1
   

I don't know, just read it.

 
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 10:57 pm
{{{{{{{{{{OSSOBUCO}}}}}}}}}}
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 11:42 pm
truth
Though generally delightful, Twyvel sometimes reveals a mean streak. Like just now. :wink:
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 11:53 pm
No meanness intended JLNobody,

Oh where, Oh where is the mean streak?

I was picking up on your post, Confused
0 Replies
 
OZ-
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 07:19 am
Quote:
The Present is Now,
Now
or even Now...


This boy is experiencing/expressing time. Describing three particular moments in writing that he experienced as "now."

Quote:
I look at it a little differently JL. The past and the future *do* exist, but they don't exist as different forms of the present. Past and future are part of what it is to be human, since we have the ability to conceive of such notions.

Those philosophies which seek to live in the purity of a single perception, don't expand human consciousness, but diminish it. Those that seek to visit a different perspective and understand its place in the scheme of things are more honest.

We cannot escape what we are, but if we're not careful, we can delude ourselves into thinking that any particular perspective is better than the whole, which it cannot be.


This is interesting to me. I was once an avid Zen reader, however in the end came away with an incomplete picture. I'm curious if you are touching on what lingers in me as a flaw with Zen like philosophies.

I'm sorry I've been trying to think about how to describe it but its too complex for this format, I would need to write a dissertation in order to do so.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 11:22 am
truth
OZ, thanks for your insight. I failed to realize that the boy was, as you say, actually experiencing or expressing time in each utterance:

"The present is now" (said at time 1);
"Now" (said at later time 2), and
"or even now" (said at still later time 3).

I mistakenly thought he was doing what we usually do: talk ABOUT time in the ABSTRACT. He was actually SHOWING us (pointing to) time, in a very CONCRETE (and zen) modality.
Smile
0 Replies
 
TUITBW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 12:46 pm
yeah
It's called pety existentialism.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2004 04:15 pm
truth
But when we actually look at the movement of time, all we see is process or "becoming", not points of "being." It been said by many thinkers that humans cannot think, or communicate, in terms of process or "becoming." We simply have to freeze the process, stop the flow of verbs, as it were, and refer to fixed nouns, like NOW. As soon as our young poet points to a "now" in the flow of time, he is pointing to a fiction, a construction designed to stop the flow, to create points in time. Such points exist not in time but in our minds. Yada, yada.
TUITW, I don't recognize the existentialism in the poem or in our interpretive efforts. By "pety" are you referring to "petite" existentialism or "petty" existentialism?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/21/2024 at 06:17:08