Do thoughts seek to prove we exist as their creators? Are we our thoughts as well as the thinkers? Are we ourselves thoughts conscious of ourselves as thoughts, and in becoming aware of self, or conscious, are we both new creator in our awareness, and creation? In percieving self, do we create self? Who percieves more of the one self than the thinker of that which is percieved? All other observers are not the Cause of that self, so cannot fully know it. Only the Cause, in percieving their effect, having concieved and created it, as well as then experiencing perception of it as an effect, can fully know its own creation.
Can a thought know itself? Can the thought know the thinker?
I an aware of my thoughts, and use them to explore each other, in chains of causes and effects, leading into newly generated thoughts. I have a thought, then wait for it to bring forth the next one, and wait to see where they lead. Do I lead my thoughts, or do they lead me? Am I now following the effects of my thoughts, or am I shaping them to create my own learning, another effect of self discovery.
And do I exist, having both realization and proof of my existence because I think, or is that not enough, to generate? Is it not necessary, to know anything, to first remember? To have not just one thought, but recorded thought to start a chain, a history of thought, to use to build a self to know?
Are thoughts like molecules, a base to construct with in patterns that emerge. Which comes first, awareness or thought? Awareness must have something to be aware of to percieve itself and thus exist, and thought cannot exist without awareness to percieve it. Is a mirror in void then void itself? With nothing reflecting nothing, there is no reflection. Is awareness then the first thought becoming aware of itself?
If there is a light in a void of darkness, with nothing to illuminate, nothing to reflect back from, is it light? How is it different from the darkness? Is this the beginning of the need to prove existence, to differentiate self and not self, to have boundaries to be? Where does light end? Only when it makes contact with a surface, which blocks it, and reflects it back. So surface is necessary for light to give light to, in order for light to Be light. If there is surface, in a void, can it become proven without something to reveal it? To cause it to become sensible? It seems it cannot be proven without something to cause it to become sensible, so is it thusly created in the moment it becomes in any way revealed?
Are there then things intangible, waiting to be revealed into creation? Can they be considered there if they are not yet realized and brought into the perception of creation? Is creation then not the process of making something out of nothing, but revealing the hidden somethings waiting in the void and bringing them into existence? Revealing the something in the seeming nothingness. Bringing into the realm of perception what is already there.
So, does creation exist, or only revelation, illumination. Is creation not a making, but a discovery? So creation is learning, and our learning creates us.
Are we then the reflection of light from the surface, and are not reflections images? Is this how we are said to be created in God's own image? Is not our perecption of self our self-image? That which we picture ourselves, define ourselves, imagine ourselves to be? If we are reflections becoming conscious of ourselves, and thus conscious of that which we reflect, do we percieve ourselves as that which we reflect, or that which we reflect upon? Or both?
Whatever we percieve is what we are aware of. What we reflect us what we percieve. Are we like the surface of a mirror, absorbing and reflecting, and in becoming aware of this, existing? Light reflected returns toward its source, but also diffuses, refracts, as the surface directs it.
Light cannot be percieved as its rainbow components unless refracted and reflected. Is this part of light's self discovery, to percieve this?
Outside of time, it seems there cannot be consciousness, as awareness must be recorded to be realized and itself percieved. With no memory, it seems this cannot be achieved. I must remember that I am, in order to be, and to continue being.
What is being, beyond the constant proof of itself? Is it the light's reflection back and forth upon itself as it travels in space, to be percieved and recorded in time? Reflection requires the distance of separation, and thus requires space. Is this space, this distance, where we meet ourselves returning? Is this meeting interface what we call awareness? When what we send out comes back to us, we percieve and learn what we have sent out, what we have originated. How can we tell if it is changed in its return to us if we have not percieved it until then?
If we think a thought, and thus embody it into our awareness, and we percieve it, we are only recieving the reflection of it. I suppose that we can then only know it from its effect. Can we be aware of a cause separate from and without any awareness of its effect? If not, then is effect the surface that experience is reflected from? Does light cause the surface it reflects from, in that it illuminates and reveals it?
If I am, merely because I have the capacity of thought, and awareness of that thought, does that make my wall exist any less, because it is unaware of its own existence? Does it exist because it is an agreed perception? As a perecption, is it any less because it is unaware? If I were not here, the wall would still reflect light, still be a surface, because of its ability to reflect, and thus be a creation of light, revealed by light, even if I am not here to percieve its revelation, its reflection. But without consciousness, creation is unrecorded.
Is matter the surface for light to reflect on? Is time the necessary creation of memory, or history, and vice-versa? The necessity for awareness to record itself? Is space for the distance necessary for reflection? And for the matter to become into? Is existence then organization of awareness?
-Elise Nov. 15, 1998