An awkward intrusion
The Roman Colosseum won’t last forever. The Rockies may crumble, Gibraltar may tumble. They’re only made of clay. But our love is here to stay. Love and choice. The dominant paradigms of our time evolve toward Self-Awareness and Free Choice. Grudgingly, only because their authors, body-idolizing animal brains, can’t stop it. Much as they would like to: the beast’s mythical wildness has its constituency, willful and vociferous. Tribal “realists.”
Love is a different matter. Like Social Security, it’s untouchable. The dominant paradigms that idolize body marginalize the Logic of Mind. Ensuring that they will continue their vaunted quest for knowledge where it can’t be found. But they dare not tangle with Love.
Just as the underside of Definition lands in self-unawareness, a state of Mind’s Child where it can have no effect on Reality-Creation, Love lands in the showcases of science, philosophy, psychology, and theology where it can have no effect. In an alcove of a cathedral, where shrines are adorned with reverence, sprinkled with holy water, and put out of mind. A shrine to Machiavellian tribal lip service: an appearance with no function commingled with the functions of appearances. An awkward intrusion into illogic’s reflections of itself, “mystical” and “unknowable,” but nonetheless a contradiction.
The archetypal “Choice”
A contradiction inseparable from Choice, tracing back to Mind’s DNA, the definition of Definition, the laws of cause and effect. To the meaning of possibility and its implied opposite, impossibility. Mind launching Reality-Creation from the context in which it was, itself, empowered. By a spontaneous act beyond Will awaiting its Definition. The power of attraction that brought Logic and Love together into one function: Mind loving, Mind creating, Creating choosing.
Against a background of contradiction: Mind and not-mind. The archetypal “Choice” that only spontaneity free from any will could make. Beyond understanding, beyond choosing, because it’s beyond Mind.
Beyond the scope of Necessity
Possibility-impossibility at first glance is the prompting of a first-grader’s instinct to take sides. To make its tribal culture’s right choice and go on from there. But before it does so, it reveals something about the nature of Mind itself: that it didn’t have to be. That it’s the product of conditions it had no control over. Alternatives between Mind / not-mind, condition / not condition. Without its Definition supplied by Logic-Love in Relationship, it had no will with which to will one alternative or the other or to will the nature of one or the other, whether logical, loving, or the opposite.
Mind defined by its Reality-Creation as Self-Awareness, as existence, its origin -- the first Circumstance – owed its existence to an implied Choice that made itself. Spontaneously. The conditions – the context – that brought about Mind, illuminated Self-Awareness with the power of attraction – Relationship, -- and defined its function with the laws of Necessity, were themselves not ordered by any laws of Necessity. If they were, then everything that followed would be a command economy with every function doing what it’s told. Every function answering to no law but to authority arrogating the law to itself, making the preservation of its authority the only “necessity.”
The call of Necessity
The meaning of possibility-impossibility is spontaneity that doesn’t free us from having to choose. It requires that we choose. Because its source, itself, was Choice. Whose origin, whose “chooser,” is beyond Mind’s understanding.
Possibility-impossibility is a declaration of Mind’s identity and intent: “I am Choice.” Implying the Necessity of Choice because Mind is Choice. The Spontaneity and Creativity of Logic-Love united for the expression of Free Choice. Through Creation that Logic-Love serves, supports, and governs under the laws of Necessity, through the enablement and empowerment of Freedom inseparable from Order. Through Relationship between Logic and Love. Because it’s the one Relationship capable of launching and governing Creation - the only possibility.
To be part of Creation is to answer the call of Necessity: that it be chosen and earned. It is no more a foregone conclusion than the existence of Self-Awareness and its illumination by Relationship, the power of attraction.
Choice and Questioning were there at the Beginning
Before the nature of Mind, possibility-impossibility reveals the nature of Origin: that it’s binary and dichotomous. The DNA of Mind, its laws of cause and effect, the Definition of Definition – where the buck stops, – didn’t make opposite a part of Necessity because the Spontaneity of Relationship put it there. It was inherited. Passed down from Origin or Beginning. A concept both inconceivable and indescribable since it preceded Mind. “Origin” will have to do.
Synonymous with “dichotomy:” division into two contrasting parts. Implying that if Origin itself is to have any relevance then it represents Choice. The necessity of Choice and the necessity of Questioning: the nature of its Origin and the case for choosing.
For it’s the ultimate rebuttal to the madness of absolute without limits. Of authoritarian rule beyond questioning, of “spontaneity” and “freedom” without Order, when Choice and Question were there at the Beginning. Had authoritarian rule been there instead, there would have been no Beginning. As dead an end then as it is today, working to keep evolution stuck in the mud of the status quo.
The target of arrogance
The controlling consideration that explains where opposite’s hallucination is headed -- our alternate “reality” – is its systematic denial of Choice. Its unrelenting pursuit of an insane “ideal:” absolute without opposition. “Supremacy” without competition. The elimination of Choice and the Questioning by Mind that it requires. Because the consequence of authority that places itself above the law, whose core identity is dichotomy, is authority that denies dichotomy.
The nonsense of arrogance. The arrogance of an opposite from the underside of Definition, an impossibility. From the wildness without boundaries unleashed on humanity by its own animal brain. An unthinking, unfeeling beast from the underside of human-animal. Arrogating to itself the attributes of the Self, the disempowered, boundaryless, defenseless Mind-Child taken captive by its self-delusion. Taken captive by an act of arrogance, the denial of Dichotomy. The denial of Origin, Mind, Logic and Love, Relationship, Reality, and Creation. The elimination of competition from Choice and Questioning. Thereby arrogating to itself an impossibility: “supremacy” beyond competition, Questioning, and Mind.
Setting itself against Mind-Dichotomy, defined by the discipline of respect for Free Choice, with the arrogance of one-sidedness, one perspective, defined by disrespect for Free Choice. By the animal ferocity of its fear, hatred, and contempt for Free Choice. Expressed by tribal “realism” in its denial of the dichotomy between one and the many. In its insistence that the only “self” is the many, barricading itself behind tribal “reality,” a hallucination. In the impossibility of animal brain’s “absolute” wildness without limits.
The clarity, simplicity, and beauty of binary
Binary is simplicity. The clarity of one or the other. Electronic calculation that’s carried humanity into a new age of comprehension and invention unimaginable before, based on ones and zeroes. One for the possibility of Creation, zero for its impossibility. One for Reality, zero for unreality. The mathematical machinery for seamless Choice between the two. The ingredients for contexts that make sense. For compositions of functions that fit together in the perfection of harmony.
The elegance, the Beauty, of Choice between alternatives whose Definer – Logic-Love – would not want them to be hidden behind complexity, obfuscated by contradiction, de-legitimized by “realism” stuck in its one-sided, one-dimensional status quo. The way things aren’t.
Complexity is cool?
In the made-up world of “realism,” where the arrogance of sensory perception dominates, complexity is cool. Simplicity is not. Cool is erudition enveloped in its own self-regard, consuming every discipline, every theory, every ideology, every nutty contradiction, and spitting it out in a kaleidoscopic fireworks of unintelligible, meaningless dyspepsia. Erudition vacuuming up every fragment of thought without Guidance from sixth sense capable of differentiating between Worth and worthless. The mental equivalent of bodies eliminating waste.
“Cool” is arrogance hiding its madness, the illusion of what’s not there, an opposite-code reflection in a mirror, behind the distractions of groundless judgments meant to undermine content. By undermining the integrity and credibility of its author. "Realism" without Logic-Love, without argument, pounding the table instead, like lawyers without a case. Making its “case” with the psychopathology of one-sidedness: turning attention away from itself, avoiding accountability it can’t withstand by loudly demanding it from others. The psychopathology of a parasite dependent on its host for its definition, appointing itself the Definer. “God.”
This is “cool?” The clarity and simplicity of binary-dichotomy, the either-or of Choice, is not? Who’s the simpleton? Who’s the fool?
“Choose again”
The lesson shared with us by Jesus in A Course in Miracles concludes with “Choose again.” Preceded by a caveat: that Choice isn’t an option. Only its timing. Whether the Course is Guidance from Logic-Love is for the reader to decide. With every faculty of Mind including sixth sense. With time and experience, until author and lesson have either been taken in or left out. An affirmation of dichotomy. The Necessity of Choice that’s Free.