posted February 22, 2010 11:32 AM         

quote:

---

The form, which once seemed necessary to legitimize, and bring reverence to, the idea, and, ultimately, to the dynamic life of the spirit, which underlies it, has become an idol.

---

I am always curious why would we choose to "end up" this way? What in our nature prompts us to be a certain way? How did it become culturally acceptable? Why? Is it a natural progression?

I can't help but compare the two very different societies I have been/am a part of. One is materialistic to the bone. The other one was not but now is headed in the same direction and it seems to be gaining speed really fast.

Do we need to be utterly materialistic before we can become spiritual again?
Do we need to fall before we can stand strong?

posted March 06, 2010 01:33 AM         

we make short cuts when we deem what we focus on to obsolete what we may be presented with were we not focusing on what we short cut in relevance to the moment. And this just builds, though of course we can consider backtracking to be relevant and thus backtrack, philosophize etc, but only as a result of this, all pertaining to universal law. there is no exception. all is. this is.

and "idealistic" presumes insecurity, while the whole principle of ontological theory is that everything is certain. or you could say it roots from some other irrelevant initiation, and it's just an exploration of that, but ultimately, it's justified this.

My Cancer Mars is pretty resentful of freeloaders at the moment. well basically it always is unless it's packed away and I'm distracted.

posted April 15, 2010 10:46 AM         

quote:

---

As a culture, as a people, what we need to remember is that, ultimately, the ideas do not come out of a book. Ultimately, the books come out of an idea.

---

Do you think this may be circular in a sense?

I mean if you look at it as a question:

What came first - the written word or the idea?

That is a question one could get a definite answer to because there was a point in homo sapien development when "writing" was impossible.

So, basically - Someone had to have the idea of "writing" (I am referring to very early symbols and drawings here, rather than writing as we know it today) for writing and then -later- for books to exist.

But fast forward to NOW - At present.. Now that that books do exist, I think the idea-writing process has become circular. A majority of us read, so we often derive ideas from those books-articles-newspapers-magazines etc. Later, we might write and put those ideas on paper.. Someone else may read them as I am reading your post now.. and get other ideas and so on.

In a sense the written word and the "idea" are correlated and separated by turns. Maybe we could see the "written word" as a means of transportation for the "idea".. whilst remaining a separate entity from the "idea" itself. In that case I would agree with you - the idea deserves ontological status independent of that of the written word -- but there is still a relation there: call it supervenience or what have you.. The significant point is that the relation is not one of *identity*. We can't reduce an "idea" to a "written word" or a cluster of written words for that matter. What do you think?

quote:

---

What is needful, above all things, is that we see matter as an emanation of spirit; as spirit a posteriori.

---

posted April 15, 2010 10:51 AM         

quote:

---

everything is conceivable. everything is a result of something etc, and our coming to these conclusions is not exclusive. everything is, whether it's in your perspective or not.

---

Are you saying ideas just are --- *things* -- since, according to you, everything *is* -- but that they do not have to be thought of by any individual (from any particular perspective) in order to exist? So basically an idea can have ontological status, even though it was never *thought* by anyone in the history of man-kind.. or animal-kind for that matter.