Self-evidencing mind-traps

Henry wrote a clear and considered post in the meme discussion thread HERE

I joined with him in appreciation and wrote:

Well said and a pleasure to read.


A desire to assert and believe ‘self-evident’ ideas or ‘authoritatively provided’ ideas as the escape from (or mitigation of) a fractured or split sense of self, is a defence that encodes fractured meanings upon such ideas by virtue of the use to which they are being put.

And so the words another uses may seem to be the same words you use – but embody meanings that subvert or render meaningless - as ‘fractured meaning’ - and offer ‘witness’ to a disparate and conflicting world while unaware of calling forth or perpetuating conflict by intending to escape it.

I hold that we always automatically seek pleasure and avoid pain as we each define our self and function to be, in relation to any event. Experience of separation trauma, ‘imprints’ a sense of self that persists until and unless such definitions are brought into awareness rather than denied and protected from exposure by functions of survival. Hence rage asserts a survival force amidst a sense of entrapment and threat that is not wrong to feel, so much as mis-identified and thus misdirected.

Finding – indeed imagining ways to approach that invite a process of communication rather than trigger the defensive ‘attack’ or withdrawal, is of course a willingness to notice and align our own mind to communication rather than attack.

Can mind fear or attack itself? The belief we are divided within and against our self is such a fear and our experience of our world offers reinforcement for the definition we are holding dear – even though everything else in us may seem to be operating to mitigate or escape the pain of it – and thus seem righteous, necessary or compulsive.

Communication is natural or already moving, but willingness for communication has been ‘captured’ by a survival mode that has no antecedent to trust communication – having been hurt AT the level of love that is Communication in a way it cannot bear and will not allow to re-open.

The evils that we ‘love’ to hate in others are our perception of others choosing a lesser pain or terror amidst insanely framed choice, of the mind that ‘knows not what it does’. One cannot reason with a mind inflamed – but one can embody or extend presence of sanity to the one who may thus more easily recognize their own willingness from the fearful or tyrannous thinking they took as their own.

I only dropped in to write the first line – but the sense of joining with you brought more forth. That is also an important factor; opening relationship brings forth fresh inspiration and perspective from which to live. Judging ‘others’ uses relationships to re-enact and reinforce past conditioning. Not that that is ‘wrong’ or blameful, but that when we see and own this in-act, we are instantly free to align with where we are and who we are… Unless we don’t see when we define such freedom as the beginning of a long and painful difficult process of ‘working on our blocks…

But we meet (the fruit of) where we are coming from.

There may be need to create or discover stepping stones of transition in releasing fear of loss and pain as ‘guide and protector’, to embrace a native or original communion and communication within being. But the context of any such processes or paths is presence in action – in relationship, whatever the apparent forms of the act. Choosing for our joy – with integrity – and without demanding fixed outcomes. For the act derives its authorship and authority from its purpose, and true or unified purpose is not serving a conflicted and conflicting fear and guilt agenda by attempting to overcome it or eradicate it.

The way out of a mind-trap is to see that you are not in it. Noticing mind-trap is the discerning of false or self contradicting ‘meanings’ – which no longer ‘operate’ as accepted currency because they are ‘seen through’ rather than used to ‘see through’.