RUDIMENTS, pt. 712
(we're all lunatics)
I've always gotten bothered
by certain things. Like tonight,
there's a perfect half moon in the
sky here, but it's a 'perfect' half.
With a straight line! That sort
of thing's been going on my
whole life, people and teachers
and books and everything telling
me that everything in the sky, and
the night-Heavens too, is an orb;
planets, stars, etc. The reflected
light and all that which goes into
the illumination, so to speak, of
the moon - I can get all that.
But what's with the straight line?
And where does that come in
and get accounted for? All
through my schooling and the
years of 'learning,' I've had to
put up with and accept a lot of
things - things which I didn't
delve too deeply about, only
because I had neither the time
not the equipment, nor the
inclination, to do so. A lot of it
wasn't worth pursuing. Things
just go on and fall into place. I
can accept all that and never
really cared - except for these
really imponderable ones. Like
this moon thing. For me, it sort
of goes to the core of all the
rest. Nature likes curves and
graceful, organic forms. All my
life, flat-Earth people have been
getting laughed off the face of
that Earth, for no real intellectual
reasons except envy, anger, and
annoyance, by others. A crimp in
the plan, a bump in the rug, one
complication in an otherwise
smooth system. I see life as a
flat place of linear comprehension,
pretty much, and one formulated
by the flat outlooks of logic,
sequence, consequence, and a
certain form of boring regularity
and tired expectation. Hardly
worth expectoration. If that's
not 'flat,' you tell me what is.
-
So, why isn't the half-moon line
curved? Somewhat curved? Maybe
even rounded. Look a a few balls,
or do it yourself, with a lamp and
a few tennis balls. Tell me what
you get. Now, I'm sure the big,
giant ogre of Logic will have its
own explanation for this, and call
it a 'phenomenon' - of distance,
or 'appearances' or something.
And maybe that's OK - even
though I don't buy it yet - but
it's when these same people
get all smug and dismissive about
everything that I get incensed.
In my own lifetime - feeble, short,
nasty, brutish, and foul, as it may
be, or may have been by the time
you read this - I've been affronted
by many things and never answered
back. The black robes will say it's
all 'Faith' based, this living, this
sacrificial redemption and all that.
The official three-into-one unity
of religion, Trinity (was that an
A-Bomb project or site too?) and
Godhead and the rest. That's fine.
I'm not asking to see the wound
in Christ's side - there's that
'assumed' agreement about things
again. Better than Thomas, I am.
But what I do doubt are the
forced conclusions that don't
match what I conclude. That's
where I bristle. I figure the
'cosmos' (not religion; this is
Science now), is worth more
that just being blown off with
the same rabid explanations and
faint conclusion given to 6th
graders about Mesopotamia,
Egypt, the Pharaohs and the
Pyramids too. I rest that case.
-
Music is data. I can sit down
and read a piece of music, first,
or before playing it. That's the
'data' of the music, read like words.
But words are far, far, better
companions because they have
inherent qualities and each
word in a series works with
the next to build the flow of
a hundred other thoughts and
subconscious drives and pictorial
representations. One can say
(perhaps, and only to a point)
the same about music, but the
hearing of it, not the reading of
it. The reading of music is in
some ways in a class by itself.
A blind person can hear the
music, but not read the music.
Is there a difference to them?
A deaf person (Oh! Hi, Ludwig!)
can read (and write) the music,
but can they 'hear' it. What was
in Beethoven's minds as he
churned through his works and
musical motivations - all that
romantic era rise and fall of
emotion. How'd that come?
Was any of that straight 'data,'
or was it all curved and jumbled
as it came through and around.
What other form of cognition
do we have that works in this
manner? These sorts of questions
and conundrums used to occupy
me lots. None of this is like, say,
fixing a car. With a car, you get
your Chilton's, or some other
repair-type manual and you
follow the procedures and the
diagrams. If done right, you
get the car running, the engine
hums. If you get something
wrong, the car's not going to
work. It's not like that with this
issue, nor any of these more
conceptual issues. If you get
an inherent fallacy built into
any one of these, it gets engraned
in people's thought and learning,
and digs in as a foundation
and stays for generations,
right or wrong as it may be. A
small piece of error then gets
built upon; and before you know
it, 60 years later, it's part of the
basics of some new theory or
school of scientific outlook.
I still say the Moon and the
Sun, and the Earth, are round,
OK - but why is the cast and
reflected shape of it all, f-l-a-t?
-
A lot of it is just 'in thought' -
it has always been my developed
view that most of Life is an
illusion, and the rest is a lie. I
was just never really settled on
'Reality' as a basic premise. I
always figured we start out with
nothing and work with nothing
for the entirety of our lives. It's
all made up. It's all linear structure.
We are very deep in strictures and
frameworks, and it's all illusory
and fictional too. Perhaps when
we die, we each go back to some
wired reviewing room for the drama
we were just in, and get to review
and re-plot most every little aspect
of it, to judge and settle up and
re-gauge the results for the next,
'our' next, go-round. (Notice I said
'round.'). When people start
telling you to give it up and go
straight, I begin to worry. To me
that means they want 'over' you.
It's about, at that (also illusory)
level, control and false superiority.
We have that here - bureaucrats,
council-people, mayors and clerks
lording it over others for some
erroneous and fleeting and, in
addition, completely misinterpreted
version of Reality which they then
insist upon. If thy could only see
themselves, and how childish and
off it all looks. (And they will,
they will - remember that
reviewing room I just mentioned)?
It's a scary proposition, and they
ought to be worried now about
their then then. It's funny too,
that the justifiable implementation
of the time we live is also an
illusory and fabricated 'sequence.'
Quantum mechanics already
tells us (and it's just 'scratched
the surface' now of, again,
something that doesn't exist),
that there's neither a here nor a
there, that all things exist as one,
and at once, concurrent, and on
the move. Glaringly, as illusion.
In fact, the past is yet ahead of us.
There's nothing to grab onto,
and whatever you are reaching
for is immediately NOT there,
where you're reaching - it
having already predicted your
thought and movement (which
are illusions anyway) - and
moved along, re-composing
the illusion of itself as energy
someplace else. Perhaps it then
leaves behind a cosmic history,
a trace of itself, or a rumored
story about itself - in one of
its possibilities - which becomes
one version of what we call
'History' and the teachers teach.
Like that curved versus linear
stuff I started out with. No
wonder the Moon has always
been studded with all that
weird and luscious romantic
stuff. We're all lunatics!
No comments:
Post a Comment