Affinity

Let’s talk for a moment about the word affinity. What is affinity? Connection. Closeness. Relation.

Free consciousness lives without affinity, without relative affinity. Its affinity is absolute, not relative. It doesn’t feel drawn to one thing over another. “I have an affinity for this, but not for that”, free consciousness doesn’t know how to make that distinction between one thing and another.

We always use the word “affinity” in a relative way. Affinity can’t even exist in our minds without relativity, can it? This I like; this I like less; this I hate. This I’m willing to accept; this I’m not. Free consciousness doesn’t meet life that way. It doesn’t manufacture the difference between this and that. And so there is no one there to prefer this over that. The narrow prism that produces preferences (this suits me, this is worth my while, this feels good, this doesn’t) is simply gone.

Someone once stopped me here: “Can I interrupt for a second? It’s a funny question, don’t be upset with me. Free consciousness wouldn’t vote in elections? It wouldn’t want to get into politics?”

You mean the elections about to descend on us? Free consciousness has no affinity to any of it, not to this side, not to that. But having no affinity doesn’t mean it doesn’t play the game. It can absolutely choose to be a full part of the game. The game has rules, and it plays by them, that’s fine. It doesn’t become detached from the daily reality each of us lives, saying, “This doesn’t concern me.” In English there’s a word for that, aloof: “I’m above it, it doesn’t affect me.” That is not it. Free consciousness can choose to take part in the game and play by its rules, and within the game it may even prefer one party over another. But never out of fear. It won’t be “yes to this leader” or “no to that leader.” It will always be: where does love flow most naturally, most harmoniously, with the least disturbance?

And on the other hand, it doesn’t need the game in order to know itself. It doesn’t define itself by the game. “Who am I? I’m left-wing, I’m right-wing.” That doesn’t exist. “I hold these opinions as opposed to those.” No. I am love.

“A shame there’s no such party,” someone joked. It probably wouldn’t pass the electoral threshold. “Why not? If you led it, maybe you’d manage to convince people.”

And what is war? War is a game that people take far too seriously. If I choose to play the game, I remember that it’s only a game. There’s a game, there are rules, we play by the rules. The purpose of the game is to enjoy it, to be engaged, to interact with other people. All of that is fine. People who take the game too seriously turn it into war, not necessarily tanks against tanks, but within this very interpersonal interaction, where so much gets mixed in: ego, criticism, judgment, anger, violence, fear. Fear. And then we forget it’s a game. We drown in it completely and disappear, we forget who we really are.

But if we truly want to make a difference, we don’t need politics for that. Each of us, right at our own doorstep, within our own private relationships, with those close and those far. Can I conduct these relationships sanely? What does that mean? With less fear and more love. Less expectation, less demand, less pretense. Less affinity. Less leaning on them, less using the relationship as a crutch to manufacture some illusion of stability in the face of a life that changes so fast.

If we distill all of it into a single sentence: less fear of the pain that this life might bring me. Free consciousness does not fear pain. It doesn’t prefer pleasure over pain. Do you see? There is no affinity toward pleasure and denial of pain, no avoidance of pain.

And if you don’t want to give up affinity, then fine: enlarge it. Expand your affinity until it is wide enough to contain everything. Everything, all of it, held within the affinity.