Mystery

[TSTS]

The magic of your veiled face is not all its own, but it has stolen the passionate light that was in my eyes one careless summer. and then gathered from my love a mystery that has now become a penance.

 

[TSTS]

Says the afflicted lover:

I am like a moth around the lamp of your lit face.

Free from the burdens of reasoning and rationalizations.

 

[TSTS]

There is this Thirst. To remain Thirsty and refuse water, let the Thirst consume every other preoccupation.

 

[TSTS]

@JustGeorge

While one thanks you for the heart emoticons but fyi one doesn't expect them or feels it is required.

 

[JustGeorge]

@JustGeorge

While one thanks you for the heart emoticons but fyi one doesn't expect them or feels it is required.

They're genuine heart frubals. I found the words touching.

 

[TSTS]

Where the voices of the world don't reach, an old run down hut - poor, simple, quiet. Undisturbed by the affairs of the world a solitary candle on the worn window sill.

 

[TSTS]

When spring arrives new flowers will bloom but the fallen autumn leaves will never return.

 

[TSTS]

You thought enough of a speck of dust,

to make it a star.

What is it,

if not the magic of your vision?

 

[TSTS]

For the so called grown-up, 'Innocence' is something abstract. In his/her befuddlement , he/she thinks it involves the absence of what would prejudice it. However, clearly it only involves the absence of his/her prejudice. Thus it is inconceivable to him.

That said, a child is only an image, a representation of something else. Something beyond. Therefore innocence in this context is not ignorance.

 

[TSTS]

In passing one saw this thread Human Animals?

One wonders how can the question be answered without first being clear on what it means to be a human? What constitutes "humanity"? Not humanity as a collection, an aggregate, but humanity as the quality? Has one ever pondered about it seriously or glossed over frivolously like everything else in their petty lives?

Can we really claim to be better than animals? Surely we don't have the power of a horse, the strength of a gorilla, the endurance of migrating birds etc. - then where does this deluded sense of entitlement come from?

Look at the beauty of a parrot and then look at the ugliness of their (so-called human) counterparts. While the former exceeds their allotted intelligence, the latter simply regurgitates collected information. Look at the form of an actual weasel and then look at the characteristics (conniving) of their human counterparts. Look at the beauty in a reptile and then compare it to the stings or the bites of their human parallels with reptilian tendencies.

So what do we observe? We see that in spite of your delusions you aren't even an animal. No sir/ma'am. You're a second hand animal. Perhaps it is best to get off that horse.

 

[JustGeorge]

In passing one saw this thread Human Animals?

One wonders how can the question be answered without first being clear on what it means to be a human? What constitutes "humanity"? Not humanity as a collection, an aggregate, but humanity as the quality? Has one ever pondered about it seriously or glossed over frivolously like everything else in their petty lives?

Looks like you weren't the only one wondering: Humanity

Can we really claim to be better than animals? Surely we don't have the power of a horse, the strength of a gorilla, the endurance of migrating birds etc. - then where does this deluded sense of entitlement come from?

If a person puts aside the idea of 'better', can we claim to be 'different'? With that in mind, why don't we place as much emphasis on the differences of species, and why do we lump them all as 'animals'? There's a lot of difference between a sponge and an elephant, I'd guess.

(I don't have an answer, just pondering.)

Look at the beauty of a parrot and then look at the ugliness of their (so-called human) counterparts. While the former exceeds their allotted intelligence, the latter simply regurgitates collected information. Look at the form of an actual weasel and then look at the characteristics (conniving) of their human counterparts. Look at the beauty in a reptile and then compare it to the stings or the bites of their human parallels with reptilian tendencies.

With these qualities, might what is judged as 'superior' change from outlook to outlook(especially if you consider the outlooks of multiple species)?

So what do we observe? We see that in spite of your delusions you aren't even an animal. No sir/ma'am. You're a second hand animal. Perhaps it is best to get off that horse.

 

[TSTS]

If a person puts aside the idea of 'better', can we claim to be 'different'? With that in mind, why don't we place as much emphasis on the differences of species, and why do we lump them all as 'animals'? There's a lot of difference between a sponge and an elephant, I'd guess.

Where is that need coming from? Why the need to be 'different'? Is it because we have been conditioned by the fairly recent narrative "oh look at me i'm so different!". Or is it because we are being taught everything is relative?

Sure, you can classify yourself as a species. But can we? What happens to our emotional investment that we are superior?

With these qualities, might what is judged as 'superior' change from outlook to outlook(especially if you consider the outlooks of multiple species)?

An " outlook" is a "human" quality. It doesn't exist in the animal kingdom.

Furthermore, superiority isn't always a value judgement, it can also be a matter of fact. Like said above, humans don't have the strength of a gorilla etc. You may also remember our exchange on your thread: about how some are better suited for some things while other may not. So one has to inquire for themselves why there is this obsession with 'relative' "labels" (outlooks).

 

[JustGeorge]

Where is that need coming from? Why the need to be 'different'? Is it because we have been conditioned by the fairly recent narrative "oh look at me i'm so different!". Or is it because we are being taught everything is relative?

I don't know where the need comes from, or if its a need, or its how we're taught to identify. I'm not sure if its recent, though(though recent is relative, I suppose). There's been admonishments for centuries not to "behave like animals"(though I'm not sure that behaving like animals would be a bad thing).

I doubt there's many teachings that everything is relative anymore, and I think there's a lot of problem with that.

Sure, you can classify yourself as a species. But can we? What happens to our emotional investment that we are superior?

I think the classification of a species comes as more of an identifier. It seems strange to invest emotion in a classification(yet I acknowledge it happens).

An " outlook" is a "human" quality. It doesn't exist in the animal kingdom.

I'm not certain on that. In my years, my pets have surprised me with having more 'opinions' than normally is recognized.

Furthermore, superiority isn't always a value judgement, it can also be a matter of fact. Like said above, humans don't have the strength of a gorilla etc. You may also remember our exchange on your thread: about how some are better suited for some things while other may not. So one has to inquire for themselves why there is this obsession with 'relative' "labels" (outlooks).

Fair enough.

 

[TSTS]

I could have quoted and responded to everything you say, again, but don't see a reason to. For example, there is perhaps a distinction between an instinctual response of the pet to its owner's momentary "mood", but whether, it will be rational, reasonable, to claim a pet has a 'matching outlook' is something you will have to ponder on your own, or discuss it with others that beat the drums of rationality and factuality. Same goes for everything else you've said. Thanks for chiming. ;-)

 

[TSTS]

The secret whispered in the silence of night has been hammered,

Though centuries get turned into dust,

the stone still sighs to the stars, 'I remember'.

 

[TSTS]

When one withdraws one's gaze from petty preoccupations of ‘self’ and looks with dispassionate curious eyes which seek only to understand truth (behind appearances), our first perception is the perception of an immensity. An immensity which hasn’t shortchanged the smallest of its works even as on the largest. This insight radically changes perception (thus, one's life) infusing it with something else...

One then naturally is faced with the question, why is this immensity not ‘normally’ perceived.

 

[TSTS]

When one withdraws one's gaze

If, one is able to.

 

[TSTS]

Whose arrival awoke a glisten in the eye and a melody from rusted heart-strings.

Whose news of arrival was carried by the breeze and in the rustling of flowers.

 

[Stan77]

No one knows where she comes from, or what will emerge from her,

thus she moves the worlds, and the hopeful mind of humans,

no one knows what she's up to.

She makes a Sage of a sinner,

and a Sinner of a sage.

 

[Stan77]

Rocks beaten by age crumble and waste,

the lofty towers decay,

the sacred temples gape in chinks, and fall,

nor can their sanctity avert their fate.

monuments to the dead yield,

everything under command of the laws,

like a child playing with throes...