It’s been a while since I’ve come back here…since march huh? I was really only pulled back here because sarah happened to post a comment on the latest one.
I took the chance to read it again and I realized…no that’s not how I am nor how I feel. I do not feel a sense of superiority over people. I do not feel that we are all designed to attribute only once sense to a system; we are not designed to talk only of philosophy when we only love philosophy. The whole thing I wrote is a joke, a wavering uncertainty of an adolescent 1 year younger than now.
I was thinking about buddhism again and the state of enlightenment. To percieve and to understand is the absolute goal: the key to unlocking the gates to Nirvana. What worries me about the specifics of that philosophy is that it is also unobjective in nature. How can one percieve one thing to understand? Is there not multiple viewpoints, multiple ways to percieve a single object? If I look at it as a rock, can I look at it as just mearly a rock? Most certainly but it can also be percieved as a weapon, a tool, a means of creating light, a means of sharpening weapons, even a philosophical entity that describes the fastidious and the strong. However, which of those is it that we percieve it as? Does the state of enlightenment mean that we mearly observe it just by those descriptions? Well no because if that is so, then there is no absolute understanding since it can be percieved as 10,000 different things! Attaining enlightenment in any facet is a difficult thing, no less to even scratch the surface of.
But my point is that perhaps we misconcieve something when we percieve it in some ways. One may see the state of human nature and call it good or bad. Disagreement ensues and we have a conflict. But I find that in conflict there is a certain unimaginable beauty that it can, in itself, concieve. Sure drinking may be bad, but some of the greatest poetry was written when the author was drunk out of his mind. Sure people can be mundane and generally stupid when percieved by those full of knowledge. But then we realize that without mundane and stupid, there would be no smart and intellect.
So I find myself back where I began. Questioning the meaningful and the meaningless. Does friendship, companionship, and anything else that ends with -ship really matter to me? Of course. But then I realize that the nature of everyone is not the same. We cannot all be Kantian, Socratic, Einsteinian intellects. But what we can be is human. What we can be is understanding beings thirsting for the knowledge of the cogs, sprockets, and springs of our reality. Without the cogs, the clock will not work. If you have a cog but no sprocket: same thing. I realize that I may be a cog, but I cannot attatch myself to another cog: it just doesn’t work. I need a sprocket. And though the sprocket may not share my same ideals, shape, and design, it is no less important to the grand scheme of things.
My point is that I find myself…different then from what I wrote before. We can’t find mirror images of ourselves and realize that is now not what I want to find. Certain ideals cannot be brought to light without the aid of another vision and perhaps searching for another vision with the ideal of myself just isn’t going to work.
So yes. Seagulls in the bay area can be called “Baygulls” for all I care. It doesn’t have to be philosophic. It can be as simple as that.
Keep writing.