reflection

[wildcat]

Who creates the subject?
The object.
Does the object exist as a subject?
The object exists as an object only.

The mirror reflects but what is in front of the mirror.

 

[Ender]

The object doesn't create the subject.
The viewer of said object creates the subject.
The subject involving the object is only what the view projects onto said object.
The mirror may reflect, but it's the viewer who interprets.
What one sees in the mirror may not be what another sees when they look.

 

[wildcat]

The object doesn't create the subject.
The viewer of said object creates the subject.
The subject involving the object is only what the view projects onto said object.
The mirror may reflect, but it's the viewer who interprets.
What one sees in the mirror may not be what another sees when they look.

Yes.

On all counts correct.
The viewer interprets.
Reflection of the object creates the subject.

We have no disagreement.

 

[alcea rosea]

I really like wildcat's posts.
They are like poems.

 

[zarc]

I really like wildcat's posts.
They are like poems.

I agree! I thought that of his posts as being poems too! In elfie's blog, he did write a poem! He wrote more than one!

 

[alcea rosea]

Wildcat - a suggestion:

Why don't you have a blog of your own where you could write your interesting and poemy thoughts! You are such a kind person that I think many of us here in MBTIc would gladly ready your thoughts!

 

[elfinchilde]

yea, wildcat. why not have a blog? elfie would definitely be a permanent resident in yours. or if you really don't want to, you could post in mine. always welcome to.

 

[Night]

You are such a kind person that I think many of us here in MBTIc would gladly ready your thoughts!

Agreed.

Mercy is often paired with intellectual maturity.

 

[elfinchilde]

^ Yep. Wildcat is Temperance. Sometimes, he's the Star. Other times, he's the Sun.

Get a blog, meowie!

You could call it A Wildcat Sanctuary! so that all the rare and endangered thoughts can roam free and play!

 

[wildcat]

Thank you Alcearos, DD, elfinchilde and Night.
Who can resist such kind words and encouragement?

 

[miss fortune]

does this mean that you'll start a blog?

I'll have somewhere else to haunt!

 

[zarc]

does this mean that you'll start a blog?

I'll have somewhere else to haunt!

I know! But you better not haunt his everyday or I'll never catch up to your poltergeising! (I stopped trying to catch up yours for a bit to rest my eyes lol)

 

[wildcat]

does this mean that you'll start a blog?

I'll have somewhere else to haunt!

It seems I cannot back now..
And it was you who suggested it in the first place!

Thanks!

I am

 

[dane]

wildcat.

A quiet soul opens the senses to a surfeit of beauty. Only in absolute freedom can love surface. Time stops, and one lives in the immortal moment.

To perceive without ties is to see beauty in the moment.
To see beauty would awake love.
The Teacher stopped here.

But:

1. Is this a paradox? Can the soul lust for MORE beauty? Can this lust for MORE not plunge the soul into desire and darkness again? Is this lust unhealthy or is it just part of the whole?

2. In reality, to perceive in the moment is to halt the act of creation. To perpetuate beauty – one must cease creating. For how long?

More realistically – to perceive, the soul must be alone. How far can the soul withdraw from society when there is a body to feed, a family to maintain, a breath to draw?

Can society advance without enforced creation? The dank darkness of the Industrial Revolution and the convenience of science. Love’s labour’s lost? Is one selfish to meditate? Is J.K a hypocrite - are we all?



History and J.K espouse the polar extremes. I find, as always, that there cannot be but a compromise to reality - except for those "clairvoyant souls".

What price beauty and what price love?
I ask for a subjective answer, if objectivity is impossible.

Your blank table, please?

 

[wildcat]

wildcat.

A quiet soul opens the senses to a surfeit of beauty. Only in absolute freedom can love surface. Time stops, and one lives in the immortal moment.

To perceive without ties is to see beauty in the moment.
To see beauty would awake love.
The Teacher stopped here.

But:

1. Is this a paradox? Can the soul lust for MORE beauty? Can this lust for MORE not plunge the soul into desire and darkness again? Is this lust unhealthy or is it just part of the whole?

2. In reality, to perceive in the moment is to halt the act of creation. To perpetuate beauty – one must cease creating. For how long?

More realistically – to perceive, the soul must be alone. How far can the soul withdraw from society when there is a body to feed, a family to maintain, a breath to draw?

Can society advance without enforced creation? The dank darkness of the Industrial Revolution and the convenience of science. Love’s labour’s lost? Is one selfish to meditate? Is J.K a hypocrite - are we all?



History and J.K espouse the polar extremes. I find, as always, that there cannot be but a compromise to reality - except for those "clairvoyant souls".

What price beauty and what price love?
I ask for a subjective answer, if objectivity is impossible.

Your blank table, please?

Maybe Krishnamurti means acceptance. The hardest thing of all.
Acceptance of a loss. Be it beauty, a person, health, even sanity.

How to get out of darkness? By not craving out. By watching it. By quiet acceptance.

You cannot perpetuate beauty- or anything. Everything is transitory. Even life is.
Carlos Castaneda said: Death sits on your shoulder. There he was home from the day a.

People have too little money. So the government prints more money. Alas money is not wealth. It is paper.

Does a garden architect lust for more beauty? No. She is giving from what she already has.

Withdrawal is denial of what is. Society or individual does not advance with enforced anything.
Beauty and love have no price.

 

[Night]

Very wise, Wildcat. Very wise.

"There was a boy
A very strange enchanted boy
They say he wandered very far, very far
Over land and sea
A little shy and sad of eye
But very wise was he.

And then one day
A magic day he passed my way
And while we spoke of many things
Fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn
Is just to love and be loved in return""


Nat King Cole's Nature Boy given form.


Very wise, Wildcat - you're something to aspire to.

 

[lastrailway]

Maybe Krishnamurti means acceptance. The hardest thing of all.
Acceptance of a loss. Be it beauty, a person, health, even sanity.

How to get out of darkness? By not craving out. By watching it. By quiet acceptance.

Withdrawal is denial of what is. Society or individual does not advance with enforced anything.

So acceptance and withdrawal are opposing each other? Isn't withdrawal a form of acceptance, maybe the most silent one?

You cannot perpetuate beauty- or anything. Everything is transitory. Even life is.
Carlos Castaneda said: Death sits on your shoulder. There he was home from the day a.

People have too little money. So the government prints more money. Alas money is not wealth. It is paper.

Does a garden architect lust for more beauty? No. She is giving from what she already has.

Beauty and love have no price.

That's nice. Something that has no price is on a state of duality? Either it exists or or it does not? And what if you've never been able to find any? Moving on from 0 to 1 is looking for more, in something that has no quantity?

Oh, nevermind, I think I am missing the point. Oh well.

 

[dane]

No, I do not understand. Is it a double life one must lead...?

Yes Night, he is someone to aspire to. But at what price? That is my question. wildcat did say that to drive is to give up thinking, or reflecting, or perhaps cognition as a whole. What other costs?

He sees beauty and to his credit discovered he has love.
But what price beauty and what price love? What does it cost to "let go"?

I cannot understand wildcat - I cannot aspire to be him, rather. Honestly.

 

[dane]

Krishnamurti emphasizes the immense energy required to watch, to accept, to not make a move. How can we reconcile this with the drive, hunger, determination that moves one to acquire material wealth?

Perhaps we cannot. Perhaps it is a matter of choice. What one wants.

In Krishnamurti's world, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is one of love. Craftsmen and artisans, bankers and lawyers, politicians - it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own love.

Society and individuals advance on bent backs, on broken backs. No, not spiritually or morally. Materially, scientifically, economically. In this world, Jewish financiers must cease work on the Sabbath.

Perhaps Krishnamurti's words are never meant for the whole of the human race, but to the willing few. Or tenable to our new-age world. Perhaps "sacrifice" is the message of his teachings. Or perhaps I am still mired, desires and all.

 

[wildcat]

So acceptance and withdrawal are opposing each other? Isn't withdrawal a form of acceptance, maybe the most silent one?



That's nice. Something that has no price is on a state of duality? Either it exists or or it does not? And what if you've never been able to find any? Moving on from 0 to 1 is looking for more, in something that has no quantity?

Oh, nevermind, I think I am missing the point. Oh well.

In Krishnamurti's world, withdrawal is escape from what is.
I remember when I was a fifteen year old boy. My mother wanted to listen to some classical music. She said: put a record on.
I said: It is escape.
She said: Let us escape then.
I put the record on.

Sometimes, in the wilderness, at night, you can experience complete silence. You are not used to it. It may be scary.

Why? We are scared of the void.
In silence we meet ourselves.
What you search you do not find. Love and beauty come as unexpected.

Life itself is unexpected.

What is behind duality?
One.
Silence is one.

Edgar Allan Poe wrote a beautiful story of a man who found his mirror build in the end.
Himself.

You are not missing the point.
You do not find. You are found.