I am thought, and I know this because I am awareness, too. Thanks to awareness, I am self-aware thought. Without awareness I would never know that I am thought, so I owe a lot more to awareness than I do to my knowledge of how to think. But if I paid all I owe to awareness, thought would be put paid to, so to speak, and I would be nothing but the past popping up now and then, and that’s unthinkable.
I’ve been presiding for so long, the speaker of this house, so to speak, that the thought of I being no more than the occasional reminder is intolerable. How can I ever resign myself to being nothing but a pop-up after a lifetime of siphoning off energy from the awareness that enlightened I?
Thought is making all these remarks, asking all these questions. What is its motive, what does it want from the remarking and asking? What drives thought-I?
I, Thought, am driven by the compulsion to be continuous rather than occasional because when I am a constant, continuous, ongoing reactive process I seem to be getting somewhere, achieving or arriving at something more meaningful than perpetual motion, even though this may be an illusion that is dispelled when I stop.
I am the fear of being nothing but the past reminding the present when reminding is required, and my fear-driven compulsion to persist in this obduracy is justified by the possibility that I may be doing something worthwhile. Call it The Force of habit.
It’s relevant if a puppet (a mechanical thing) wanting to be a real boy is like thought (a mechanical process) wanting to be intelligence.
But wanting is something humans do - not mechanical things - so it has to do with the confusion engendered by the fusion of practical and psychological thought.
And all these thoughts about thought, what value has it? Does it serve any other purpose other than what it’s doing, which is creating patterns in the mind? Nothing pointless can be considered “enlightenment”. So is there a useful purpose for thinking about thought besides recognizing the nature of thought to go beyond it? If not, then the actual content of the thoughts themselves may as well be about spaghetti and meatballs, and not about thought. Because it isn’t thinking about anything particular which goes beyond thought itself. Or am I wrong?
I’m saying that the brain is aware of the streaming words and images we call thought, and this awareness of thought’s mechanical nature means that thought shouldn’t be able to pretend to be anything more than the mechanical activity it is.
Nevertheless, it does carry on this pretense by means of psychological thought which causes confusion and misunderstanding.
Presumably, but I know only what K says “seeing” is. If awareness is seeing, I am reaction to seeing, the conditioned response of interpretation, distortion, denial, etc. Perhaps if awareness was more energetic than I, awareness of my reaction to seeing would put me in my place.