March 27, 2006 | 04:46 PM
And you thought you knew me ?
How limited must your perception be, to say you know me ?
Do you even know what I look like ? When your eye is percieving less than 1 % of the waves/information packets reflected off me, emitted by me, or passing through my body.
How can u say u felt my touch ? When you know there is no physical matter in me. When u know that my body is just massless particles of energetic information packets whizing in space, intermingled with trillions that you don't feel or see.
What would I look like if you could see all those particles, all those packet of information ? Would you be able to even define my physicality ? Or would I have absolutely no contained, induvidual physical form.
How limited must your perception be to be able to define me.
So u think you know me by my emotions, my thoughts ? Knowing that your interpretation of my emotions are only defined through the prejudiced prism of your own judgement of yourself.
So you think you know me by what I do ? By my acts ? Knowing that there is no act so pure that it is fact. That all acts are merel interpretations of events.
Do you think you know me by having observed me ? Knowing that here is no observation so pure that it does not judge the observed. Once again through the imperfect eyes of the observer.
Do you think you know me by sensing the results of my actions ? Knowing that every potential event has as much an induviduality as you and I ?
So here's the paradox. The more u define me, the more you limit and narrow your perception of me, the more real I become to you. So if you stopped defining me, limiting me, would I cease to exist for you ? Or would we see ourselves as pure consciousness ?