in Defence of Inaccessibility

Of course I have been inoculated with the aspiration of egalitarianism, equal access to opportunity, social relationships, a healthy and happy sexuality, and so on.

Then also there is its shadow virtue... that of Inaccessibility 

Also known pejoratively as elitism
or perhaps more "sacrally", as esotericism



And So What?

There are the implications of such an assumption that the intentionally inaccessible is/can be elitist... The implications being that we assume many other things about elitism too. A web of words and fantasies of ways of doing or being with regard to the world that evoke often negative impressions, negative feelings.

The implications of the latter assumption that the intentionally inaccessible is/can be estoeric... This connotes more of a sense of mystery or wonder about what is kept inaccessible... There may be a vigour in the pursuit of this inaccessible thing, a fetishistic pursuit of inaccessibility itself, where the chase is as much a part of the goal as the goal is in itself.

And so this is the point, for me... That the inaccessible may actually potentiate a state of rebellious possibility... a sort of "larrikinism" where the mere suggestion at the inaccessibility of a thing motivates an indignant chase, a letting go of the bliss of ignorance into a state of desirousness, passion, Truth-seeking.

When I stumble upon some roots of a Truth,
I can sometimes see how it can manifest itself in the simplest of forms...:
The calm satisfaction of a broth of perfectly brewed noodle soup, brimming with warm silky nutrition
The unselfconscious sigh of a lover you know you have been deeply pleasing with your touch
The breath of fresh blue sky breeze and the smell of the Eucalypt trees that leave soothing trails in the insides of my forehead...

The ways that Truth can be so simple,
yet sometimes also simplified, diluted, diminished
through a person's refusal to linger upon the encounter in contemplation, digestion, rumination

The ways I know in myself, when I have been too eager to explain the value of a thing or a thought, the value of an insight or imagining... When I have been to quick to interpret what I have not long taken the time to get to know...


And So What?

The Mystery implicit in any Truth itself, or any encounter with Truth hereafter...
The Mystery that suggests that language is the first colonist... In the beginning was the "word" and the whole Mystery of the world became "settled" by homeless wanderers, the first differentiated and self-identified splices of consciousness... Wandering here and there, carving boundaries upon the face of sublime chaos, of perfect pure potential, and then Naming it. Turning it/them/ourselves into things, utilities, clothes and pots and pans and silk and sex toys.

The Mystery that sees a tree and imagines wood,
that builds houses and then, just as quickly, razes them,
that sifts the sand from the ash,
 calls the former debris, and the latter our ancestors,

The Mystery that elucidates and encloses and enlightens and destroys
The Mystery that carves out pieces of reality which come in various degrees of accessibility to any given person in any given moment
and yet refuses to ever allow itself to be "Known" in any linguistic sense of the Known...

In one of my Sanskrit classes when I was studying at the University of Sydney, we learned from my Professor Andrew McGarrity that there is some evidence to suggest that words like
"Knowledge" (English)
"Gnosis" (Greek)
"Jnana" (Sanskrit)
evolve from a similar ancestral root... We can tell their common ancestry by their similarity of meanings in their respective languages to one another, and also in their commonality of an awkward combination of consonant sounds (K-Nowledge ... G-Nosis ... J-N-[y]ana)

started to take on different meanings as they differentiated themselves from the root possibility of the "knowing" of something, the apprehension of a thing.

In English, for example, to have "Knowledge" of something means to have information about it, often acquired through some material source such as a direct physical encounter, or a conversation with another person.

In the English language use of the term "Gnosis", however, we seem to inherit it from its use in a more Christian and religious sense of the term, to refer to insight (seeing from within), or a knowledge which may have come from contemplation, rumination, perhaps interaction with a non-material Being, such as, in Christianity, God, or in Buddhism perhaps, resting in a calm Knowing which is its own Subject. The Sanskrit term "Jnana" might mean similarly, and is commonly paired with other words which would denote certain facets of spiritual knowing, usually based on direct empirical evidence... a "6th sensual" knowing.

Relatedly, the negation of the Gnosis and the negation of Jnana take on similar meanings...
To be Gnostic and practice Gnosticism may be to be especially inclusive of contemplative or meditative practice as a way of "knowing" phenomena
To be Agnostic and practice Agnosticism may be to be less inclusive of cotemplative of meditative practice as a way of "knowing" phenomena... In English, of course, the term agnostic would suggest an ambivalence about the truth claims of a practices and worldviews that may be generated or inspired by states of contemplative expression, such as improvable concepts like "God" or "Buddhanature" for which I am sure there would be many other linguistic equivalents in various world religions...

This would be true also of a term like "Ajnana", suggesting agnosticism, often with connotations of being in a state of ignorance. Linguistically, then, Jnana would be normatively more of an aspirational form of knowing, rather than a way in which you and I would normally have knowledge about the world.

And what way is that?

The way which co-evolved with how we pronounced the word...
The loss of the double-consonant sound... The loss of the "K-N" in "know", and its correlative connotative simplification...

We simply "noe" something like we "know" something.


And So What?

All of this analysis is, of course, biased by the fact that this interpretation is the result of my own limited encounters with speakers and fluent writers of these languages aside from English. Without having primary sources upon which I can base my analysis as above, all of this is just speculation.

By confessing my being "just speculative", I have confessed my reverence for the possibility of "inaccessible" knowledge. I have consented to a worldview which agrees that there is a hierarchy of "ways of knowing" and "things worth knowing", and that my current understandings and methodologies will necessarily always remain somewhat disconnected from the phenomena I am attempting to describe.

Yet, without the possibility of this Mystery, for me, I might not even have begun this challenge of Seeking Truth, of being a Truth-Seeker.

Seeking Truth gives me vitality and strength. It challenges me to accountability and honesty, and it keeps me accountable and honest.
Avoiding Truth mires me in habit and fearfulness, or in addictions and cowardice, and it keeps me unaccountable and dishonest.

I am a Human Being.
My understanding of a Human truth, perhaps one of the universal truths that cross human cultures, is that we all have the innate orientation to both Seek Truth and to Avoid Truth.
To Seek Truth, some of us study, contemplate, converse, travel, make love
To Avoid Truth, some of us study, contemplate, converse, travel, make love.


And So What?

There are no answers until there are questions. There are no questions until there is uncertainty. There is no uncertainty unless there is forgetfulness. There is no forgetfulness unless... I have forgotten where I was going with this.