posted May 01, 2010 09:06 PM         

[Sung]
Come with me
And you'll be
In a world of
Pure imagination
Take a look
And you'll see
Into your imagination

We'll begin
With a spin
Traveling in
The world of my creation
What we'll see
Will defy
Explanation

If you want to view paradise
Simply look around and view it
Anything you want to, do it
Wanta change the world?
There's nothing
To it

There is no
Life I know
To compare with
Pure imagination
Living there
You'll be free
If you truly wish to be

If you want to view paradise
Simply look around and view it
Anything you want to, do it
Wanta change the world?
There's nothing
To it

There is no
Life I know
To compare with
Pure imagination
Living there
You'll be free
If you truly
Wish to be

posted May 02, 2010 09:03 AM         

You are not one person.
You are every person.

You are a poet.

Learn to love the questions,
as much as, if not more than,
the answers, or the beliefs.

posted May 07, 2010 02:55 AM         

------------------

quote:

---

"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies with in us."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

posted May 13, 2010 08:56 PM         

It's interesting that Tsarion uses the word "tautology" in the sense which means unnecessary repetition, when the interviewer remarks that similar discoveries, concering irreconcilable dualities, are made in parallel fields of research. There is another definition, meaning something which can be verified as true from multiple angles. It sounds like Tsarion is telling us to ignore this duality, since it is irreconcilable, or to accept it in such a way that it will simply vanish, without being solved. But isn't that irreconcilability -- along with the doomed, yet faithful, effort to reconcile -- precisely the thing that produces the greatest wonders of human creation? That which confounds and frustrates us is also that which makes us laugh and marvel and cry and sing. Does Tsarion laugh, marvel, cry, and sing? I'd like to see that. I'm sorry, I know you like this guy, and here I am snappping judgements. Actually, he's an interesting character, and I'm not sure what I think of him yet. His words for science, and scientists, were pretty harsh.

So, what about his own dualities?

He says we're not distinct from the content that arises to consciousness. Then he says we must get out of the way in order to see the universe objectively. How do we do that, without distinguishing ourselves as something separate from our admittedly flawed perceptions as they arise? We have to take a detached look at our own contents, but how do we do that if the part that is looking is also the part that is seen?

Also, does this philosophy contradict or support the teaching that says, "Man sees the world, not as it is, but as he is,"? He quotes Nietzsche as saying that we must get beyond man to see things as they are. But the real meaning of this, for Nietzsche, is that we never see things as they are. We get beyond man, and we become "overmen". From the perspective of the overman, man is an ape, and from the perspective of man, the overman is a god. But even the overman sees things, not as they are, but as he is. This is what Nietzsche thought, as far as I understand it. But what does Tsarion think? How does he propose we get back to this anamistic connectivity? He says we are still connected -- in what way, then, are we not connected?

Heidegger's formula: "Existence is essence."

It's terse and brilliant, and, like all true mysterium (lol), it leads you back to the surface with a new appreciation for the surface. But what does it ultimately say? The example of the swan is given -- there is no other essence behind the swan, but the swan is a pure expression of essence/existence, or God. So, when we say "existence is essence", are we cleverly extinguishing the mystery surrounding the concept of essence, and effectively discarding the whole idea of essence altogether? Or, are we saying that there is an essence, common to the swan and the meteor and the lightning bolt and the mountain peak, which transcends them all and which can be understood only as the property of existing, or IS-ness? The latter seems to be the case, though I suspect Tsarion would prefer the former.

My question is, can this quality (IS-ness) be increased and decreased? Does something exist more or less than something else? Is something felt to exist more than something else? The swan, for instance, may stand out while the water is relatively unnoticed. Can we be awake to the swan, and not the water? And if we can be less awake to something's existence, then, does our lack of awareness constitute a veil between ourselves and existence/essence? Or, are we equally awake to existence at all times, but we only interpret certain perceptions and experiences as authentic; provided they meet the (now arbitrary) criterea we have for a religious experience?

Tsarion is saying that there is no veil. When you look at the swan, or the mountain, you see your Creator. I suggest that there is a veil. When the veil is in place, you see the mountain, and when the veil is lifted, you see the Creator; but you still see only the mountain. The veil is just that. Imagine a thin veil held between you and a mountain. You can make out the outlines of the mountain, and you say to yourself "I see the mountain,". When the veil is removed, you still see the mountain, but more clearly. So, what I'm saying is that, when you see the mountain clearly, you may say "I see the mountain", but really, in your heart, you know, you are seeing God. A moment earlier, you were not seeing the mountain clearly, and, so, you were not seeing God (clearly).

I wonder if it helps us to see the mountain clearly if we view it as a manifestation of God; something within the context of eternity. Or, as Tsarion seems to suggest, do we inhibit our perception of the mountain when we attempt to see it in the context of infinity? This is where I begin to agree with him, I think. Unconsciously, we know that everything we see is automatically "in the context of infinity", so, it may be counterintuitive to make this explicit. Nevertheless, when the mountain is seen, it seems inevitable that this larger context will occur to us consciously. We'll react to the experience, and we won't say "mountain!", but "God!"; or, if we say "mountain" we will really be thinking "mountian of God" or "mountain in God". Perhaps this is when we cease to see it.