As I drove home, idea after idea made itself conscious, as if my mind was a stream of revelations. These ideas were not mere passer-by’s, though. They had dimensions that could not be compared, as we often do, to any physical phenomenon. It was one of those times wherein no analogy of the subjective to the so-called physical could be made – the rich dimensions of the world of quality is its own standard.
I have gone so long thinking that creativity and logic could not be used together. The search for truth and freedom could either be a logical exercise or an inner exploration – as if the two activities contradicted each other. I felt that if I wanted to be clear and rational, I could not also be expressive and creative. I could not enjoy subjective qualities or ineffable experiences. That clarity, in fact, was decreased when combined with creativity. I compartmentalized my subjective experiences, and this was reflected in my writing. What was charged with subjective meaning, beauty, and emotion could not be woven into words of rationality. Stuck in an arbitrary dichotomy and resulting compartmentalization, my own passions began to boil under the pressure of repression until I could no longer withstand the self-imposed rule to be completely systematic in both my thinking and writing.
I was writing to communicate ideas I didn’t fully understand, and that’s because what I really wanted was not to argue for this idea or that one, but to explore said ideas. I longed to discover, and when I write with this goal (of discovery) in mind, I encounter ideas that appear before me as if they are their own entities. Ideas appear in the climax of an unconscious synthesis – a process that I can say nothing about and have no access to. I experience only the results, and due to my belief in causality, believe there to be a hidden process which these ideas are the end result. Whence do all subjective experiences come? They are not here, then they are, and once they are, we investigate their properties to find their (the effects’) causes. Which, by nature, must have some seedling of the effect within them. Thus, within any cause, there must be the potential for the specific effect. Yet, thoughts seem to simply not – be, then be. With nothing more to explain them other than physical correlates, within which the commonality that links the effect to the cause is unfound.
Here’s to a new chapter of InnerAbode. No longer will this place be an inadequate attempt at logical rigor; rather it will be a place of fluid discovery wherein ideas bubble up from nothingness and are then written down. Weaving together bouts of absurdity and bouts of logic, which the mind seems quite able to bounce between and integrate. I feel that sticking to one way of thought is as dishonest as it is limiting. It is so peculiar to me that the mind does not obey the laws of logic by default. Rather, it must be trained to do so. Only within the mind will something called “illusion” be found, because without the mind, there would be, if anything at all, a world of simple facts – a self-existing world with no point(s) of view, and no truth and falsehood; only existence. Perhaps it is time to investigate this source of truth and illusion (that which we call ‘the mind) and hopefully discover, during this investigation, a way to reconcile the mind’s ability to juggle both absurdity and logic, chaos and order, spontaneity and systematization. Another goal I have in mind is to arrive at a degree of certainty about not only what truth is, but its role in achieving the ultimate goal, which can only be described as the absence of confusion, uncertainty, and suffering. Perhaps the first step is to cease falling into dichotomy after dichotomy, and reconcile the mind’s ability to create such distinctions where there are none, with the fact that such a distinction is, in itself, a subjective fact the moment it is conceived. It has ontological truth, just not logical truth. Yet, to distinguish between the two requires a degree of training in the methods of logic. In fact, logical training seems to be required to understand a lot about our own nature and to correct a lot of our falsehoods. I have to ask: how much sense does it make that an existing entity requires training to comprehend its own nature? Should not something as fundamental to a being as its own nature be inescapable? To answer that, I suppose I’d have to begin by defining exactly what I mean by “nature” and then ask: does lack of comprehension mean lack of presence? The mind certainly has other functions than simply to comprehend. Perhaps it is not in the nature of the mind to comprehend itself (yet to say so would be contradictory, because the mind that cannot comprehend itself cannot comprehend its inability to comprehend itself). So then, if that cannot be the case, then perhaps the mind can only comprehend itself to the degree that it can recall its experiences. yet comprehension, like any mental ability, can degrade and change, and therefore is accompanied by a certain degree of uncertainty, because the analyzing of memory cannot keep up with the unfolding of experience. There will always be an experience that cannot be analyzed. This is because the mind cannot simultaneously experience the experience, and analyze the experience, because analyzing the experience is itself a new experience. As soon as one analyzes their experience, they have created a new experience of analyzing, which, by necessity, means that the experience being analyzed is now an experience that just barely happened – i.e. in the past. Thus, one cannot analyze the present, and this is the experience that cannot be analyzed. Perhaps, then, comprehension is possible, but certain comprehension is not. If certainty is the end goal, then comprehension seems an insufficient means to that particular end.