(no subject)
Aristotlian conclusions on the art of how I've been living my life for the past 6 months:
1. What is something's nature has very little to do with it's form. The relationship is as such: form can reflect nature, but nature can not reflect form. It's genesis is something of a father-son relationship, nature being the father. The son can reflect the father, but the father is no genetic reflection of the son -- for he lacks any influence of the mother his son has. In such a case, our universe is defined by this succession of time: only the child can be the father of the man; not the other way around.
2. This is only true if we accept a definition of time as limited to: the subjective discernment of the process at which things change according to the sentient being.
3. I've drastically changed. I wanted to change in the first place. I wanted to prove I could endure an environment where nothing was sacred, I lived by no concrete rules, and I was constantly asking myself, "What role should order play in my life?" Instead of asking, "What role should chaos play in my life?" Because life (in regards to the universe) is a synonym of chaos, they are equals. Asking the latter question is redundant, and feeds into a circular equation. I've had varying answers to the former, and very few of them have fallen in the ballpark of "tactful and sound procedure of one's daily activities exhibiting logic-based moral reasoning."
Questions about existence based on these conclusions that I would generally like to answer before I die but most likely won't:
4. Thus I must ask myself, "What or how does the form I am taking now reflect upon my nature?"
5. Can a year only see a small portion of one's self? Is it the self more than it is the soul? Is the soul equivalent to nature? If not, where does it fall in the spectrum? What is it's relationship to form?
6. What is the value of choosing my life's direction based on my own independent objective self-interest, compared to cooperating with others -- potentially sacrificing my own benefit for their profit? To what degree have the working experiences in my life quantified the largest gap in income desparity between either myself as the 'employee/exploited party' and others as the 'employer/beneficiary', or vice versa? Is this in any way congruent to the best of what I can consider happiness?
7. What have I learned from substance abuse?
8. Is this substance abuse? By asking that question, do I become an addict?
9. If we are to agree with Elizabeth Gilbert that the healthiest mentality for the 21st century artist is a return to the pre-Rennaissance conception of genius, where genius is not a merited ranking based on self-torture or education, nor is it a title of inherent god-given talent; rather, genius is a spirit that may or may not visit the sentient being in the night -- at the least convenient moment, when no one is watching, something like a holy spirit -- then can this be considered the same as a/my muse?
10. Is the/a spirit supposed to posess me? Or am I viewing the spirit? Is it supposed to be a visual or sensual experience? Is this an experience for which I have not developed the senses to observe? To appreciate?
11. Am I equipped with the capacity to communicate with the realm of that experience? After all, mouths can talk and taste but ears can not do anything else but listen and get ear infections.
12. What relationship does sense bare to taste? Does the new, more raw, virgin and innocent sensory organ always have to be so affectionate to delicacy as inherent to beauty? To safety as inherent to beauty? To pleasure as inherent to beauty?
13. Does the older, more experienced and educated sensory organ always have to be so hardened, preferring intensity, danger, and ironically-intended ugliness as all inherent to beauty? To what degree do all those adjectives have to do with experiencing life in the post-modern world?
14. What is more valuable, education or experience?
15. Something of a poetic and rhetorical question: In experience, how close must we come to our own mortality in order to realize the freakish-accident of life?
16. Is humanity's search for it's origins (or the pursuit of these questions listed above) in any small way biased because our own nature despises any visual representation of it's own individual conception?
17. Is self-destruction the form that reflects the answer we know to that question deep within our nature? Within our souls?
18. Is that proof that I have one? Should that in any adverse way affect the quality of the experience I obtain from having one, assuming that I can in some realm not be my soul (as in how I can also not be my mind, brain, body, or consciousness alone or individually)?
Bonus question:
19. Do collage, pastiche, globalization, and neo-liberalism all lean towards a visual fabric to the world baring a stronger resemblance to chaos or order? To unity? To discourse? To the recognition of discernable solid objects representative of concrete sensations if not knowledge? To negative space as representative of the unknown, the ethereal, the eternal, the soul, the double-mirrored reflection into infinity?
A. To the large, epic, or long-form artistic process?
B. Or to the small, singular, miniscule, (episodic?), novella, short-form artistic process?
That "to be or not to be" speech in Hamlet asks a lot of questions.
1. What is something's nature has very little to do with it's form. The relationship is as such: form can reflect nature, but nature can not reflect form. It's genesis is something of a father-son relationship, nature being the father. The son can reflect the father, but the father is no genetic reflection of the son -- for he lacks any influence of the mother his son has. In such a case, our universe is defined by this succession of time: only the child can be the father of the man; not the other way around.
2. This is only true if we accept a definition of time as limited to: the subjective discernment of the process at which things change according to the sentient being.
3. I've drastically changed. I wanted to change in the first place. I wanted to prove I could endure an environment where nothing was sacred, I lived by no concrete rules, and I was constantly asking myself, "What role should order play in my life?" Instead of asking, "What role should chaos play in my life?" Because life (in regards to the universe) is a synonym of chaos, they are equals. Asking the latter question is redundant, and feeds into a circular equation. I've had varying answers to the former, and very few of them have fallen in the ballpark of "tactful and sound procedure of one's daily activities exhibiting logic-based moral reasoning."
Questions about existence based on these conclusions that I would generally like to answer before I die but most likely won't:
4. Thus I must ask myself, "What or how does the form I am taking now reflect upon my nature?"
5. Can a year only see a small portion of one's self? Is it the self more than it is the soul? Is the soul equivalent to nature? If not, where does it fall in the spectrum? What is it's relationship to form?
6. What is the value of choosing my life's direction based on my own independent objective self-interest, compared to cooperating with others -- potentially sacrificing my own benefit for their profit? To what degree have the working experiences in my life quantified the largest gap in income desparity between either myself as the 'employee/exploited party' and others as the 'employer/beneficiary', or vice versa? Is this in any way congruent to the best of what I can consider happiness?
7. What have I learned from substance abuse?
8. Is this substance abuse? By asking that question, do I become an addict?
9. If we are to agree with Elizabeth Gilbert that the healthiest mentality for the 21st century artist is a return to the pre-Rennaissance conception of genius, where genius is not a merited ranking based on self-torture or education, nor is it a title of inherent god-given talent; rather, genius is a spirit that may or may not visit the sentient being in the night -- at the least convenient moment, when no one is watching, something like a holy spirit -- then can this be considered the same as a/my muse?
10. Is the/a spirit supposed to posess me? Or am I viewing the spirit? Is it supposed to be a visual or sensual experience? Is this an experience for which I have not developed the senses to observe? To appreciate?
11. Am I equipped with the capacity to communicate with the realm of that experience? After all, mouths can talk and taste but ears can not do anything else but listen and get ear infections.
12. What relationship does sense bare to taste? Does the new, more raw, virgin and innocent sensory organ always have to be so affectionate to delicacy as inherent to beauty? To safety as inherent to beauty? To pleasure as inherent to beauty?
13. Does the older, more experienced and educated sensory organ always have to be so hardened, preferring intensity, danger, and ironically-intended ugliness as all inherent to beauty? To what degree do all those adjectives have to do with experiencing life in the post-modern world?
14. What is more valuable, education or experience?
15. Something of a poetic and rhetorical question: In experience, how close must we come to our own mortality in order to realize the freakish-accident of life?
16. Is humanity's search for it's origins (or the pursuit of these questions listed above) in any small way biased because our own nature despises any visual representation of it's own individual conception?
17. Is self-destruction the form that reflects the answer we know to that question deep within our nature? Within our souls?
18. Is that proof that I have one? Should that in any adverse way affect the quality of the experience I obtain from having one, assuming that I can in some realm not be my soul (as in how I can also not be my mind, brain, body, or consciousness alone or individually)?
Bonus question:
19. Do collage, pastiche, globalization, and neo-liberalism all lean towards a visual fabric to the world baring a stronger resemblance to chaos or order? To unity? To discourse? To the recognition of discernable solid objects representative of concrete sensations if not knowledge? To negative space as representative of the unknown, the ethereal, the eternal, the soul, the double-mirrored reflection into infinity?
A. To the large, epic, or long-form artistic process?
B. Or to the small, singular, miniscule, (episodic?), novella, short-form artistic process?
That "to be or not to be" speech in Hamlet asks a lot of questions.