Pyramid Family

Just another WordPress.com site

Posts Tagged ‘Notes from the Journal

[Notes from the Journal #3]: Uncataloged and Unrevised Poems #1 (6.11.10)

leave a comment »

Though I may perish,
God remains.

Though my body be torn to shreds,
Yet live the Flames.

Though all might forget it,
The Way is still the same.

[And infinite in Its manifestations
Although some are not Its Ways.]

First dark then light then shimmering sameness,
Forever, always.

Advertisements

Written by KarlH

May 23, 2011 at 5:02 am

[Notes from the Journal #2]: Igor

leave a comment »

Igor was a jokester—a practical prankster, a rapscallion.

He was also a stable boy, though a man of thirty. When he had been younger, he made a mistake that cost him his advancement.

“Not a soul as brave as I,” said the young boy, mounting his steed. “To ride off to face my Duty—this is chivalry!”

A man cannot be a knight without a dragon to be slain. And so, we all need a dragon to hold and to hate.

The man-boy set off looking for his Figured Ennoblement, stopping at the musty lair. “Beyond ‘yon oak passage lies my Passage.”

Espying his eternal foe, the boy laid his eyes upon the thing-of-glory—a long stake, and sought to overthrow the necessary Opressor. Aiming for its most vulnerable areas, the boy-knight prodded and stabbed until the dragon was no dragon at all but a blinded mare.

Written by KarlH

May 23, 2011 at 4:54 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with ,

[Notes from the Journal #1]: A Brief Introduction to the Question of the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical in “Fear and Trembling” and a Less-Conceptualized Rumination on an Age-old Dichotomy and Dualing Ideologies

leave a comment »

I’ve decided to simply post notes from my journal. These are unrevised, mostly hardly-conceptualized ruminations, and I don’t claim them to be in any way indicative of my concrete thought and solid opinions. If the titles seem pretentious, it’s because they are just as much for my labeling and sorting as they are for any purpose.

There is an everlasting controversy, reaching back from the Euthyphro to the modern age, wherein the question arises whether or not moral actions are caused by their relation to realities (that is, lived experience) or whether or not they come from God as pre-existing forms and universals. Now, if it is posited that God exists as an Absolute reality providing some basic substructure (read as trust in our present state of consciousness wherein we must trust that goodness is something that can be communicated) to phenomena, it also makes sense that there are certain actions that will disrupt the harmony of the interconnected nature of phenomena. However, to what extent are we bound to apophatic morality (my term)? Is lying bad as a pre-existent entity or because lying hurts people and affects them?

One might answer “both” but are there not certain circumstances wherein lying lessens the impact of necessary penalties? We make these lies all the time. It’s cultural. “No, you don’t look fat in that dress.” “You’re very talented!” These examples are shoddy—it is understood that asking a person whether or not one looks fat in a dress cannot be answered in the affirmative. The answerer is essentially bound to replying in the negative—the answer is contained within the question. Too much of this type of thinking cannot really cause historical change, however. One must not merely be bound by cultural norms or there is no room for things like poverty and poor education of the lower classes to be lessened. God becomes an idol of prescribed moralities that is no longer required to have any meaning in the lived-out sense and becomes an image and formalism. On the other hand, have no image and there is no change. This is what Aristotle’s entire theory is founded upon, of course. It is the idea that the rule of thumb exists because there is a world to which it can relate.

It is undeniable that this type of endlessly-constructed check-lists of proper behavior are common to all historical realities. People are always looking for theories of everything, some sort of prescribed path to follow. Now, these paths really can help a person to become better people—when one makes a vow to never make a lie there is something indelible and, indeed, divine about such an individual. This is why characters like Alan Watts’ Rorschach of Watchmen fame are so appealing. On the other hand, there is the paradox of the inevitable destruction of the world if SOMETHING is not done. But is it ever alright to kill millions of people? Doubtfully so—it might work out in the short-term but it is obvious that a society founded upon such principles cannot really respect or give dignity to the lives of its citizens. It’s easy to say that equivocation is okay in certain circumstances, but let’s be honest. We are not all that quick on our feet. We do not all have the opportunity to even partake in this endless moralizing.

This is really the fundamental philosophical problem of Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and it has never been suitably answered. Well, it has—one will find endless elucidations for both sides of the dichotomy during all time periods. At certain periods in history and in particular historical situations, one view will rise above the other. A synthesis has hardly ever been reached, and the ideas and ingrained worldviews of each are in motion, often colliding.

Written by KarlH

May 2, 2011 at 2:51 am