Being driven by ego one can alienate the self. To find common ground one allows for vulnerability and shares. The striving for unification is natural yet cumbersome in a chaotic world. Order is the highest calling, yet who can determine its structure?
If truth prevails, then an absolute outcome is predestined. If all is cause and effect, then destiny rules over fate and free will for our creation is the result of some divine source beyond mankind's imagination.
All we hue-mans see is the outer veil, a colored skin. What lies beneath are clouded thoughts and feelings. Our observations are mere illusions of an illusory world. Each moment passes us by at the speed of light. Time is a portal beyond our true comprehension.
Only our intuitive glimmers of insight can we call illumination. The knowledge others speak of is only hearsay. Wisdom and understanding is experiential analysis. All that is is the next now.
If truth prevails, then an absolute outcome is predestined. If all is cause and effect, then destiny rules over fate and free will for our creation is the result of some divine source beyond mankind's imagination.
All we hue-mans see is the outer veil, a colored skin. What lies beneath are clouded thoughts and feelings. Our observations are mere illusions of an illusory world. Each moment passes us by at the speed of light. Time is a portal beyond our true comprehension.
Only our intuitive glimmers of insight can we call illumination. The knowledge others speak of is only hearsay. Wisdom and understanding is experiential analysis. All that is is the next now.
-
Re: How many realities do we create?
Wed, September 28, 2005 - 12:45 AM...
as many as we want.
>The striving for unification is natural yet cumbersome in a chaotic world. Order is the highest calling, yet who can determine its structure?
>If truth prevails, then an absolute outcome is predestined.
hrmm...
honestly I choose not to accept those premises or dichotomies. I'm no philospher, but when you fall into abstract lines of thinking to the point where you're trying to distill things down into absolutes--
welp
hasn't ever gotten me anywhere. sure it's fun but- if I can't turn it into a tool of some kind, why should I bother?
>All we hue-mans see is the outer veil, a colored skin. What >lies beneath are clouded thoughts and feelings. Our >observations are mere illusions of an illusory world. Each >moment passes us by at the speed of light. Time is a portal >beyond our true comprehension.
very poetic. sure I agree. but it's my life. I see the world through this seemingly continual reference point. I take slices of it a' la malcolm gladwell and tell myself stories to make sense of it.
it's fun.
>Only our intuitive glimmers of insight can we call illumination. >The >knowledge others speak of is only hearsay.
sometimes. if you accept that premise 100% then you can only see life as an enclosed system. a zero sum game.
the only natural progression of thought that it will lead you to is nihilism. -
-
Re: How many realities do we create?
Wed, September 28, 2005 - 12:32 PMIt's the idea (not a thought, feeling or action...rather a state of being) that focusing on ones multifaceted ego precludes Spirit, Oneness, All That Is. The greatest illusions are created by the grand separators me, myself and I. Claiming ownership (That's my land. It's all mine!) of "anything" is ludicrous.
The giver societies are being overwhelmed by the takers. It's time to stop feeding this losing spiral, revamp this altmodish system and start a new paradigm of imparting and receiving. It's all about sharing, caring and daring to be truthful. -
-
Re: How many realities do we create?
Wed, September 28, 2005 - 12:42 PMI agree with that
-
-
Unsu...
Re: How many realities do we create?
Sun, October 2, 2005 - 9:51 AMChiming in with my two cents
I tend to agree with San on this topic (which I think should actually be called "How many illusions does man believe into reality?" Stating that "Order is the highest calling" only adds to the illusion that order is needed,,, another invention of man thinking that they can actually dictate or sublimate anything.
I'm of the belief that there is an even spread of positive, tragic, ridiculous and absurd. Chaos was defined by the Greeks and it's one of the few concepts besides mathmatics that has sustained. We can strive for all the order possible that humans can devise,,, and then a hurricane like Katrina hits and chaos rules once again. People outsmart themselves everytime.
In my personal life I do feel very out of place, out of synch. I don't surround myself with friends and I've grown to like it. So, I have become one of trillions of human islands. I can't help being a cynic, jaded, out of step with the mob. Cursed, if you like. But the odd part is that I know I'm not alone.
When you come across people that tend to be extraordinary, with no common theme, could it be that they have just tapped into a baser or fundamental realization? Is chaos a religion that keeps drawing us back in? When you understand that you can smell sunlight, have you tapped back into a saner reality than man has created? The only constant is change, and the majority hate change because they like feeling in control.
Modernity has solved nothing. The ancient cultures of the Chinese, Japanese, and American Indian didn't have to complicate the world. They knew that less is more. Instead of trying to tame the world, they communed with, and knew their place in it.
I believe in a parallel universe theory, living simultaneously with a million other ME in them. I believe that I'm in the wrong one here, or the surreal one. I stopped believing that when we die we go to heaven, hell or purgatory. This is purgatory, here and now. No divine power could have conceived a more just punishment for people than what this planet serves up so perfectly,,, man's inhumanity to man! We are our own worst enemy!
Huemans don't create reality; they manipulate it. Reality is the chaos that materializes on an endless basis. We play a part in how it twists and turns; but we can't change it's basic structure. -
-
Re: How many realities do we create?
Sun, October 2, 2005 - 12:24 PMvery well said. I'm running around today but I'm thinking about this. Might come back to it later this evening. You're hitting on some *very* valid points.
very well said.
in the meantime--question:
www.bartleby.com/198/1.html
Elliott's Prufrock was a poem that stuck with me for many many years. Possibly because that poem articulates what I see to be the crux of the issue--
Because I spent years as an island. And the only thing that changed it was really--a blind leap of faith--
***I was tired of looking at this poem and seeing too much of my own life being reflected in it.
I want to know your take on it. @ if you're around--check it. I'd like to know your thoughts on this work too.
-----------------
line 115: the prince Hamlet vs. Polonius stanza
line 90: Lazarus stanza
-----------------
I am no prophet—and here’s no great matter;
I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,
And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid. -
-
Unsu...
Re: T.S. Eliot
Tue, October 4, 2005 - 7:38 AMAfter reading the poem several times, I got the interpretation that this was about a recollection of a life upon nearing death. Sure enough, when I translated the Italian it states the narrator is trying to answer, to a person who never returned to the world, on an infamous topic. The narrator it seems has not returned "alive" either. This is emphasized by the repeat "In the room the women come and go Talking of Michelangelo."
The theme is also clarified by the Lazarus notation; he that comes back from the dead with insight, only to find that no one cares to listen ("If one, settling a pillow by her head, Should say: “That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all.”) Those things we humans seek answers to are the material solutions of this reality. And as those who perceive correctly know, money, fame, power, and youth are fleeting. ("I am no prophet—and here’s no great matter; I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker, And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker, And in short, I was afraid. " Yet we all seek our "five minutes of fame" in the mistaken idea that these are important. Only death clarifies the uselessness they deliver. "For I have known them all already, known them all:— Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons, I have measured out my life with coffee spoons; "
Poetry is subjective. It is accomplished when it takes mere words and transcends thought. My interpretations are triggered differently than yours, or anyone elses (separate islands). "It is impossible to say just what I mean! But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen: Would it have been worth while" But as the tide rolls in upon our shores, our synapses find new interpretations which were washed out to sea by the surrounding islands. Sometimes we don't see the use of them ("I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think that they will sing to me.") -
-
Re: T.S. Eliot
Tue, October 4, 2005 - 11:21 AMbrilliant!
I had caught snippets of it and heard some commentary on it a long time ago--but you nailed it--the death/lazarus theme.
-sidenote-
the Hamlet vs Polonius-the five minutes of fame you're bringing up. agreed--it's a valid criticism. had a suspicion for a long time what this was about--the theme punctuated by the famous--"Dare I eat a peach?"
think I found the answer- (well it's a stab at an answer)
Eloit--damn. he was my age when he wrote this. holy crap. 29.
but 1917--on through the twenties, one of the major themes they were playing with was the balance/contrast between the Apollinian and Dionysian. (home.uchicago.edu/~shburch/...aper.html)
Thomas Mann mentions it specifically in 'Death In Venice'
I'm copy/pasting a paragraph from the rag that fleshes out the issue at hand:
-----------------------------------------------
This principle which the Apollinian so exemplifies is an idea of man's singular individuality. Along with this individuality goes the idea of self-knowledge and moderation, "and so, side by side with the aesthetic necessity for beauty, there occur the demands "know thyself" and "nothing in excess." (46) These measured, delineated ideas of the individual were met on the other hand with the free spirited Dionysian idea of self-abnegation and excess, in which "everything subjective vanishes into complete self-forgetfulness." (36) No longer is the subjective "I" held sacred; instead the Dionysian becomes a symbol of primal unity and "each one feels himself not only united, reconciled and fused with his neighbor, but as one with him." (37) Under the Dionysian influences the principium individuationis collapses, and the universality of the whole instead of the individual is revered.
-----------------------------------------------
essentially what I'm saying is that I'm *not* so sure it's about the chasing for glory--well it is--but Prufrock is the epitome of the Apollinian--to the point where simply the concept of "eating a peach" represents engaging in an experience which completely subsumes the individual into a sensory experience--
which--going back to your metaphor--would be tantamount to death of the Apollinian. The Apollinian measures out his life in coffee spoons.
-------
we are islands. but I'm also seeing Prufrock as a criticism of the Apollinian--of the profoundly individual--of the isolated. And especially when we are like Lazarus, when we've had experiences which isolate us--when we've seen traumatic things
--death--
we run the risk of becoming even more Prufrock. More isolated. Because we watch the motions of other people and it's like watching the women come and go talking of Michaelangelo--
I see him looking for connection. He wears his trousers rolled and walks across the beach. He looks for connection--and finds only illusory dreams.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
--------
sigh. I hope he's not right. that we're united- one with each other- until we speak. until we really do hear each other and see the true distance. -
-
Re: T.S. Eliot
Tue, October 4, 2005 - 11:44 AM
-
Unsu...
Re: T.S. Eliot
Tue, October 4, 2005 - 4:29 PM<cite>but 1917--on through the twenties, one of the major themes they were playing with was the balance/contrast between the Apollinian and Dionysian. (home.uchicago.edu/~shburch/...aper.html)
Thomas Mann mentions it specifically in 'Death In Venice' </cite>
Yet here we are, a hundred years later, still contemplating the Apollinian vs. Dionysian conundrum! I venture that the ancient Greeks did, maybe the Romans; and in 1000 years from now we'll still wonder.
As a side note, do you think Martha Stewart contemplated for a minute on the vagaries of fame and fortune? Doubtful. She espouses Dionysian unity in the way she markets herself, yet she's Apollinian in her meglomania! -
-
Re: T.S. Eliot
Tue, October 4, 2005 - 11:53 PMhehe point taken. point taken.
hrm- martha is one thing--
wasn't there some poet who won some massive prize in the 1950's--
everyone at work was shocked because they thought that he was just some meek, accountant type... frik who was it. I'll find it. -
-
Unsu...
Einstein?
Wed, October 5, 2005 - 8:06 AMMaybe you're thinking of Einstein? Maybe not, he was much earlier. But he had the same beginnings. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Einstein?
Wed, October 5, 2005 - 1:17 PMah found it:
it was Wallace Stevens.
from Wikipedia:
Stevens considered the world and our perception of the world to be separate. We approach reality with a piecemeal understanding, putting together parts of the world in an attempt to make it seem coherent. To make sense of the world is to construct a worldview through an active exercise of the imagination. For Stevens, the imagination is not a flight of fancy, but rather the interractive relationship with reality, as best a person may understand it.
Stevens applies several metaphors through the life of his poetry and uses the metaphor of the imagination as his primary focus. Each person interracts with the world in an effort to find the imaginative reality which will "suffice," which will rise out of his time and place as an organic order. That said, each imagining is likely to remain local to that time and place and, though it may inspire, any given imagining is unlikely to fulfill the needs of a future people. To show the interrelatedness of a person to the landscape, Stevens likens perception to a spider spinning webs
The webs of your eyes
Are fastened
To the flesh and bones of you
As to rafters or grass.
There are filiments of your eyes
On the surface of water
And in the edges of the snow.
From "Tattoo" -
-
Unsu...
Re: Einstein?
Thu, October 6, 2005 - 6:29 AMFunny, I find a correlation in my online dating to what Stevens says about the interractive relationship with reality. I come across too many women who refuse to have anything negative touch them; when in fact, they are the ones with the most baggage and negativity. They want to imagine a reality where negativity, pain, disappointment, loneliness, etc. don't exist. The problem is that they must confront a hostile world every second. Their solution is play the part of Polyanna and pretend to think happy thoughts.
It's almost like the Wachowski Bros. masterpiece, "The Matrix." Artificial Intelligence had to repeatedly try to find "program perfection" for humans to be docile; what they discovered was that imperfection is what people really feel comfortable in. How can mere humans grasp reality without reshuffling the jigsaw puzzle according to what degree they operate on in their imaginations?
I think it's easy to see it in the everyday. People see different solutions to the same problems and issues. Guessing wrong is just a sign that our grasp exceeded our reach. Being lucky or playing a hunch is just a sign that our imagination is somewhat in synch with reality. It's a great puzzle to think about, eh?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-