A Will to Believe and a Context to Exist: On Old Tribes and Their Dogma

Awareness becomes redundant where it can’t act.

For awareness, acting is a topological consequence between the aware and the content of the awareness.

“Topological” — The logic of place (topo).

“Where” you are is a logical construct. The construction can be analyzed by an awareness that can only be understood logically.

Thus the circle. The question begging. The location of the awareness is where it’s aware.

We assume an establishment of beliefs that serve as axioms for how we find ourselves and how we define ourselves without knowing who are but assuming we know. Because of the question begging, there is no certainty.

A neutral assumption that applies to most of things capable of experiencing awareness is that they consider themselves human. From there, there is a series of consequences that follow from being human. I have to eat. Thus I am human. I cannot fly or breath under water. Thus I am human. I can use speech. Thus I am human.

When we see something else eating that is not human, we create a greater distinction. This is alive because it eats. This is not alive because it doesn’t eat. I’m alive. Thus I am human.

There comes a point in awareness where the aware becomes aware that human is just something we call ourselves to fit in with the rest of the logic.

Beyond the logic, what we don’t know what we are or belong to, the awareness is structured by content that lack logical cohesion.

What is not understood is reacted to by the aware.

A child-like mind may be in awe where an adult would be terrified because of the child’s lack of logical cohesion appreciated in the content of the awareness. Although both things can be said to be aware.

The difference between child-like awe and adult worry is an appreciation of the self in the content it finds itself in.

This back and forth between logic and content (because even the child understands a logic of consequence. Not in knowing what to expect and being right about it but knowing that its movements are satisfying a natural curiosity that is motivated by the positive content its focusing on) becomes muddled.

A recent example is the vocalization of the LGBT+ communities. The challenge of logic is controversial. Ironically, for the most part, the most logical answer from my perspective and where my logic will drive me is towards the LGBT+ community because in general their logic stands on the ambiguity of our own beliefs.

Just because I belief something should be a certain way doesn’t mean that it should be that way. And the problem in society is not getting more people on my side but me learning to reevaluate my certainty. This works for respecting others people’s sex, gender and sexuality and it works for other beliefs as well.

The other side would see the ambiguity as a slippery slope. Thus one of the responses from the other side sometimes heard is “what’s next, marrying a horse?” This, in a rough sense, speaks to the assumption (not certainty) that not knowing the “where” of where you are, you are in danger.

The relationship comes together. “Where” becomes a place in the awareness maintained by the actions of the aware in logical cohesion with its surrounding for as long as it can be aware.

Dogma become beliefs that are always assumed and are protected so that their assumptions are never threatened.

When others act against our house of worship, they act against our assumptions. They act against our where. Our awareness is placed in hostile territory with an action threatening its kingdom.

“Where” becomes political. “Where” becomes a game of calculated consequences for the dogmatists, and a blank canvas for those comfortable exploring awareness with novel assumptions. The two, at odds, struggle over which assumptions to traverse awareness with.