posted January 10, 2009 10:25 PM         

We settle somewhere,
because we must be somewhere;
because we cannot be everywhere. --
But the universe extends beyond our four walls,
beyond our acres, beyond our familiar haunts...

We settle on an identity, too,
because we must be someone;
because we cannot be everyone. --
But who we are extends far beyond the walls of consciousness,
beyond all we have thought and experienced, or may think and experience.

Who "finds himself" merely finds a fitting place to settle down and call his home.
Great personal transitions are not so much metamorphoses, but migrations.

posted January 10, 2009 10:46 PM         

"Love is a paradoxical phenomenon. It needs two in the first place, and in the last place it needs two to exist as one. It is the greatest enigma; it is the greatest puzzle."

Sorry, I know you don't like him, but the title of your thread brought this chapter in one of his books to mind...

posted January 10, 2009 10:52 PM         

Interesting thoughts...

But, what is it to "Be Thyself";
is there a concrete "self" to be?

It could be "Become Thyself",
if not for our assumption that becoming is a midway point,
between what we have been and what we will be;
and this is no closer to the truth.

One might say, "Experience Thyself".
But what are You, besides the ongoing experience of yourself?

posted January 10, 2009 11:05 PM         

'Experience thyself' is good. But 'experiences' brings to mind the senses which in certain "religions" point out are the very things we are trying to overcome. They are what that keep us trapped here and locked into the illusion (i can't stand that word anymore ).

quote:

---

But what are You, besides the ongoing experience of yourself?

---

posted January 10, 2009 11:20 PM         

There may be Higher Selves, though. I dunno.

I experience the "split" between every part of myself and every other part of myself.

Even that higher voice is lopsided, when it reaches me. You know?

It gets fine-tuned by another, yet higher voice, lol. Ad infinitum.

Its a constant shifting of balance, but no balance.

And I think people who appear to find balance are not at all to be trusted, lol.

There are some who question, who seem more enlightened, to me, than even the best answerers.

But I don't know.

quote:

---

And are your experiences of you, you?

---

Thats difficult to answer, isnt it?

One might say, "my present experience of myself is me",
with the provision that this "present self" is eternally in flux,
and the instant it becomes "self-aware", it becomes a lie.

posted January 10, 2009 11:32 PM         

quote:

---

I experience the "split" between every part of myself and every other part of myself.

Even that higher voice is lopsided, when it reaches me. You know?

It gets fine-tuned by another, yet higher voice, lol. Ad infinitum.

Its a constant shifting of balance, but no balance.

---

Yep.

The last thing I want to do is kidd myself.

And I'm a good listener.

posted January 11, 2009 12:02 AM         

I think truth is simple.

posted January 11, 2009 12:41 AM         

quote:

---

I've been wondering how things evolve lately...even religious teachings; if some of what I've studied is now somewhat stale in this day and age....

---

Do you ever think about writing a book of farcical religious/metaphysical teachings? I do. I mean, why not? Someone's bound to believe it if you stick to the tried and true formulas.

posted January 11, 2009 12:43 AM         

It was only by losing patience with others, and with the contradictions they all seemed to present, that I finally began seeking myself in earnest...

When Nietzsche wrote, "The sea is raging; everything is in the sea," I understood: Nietzsche is raging; everything is in Nietzsche. And as I plumbed his depths (and what man has brought up so much or shown us so much of what brews within him?), I found contradictions. And the more I sought to understand, and to sincerely learn what this man's wisdom had to say, the more frustrated I became. For, in one instant, he tells me he loves "the great despisers", "for they are the arrows of longing for the other shore", and, in the next moment, he tells me that all longing for other shores is symptomatic of decadence. One minute, he tells me that there are no causes, only symptoms, of degeneration, and that the man who succumbs has already succumbed, or deserves to succumb; being weak enough to succumb; while he (Nietzsche) desires more enemies, more difficulties, for he is such a spirit as will turn them to advantage. Then he advises suicide to these "degenerates", saying that they poison the lives of others -- adding, "incidentally", that they are merely symptoms. So, which is it Nietzsche? You say that all revolutionaries are degenerates; you tell me that the anarchist blames the government, when the culprit is his own effeminacy, and, yet, here you are, Nietzsche, the man determined to effect the greatest revolution of all time; "a re-evaluation of all values". You blame Christianity, this mere "symptom" of decadence. You claim to be the great affirmation, and that all your negations and criticisms are "involuntary means to an end". You seem to say that, where a man finds fault, he finds fault only with himself. But you never cease to find fault with the priests! Where is the fault, brother?! Whose sickness speaks out of your "great contempt"? I read you, and I have all these questions, and I wish I could speak to you, but I can't, so I keep reading, but all I find are more contradictions. Tell me, did you understand yourself? Freud said you had a more penetrating knowledge of yourself than any man who ever lived, or is ever likely to live... Did you see these contradictions? Did you puzzle them out in your last days, before madness struck? Nietzsche, they say you saw a man whipping a horse in the street and went mad; you collapsed with your arms around the horse. Was it pity? That most indulgent of emotions, which you told us to scorn and scorn and scorn? Did you finally go mad from pity, my friend? I wish I knew you. You would have loved and despised me, as I love and despise you. Have I ever been so deeply in agreement, or so deeply at odds, with anyone? You genius, you fool. I could find contradictions enough inside myself to rival yours. You tell me the creative act is a symptom of vitality; life overflowing itself. You say that the Dionysian ideal (your ideal!) is an artist's capacity to respond, at every level, to a stimulus, and to surrender to the orgiastic fullness of an experience, in sight, sound, and movement; to mimic and almost become that which one has a mind to represent. Then you say that the strong spirit is indifferent and rests secure within himself, having the ability not to react to a stimulus. You call the artist "a genius of communication", then say that "what we have words for, we have already gone beyond"; that "with language, the speaker immediately vulgarizes himself"; and there is only indecency in explaining oneself; that all who bother to communicate abdicate a position of dignity and succumb to the wills of others. How does your wit reconcile these contradictions? Or are you content to leap over them, like moribund toads? You, who would believe only in a God who could dance, and who sites the first requisite for divinity as "light feet". Has any man presented such a puzzle? You say you love the man "whose soul is deep, even in being wounded, and who can perish of a small experience; thus he goes gladly over the bridge". Then you tell me these are the degenerates who ought to be encouraged to kill themselves!? Man, who are you?! The world-spirit personified, maybe. But, you said, "I'd rather be a buffoon. Perhaps I am a buffoon." You were no buffoon, and no mere genius or saint. You were the sea. "Nietzsche is raging; everything is in Nietzsche." You threw me back upon myself like Lao Tzu never could. I reject you, brother. For that is the hero's embrace.

posted January 11, 2009 12:52 AM         

quote:

---

All very beautifully put HSC,

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

but in the end I think you complicate things. I think truth is simple.

I think it is possible to know thyself. I know myself very well. Period.

---

With all due respect,

I think YOUR truth is simple.

And that's great. For YOU.

Perhaps YOU are simple?

For me, there are no "easy answers"; only boundless mysteries,
and the joy -- and, yes, occassional frustration --
of pursuing them to the subtlest extremities of thought.

I am a thinker. That's how I worship.

And God is not indifferent, or inaccessible, to my form of worship.

You may not find God in these complicated places, but I do. I can.

posted January 11, 2009 01:01 AM         

There is our conception of ourselves, those things we believe to be true, and then there is the reaction we get as a result of being who we actually are. Sometimes what we believe of ourselves is divorced from the reality we live out, so it's worthwhile to take note of occasions where we're offended that someone doesn't see us as we see ourselves as some reconciliation may be in order.

posted January 11, 2009 01:07 AM         

I won't let anybody tell me who I am.

And sometimes I will express myself forcefully,
when someone confronts me with a strong assumption;
one designed to undermine my self-confidence,
and keep themselves unconsciously biased and arrogant.

posted January 11, 2009 01:29 AM         

quote:

---

And, sometimes,
no matter how you express yourself,
some people will never understand you.

---

There are lots of people I don't even bother trying to understand, so the same must be true in reverse.

quote:

---

I won't let anybody tell me who I am.

---

I'm inclined to do the same, although I do often like to entertain their thought to see if I can see where they're coming from.

posted January 11, 2009 01:37 AM         

And you often make me think twice.

But it sucks when you're a different kind of person,
and people have very predictable reactions to you,
and their advice is always the same.

I know what I think about that.
I dont have to entertain it for the hundreth time.

God, all I do is look through other people's eyes.

All I do is question, question, question.

You are all in my head, all the time, anyway.

Challenging every position I dare to take.

I undermine myself constantly,
and I dont need to be undermined here.

posted January 11, 2009 02:21 AM         

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." ~ Einstein

Has anyone tried to understand Special Relativity Theory?

There are enough people over-simplifying these things.

The world could use a few hawk-eyed "complicators" like me.

Period.

posted January 11, 2009 02:58 AM         

quote:

---

I try to understand you, AG.
And you often make me think twice.

---

Part of me is flattered by that, and part of me feels almost exploitative for causing you to think twice. Maybe you hold me in an esteem I don't rightfully deserve.