(The following was written in response to an individual who was trying to establish their philosophical superiority in an online discussion by bringing in the concept of ‘no-mind’ to a space that was discussing consciousness as vital to evolution of Being. The heteronomy in their engagement with the perspectives of others and their attitude of spiritual superiority prompted me to write. )
Autonomy is ridiculously easy to lose when certain language is used. I am endeavouring to point out the buried heteronomy in particular language. I am not an expert at it by any means- I live in a particular kind of mindspace and am fully aware that I can also inadvertently fall into a subtle element of heteronomy my Self, which is why I use triangulation, the multiple perspective. There is buried heteronomy in the language you used in the comment. I recognise that my comments regarding hijacking could be taken as snarky *and* my comments still stand: I have observed many threads that open up a discussion about unrelated topics be swallowed up by philosophical entanglement and convolution; frequently the ‘silent/ no mind’ platform is the vehicle used to achieve this.
I have experienced the stilling of the mind, in various ways. *MY* experience of it is different. Is this possible to accept? Is it possible that ‘stilling of the mind’ is a very very different experience to different Beings? And if *this* is so, is it therefore possible that saying ‘this is the way it is’ or ‘this is what it looks like’ in a *globalising* fashion is actually an expression of heteronomy? Even if it IS unintended? Are these things possible? Because that is what I am actually exploring here, the blind spot that has been cultivated socially to how subtle yet powerful heteronomy is exercised towards one another on a *daily basis*.
I say again, my exploration of this language distortion is NOT personal. It’s the heteronomy I am looking at, not the individual. I have no interest in saying ‘you are a twit for thinking that’ because I rarely think it those terms and an individual would have to really bring it right to my door for me to even move into that space with them. I’m a social hacker, was married to a brilliant geek, now the soul mate of a brilliant observer and world engineer, in a family of various kinds of hackers- with hackers, the focus is on the particular bug, not the computer. In my realm, this means I’m focused on the issue, not the individual- if I was focused on the individual I’d be running hetereonomy.
What is being experienced in the case of ‘silent mind’ is something *other* than silence, so as a linguist I’m asking “what are you actually talking about here? Because from MY perspective you are speaking about an altered state of CONSCIOUSNESS, which I experience in all kinds of ways, none of which are silent as *I* know silence to be, in *my* realms. So if you’re talking to an *Otherkind* they are going to have a brow furrowed and puzzled response to your expressing things in the way of assertion that the description of the experience of these things can only ever possibly be *your* way.”
From this point there are a number of options.
1. Ignore the differences that are being expressed. Continue on with the same explanation and perspective. Assume that those who have a different perspective just don’t get what one is talking about and that they just need to hear the explanation repeatedly and they’ll get it, or they simply aren’t able to have the experience and therefore can be dismissed. This option can also include factoring in various levels of spiritual/intellectual superiority.
2. Consider the possibility that there is lurking heteronomy in the expression. Hold up the ideas to the hologram and ask some interesting questions about the whole subject, including ‘does my expression of my perspective hold the idea that others cannot have different experiences and expressions of this subject? Are there more useful ways of describing this particular thing so that it becomes one possible experience in a wide spectrum of experience rather than THE experience?’
Look at the language. Look at the way the language is used. I have had nearly 50 years on this planet and look at the misunderstandings my concepts and expressions create because of the personal interpretations that are being made about the *way* I’m saying things, yet *I* am striving to communicate as clearly as I can. I am constantly watched from the Otherrealms and many ask me ‘why do you keep trying to communicate this perspective?’ because they cannot stand to engage in any way the convoluted language spoken by the dominant paradigm. I don’t use my voice in those realms for that very reason. I know the language of those realms and if anyone is interested in the cross realms communication, that’s what I speak. If there is no interest in that, then that’s fair enough. I’ll be totally ok with that. Until I have had it definitively stated to me that it isn’t possible then I will continue.
I readily see that it would have been different if I’d written ‘I am speaking pre-emptively here, because I have seen this happen before, and I have no wish for this thread to be hijacked in the same way’. I see that my original phrasing can be taken personally although no such intention was there. I do keep reiterating ‘it’s not *personal*, it’s not *personal*, but that doesn’t seem to be effective, so I’ll explore other ways: to me, the autonomy discussion is far more important than my own situation.
Some of the things I am is a linguist and a social hacker. I have no doubt at all that with the pieces on the table and us holding them up and asking interesting questions, anything can be transformed. Some individuals think I’m an idiot for having this perspective, but I get that.
The compulsion to ‘correct’ others itself is curious. The concern that others might get the ‘wrong’ idea about a subject is the foundation of external authority- why the concern? What will happen if others HAVE these ideas *you* think are wrong? What happens if their experience is utterly and diametrically different from yours- does this means *theirs* is ‘wrong’? Or yours? IS there a ‘wrong’? Or is there simply infinitely *different* experiences and the infinite possibility/autonomous paradigm needs a different language to fully express this way of Being?
Can you see what I’m doing? What my focus and intention is? Because I really really don’t do this personally. My mind really isn’t interested in engaging that way. I want what works in terms of undoing the heteronomy.
~*~