I was sitting with friends at a restaurant and we were talking about travel arrangements and I said, “These days, I avoid dealing with a human whenever possible.” It’s not just rudeness or incompetence, it’s mainly inattention.
Like the woman at Carl’s Junior who asked me what I wanted, I told her no cheese twice, and when I checked (because this is the rule not the exception) there was cheese melted all over my burger. Now clearly if I had ordered the burger on the Internet and checked off “no cheese” that’s what I would have gotten – unless of course the cook was as inattentive as the woman who took my order. But if the cook was also a computer and a robot, no problem. No cheese.
Many would say that the woman who took the order was lost in her (habitual) thoughts –or not present. But how often are we present –and are we the slaves of our habitual thoughts, or to some extent able to either overcome them or even, dare I say, influence them?
The reality for our world is unpleasant to contemplate –machines are more present than most people, so much so that people are becoming obsolete quickly—wherever a machine can replace them, they are out of work.
Can we exercise presence – as a skill –and once again become more “relevant?” And who would be the “I” that ultimately decides or causes the very thought that may lead to presence? Or is it a thought – or something deeper and perhaps immensely more intelligent.
Is Meditation The Source Of The Answer?
Michael Jeffreys suggests that you meditate on where thoughts arise. I had this “meditation” this morning when I noticed my tablet by the sink before my shower and began to move it away. I stopped and wondered where the thought came from because it was habitual -I see the tablet there every morning and almost always move it before my shower.
So if it’s a mechanical pattern that “I” just interrupted, who interrupted it? Because clearly in this instance as in most, there was no “I” that generated this thought; being habitual it “arrived” when I saw the tablet in potential danger from moisture. The seeing of the tablet likely prompted the thought but I was not present to it. On the other hand, if I hadn’t moved it, and the tablet had been damaged, I would probably have cursed “myself” for carelessness?
But as Eckhart Tolle says, most thought is habitual and useless. It seem I become “really present” only in the interruption and noticing. But are machines, that don’t make “mistakes” based on inattention, conscious – or present? Can they ever be?
A Near Death Experience
On the other hand, being “conscious” or “present” can work in other ways. Driving to San Jose I almost died. I was merging onto a highway from a connecting road when I was about to accelerate into traffic and saw a semi big rig barreling toward me. The thought came – I can hit the gas, and use my turbo and make it. But another thought intercepted it – wait, it said, it’s not worth the risk…
As I stopped and the semi barreled past I considered how close I had been to following the first thought – and likely dying or lying in a hospital. Why? Because I wanted to badly get to my hotel so there was an inclination to hit the gas. Something stopped me. My habitual impulse had been interrupted.
In systems programming, an interrupt is a signal to the processor emitted by hardware or software indicating an event that needs immediate attention. So in objective, machine-based systems there is a “gap” that can be triggered through attention to a particular circumstance. Seemingly, we have the same software operational –it’s called survival or perhaps fight or flight or “instinct”? But ultimately the key is attention. The computer programmer creates an “interrupt” to stop an automatic (habitual) process based on a condition (if/then).
We don’t always realize it but we have the same power –it’s called attention or noticing the habitual stream of thoughts (I can beat the semi) and interrupting them with a gap (space) that provides potentially additional information (it’s not worth it) and then life proceeds. Could my experience have been different? Did I exercise “free will”? I don’t know.
What I do know is that within the examination and depth of these issues there is profound meaning, and whoever I am, I love it.
![Full Interview From Steven Greer’s Close Encounters of The Fifth Kind – [Joe Martino]](https://insights.collective-evolution.com/assets/uploads/2024/07/Screenshot-2024-07-08-at-4.43.12 PM-360x180.jpg)
The error mightn’t’ve been committed by the lady who took your order, but the one who prepared your food. Whoever prepared your food could’ve misread the screen. Somebody nevertheless made an error. Also, the error mightn’t’ve been due to absentmindedness, but rather the pressure to have your food ready and served as soon as possible.
Most everything that we do is habit, routine, tradition, ceremony, preference, and or whatever else you’d like to refer to this type of activity or behaviour as. This is why our second nature is just as important as the first.
In today’s world the attentive you that interrupts and overrides this type of behaviour, if compared to the attentive you that goes with the flow, plays such a meager role. Bearing that in mind, it isn’t a question of whether or not one is attentive–we are always present–but rather a question of to what exactly are we attending? Are we attending to one another or ghostly ideas of the mind’s eye?
The ego is the I that thinks it can control everything that the eye sees, when in actuality the I struggles to control even that: where to place itself, its eye, its attention. Nevertheless, some Is try to control what their eyes see–some Is try to control other Is–and consequently most Is aren’t in control of their very own eyes.
If your eyes are the gateway to your soul, and somebody else controls your eyes or commands your attentions, it could be said that that somebody else, since they control what passes to and from your soul, virtually controls the soul itself. Where do you place your eyes? Are you even in control of where you place your attention?
The most important currencies are not dollars or yen but your time and attention. Spend them wisely!
Well maybe your waitress or cook are not “in the now”,because they probably hate their low paid jobs and couldn’t care less about customers or their employer…
You see when you are driven to despair,when you have to be a slave to survive,it is much easier to get lost in your thoughts,your day goes faster…
Exactly
I absolutely believe that it’s instinct that drives us to act or do something without having to consciously decide to. I feel it’s a combination of natural and learned instincts that allow us to zone out or do things on autopilot. The will to live, is probably what drives us the most. As I’m sure it does most living creatures on our planet. Our ability to adapt to different environments and situations however, I think is more unique to us as humans, couple that with our natural curiosity for the world and our insatiable appetite for knowledge and understanding of the things around us, makes us to try new and different things, and the ability to pick up things easily, and quickly turn them into a sort of personal instinct. These things are tailored to us individually based on where we come from, what kind of people we spend our time with, our personal interests. We are all given the same tools to work with, the need to survive, and the hunger for knowledge, these are written in everyone’s Dna. The rest is shaped over time, through living your life. Take any sport for example. A person who, in their life, has learned how to play basket ball. Maybe they grew up down the street from a basketball court, and since they lived so close to one, they were surrounded by individuals who played. Walking past everyday and seeing others playing and having a good time, he learned the mechanics of the game out of curiosity. He then made friends with other kids who played and thus sparked this individuals enjoyment for the game. He then played everyday after school with his friends and acquired skill for the game, eventually becoming very good. He no longer had to consciously think of the rules of the game, or what to do next. Through his natural curiosity and the environment he grew up in, he had the means to play so much that it became fluent for him. The fact that it’s a game and he enjoys playing, it’s fun, probably keeps his head more into it. But the longer we do anything, the more connections our brain makes in regards to that task or chore, leading to the ability to do said chore on autopilot. I find myself daydreaming sometimes while I’m driving. I think a lot of people do, which isn’t the safest state to be in while operating a vehicle, but it’s hard not to when something has become such a repetative routine in your life. You’ve probably owned your tablet for awhile and you know subconsciously that you bring it into the bathroom with you everyday before your shower. You know that moisture will damage it, so you move it out of harms way automatically. It just doesn’t require your attention or conscious thought anymore. Thinking about it now, I’m grateful that we’re capable enough to do small tasks mindlessly. Could you imagine having to consciously decide to do small things like that all day? Having to break your thought processes so that you can move your hand to your soda and lift it to your mouth? That would totally kill the ability to multitask lol.
I think I’ve come to the conclusion that, mindlessly doing things is worth more to us than having to be present and tentative for every little action. But maybe like everything else, it’s only good in moderation. Not while taking someone’s order lol.
(p. S who doesn’t like cheese on their burger? :P)
Cheeseburger from Carl’sJr., of all places ? All this philosophizing i.e. “mind-f#ck”….”Conscious” and “present” are two different things, clearly
” “Two friends are ordering lunch,” (jonathan safron foer) writes:
One says, “I’m in the mood for a burger,” and orders it. The other says, “I’m in the mood for a burger,” but remembers that there are things more important to him than what he is in the mood for at any given moment, and orders something else. (Who is the sentimentalist?)” ”
from TheNewYorker: Books/ NOVEMBER 9, 2009 ISSUE
“Flesh of Your Flesh
Should you eat meat?”
BY ELIZABETH KOLBERT