posted November 29, 2008 10:12 AM         

Questions of aesthetic merit, like all questions shrouded in subjectivity, provide fertile ground for speculation, while remaining something of a mystery, which no single individual is in a position to demystify, unravel, or describe. What can be said about the virtue of good taste, from the most objective and disinterested standpoint, is only that it is something which every person on the planet claims to have experienced, possessed, and understood, while, yet, having experienced, possessed, and understood it differently from every other person on the planet. Everyone’s opinion here is somewhere at variance with everyone else’s opinion, and yet, while this fact is something many of us are prepared to admit, it may be idealistic to imagine a person who does not, deep down, think that her own perspective is superior; since, if she did not deem it superior, presumably, it would not be her perspective. And although it is true that taste, and perspective in general, is a mercurial, uncertain thing, still, even when a man doubts and reconsiders his point of view, he exalts it nonetheless, for he identifies it, and himself, with that present and living part of it, which doubts and reconsiders. He considers not that he was wrong, but, only that he is presently right to reconsider.

This identification with the most immediate, vital part of his perspective, if not the priority he accords it, is justified; for a man examines and tries to make sense of his impressions of the world only after they have been impressed upon him, and the act of thinking about them is merely an attempt to defend, explain, and validate them (to himself and to others), and not an endeavor to “decide” what is or ought to be considered beautiful, or otherwise estimable. The estimate is taken in the gut; the “mind is only the entrails”, as Nietzsche loved. Our usual conception of digestion is here reversed, and what comes out of a man’s mouth (namely, his opinions) is that for which he has no further use. So, it is rightful for him to identify with his present condition, as it represents the totality of his understanding of his predicament, and not merely a work in progress, suggesting the uncertain future of his opinions. The recognition of the incompleteness of his understanding, and the consequent expression, in thought or in speech, of his reservations, testifies to a completeness of its own. In other words, the lack of a secure position is his position, and it is, to his mind, as compelling as any certainty he has previously known, or may eventually come to know. The observations and comments he makes in reference to his position are not methods by which he seeks to fashion a new beginning, but, evidence of the insecurity of his new position, and of an unconscious, instinctive effort, already underway, to secure that position against assault. Not that the insights he receives may serve any function in molding, but only in cementing the understanding; their purpose being not to discern, but to articulate; to render clear in the mind’s eye what, though vague, has already been hailed as a vision. By the time they become self-reflective, however, their purpose has been accomplished, like a wave that briefly retraces its path upon the shore, before dispersing, once its destination is met. The sound of dragging sand, like a dying person’s last gasp of breath, cannot express the story of her sojourn. What escapes the mouth conveys only the spirit of a life just passed, and, yet, we are identified with the speaker.

To reflect self-consciously on one’s own reflections is to look for omens in a puddle of vomit, or to lick up, on one’s knees, what one has already devoured fresh from the vine. The source of insight is within you, and does not spring from its imperfect reflections in the world. It may seem curious to call our most valued insights “vomit”, but vomit is often the evidence, or remainder, of a profound purification of the body, or, in this sense, the soul. What is most sacred in a great and sagacious perception is not the conviction it holds, but the one which it overthrows; or, rather, the spirit which overthrows is sacred, while the spirit which affirms is one step away from profanation and perdition. When food has been digested it is no longer nourishing, no longer food; it has become **** , and should be discarded. So, Lao Tzu says, “[The trap is used to catch the prey. When the prey has been caught, the trap is discarded. Words are used to understand. When understanding has been reached, the words are forgotten. Show me that man who has forgotten words.]”

Opinions follow upon insights, but sound opinions follow upon insights which have been married to the unique politics of a given situation, or described series of situations. The arbitrary application of pet insights to situations unsuited to them is a product of shortsightedness, and the tendency to hold fast to certain outmoded forms, and produces, in its turn, ignorant opinions, which take only the most superficial interest in the practical specifics of the unique instances under consideration. For instance, the insight that one ought not to murder, whether or not we agree that it is universally true, or subject to circumstantial modifications, does not contain a definition of the word “murder”. So, a person calling herself “pro-life” will claim that a fetus is a living and independent entity, and that abortion is immoral on the basis of the presumed truth, “thou shalt not murder”. She will proceed to insist upon the immorality of murder, without discussing the more relevant reasoning, or unreasoning, behind a definition of murder which includes fetuses. She will point to the insight she sees printed in the Bible, and ignore the evidence presented in the laboratory. My point is not that the insight is in the least bit mistaken, but, that it is mistakenly applied.

When, on the other hand, our views are well considered, we invite others to interrogate us on the most minute implications and ramifications of the insight’s relationship to the unique situation it is proposing to reduce. There is no more dependable rule in the universe than the one which tells us, “every rule contains an exception”. It seems to me that the most thorough writers and thinkers do not rely on the rule, or even the proof of the rule, but, they endeavor to prove the aptness of applying the rule to the given situation at hand. General principles are useless without a keen appreciation for the particulars. They are like suns that flood the room with so much light no object may be clearly seen. And while suns may be used with advantage to study planets and vast reaches of space, they should hold a fair, objective distance from ordinary, terrestrial affairs.

The philosopher, then, would be the most useless, even destructive of creatures, if we employed her for the purpose of contemplating plants, and not planets. If her words seem to echo across a great expanse, that is as it should be. If her light is diffuse and refuses to be fixed upon the nitty gritty details of human affairs, let it be. That is her art. And it is well for both philosophers and enthusiasts of philosophy to bear in mind the limitations of it. If the sink is clogged, go to the plumber. If the door won’t shut, go to the carpenter. If you desire opinions, read “The Times”; but if you seek insight, “read the eternities,” (Thoreau), and go to the philosopher.

It is true, as Malcolm Gladwell writes, that a genius is not a unique, but an efficient source of insight. She cannot give us a magic key, or tool, capable of opening all the doors and solving all problems, but, she can acquaint and equip us with a variety of keys and tools. She may not provide us with an instinct to foreknow which tool will be most effective in a given situation, but, she can provide a toolbox, and a general understanding of tools, so that we will, at least, have the proper tool for the job. Maslow wrote, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” The more general principles we are familiar with, the less likely we are to apply the wrong principle to a given situation. This is why philosophy is useful. And though it may be argued that true wisdom depends on no principles, and has no use for them, confronting every situation as unique and owing nothing to philosophical classifications, yet, it can be seen that the world loves philosophy, for better or worse, and every man, cultured or uncultured, consciously or by pure instinct, delights in a clever and lofty proposition. Since we are clearly in no hurry to do without generalizations, let us, at least, have enough of them to counter-balance the imbalances they individually provoke. The words are not going away. But if we fully understand them, their limitations and their uselessness, then, and only then, will they be transcended and forgotten. Then, one makes use of them fluidly, spontaneously, and without dogmatic attachment.

So let the philosophers give us truths; terse, cunning, cryptic, arrogant and self-contradictory truths. And let her make no end of it, but give us truths, also, to contradict her truths. Let her seek not to be a source of unique, but of efficient insight. Let her possess a conception of every point of view, so that, while her head may spin, yet will she discover every scene in panoramic perspective, and be capable of finding her bearings anywhere. She familiarizes herself with the terrain, draws a map, and refers to her compass only to confirm what she already knows. But a man who is not versed in philosophy is like a man who follows the arrow of his compass, and, not recognizing his surroundings, overshoots his intended destination, and does not know it. Similarly, an insight is like a compass, but a collection of insights is like a map; if all you have is a compass, you may know which way is north, but not if you are north or south, or east or west, of where you want to be; but, when you have a map, the compass becomes obsolete. Or, more precisely, an insight, if it is well-suited to the circumstances, is like a piece of the map, showing only our present location. It says, “You are here,” but tells us nothing of the distance or direction of “here” in relation to anywhere else. Then, even though it is a correct insight into the present situation, we have no way of knowing it is correct. “We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time,” (T.S. Eliot). Philosophy is the ultimate exploration.

Proceeding with the analogy: If the bit of map we possess does not reflect our current location, we will either blind ourselves to this discrepancy (it being the only map we have), or despair. We all take the limits of our maps for the borders of the universe, and will sooner interpret the universe to fit the map, than reinterpret the map in the light of experience. Despair really is a necessary step, and the willingness to lose oneself, or admit when one is lost, is as essential to the philosopher as it is to the cartographer. What we pretend to know is a deeper ignorance than what we do not know. It is not knowing even that we do not know; it is the ignorance of ignorance. But the knowledge of ignorance is a light in the darkness, and the beginning of wisdom. When ignorance falls into ignorance of itself, despair is the bottom it hits, but the knowledge of ignorance is the light it sees when, finally, ignorance looks up.

What we fear most is having to scratch out what we have already mapped out. We do not want to abandon the insights we have gained; and this is exactly what we suppose it means to reconsider our views. But the truth is that it is never necessary to scratch anything off the map. All of your insights and experiences have value; you have indeed visited and seen those familiar and exotic lands, and no one can discredit your past, or say that you have not seen what you have seen, or been where you have been. The map can only be enlarged upon. Then, our past experiences, or, rather, our perceptions of them, appear within a larger context; they have retained their original, internal proportions, but their size and significance in relation to what outlies them has changed. The chicken does not deny the experience of the egg; the space within the shell is not increased or decreased when the shell is broken, though it has ceased to represent the space of the world. It has “given on” to a larger space.

The determinist, for example, does not deny the account of the man who experiences himself as responsible for various choices and actions. Instead, he understands this account within the framework of a larger context, and explains the subtle connections and relationships between the man’s choices and the necessary antecedent events out of which they are formed, and whose ultimate origins transcend man, and man’s conscious will, in time and space. The one who argues for free will, on the other hand, cannot fit his determinist friend’s argument into a larger scheme, and resists any sincere, concerted inquiry beyond the immediate appearance of choice. His argument exhibits an oddly humanistic mysticism, with man at the center of the cosmos, giving birth to himself and all his attributes, and, ultimately, denies the existence of unconscious material.

posted December 06, 2008 10:17 AM         

You've lost me after the second paragraph too much to read and translate into my own simplistic language. My guess is that everybody else here is thinking the same thing considering the rush to respond.

But I'm thinking American Idol when those wannabes think they are great and then open their mouthes............... People are the same way with their religious beliefs and the way they raise their kids.

I think all of us in some way do not want to change because it may mean admitting that we were on the wrong path (not that great or special) all along. Our egos can't handle it, but most religions teach us that giving up our old ways in exactly what we need to do. So in the other thread when you ask "what's a boy to do?" go figure......

I like the line if she did not deem it superior - You use SHE instead of He as you do in most of what you wrote. who is the SHE you're referring to? hmmmm? I can truly relate and think of myslef when I read that line. "I used to be an atheist until I realized I was God." HeHe

I can tell you will be fun to pick on.

posted December 17, 2008 04:52 PM         

>>
You've lost me after the second paragraph too much to read and translate into my own simplistic language. My guess is that everybody else here is thinking the same thing considering the rush to respond.
>>

LOL. It could be worse. You should see what happens when i post Nietzsche. Mostly, nobody responds at all. Always reminds me of the philosopher David Hume's letter to Adam Smith, ironically consoling him on the popular success of his latest work. You see, among men of elite intellect, popularity is frequently considered to be a sign of mediocrity. As a general (but not air-tight) rule, the more popular your stuff is, the more mediocre it is. American idol, for instance, will always have an audience. Oh well. Better to be over their heads than under their noses, right?

>>
But I'm thinking American Idol when those wannabes think they are great and then open their mouthes............... People are the same way with their religious beliefs and the way they raise their kids.
>>

LOL. Yeah. The difference is that I am the first to admit that I'm lost, and attempting to navigate uncharted waters... or, perhaps, chart waters for myself, which may or may not have already been correctly charted (if you follow my drift). I keep an open mind, and follow my Sagittarian arrows, wherever they may lead. Sometimes I get more lost, sometimes I see familiar or promising signs, and, frequently, i find (or stumble over) shiny objects along the way, which often turn out to be gold.

I shot an arrow into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
For, so swiftly it flew, the sight
Could not follow it in its flight.

I breathed a song into the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
For who has sight so keen and strong
That it can follow the flight of song?

Long, long afterward, in an oak
I found the arrow, still unbroke;
And the song, from beginning to end,
I found again in the heart of a friend.

~ Longfellow

>>
I think all of us in some way do not want to change because it may mean admitting that we were on the wrong path (not that great or special) all along. Our egos can't handle it, but most religions teach us that giving up our old ways in exactly what we need to do. So in the other thread when you ask "what's a boy to do?" go figure......
>>

You may be right. I'm really not sure what I think. Some paths look like they are pretty solid, but they are also very difficult, and not suited to everybody. Other paths are easier, or more appropriate for a certain person at a certain time. I think there is probably room for all of us. All I know for sure is that I have to go where my own heart takes me. I enjoy philosophizing. I like taking big ideas and trying to line them up with other big ideas, like puzzle pieces. Sometimes, I think that all I am doing is crafting amusing, maybe even artistic, objects. Just welding one idea to another, creating a sort of philosophical sculpture; sometimes its more abstract, other times it resembles something concrete. I'm not sure yet what I will make of them, or what they will make of me, but, for the most part, I am enjoying the journey; at least, more than I think I would enjoy any other path.

Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They are where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. ~ Thoreau

Everyone is talking about building foundations, but I guess I'm still building my castles. And even if I dont finish, I'd still rather build my own castles in the clouds, with an open mind, than build foundations for other people's castles, with other people's blueprints in my head. I'm not saying it is the right way, or the wrong way, but, it is my way. And I'm cool with that. Are you?

>>
I like the line if she did not deem it superior - You use SHE instead of He as you do in most of what you wrote. who is the SHE you're referring to? hmmmm? I can truly relate and think of myslef when I read that line. "I used to be an atheist until I realized I was God." HeHe
>>

Yeah, that line touches on an idea that makes a lot of sense to me.
Our perspectives are much more subjective and biased than we'll ever know.

I say "she" in reference to nobody in particular, but, in the same sense that we generally say "he", to refer to an abstract person, who may be male or female.
The reason I make this substitution is because I believe in the equality of the sexes, and I think this is a positive step in the right direction.

>>
I can tell you will be fun to pick on.
>>

You're not the first to think so, lol. But, be careful. You've already tried to take a bite out of me and gotten more than you could chew (remember what I said about chewing my food?) You dont want to dish out what you cant take, right? I made an innocent joke the other day, and it seemed your feelings were inadvertantly hurt. So I had decided to be very careful with you.. But I see you've come to an alternate conclusion about me. So be it. Just remember, I'm a human being, not some toy for you to pick apart. And be sure that you are dealing with the real me, in all my complexity, and not simply inventing an easy target for yourself to take cheap shots at. Just because I take the risk and put myself out there doesnt mean I'm an easy target.

If you want to know about me, and just how big my ego really is, I'll tell you. I think that most, if not all, of the poems, essays, fictions, etc., that I have written are mediocre, at best, and I have made no effort to publish them, despite being urged to by some kind people who have read them and been generous with their praise. However, I have written dozens of aphorisms, and at least one longer piece, which I believe are of a high quality, and may even be held to the highest literary and philosophical standards. I may be totally decieved about this, or, -- and, although rare, this is not at all impossible -- I may actually have a talent and insight commensurate with some small niche of literary immortality. Of course, there is perhaps nothing more difficult than judging one's own mind and creative accomplishments. I am too close to it. I could show you things I've written, but, if you cannot spot greatness in the epigrams of Sallust, or the maxims of La Rochefoucauld, what makes you think you could be a fit judge of my talent, or lack thereof? But, then, who is fit to judge? Nietzsche found Plato boring. Schopenhauer thought Hegel was a fool. Perhaps we will never know the ultimate worth of our contributions, and the only value judgements we can make are a matter of taste. While I insist that Proust is a master, and ought to be appreciated, very few people read his work.. at least, compared to the number of albums Britney Spears sold last month. All we can do, I guess, is try to meet our own personal standards, then send our creations into the world, and out of our hands. Sure, self-important young men who think they are the next big deal are fairly commonplace, and, if I were a betting man, I would bet right along with you that I am just another deluded wannabe. But I am not a betting man. I prefer to confront each new situation with an open mind, and an awareness of the possibility, however remote, that greatness, having existed in the past, may still be found to exist in the present, even in my own backyard, or, if I dare suppose so myself, in my own bed; that I may be, or may be conversing with, another Thucydides; and not just another Sanjaya.

I suggest you examine your own motives for wanting to prove me wrong. All I can say is that you are unlikely to suggest a point of view which I have not considered. Today, I may fancy myself a genius, but yesterday I saw myself as a fairly average underacheiver, and tomorrow I may think even more modestly of myself. My ideas about what is possible are not fixed. I am too familiar with history not to know that the noblest virtues and most penetrating insights have often been found to exist alongside the most abject vices and intellectual blindspots; in the heart and head of a single individual. Who has not heard of the "absent-minded genius", or is unfamiliar with stories about how inept many great thinkers proved in dealing with the material world? I recall reading about how it is common for men of prodigious intellectual gifts to misquote -- frequently paraphrasing or attributing the quote to the wrong person, because they are concerned with making the point, and they remember the thought, more readily than who said it, or how it was said. Who has not heard that brilliant men are misunderstood, often say unpopular things, and, generally, find it awkard mixing with society? Who does not know that these people, being different, have always spoken and behaved differently, and been at a loss to explain their motives to more conventional minds? These are all cliches and archetypes, and yet, people still fail to recognize them in the flesh. But this, too, is a cliche; among men who, since their deaths, have been deemed genuises, it has always been understood that the people closest to them were the most unbelieving of their greatness. "No prophet is accepted in his own country." (luke 4:24) "A prophet hath no honour in his own country." (john 4:44)

And this is only further compacted when the mental gifts exhibited owe more to Uranus than Mercury. For Mercury provides the clear, critical, analytical intelligence that defends, elaborates upon, and lends credence to otherwise obscure flashes of genius. So, a person who is exceptionally Aquarian/Uranian, but lacking an equally powerful Mercury, may be receptive to uranian bolts of insight, while not having the sustained lucidity of intelligence required to connect those dots. In other words, a genius with ADD. And, of course, this challenges an unconscious assumption which most all of us make routinely; namely, that one does not gain regular access to uranian insights without having first reached the height of Mercurial intelligence. In other words, that a genius is like any other man, only smarter. This is false. There are many forms of intelligence, many ways to be intelligent, and many things to be intelligent about. Unfortuneately, we dismiss many uranians when they cannot make their insights clear in mercurial terms. And how much original thinking has been lost in this way?! Indeed, the very qualities that give a man a truly original cast of mind, -- not to mention the firey spirit of audacity, common to all who dare to be great, -- are practically antagonistic to those qualities that enable him to communicate along more traditional, mercurial lines, and endear himself to non-uranian institutions and thinkers. This is why, almost without exception, the uranians whom we do recognize for their gifts owe a substantial debt, not to the planet of genius, but, to the planet of intelligence; Mercury. Genius speaks its own language, but Mercury is the translator. So, if I am not cut from the same cloth as the men and women I admire in history, it will not be because I lacked uranian insight, -- or jupiterian fire, -- but, because I lacked the ability, or the interest, to play translator to the world outside. While my Mercury may yet be more adept than most, it still struggles to render uranian insights clear. But this is, essentially, the story of my life. And it ought to be, since I took up enough space to tell it.

posted December 18, 2008 08:13 PM         

I need to add some of those facial expressions to my replies....

As to picking on you - I'm rarely if ever mean but I do have bad days and sometimes type something that I shouldn't. I'm not perfect but hope that the next person who comes along after my reply uses more "skilled" behavior and overlooks or challenges my comments in a "mature" way (as mature as possible considering I think there are some kids or at least some whiners and on LL) some have been downright nasty to each other. They come and go.

Anyway...

I'm a bit confused by your "not putting" yourself and your work out there. The waters are never completely safe and never completely unsafe, fear is the ego's way of keeping you safe and standing still. So you just have to do it and not make any elaborate excuses as to whether or not your great, mediocre, bad, etc. Uranian or lack mercurial whateverness. You simply need to do what you do and not judge it or the process. I find the biggest creative block is setting myself up to second guess whether or not what I want to do will be good or worthwile. It's all a game of not surrendering to the process...." I have a creative job and I make lots of cr_p all day long. Every now and they I make something really worthwhile. If you just keep doing what you do you get really good hits. There was once a ceramics class and the instructor graded the class two ways. The first group was graded by creating the one perfect pot. The second group was graded by quantity. Who did better. The group with quantity. The were freed up from the demands of perfection and just threw as many pots as they could. Many more "great" pots came from this group than the just make "the one" great pot. Michaelangelo destroyed most of his sketches because he was afraid that people would "find him out" that he wasn't really "great" and his efforts were less than divine intervention or something egoic like that.

Then we start to be consumed by what other people think -----what makes you think you could be a fit judge of my talent, or lack therof?" (Am I missing something???) and "I would bet right along with you that I am just another deluded wannabe." (I really am missing something. ??? )I hope your talking to yourself and not me ???????? Personally I just have a low attention span to wordiness.

"I suggest you examine your own motives for wanting to prove me wrong." --What can I say. I simply like to "debate" about religion because it forces me to question my beliefs and readjust them if necessary. Nothing personal.

posted December 19, 2008 09:04 AM         

quote:

---

And this is only further compacted when the mental gifts exhibited owe more to Uranus than Mercury. For Mercury provides the clear, critical, analytical intelligence that defends, elaborates upon, and lends credence to otherwise obscure flashes of genius. So, a person who is exceptionally Aquarian/Uranian, but lacking an equally powerful Mercury, may be receptive to uranian bolts of insight, while not having the sustained lucidity of intelligence required to connect those dots. In other words, a genius with ADD. And, of course, this challenges an unconscious assumption which most all of us make routinely; namely, that one does not gain regular access to uranian insights without having first reached the height of Mercurial intelligence. In other words, that a genius is like any other man, only smarter. This is false. There are many forms of intelligence, many ways to be intelligent, and many things to be intelligent about. Unfortuneately, we dismiss many uranians when they cannot make their insights clear in mercurial terms. And how much original thinking has been lost in this way?! Indeed, the very qualities that give a man a truly original cast of mind, -- not to mention the firey spirit of audacity, common to all who dare to be great, -- are practically antagonistic to those qualities that enable him to communicate along more traditional, mercurial lines, and endear himself to non-uranian institutions and thinkers. This is why, almost without exception, the uranians whom we do recognize for their gifts owe a substantial debt, not to the planet of genius, but, to the planet of intelligence; Mercury. Genius speaks its own language, but Mercury is the translator. So, if I am not cut from the same cloth as the men and women I admire in history, it will not be because I lacked uranian insight, -- or jupiterian fire, -- but, because I lacked the ability, or the interest, to play translator to the world outside. While my Mercury may yet be more adept than most, it still struggles to render uranian insights clear. But this is, essentially, the story of my life. And it ought to be, since I took up enough space to tell it.

---

good mental exercise here...

thanks for the think.

posted December 19, 2008 12:55 PM         

quote:

---

Nope I was not hurt at all??? The comment was more of a "so you're such a big marshmellow that you can't take someone like me - huh -- ( I ask with a smirk and questioning eyebrows) is that so." comment. You just can't tell with reading someone's typing. ... and the video OMG who -- yes who could not cry ---seriously listen to the music. If you ever offend me I'll let you know.

---

Yeah, its hard to tell sometimes. At least three or four of us thought you were exhibiting a sensitive reaction. And your comments on this thread also appear to exhibit an emotionality which is difficult to explain, especially if you were never offended to begin with.

quote:

---

I'm not a Geminii but I've got some good mercurial stuff going on. I'll let you know.

---

You will if you've got the fire to keep that Mercury honest.

My Sag Merc is angular (10th), on a critical degree,
conjunct Mars, trine Jupiter, and square Saturn.
It rules the 5th, 6th, and 8th houses.
(Mars rules the 3rd.)

quote:

---

I need to add some of those facial expressions to my replies....

---

quote:

---

As to picking on you - I'm rarely if ever mean but I do have bad days and sometimes type something that I shouldn't. I'm not perfect but hope that the next person who comes along after my reply uses more "skilled" behavior and overlooks or challenges my comments in a "mature" way (as mature as possible considering I think there are some kids or at least some whiners and on LL) some have been downright nasty to each other. They come and go.

---

I understand, but we cant get rough with others without provocation,
and then blame them for being provoked. Irony, anyone?
Also, consider that ten days passed before I even read your response,
and you made no attempt to soften any unskilled or immature behavior in that time;
effectively standing by what you wrote, and suggesting that,
either it did not reflect a mere, passing moodiness, or,
you are not honest and/or considerate enough to make the adjustments.

Lastly, its not for us to decide how sensitive others "should" be.
Nature makes room for all types, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
Of course, we all value our own strengths more than other people's,
and find "excuses" for our weaknesses, while disparaging theirs.

I think the sensitive people will not be the ones to blow up the planet,
or kill and be killed by others in meaningless wars.
As evolution shows, qualities that aggressively promote survival
are often undermined by the excesses of their own unchecked dominance;
ultimately, they exhaust resources and result in the extinction
of those members of the species; while other members,
formerly seen as "weak", continue to make gradual evolutionary progress.

quote:

---

Anyway...

I'm a bit confused by your "not putting" yourself and your work out there. The waters are never completely safe and never completely unsafe, fear is the ego's way of keeping you safe and standing still. So you just have to do it and not make any elaborate excuses as to whether or not your great, mediocre, bad, etc. Uranian or lack mercurial whateverness. You simply need to do what you do and not judge it or the process. I find the biggest creative block is setting myself up to second guess whether or not what I want to do will be good or worthwile. It's all a game of not surrendering to the process...." I have a creative job and I make lots of cr_p all day long. Every now and they I make something really worthwhile. If you just keep doing what you do you get really good hits. There was once a ceramics class and the instructor graded the class two ways. The first group was graded by creating the one perfect pot. The second group was graded by quantity. Who did better. The group with quantity. The were freed up from the demands of perfection and just threw as many pots as they could. Many more "great" pots came from this group than the just make "the one" great pot. Michaelangelo destroyed most of his sketches because he was afraid that people would "find him out" that he wasn't really "great" and his efforts were less than divine intervention or something egoic like that.

---

"I'll know my song well, before I start singing." ~ Bob Dylan

I think it is good that Michelangelo preserved only his best,
rather than flood the world with more mediocrity.
Schopenhauer wrote, in admonition of incompetent authors,
"the libraries have groaned themselves to sleep over your kind."
I have no desire to contribute to that swamp of rubbish,
which obscures and impersonates works of true merit.
There is some value in Goethe's discouraging advice
that we ought not to write, unless we expect a billion readers.

quote:

---

Then we start to be consumed by what other people think -----what makes you think you could be a fit judge of my talent, or lack therof?" (Am I missing something???) and "I would bet right along with you that I am just another deluded wannabe." (I really am missing something. ??? )I hope your talking to yourself and not me ???????? Personally I just have a low attention span to wordiness.

---

I wasnt speaking without reason. You made a comment comparing me to the American Idol wannabes.

And "wordiness" is what happens when thought traverses more than a soundbite.
To be precise, one must elaborate, and build bulwarks against misunderstanding.
The person who can foresee how his listener is likely to react,
and likely to misinterpret his words, will give more than his view;
he will give reasons for his view; and may even give reasons for his reasons.

Most people do not think this deeply and, having no reasons of their own,
tend to avoid lengthy discussions into the foundations of beliefs.
They have little to no interest in examining the reasons for their own beliefs,
so you cant expect them to care for the reasons behind the beliefs of others.
But I go on thinking, and offering full explainations for my thinking,
more for the sake of my own understanding, than for the sake of other people,
and, also, in order to practice my writing and my thinking.

quote:

---

"I suggest you examine your own motives for wanting to prove me wrong." --What can I say. I simply like to "debate" about religion because it forces me to question my beliefs and readjust them if necessary. Nothing personal.

---

That's good. Your earlier tone was more confrontational.
You didnt have any comment on the substance of my thoughts,
whether agreeing or disagreeing, openning nothing to "debate";
rather, you made general insinuations about my character,
without attempting to examine the validity of any one of my thoughts.
This is why I responded to you as I did.

quote:

---

I think you have alot of elaborate excuses and need to quit worrying as to what people think.

---

You're right. I worry far too much about what people think,
and it has provided the motivation for far too much of my own thinking,
yet has provoked me to consider and discover the reasons for my condition.
But I have always focused on reasons, and had a mistrust of people who,
very superficialy, it seems to me, refuse to look beneath the surface, --
to ask the question "why is this the way it is, rather than some other way?", --
but, instead, label and dismiss every reason they dont like as an "excuse".
I think that sort of "no-nonsense" mode of thinking is backward,
and rooted in thoughtlessness, anti-intellectualism, and insecurity;
the insecurity of being confronted with complexity and ambiguity.
Most of us want to believe the world and people are very simple;
to think that there is an easy answer and a simple solution to everything.
But really, the more you think, the more you see how many loose ends there are,
in so many of our neat little theories about everything.
And, really, what you see is that your own point of view
is essentially constructed according to the whims of your ego;
designed to make you look good, to make the world look simple,
and to absolve you of any incentive for sympathy, compassion, or understanding
in regards to people who are significantly different from yourself.
It has always been my practice to inquire beneath the surface of things,
and to try to understand why things are the way they are,
rather than treating the actuality of things with incredulousness,
and blindly assuming things could have been different.
We ignore the reality, and the reasons for the reality,
because we are attached to an agenda which demands the superimposition
of our personal ideals and delusions of how things and others "should" be
onto the structure of reality as it presents itself to us.
Its hard to listen to, understand, and appreciate the perspectives of others
("You can't walk in another person's shoes without first removing your own."),
but it can pave the way for truly enlightening experiences.
My concern with how others see me is an excess only made possible
by my awareness and appreciation of perspectives alien to my own,
and by my noblest aspirations for community and mutual understanding.

posted December 19, 2008 02:39 PM         

I Don't Mind by the Buzzcocks

Reality's a dream
A game in which I seem
To never find out just what I am
I dont know if I'm an actor or ham
A shamen or sham
But if you dont mind
I dont mind

I'm lost without a clue
So how can I undo
The tangle of these webs I keep weaving
I dont know if I should be believing
Deceptive perceiving
But if you dont mind
I dont mind

I used to bet that you didnt care
But gambling never got me anywhere
Each time I used to feel so sure
Something about you made me doubt you more

How can you convince me
When everything I see
Just makes me feel youre putting me down
And if its true this pathetic clown'll
Keep hanging around
Thats if you dont mind
I dont mind

I used to bet that you didnt care
But gambling never got me anywhere
Each time I used to be so sure
Something about you made me doubt you more

I even think you hate me when you call me on the phone
And sometimes when we go out I wish I'd stayed at home
And when Im dreaming or just lying in my bed
I think youve got it in for me
Is it all in my head is it in my head

How can you convince me
When everything I see
Just makes me feel youre putting me down
And if its true this pathetic clown'll
Keep hanging around
Thats if you dont mind
I dont mind
I dont mind

Excerpt from Starlings by Elbow

I sat you down and told you how
the truest love that's ever found
Is for oneself
You pulled apart my theory
With a weary and disinterested sigh

So yes I guess I'm asking you
To back a horse that's good for glue
And nothing else
But find a man that's truer than,
Find a man that needs you more than I

Sit with me a while
And let me listen to you talk about
your dreams and your obsessions
I'll be quiet and confessional
The violets explode inside me
when I meet your eyes
Then I'm spinning and I'm diving
Like a cloud of starlings

Darling is this love?

________________________

posted December 20, 2008 10:52 AM         

Just to let you know I will soon be leaving LL not because of any recent communications from you or anyone but because I feel that it's time to make some really major personal changes. I left LL about a year ago temporarily to deal with them but I've procrastinated to the point that there are things I absolutely must deal with ASAP otherwise there will be HUGE consequences to pay.

posted December 29, 2008 04:16 AM         

H-SC, you don't get enuf praise, you write fantastically and what a wonderful mind.

Kat, pls don't just sweep this one under the rug and move on, this IS your personal life too.

NosiS, there is a god and I am thanking shim for you - your so smart!

posted December 29, 2008 05:25 AM         

What a treat to open this thread and find this.

And I love what you said to Kat. This is our lives.

And we can often confront the real issues in our lives,
and in ourselves, most effectively with perfect strangers.