The top is the kabbalistic Adam Kadmon, Thomas Aquinas' "Esse", Meister Echkart's "Godhead", and I'm sure there are many more guises, none more
true than the other.
Semiotically speaking, say, the mind we have can reach such a high level of phenomenonological perspective, so that a property deriving from that
degree of knowing "animates" our being and body - illuminating it, as it were, with a knowledge of existence that is traumatic, and at other times,
But why traumatic? Can it be, that our biggest error is not knowing that the body is biosemiotically structured i.e. that the ontological
configuration of interactions i.e. our body-mind in interaction with other body-minds, unfolds from the facts of the symmetry or asymmetry of the
interaction, with symmetry defined as the act of "recognizing the need of the other for acting a certain way"?
The top, of course, obviates and eliminates the bottom - or the being on the inside, our 'selves'. We don't want this, of course, and hence the
paradox of "being two", even though, in fact, existence derives from one act of existence.
Nevertheless, being traumatized beings, we can never be completely sure that our responses to things are done with much wisdom; for example, some
people very much enjoy living in relationship to the infinite, and become the infinite; but alas, if they do so, existence stops and the world
ceases to be for such a being. Paradoxically, what was many has become nothing. Yet, is it a "true" nothing, given existence still is, and still
exists, despite the getaway of the being who has merged with the infinite?
The bottom is where most humans on Earth find themselves: dissociated from the nature of their being, and its ultimate relationship to the top, their
concept of God, spirituality, life and meaning is non-existent. But still, the bottom has 'many rungs'; a person who doesn't know, I would imagine,
is less onerously related to being than the person who is identified with opposing and subverting the realm of beings.
Such people, of course, are nice to people who are like them, perhaps not realizing that its these relationships that actually support their
satisfaction in living and being. But, suppose they grant that, they are nevertheless structurally opposed to all things 'feminine'; females,
self-consciousness in others, people who embody some objective vulnerability i.e. height, weight, looks, etc, which seems to contrast with their
projected effort to seem strong. Weakness, self-consciousness, in other words: not being "good enough" to be as strong as they are (or imagine
themselves as being), seems to characterize what seems like a serious psychoneurological (and spiritual) pathology of being.
I don't think anyone truly 'likes' feeling as they feel - i.e. to think so goddamn much, to reflect and to believe that you "know everything" -
the idea of having a certainty about the nature of reality i.e. how it works, whether it be in the mode of the kabbalistic sephiroth, or neoplatonic
gradation of being, etc - there is, it seems to me, a very dense narrative-quality that grows from feelings of intense arousal - arousal which, as it
flows through your nervous system, profoundly constrains the ways consciousness can think, feel, and know reality.
Most of all, this is entirely a product of fear. Anger is the internal 'defense' against fear, projected inwardly and outwardly, expressing the
preference, in effect, for feeling anger (being active) than feeling fear (passive), as if these were the only two options in question.
Since all of reality unfolds in terms of the interaction between yin and yang, it makes no sense to talk about identifying with either one pole or the
other pole of the existence of the universe.
Aquinas, like the kabbalists, suppose a creation ex nihilo, yet this is not definitive proof that existence indeed comes from nothing. It seems odd,
given that the proofs of existence are inherently dual and interactive, that the human mind would come to focus on a singularity, and hope, and want,
as it were, to abnegate its own existence, which seems, at least from the perspective of a traumatologist, to be escapist and hyper-polarized on one
aspect or perspective on existence.
Indeed, talk such as this must grate the nerves of people who grow up in very individualistic contexts, given that the self in an individualist
context becomes formed around threat-cues and defensive actions, so that existence, in effect, only becomes 'half-known', half understood, and only
half 'accepted', if at all, because of the self's interest in understanding for the sake of manipulating.
What is the middle, then? It seems the Abrahamic option, "absorption into the Godhead", it would seem, is simply too depressive and escapist to
possibly be true - given that existence is, and that individual beings are, or the idea of ignoring all the other facts of being that embody
perspectives of self (i.e. cell life upward) - all this seems to be ignored, and indeed, is comes off as utterly narcissistic - self-absorbed, and
completely about just one perspective of being as it appears to a disembodied, reflecting cognition.
So what is the proper being of a human being, but social being? It is obvious that we are happiest when we are moving, in our bodies, and being
in relation with others.
The creative arts seem about replenishing and refilling for every new generation a new mode or awareness of being human - as it appears in its
infinite ways, through the lens of specific people's lives, their meanings, and the way such meanings become expressed in their art.
On the other hand lies the intellectually exhilarating world of science, where the world teaches us how small, stupid and full-of-# we usually are,
and with thanks, we come away feeling smaller than the narcissism of escapism can often create: a feeling of being existence or God itself.
Much still needs clarity in the world, and new beings, new vistas, and new projects - technology being an interesting perspective - lie still to
That said, the middle acknowledges the being of real others. The natural world, animals, and most of all, other human beings who have the same
sorts of needs as our own. What this means is simple: care about other people - their needs - but never should the need of one person be allowed to
suppress the needs of others. This means power - and the abuse of it. Consent - parity - are fundamentals to a coherent civilization, which means, to
a society where people can trust one another, and through that trust, experience less fear, les anxiety, and so less disenlivening feelings.