On the edge of thought

To perceive is automatic: you look at a trunk and you perceive what the decoding of your brain & mind has to “say” and to elaborate about that trunk.. There is the perception of the trunk and then the intellectual/mnemonical decoding.. however both are binding.
You may see a face on the cortex.. it maybe looks like jesus.. but is nothing than a game of shadows and shapes.. and here’s comes the anthropomorphic attribution..

If you were a squirrel.. then you would see a squirrel/based-morphic-image or symbol.. not a man’s face.. isn’t it so?

To perceive without the activity of the conditioned censor is the hardest thing.. (which means: to maintain & preserve the integrity of perception even when the movement of thought has begun), ’cause first of all the mind must be free to see what and where the censor is.. and how it uses to generate the psychological and psychoculturally conditioned filter through which we see and perceive things.

The perceptiveness inherent in the trunk.. which is a psychological experience, which is fact.. is not the idea about such fact, as long as the psyche confuses the two psychological lines.. then unfortunately, having the idea more “mnemonic weight” than what the perception has.. the idea of the fact tends to take over the fact.. and then reality is not longer reality: reality became an idea..
just like what happens when reality becomes “normality” …

People talk about consciousness.. but is that consciousness the limpid, immaculate result of their perceptiveness? Or is this consciousness merely an idea, a word, a value? Most of us are trapped, indeed, in such ideas.. So: the so called consciousness acquires ”here” a particular meaning the major pattern of which is perhaps political.. “there” it’s “painted” by religiosity or cultural, traditional or superstitious aspects.. “over there” is merely made up by ideologies.. and “over there”, another “there”, it’s all about spiritual bubbles..

To see clearly, there must obviously be no conclusion, nor regimes of concepts and patterns and surely no belief systems no matter if collective or intimate..

Perception is a thing of thinking.. the –thinking– which takes place before the inevitable coagulation of thoughts.. therefore perception must be always kept at the edge of all thought..

If perception becomes thought, indeed; then there is no longer perceptiveness: there is the opinion of it, perhaps.. and such opinion contains the perpetual mental motion because of which thought is never enough.. and from this motion arises the desire of belonging to a tribe, certifying that the opinion is real.. so the mind in this status needs a belonging which collectively supports the same idea..
then it becomes a church, a cult, a guru or leader and so on..

But through and along this way.. the mind can’t achieve quiet.. only everlasting nervousness, more or less latent.. because it became blind: it cannot longer see what and where the edge of thought is..