A thought-provoking passage from a story Yam Gruel by the early 20th century Japanese writer Akutagawa:

“Yam gruel is a gruel made by boiling slices of yam in a soup of sweet arrow-root.  […]  It was regarded as the supreme delicacy. […]  Accordingly, such lower officials as Goi could taste it only once a year when they were invited as […] guests to the Regent’s Palace. […] On such occasion they could eat no more of it than barely enough to moisten their lips.  So it had been [Goi’s] long-cherished desire to satiate himself with yam gruel.  Of course, he himself did not confide his desire to anyone.  He himself might not have been clearly aware that it had been his life-long wish.  But as a matter of fact, it would hardly be too much to say that he lived for this purpose.  A man sometimes devotes his life to a desire which he is not sure will ever be fulfilled.  Those who laugh at this folly are, after all, no more than mere spectators of life.”

I have but one question for you today, but I’ll state it thrice:

Are you aware of what drives you and why?

What yam gruel are you still chasing?

Have you had a taste of life yet?

++++++++

Note to Mere Spectators of Life: if you happen to have the wisdom of merely noticing “what is,” without chasing it, I salute your equanimity!

Reference:  Rashomon & Other Stories, by Ryunosuke Akutagawa

Have a swig of mind rinse (of the Pattern Interruption series):

Life is hardware with software.  Hardware without software is dead matter.  Hardware with software is living matter.  But hardware and software are not two.  Software is when hardware softens.  When hardware softens to enable self-reflection it becomes software.  Software is just self-aware hardware.

Hardware that is aware of self is also aware of other.  Life runs on self-other duality: to know other is to know self; to know self is to know other.  But, of course, self is other and other is self (since this world knows no true separateness).

Confused?  Enlightened?  Doesn’t matter as long as this reading served as a neural cleanse of sorts for your mindware.  When you started reading this you were mentally at point A.  Now you are mentally at point B.  Your mind moved on (even if your body hasn’t).  It’s always like that: mind rinses itself.  What’s next?  C for yourself.

Postscript: When lost in flow, find flow to rediscover yourself.  Whether it’s from A to B or from B to C or from A to C is irrelevant.  No need to get hung up on the informational specifics of the content that flows through your mind.  Flow itself is the anchor.

Related:

Circle of Choice

Architecture of Pattern Interruption

Pattern-Bound?  Take a Detour

[image source]

Meaning is an association of what is now with what once was…

Take a look at any object in your immediate environment: say, you are looking at a “so-called” (I’ll explain the “so-called” parenthetical in a few moments) cup. Say, I picked it up from your desk and asked: “What is this?” You’d say: “A cup.” And I’d say: “No, what is this?” After a moment of bemusement, you might offer: “A mug?” And I – with the best of the poker faces – would stay firm: “No, what is this?”

After a pause and/or after a little friendly prodding from me, you might suggest: “A container for liquids?” To welcome the emerging looseness of your associations, I’d kick the door of your mind with a more clue-like question: “Yes… What else could this object be?” With this prompt, you’d likely fire off a series of ideas: “A paper-weight, a weapon if you throw it, a small hand-held shovel…”

So here we are: what used to be a cup now has acquired some additional meanings, by virtue of re-association…

Where am I going with this? Okay: let me reiterate the thesis: meaning is an association. When, as kids, we first encounter a new object, we ask: “Mom/Dad, what is this?” “It’s a fork,” Mom/Dad programs our mind… “And this (fill in the blank)?” Mom/Dad: “This is (fill in the blank).”

What is the vector of your rationalization today?

Are you rationalizing Determinism into Free Choice or are you rationalizing Free Choice into Determinism?

In other words, are you taking conscious credit for what had to be or are you explaining away a choice you freely made by blaming the context, the situation, the environment, the circumstance?

In other words, what is your Rationalization Vector today?  How exactly are you saving your face?  By internalizing or externalizing?

Accept whatever you observe.  Whether you are externalizing or internalizing, you are coping, i.e. taking care of yourself.  That makes emotionally-pragmatic sense.

Conclude: rationalization – however misguided – is rational.

FYI: I catch myself going both ways most days.

[image source]

Dorion Sagan writes in Biospheres:

There is no history… nor future… but only always the language-filled present.  Linguistic convention creates the illusion of time’s arrow… We are steeped in the medium we discuss.

There was a time when I wouldn’t’ve had a clue as to what Sagan means to say with this thought.  But, thankfully, with ceaseless introspections and meditations, I have figured it out.

Have you?

I hope you have.

Insights such as these – in my opinion – cannot be taught.  These revelations have to be personally and immediately discovered.  And once personally understood, they are forever crystallized and deepened.

You know what I am saying?

When I tell my clients that “thoughts are fleeting, transient events that come and go” and that “there’s never been a thought that didn’t go away,” they initially really like the idea, but they invariably ask: “If these thoughts are so impermanent, then why do I keep thinking some of them?  Why, for example, do I keep having same thoughts about myself?”

Let’s see if I can explain.  I’m sure you’ve had the experience of having a song stuck in your head. “There it is,” you think to yourself, noting the intrusion into your consciousness.  Author David Harp’s concept of “recycled” consciousness can help make sense of these repetitive thought patterns (1996). 

1.
Unsolicited, reality streams.
If your ear’s already trained to the sound of reality, you hear nothing but random noise.
If, however, your ear is epistemologically* still new, you hear marvelous melodies of meaning.
2.
We all start out as equal.
But then we get preferred, selected, chosen.
In: the beautiful (as the mind’s eye sees it)! Out: the ugly!
3.
We keep trying to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio**.
We seek more signal, we seek less noise.
We find more discrimination, we find less harmony.

The reality runs on cause-and-effect.  We are part of this reality.  We run on motive-and-behavior.  We run on reason-and-behavior.  After all, we reasonable, rational, sentient, sapient beings.  If we don’t have a reason (i.e. a motive) behind what we do, then whatever we are doing is mindless, meaningless, and reflexive.

Selflessness – as unmotivated behavior – is a psychologically-toxic myth.  A robot is selfless because it doesn’t have a self.  A human has a self, and this self makes choices, i.e. expresses preferences, i.e. moves towards wellbeing.  That’s how we operate.  That’s natural.  There’s nothing wrong with having a reason (i.e. motive) behind what you do.  We tend to struggle to acknowledge our motives in fear that you’ll be accused of selfishness.  But selfishness doesn’t have to be a bad word.  Selfishness* is simply a pursuit of well-being, an act of self-care.  It is our psycho-physiological imperative. 

Mind is a curmudgeon.  Mind doesn’t like to review and revisit.  It likes its presumptions.  So, an occasional “pattern break” is a healthy wake-up call for the sleeper.  Here’s a platter of consciousness for you to get you started this morning.

“Buddhists are one of the least popular religious groups in the country [US].  People like Buddhists less than they do atheists and Mormons – and only slightly more than they do Muslims” (source: Newsweek/Sept. 27, 2010, “Our State of Disgrace”)

My reaction (not that it matters):

• Surprised to find out that Buddhism is a religion (after all, Buddhism posits no gods and, as such, is more of a philosophy of living than anything else, the original psychotherapy of suffering, if you wish)
• Makes sense: compassion and “acceptance of reality as is” are threatening values; judgment is socially simpler