animal consciousness

 I suppose I must let go of what I don't know. Although I struggle to understand what I do know, I do know what I feel, for what I feel is reflected in how I am, meaning in how I act. What I am, for the moment, is not what I always will be or what I've always been but it may be what I am for a time. At the very least, I can know what I am through how I feel about how I am. Though it's easy to get caught up in what might be, in what I might be, it's not possible to define. Still, we tend to try. It's easier to say who you are, to me you are an object. Though an object I love, and a separate consciousness I may be vaguely aware of, it is not possible for me to become you. It is equally impossible for me to become you in order to view me wholly, from a different perspective, so that I can be me completely. Still, we may try. I do not believe in consciousness, as in a consistent consciousness, or one separate from the body. There are moments we feel ourselves fully, in nature, but we can't achieve this forever. We get tired, we lose our thoughts, our consciousness dims and brightens, twists and turns, and we are none the wiser. We are animals, animals requiring hope, hope being an instinct. None as smart as we believe, not one as elegant as we believe, we deceive ourselves for the sake of hope. This deception can cause pain, true. Pain happens. We can not be painless, pain is intrinsic, as is peace from pain. However, they come and go. We can lean one way or another, though to be entirely peaceful must mean to be vastly ignorant. To be completely in pain is to be clouded in human ego. We are mostly animal, not ego or consciousness. At least, I am. To believe I am any different from any other is pain. To believe I am unique is to murder my animal. To be always conscious is unnatural. Though we always have an awareness, this awareness is an animal's tool, to come and go as necessary. As hunger comes and goes to tell us what we need, or fear comes and goes to tell us what we should or shouldn't focus on. I know, for example, that I believe this as I write and in the state of consciousness I write it in, but tomorrow I will be of a different state of mind. Tomorrow I may believe in consciousness, perhaps for a moment, before I remember this and feel conflict. The conflict lives in my inconsistency, the pain lies in my feeling of weakness born from the awareness of this inconsistency and my struggle to remain consistent. Such is life. Am I to be as consistent as a tree, though I am different? Am I to be fluid as water? I would prefer to detach from metaphors but they grab me when I read them. Such is life. 

    In this, I fear. I fear I don't know enough to make these claims. I fear I need to read more to understand. Though I don't feel it necessary to be educated to be a philosopher, as the philosophers of Ancient Greece were educated only on the world in which they lived,. Their reasonings, which at the time were profound, are today seen as nonsense. I am educated on the life I've lived and what I have experienced, and some of what I haven't. To speak from emotion, I understand, can be dangerous. However, words can only be entirely honest when spoken in congruence with emotion. Though honesty is not all that is important. To live honestly, meaning to live as the animal, and not what people otherwise try to be, is to be congruent. I can't understand how people who live and speak knowledge that they did not experience in its creation can speak happily and fluently about such topics. Perhaps empathy is the key here, though empathy in this case being understood to not be entirely a mirror of emotion, but a creation of one's own emotion that is similar to that which the original speaker of knowledge felt, while also being measurably different. Or, perhaps, not at all similar, but impactful in it's own way. Impactful enough to speak the same idea truly. It must be, as well, that people attach an emotion to an idea that completely misrepresents the idea. If words are spoken automatically, they must be, in a sense, true to the speaker. Though, intellectually, the person may disagree with the idea being said, or the idea behind the words. Or AN idea behind the words, one that is perceived by someone else. What's felt must be processed into words that represent what is felt which must be spoken fluently. To be conscious is to interrupt any one of these processes. What is felt must be processed into what is believed to be felt which must be processed into words that must be spoken correctly, not only correctly from your own point of view, but correctly so that they're understood by those you're speaking to, so that you're aware your intial emotion has translated to the listener. Much more complicated, yes? Impossible, even? While the latter line of processes may lead to a more a comprehensive conversation, is it possible to have such a line of thinking without getting lost in the possibilities? To be aware of how someone processes your words the way you intend, you must have a comprehensive understanding of the other person. To study even one person enough to be sure of this would take a lifetime. As such, some level of ignorance is necessary in every conversation. To attempt to think this way is to reach into a lifeless void. To always be conscious is seen as a virtue by many, though I wonder if I have a peculiar view of consciousness or if others have a less involved view, more closely resembling the constant limited awareness we all have. 

    I have felt inadequate because of my failures of consciousness. Wrong. I don't feel congruent in my words and emotion. I fear my intellect has strayed from my emotion and has built on desire or fear. Sometimes I believe I've tried to think in-between my emotions instead of with them. This worries me because I feel I need to correct this, I have to admit and accept extreme deficiencies. Pockets of consciousness I don't have because I denied certain emotions at a young age, including happiness and despair. Instead of including these emotions in my thought processes, I try to out-think them. Meaning that which made me happy at a young age I have not developed past and that which makes me sad I have not developed past. Meaning I am not able to accept my current circumstances until I allow myself to be, and I allow myself to follow the inclinations my emotion provokes, so that I can follow those to growth. The problem being, the responsibilities I have and will continue to accrue must take a backseat. In regards to all of this, I run forward. I run from myself, so the more I think the more I run away from what I think. To follow what I think to the core would be to be completely vulnerable. Also, extremely difficult from an intellectual perspective. To use the brain to undo poor defense mechanisms the brain has created. It must be extremely nuanced. This may be a brilliant way to use psychedelics. I worry about the way psychedelics affect rational thinking, but I believe they have a way of making us feel what we feel and nothing much else. It may come at a cost, one that something like meditation doesn't have, but the immediate benefits may be extraordinary in certain circumstances. This comes again with the worry of being overwhelmed by emotion that one is used to successfully avoiding, so they are mentally unable to deal with the flush of emotion, and they create a stronger, more robust defense system. This could be insanity. 

    There are moments where I wish to discredit everything I've said due to my lack of education. I am absurdly aware that there is much I do not know. In fact, there is an infinite pool of potentially unattainable knowledge. There is also plenty of attainable knowledge. I wouldn't dare to attempt to distinguish between the two, except that which I can say is certainly attainable. Distinguish fact from fiction. Knowledge we express, knowledge that we might say only the most intelligent could have found, is entirely false. It is creation based on created, faulty tools. The same type of tool we have in our mind that we use to view reality. It would be difficult to convince me that it makes sense for any human to be confident. Though, again, that is me denying our animal. I tend to believe people can see past the animal. I fear it. There is an element of our animal that is conscious, though it is just an element, it is not all that is. Nor is it all that is important. The common morality is to deny that we are animal and focus on the value of our consciousness. Could it be that this is part of why we have such intense social anxieties? Some people act as though they have transcended to their consciousness. This idea is everywhere. I've leaned into it heavily and found a void. Perhaps each of us have our own distinguished, comprehensive mind which involves consciousness and the base animal. Perhaps some of us can have a naturally more developed, intact consciousness. Perhaps some of us have a more developed, intact base animal. Regardless, there must be a balance in each of us. Neither can be ignored for the sake of our mental health.