|
The Site for Logical Pantheism Menu | Intro | Tenets | Modern Metaphysics | Home |
|
From: Jamie Chiarello
To: Flash Light Subject: RE: spirals Date: 2 August 2007 Flash- I found the writing and subject matter to be very very intriguing and, in tune, I find myself unsure whether I can offer the sort of response I'd like to right now. I'd be very happy for you to add me to the website (I will definetly be peering into it with some zeal) I'm unclear whether I'd fall under 'theist' or 'other'. May I add a link to the page on my website? Unfortunately I am moving away from nyc quite soon, but I'd like to keep up a correspondance with you through e-mail (or even the typed page when it's fitting- what is your mailing address?) I am somewhat amused and happily surprised- as you'd given me your preface as 'post-modern' and something near apathetic- in these writings I see someone who is very involved in the speculation of life, and not from a stale intelligensia that would speculate without involving oneself in the process. I admire your writing because I sense something of a directed passion, a feeling for ideas that doesn't muddy them. Well I need to be heading out---- I'm not sure if I sent you this, but it's an older e-mail response to a friend, I found parts of it that aligned with aspects of your article. My appology if you'd already recieved it. (as follows: "I know that for many people the feeling of contradicting oneself is uncomfortable... unwelcome. I know this is so for myself, and it makes me feel as if I am concealing the truth of things from myself... do you have this feeling, and if so, to what do you attribute it to?[). Whereas if we allow ourselves to be restricted (it is self restriction) we are able to fully persue fewer things and make progress in our pursuits. We are then no longer slaves to impulse and we can hope to find the contradictions and make sense of them (or make sense of ourselves)." I was re-reading emails and this stood out to me, so I'll respond. (Why say that instead of merely responding?) well, again, I am unslept and I'd like to sell art in the square today and am useing this in part as a way of testing my coherencey, and naturally because it vastly interests me and I have much to say about it. I experience contradiction almost perpetually. When it actually seems to feel the worst is when one aspect (as of a duality) seems to drop from view and I am left with the other and can no longer compare, can no longer contrast to work with the present insistence. I believe strongly that you are concealing truths from yourself, that we all are, and that this is an attributed to our survival. Since I last wrote you I had one terrible month and then it became quite bareable and now rather nice, having re-attained the ability to compare I've been observing many, (Many) things about myself. Much of it is unprofound** ** Okay, here's a great example, I began doubting the clarity of what I am trying to say, in response to the doubt the above impartial sentence arose. Seeing the doubt again I was less startled and so was able to use the doubt as a tool (a hint or alarm) to question what caused the doubt. {interupting myself- why survival? instinct; I think our instincts have merged with our phsychology and so now instead of reacting as animals to present, physical stimuli, we respond in quite the same fashion to unpresent (past or future) and unphysical (memory, imagination, suggestion etc) stimuli. This has kept us alive, but also presented a ridiculous amount of deviations.} ***Back to the doubt; because I doubted my clarity (but did not observe it) and then ignored it the doubt the doubt came back, my impulse reaction was to write "much of it is unprofound" I observed the doubt as still present and saw I'd written that in an attempt to discredit myself in advance so as not to dissapoint you and to impress you with my humility. On another layer I do consider 'much of it unprofound because on that layer it is not a 'negetive' thing. The immense value I find in the contradiction is building internal communcation literally inside myself and building a relationship where paradox may exist. For instance, working from the above rambling- I've noted there's one layer of me that reviews information and it's prime role is to decide, "yes" "no". Meanwhile anything it can't resolve it makes a good guess at and then throws away. Problem is- it can't be thrown away. So it goes to the 'subconscious' (unsure of this word, but let's use it- can designate another if you prefer) There the unresolved information is re-united with the hasty resolution, but still unresolved, it splinters and turns into a duality; doubt (perception) ignore doubt proceed doubt observe the doubt observe what came about when I ignored it ('it' being the fear of incoherency; fear of dissapointing you; fear of rejection etc) *conveniently I have it typed up so it's easier than when it's all 'intangible'* 1st processor says: "No." I type: "Much of it is unprofound.." Immediately this get's splintered: flight/fear- "she will not understand this or she will and think it is stupid" fight/hope "she will understand and she will think it's important" 1st processor says: "yes" I continue typing. Meanwhile my fear of not being understood is still unresolved. subconscious: here I am not limited to binary and so I can see the duality; because I can see both of them and that they work together I no longer need to choose sides- here the notion of 'unprofound' is not negetive and so doesn't need defending. Here my fear of not being understood still exists but is confronted- because you still might not understand this. --- Mainly, seeing that one part of me has a certain capactiy which is limited, but this part thinks it is ALL of me. Therefor any information it doesn't process well it basically tosses away, because I think I've already considered somthing, that I already know, that I know who I am, that I know why I'm writing this etc etc etc etc etc- But what happens is the information re-appears over and over and over again until it is dealt with. Having said this- in regaurd to 'self restriction' it initially strikes me as a dull and terrible thing. (intellectually, a violent & unaffective thing) But I am viewing self-restriction as something already inherent in us-the avoidance of our impulses. This alone I don't find a 'bad' thing, I think it is programed into us and has been verrryyy useful (ie; I am cold and tired, my impulse is to curl up in a ball and freeze to death; however if I avoid that impulse and go gather wood and build a fire I can sleep warmly and keep living) I suspect that since humans prime tool for survival is the brain, a fundamental aspect of our development is avoidance of impulse (impulse as human-instinct), strangely I don't think we can avoid THIS either. But I believe this is what birthed the contradiction. Here we are in eden again- good and evil...what was introduced to us at this point was not morality it was choice. I don't think we are limited to the choice between passively falling prey to our impulses (though we do, hedonism basically) or agressively restricting them (catholoscism).........applied politically, heh that's funny because I suppose we've worked with governing systems of both these orders (the restricting catholics are obvious but do you know any good examples of the hedonist ones? I'm thinking basically pagans- ah, I suppose the vikings may be a good one but could you really think of them as having a government?) Anyhow, I think we are lacking in the choice to dispose of either of these inclinations, but that through observing both of them we can make sense of ourselves, though it may often not be nice, comfortable or profound. --- ah, I'm really pleased with this, this is a process that I've called 'folding' where things sort of demonstrate themselves, I really believe that ultimately it's the reason we're here, but it's so impersonal in a sense and I don't think there's a way we could 'not' do it... eh. -- Jamie Chiarello www.NamelessArt.com |