Who trusts what?
in response to the themes in:
This also raises another question; at some point you have to trust someone, so who do you trust?
There are two parts to this:
Who is?
And what is trust?
Because our current 'answers' are predicating a breakdown of communication as a starting point.
Which in some sense could be described as mass-dissociation or separation trauma.
But trust is fundamental to being. It is integral communication.
Do we trust our self? Our life? Our being?
or are we split between unselfconscious functional being - of what comes naturally to us - and the thinking or mind of masking controls set in personal and social survivals that mostly focus on learned habits for getting what we need or want that rise along with getting rid of what we don't want - in terms of suppression of our natural being for the sake of family and social order and inclusion.
So 'who do I trust?' will be answered by 'what am I currently or actively extending trust by accepting identity from? But who can even pause to ask or notice if they are already identified by their thinking so as to see only what it frames them in? This 'trust' runs blind and knows not what it does - because it comes from a mask that hides to 'make you safe'. When the world breaks such a trust - as it must seem to do, we have opportunity to choose anew, but if we take offence in 'betrayal' we will double down in our story to effectively withdraw and withhold trust from living, to give instead to control, as fear of pain of loss averted - or at least masked out of what we set and defend as our distanced and masked 'self'. Trusting 'defences' against fears that are not here but that we thereby stamp them on our present as if slavery is freedom. For if we seek freedom in terms of personal escape from natural consequences, we will give trust to whatever seems to give power to protect an unconsciousness to pain set in distrust of self, life and others.
All the animals have their home, but the son of Man hath no place to rest - points to the nature of free will as a process of transforming consciousness - not a world in which to sleep and die - try as we may!
In this sketch is trust in the nature and flow of communication - to the freedom of any who alight in it from and for their own resonances of value - if any - to where they are now. In this I live and grow what I am consciously trusting to, as an unfolding fulfilment that shares, instead of a need to get boosted, liked or stroked by agreement -or even being noticed. So that there is also a freedom to deeply appreciate interaction as a communion of being - and live this even to those who respond with emotional reactions that in some sense code for what they haven't clearly articulated to themselves yet.
Decentralised. Yes in terms of a conscious culture held in enough individuals such as to be a leadership of fluid synchronicity by exercising leadership - which is following by listening to then act or speak with and for the whole situation - instead of taking roles and not releasing them, or giving roles as a way to escape them. Fundamental to this is that true communication is honoured as a recognition of the power of hearing and speaking. That a voice and desire for self-inclusion CAN be heard and received. Forced inclusion is not 'safe' but tyrannous. Forced decentralisation no less. The process of relationship as communication is life, Jim - but not as we know it!
(Star trek ref).
Our desire to concretion or structure this is part of an impulse to posses & control - that underlies a mindset of predictive control. Which is not evil, but needs follow or serve Conscious purpose or shall deliver us unto evils that it was set by fear to defend against.
Siding with true freedom must live and share it - or becomes the thing it hates - unwittingly.
In human terms this is messy - in that we meet the emotional dissonances set in judgements that WERE part of our basis for distrust or dissociating from, but with some willingness to listen past the appearances, to feel through the reactions, to give as we would in truth receive.
My sense of the breakdown being revealed is of bringing a deeper questioning to who and what for, in place of persisting in futility as if 'this time' it will be different. Most of this is under Herod's radar! Or if you prefer is outside Sauron's mindset. Power in life is invisible to seeking power over life. But having taken the fruit we have taken on the self it gave us; "I Want It Thus!". I may not think I think this - but that deep or bitter grief reveals the grasp that failed.
he who binds unto himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy
but he who kisses the joy as it flies
lives eternity's sunrise
~ Blake
I trust the living - not the packaging.
I am no man's judge
including myself!
#2
Further to my other response I come back to this one.
When you release your version of another, you also release your judgements of yourself. This is not obvious, but demonstrable in practice. You can now trust the field of communication that flows or aligns without distortion - no matter what the situation or who you are in relationship with.
'Thinking' will misinterpret this because 'thinking' in the sense I am using it, is a product of symptom of distrust - or more accurately, trust in believed defences.
Because we cannot 'do' this from a control mindset, we make love impossible in practice but set as an ideal by which we 'fall or fail'. But the release of invested focus in judgemental 'thinking' allows unselfconscious flow of relationship in which we 'know how to be' in relation to what is current.
The alternative is to 'trust' in terms of social contracts, stated or otherwise, such that if conditions are not met, love turns to hate (rather than permission to share relationship). That our social masking becomes invisible doesn't mean our normal is natural! The extreme end of such 'trust' is the control file or bought and captured status of 'trusted' servants, or the elitist initiatory sacrifice of shared identity for insider status via acts that 'show loyalty' by breaking moral sensibilities for the group - which is a sort of mutual blackmail for cultic lock-in.
Likewise the "vaccine hesitant" are seen as lacking 'trust' that must be manipulated by incentivised manipulations (!).
So trust is fundamental. In fact, without trust, self-honesty will not be allowed, and as we can see, this means we are owned and controlled by the lies that we have accepted and used as our own 'defence' against a pathological or treacherous life - that as part of our self-belief, extends to our perception others.
Our capacity to become attached to the forms of life is how we relax vigilance by trusting appearances to sort of run themselves while we 'take the ride'. Yet precisely because something becomes 'trusted' sets it as the form or idea to 'mask in' as a way to seek gain of function from 'blind trust'. Without a true discernment, there is no 'movement' that doesn't soon faction to mutual distrust - helped along by the baited memes and psyops of mind/emotional management. And I note that fear porn is just as much a proclivity of the 'health freedom movement' - not as a blame but as an awareness that we are so deeply condition to the ways of thinking that characterise our subjection, not our freedom. trusting words and phrases as if we know what they mean - within an emotional or even intellectual exchange. perhaps, I think because we are not used to taking open responsibility for our own thought and word amidst social expectations of 'normal' or risk social exclusion. Covid Op revealed fear of social exclusion set by guilting as 'virtue' to be very deep-seated.
That said, Matthew Crawford has made what I believe is the most important point. For movements to succeed, their leadership has to be decentralized, so there isn't a leader that can be targeted to destroy it. In my case, the influence I have on this is purely on the basis of if what I say makes sense and people want to agree with it, not because I told them to do something, and I think that lots of people doing that is the best possible scenario.