Scott goes on to discuss his literature research about scientific evidence of people contacting "the other side". Both his story and his research suggest that the activity that we call "mind" can be both a liberating force (when that mind is directed toward opening up, or being receptive) or a limiting force. Our part-mind thoughts can become a way of placing God, or other aspects of ultimate reality, in a "box"/jar. Or our whole-mind activity can take the jar off.. The choice is ours, assuming it is possible to learn the skills of using mind as container vs. using mind as open receiver.
However, to me it doesn't seem to be an either/or choice. Rather, it is a matter of how much weight/priority a person gives to part-mind activity as compared to whole-mind activity. The skunk parable suggests that if we Jar Heads as searchers and writers want optimal growth and quality, then we need to be careful not to confuse the details or content of our discoveries with the process of opening up the mind to new revelations and understandings.
Scott's story may be a reminder that it is easy to confuse mind as a thing with mind as a process- to confuse mind "minding" (one of Scott's favorite phrases) matter versus mind "minding" purer forms of energy, or higher "frequencies" of consciousness (Wayne Dyer, Ken Wilber, and other authors).
Without putting down others whose settings may be on precision, focus, and details, my goal as a self-designated Jar Head is to contrast my self with the tendency of mind to get its head stuck in the jar-as-container. The other "jar" is the contemplative state suggested in Stevens' poem Anecdote of the Jar. This second type of Jar Head is the one that I hope the group encourages. "Jar", as used here, is ironic.
No comments:
Post a Comment