Like all translations of genes into proteins, I am forced by the nature of discussion, to try providing a conclusion to my saunter in this external field. It most probably is not at the point of equilibrium (of the pendulum) though. The point of equilibrium being in the center of the being/unbeing.
Sufism, Zen and other mystical traditions, in their true spirit, abhor definitions. They aim to achieve that point of equilibrium in all things and wait for the circumstances to be the wind with which they swing. However they continue to emphasize that thought creates problems because it is akin to mental masturbation. The action speaks for itself. It embraces the pendulum and the acceptance of the swinging without seeing dichotomies. Life, death perceived as one just as good, bad and other entities/non entities. The finite and infinite are interchangeable at any time without imposition of rules. For example the four statements of Zen are:
A special transmission outside the Scriptures;
No dependance upon words and letter;
Direct pointing to the soul of man;
Seeing into one's nature and the attainment of Buddhahood; Refusing to see dichotomies and using intellect in its proper role (as the pendulum swings) causes the exterior field to encroach little on the essence of the crystallization and hence protecting it from commotion.
Gustafson points the equilibrium in his multiple books about the correct positioning for an animal to survive. The position being important to provide a complete overview of the whole field. He utilizes it beautifully in his work with patients. It is a privilege to see the art (gene) translated into something protean (protein). He emphasizes that to lead life, one has to enter into the exterior field, perceptive of the forces that threaten to destroy, being able to defend one's noble ideas from sacrilege. In other words the intuition crystallized has to be protected from storms till it can bear its fruit. I believe this fruition of ones intuition is the ultimate existential task. I believe Kierkegaard, would agree with his trinity of ethics, aesthetics and religion.
This protection sometimes comes in the form of vagueness of moving things (art, literature etc etc).
Ruskin says in Sesame and Lilies. Lecture I.—Sesame: Of Kings’ Treasuries
"if the author is worth anything, that you will not get at his meaning all at once;—nay, that at his whole meaning you will not for a long time arrive in any wise. Not that he does not say what he means, and in strong words too; but he cannot say it all; and what is more strange, will not, but in a hidden way and in parables, in order that he may be sure you want it. I cannot quite see the reason of this, nor analyze that cruel reticence in the breasts of wise men which makes them always hide their deeper thought. They do not give it to you by way of help, but of reward; and will make themselves sure that you deserve it before they allow you to reach it."
In all fairness, and nothing against Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel etc., (to each his own inspiration) religion also exists on the same continuum. In fact it demonstrates the danger and salvation in gross proportions. It provides protection for those who become part of the pack in exchange for giving up certain individual rights like freedom of action, thought etc. To the extent that a person gives up their right to live if there is any action that will threaten that pack's existence, perceived or real. But at the same time it gives also a subjective peace and tranquility, that a lot of people claim.
In the concluding movement of the pendulum, I will quote Shakespeare in the voice of the good Friar Lawrence
These violent delights have violent ends
And in their triumph die, like fire and powder,
Which, as they kiss, consume. The sweetest honey
Is loathsome in his own deliciousness
And in the taste confounds the appetite.
Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment