It seems cognition works through sorting, and the criterion for this sorting is a combination of will and feedback from cognition itself. Will is a most complex subject, but for the purposes of this text it will be treated as simply the mix of various drives and forces, some of which that may have a base of freedom, but most coming from considerations external to the self — albeit the self may be ignorant of them and think they are deliberate.

The constant-changing criterion is the most interesting feature of consciousness. We can examine this through practices such as shamata, and we may discover it is a difficult characteristic to tame.

Although the taming of cognitive criterion may have fantastic results — since most of techniques and practices which accompany work and deeds in the world require focus and determination of will on a specific set of subjects for some time daily for months, years or decades, keeping within the boundaries of a close set of criterion produces clearly apparent results in the world —, when we are talking about understanding reality, it seems focus upon the criterion itself is necessary.

From this we come to two interesting results. First, the self-reference upon criterion, that is, the criterion of only examining criteria, makes necessary for us to distort at least one feature such as time or to create a separate instance of cognition in order to keep a coherent discourse which doesn't falls into paradox or a closed loop of self-reference. Second, there isn' t a single fact about criterion — even the apparent lack of it — which can't be used to figure out something about reality.

In Zen Buddhism we see satori happening when the attention is focused on some very ordinary events. These events are of such ordinariness that, ironically, through the history of Zen, they became notorious. So somebody sees a frog jumping back into a lake and that has such great meaning to this person as to cause considerable epiphany.

Then, because most people who have had this not so uncommon experience, are naïve as to the use of language, most of the times we end up in an seemingly paradoxical or "non-conceptual explanation". The thing is that it is possible to speak about the meaning of reality from the experience of seeing a frog jumping on a lake, but this is no ordinary usage of language, so the experience and the language itself may end up mystified, and there are lots of other traps, such as magical thinking, that can be enhanced through a naïve understanding of these experiences.

Also the ordinariness becomes a kind of aesthetic principle in itself. There's an almost naturalistic feel to these descriptions (rural Japan seem to work best: rice, bambu, rain, etc), and it seems that other irrelevancies aren't so much ordinary. That is, other experiences in life are seem as more complex and therefore not fit for synergizing these epiphanies. The real possibility of satori while watching television commercials is not really believed or even taken in consideration by most entry-level zen practitioners.

The point of examining criterion may well be opening Blake's doors of perception, that is, there is a belief that cognition filters a few sparks of reality and constructs our world. If we understand these filters (the criterion), we understand what is being filtered. For those who have dealt with cognition through some years of practicing something like shamata, this belief becomes empirical knowledge.

There is no experience that cannot be used in this endeavor. In fact, we have to use whatever captures our mind. Even distraction itself lends us to recognize how the criterion gets loose, if only we can refocus on cognition itself. There are hundreds of methods in the Buddhist tradition and elsewhere to make this refocusing natural.

When there is some understanding of how mechanisms of entrapment manifest through arbitrariness taken for criterion (bias), mistaken cognition (illusion) and lack of criterion (indifference), it is necessary to design a conceptual framework to reach minds still fixated within these boundaries.

If we are talking about heavily loaded minds such as ours in this time (when we have so much of everything passing through our senses, and so little time for reflection), then we must provide ample scopes of concepts and ways of talking about different levels of this studies and practices, even clearing away the limitations a traditional framework may manifest. Nowadays it is impossible to simply work out a system and provide a seemingly complete picture of our understanding, so we need to work interactively and fast with all the levels. This may produce seemingly incomplete and confuse snippets of understanding tied by ever-transforming concepts, and some people may even choose to call this "postmodern". I don't, I just try to use the computer to remind me of loose chains of thought, with the goal described in this text: I have no original ideas. Profound irrelevance is my only subject.

In February I have worked for almost 3 weeks non-stop on the software that runs this website. Many things still to be done. Yet I fear being in a period where my usual eloquence is rather thin. Well, maybe I'll upload the unfinished software today just to see what happens.