Finding out that what
you thought was bad karma is
your soul reacting
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Possessive-destructive Maya
(1) possesses the gods
into being (2) creates mayhem
(3) possesses young girls.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Short pondering towards the Process to complicated to explain
Perhaps the reason behind the unexplained process being unexplainable is that the finishing, or fulfillment of the process is the freedom from want/ or need of explanation.
From a skewed vision of this perspective the process itself is one that defies systematization-not out of sheer defiance or snobbery-but because the process has a transcendental quality in which reason (discernment) is bypassed in the surface of becoming free.
While this may seem contradictory, i believe that it is only a contradiction of our basics assumption and notions that have been philosophized into our society. If this is so, then thought itself is a theory that, as we've done the math so to speak, boils down to "the process to complicated to explain" being the remainder; The extra number dragging out that disallows x from equaling zero, creating a constant repeating decimal to infinity. We approach the situation with this discernment and what we do is create a never ending remainder that continues until the end of time-but this is not to say that when something is decided it cannot be taken back. In fact the letting go of a though itself seems to be the dropping of a created process to complicated to explain. Time itself is as allusive as the Process to complicated to explain; and an escape from (a) time would and is the same thing as transcending the process. But how do we get there? Perhaps the problem is always trying to approach a situation, instead of always being the moment. Perhaps we are creating the problems by always comprehending things and thus becoming apprehensive of the similarity of repetitions in events-when instead we could find solace in just enjoying the moment-being present. Maybe then the realization manifests that we know what to do because we always knew how to react. In the present, everything is always beginning.
From a skewed vision of this perspective the process itself is one that defies systematization-not out of sheer defiance or snobbery-but because the process has a transcendental quality in which reason (discernment) is bypassed in the surface of becoming free.
While this may seem contradictory, i believe that it is only a contradiction of our basics assumption and notions that have been philosophized into our society. If this is so, then thought itself is a theory that, as we've done the math so to speak, boils down to "the process to complicated to explain" being the remainder; The extra number dragging out that disallows x from equaling zero, creating a constant repeating decimal to infinity. We approach the situation with this discernment and what we do is create a never ending remainder that continues until the end of time-but this is not to say that when something is decided it cannot be taken back. In fact the letting go of a though itself seems to be the dropping of a created process to complicated to explain. Time itself is as allusive as the Process to complicated to explain; and an escape from (a) time would and is the same thing as transcending the process. But how do we get there? Perhaps the problem is always trying to approach a situation, instead of always being the moment. Perhaps we are creating the problems by always comprehending things and thus becoming apprehensive of the similarity of repetitions in events-when instead we could find solace in just enjoying the moment-being present. Maybe then the realization manifests that we know what to do because we always knew how to react. In the present, everything is always beginning.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Intolerance and Delight: Prose of Experience
"One of the roots from which these chapters grew was an abandoned essay on the Waverley novels of Scott. The home i was brought up in possessed a good edition of the Waverley novels, and I had, I think, read them all in early life, with utter fascination. Some years later, at college, Guy Mannering was on a course and I reread it, but i had entered the age of intolerance by then, and Guy Mannering now seemed to me only a clumsy and faked narrative with wooden characters and an abominable style. I read Scott as little as possible though my earlier professional life..."-Frye, The Secular Scriptures, Pg. 5
An intolerance for romances (as in the stories) seems to be bread into us by our critical scopes (so wanting in our generation) which leads to an either/or argument as to whether Romance is indeed as blocky and unreal as our analysis shows or whether possibly our critical scopes are negatively reductive--but due to the popularity of its unrecognized hypocrisy, it is incapable of realizing its own ignorance which sees only errors where errors "should be". (Error being another way of saying how, when we look at a certain situation in a romance story, we correct it to how "real life is"). Holisticily this error (and reductively-these errors), our responses, actions, or devolvement of plots need not be. But, for the development of "critical skills" they must be present, and if they are not present, two options appear: the criticalist finds the error in these happy tales; or b, the story, having not even the possibility of error, is tossed aside angrily since it could not provide even an ounce of intellectual stimulation.
If either of these are the case it would seem the academic has not really learned how to read, or even how to enjoy reading. They have learned to mistake their spectacles for their eyes and to read their brain instead of the book. When a person finds they no longer take delight in romances--they have not reached some level of maturity--far from it. They have placed a veil of ignorance, a spectacle of illusions in front of their eyes, and, having willingly given up the World, they allow a self-fulfilling brain washing to overtake them in which the skewed vision of their spectacles construct another world--their world---their matrix--which they are incapable of escaping until the constructions inevitably fall from the extroverted pressure of keeping things at bay and the introverted pressure of all those things suppressed and imprisoned cause a break (which, as we have seen, sometimes comes as laughter). What is it then about these critical skills of analysis that upon our departure from the institution leave us skepticists, cynical and devoid of wisdom, incapable of intuition (which is commonly and erroneously referred to as "speculation")?
It is as simple as realizing that reading stories is, was, and never should be considered "work" or a serious "business". Stories are about delight; a letting go of intellectual contraceptives so that we may feel the words (not the cold clammy sheath of plastic protection) from something so potent and enjoyable that our lives might give birth to something. It is fear of being forever changed that clings in the shadowed peripherals of the institutions place-dependent memories. It is this fear which directs the conversations like shrubs and trees lining a well worn path. The seriousness of stories is that they provide a contradiction to work, to seriousness. They provide play. Any society that attempts to rob the artists of his playground will find the inevitability of children not wanting to play, becoming fat, stagnant. Soon their school work is effected. We look down on them. And soon enough we take recess away all together.
An intolerance for romances (as in the stories) seems to be bread into us by our critical scopes (so wanting in our generation) which leads to an either/or argument as to whether Romance is indeed as blocky and unreal as our analysis shows or whether possibly our critical scopes are negatively reductive--but due to the popularity of its unrecognized hypocrisy, it is incapable of realizing its own ignorance which sees only errors where errors "should be". (Error being another way of saying how, when we look at a certain situation in a romance story, we correct it to how "real life is"). Holisticily this error (and reductively-these errors), our responses, actions, or devolvement of plots need not be. But, for the development of "critical skills" they must be present, and if they are not present, two options appear: the criticalist finds the error in these happy tales; or b, the story, having not even the possibility of error, is tossed aside angrily since it could not provide even an ounce of intellectual stimulation.
If either of these are the case it would seem the academic has not really learned how to read, or even how to enjoy reading. They have learned to mistake their spectacles for their eyes and to read their brain instead of the book. When a person finds they no longer take delight in romances--they have not reached some level of maturity--far from it. They have placed a veil of ignorance, a spectacle of illusions in front of their eyes, and, having willingly given up the World, they allow a self-fulfilling brain washing to overtake them in which the skewed vision of their spectacles construct another world--their world---their matrix--which they are incapable of escaping until the constructions inevitably fall from the extroverted pressure of keeping things at bay and the introverted pressure of all those things suppressed and imprisoned cause a break (which, as we have seen, sometimes comes as laughter). What is it then about these critical skills of analysis that upon our departure from the institution leave us skepticists, cynical and devoid of wisdom, incapable of intuition (which is commonly and erroneously referred to as "speculation")?
It is as simple as realizing that reading stories is, was, and never should be considered "work" or a serious "business". Stories are about delight; a letting go of intellectual contraceptives so that we may feel the words (not the cold clammy sheath of plastic protection) from something so potent and enjoyable that our lives might give birth to something. It is fear of being forever changed that clings in the shadowed peripherals of the institutions place-dependent memories. It is this fear which directs the conversations like shrubs and trees lining a well worn path. The seriousness of stories is that they provide a contradiction to work, to seriousness. They provide play. Any society that attempts to rob the artists of his playground will find the inevitability of children not wanting to play, becoming fat, stagnant. Soon their school work is effected. We look down on them. And soon enough we take recess away all together.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
What is the Importance of Telling Stories that aren't even True?
What is the importance of telling stories that aren't even true? In our current culture's paradigm doesn't this question also need, albieit beg for an understanding of truth? And in such a "world" where truth is a relativity (which seeks to say that there is no absolute truth) are we not asking for an impossibility in answering the question? Or perhaps it is possible. Perhaps we have misused, perhaps mis-characterized Truth. Perhaps the relativism of truth we have discovered is correct, but the verdict in so deciding that this is the gist of truth is overlooking.
The relatvity is based in our conscoiusness--which is to say that the consciousness of truth is relative. It seems to me from experience that what we are describing as the relativity of truth is the persuasion of truth. Perhaps this is not readily apparent to you (or your reading self). I may have not persuaded you and thus you have chosen not to believe me. Perhaps this will act as a hint to you that what you believe commonly decides the truth of a matter for you.
Your beliefs are structures you have crafted or that have been crafted for you. Now I don't expect you to believe any part of my investigation and by now you may be asking yourself why I have placed you into the physician's chair, asking am I not supposed to be speaking of stories? Well what about you? I'm sure you have stories you tell-certain ones that have become well rehearsed. Certain ones on which you may or may not have become aware of yourself falling into a role as your words and body language play out the story. And is the story true? Has what happened changed or have you? The Truth of what happened which is what happened itself cannot change. The only thing that changes is your perception in the telling-which begs us ask whether or not there was any truth in your initial perception of the event when it played out in its present.
Now these are stories that you have clung too-that you have crafted and revised throughout your life. You have possibly always believed that these stories really happened. And you may even, and probably do identify with these stories. Yet as you tell them your identity changes-you switch into a role. And perhaps you find that you systematically identify with these roles-but are they you? And if you find that they aren't really you-just reductions of something much vaster-and if these stories you have collected around you begin to no longer hold validity as factual, and yet you have believed them to be true, what possibly could be the point of telling stories that are obviously not true? I'm guessing you've always believed (or in the gossipping case, disbelieved) those stories you tell about yourself or that have been told about you are true-but why the persuasion-why does the story seem to gain strength or "give you a name" as its power builds (and then perhaps weens, as your belief in them weens as well)? Is perhaps the obviousness of the non-truth behind these fake stories-these mythologies and folktales-is perhaps the obviousness of the non-truth behind them only the lack of the stories trying to persuade you to believe it is you? Perhaps Truth only flows from an identification of truth--one in which our perception is no longer playing roles and thus perceiving from that reductive perception. Just as the relativity of truth on a conscious level is a persuasion so to does it seem, to me, that our identities on a purely conscious level (which is to say conceptually) are also just persuasion-passing fashions. Truth is an identification. And whereas our world is subconsciously training us to believe that we are our iPhone and shoes and career and the boys or girls were fucking, it should seem entirely ludicrous and violent to propose that our identities are actually tied to such states instead of such objects.
The relatvity is based in our conscoiusness--which is to say that the consciousness of truth is relative. It seems to me from experience that what we are describing as the relativity of truth is the persuasion of truth. Perhaps this is not readily apparent to you (or your reading self). I may have not persuaded you and thus you have chosen not to believe me. Perhaps this will act as a hint to you that what you believe commonly decides the truth of a matter for you.
Your beliefs are structures you have crafted or that have been crafted for you. Now I don't expect you to believe any part of my investigation and by now you may be asking yourself why I have placed you into the physician's chair, asking am I not supposed to be speaking of stories? Well what about you? I'm sure you have stories you tell-certain ones that have become well rehearsed. Certain ones on which you may or may not have become aware of yourself falling into a role as your words and body language play out the story. And is the story true? Has what happened changed or have you? The Truth of what happened which is what happened itself cannot change. The only thing that changes is your perception in the telling-which begs us ask whether or not there was any truth in your initial perception of the event when it played out in its present.
Now these are stories that you have clung too-that you have crafted and revised throughout your life. You have possibly always believed that these stories really happened. And you may even, and probably do identify with these stories. Yet as you tell them your identity changes-you switch into a role. And perhaps you find that you systematically identify with these roles-but are they you? And if you find that they aren't really you-just reductions of something much vaster-and if these stories you have collected around you begin to no longer hold validity as factual, and yet you have believed them to be true, what possibly could be the point of telling stories that are obviously not true? I'm guessing you've always believed (or in the gossipping case, disbelieved) those stories you tell about yourself or that have been told about you are true-but why the persuasion-why does the story seem to gain strength or "give you a name" as its power builds (and then perhaps weens, as your belief in them weens as well)? Is perhaps the obviousness of the non-truth behind these fake stories-these mythologies and folktales-is perhaps the obviousness of the non-truth behind them only the lack of the stories trying to persuade you to believe it is you? Perhaps Truth only flows from an identification of truth--one in which our perception is no longer playing roles and thus perceiving from that reductive perception. Just as the relativity of truth on a conscious level is a persuasion so to does it seem, to me, that our identities on a purely conscious level (which is to say conceptually) are also just persuasion-passing fashions. Truth is an identification. And whereas our world is subconsciously training us to believe that we are our iPhone and shoes and career and the boys or girls were fucking, it should seem entirely ludicrous and violent to propose that our identities are actually tied to such states instead of such objects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)