People just don't know. People are either afraid of or have no fear of what they don't know. Case in point: weed. Many are vehemently opposed to it whilst the rest are either users puffing away with no fear or are one of those who don't or no longer smoke, but are still nonetheless taking the idea of weed lightly; read without fear (of it's weight: importance).
So what does 'knowing' look like? To tread upon a closely related, but slightly more enlightened path let's take the well known subject of wine up. Wine is not just a substance; it is far more. How much more? To avoid a long diatribe, I simply ask of you to think upon what man has come to know of wine. A lot. Next I pose this simple question, "Of what we 'know' in regards to what wine is, is wine limited to that knowledge, is it merely something that can have certain attributes listed, varietals evaluated, etc...?". Surely not, it is something to be experienced, fully. Experience means eundo assequi, to obtain something along the way, to attain something by going on a way.
So what is reached by the individual who undergoes an experience with wine? Not mere knowledge. Granted. Obtained is a relation of oneself to wine's manifold essence. A relation should not be confused with a mere standing in front of a thing, although that is the essence of what an idea is, but a relation in the sense that what is experienced cannot occur or come to light the same if one aspect were different. Thus we can say that each experience is fundamentally different, in an essentially inseparable subjective and objective sense.
From such an experience we have in our mind, and moreover we have impressed upon our senses (not in the sense of possessing a mere object) an idea of what wine then is. Idea, eidos in the Greek, in the sense that what remains can only remain from the originary experience; it is that experience always and forever more.
But, it may rightfully be objected, others can say that they too, even without physically experiencing something, say ganja, and can still have an idea about something. Surely. Can one argue against them? If all they mean to say is that they have the ability to sense, in the sense that they are able to turn towards a certain call or scent, and as such a turning towards something is inherently a standing with or against something or what we alluded to earlier as a 'standing-in-relation-with', then yes they too can have that 'idea' as well. That not withstanding, however, their 'idea' to put it lightly, has no weight. Thus their claim to their idea, whilst a valid one in regards to what an idea is, lacks importance and weight when con-sidered widely.
Nowadays, however, people are fucking retarded; they wrongly assert the claim 'everyone is entitled to have their own idea' to mean 'everyone is correct in their ability to have and maintain an idea' no matter how light an idea's inherent importance may be. No one can deny funadamently the ability of an idea to impact others given what we have said in regards to what the essence of an idea is, but the fact that people feel like their idea is important when we said earlier most people don't truly know the weight of something because they have not, they do not know what it means to have a 'true experience' is clear evidence of how soft people are today.
Experiencing, as it should be apparent by now, necessarily goes beyond what we conceive of as being physical towards a deeper, yet fully related, thinking experience where the true importance of something becomes apparent, appears be-fore: only with you (thus with all???). Such an undertaking, as it should be, is not easy; it's hard as a rock is heavy(重). One cannot take this lightly, and if you cannot take something lightly you should be con-cerned perhaps even fearful of what is to be con-fronted as it is what is most important.
Thus fear, as being that which hinders one from seeing what truly lies before oneself on the path towards something is what needs to be overcome, what one needs(必要) to truly experience as being that which has been overcome to help give weighty-necessity (重要) or importance to an experience; leading to transcendence. Inherently, where fear is, security can not exist, as fear should force one into caring about it upon being truly con-fronted.
Secure, sine-cure, meaning literally: without care. The only way to overcome fear is to step into it, or better yet by taking a (originary) leap into it (Ur-sprung). A gap separates you from what lies before, thus a leap, perhaps to say it clearer, a leap of faith is necessary? Not a blind leap into the unknown, but into what always has been. Experiences, whence truly experienced, take us back to the origin by lighting the path be-fore of what is, always has been and what will continue to be: the weightiest(最重要) of all.
So why do so many people not care??? Is there nothing to fear any longer? Do people know, truly and essentially, how to care? Or do people merely have a faint idea left over, a vestigial memory if you will, from sometime or someone who really cared that allows them to have a claim, regardless of how tenuous or hollow it may be, to 'know' about caring and thus blindly believe that they do care? Do people want to care???
"The only thing one has to fear is fear itself...". Fear itself never exists in and of itself, it is as it is only as it is con-fronted. Con-fronted by whom? Man. Why is the rule of law held in such esteem? Or western gods? but for the mere fact that they are not man. Man is only safe when he is not man, or to put it clear, as he is not in a relation with himself as man. To rephrase the above quote then we might say, "The only thing man fears is man; his true self (das Selbst, 真正的自己)." Thus man usually finds himself as a mere 'role' or part being played by a 'disinterested' con-ception of an original self for a cyclical purpose; a purpose, mind you, worked out well in advance of the common understanding as to why said purpose or 'goal' is or must be under constant pursuit.
The ego or I of who we are is only projected outwards as a sliver of who we really are as a mere mask (persona)... Our persona, as is well accepted, is the mask we put on for society, but moreover for ourselves, paradoxically to protect ourselves from our very self. But who are we when we are our True Self???
Does this not call for self-discovery through self-examination or as it is refered to in the East as meditation or 省察 or 自己反省 or 參神...
To interject into this polemical dialogue, if I can be granted the reprieve in calling this in such a way, what does all of this have to do with weed? Everything and nothing. Please do not take the last sentence as some vacuous truism said just for saying's sake. Words should be said with the greatest care to permit the calling from such saying to carry it's full weight... Such sayings are hard, and are apt to be mis-understood, but this should not discourage the attempt...
Anyways, weed among other drugs and fear-shrouded objects, has been shown to not 'enlighten' the mind by playing the role of a shortcut and 'turning on' various areas of the brain, but actually serves to shut down a very particular part of the brain responsible for 'projecting' our masked self; our ego. But, we know that despite this literal freeing ourselves from our mask of ourselves, weed can stone us and make us unaware of anything. As a result, weed is used as an escape from the mask; a running away from: read a non con-fronting.
Thus no experience is to be had. However, what would happen if a teacher appeared in order help and guide others on a true experience with weed. Not to merely 'use' it as a cause to elicit a reaction, although no one can doubt that this sort of relationship can be derived out of such an experience, but to really come to understand what has for thousands of years remained in the shadows due to constant mis-understanding. Even if weed has been used in the past, however distant or near, there has never been a push to experience it as it really is. Such a far reaching Experience would hold within it all that has been and more: the weight of itself upon us.
To bear the full weight of something, together with it, upon our self; that is a path that once set upon will not serve as an isolated lane dead-ended in itself, but contrarily, as any path that really is a path, will bear a relation to something. Where the relation is, or if such a relation should be found to be the Relation of relations, is far from being decided, but that should not discourage the attempt from happening either.
