Looking from a limited perspective… what does that mean to you? Have you ever thought about it? Many of us probably perceive through a conditioned background… a background that many of us have “operated from,” but which many of us have never intelligently examined objectively. To perceive things in a fragmentary manner may be to look with a great deal of separation and division.
Many of us go through life “recognizing” things. We recognize one thing after another, as we were taught. Then we write essays, or books, or blogs, or letters, or emails about these multitudinous “things” that we have “recognized.” We often recognize things in the manner or way in which we were taught to recognize them. One’s consciousness is constituted of these “recognized things.” These things that we were taught about have very delineated demarcations and boundaries. We were taught that each thing has a finite domain and a limited space… and we were taught that there is a limited space between us and each of these “things.” (We were taught that fear is there, in us to deal with… not that we and our fears are not separate, not something different.) We continue to write about these things and share these things with others. So, indirectly (or directly) we are continuing to teach and to reinforce the learning/teaching process of others (in the manner that we were taught). Some of us are very good at writing and at conveying images to others via printed words. We get congratulated about what we are writing… and, indeed, some of us develop very lucrative professions due to our ability to hone and craft words in an “artful/intelligent” manner. We give each other prizes (for those who we think did the best job at entertaining us with words and symbols… in a crafty manner).
In the Algonquian Native American family of languages, for instance, there is more of a verb-based structure existent. In other words (no pun intended) more verbs exist, rather than separate things “as nouns.” There’s more of a “doing” and “blending,” rather than an “it-ness” and a “separativeness.” The Ojibwa, the Cheyenne, and the Blackfoot sometimes saw things more together, in a kind of blended movement or flow… rather than as mere separate, isolated “things” very apart from each other.
Animals recognize things, often without having been taught to do so. Dogs recognize what to eat and what not to eat (though what some dogs recognize as being “edible” is not often very beneficial to eat). Cats recognize what is a threat and what is not likely to be harmful. Saber tooth cats (no doubt) could often do so without having been taught by their mother. A lot of this recognition is innate and instinctual. It is at a very crude level. Even insects and spiders can recognize what is an enemy and what is beneficial to eat; oftentimes they are one and the same (in the case of what insects/spiders see as an enemy that is concomitantly likely delicious)!
The consequences of continuing to write with a separative mode (quite similar to what crude bugs and diminutive animals can grasp and attain)… might be extremely profitable for the so-called gifted writer or author who is capable regarding relating in such a manner. However, if we merely continue in that crude, crass, and primal mode (as we have been doing for millennia), then we will have merely continued the process of looking from a limited perspective. We need to evolve from this separative perspective (which merely involves separate things). If we don’t change, then people (with their separative little countries, sects, things, and establishments) will never change fundamentally. Will a fragment, a separate, little self that is divorced from everything else be able to do this? One doubts it. What is limited cannot transcend limitation unless it fundamentally changes into something else. A little insect, sitting on a plant, can’t fundamentally change from the crude limitation that it is immersed (and absorbed) in. Can we?
Can you share a few examples of limited thinking? Just to help clarify? I often wonder how much of my own thought processing is pre programmed. I have no doubt some of it is. I also sometimes wonder how much I am limited. 🙂
Hi Pining… I hope that you are doing well! It’s good that you are wondering about to what extent you (and, hence, all of us) are limited. I’ll go more into this in subsequent blogs, probably, because it is a rather complicated thing, though it is simple in essence. This probably will seem to be extreme or “over the top,” but I feel that most everything we think is of a rather programmed, imitative, second-hand, very “conditioned” nature. All thoughts are symbols, and each one is heavily conditioned in us; we are very dependent upon them… upon each one (upon each thought/series of thoughts). Thoughts are symbols, and we have (as human beings) taught ourselves to invest so very much into these symbols. We react from (and as) these symbols that we have absorbed from our elders. In rearranging them, we often feel proud that we are “creative,” and we are creative (to a very limited point/extent). True creativity, true living, may exist beyond these mere tokens, however; and that is what symbols are; they are mere tokens/second-hand representations. We can reshuffle what is old… and it may be relatively “new” and seem to be “creative.” However, true intelligence, one feels, lies beyond that very limited realm.
We don’t just use these thoughts; we are these thoughts. And to mostly dwell in (and as) the truly limited… is to remain limited. To remain content in the confined (like a katydid content to remain in the limited confines of a flower) is one way to exist. There is more beyond that reproductive organ of a plant, however.
It does sometimes feel so difficult to scrub away what appears deeply embedded. It took 4 years to get the bible and religion out of my system, but obviously some remnants remain and traces show up in articles. It would appear that un-conditioning the mind is the most difficult task in a lifetime.
Yes, it’s not easy… but it sure is worth it!
As far as the Bible goes… there’s still a whole lot of worthwhile stuff in it… if one looks carefully. Of course, a lot was distorted over time by ignorant, calculating individuals who had ulterior motives (that had a lot to do with hierarchical systems and power, I might add). I am very appreciative of the Gospel of Thomas… it was an early form and consists mostly of wisdom sayings. I mention it in my book (and it fits in rather well); and I’m so glad that I obtained permission to use it! Check out the G. of T. !