It seems  that what's involved in continuity............is a seemingly "meaningful gestalt" associated with "what it is to be a human being."

The gestalt includes: survival of the individual and group, reproduction, memory, thought, human relationships of self with/to others.

This gestalt "hangs together," each aspect ..............implies the other............. and it goes 'round and 'round.

There are many repercussions that keep it going.

Aka, war, acquiring resources, notions of achievement, dealing with loss, protection from loss, seeking an advantage for self or one's group .whether materially or spiritually, pay-offs from relationships whether familial, or societal.



The humor of it is seen when the meaning of it is lost.

As long as continuity/survival/needs/wants/fears/identity seems like a meaningful gestalt,

............the meaning is the investment.


And with an investment everything is now deadly serious.



What drains the meaning from the gestalt?

Futility.

When the unsatisfactory nature of the gestalt, it's non-resolvability, and ongoing creation of dilemmas (dramas).......is seen.

Can the gestalt ever be released as long as it is giving meaning.

As long as it's meaningful, attempts to transcend it are actually disguised attempts to continue, for self to gain status as "a transcender."

The seeing of the futility in a complete sense is actually ...............is the simultaneous opening to real seeing.( to use a phrase).

The seeing of the futility features in most traditions of spiritual thought, whether the origination of such featurings was the Upanashidic Rishis, Buddha, Mahavir or the Hassidic monks.

And even schools of thought which purports to break free from all traditions, aka Jiddu and UG Krishnamurthys, or canvases like Zen...or nihilism or absurdism of Camus or existentialism of Sartre...

...ends up being the new tradition.


This seeing-through of the futility........is really not tradition-linked or tradition dependent.

The traditions indicate this futility, but the actual transcendence of the gestalt, i.e. end-of-the-trance....

... can't be provided by tradition.

Why not?

What else is a tradition except a deeply rooted meaning.......

.......and thus included in the futility of the gestalt of continuity.


So what would be the apperception of this futility?

Would it be to see that the very quest to perceive this futility...........is itself included in the

futility of the gestalt of continuity?

Which is an openness to see that there is really nothing/no one trapped in the cage of the gestalt of continuity.

No trap, no flapping of wings in futility to get out of the trap.


No trap, no futile flapping of wings..........

......and meaningless credit card bills while indeed being very humorous, the payments for this humor remain to be needed. 

 

Sections