I
like to talk about thinking. Really
thinking, not the distracted purpose driven choice making most of us believe as rational analysis of a proposition.
Sometimes I even talk clearly enough that someone would get an idea of what I believe. But I laugh to myself often in that inner chamber of my mind where there isn't sound; the sacred place where the sense of my own voice is easy, as well as what I believe is suspect because it’s so darn subject to change; liken to chasing fireflies. I read once where our reality is born from our perspective; just as well as our imagination is limited by our experience. Taking those into account, the actual event witnessed is subject to interpretation by every single person who observes it.
Sometimes I even talk clearly enough that someone would get an idea of what I believe. But I laugh to myself often in that inner chamber of my mind where there isn't sound; the sacred place where the sense of my own voice is easy, as well as what I believe is suspect because it’s so darn subject to change; liken to chasing fireflies. I read once where our reality is born from our perspective; just as well as our imagination is limited by our experience. Taking those into account, the actual event witnessed is subject to interpretation by every single person who observes it.
Never mind going down the paradoxical 'if a
tree falls in the
woods, does it make any sound?' pathway. Those sort of things are just jester’s ways of calling attention to facets of life that can be contradictions. I really have to pause and ask if they add any quality whatsoever to my condition? In Ann Ryan's book, ATLAS SHRUGGED, there was a premise whenever questions were asked that invoked irrelevant responses the humorous reply would be 'Who is John Galt' as a sublime code announcing the surfacing of an irrelevant and nonsensical question. Naturally a response to 'Who is John Galt' would translate into, 'what does that have to do with what I asked you?"
woods, does it make any sound?' pathway. Those sort of things are just jester’s ways of calling attention to facets of life that can be contradictions. I really have to pause and ask if they add any quality whatsoever to my condition? In Ann Ryan's book, ATLAS SHRUGGED, there was a premise whenever questions were asked that invoked irrelevant responses the humorous reply would be 'Who is John Galt' as a sublime code announcing the surfacing of an irrelevant and nonsensical question. Naturally a response to 'Who is John Galt' would translate into, 'what does that have to do with what I asked you?"
"Exactly! What does YOUR question have to do with reality?" Similarto pursuing arguments over what color are God’s sandals? Distilled summation: Does it matter? From a point of view, (which is to say every point of view) does defining have that much to do with correctness or connection? Well, I'm driving along enjoying the flow of these thoughts, finding it amusing that we spend more time defining collected data rather than expressing interpretations on living. As if everyone had the same reference point, when evidence suggest that nothing could be further from the truth! The idea of expressing our delights, hopes, and yes, fears the mind gins up from moment to moment, is in a way a catharsis for figuring out where fantasy's end and where agreement begins. For the sake of sanity I suspect, if we did not engage in dialog beyond the need to communicate only when information was required, or need conveyed, It'd be one dull existence spent mostly in frustration.
Wrought by trying to figure out how others see things you don't;
too bad for that. As for me, I'll blabber about anything and everything for the
sheer delight and amusement of what's found out. And in my world, John
Galt is a cool dude that is in a constant state of awe.That’s what I'd say
and I'd gladly invite him to coffee for a talk, and maybe learn he's a lot
just like me.
No comments:
Post a Comment