a shadow, suddenly comes 'round.
Slowly, he grabs her little hand,
and leads her, here, ne'er to be found...
• Re-reader • Centurion No.1 • Seoul urban planning nerd • Korean corporate HR shill • Cadbury Easter egg lover
We have autos; expensive and unattainable till they aren't. That's how it goes for less than a year.
Mark my words we have become slaves, accepting a pittance of what our forefathers would have. Is it not a matter of time until the masses trend towards meals in a capsule? If 'they' say it's good then no doubt.
We acquiesce to authority and live less and less every second when we should be fully experiencing life in it's now manifest manifold essence. What goes on for perpetuity? Ideas? Maybe. Institutions? Name one. Life? Until we forget it entirely.
As I pass on, going by.
Although some may cry,
I, I always do truly see .
We in time, are free...
Together, forever, to Be.
Nah I'm just joking, fucking idiot.
Let me put it this way; what's your gut reaction when you have the image of a person who is trying to escape from 'political oppression'?
I know already so don't bother opening your fucking mouth.
"Fucking red commie socialist prick Tianammen chink Chinese!"
'Bout right, yes? Yup. Fucking idiots.
You think the leadership in that 'red commie country' doesn't know how you and your 'educated' brethren think? You think it be a mere coincidence that on the very night Secretary of State Ms. Clinton was on her way there - and actually in a better position than at any other time in recent memory to place China in a position where she should make real economic and human rights decisions - that an individual known (since he has been under surveillance for over 20 years) to want to flee to the US, due to a 'lapse' in security just happened to escape and make international headlines? Just a coincidence that it was only he who made it into the embassy and not his family? That him and his wife were just the right amount of stupid? Ad naseaum...
I don't think so, and as a result American diplomats were forced to take the defensive, not because that's what the situation warranted, but because that's what the stereotyped image of Chen dictated they must do. And as a result this situation allowed China to take a chastising position, as should equally be expected. That said, as her actions have been relatively subdued - demonstrated by allowing him to get a study abroad visa and leave for the States if he really wants to - compared with what they could have or have done to dissidents in the past, China now appears not only as relatively dominant vis a vis the Unprescient States of America, but have shown yet again that they can not only change any situation into an advantageous one, but when the dust settles and their actions are neutrally evaluated (as is being done now), their actions will show China has changed, albeit slightly, and in fact America should be shown to be the one stagnant and inflexible in it's own stereotype...
So what does 'knowing' look like? To tread upon a closely related, but slightly more enlightened path let's take the well known subject of wine up. Wine is not just a substance; it is far more. How much more? To avoid a long diatribe, I simply ask of you to think upon what man has come to know of wine. A lot. Next I pose this simple question, "Of what we 'know' in regards to what wine is, is wine limited to that knowledge, is it merely something that can have certain attributes listed, varietals evaluated, etc...?". Surely not, it is something to be experienced, fully. Experience means eundo assequi, to obtain something along the way, to attain something by going on a way.
So what is reached by the individual who undergoes an experience with wine? Not mere knowledge. Granted. Obtained is a relation of oneself to wine's manifold essence. A relation should not be confused with a mere standing in front of a thing, although that is the essence of what an idea is, but a relation in the sense that what is experienced cannot occur or come to light the same if one aspect were different. Thus we can say that each experience is fundamentally different, in an essentially inseparable subjective and objective sense.
From such an experience we have in our mind, and moreover we have impressed upon our senses (not in the sense of possessing a mere object) an idea of what wine then is. Idea, eidos in the Greek, in the sense that what remains can only remain from the originary experience; it is that experience always and forever more.
But, it may rightfully be objected, others can say that they too, even without physically experiencing something, say ganja, and can still have an idea about something. Surely. Can one argue against them? If all they mean to say is that they have the ability to sense, in the sense that they are able to turn towards a certain call or scent, and as such a turning towards something is inherently a standing with or against something or what we alluded to earlier as a 'standing-in-relation-with', then yes they too can have that 'idea' as well. That not withstanding, however, their 'idea' to put it lightly, has no weight. Thus their claim to their idea, whilst a valid one in regards to what an idea is, lacks importance and weight when con-sidered widely.
Nowadays, however, people are fucking retarded; they wrongly assert the claim 'everyone is entitled to have their own idea' to mean 'everyone is correct in their ability to have and maintain an idea' no matter how light an idea's inherent importance may be. No one can deny funadamently the ability of an idea to impact others given what we have said in regards to what the essence of an idea is, but the fact that people feel like their idea is important when we said earlier most people don't truly know the weight of something because they have not, they do not know what it means to have a 'true experience' is clear evidence of how soft people are today.
Experiencing, as it should be apparent by now, necessarily goes beyond what we conceive of as being physical towards a deeper, yet fully related, thinking experience where the true importance of something becomes apparent, appears be-fore: only with you (thus with all???). Such an undertaking, as it should be, is not easy; it's hard as a rock is heavy(重). One cannot take this lightly, and if you cannot take something lightly you should be con-cerned perhaps even fearful of what is to be con-fronted as it is what is most important.
Thus fear, as being that which hinders one from seeing what truly lies before oneself on the path towards something is what needs to be overcome, what one needs(必要) to truly experience as being that which has been overcome to help give weighty-necessity (重要) or importance to an experience; leading to transcendence. Inherently, where fear is, security can not exist, as fear should force one into caring about it upon being truly con-fronted.
Secure, sine-cure, meaning literally: without care. The only way to overcome fear is to step into it, or better yet by taking a (originary) leap into it (Ur-sprung). A gap separates you from what lies before, thus a leap, perhaps to say it clearer, a leap of faith is necessary? Not a blind leap into the unknown, but into what always has been. Experiences, whence truly experienced, take us back to the origin by lighting the path be-fore of what is, always has been and what will continue to be: the weightiest(最重要) of all.
So why do so many people not care??? Is there nothing to fear any longer? Do people know, truly and essentially, how to care? Or do people merely have a faint idea left over, a vestigial memory if you will, from sometime or someone who really cared that allows them to have a claim, regardless of how tenuous or hollow it may be, to 'know' about caring and thus blindly believe that they do care? Do people want to care???
"The only thing one has to fear is fear itself...". Fear itself never exists in and of itself, it is as it is only as it is con-fronted. Con-fronted by whom? Man. Why is the rule of law held in such esteem? Or western gods? but for the mere fact that they are not man. Man is only safe when he is not man, or to put it clear, as he is not in a relation with himself as man. To rephrase the above quote then we might say, "The only thing man fears is man; his true self (das Selbst, 真正的自己)." Thus man usually finds himself as a mere 'role' or part being played by a 'disinterested' con-ception of an original self for a cyclical purpose; a purpose, mind you, worked out well in advance of the common understanding as to why said purpose or 'goal' is or must be under constant pursuit.
The ego or I of who we are is only projected outwards as a sliver of who we really are as a mere mask (persona)... Our persona, as is well accepted, is the mask we put on for society, but moreover for ourselves, paradoxically to protect ourselves from our very self. But who are we when we are our True Self???
Does this not call for self-discovery through self-examination or as it is refered to in the East as meditation or 省察 or 自己反省 or 參神...
To interject into this polemical dialogue, if I can be granted the reprieve in calling this in such a way, what does all of this have to do with weed? Everything and nothing. Please do not take the last sentence as some vacuous truism said just for saying's sake. Words should be said with the greatest care to permit the calling from such saying to carry it's full weight... Such sayings are hard, and are apt to be mis-understood, but this should not discourage the attempt...
Anyways, weed among other drugs and fear-shrouded objects, has been shown to not 'enlighten' the mind by playing the role of a shortcut and 'turning on' various areas of the brain, but actually serves to shut down a very particular part of the brain responsible for 'projecting' our masked self; our ego. But, we know that despite this literal freeing ourselves from our mask of ourselves, weed can stone us and make us unaware of anything. As a result, weed is used as an escape from the mask; a running away from: read a non con-fronting.
Thus no experience is to be had. However, what would happen if a teacher appeared in order help and guide others on a true experience with weed. Not to merely 'use' it as a cause to elicit a reaction, although no one can doubt that this sort of relationship can be derived out of such an experience, but to really come to understand what has for thousands of years remained in the shadows due to constant mis-understanding. Even if weed has been used in the past, however distant or near, there has never been a push to experience it as it really is. Such a far reaching Experience would hold within it all that has been and more: the weight of itself upon us.
To bear the full weight of something, together with it, upon our self; that is a path that once set upon will not serve as an isolated lane dead-ended in itself, but contrarily, as any path that really is a path, will bear a relation to something. Where the relation is, or if such a relation should be found to be the Relation of relations, is far from being decided, but that should not discourage the attempt from happening either.
Anyone who lives in Korea will be familiar with the two characters written above from having confronted them during the course of memorizing the required 2000 character familiarization program proscribed to students through their primary and secondary educations. 創 would have been memorized as meaning 비롯하다 or 'the beginning' or 'to begin with' etc... While 造 will be thought of as 짓다 or 'to build/construct' coinciding with modernity and it's emphasis upon material creation. Already, thinking creation as 'an original or starting building' speaks towards something more than our common conception of creation. However, when looking at the second character and thought through as the combination of it's radicals it becomes defined as a 'going conveying' or as a 'coming conveyance'; it no longer says anything about a purely physical constructing (although it doesn't say anything about the disavowal of constructing as such).
The first character is more complex and can be viewed in a few more or less obscuring cloaks of shadow. The conspicuous two lines on the right side denote a knife, or a sharp object designed for carving and when those lines are removed the character left standing speaks something of a 창고 or 'a closet' or 'a place to serve as a holder of' or simply put a 곳집 or 'a place home' when translated literally. What is left, 君 jun, is read as sage denoting a wiseman. This character, however can be deconstructed further into 尹 (yin) with a myriad of connotations including a family surname, but the meaning dating from the warring states period conveying 다스림 or control is coincidentally the dominant meaning associated with the character when memorizing it today. This character can be viewed as the construction as the composition of still another radical and line, but as the association between that particular radical and the character at hand is a tenuous one that at this time is not apparent we shall pass over it to the character 口 (kou) meaning mouth. The literal interpretation then, of the character denoting a sage disembarks from the Western conception of a mystical sage down to the most humane idea of an individual who controls or has learned to 'master one's words'. Creation then, may be thought as 'words, whence mastered and stored (committed either to memory or other verbal form) or etched (in writing), that either go and convey or appear as a coming conveyance.
Creation thus denotes the very moment (thought of as 'everything all at once as one' as opposed to a single snapshot of time with a singular focal point excluding everything else) of civilizations' emergence in tandem with its subsequent elliptically effecting existence that continuously and spontaneously gives rise to civilizing forces at any given moment. 一日不讀書口中生荊棘 is a phrase conveying the thought that should one day pass without reading (words generally seen in the broad sense as "creative words") thorns will grow in one's mouth. Read: thorns will form upon the words themselves obscuring the full extent of their original living import. A dead civilization will still leave behind relics and vestiges of it's former existence, an existence, mind you, that once flourished and was alive in the fullest sense, however, such times are usually obscured by the overgrowth of vines that often enough bear thorns.
Thus these words speak of words and the living relationship that was set in elliptical motion from the first time that man began to master his words into a going conveyance to whomever via either spoken word or (as the latter addition signified by the two lines meaning either knife or etching) into written word, and every instance of such 'creation' since then. Creation constantly creates civilization that civilizes man constantly. This speaks to what creation, and in the particular the form it has taken in Chinese and Korea, has both conveyed to us up until today and continually conveys to those who listen to the living word by those who have mastered words in their own time and by cutting away thorns from the those words that thrived in a different time in terms of what they have been saying and what they are capable of saying.
as the patter of her descending steps upon granite slabs
grows fainter and fainter fore.
She's dissolved into the night,
and so too have I;
or have I...
장마철이 다가오므로
써써써 I I I
습해 젖어졌어 내 마음이
Like 가나다라마
로닝맨은 진짜 우리의 우리 아니
야 임마
다가다가오는오는 그런 오랑캐
Destructive 영향을 주는 그런 개
쌔개
Now 난 고개를 지으며
내다보고 눈물을 흐리며
권고하고 있어 너희들에게 내 입
술로(부터)
그런 장애물을 물리쳐라 여기에서
이 도시야말로
2011.7.15 지음
Out of my time spent partaking in life, it is indeed a rarity to find a soul who enjoys, beyond the mere nominal acquiescence, the cleaning up after oneself or another; it always remains a chore. However, tidying up to keep a clear home leads to healthier physical potentiality. As spring cleaning serves to rid the house of the accrued death and cobwebs accumulated over winter in preparation for the season of rebirth in the physical world, the same is necessary in that other, regrettably often too neglected world we also participate in. In this dialectic world of the subjective self and objective surroundings, the exterior receives most of the attention; leading often to deleterious results for both. The cult of change that society has become the exemplar devotee to, that man and woman have without so much of a feigned struggle, chose to accept over the past century; a change that affects the very life blood of humanities political economy in the classical sense, is but the negative principal of the forgotten positive ideal. We've removed ourselves from the seasons of nature into the narrowly sterile, neatly quartered monetary confines where wares for the abstract concept of what we used to know as seasonal changes are peddled. The fight for this change is what people live towards in this day and age.
Focus on this sterilized form of exterior change, having removed us from the bosom of mother nature has also diverted attention away from our Jungian selves. The ego being the conspicuous element of adolescent development that projects itself outward to rely on style or the opinions of others for support. As a natural, but not absolute antithesis, the self being the container of the hitherto weaker parts of the personality relegated to our unconscious, serves at first as a means to protect our fragile ego development from failure. On the whole, however, it is not supposed to be suppressed forever, and in keeping with Hegalian dialectic, it ultimately purposes to create, or more appropriately endeavor to create a synthesis or in Jungian terms a 'Gegensatzvereinigung' with the ego.
It, refering to the self, is to be perceived at first with recognition and a purposeful striving towards strengthening those weaker elements of the personality to make a fuller, richer self. Thusly, since life itself is but the objective backdrop of what our subjective self projects out upon it, a necessarily richer and more diverse world will be able to cultivate itself and spring forth organically, rising out of the compost of all humanities subjective selves. That is, to move away from what Freud termed the 'death instinct' or that of relying upon lifeless material things and dead cosmic superstitions to compensate for our disconnection from that richest conception of unified existence; that of the inseparable nature between a mother and child in its first two or three years. So then, having recognized and internalized the self and our previous death instinct there arises an attempt to recreate a new system of life; that of moving back towards, not the infantile, but a new mature and enlightened 'life instinct'; utilizing the crystallization of both human and natural history is what we need to strive for. (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)
A life instinct whose only hope of rediscovery for the majority, I fear, is within that sterile egoistic state that men and women have cocooned themselves within. Despite the consciously oriented attempts of humanity until now to create a sterile, lifeless canvas for life to be rationally organized and directed upon, the most conspicuous element of the former organic life, full of potentiality towards reorienting our lives in exactly a more organic direction is love; specifically the lost, forgotten, only to be re-discovered within the unconscious dusk of love's cobwebs. The pain of being trapped within, makes us look within, towards our own self, and it can only be through a re-connection of that boundless depth and diversity of life that resides in all of us that we can even maintain the most infinitesimal hope for a better objective life for all.