How is it possible,
as an 'activist', to plot and execute the demolition of
What It Is:
The Question and the Answer
Perhaps it is time to
exit the closet, so to speak, and speaking for myself
'personally'. Perhaps it is time, to let the cat out of
the bag, and to dig up the bone, and the long-buried dog
Perhaps it is time, to unleash certain forces; perhaps it
is time to detail just how it is, that these certain
forces have become restrained, and also "how
to" give these certain forces, free and
unconstrained play in this human universe.
As you may suspect, it all began very long ago, but that
is of minor import. The 'long ago' concept holds no
meaning for one, who is not embedded in the time-frames
of human (or geologic) history.
Indeed, it is this "assumed to be reality"
historical timeframe, which is what I refer to as the
'world-dream'. This collective memory of 'history', is
the foundation of all contemporary 'identity-structure'
of any human. Humans feel secure and 'right' when they
reference current events, to this historical
timeframe-structure. Without this constant,
self-refreshing database of 'history', contemporary
identity-structure would be quite sparse, as sparse as
that of any of the historical 'masters of consciousness',
such as Ramana.
"Who am I" is designed to parse history from
identity, leaving... nothing. History, occupying memory,
is the 'dog in the manger'.
But this is a magnificent watchdog! Have you noticed,
that 'everyone' wants to have a dog? And that dog
'ownership' is not only justified, but expected? The dog
has become, the universal symbol of what it is, that
occupies contemporary time and space.
Limited yes, which is the nature of the dog, perhaps a
burden at times, but loveable and 'cute', and endlessly
entertaining, or should I say, distracting?
As Da Free John has mentioned, social talk usually is
about the dog. The dog symbolizes what occupies
consciousness, as 'identity'. As long as this 'dog' is
allowed to take up all space and time, its antics will
cover over what is already here, going on anyway and
eternally. The dog of identity is essentially disabled,
however; it cannot exist apart from its 'host', and thus
it can be seen clearly, as 'parasitic'. The 'manger' of
consciousness, the host of this 'dog', would otherwise be
hosting the opposite of 'dog', which is 'God'. But dog
owners, are notorious for their proud fetish, and thus
defend, never knowing 'God' but as an abstraction.
"Better the devil we know, than the devil we do not
know". This is the feeling-mantra of fear, recited
by those who reject 'God' in favor of 'dog', and it is
validated on every screen of the world-dream.
"God" is the 'devil we do not know', and are in
mortal fear of meeting.
Those who favor history over the indefinable
present-time, mount the idol on the alter, and call
each-other to worship. The unknown itself, is placated
and charmed into a favorable repetition of 'the best of
times', or so the effort is bent. History is the only
database available, from which to derive 'how things
should be'. And for this 'idol/dog/identity' to have any
potency, history must be affirmed above all else.
Recall, how according to history, Moses returned from his
meeting with God, to find his people embroiled in
idol-worship. The irony was not lost on Moses, according
to the story; his message from 'G-d', if understood,
would have eliminated the
idol/dog-in-the-manger/identity. This historical message,
if itself understood, would disassemble the historical
database which is the world-dream, and in the same
action, would also eliminate the 'dog', or identity,
which is itself composed entirely of 'history'.
At his point, to avoid confusion, I will say that
'identity' is not to be understood as 'ego'. In my
perspective, 'ego' is simply a natural mechanism which is
assigned the task of maintaining identity; 'ego' can do
many things, but as long as 'identity' is the prime
requirement of those who dwell exclusively in the
world-dream, the mechanism of 'ego' will be in service of
maintenance of identity, even unto the failure of all
other otherwise supported functions of the human.
This viewpoint may be confusing in itself, because it is
'against' most traditions. But consider, that it is the
literal 'worship of history' which is the error; there is
no error in 'ego' doing what it is told to do. My
intention is to take the heat off of 'ego' and put it
where it belongs, to deprive 'history' of its hypnotic
fascination for the human. Nothing can be 'done about'
ego, but everything can be done about the common human
trance-state of idol-worship, which is what is, 'having
The Trance of History,
also called "The Black Iron Prison" by author
Phillip K Dick, is a virtual realm only. This is to say,
that history is only 'real' when it is being remembered.
Otherwise, it does not exist.
History is for most humans, an unpleasant trance-state;
it contains the 'reasons' for paranoia and dread, but
also contains the 'reasons' for hope. The common human
activity of the moment, it to pit the paranoia against
the hope; the optimist stakes his bets on hope, the
pessimist wagers in favor of the paranoid version. In
this, we are able to glimpse a certain insight; the
'virtual realm' of history, is made real by hope, as well
as by paranoia. Otherwise, with no effort to reference
it, this 'database of history' would have no influence;
in this eventuality, the dog leaves the manger.
I will leave it to you, to discover exactly what is the
nature of the human addiction to history. If you are
honest with yourself, you will find the answer to this
It has come to my attention, that the human can live well
and profitably, with no identity, and thus no history, no
paranoia, and no hope. The constant retelling of history,
personal and collective, is the endocrine-wringing trance
which conveys membership in human consensus-reality; let
one socially-active person be free of this compulsion,
and the world-dream will eventually evaporate.
How is it possible, as an 'activist', to plot and execute
the demolition of the world-dream? This question should
be asked, so I am asking. If you do not have an answer of
your own, perhaps
you will enjoy my offering, given here at this time.
There are several principles which can be understood, for
the purpose of abolishing _personal_ history. By this
microcosmic process and example, one may understand how
the world-dream may be made harmless:
Principle #1: We live at the end of history; 'these are
Explanation: Envision history as a fountain of water, and
yourself as a ping-pong ball, constantly buoyed by the
uprising of that powerful jet. Bounced and jounced, yet
balanced carefully, always held aloft, this little ball
demonstrates our common relationship with the
world-dream. Supported thus, the rough ride is seen as
preferable to the collapse of the geyser. But why?
We occupy 'this moment'; all history has passed, and is
no more, except in memory. Is this correct to say? We now
and always, live at 'the end of history'; it is only
memory, which conveys history to this moment, and to the
next moment, and so on.
By remembering principle #1, 'we live at the end of
history', a wonderful apocalypse may dawn for the
individual, and for every individual. This considering,
is the work of the individual; any 'activism', is simply
this 'realized individual' living socially, free of
We may also consider history to be a sequence of frames,
like a very long and deep deck of cards, and you are
facing the latest one right now. Looking at it, you
understand its significance only by your own experience
of having looked at each previous card as it appeared.
But what you may not notice, is that you are actually NOT
IN this sequence of frames; you are actually outside of
any frame, looking at the latest frame, right now. If you
can see this relationship, you succeed in removing
yourself from history; you are the observer of memory,
you are not the memory.
Here is another significant question: "Am I in my
Identity is memory, only; identity is memory, (pre-)
occupying consciousness, and (parasitically) displacing
current real-time vision of 'what is'. If I am 'in' my
own memory, it is not the 'I' of this moment, but the 'I'
of a previous moment. If 'I' was a 'certain way' in the
past, that 'past I' is now memory only, but it is
possible to 'bring forward' the 'I of the past' to occupy
this moment. It is this 'I of the past' which is the 'dog
in the manger'.
Because memory is 'volatile' (changeable), the 'current
'I' structure' can reach into the sequence of historical
frames, and re-order the past 'I' to a version which
matches the current one; this is particularly
troublesome, and is the basis for what is called in
psychiatric practice, 'confabulation'. Confabulation
literally means 'imagining an imagined reality to be
real', and is seen as a symptom of serious
brain-disorder. But how different, is the world-dream
dweller, such as yourself, who constantly reconfigures
memory to match current criteria of personality? Is not
denial and re-making of 'self'/identity a constant
activity? Is not the 'search for a better way', simply
this very activity of re-arranging the pieces, into a
more favorable version? Is this the true meaning of
Q: "Do I exist in
You exist here and now only. If you doubt this, find
yourself in memory, right now.
Look carefully and leave no stone unturned. Do you find
yourself in memory?
Principle #2: "There is only self".
Explanation: There is only self; this encompasses
'everything', yet what is it?
It is everything, and everything is in constant motion;
there is space between things, in fact, more space than
things. Space is vast, and contains everything; the
things (objects and events) are easy to see, but the
space between, is invisible. No-one has ever 'seen'
To assume that you 'can see space' is natural, due to the
conventions of speech and thought, but actually, we 'see'
space by an act of calculation. We 'extrapolate' the
existence of space, by the differences between objects,
in space and in time.
Difference in space is easy to understand; one thing is
here, another is there. But in time, what of that? One
thing is now, and before, that thing was now, before; the
'now' of the past, exists only in memory; only in memory
does the past exist, and only in imagination does exists
So to say, 'elsewhere' has meaning, but to say 'elsewhen'
is quite odd. Yet, we do this frequently, in reference to
the past of future, do we not? To imagine 'a better
world' is to exercise this peculiar talent of blending
memory and imagination; to compare 'how it was' with 'how
it is' and then with 'how it should be' or 'how it might
But we must remember self; self is what is. Self is what
'has memory and imagination'; it has the ability to make
adjustments to an imagined future, by relying on memory
of the past.
Consider the archer, shooting at a moving target; it is
this ability to extrapolate the factors of movement,
space, and time, which allows accurate marksmanship.
Similarly, one who desires to see self, must take into
account all of the apparent variables, and then both
include and discount each one. Self is 'everything', yet,
it is nothing 'in particular', rather, it is 'all
particulars', and the space (and time) in which all
particles reside. In 'particular', self is the unchanging
space (and time) in which all changing things reside.
As space, self is the consciousness in which all things
appear, and in which all change seems to occur; self is
the memory of past, the imagination of the future, and of
course, it is the point of reference independent of all
past and future; it is referenced to itself only, for
there is nothing to which to compare self to. Yet, self
'sees' itself in the past and the future. Self spans all
of time and space, encompasses all change, and is aware
of itself as space, or 'emptiness'.
'Emptiness' is the arena of consciousness, in which all
events occur; all events, known (as contrasted to) the
past, or simply observed without any knowing whatsoever,
in the present. It is also possible to observe the past
(memory) without any knowing;
by this means, is past released, and thus also is
identity allowed to dis-integrate and return to the
dream-realm from which it arose 'in the beginning'.
What is 'remaining' in this operation of removing all
meaning from memory, is 'simply' the observer. Now
released from identification as a historical figure, self
is now the space of awareness itself. All 'functions' of
self, arise within this special 'emptiness'. To say
emptiness is 'void' is to say the same thing as saying,
'nothing', which itself is the same error as referring to
natural space as 'the out-of-doors'. What was it, before
the invention of doors?
In the same regard, we need a way of describing self,
without reference to what it is not. Self is said to be
'not this and not that', but this only dismisses
particulars. Self is said to be 'everything', but this
dismisses space, which certainly 'exists'. So for these
reasons, is self referred to as 'primordial emptiness',
from which all things arise. But to say 'from which all
things arise, may imply that these things which arise, go
somewhere. Not being the case, as there is nowhere for
anything to arise 'to' or 'from'; rather, self is
emptiness and all change occurring within that emptiness,
yet the 'original' emptiness 'itself' does not change.
Memory is then, the most volatile and ephemeral of all
'things', yet, it is also the 'foundation of sand' upon
which identity is built; it is no wonder, that it is the
work of a lifetime, to establish and maintain identity.
It is this constant work, which is the 'confabulation' of
the human, who seeks to maintain not only individual
identity, but also group-identity. Tribal affiliations
require shared memory; tribal members share this burden
of work, and in part, this work is the constant purging
of what is not 'of the tribe'. This drive to homogenize
the world into the memory-criteria of the tribe, is what
is behind most human conflicts; the easy way to avoid
conflict, is to remember that all memory is ephemeral,
and that it is simply a story that self tells to itself;
so that to hold, or reject, any version of memory
(tradition) is to invite conflict.
Those willing attention to activism, remember; there is
only self. Self is the arena of awareness in which all
change occurs; only self is able to resist or motivate
self; yet, it is all self-same.
The journey begins as emptiness in emptiness, arises as
apparent change in emptiness, and returns as emptiness to
Ask this: "What is doing, less the maintenance of
Gene Poole's Home Page