Thursday, September 11, 2014

Counters and the counted

When words, -- the coins, counters, playing pieces,  of rational, binary thought, -- cannot even countenance the constant change which is a salient feature of the world we participate in, words are assuming a kind of divinity to themselves. An idolatry, actually, since this change defies linguistic categorization, and yet, includes and carries along, all.

It is not hard to flick over this presumptuous king chess piece. The click it makes falling over is hardly even audible. What is the difference between king and pawn game pieces. How could there be any. Without the game piece in your eye, other vistas are possible.

Most people just do not know how to do it, nor how it might involve a consistent flicking. The game piece, barely even resembling anything it is the name of, does have this advantage -- it can bobble back up. 

Knocking it over again is no more difficult than it was the first time. You have to remember to do it. Thus the religious literature of this planet. 

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

What all wobbles

Words are wobbly. By that I mean, that they do not fit perfectly upon that to which they refer. Take any flower, just as a point in case  a point is needed. You cannot describe one flower in a meadowful, so as to lead another person TO THAT EXACT FLOWER, by means of your description. 

Words do not know this, because of course words don't know anything. They are part of people's thinking. People though rarely know this,-- that words wobble -- and I have to wonder if this is not a sign of their insecurity, their reluctance to face the limits of their own knowledge. And by people, I mean published, academic, philosopher, and everybody else. 

And why the defensive fencing off of part of reality as irrelevant? At least you might say, well the underlying reality, whatever that means, in the words of Prince Charles, you might say the underlying reality, the flower itself in all its glorious individuality, that does not wobble. 

At least the bloom does not wobble more than you could calculate from a mathematical analysis of the air currents surrounding it. 

You can say that, you can say anything. But you would be wrong if you think the underlying reality does not wobble. You would, let me rephrase this -- you would be wrong not to consider that the underlying reality, words and all they specify and all they cannot specify, all that can be apprehended, and all that maybe cannot even be apprehended, with any talents, -- ALL of that, may be wobbly. At least sometimes wobbly. Some philosophers knew this. Baruch Spinoza, Jan Cox. 

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

House of Pards

The words Jesus is reported to have spoken to his disciples, "be ye therefore as gentle as doves, as cunning as serpents," always struck me as something Jan might have said, though he did not. Another picture might be, of a person as a house, which is a trope Jan used. The goal then might be to become, a house of pards.
You, you as a habitat, would then have no right angles. Well, enough so you could fake it.

Monday, August 25, 2014

The mark-up of goods in the market place

The mark-up of goods in the market place 
just shadows the smirk-up of words when they are put into dialogues

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Timely Responses

The headlines are full of panicked stories about how people are getting dumber. I wonder if this is related, less directly to the web, than to a changing sense of time. No longer do wives wait for their husbands to return from sea voyages. When you can skype and email, the sailor has not really gone, in the sense he once did. This is an example of what I mean by a changing sense of time. 

So everything is more jumbled together, nowadays, without these gaps in which to consider, breathe, wonder, wander; can fruit for the next season. And, mainly, crucially, responses are demanded. And if demanded, human beings are that species which will answer. That is part of the motion of speaking. There are responses when something is said. There is no such thing as--- one person speaking. That first speech is an incomplete action til there is a reply. Part of a definition of warfare is that there are times when speech is NOT allowed. So one reason people seem dumber may be as simple as that they do not have time to come up with a considered response. 

These thoughts do not address the question of humans getting dumber. That is both true and not true, and not the purpose of this post. 

Thursday, August 21, 2014

A step for the wise

Perhaps you are a tight rope walker. Perhaps you can picture what that is like. A  famous example is the Frenchman who walked between the twin towers on a high rope. 

My purpose in this picture is to help others understand what Jan Cox means when he speaks of "effort."  He said to people who asked if they were doing it right -- that is self-observing, or one of the many names he called this ancient mystical discipline -- he said to the questioner-- if you have to ask you are not, because it always requires effort. 

The strider in the sky, must maintain a kind of balance and proportion. His thoughts cannot drift off. If he makes a mistake, he could be a wad on the sidewalk below.

Those who seek a view known to but few in history, those people practise this self-observing as much as possible, The city small below, the empty sky, this is all possible, But it is requires the mental currency of effort. If we or our fellow seekers, slip on a cerebral tightrope, we fall into imagination. No harm is apparent, at first. 

And that may be one difference between the physical and the mental. Some mistakes have the very same cost. The only difference is that the mental tight rope walker can, with patience and consistency, improve his performance, and, the view. 

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Pre-dating and predation

Is this what the mind likes to do--- not really know something NEW, but classify something according to what it already knows. This could be called a kind of pre-dating -- to sort something in advance. 

Interestingly predation, the act of capturing AND killing, sounds like pre-dating. Interesting because in fact the killing part is common to both pictures. The mind in fact must kill the next moment, the newness of the next moment, if the mind is to retain an orderly progression. Because this orderliness is fictive, possibly. The mind loses the newness, the opportunity to learn something, by the progression of ordinary thought.

Jan Cox pointed out that ordinary thought cannot originate ANYthing new. What the ordinary call originality is just rearranging known things, not creating anything. His example of what the ordinary call originality was flying pigs. Wings, pigs, all stuff we know. Not really original the way The Way of The Work makes possible.