27-07-2013, 02:08 AM
Stan Wilbourne Wrote:Albert,
You ask some great questions. The right questions, as I see it.
I asked in my initial post above:
Is all "being" conditioned? And, if there is no conditioning, what is being? To me now, this is a worthwhile question. Worth tracking down.
We struggle to understand, to survive. We seek to conquer what will ultimately be our own destruction and to "be safe." What if it is all nothing? Not in the way the mind conceives of nothing. That is "something" again. Not the opposite of form and things. But, actually nothing. Completely empty.
Can all frames be ended? Is it even a valid question? I think it is. We are so distracted, so absorbed, so shocked and fearful, so divided, these types of questions don't enter the human mind with any weight behind them. We are the cat, chasing the feather.
No-thing. It encompasses mind, but the mind cannot approach it. The movement of time and thought (the frame, no matter how it is shifted) is not significant to it. No-thing is the shattered frame. Empty and still. Unmovable. It holds everything and nothing. Right? Does that make sense?
From my interpretation, this is what Kubrick was getting at in "2001." The monolith being perception. And, when the glass breaks the total mind is awakened. Death on the one hand to the nonsense and the imposed limits of self. But, the arrival of total being, which is really no arrival at all. Because that implies the frame again. No-thing is beyond all of it. This-ness?
The murder of President Kennedy created a deep layer in the frame of our consciousness. Fortified its existence in the limited field of time. That was the intent. We, I think, are pushed into our own suffering, used as a resource and denied our birthright to the infinite. That works only as long as we are checked into the Coma Hotel. When we check out, hotel rules no longer apply.
David, good to see you here.
Phil, Sibel Edmonds, Gladio and Allen Dulles. Thanks.
Stan, yes indeed I follow you. In terms of Kubrick, I think your reading is definitely on track, for that broken glass is the moment of transcendence -- out of the Cartesian, Enlightenment (French Provincial!) prison (of the rational? or even of the body, which at the time is engaged in the most basic activity, feeding itself), into some sort of Nietzschean transcendence/rebirth. "... the arrival of total being, which is really no arrival at all." A mise en abîme, as Derrideans would say, though you are giving it a more mystical inflection than Derrida would -- more like the Pseudo-Dionysius, John of the Cross, or even Heidegger. At any rate, that is what I was driving at when I said that what was left was no longer perception; and by the question mark itself.
I must confess, however, that this kind of framing of the political events of the 60s is strange to me; I don't say it is wrong, it is just that personally I am not in the habit of seeing those questions and cognitive/metaphysical ones inside the same "framework" [sic!] . That's why all of this is rather intriguing. Can't say I'm a convert yet, but I am certainly open to new perspectives, and love to hear new ideas, as unusual as they might seem at first.