.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
Technical Essay # 70 - FAF 1 March 1992

.ce Confusion Confused


The word "confusion" comes from Latin "confundere" which literally means "to pour together".

One way of looking at a confusion is as a collision between a fixed idea and a dynamic
situation (randomity).

There is nothing inherently aberrative or disorderly about particles in motion. Motion is the
natural state of affairs in this universe. Problems start when we try to fixate things.

A state of confusion appears when you enter a dynamic, moving environment carrying an
unmoving item. That item can be an idea or a physical object or anything in between. The
confusion is the turbulence created between movable and immovable elements.

If you want to resolve the confusion, there are two approaches:

	1. Make the moving parts immovable.
	2. Make the immovable part movable.

Solution 1 is the way to create aberration. The universe is dynamic. You might be able to
momentarily make a small portion of it appear to be unmoving. However as an absolute goal
it is impossible. Beings will then respond to the failure in stopping motion by stopping it
mentally and then pretending their stopped idea to be the truth. That might appear to solve
the confusion, but actually only compounds it by adding another fixed idea.

As far as any mental phenomena go, the second solution is more useful. Find the immovable
element that stirred up the confusion and free it up so it doesn't have to resist the movement.
Let me give some examples before this gets too abstract.

Let's say you walk into the New York Stock Exchange in the middle of a busy trading day,
and you get very confused trying to figure out what's going on there. You are not confused
because there is a lot of motion there, but because you resist it somehow. You might have the
idea that you should know  what is going on, and the idea that people in suits should sit
quietly at desks, and that one shouldn't throw paper on the floor, and that people should
speak slowly and softly. All of these ideas are in conflict with what you experience and that is
what generates the confusion. It isn't particularly the motion. The same person who would be
confused about stock trading probably wouldn't be confused about watching a beehive with
10,000 bees buzzing around.

Now the old rule said that you would resolve a confusion by getting stable data. Well, there
are two kinds of stable data:

	1.  Fixed ideas.
	2.  Dynamic Principles.

The person could generate some more fixed ideas to solve his confusion, such as "I don't
care about stocks anyway" or "People are just crazy". That would be a way of not seeing the
confusion at all. We "solve" the confusion by replacing it with a fixed idea that sort of
summarizes it. But a confusion can never be truly summarized into a fixed idea, dynamic
situations can not be fully described with a single fixed datum. So the net result is that the
person stops looking in that area, the fixed solution becomes a replacement for looking.
When the fixed solution is self-determined it puts it in the category of service facs. However,
most types of aberrations can be explained as attempts to apply a fixed solution to a dynamic
situation.

A more sane type of stable data are dynamic principles. You can observe something in
motion and discover some of the rules by which the motion appears to occur. You can then
make sense of the confusion while still observing it, and you might predict future confusions.
Dynamic principles might be: "When you drop something it usually falls down" or "People
often wear suits in business situations". As long as you are prepared to continuously verify
your principles against your experiences then you are in pretty good shape.

When you use fixed ideas you've made a map of reality, forgotten about the reality, and is
now using the map as reality. If you formulate dynamic principles you are also using a map of
reality to navigate by, but you still observe reality itself and adjust your principles as
necessary. The most high level approach would be to always experience things directly and
not need any kind of simplified representation. However, part of the fun in life is to explore the
different ways of simplifying reality.

Any dynamic situation is what it is. The truth of it is the totality of everything that is there and
how it is moving. The only unaberrated way of experiencing randomity is as randomity. Any
attempt of condensing it into a still picture opens the door to aberration.

When confronted with a dynamic situation with a lot of randomity and you feel confused, you
can go in one of two directions:

 Contraction: simplify the situation into a randomity level that you are comfortable with.
 Expansion: assume a bigger view of the scene and become comfortable with what is there.

Since the situation is what it is, any attempt of pretending it isn't (Not-is, Alter-Is) starts a
dwindling spiral and stacks up more and more unconfronted randomity. The only real way of
changing something is to be able to accept it comfortably as it is (As-is it).

This last, rather paradoxical, principle is the key to much progress in session. You can only
get rid of what you don't want if you are totally willing to have it. That is the same as saying
that case needs to be as-ised, not non-ised. Or you can say that you need to expand out
beyond case, rather than contract inwardly from it.

A feeling of confusion is an indicator that you are in a dynamic situation and your stable data
are being shaken. It is about the same as plus-randomity. There is more going on than your
stable data can confront for you.

A confusion can be regarded as an opportunity or as risk depending on which way you might
go with it. You can make it mean that you are going to learn something, you will become able
to handle new situations once you've mastered this confusion. However, if you took the
contracting approach it would have meant that you were about to become more aberrated.

To overcome a confusion you might have to be willing to accept it until you've mastered it,
rather than giving in to the temptation to make fixed conclusions about it.

However, you would only regard a randomity as "confusing" if you put yourself in the middle
of it. You don't really have to do that to learn from it. You can study an ant hill from a distance
without feeling confused. You are always free to assume a different viewpoint from which you
can comfortably study what is going on.

The trouble if of course when you put yourself in the middle of a confusion and you don't
know how you make yourself confused. It shows you that you have identified with some fixed
data. If you locate and free up those data you can learn to confront the randomity rather than
not-ising it.

Randomity is intimately involved with our level of existence. It is most fun if it is balanced, that
is optimum randomity. If you can always maintain optimum randomity you can get the most
out of life. If you find yourself being confused you've got plus randomity and you need to let
go of some minus-randomities to re-establish the balance.

A confusion is plus randomity. A fixed datum is minus randomity. Together they create a sort
of aberrated balance. A better choice would be to re-establish optimum randomity by
removing the fixed data and confronting what is actually there.

Both "above" and "below" confusion there are calm, quiet states. Above it you become
comfortable with any randomity, you see it as it is, and you realize that none of it is you, and
you can just be there without any need to get mixed-up in it. Below confusion is the
assumption of fixed data that makes the confusion appear to go away and creates an artificial
calm.

Another way of expressing this is that there are two kinds of static states. You can get stuck
enough in fixed conditions so that the universe appears comfortably unmoving. Or, you can
confront the randomity in the universe and realize that you aren't really any of it, but you are
rather the infinite nothingness beyond the universe.

Confusion is found between the two poles of:

 Identifying completely with parts of the physical universe.
 Not identifying with anything at all.

So, when you meet confusion, pick your own choice.