29 March 2009

Zest-fully clean!

I think that if the collective unconcious were to be simplified it would be a to-do list of mundane chores and responsibilities, an unsettling that seems impossible to pinpoint (but can often be ignored by entertainment and other distractions) -- this would be conjoined with hope in an extremely nebulous Someday. There would also be a list of disappointments (and possibly therein a devout faith in the redemption of a more powerful income).

Some don't believe they are inventing their lives and reality as they go. Some are waiting to die, because they believe they are condemned to a mortality forever vieled from the divine, and that they are incapable -- unworthy -- to transcend it. They must prove themselves before the eyes of some omnipresent judge, and hope that the afterlife (the ultimate Someday) will be more entertaining (because they won't have to work every day or worry about money or whether they're going to hell or not). I think with heaven, if you make it in, it's now or never, and it doesn't really have anything to do with locality so much as choice. The power to transcend is always within yourself rather than an external authoritative enabler, which is why so many can't find it.

Life is a continuosly creative process. The way someone lives their life is Art: how they create, or fail to create, meaning; the way in which they define reality and regard the more universal laws necessary for a collaborative construct; how they suffer; how much of their own truth and self they sacrifice to someone else's who seems more confident about it; what they do with now. It's the insane balancing act of the divine with the mundane.

If I'm malcontent with life, I think it's because I have a failure to engage: I'm throwing it all away while I chase after what I think everyone else thinks is valuable, or for whatever reason that I'm not excited about right now. I should have nicer things and be better regarded by my peers. I should be successful.

So much time is wasted on distractions and material fuzz.

My life is never going to get better. It will always be subject to subjectivity.

It makes more sense as I think about it: I'd rather be than have. I'd like to be happy and enthusiastic and engaged in my life. That's the sort of life I want to live.

3 comments:

Dave said...

What an absurd assertion, every bit as glib as the title.

The only thing more annoying than all this "you make your own reality" New Age tripe is when it's applied to "How I made more in a month than I ever did in a year ... concievebelieveachieve.biz".

Furthermore, if anything is nebulous, it's your concept of heaven: What exactly are you saying, that if I chewed on a few barbituates everything might not be gilded, but it doesn't matter so long as I feel fuzzy?

Contentment with now is hardly an all-saving virtue in an entropic system.

You do better when you admit you don't have a clue.

Peter McCombs said...

Allow me to interrupt your argumentative soliloquy with a few thoughts of my own...

I think of the symphony with its ebb and flow of alternating tension and resolution. Some passages are mundane, others sparkle with an exciting quality. During the performance, I might catch glimpses of the masterfulness of the creation, but it isn't until the end that I can comprehend the full significance of the piece. Without tension, there was no resolution. Without the mundane, no contrasting brilliance. The music cannot be perfect until it is complete. It cannot be good until it is whole. The work must be performed in order to be understood, and for the subjective experience to be fully comprehended. There is not transcendence before that time.

And while I experience the piece subjectively, my experience is ultimately tempered by the universally acknowledged external laws of music, with its various modes and declensions. The master is he who first understands and then transcends, revealing more of the laws than were understood before.

In geometry, the Flatlander might transcend his existence by first conceiving and then passing into the third dimension, in which all of his previous motion on the various two-dimensional planes come together into a pleasing geometry. Still, the "good" depends a great deal on the external laws of geometry, coupled with that aesthetic subjective sense. There is an infinite variety of that which is good, and yet also infinitely disjointed and nonsensical rubbish.

I like to believe that we transcend our lives by passing into eternity, where we can comprehend our temporal lives in one complete whole. Only then can we truly see what we only glimpsed before. We can see who we are: who we made ourselves to be. Like the music, we can see the tension and the resolution, the mundane and the brilliant. It was all necessary to achieve the complete, perfect whole.

And yes, as with music, mathematics, geometry, and many other things, the "goodness" of our being will be largely defined by external, eternal, and natural laws - experienced subjectively.

And as with all other things that can be mastered, those who have gone before and have transcended to higher states are the ones who reveal and enable us who come behind. The master has always been an enabler for those who seek to do well.

Dave said...

Thank you. That's very thoughtful and I'm inclined to agree completely. It's well put.

Nevertheless, I also imagine when you say "It was all necessary to achieve the complete, perfect whole" that the perfection may be merely one of infinite variations, and to see all of them a step again further back would be to see more of the big picture.

I'm also fond of the idea of reincarnation (because of my drowning dream, my Latin dream, and few others); I like to imagine beings of energy and endless complexity continually shaping and creating.

I imagine it's all a matter of focus. Right now, we're just focused on our lives -- which is exactly what we wish to be doing.

I just like ponder how much of my life I will mundane-consciously create versus being powerless to fate; I feel when it comes to things like these, my concepts of matter and time just aren't robust enough.

But I feel you're right, and your analogy to the symphony was very nice indeed. :)