O Hermes, friendliest of gods to men, bestower of windfalls and lucky chances, lord of those who do their business by night; O whiz-kid and wizard, patron of thieves, rogues and perjurers; O friend to travelers in obscure places, O guide and conductor of those who consort with the dead; O spirit of fluency and sly calculation, genius of ways and entries, ingenious deviser, nimble wit and agile explainer-away; O god of the main chance, O Hermes, preserve us from evil, for we are all engaged in hermeneutics, over which you preside. We are all interpreters, and the world is out text.
______________________________________
From recent conversation it ended up being wrote:That won't help you if you are not able to verify if you indeed are doing what you think you are doing.
Truth is all that matters. I am talking about self honesty - rigid and no compromise. It does not matter if you get all the facts right.
It must be how you arrived at "miracles" in your life. Just change a thought, a memory, deny any inquiry or reasoning: miracle! PTL!
Diebert said: Bringing down all of our own skyscrapers might be a beginning. Every system ends up destroying its own edifices. So the most peaceful solution is to evacuate them first next time.
I do but I am thinking the amount of cognitive dissonance that exists is as infinite as the universe.
I selected a few of these and then underlined parts. I am interested in these questions for the following reasons: I have been thinking of 'The Red Pill' metaphor. I know that The Matrix (it had interesting ideas, too much distracting violence, in another context it could have been made really into a study in metaphysics, as such it was sort of wasted) set this metaphor in motion, but I would ask what metaphor preceded it? I mean in recent time? But what is interesting here is that the Red Pill is something everyone is interested in, in one way or another.
Very certainly the GF founders as: some process, some way of seeing, of something seen and understood which causes one to wake up. Is it ultimately
Maya that we are speaking about? Is that not the ultimate metaphor? Did it not begin there?
There are various levels: One is some 'intrusion' (something from the outside) that enters one (in GF-lingo a 'cause') and produces a shift. The other side of it is something arising inside of one, which might start in alienation or feelings which are unsettled. The Red Pill Cure is after all an initiation, and the Red Pill represents, more or less, a shamanic initiation. There are political Red Pills which operate at a 'lower' level and all manner of different wake-ups.
Then there is another aspect: the aspect that has to do with interpretation. Frank Kermode wrote a book on
literary interpretation which, I found, is applicable to larger questions of interpretation. For example, interpretation of
The World. The Times review does only partial service as a review. But, you know, the issue really is hermeneutics, and what stands behind hermeneutics is Hermes: the shape-shifter; the revealer and the concealer.
I was rather surprised when I attempted a complex read, a great deal in Greek, of a very good book on 'The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel' by Dodd, to find that these very Greek ideas which touch on Logos and a Logos that
preexists, is seeped in Hermetic doctrine. This interests me because it lifts in some way an aspect of Christian truth out of its Jewish matrix (never great explorers) and opens it essentially to philosophical speculation and discourse. We are all interested in philosophy, right, and therefor what could better be posited as the Ultimate Backdrop of all idea and the possibilities of thought but the Logos?
But our puzzlement begins when we take a look which is more than a look. It is the second look, the return to look again, and the lingering look - the look we hold in the mind, in our imagination, the one that goes to work on us - which is what the metaphor of the Red Pill alludes to.
Everything turns on 'the eye that sees' and the whole issue is one of sight, but insight. Some here may have read King Lear and remember Gloucester who, after being blinded, says: "I have no way, and therefore want no eyes;
I stumbled when I saw". We must admit that - even for Seeker before his Vision become incandescent & pure by cause of Revelation - we are all dealing on questions of vision, sight, insight, and understanding. It is a question of, let us say, intensity of relationship.
When we differ, the accusations fly (and I am not saying they shouldn't, but I have this luxury because, obviously, I am more right than anyone) (insert smiley). In King Lear (and Shakespeare is an amazing metaphysician as well as an artist) it all has to do with sight & insight. No one sees clearly, and everyone mis-sees in Tragedy. And Gloucester only 'sees' when he no longer sees with his external eyes. The metaphor is a strong one.
A few things I am interested in, one being Diebert's constant reference to clear vision (his own). You cannot critique blindly (pardon the pun), and a critique is really a statement: I see clearly. The Red Pill for Diebert it seems is one of disentangling the metaphor of 'seduction'. But what I notice is that this conundrum seems to lead to a kind of disempowerment. For after all if it is all seduction, a man can make no move, and he is frozen. He is best off initiating nothing, undertaking nothing, and just sitting in his room minding his thoughts.
I am interested in Jupi's refrain about 'wisdom'. If wisdom is posited, it has to be defined. It cannot simply be 'reasonability' and 'ratiocination'. What is the
fount of Wisdom? And when wisdom is attained, what does one do with it? And what 'allows' wisdom and self-realization? How is this structured into the Creation? Why?
Seeker's entire trip seems to be an extended
statement on realization. It is the 'magnificent' something, the quintessence, but one is inclined to ask 1) Then what? and 2) So what?
What we see, what we understand, how we interpret, and what we do on the basis of our interpretations are good areas to focus in (as questions about). Beingof1 said: "I am talking about self honesty - rigid and no compromise.
It does not matter if you get all the facts right". And indeed it does not, because you
cannot. In a platonic sense you can only gain greater insight, clearer vision, but only insofar as you approach, so to speak, the Logos.
The Cave, the Red Pill, the Ascent, and the Return are powerful processes and they always function in this realm. On one level or another.
Diebert says: "Bringing down all of our own skyscrapers might be a beginning.
Every system ends up destroying its own edifices". Metaphors within metaphors, or metaphors explaining metaphors. Though this may be true, in order to say it, and in order to refer to this truth, requires a Truth.
Of course miracles are real, and behind the Miracle is in essence the revelation of the Logos. It just happens in zillions of ways.
Is this not a good quote for Fools and Wise alike?
- “This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.”