Many human theories - anthropological, psychological, philosophical, and historical - have succeeded in identifying consciousness movement-patterns through which human beings fulfill roles within collective systems of oppression.

 

It is possible to trace how specific behavioral, cognitive, and emotional templates were formed with clear boundaries -

each serving the mechanism of oppression so that, in the end,

it could fulfill its will.

 

Even when this mechanism drives toward a destructive outcome, those playing their part within it tend to persist, faithfully, until the inevitable end.

 

Yet anyone who observed this mechanism as a code -

as a kind of DNA in which the entire program is folded -

could discern a predictable, almost inevitable, trajectory.

 

From this, I believe, we can learn the lesson of oxymoronic humility:

a humility that holds the tension between realising we may not be as wise as we think, and the attempt to understand phenomena through a meta-lens that reveals whether we are, in fact, being controlled.

 

Within the mechanism of oppression,

each person clings to their seemingly unique prism -

embodying it with devotion,

even when, in practice, it sustains the very mechanism of control they claim to long to escape.

 

This "uniqueness" of perspective is designed to create

the impression of essential struggle,

while in truth it nourishes the destiny pre-written by the cognitive code whose artificial boundaries we never refracted back to ourselves.

 

Thus, the loop fulfills its purpose in a self-consuming spiral:

it feeds on the very resources born of the code,

maintaining itself until it is depleted.

 

Oxymoronic humility allows us to recognise self-deception.

 

And what might serve as an indicator of self-deception?

The feeling of choice.

 

Choice is the illusion of power.

 

Why?

Because to choose, one must stand at a distance -

so that what unfolds and ever becoming - can be represented by what that is not.

​

Choice is a sophisticated concept of disconnection.

 

It allows us to feel like agents,

only because we do not perceive the impulse that defines the range of options from the start.

 

Whoever seeks to create the appearance of choice -

whether through ideology, political systems, or inner dynamics -

ultimately seeks control.

 

And control always reduces what is,

so that it may oppose what lies beyond reduction.

 

What lies beyond, however, never disappears.

It is merely denied - and thus gives rise to conflict.

 

That very conflict, within the code,

is interpreted as the raw material of the inevitable fate.

 

Choice, then, is a crafted substitute for attending witness.

 

When we regain access to ourselves through meta-understanding,

we can see how the code’s attempt to control

is what obstructs that intimacy.

 

Once seen, the code naturally dissolves -

and what remains is a sense of well-being and freedom.

​

Attending Witness and the Dissolution of Mastery

​

At the heart of oxymoronic humility lies the recognition

that the witness is not an observer standing outside reality -

but the living intimacy between inner and outer movement.

 

Witnessing, in this sense, is not passive awareness,

but the very act through which reality recognises itself as whole from within us.

 

When we look without the impulse to control,

what we once called "choice" reveals itself as the echo of separation.

​

It becomes clear that every attempt to master reality

is a continuation of fear -

a fear that believes connection will dissolve identity.

 

Yet the opposite is true:

as intimacy deepens, separation loosens its hold,

and understanding ceases to be an act of power

and becomes an act of love -

a harmonised presence between all that perceives and all that is perceived.

 

Thus, humility is not submission to something greater -

but recognition that greatness has always included us.

​

And witness is not detachment -

but the pulse through which reality feels itself alive.