Thursday, December 20, 2007

Point Number Two

The last post mentioned two points in reference to the subject of drugs that Laura Huxley's death brought to mind. Ahem---here is the second point. The drive for freedom underlies the push for the power that so-called 'enlightenment' is. This I base on the one person I know who was successful in a rare and yet much discussed aspect of human existence---the mystical awareness. This power comes certainly though not entirely from understanding and remembering the nature of the obstacles surrounding the path, and the nature of what CAN be accomplished. And remembering, and persevering in the remembrance.

Here's the thing about drugs. Yeah, they work, but they are external. You are dependent on some physcial object so your analysis of what freedom even is is vitiated. They work but the joy of the quest, what Jan Cox once called, "The Way of Real Knowledge", is in achieving the greatest amount of independence possible on this planet. Drugs are the opposite, of this reality. You need something in the external world or you do not have the experience. Meaning you cannot treat the experience as subject to scientific analysis. When I say that drugs work, you have a flat experience compared to what may be possible and you have a total lack of control which is the opposite (so far as any opposite may be said to exist) of Real Awareness.

Actually the W.O.R.K awareness is easier than taking drugs. You don't have to worry about how much something costs, you don't have to worry about a steady supply, you don't have to worry about a bad trip. Remembering to remember is the only chance of not being a vegetable in a mechanized agribusiness transfer of energy. Of course this is not to suggest that success in the Way of Real Knowledge, the W.O.R.K (as Jan said "I call it WORK because it is work," avoids the vegetative end of all things, I could not say that, I would not say that. The idea of doing the W.O.R.K to avoid the common fate of Humanity is --- silly.

And yet the economy outlined above, the radical efficiency of, does not seem to be a persuasive point -- and this itself is something helpful to consider.

No comments: