There's too much.. too much to say...
Sep. 10th, 2007 09:51 amJarboe/Nic Le Ban - [Conduit10]--- Too many pieces, in my head, today, too many dreams, and realisations,a dn pieces of me, over the course of the evening, morning, darkening time. All I can do, now is put it, this way:
Did Max Cohen "pussy out," as they say? Did he wallk to the edge of a cliff, run back, run forward, again, and then skid to a halt, clawing his way back, on hands and knees? That's what I've always thought... He gave up what was in his grasp, he demanded to see, to know, to be sumsumed in that, to know the face of God, to loop himself into the recognition of his own true consciousness, and then, instead of Crashing, he shuts down. Intewad of knowing for certain, once and for all, he... walks away...
That always hurt me, that turning away, that closing of eyes and senses. It is uniquely antithetical to me, as I think you understand. But what if that's only half of the equation, that I'm seeing? What if he did see it, feel it, know it, understand it, completely? And in that understanding the only completion was incompletion? Is that not possible, that in order to recognise the face of God/Self/Sun/Universe, to stare at it, until you go blind, requires not knowing it, requires being unaware, is that not possible that to truly know the wonder, you must be ignorant of the context?
I don't think it's necessarily true. I don't think that Max had to do what he did. But I understand that it could be that way. The question is raised, by this seituational realisation, did he want not to see, or did he need not to see...
Poe - [Junkie]--- It's the syntax, Max tells us, the meaning and interaction between the numbers that makes them anything. The rote intonation of formula means nothing, unless your relational context finds a place for it.
Symantics and Syntax, balancing each other like Subject and Object, light and dark, duality, monism, and trinity.
Deadsy - [Time]--- It's the motion between the pieces that the inherent shape creates, infinite in all possible combinations but, at present, displaying these chosen few. That's what means anything.
And I have to go express my current syntactical understanding.
I'll see you all, later...
Did Max Cohen "pussy out," as they say? Did he wallk to the edge of a cliff, run back, run forward, again, and then skid to a halt, clawing his way back, on hands and knees? That's what I've always thought... He gave up what was in his grasp, he demanded to see, to know, to be sumsumed in that, to know the face of God, to loop himself into the recognition of his own true consciousness, and then, instead of Crashing, he shuts down. Intewad of knowing for certain, once and for all, he... walks away...
That always hurt me, that turning away, that closing of eyes and senses. It is uniquely antithetical to me, as I think you understand. But what if that's only half of the equation, that I'm seeing? What if he did see it, feel it, know it, understand it, completely? And in that understanding the only completion was incompletion? Is that not possible, that in order to recognise the face of God/Self/Sun/Universe, to stare at it, until you go blind, requires not knowing it, requires being unaware, is that not possible that to truly know the wonder, you must be ignorant of the context?
I don't think it's necessarily true. I don't think that Max had to do what he did. But I understand that it could be that way. The question is raised, by this seituational realisation, did he want not to see, or did he need not to see...
Poe - [Junkie]--- It's the syntax, Max tells us, the meaning and interaction between the numbers that makes them anything. The rote intonation of formula means nothing, unless your relational context finds a place for it.
Symantics and Syntax, balancing each other like Subject and Object, light and dark, duality, monism, and trinity.
Deadsy - [Time]--- It's the motion between the pieces that the inherent shape creates, infinite in all possible combinations but, at present, displaying these chosen few. That's what means anything.
And I have to go express my current syntactical understanding.
I'll see you all, later...
no subject
Date: 2007-09-10 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-11 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-10 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-11 04:17 pm (UTC)I think that's what happens every increment of time: Destruction, Creation, Continuance, Understanding, Destruction, Creation, et cetera.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-11 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-11 04:27 pm (UTC)Douglas Adams!
Date: 2007-09-11 04:37 pm (UTC)Re: Douglas Adams!
Date: 2007-09-11 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-11 04:02 pm (UTC)That was his crash, the removal.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-11 04:13 pm (UTC)But, I guess it would also be said that the crash failure would necessarily take different forms, depending on the system. Different revelations for different people...