Skip navigation

Category Archives: Attempts

Truth leads to Untruth, Untruth leads to Truth.

The path and way of being, particularly human being, flows like this.
This is one of the most general notions that can be spoken about the Essence and Destiny of Man.

Truth leads to Untruth, Untruth to Truth.

Man is that organic process, that creatively ordered flux.

Man stands before the Cosmos a small frail being. Its incomprehensibility equal to its spatial scope. He almost drowns in the abyss of the Unknown.
Yet in the depths of this incomprehensible blackness, a light emerges.

Consciousness born. Man’s essence, like the tree, who rises and strives towards Sol, Man reaches for the light in Mind. And as the tree does not only rise up, so does it also descend.

And just as the seed had to incubate in the darkness before it could sprout, so Man also.

Being at one with the heights and the depths. Being at home in them and also a home for them.

Man, fearless only when he grasps his own oblivion.

For a dawn grows out from every darkness.
And Man is that Dawning.

Man is forever a Dawn and a dawning. And it takes time for this to dawn upon him.



I’ve been thinking about confidence lately. And how the ladies like or are more turned on by a confident man. But if self doubt is necessary for the striving for Truth and living of our individual truth then self-confidence, especially too much of it, is the opposite of truth seeking and can be considered a form of violence and death.

I had a dream recently, and it was about Love. I was with a girl and we were going around doing things and hanging out. But when it came to the end of the dream, a song by Meat Loaf popped up and I sang this:

I would do anything for Love,
O I would do anything for Love!
But I won’t do that,
No, I won’t do that.

Hopefully, by the time you finish reading this you will understand the purpose of this dream. And what it means for me and all of us.

“…in order to understand ourselves we need a great deal of humility. If you start by saying, `I know myself’, you have already stopped learning about yourself; or if you say, `There is nothing much to learn about myself because I am just a bundle of memories, ideas, experiences and traditions’, then you have also stopped learning about yourself. The moment you have achieved anything you cease to have that quality of innocence and humility; the moment you have a conclusion or start examining from knowledge, you are finished, for then you are translating every living thing in terms of the old. Whereas if you have no foothold, if there is no certainty, no achievement, there is freedom to look, to achieve. And when you look with freedom it is always new. A confident man is a dead human being.”
– J.Krishnamurti (Freedom from the Known)

So, in regards to dating Women; What is the Man, who doesn’t want to be a dead human being, to do?

Can he really be with a Woman of today, if she is like this? That is to say, who looks specifically for a Man, who, being confident, merely fits into his society and so is never truly free? And who, if she doesn’t, herself, acknowledge that she is projecting from knowledge and conclusions, can therefore be considered not free and also then, not helpful in regards to Humanities higher purpose or calling?

For if the higher purpose of Humanity, is to “Know Thyself”, and if knowing thyself requires one to admit that we do not know ourselves…then what is the “new” Man, or “Present” Man to do? (Present, is here being taken as “on time”, or aware of Humanities new situation)

What can we say about Women, who, being stuck in the past, and not present, because they want a “confident” man, i.e. want a Man who makes them feel secure and safe. To help make them feel confident through his confidence. What can we say about Women, who want a Man who is certain of himself? Who themselves want comfort and security over the Truth, and the striving for it?

Can we ask this? Can Women acknowledge the new situation and properly step up to the plate? Are we “Men” forever having to give in to, what could be called–which I would prefer not to have to say–the “weakness” of Woman?

Can women face the uncomfortableness of truth, or will they always want to feel secure and therefore shun it? For if, as wisdom says, Happiness comes from within not without, then how can woman, consciously, seek a partner who will hide them from the truth and allow them to live an illusion?

I mean, if this is the “new” situation; that we have to be lacking in certainty, to be full of self-doubt, or rather, to maintain that innocence of the child; who is open to anything because he never thinks he actually knows for sure; confidently.

Am I missing the proper understanding of Confidence? Is there something that is hidden from me in regards to Woman? Supposedly, she, wants to be free and treated more equally. Well, if that is the case, and Women have a “new” demand based on their “new” situation. Then so do we Men, now have a “demand”, which really isn’t “our” demand but one based on the Truth. That we need you to work with us. That if you want to be “equal”, that you too have to change and adapt and strive for truth. That you too, have to share the weight and burden of “not knowing”, of uncertainty. That you, can no longer shift the responsibility onto us. Can no longer judge us from the past and what you have concluded is being “confident”.

In the past, you were sheltered by the Patriarchal. And this sheltering, that allowed you to remain freer from hardship, has also held you down. The situation has changed. And what once was helpful, to both Men and Women, has now been stifling you. And you, in your turn, being more reactive than responsive, have contributed to the disruption of the Family. Of the foundation of relationship between the sexes and therefore, also, within all Relationship. We, too, have not been very helpful. We also reacted to your reaction instead of responding. We are both at fault and yet, we are both free from blame. For, we both, do not know. And we both, are having issues coming to terms with the new situation. With having to forego a “foothold”. To having to be open and think and feel anew in every moment. For, just because someone says something or does something, that in the past, hurt us, does not mean that it should in this new moment. That just because I feel a certain way doesn’t mean that my feeling is a proper response to the new situation. And this also applies to Thinking, that just because, what I see, looks similar enough to a previous situation does not mean that I can, without re-thinking or re-looking, assume a conclusion or apply a solution that I have had or used before.

In this sense, the desire for security, comfort; a safe haven, as J.Krishnamurti would say, is precisely what keeps us from the Truth, and from real relationship. We conform or run away. We keep things easy and light. We are afraid and we won’t face the fear. It is easy to judge and then run. It is hard to maintain uncertainty and meet each person and situation fresh, anew, free from past conclusions and ideas.

This has to be done together. I can’t stress this enough. I am not capable of always and forever maintaining the tension that creates the freedom to look, with living eyes, into every new situation and moment. Maybe I didn’t get enough sleep or maybe, for you, it is that time of the month.

Part of Relationship is to help each other “Know Thyself” and to understand what “self-knowledge” really means: That we “do not know”. That I am, we are, changeable, within a continuum of constantly changing relationships. And through this continuum of change within relationship we have to acknowledge each other and all of our relationships.

Our relationship with the Whole; the Universe, which we seem to have named God, or Cosmic Spirit. With each other. With our own selves. With Ideas.

But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps this is merely the end of a previous situation and relationship. Perhaps there has finally been a revolution and this scribbling signifies my resultant liberation. Regardless, the point was to make you think, as this dilemma has made me think.


I think everyone should ask themselves this…

If we, as everyone tends to assume, are changeable; then what would have to be the core of our Being?

Let’s say the core of our being was decided. That we “knew” who we were….would we then be able to change?

If a tree were to become hard and inflexible in the middle…would it be able to bend and not break under a strong wind?

Really dislike people trying to figure me out…Ie. put me in a box from their limited experience and narrow consciousness.
If you really want to see someone, drop your Self; your ideas, your judgements, your built up experiences, assumptions….in short free yourself from your knowledge and conditioning. Then and only then can you see someone for who they really are…and not through the narrow limited window of what you think you know.

I had a general “feeling” one could say, that something like this has, is, and probably will happen so I decided to voice my dislike. I mean, doesn’t everyone share this feeling at least once?

Be like an Uncarved Block:

The Chinese word “Pu” is often translated as “the uncarved block,” and refers to a state of pure potential which is the primordial condition of the mind before the arising of experience. The Taoist concept of Pu points to perception without prejudice, i.e. beyond dualistic distinctions such as right/wrong, good/bad, black/white, beautiful/ugly.
But this should apply to everyone. If everyone attempted this and remained open it would help a lot in getting everyone to turn towards wholeness.

“There is truth, my boy. But the doctrine you desire, absolute, perfect dogma that alone provides wisdom, does not exist. Nor should you long for a perfect doctrine, my friend. Rather, you should long for the perfection of yourself. The deity is within you, not in ideas and books. Truth is lived, not taught.”
― Hermann Hesse, The Glass Bead Game

What I am attempting here is to bring something up into consciousness. To help it into our sight.

The core of our Being, unknowable, speaks and shows.

We don’t have to be stuck or limited, in the normal sense of the word. Holding onto the I, me, mine causing nothing but separation, division does not lead to the open field of play.

And in this sense, and pretty much only this sense, can “I” judge. Can I “dislike”. Because I put the Open first, and only because I put the open first, can I judge that which is not open and dislike it.

For I must always acknowledge, within myself, that I am unknowable, beyond words, thoughts, ideas, and that this extends to everyone, everything. So how can I, with my labels and ideas about you, ever really hold them to be true?

Wouldn’t I be selfish if I did? I mean, am I for the open? Do I want to play or do I want to rule?”


The Uncarved is the realm within which things are allowed to go through the process of continual carving and un-carving. Its purpose is for gathering and research. Gathering together the insights and materials of the past for the betterment and raising up of the Present from the confusing murkiness within which everything now resides.

In short…this is solitudinus’ research space and therefore, if you enter, leave yourself at the door. You will only cause yourself pain if you wander in without being awake and aware. The foundation of things and our perception of them will be questioned. Everything here is to be and remain in question. We who reside here like to be on the brink; with an Abyss before and behind us. This is our freedom and joy. There is no room for sentimental attachments (unless of course they serve to illuminate the nature of attachment and sentimentality or to bring one to Katharsis). We seek here naught but the truth, the logos. We don’t care what you use to build yourself up or what prejudices you unconsciously carry with you. We Un-carve. We destroy and rebuild; We are not afraid.

This disclaimer, in general, I don’t think should be necessary, we should understand the proper limitations of intellectual rigour and the seriousness necessary thereby, but the growth of sentimentalism has made it too easy for people to be emotionally reactive. In one sense, this is good, in another, bad. Good in the sense that if the person being “sentimental” can free themselves from their over-attachment to the word or idea that has trapped and enslaved them, then they can come to a clear seeing, for themselves, of this truth. And it is, therefore, “bad”, because, if the person is unable, the emotions will cloud out the understanding of self and things, ie. reality.


“A psychic depression, for example, is characterized by an abaissement du niveau mental, by a loss of libido in the consciousness, expressed in lack of enthusiasm and initiative, weakness of will, fatigue, incapacity for concentration and work, and in “negative” contents, such as thoughts of death and failure, weariness of life, suicidal leanings, and so on. Often, however, this psychic process also becomes visible; that is to say, it appears in the familiar symbolism of the light, the sun, the moon, or the hero being swallowed up by darkness in the form of night, the abyss, hell, monsters. A deep psychological analysis then reveals the irruption of an archetype, e.g., the Terrible Devouring Mother, whose psychic attraction is so great because of its energetic charge that the charge of the ego complex, unable to withstand it, “sinks” and is “swallowed up.”
A contrary movement may be represented symbolically as follows: the hero devoured by the monster cuts off a piece of its heart and so slays it. This symbolic process corresponds, on the image plane, to a conscious realization. A corresponding process takes place on the plane of consciousness when, through the “splitting up of the archetype,” the ego achieves a rise to consciousness; that is, consciousness comes to “understand” parts of the archetypal contents and incorporates them in itself. When this happens, the ego is strengthened and consciousness broadened. Consciousness not only recovers from the archetype the libido it had lost to it, but in addition takes new libido from the “split-off” or “cut-off” part of the archetype by “assimilating,” i.e., digesting, it.”
-Erich Neumann (The Great Mother, pg. 27)

Consciousness is always attached to masculine symbolism and in the arts some of the oldest symbols or representations of it are the knife and the lamp…the light shines and so shows, illuminates what is…the knife cuts, dissects, opens up…again revealing what is and allowing it to be integrated…digested. And, if one contemplates this they can come to a deeper understanding of Consciousness itself.

When moments like these occur, and as the tales speak, the “hero” can be male or female, has to be devoured, so to speak, we have to fall into the darkness. But in that darkness which is supposed to be scary and dangerous there arises consciousness, the lamp and the knife, and the ability to break down the experience and incorporate it into one self. So doing, in my experience, which I still go through from time to time, decreases the amount of time spent in that state and relieves it of its most “negative” characteristics. That is to say that while I will feel a need to be alone and may have thoughts of failure, suicidal leanings do not truly emerge or take over. Slowly I come back to myself and recover the vitality I had temporarily lost. However, I also do not run from the experience, I seek out a quiet space to be alone and allow myself to go through the process.

It also appears that these states can be aroused by lack of balance. As in a person being too Extraverted or too Introverted. For each have their specific dangers and therefore can lead to a devouring of consciousness or disintegration of the personality.

“The third type of hero does not seek to change the world through his struggle with inside or outside, but to transform the personality. Self-transformation is his true aim, and the liberating effect this has upon the world is only secondary. His self-transformation may be held up as a human ideal, but his consciousness is not directed in the narrower sense to the collective; for in him centroversion expresses a natural and fundamental trend of the human psyche, which is operative from the very beginning and which forms the basis not only of self-preservation, but of self-formation as well.
We have followed the birth of ego consciousness and of the individual all through the archetypal stages whose climax was reached in the hero’s fight with the dragon. In this development a constant increase of centroversion can be detected, tending toward consolidation of the ego and the stabilization of consciousness. It gives rise to a standpoint, indeed a rallying point, from which to combat the dangerous fascination of the world and the unconscious–a fascination that lowers the level of consciousness and disintegrates the personality. Both attitudes types, introversion as well as extroversion, can easily succumb to this danger. Centroversion, by building up the conscious ego and by strengthening the personality, tries to protect them and to counteract the danger of disintegration. In this sense, the growth of individuality and its development are mankind’s answer to the “perils of the soul” that threaten from within, and to the “perils of the world” that threaten from without. Magic and religion, art, science, and technics are man’s creative efforts to cope with this threat on two fronts. At the center of all these endeavors stands the creative individual as the hero, who in the name of the collective–even when he is a lonely figure standing out against it–molds it into shape by molding himself.”
– Erich Neumann (The Origin and History of Consciousness, p.220-1)

In this we can come to see the importance of the age old imperative to “know thyself.” As in to grasp the inner workings of your mind and consciousness. But also the need, the necessity, to build up things outside of one self. One, given more power over the other, leads to disintegration due to the weakness of the opposing and equally important other half. In today’s present we, generally, over value the extrovert. This can be seen in the overall powerful fear of being alone. It is easier to be with someone who takes us away from ourselves. And when we are young, as I experienced myself, it is painful and scary being alone. Now, of course, I almost enjoy it more than being with people (it changes, fluctuates). But people like that seem to be few and far between. And there is also, for the Introvert, the weakness that comes from spending too much time with one self and being weak or fearful when it comes to losing one self. As in, to loosen up and go with the flow as an Extrovert might say. But again, doesn’t the ancient Greek saying: Know Thyself, still speak to both the extro and introvert? Can you know thyself if you haven’t both lost your self to society and found your self forever renewed within?

Here is a passage from Jung’s Red Book and it deals with this problem:

“The tension of the future is unbearable in us. It must break
through narrow cracks, it must force new ways. You want to cast
off the burden, you want to escape the inescapable. Running away
is deception and detour. Shut your eyes so that you do not see the
manifold, the outwardly plural, the tearing away and the tempting.
There is only one way and that is your way; there is only one salvation
and that is your salvation. Why are you looking around for
help? Do you believe that help will come from outside? What is to
come is created in you and from you. Hence look into yourself. Do
not compare, do not measure. No other way is like yours. All other
ways deceive and tempt you. You must fulfill the way that is in you.

Oh, that all men and all their ways become strange to you!
Thus might you find them again within yourself and recognize
their ways. But what weakness! What doubt! What fear! You will
not bear going your way. You always want to have at least one foot
on paths not your own to avoid the great solitude! So that maternal
comfort is always with you! So that someone acknowledges you,
recognizes you, bestows trust in you, comforts you, encourages
you. So that someone pulls you over onto their path, where you
stray from yourself and where it is easier for you to set yourself
aside. As if you were not yourself! Who should accomplish your
deeds? Who should carry your virtues and your vices? You do not
come to an end with your life, and the dead will besiege you
terribly to live your unlived life. Everything must be fulfilled.
Time is of the essence, so why do you want to pile up the lived
and let the unlived rot?”
– Jung ( The Red Book, p.308)


If you are irritated by every rub, how will you be come polished? – Rumi

Most people will not be at all prepared for this…education says and does nothing for it and emotions are, in general, too powerful….
re-think how one could go about getting into the deep with others and consider the potential fact that everyone else experiences boredom where you experience the highest truths and your longing for perfection. Also do not be afraid to lose people…you can’t realize the fullness of your personality by remaining attached to the superficial.

This is where it seems wisdom starts…and by wisdom I mean this:

Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.

Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power.

– Tao Te Ching

This is where it gets tough and where I feel most alive:

The fact that you don’t want to go into this, says to me, that there is a judgment taking place here and therefore we are not experiencing the present moment free of like or dislike. Meaning that if we are not free of judgment then we are operating in the realm of the ego or superficial self. which then also means that the truth is not being seen; it is being blocked, obstructed, and hence we are irritated by a rubbing that seeks to polish and it would seem, by the above quote from the Tao, that we would also then be missing our opportunity to gain true wisdom by not going through an experience that would show us ourselves.


“There is truth, my boy. But the doctrine you desire, absolute, perfect dogma that alone provides wisdom, does not exist. Nor should you long for a perfect doctrine, my friend. Rather, you should long for the perfection of yourself. The deity is within you, not in ideas and books. Truth is lived, not taught.”

― Hermann Hesse, The Glass Bead Game

How does one convey the problem? How do you discover those who have broken away? Why does society, you and me, continually do the same thing….shun those who are different? Luckily, society doesn’t seem to kill the different anymore(?) but if society, you and me, are so perfect…how come there is still war? How come we are in the midst of a hundred years and counting of war? Supposedly our enlightened and educated society understands that we are the world and the world is us (an experience one can have through Ayahuasca or DMT) then it must be us who are making these wars…either directly or indirectly, by not facing fear and understanding the human condition. Enslavement Blues we can call it…enslaved to emotion and the running away that comes when the superficial self is not surrendered to the truth.

So if transformation can only happen through emotion then we all, quite easily, can take the first step…but it is the next step that is most troublesome.

The step where what is being asked of you: to allow yourself to feel and go through the emotions while at the same time not judging them; is never realized. Once you’ve judged them it is all over and you have fallen into the trap of the superficial self that seeks to save itself above all else and will weave incredible stories and excuses for not going further. Namely the person who tries to bring this about becomes the scapegoat and is therefore shunned or in Socrates’ case killed due to the ignorance of his society…you and me.

They can also be simply pushed to the side as Heidegger would say:

“When the creators have disappeared from the people, when they are barely tolerated as irrelevant curiosities, as ornaments, as eccentrics alien to life, when authentic struggle ceases and shifts into the merely polemical, into the intrigues and machinations of human beings within the present-at-hand, then the decline has already begun. For even when an age still makes an effort just to uphold the inherited level and dignity of its Dasein, the level already sinks. It can be upheld only insofar as at all times it is creatively transcended.”
– Heidegger (Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 67)

Questioner: What do you think “the human condition” is?

That is hard to answer but if I can bring anything to words that will hopefully speak then let it be this:

The human condition basically consists of the real life realization of the eternal truths. As in the limitedness of our consciousness and ability to know. A non-superficial understanding of this brings to one the understanding that we are always ignorant. That there is always something that we do not know and that we can only make our judgments based on what we know and so we need to continually re-look, re-see, re-adapt to the new insights and impressions life has given us…therefore we are forever in transformation.

This means, if these words will speak, that the truth, uncertainty, is the very thing that gives us the sight and power to create society and culture in the first place.

And while that fact operates any society, doesn’t matter what society, is always limited because it is made by man and therefore has to eternally be “creatively transcended”…

Which in the words of the I Ching means Return…to Return to the beginning and surrender to the truth, uncertainty. We then re-enter into that innocence of relation with truth and rebuild culture and all our relationships to people, thoughts, and things.

In short all “true” knowledge is only true when we start from ignorance. Not from the assumption that we are “correct”.

[More insight regarding Truth, Aletheia (ἀλήθεια), un-concealment, dis-covery and truth becoming “correctness” of propositions can be ‘un-covered’ in Martin Heidegger’s ‘The Essence of Truth: On Plato’s Cave Allegory and Theaetetus.’]

But I would like to raise another problem here, one that, it seems, will take some time to overcome…And this problem, I think will, probably, come to be known as: ‘The Oblivion of the Obvious’ or ‘Oblivion in the Obvious’.

For purely “practical” reasons, for ease of speaking and so we can move on quickly to other things, and in a sense to maintain our dullness and to not meet life head on; we level-down into more easily and readily graspable, “tough” concepts and ideas. Or rather to escape from the headache of truly thinking, in the present moment, we, as I did above, “shorten” or distill. Which for me, this whole attempt is a leveling down. Because it doesn’t properly go into and bring about an actual conscious experience of the event or process by which one consciously, authentically, experiences uncertainty without judgment. So, in this sense, when we “play” with words and throw them about we are adding to the confusion, the noise. And instead of seeking and attempting to get to the bottom and experience the phenomenon themselves, we pride ourselves on the superficial, on the word, on that which merely points towards what is true. Or as Krishnamurti might say: “We take the word, the description, the scientific treatise…what have you, as the thing itself.” And in the obviousness of the ‘correctness of our propositions’ we let the truth, Alethiea, the un-concealment of what is, slip into oblivion, where we remain uncreative and continue upon our merry way as if there are no such things as problems and heartache. And therefore have no tie, no relationship to the rest of world…to live as if we are actually separate. To hold to the attitude that: “I, already know how to treat people. That I, already know how thinking thinks. That I, already have, without a doubt, the truth and it is only the inferior who have to strive for something that is obvious to me.”

So to come full circle and to return to the beginning:

How does one convey the problem?


Sometimes I wonder what we think about books and quotes and “thinkers” and concepts or ideas.

Take this quote for example:

The Greek word φιλόσοφος is put together from σοφός and φίλος. A σοφός is someone who understands something, who has reliable knowledge in a particular area, who understands the matter at hand and who enacts an ultimate decision and law-giving, φίλος is friend,φιλόσοφος someone whose Dasein is determined through φιλόσοφία(Philosophy): not someone who pursues ‘philosophy’ as a matter of general ‘education’, but someone for whom philosophy is the basic character of the being of man and who, in advance of his age, creates this being, lets it originate, drives it forward. The philosopher is someone possessed of the drive and inner necessity to understand beings in the whole, φιλόσοφία , φιλόσοφεῖν(to philosophize) does not mean science (research within a delimited region of beings and with a restricted problematic), nor is it primary and fundamental science, but is an openness to the questioning of being and essence, wanting to get to the bottom of beings and of being as such. In short, the philosopher is the friend of being.

– Heidegger (The Essence of Truth, p.66-67)

Where is this thought?
And I don’t mean physically within your brain or physical being.

Where does it lay within the whole of what can be thought?

I mean thinking and thoughts take us places. We travel, by ultimately coming to conclusions based on our more or less immediate reactions and our interpretation of our, much too personal, gatherings of experience.

But if we can actually take a moment to ‘look back’ upon our decisive moments of answer creation…to experience Religio, so to speak, and become religious. Then we could see more clearly where we’ve come from and therefore see more clearly into where we are in the present.

That right there is a travelling. And even φιλόσοφία could here be said to be the way to seeing Being and Man. Ie. the Philosopher notices what is essential in the being that is undergoing the experience of religio. And then seeks to establish the –how–it comes to be by its “law-giving”.

And contained herein is a possible path into the essence of φιλόσοφία.

In short, in the above passage, I see a way to the beginning of thought. To seeing the whole of thought so as to see how it is best done. And to seeing the importance of History and of being historical.

If we can come look and see, we shall notice that every concept or idea or institution is invariably attached to man, him or herself. To his/her actual being.

Therefore History can not be accomplished without someone actually becoming the being that is capable of thinking, and therefore being, the way that can create history. Either in the form of a book or in a more direct physical action.

The same applies to all “systems” of thought. Ie. the institution of science. It requires a person to be a particular way. Although science is not the way to look-back, religio, nor the way to seeing Being, as a whole, φιλόσοφία.

This then can also become another train of thought into the depths of the essence and Being of Man. What is the essence of Man? What allows him to become able to have or take on “other” ways of being?


And even later, through Psychology, we can even make a trip to a distinction between the sexes, by seeing how Feminine and Masculine development differs substantially in how they tend to comport themselves to the overcoming of Fear.

The great, to some extent ultimate, task posed here is that of understanding fear in all its forms as an instrument of the self. Fear of the unknown and of all that is ego-alien turns out to be fear of the unknown aspects of “one-Self” and of “one-Self” as the unknown. In this sense the transformation process of becoming one-Self again and again embraces new unknowns, indeed, ever-new worlds of fear-inspiring unknowns.

In development through the archetypal stages, the individual must overcome fear with each transition from one phase to another, which, of course, always means the new phase of an existence unknown until that time. In this context we cannot take up the various ways in which men and women overcome fear, nor can we address the striking and as yet not well understood fact that the manner in which the ego overcomes fear is symbolically “genital,” i.e., is coordinated with the specific form of the genitals. Thus the male form of overcoming fear is active, intrusive, and pugnaciously heroic just as the typical form of fear appears as “castration” fear. Conversely, women’s fear is the fear of rape, and her way of overcoming fear is not actively heroic but passively heroic, accepting and incorporating it in her surrender to fear.

– Neumann (Fear of the Feminine, p.278-9)

With all of these possible places to go, all this seemingly infinite ability to travel; to imagine, combine and create, why do we still remain stuck in a singular way? Where is our Heroic tendency towards conscious, continuous development? Why do we not see all the possible ways one could think or exist? Why do we destroy that which we fear and do not understand? Isn’t the real point to travel freely through all thoughts, to never stay too long in one view as things should be in consciously constant flux to remain, even remotely, tied to reality?



O Socrates,

All you did was question and never write and therefore you are the greatest of thinkers.

You also did not do much else other than make shoes and ask questions.

We know you as a thinker, philosopher, and not a shoe maker so you must have been better at the one and only did the other so as to have food and shelter.

So from this example of a man who barely did anything but question and think we are given, as his disciple, Plato, founder of the way that we think, and yet during his time he upset, personally, a few powerful men whose ego’s, enslaving them, made them think they had to sentence you to death.

And yet it was your presence and influence, albeit a shake you and wake you up influence by pointing out all of the assumptions and short comings of the average Athenians thinking, that helped keep Athens vitally alive and creative…

In short I like very much the Socratic Method…I want to face my assumptions and short comings…but it should be done together where we lay bare each others short comings and prejudices….but, alas, who has the stamina for this?




An old way of thinking might have gotten us to this point but it can’t carry us further and giving up our moment and time to think for ourselves, now that we are where we are, is exactly what we should not do.

“When the creators have disappeared from the people, when they are barely tolerated as irrelevant curiosities, as ornaments, as eccentrics alien to life, when authentic struggle ceases and shifts into the merely polemical, into the intrigues and machinations of human beings within the present-at-hand, then the decline has already begun. For even when an age still makes an effort just to uphold the inherited level and dignity of its Dasein(somewhat like Self), the level already sinks. It can be upheld only insofar as at all times it is creatively transcended.”
– Heidegger (Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 67)

If truth leads to untruth, and untruth leads to truth then let us move away from the old truth that has become untrue and use this truth to reawaken and become true.

But for now let us attempt to see this more clearly:

“When the creators have disappeared from the people, when they are barely tolerated as irrelevant curiosities, as ornaments, as eccentrics alien to life…”

The creators are actually just you and me, with one exception, they have entered the abyss and returned. They have, almost literally, dipped themselves into the unknown and have returned to us, partially wounded and anxious, but with an inflamed heart that has seen and been through unfathomable experiences to one who has not struggled with their own paradox. They are the shamans, the sufferers and curers of Psychosis, the consciously, well rounded experimenters–some-what by accident– of the heights and depths of human Being. Or as the ancient Chinese would say:

When Heaven is about to confer a great mission upon a person, it first exercises his mind with suffering and his body with toil. It subjects him to hunger and poverty and perplexes his undertakings. By all these means it stimulates his mind, hardens his nature, and relieves his incompetence.
– Mencius


“…When authentic struggle ceases and shifts into the merely polemical, into the intrigues and machinations of human beings within the present-at-hand, then the decline has already begun.”

Authentic struggle is the struggle for truth beyond any mere stance or pre-decided formulation. Becoming polemical, as we are today, is the inauthentic struggle that ahead of time, and without thinking from the whole of reality itself, assumes reality and the argument to already be between, say capitalism and communism or socialism. This is to say that in an inauthentic struggle, polemics, given a pre-determined “necessity,” we simply pick one side over the other, for whatever reason, perhaps just to feel like we are actually debating and discussing reality (hubris). Where as authentic struggle starts from an unassuming neutral position that is willing to work together to figure out and decide what is true. Doing this is to understand that our thoughts and ideas are placed on top of life and we struggle, together, to be and stay within what is real. The inauthentic simply look to what is present-at-hand, what is easily seen and grasped, but without striving for truth, and therefore assume from the beginning that they know what reality is and that it is a simple task to just pick a stance and fight for it regardless of whether or not it still corresponds adequately with reality.


“For even when an age still makes an effort just to uphold the inherited level and dignity of its Dasein(somewhat like Self), the level already sinks. It can be upheld only insofar as at all times it is creatively transcended.”

The basis for this is the understanding of chaos and impermanence. Time. Time is, simply, a measurement of change. “Time crumbles all things; everything grows old and is forgotten under the power of time.” Aristotle speaks this to us from over 2 thousand years ago. As does Sophocles this: “The broad, incalculable sweep of time lets emerge everything that is not open as well as concealing (again) in itself what has appeared (translation by Heidegger).” Over ‘time’ things change, one could say. This is easy enough, but what of time itself? The concept of time, this is a creation of the human mind. It correlates to change, no doubt, but it is still an idea that exists only within our mind. In this sense it is not real. Just as the price of Gold is fictitious; Gold doesn’t come with a price or cost when it lays peacefully in the mountain. Time, as the cost of things, are placed later, by man, on top of life. Chaos teaches us the necessity of this but impermanence teaches us that each being and relationship has a cyclic motion. As can be seen here in this poem:


What is this Fire burning brightly,
this upward floating freely?

What is this crisp dry Air,
that makes everything easy to bare?

What is this Water smoothly flowing,
that ease of downward going?

What is this Earth fixed and certain,
this hardness at the final curtain?

The Cyclic dance is growing,
Our oneness in circle is flowing.


Nothing lasts forever. History attests to this every where. Any one way of coming to see the world and reality can not remain vital and healthy forever. Civilizations decline and fall. At some point we will become stagnant and the old “truths” will become poisonous and make us rigid and ultimately fragile. Just like a tree when it enters into old age: it is no longer vitally alive, it is no longer capable of meeting life even half way. And then naturally hardens until it becomes brittle, and the water of life no longer flows through its veins. Therefore if we do not “creatively transcend” continuously, in a flowing manner, we will crumble and crack and eventually fall.


In short, if an old, assuming way no longer adequately resolves the problems and issues we are confronting now, then we should do as Einstein suggests:

“Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they might come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.”