Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: February 2011

The latter [Historiography]
is information about and acquaintance with the historical, and indeed
in a purely technical sense, i.e., it calculates by balancing the past
against the present and vice versa. Everything historiographical takes
direction from the historical. History, on the contrary, has no need of
the historiographical. The historiographer is always just a technician,
a journalist; the thinker of history is always quite distinct. Jacob Burck-
hardt is not a historiographer but a true thinker of history.
- Heidegger (Parmenides, 1942-43.p64)

Man has

Three ways of

Acting wisely:

Firstly, on



This is the noblest;


Secondly, on


This is the easiest; and


Thirdly, on


This is the bitterest.



A carpet lay on a

Road traveled by many,

And when the evening came

It was grey and dusty

Like the road.

There upon I said unto my soul:


This is thy parable,

O soul, when thou

Endurest patiently the

Market and the

Incidents of the Market.



If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.


“If everyone wants to be happy, how come it’s so hard to find someone to be happy with?”

– Dave Noble

“Thank you O lord for the white blind light,
Thank you O lord for the white blind light.
A city rises from the sea.
I had a splitting headache from which the future is made.”

–  Jim Morrison
(The Ghost Song)

It has become, almost painfully, obvious that the city that rose from my sea has become erroneous.  I seem to have become too self-important, arrogant and potentially domineering. And when it comes to thinking “my way is the only way” I seem to be guilty of that too. Let me, however, dig deeper than this shallow surface.

When it comes to things that I obviously do not know enough about I do, usually, claim ignorance or an unknowingness. But when it comes to Philosophy or the present state of human consciousness I consider my self to be quite in the know. For who else other than I has been absorbing, studying, critiquing and revering most of the great thinkers of humanity for the past 6 years?  Who has also killed their self a couple times, i.e. how many cities have you raised out of the sea of your unconsciousness?

And here arises my stubbornness and potentially also a more overbearing attitude.  I stubbornly stick to certain expressions of what I see as being true. I then place critical importance on these judgments of mine. Which then leads to impatience in social settings because others seem so slow in understanding that words are merely tools of expression. And being foolish with my use and abuse of words is wise, if wisdom truly says that being foolish is wise. And then, of course, intolerance rears its ugly head as I stop being tolerant of the others need for social limits. But because I seem to enjoy an overly lustful desire for the taste and texture of life and living I come to find the limits of our society to be very frustrating. I also feel a lack of tolerance and understanding coming from these supposedly ‘socially normal’ people. For how can anything change if we continually look at things the same way, and so continue to react to them in the same way? This is what I would call “Eternal Recurrence”: the inability to adapt to subtle changes in social norms and customs, the inability to add new perspectives and attitudes into everyday life (which I am also guilty of not doing), especially ones that have come from the youthful experimentation of life it self.  I mean what has happened to the youth… where is our child-like innocence, that child-like innocence that allows us to foolishly and playfully re-arrange and test social norms? Why do we not enjoy our folly’s more (I know I try to enjoy mine), I mean who of us is perfect?

To the woman and night which has led me to this re-evaluation, I Thank You. I see my self much more clearly. Hell I had some how forgotten that I was performing an experiment, not with you, but with my self.  I forgot that I was increasing my ignorance.  That I was trying to be more average, to get inside the average man, and I believe I did a damn good job of it (at least in regard to increasing my ignorance). To become a good Philosopher I have to study the average man and what better way than to become one and then study my self?

It seems I had set up an emotional love-affair with you of which you were unaware. In general, I am a romantic through and through and if I feel reality lacks excitement I have a tendency to create a fantasy or illusory world in which I can escape. I had become very ignorant of my ability to do this. To surrealistically re-create the world in which I live to enable my self to live better and more freely. But that city I created seems to have failed me or perhaps it is I who failed it.

Let me probe my self one step further… for it seems that my inner drive to manifest my ideals in reality creates a sometimes very powerful inner tension. This then leads to self-doubt.  And like a slippery slope I am soon overwhelmed by self-consciousness which leads to inhibition. Inhibition is the worst possible state for a man of my tastes. Freedom is what I need to breathe in order to manifest my self and my ideals in reality. And so it is likely that in wanting to manifest in reality a great time with you, I then started to doubt my ability to do so and became self-conscious as a result and then being afraid to become inhibited I sold my self to the drink.


And so the analysis continues. The re-evaluation becomes the self-examination with the intention of showing me, personally, more of my ignorance’s, and perhaps illuminating the limits or spheres of human consciousness by virtue of my being human.

Let me first start with that quote from ‘The Ghost Song’. Specifically the part “A city rises from the sea.” The sea is obvious enough but the city remains quite unknown; the window through which I view reality or the ways experience has shaped this outlook, or in-look. In other words my experience of life and the many-sidedness of its realities have slowly erected the buildings of the city in which I live. My experience of thought, my thinking itself, has been built up along certain lines. Methods and ways of interpreting life have slowly turned into realities. These realities come in all shapes and sizes, and in general I would describe them as spherical or at least describe their range as a sphere. The sphere of thinking or thought itself, for example, includes within it all thinking and thought. And as another example we have within this sphere the sphere of Science. Even within Science we have different spheres or realities. We have the more exact sciences like Physics and we also have the more liberal sciences like psychology (I like to place Philosophy outside of science, since for me it is the father of science). Within the more exact sciences you have, generally, one language, Mathematics, which being more exact has set out for itself certain methods and modes of logic that work very well for it and obviously lend it the power of agreement.

“There can be a dispute over the correct result of a calculation (say of a rather long addition). But such disputes are rare and of short duration. They can be decided, as we say, ‘with certainty’.
Mathematicians do not in general quarrel over the result of a calculation. (This is an important fact.)—If it were otherwise, if for instance one mathematician was convinced that a figure had altered unperceived, or that his or someone else’s memory had been deceived, and so on—then our concept of ‘mathematical certainty’ would not exist.” (Wittgenstein)

Now what about the inexact or more liberal sciences? They obviously do not have the kind of certainty that mathematics or mathematicians have. And by calling them ‘liberal’ in the first place we are saying that they have a certain amount of freedom. They are less rigid and more inexact. They are more open and are then also more likely to fall into error. Their connections are looser and the playing field for conceptualization is larger. Now if we were to dissect the sphere of thinking, as we dialecticians like to do, we would have to say that one side closely resembles Math or rather Math seems to be the expression that is produced from that area of the mind. And then the other side would become Music or Music seems to be the closest expression of the other side of human consciousness. In other words in between every point is music, or that Music is the flow or motion of thought from a point or piece of knowledge to another piece of knowledge. Lu Bu We therefore says in Spring and Autumn: “Music is founded on the harmony between heaven and earth, on the concord between obscurity and brightness” (which I got from Hermann Hesse’s The Glass Bead Game).

So what then does this mean for us? Well it seems to mean that we, in our blind striving for freedom have embraced the obscure over the bright. The Intellectuals off in their Ivory Tower and we here in the world struggling unable to make any real sense of the tidbits of knowledge or brightness that come down to us from on high. And so we continue to be unable to reach a common understanding of our present situation other than we feel something must be done. For no one seems capable of connecting our obscurity to the educated ones brightness. No one seems to be able to re-write the concord between obscurity and brightness and so bring harmony to all the realities in which we live.


And here comes another attempt from a man who can and should still consider himself almost too young to even be tempted to such a change of view whose necessity is necessarily called for and yet so hard to express.

O how in the past our thinkers seemed to have it so easy. A simple dichotomy between the educated and the uneducated. The appearance of the simplicity of light and dark; of illuminating what was concealed from our minds eye. Of having ample room to build and create, to the founding of Philosophy and the sciences. What room have we left ourselves today? What space is left for us to create, to build? Perhaps Philosophy and the sciences are the key. And that would still mean we’d have to re-learn what it really means to be educated and uneducated in the present. But firstly what did it use to mean to be educated and uneducated?

Now let me pry up, at least, part of the wool that covers our eyes.

As I said before, thinking hither to has been mainly focused on unconcealing the concealed. But now arises a new call, one that is still late in being understood. And this call brings with it the realization that what was precisely unconcealed by Philosophy or light was really just another way to conceal. It seems to be saying that consciousness itself by becoming conscious of something actually conceals itself. That the very act of becoming conscious is also an act of concealment, self-concealment.

All of the Sciences, all of the Philosophies in the world are but a veil, the wool if you will, over what really is.
Through these vehicles or perspectives we merely draw on top of life with our thoughts to bring all that we experience into perspective. To digest, to over-come by creating a method that brings order to our experiences. Even wisdom suggests that we align our thoughts properly to the situation in order to bring about the desired result. And now look what has now been unconcealed again, what has now become conscious again: the point where mans mind first dissects. The real and the apparent. But before we re-read Plato and dive straight back into Philosophy and its distinction between the World and the Forms–the visible and the intelligible–we must first step back a moment. Yes we must hold ourselves back from merely creating another philosophy. We must turn our back to that for a moment. For our gaze now has to stretch itself across the cosmos of our intellect, over everything that is intelligible. We must come to know what we do not know about our own thoughts.

It is the system we have almost trapped ourselves in that we need a better perspective of. A new ordering if you will, except this order can not be static. This new form firstly has to be a continual re-forming. It has to continually re-think itself. Has to re-arrange and play with its own premises so as to reflect upon itself. To show itself what it unintentionally conceals from itself through its own being.


For if mans mind is really his imagination. If everything from mans mind is a product of his imagination then everything is imaginary and nothing is real.

However, it must be conceded that mans imagination is real. That the imaginings of his mind are apart of what is real and therefore we must conclude that there are degrees of apparentness between what is real and what is imaginary.

This then could be why within our education system, and systems in general, you have to conform to the institutions standards of writing. That because of the power of our imagination we can too easily fly off and away from reality. Especially if we are in the heat of the moment and the emotions that spill forth manipulate our imagination and therefore our understanding of the present situation and we become unable to see what needs to be seen.

I will also say that mans mind needs to be able to fly and in certain areas leave behind such rules and limitations, but isn’t that what art is for… or poetry?

If the academia could or would, understanding mans mind, give its students and disciples its reasons then in turn perhaps more students wouldn’t feel the rigidity of the system and they would understand how hard it is to make sure that their thoughts are actually dealing with reality. And that narrowing themselves to the institutions standards actually helps to make it easier to grip a piece of reality through a specific field or particular subject.

We must also acknowledge that to objectify our object we have to subject ourselves to a methodology. And that this is a most necessary limiting of our imagination in order to be increasingly precise. In other words we subject ourselves to the narrowness of a method so as to objectify our object more precisely.

There are also, however, experiences within man that can not be narrowed or stored rigidly within a system and to express them even remotely we have to become as imaginative as possible. Therefore music, art and religion come into play and allow for the expression and even the acknowledgment that the experiences are real even if words fail to express them or science and math fail to understand them.

And this is where we have to take on a better dichotomy or polarity. Which is Music and Math instead of the real and the apparent or the real and imaginary. For music allows for the heart, change, the inexpressible in words and therefore the unknown, where as math allows for the mind, the unchangeable and also for the expression of the known within language. And what is more spectacular about them is that they can be combined or left alone… they can war with or love each other.

Here then is the reason I used the word ‘polarity’ instead of ‘duality’:

“But never forget what I have told you so often: our mission is to recognize contraries for what they are: first of all as contraries, but then as opposite poles of a unity.”    – Hermann Hesse
(The Glass Bead Game)

But isn’t man, at least, the co-creator of these institutions, systems, methods and languages? And in being so does he not in some sense transcend these? And in transcending them can he not choose to deny or obey? So then wouldn’t the truly conscious man having understood the reasons for these systems and methods decided it is better not to seek change merely for the sake of change, but instead seek change because it is right and necessary? And then in his seeking seek to give adequate reasons for the necessary changes instead of uncompromisingly demanding change without even explaining himself? But that doesn’t mean that I am willing to give into a system that I can not believe in. A system that I feel no longer produces the type of human beings we want and need. An institution is nothing without the people within it and both the teacher and student need to change. There are obviously exceptions and those teachers and pupils I am in awe of, for they have stood up against degeneration even if unknowingly. But the point is that, in this case, the exception needs to become the rule.




The child wakes from birth
With soular eyes piercing
The infinitely beautiful skies
And smiling crawls into and out of
All shapes and colours of perception
Soon walking and running learns that
The physical is the playground of creation.

But unbeknownst to the innocent youth
The decaying Word has been busy
Building a maze of walls that shortly
Wrap the young adults mind in shadow.

The mind races looking for something
What is it? this seeking, but nothing
The insatiable urges;
Drugs, sex, money, rage, depression: slavery!
What is it? confusion, darkness, despair


Falling, emptiness …Death.
Give up?
Give in?

Let Go?

All at once it stops.

What is this?

Why do I feel weightless…
Smiling? why am I smiling?
What is this peacefulness, this, this tranquility?
No questions

Just …enjoy.

What is this dream?

“Truth leads to untruth, Untruth leads to truth”…?

Uncurling from the night
A new day is dawning
The sun is clarifyingly vibrant
The wall of words have given way
To the ripening of the Word
And have scattered guideposts
For the journey ahead.