The Myth of the Given

The piece generally is a bit muddled but the forceful Obama vs. Trump conclusion is out of place and downright bizarre. Why is a Russian passionately defending Trump by arguing “He would never use such mean words as Obama!”
If we’re talking about, say, Dostoyevsky’s legacy, yes, his words matter. But two American presidents of the early 21st century? Their words mean absolutely NOTHING. Who cares what they SAY…it’s what they do that counts. And as we have seen neither Obama or Trump have the courage to risk going against the establishment.
The whole media Trump circus is a diversion, pay no attention to it. As a Russian you ought to be very concerned about the future of your country, which has been marked by the Empire for assimilation (or destruction) regardless of which huckster sits in the Oval Office. Embarrassing supplications to an uncouth and venal capitalist showman/POTUS will not change that.
Vladimir Putin and his supporters need to realize that he will NEVER be invited into the Western club as leader of a free and sovereign Russia. The United States wants Eurasia under its control. For that to happen they need to control Russia and are actively working on that goal as we speak. It’s a Yeltsin they want, not a Putin.
Look at it this way: America will never “regain” a sense of reason and fairness because it never had one in the first place. Ask Gaddafi about American fairness. Ask Gorbachev about American promises. Don’t forget the Iran nuclear deal! And did you hear about Jerusalem?
Devious, ruthless and ready to have a chortle at your expense should you find yourself in a desert culvert being sodomized, beaten and shot to death by real life Mad Max bandits. THAT is the Empire at work. Stay strong and stop it with the embarrassing submissive displays to Donald Trump.

People come to some conclusions about certain individuals or entities based on evidence of their prior actions. If they misread the evidence then they will come to the wrong conclusions!

Existence is the Only given.
You can call existence life and say life is the only given. How you define and relate to life and existence is your current experience of perspective. You can define it in the framing of an idea of non-existence or death – but you cannot make a fact of death as your own existence – excepting by identifying in image and form and thus protecting and defending and grieving over loss of what you never really had because you never are the image or form of existence but are the field-awareness in which and of which imaged forms, relationships and resonances arise.
If something is ‘too big to fail’ in your invested narrative definition, you will be unwilling to re-negotiate its status or true worth to you – and in that sense will be possessed by that which you would clench upon as your own possession. A false sense of self-protection operates at expense of true and eventually results in intolerable pain and a willingness to release ‘bad’ or poor investments to align in true relevence and resonance. That is to a truly felt recognition of – and within – existence or life.
Becoming aware that the framing of the narrative – any narrative – is operating a defence of self-imaged identity, is the opportunity to revisit the current definition and release what no longer serves – or which is now recognized as not aligned in who you are accepting true of you. For example the wish to hurt may be in your mind, but the willingness to accept that as true of you may be absent – especially in the recognition that you hurt yourself.
Noticing our own thoughts – at the level of the template definitions that are indeed accepted as ‘given, is key to acceptance or disregard. In modern terms this is the difference between conscious choice and programmed reaction, or sovereign will and being phished and hacked by identity theft.
The narrative identity is invoked as a persona over unresolved and un-faced and therefore unowned conflicts. Any attempt to force the breaking of illusions will only strengthen them. But the active willingness to release our own – by self-responsibility for thought-acceptance (acting from thought as if true), is a field of resonance in the capacity to choose – rather than in the framing of illusory choices that all result in the same outcome.
Freedom is not at the level of body – but can be experienced through the physical expression of who we are.
In so far as death is accepted as a ‘given’, is exactly insofar as the life of the body is accepted as your exclusive reality. To the narrative sense of its own existence in division and struggle, the inevitable loss of the seeming possession of a life in such terms is a matter of time. This is that same as recognizing that a wish or illusion cannot ‘home’ you or truly identify you forever or rather exclusively and always. There is a greater context that the falsely limiting sense of ‘given’ or de facto realty, masks out.
Those who become conscious as to the nature of deceit use insight as a weapon instead of accepting a bridge to reintegrate to their true being, and so they choose to further densify their sense of exclusion and isolation within the invested self image, with the idea of more power as a result of manipulative intent. They thus forfeit awareness of true sovereign will for the dictate of a set of definitions drawn from death as power over life. Within the framing of death, such power aligns with clinging to and inflating or feeding the false sense of life with the death or denial of life in others, world and of course, their true self-awareness.
Everyone teaches both themselves and others by example – all the time and in all that we think and do. Being conscious as to what we choose to learn – and thus teach or demonstrate, is being awake in our felt existence.
The defended sense of self-image or concept is only running what seems to be conscious, as the scanning for threat and strategic advantage. It is the ‘psycho pathy’ of only seeming to join, while always holding back the demand or defence of separateness as ‘safety or freedom’ from true relation.
The reversal of self in image becomes a world so full of tares that the truth can seem absent, weak or unreal – while the false seems both real and attractive.
So what about considering that you are not as you think, and that the world it not as it seems? Would this pause enough to listen or look within and know? Covering over what we hate or fear exposure in, gives power to fear by acting as if what it says is true. But denied or unfaced fear is division, and a liar on a time lease.