
words, if my conscience is in good order (no driving issues), what would
originate thought? In other words, is there a question being asked, to
which my thoughts are an answer? And then, if so, _I am_ in a position to
observe my thoughts, in order to then know the question, by means of
observing the answer formed by my thoughts, which have issued as a result
of the (hidden) question. What is that question? What is the question that
drives my 'original thought'?

Could the 'original question' be, "I? Who am I?" This seems likely. It
seems likely that the original question will be asked, continually, and is
the hidden force which generates and drives all thought.

Once thought has been created as a response to this question ("I? Who am
I?"), thought exists, and thus can be edited or re-ordered. In this regard,
I regard thought to be 'pieces' or 'objects' which can indeed be treated
like a child's set of alphabet-blocks; the blocks 'exist already', and can
be lined up to spell or say anything. But someone bought or made the blocks
_for_ the child, in response (obviously) to the existence of the child. I
could say, "no child, no blocks".

In my view, the 'original thought' is a _question_ ("I? Who am I?"), which
if not heard or attended to, will ask itself forever, thus originating
thought forever and ever and ever.

> It seems to me that without some dominion over what I hear
> and choose to express I am only being thought and spoken
> like a live manikin.

Yes. The pressure of thought-issuance, like a fire-hose, 'causes' us to
writhe like puppets.

It seems to me, based upon my experience, that the way to give-up
puppethood, is to become aware of the force which births and drives
thought, which to me, is the 'original question'. What this means is, that
when someone asks "Why?", my only honest answer can be, "Who is asking?".

To clarify what I have just said; for any person, the "Why?" they ask, is
formed of the thoughts which emanate from the original (unanswered yet
still asked) question. Thus the (correct) answer to any "Why?", is to
answer the _original_ question. That answer, if correctly given, will then
terminate the flow of thought. With no thought, there is no question. And
with no question, there is no thought.

> Whats your experience brothers and sisters? Do we think or
> our we thought? Do we speak or our we spoken? Do we act or
> our we actors unconscious of our being scripted?

We may seem to be scripted actors, but we are, in my view, Being. The Being
that we are, must answer the 'original question', but first, someone has to
give us a set of alphabet blocks, which is language. When we have language,
we then can answer. But this may take a long time to occur. In the
meantime, we must contend with the good and the bad of thought,
issueing-forth as driven by _that_ question. When the force of that
question finally meets a form of language which is capable of genuine and
honest reflection, something happens.

> stan
>
>
> Thinking = a numbered painting

By changing the numbers, the picture is thus changed.

Thank you for your question.


==Gene Poole==

Thanks, Jerry...


Carlos Dwa wrote:

Upon reading your post
and some of the responses to it
I was struck by how futile
any attempt would be to
point out the extremely potent
and fertile areas that would
become apparent if one could
see the entire scope of the
inquiry that you detail, as irrelevant
with regard to the very presumed
vector of it's assumption.
(In other words one may benefit
from getting over the notion {arising form
dissatisfaction and desire} that there is
anything efficacious to be done on this level.)
[I wish there where such a thing as a three way
mirror so I could use it as a metaphor to dereify
the selfreferential dynamic so indicated]

I don't think what you are doing
is harmful, just diversionary.
People could even benefit from it
I suppose.
But to benefit from such inquiry
one would have to be "identified"
with the mind.

When someone has a problem
and finds a solution, then presents
it to others, it is only useful if
the others have that problem.
Or, (more accurately), if the
others believe they have that problem.
A solution defines the problem.
To accept a solution one "buys" the problem.

The self-referential synaesthesial
homeostasis of the automatic
associative and "emotional"
functioning of the brain
is no more a problem than
the automatic functioning
of the liver.

The fact that they are irrelevant
to awakening is indicated,
though not illustrated by the
common >impression< that
thought ceases upon awakening.

I would also like to suggest that
what you refer to as the "unanswered
question" is metabolic in nature and
has more to do, at base, with the cellular need
for oxygen and glucose in the brain, than
any metagnostic niceties.
{Just as a bonus I will throw in here that
what are commonly referred to as "angels"
are not separate beings but "higher aspects"
of one's own immune system} -so much the more
intimate and miraculous...


If you can sincerely ask "who",
it's seems you may as well.
There is no such thing as direct inquiry
that utilizes method or technique
and, for that matter, inquiry.
All formulation is naught but formulation.
All this continues the automatic illusion
of the alienation
of the inquirer from existence.

Round and round she goes
an where she stops everybody knows...
She don't stop.

consider the alternative: consider the alternatives
consider the alternative: = (a template of dualism{either/or})
consider the alternative: consider considering
consider the alternative: alter considering
consider the alternative: consider the surprising freedom of no-alternative
consider the alternative: = busy-work
consider the alternative: Be considered and abide in this


Greetings, friend Carlos.

Thank you for your comments and analysis of my submission.

I suppose it will no no harm to respond 'honestly' to what you have said. I
want to point out that I observe that you seem to have perhaps missed some
of the ingredients which I baked into my pie; also that you and I seem to
share more than we disagree.

You are aware, Carlos, of the power of command of the secretory function of
the human brain; you are aware of the means of commanding the autonomic
brain-functions inherent in yourself, and by extension, everyone. You are
aware that to perceive the automatic linkage between perception and
reaction, is to be able to order stimuli for the perceiver; that the
(Carlos or Gene) ordered parade of imago, is a veritable playing of the
organ of the human brain. Reactivly chorded, linearity of stimuli compound
into simultaneous non-linear affect-image, taken as one's own. Such is the
subtle art of the poet/teacher.

I too am a raging biological organism; for me, peace is but a laugh.

Now, on to our conversation... [Note to reader; it is perhaps useful to
retain the putative linearity of this conversation, and to then
deliberately compare it to the resultant non-linear gestalt of experience
which is your summation of the entire reading. The resultant product is
interesting to observe, especially in light of my above comments pertaining
to author-generated entrainment of neurohormonal reaction(s) in the
reader.]

> Upon reading your post
> and some of the responses to it
> I was struck by how futile
> any attempt would be to
> point out the extremely potent
> and fertile areas that would
> become apparent if one could
> see the entire scope of the
> inquiry that you detail, as irrelevant
> with regard to the very presumed
> vector of it's assumption.

Yes. That is why I took great care to speak backwards as I worded my letter.

I desired and still desire to obviate 'that' area of inquiry, as a service
to my fellow humans. That is why I occasionally quote L Wittgenstein. Yet,
"I still exist".

> (In other words one may benefit
> from getting over the notion {arising form dissatisfaction
> and desire} that there is anything efficacious to be done
> on this level.) [I wish there where such a thing as a
> three way mirror so I could use it as a metaphor to
> dereify the selfreferential dynamic so indicated]

The third plane, missing from this media of communication, materializes as
the reader moves eyes from word to word; the assembly of meaning upon that
plane, deriving as the brushstrokes of the artist dabbing semantic enzyme
upon the pallet of the reader, who is thus appraised of a painting which
seems to be 'their own'.

> I don't think what you are doing
> is harmful, just diversionary.

Gene: I agree. My slight-of-hand refers first to who is watching, but
ultimately to the watching itself.

> People could even benefit from it
> I suppose.

Gene: Only as a process; any assumption of gain 'will be' subsumed by the
process which I attend.

> But to benefit from such inquiry
> one would have to be "identified"
> with the mind.

Gene: Well-stated, and the entire point. There _is_ something else, which I am.

> When someone has a problem
> and finds a solution, then presents
> it to others, it is only useful if
> the others have that problem.

Gene: Partially correct. Someone reading, may then assume and thus 'solve'
the problem, which is as likely as this (below):

> Or, (more accurately), if the
> others believe they have that problem.
> A solution defines the problem.
> To accept a solution one "buys" the problem.

Gene: Absolutely!

> The self-referential synaesthesial
> homeostasis of the automatic
> associative and "emotional"
> functioning of the brain
> is no more a problem than
> the automatic functioning
> of the liver.

Gene: Thanks. That needs to be said and understood. I do not assume
otherwise. In fact, I frame my submissions in that knowledge.

> The fact that they are irrelevant
> to awakening is indicated,
> though not illustrated by the
> common >impression< that
> thought ceases upon awakening.

Gene: I have posited NO "awakening" in my piece; and further, I do not now
posit "awakening". In fact, I 'never' use the word 'awakening', because it
in itself presupposes a problem which does _not_ exist. The use of the word
'awakening' specifically targets the 'fight or flight' reaction of the
reader; thus aroused, the reader flees into a nightmare realm... I do not
so condescend, as to use as a metaphor the word "awakening"; rather, I
point out wakefulness. [Reader; to suppose that more can be known, is true;
but that in itself does not prove sleep, any more than my ignorance of the
proper mathmatical expression of subspace geometry stands to prove that I
sleep. It is 'just ignorance'; by attending this process, experience _may_
provide learning, which indeed abolishes ignorance. I do not describe
"awakening", merely 'a process of knowing', described to and by the
knower.]

> I would also like to suggest that
> what you refer to as the "unanswered
> question" is metabolic in nature and
> has more to do, at base, with the cellular need for oxygen
> and glucose in the brain, than any metagnostic niceties.

Gene: Thank you, Carlos. Merely moments ago, I flushed my latest load of
metagnostic niceties.

> {Just as a bonus I will throw in here that what are
> commonly referred to as "angels" are not separate beings
> but "higher aspects" of one's own immune system} -so much
> the more intimate and miraculous...

Gene: Yes. It is my own hands that type this.

> If you can sincerely ask "who",
> it's seems you may as well.

Gene: Your point is taken. Please notice that I stated the question not as
"who", but specifically (ah, the specificity!) as "I? Who am I?". You will
notice my clever use of two questions as one, which they most certainly are
_not_.

But by now, it is 'too late' for the reader of my original post. The "I?"
component of my writing, riding in the empty belly of the Trojan Horse of
"Who am I?", is already doing it's deep and insidious work. Bwahahaha!

> There is no such thing as direct inquiry that utilizes
> method or technique
> and, for that matter, inquiry.

Gene: Agreed most wholeheartedly! Most artfully stated, O Poet. Truer words
have never been spoken.

> All formulation is naught but formulation. All this
> continues the automatic illusion of the alienation
> of the inquirer from existence.

Gene: What is "This"? The mechanics, once wound, continue; the reader is
gifted by a view of the robot, which is I/Not-I. My multiplane existence is
neither one OR the other; this is the vital gestalt.

> Round and round she goes
> an where she stops everybody knows...
> She don't stop.

Gene: Correct, you flaming genius. May she never stop; she makes my corpse
dance.

Gratefully Dead,

==Gene Poole==

> consider the alternative: consider the alternatives
> consider the alternative: = (a template of
> dualism{either/or}) consider the alternative: consider
> considering consider the alternative: alter considering
> consider the alternative: consider the surprising freedom
> of no-alternative consider the alternative: = busy-work
> consider the alternative: Be considered and abide in this

Gene: [Consider the alternative to considering the alternative]

Gene Poole's Home Page