Whylessness: The discomfort of freedom and the blank canvass of free-spirited creativity | Let go of blame and whyness

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In my book, among many other things, I explain my ideas on whylessness and free-spirited creativity. I do that at several points in different ways throughout the book. Perhaps most of all, it is addressed in the chapter titled, "Suggestion Four — Let go of moralizing or similarly judgmental language."

I am very fond of the quotes I included in that chapter from George Bernard Shaw, Søren Kierkegaard, and Vincent Van Gogh.

I recommend re-reading that chapter if you haven't re-read it recently.

It is very uncomfortable and dizzying, but nonetheless to follow the advice of my book one needs to let go of 'why' and let go of 'blaming' and instead embrace the liberating discomfort of whylessness and of freedom in general (a.k.a. self-responsibility).

The comforting and enslaving superstition of whyness allows one to desperately and futilely chase the fictional phantom of why instead of truly and fully resting in the finality and clarity of the surrender to truth, meaning in part the full and unconditional acceptance of what is. That is, an acceptance so full and unconditional that it warrants the word love. Unconditional love.

Here is a bit of a tongue-twister, so read the next two sentences slowly: The comforting phantom of why it is replaces more fully surrendering to the unquestioning fact that it is. Instead of unquestioningly and unconditionally accepting, "it is what is is", one can comfort oneself with the superstitious question, "Why is it?"

But you aren't Mulder, and the answers aren't out there. The unanswered question gives comfort in distraction and the illusion that the answers are out there. It's not merely that you won't find the answers to such superstitious questions. It's that they don't even exist. To chase such a thing is to chase a phantom.

As I say in the book, an imaginary roadblock is just as effective as a real one. A devil and demon will torture and enslave you just as well even if it is an imaginary phantom. The irony of the hellish horror that is spiritual slavery is that it is always an illusion. No matter how comforting one finds one's projected delusion of hell, one projects it onto the walls of this heaven of spiritual freedom in which we really live.

You can imagine the superstition of unanswered whys as much as you want and choose, and such emotional escapism and the hellish prision of the comfort zone is always there for you in a way, but you can never really escape the fundamental truth of whylessness and spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline). For example, you can never escape the fact that it is what it is and that, when it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want, meaning what you choose.


Here are some other things I've written on the subject in these forums:



From the topic, "Toxic Enabling versus True Love and Truly Helping Someone Help Themselves | The Three Elements of a Chosen Action":

- Are you acting out of addiction to comfort? Or are you to comfort what a brave person is to fear?

- Do you fully and unconditionally accept that which you cannot control? In other words, are you acting from a mindset of radical acceptance and total surrender to truth?

- With the answers to all the previous questions in mind, why are you taking the action you are taking? Do you even need a reason? Or is it done so freely that it seems to say that true freedom entails a type of freedom from whyness itself? Perhaps it is to say that when you truly act of true unconditional love it is to act without a why (i.e. a condition) at all.


[Read Full Post]

From the post, "A World Blinded by Sadistic Anger | How the dangerous superstition of justice leads to aggressive violence and misery":

The antelope made me hungry, the lion might say. It's the antelope's fault I'm hungry, the lion might say. Is there anything to blame for different clouds being the way they are? Sometimes the thing about superstition is that it doesn't contradict the facts, it just needlessly adds to them. Blame and fault, and even the concept of whyness itself (e.g. 'why did that happen???', 'why are the clouds the way they are?') tend to be like that. Catch yourself if you can: Do you hear it when you say "you made me angry", instead of simply saying, "I am feeling anger". Do your feelings like hunger and anger have to be anyone or anything's fault?

In any case, if you make a goal out of not feeling pain or fear or such, you have set a blatantly futile goal, which can suggest a certain degree of folly and/or dishonest denial. I've said it before: I have inner peace because I have no unmet expectations.


[Read Full Post]

From the post, "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?":

I think you're arguing that whether an act (that is undertaken under pressure of consequences rather than for it's own sake) is consensual or not is a matter of determinable fact.

Politely, I have no idea what you mean by "under pressure of consequences rather than for it's own sake".

Having an orgasm is a consequence. Not having one, or at least being limited to resorting to having one alone, is a consequence. It's rare if not impossible and non-existent for a human to choose to do anything without any regard for the consequences of their choice.

While those who read my book would know my thoughts spiritually speaking on free-spirited creativity (e.g. possibly choosing to do something solely for its own sake without any regard to the consequences of the action including such as how much or if it all one is being paid to do it), but I don't at all see the relevance to this simple discussion about consent and coercion, such as in philosophically determining which acts are consensual sex versus non-consensual sex (i.e. rape). Sex doesn't need to be whyless to be consensual, and indeed insofar as any humans can choose to do anything truly whylessly, that is most definitely the extreme exception, not the rule, with those whyness-related ideas elaborated greatly in my book.


[Read Full Post

From the topic, "Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom":

He has found value in a particular philosophy of life and, as an unselfish person, wishes to share this with other people.

I can't say for sure that I agree or disagree with that as it is worded, but if you change the word 'wishes' to 'is typically willing to', then I can and do agree.

How about this: "He has found value in a particular philosophy of life and has decided to share this with other people." I assume we can agree to that?

The next question for me is, "What motivated him to share it?"

I suppose I could write two or more books about that and there still would still be more to say.

One difficulty in answering that is a flaw with the concept of why and whyness. In different words, my book talks about that when it talks about letting go of blame (and credit). Why was John late to work? Is it because he is irresponsible? Is it because his mom didn't teach him the value of punctuality? Is it because there was a traffic jam on the highway? Is it teleological, such as that he wants to get fired to collect unemployment insurance? Was it because it's daylight savings time? Was it because of the particular arrangement of particles in the Big Bang? Is there infinite reasons that are all each independently true that would be impossible to list even with a thousand years to name one after the other? Is the question itself a type of misleading nonsense that the given answer to which reveals more about the given answerer than that which they describe, a sort of proverbial Rorschach test? If so, what does this very paragraph, the last sentence of which you are reading right now, which is my answer say about me?

Another difficulty in answering such questions is--it seems to me--that such seemingly inexplicable difficulty is part of the nature of free-spirited creativity, and by extension art itself. It we ask what motivated Van Gogh to paint Starry Night, can we give an answer that is truly sufficient and more complete and accurate than the painting itself? What about if we are giving that answer to someone who has never even seen Starry Night or any of Van Gogh's painting? I explore what I see as the nature of free-spirited creativity in more detail in my topic, The artistically creative diversity of spiritual freedom.

If and when you read it, I'd love to know what you think about the quote by Van Gogh I included in my book regarding the proverbial blank canvass of life.


For some reason, I'm also reminded of these lines from one my favorite songs:

It takes courage to be still and go inside
I'm on a tip of liberation, watch me toe the line
When yoga pose hits a yoga pose
A part of me that I really hate showing shows
You get a taste from my post of quotes
But my inner growth is something no one knows
And I hope it shows
In my eyes, in my music, in my vibe, in my kindness
And in my stride, in the grand art piece that is my life
And again, this is just a brush stroke
You've been running long enough, child, come home

Read Full Post

Another one from the topic, "Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom":

[...] if you utter such a thing with no expectation about any behavior of any kind whatsoever, then one would have to wonder why you even propositioned the child in the first place.

In a philosophically rigorous context, as I've mentioned before, I don't really believe or use the concept of 'why' and 'whyness'. The idea that one event (event A) can be blamed on another specific event (event B) typically doesn't make sense to me. Typically, any why question has infinite equally right answers, so answering it becomes like a ink blot test. It's nonsense about nonsense that can reveal quite a lot about the speaker/thinker who is speaking/thinking the judgemental nonsense. A ink blot is a blank canvass in disguise, and how someone projects onto the blank canvass can give us a lot of information about them.

But, of course, in practice, as a silly irrational human myself, I engage in such nonsense about as much as any other human. Among a million other correct answers, I might say that I offer to pay my kids to do laundry because I'm shamelessly lazy and want the laundry to get done but would rather keep sitting and pay them then do it myself.

It's no more superstition-dependent (or "morality"-dependent) than if I lived alone as the only human on Earth and watered a plant. Watering the plant affects its behavior. As you use the terms, if the plant doesn't grow despite me watering it, does that mean the plant is "immoral"?

As you use the terms, if I lived alone as the only human on planet Earth, is my choosing to water the plant a matter of "morality" since I would be attempting to influence the plant's behavior?


[Read Full Post]

From the post, "Letting go of expectation | How clinging to the superstitions of expectation and blame disrupts your inner peace":

Expectations are something significantly more than mere predictions. Unlike mere predictions, expectations also include some kind of superstitious or resentful judgementalism. Expectation acts as a primary gateway and foundation for blame and resentment.

While expectations can also be linked to predictions, often the opposite is the case. Often expectations are, in part, the opposite of predictions. Many times when one has an expectation against you, someone, or something, they actually don't predict that their expectation will be met. Often, they are predicting that you, or whatever is the subject of their expectations, will disappoint them by not meeting their expectations.

Indeed, as I explain in my other topic Whether you are looking for a savior or someone to save, or both, look into a mirror, misery loves company, and unhappy people find comfort in blaming others. For example, an angry person often isn't angry at you because they see something you did as angering, but rather vice versa: They were already angry and/or unhappy and thus were on the prowl for excuses and scapegoats. They aren't angry because they see you as angering; they see you as angering because they are angry. Unhappy people look for reasons to be unhappy. They look for scapegoats.

[...]

Those ideas are also explored in my topic Perception is almost entirely a matter of projection, and my topic We see what we want to see, meaning what we choose to see.

[...]

Can you see the difference between predicting a dog won't poop on your floor while you are at work versus expecting it?

When a prediction is revealed to be incorrect, then it is simply revealed as a miscalculation.

The predictor might say with a giggle, "Opps, I miscalculated."

[...]

In contrast, the expecter doesn't fully and unconditionally accept what they cannot control (i.e. what they cannot change). Instead, they set a bar of expectation against which to compare aspects of reality they cannot change or control, and resentfully judge reality, in whole and in parts, for failing to meet those expectations.

As I use the terms, one cannot have inner peace if one expects unchangeable reality to be different than it unchangeably is.

Prediction is consistent with unconditional love, unconditional forgiveness, and inner peace.

Expectation is not.

Prediction is consistent with letting go of blame and with transcending the idea that there ever is anything to forgive in the first place.

Expectation is not.

Prediction is consistent with letting go of any and all resentment.

Expectation is not.

Ram Dass once said, "When you go out into the woods and you look at trees, you see all these different trees. And some of them are bent, and some of them are straight, and some of them are evergreens, and some of them are whatever. And you look at the tree and you allow it."

[...]

Humans break promises and do other human things. Lions eat antelope. Dogs poop on floors. Trees do tree things. And hurricanes kill people.

Ram Dass turns people into trees. Sometimes I turn them into bees.

Do you blame buzzing bees for being bees?

I don't blame anything for anything.

I don't expect anything. Not from anyone, and not from anything.

I have inner peace, in large part, because I don't have any unfulfilled expectations.



Read Full post

***



In short, often one finds comfort in the delusional phantom of why it is rather than simply accepting that it is.

That practice instills a futile dependency on why and whyness that limits one's ability to openly act freely and to engage in honest true free-spirited creativity.

For one practices that, one cannot just let things happen and unfold smoothly and gracefully because, like sand grains in the gears of machinery, one endlessly asks why this and why that--unanswerable questions. Instead of living in the real world, one futilely chases imaginary phantoms. If you cannot accept something without a why, then you cannot really accept anything.

To really practice and adopt the wonderful empowering grace of acceptance, one must let go of whyness and blame altogether.

It's easy to overlook the deep connection between free-spiritedness and whylessness, but, considered logically, it's undeniable.

Once true free-spirited creativity is achieved, it rightfully feels almost supernatural. The power. The freedom. The grace. It's nearly indescribable. To paraphrase the wisdom of Van Gogh and Kierkegaard, it can indeed become paralyzing and dizzying to taste such seemingly godly power and freedom. Not all humans can handle it. Not all humans will ever truly dare taste it.

For those who do dare, what they will manifest is nearly unbelievable.


***

[Surabhi Rani]

I loved reading about the experience of true free-spirited creativity shared above by you. It was enlightening for me to learn that not all humans can handle this experience and that what the people treading the path to truth will manifest is unbelievable. This path is meant for the brave. Also, the experiences of great visionaries like Ram Dass and Vincent Van Gogh shared above were ecstatic to learn.

[Chinenye Sus]

Free spirited creativity is something that you totally redefined for me. I am very thankful that I read your book because I never would have been able to understand how we as humans could manifest this.

[Elizabeth Atieno 7]

"Whylessness" captures the uneasy feeling that accompanies the freedom to create without constraints. Embracing it involves releasing the need for blame and questioning, allowing for a more open and free-spirited approach to creativity.

[Josphat Gisiora]

Letting go of blame and "whyness" suggests releasing the need for constant justification and analysis, allowing for a more fluid and uninhibited approach to creative expression. It encourages individuals to navigate the uncertainties of boundless possibilities without getting entangled in the quest for reasons or explanations. This mindset fosters a more open and liberating space for free-spirited creativity to flourish.

[Anthony Ekemezie]

I really enjoyed reading about your experience with genuine, unrestrained creativity. Finding out that not all individuals can manage this experience and that the things that those who are walking the path of truth will manifest are astounding opened my eyes. Only the brave should tread this path. It was also thrilling to learn about the experiences of famous visionaries like Vincent Van Gogh and Ram Dass, who were also recounted above.

[Benny Rach]

This promotes letting go of negativity and embracing creative possibilities. It encourages personal responsibility and taking initiative.