Sometimes I get into feeling that I’m in this all alone

Says Maria Estes on Facebook. She goes on:

“Recently I was feeling that way, while I was eating a piece of toast. I thought about all that went into that piece of toast, all the hands that had touched it (so to speak), that had gotten it made, to my kitchen and into my mouth. I realized that it’s an illusion that we’re totally on our own. It’s actually impossible.

As Lily Tomlin said: “We’re all in this alone, together.”

My comment:

The thing is that identification with thinking is the source of disease – as ultimately, thinking is “this” and not “that”…The moment you realize that life is “precisely imprecise”, well, in that very space thinking ceases, and healing can happen.

Thinking is actually a terrible misconception – it bluntly ignores that there are “other hands” preparing “the toast” claiming that it exist only by itself…as you say, it thinks that it is on its own …- which is pure madness…In fact we need to approach a new kind of thinking which embraces opposites…that´s pretty utopian of course, but I think this is our “salvation”.

Maria Estes blog:

About julienmatei
I feel an inner urge to express what I see, to communicate and share with others all these impressions. Often the things I see are there, not yet manifest, but waiting... to be observed, talked about, and embraced. These new insights need another approach, a more vivid curiosity... Due to fear and prejudice we prefer to see only "the official" truth - but THE OFFICIAL TRUTH IS DEAD - being dead, it has nothing to give... We can continue pretending Death is fascinating or... we can take the trouble to LIVE... THE NEW has no definition yet... Again, IT requires another "perception", the courage to apprehend everything differently, from a totally new angle, with new confidence and inquisitive touch. This blog is not about interesting concepts, it is about participation... finding new solutions, inspiration, togetherness.

11 Responses to Sometimes I get into feeling that I’m in this all alone

  1. ptero9 says:

    Love this! Language, through no fault of its own, frames experiences according to how we use words and also how we hear and translate them. I think language can only approximate the world and our experience of it. It’s a misunderstanding to forget or ignore that, yes?

    • julienmatei says:

      That´s my point too:

      Language is perforce one-sided, as it is the outcome of fragmentation and linearity. It can only incorporate one thing at a time, that is, either Yes or No – as I said – “this” and not “that”, and thus inevitably creates cleavage. If I may say so, War is inherent in the very structure of every language…but that sounds probably far-fetched…or not…

      A new “thinking” would imply a language which would no longer be linear, but simultaneously “embracing” both Yes and No, present-absent, dark-light…This sounds totally paradoxical…I am aware of that.

      We should be able to talk with different voices at once …crazy ha?…:)) or at least be able to think by merging the contrasts concomitantly, something like an orchestra plays different parts, but rendering the Whole despite the different voices and instruments.

      • ptero9 says:

        “If I may say so, War is inherent in the very structure of every language…but that sounds probably far-fetched…or not…”
        Nah, not crazy at all. I agree, language is problematic, but perhaps in realizing it’s limitations, we can develop an ear for understanding in spite of its deficits.
        I guess I say that because language is also organic, and so far attempts to design a human language have not been very successful.
        “We should be able to talk with different voices at once”
        Yes, I try to hear words for their multiple meanings, but that can also be confusing depending on who you’re talking too 🙂
        Great post!

      • julienmatei says:

        Denomination is the culprit…

        Denomination is the outcome of conflict…

        I many times have thought that Poetry is the best langauge…-to kind of speak allegorically…
        But then again, we couldn´t make business using poetry, can we…? 😛 🙂

        Or who knows, if we approached things allegorically we wouldn´t have invented “business” :D…

        We need – as you say – hear the intrinsic message “behind ” the words, but again, due to the restrictive-ness of language, people don´t have that skill of seeing everything as both real and metaphorical…

        Shall I talk, or be silent…? – A hard one…

        Thanks for this dialogue 🙂

      • ptero9 says:

        You’re welcome!
        It’s a favorite topic of mine too. Understanding language’s relationship to oneself, others and the world, changes everything, or it has for me. 🙂

      • julienmatei says:

        Understanding the limitation of thinking and our use of langugage eventually being able to venture beyond them, is the beginning of freedom.

        It is to realize the interrelatedness of everything, and thereby getting healed…

      • TBS says:

        Hey, all…

        Communication: the act or process of using words, sounds, signs, or behaviors to express or exchange information or to express your ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc., to someone else. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

        Words . . . OR sounds . . . OR signs . . . OR behaviors used to express ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc.

        Jerry Mander in “In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations” lays out a brilliant, yet simple (as in ‘direct’), argument regarding the demands of ‘linguistic context’ as it relates to ‘cultural context’. The relationship is inversely proportional — when cultural context is low, the demand for linguistic context is high. Conversely, the demand for words and ‘explanations’ decreases when cultural context increases.

        So-called ‘developed’ nations, and the people that reside therein, do not enjoy rich cultural context, thus their interactions become ‘hyper-lingualized’ (an excessive reliance on the tongue), i.e. there is an elevated dependency on WORDS that seeks to compensate for the anemic cultural experience. These sorts of people also tend to demean folks in ‘under-developed’ or indigenous social-cultural arrangements as being backwards or ‘stupid’ because the under-developed ones rely more on sounds, signs, and behaviors to convey their thoughts and feelings.

        Julien, I do not see your proposal for a “language which would no longer be linear, but simultaneously *embracing* both Yes and No, present-absent, dark-light” as being paradoxical. Rather I would suggest that it hearkens to the age-old standard of communication in indigenous social arrangements that echos the Realness and Oneness of Universal Connection.

        The only “paradox” that I see isn’t really a paradox, but more of a conundrum: How do ‘we’ communicate *without words* if we are not experiencing rich context in culture?

        Thanks for sharing. I appreciate and enjoy your perspective.

      • Casey says:

        @ TBS –

        well, hello, friend. I was wondering if you’d throw your hat into the ring. glad to see you sharing your perspective.

        I would like to read that book, I hope my library has it.

        Julien shared your response to this post, where he and I were discussing the break from words and books.

        he’s got a good point.

        i wrote a response to you and him. But I do want to address something here, too.

        Julien, in case you don’t see it, check your spam folder, I have two links so it may have been caught by the spam filter.

        TBS, you know a lot of my personal history and how hard it’s been for me to gain safe, supportive connection, simply because it’s not readily available, AND you also know what happened when I accepted the only kind of connection that WAS available to me.

        I don’t know how ‘we’ communicate without words, given the fact he’s in Sweden and you and I are in the States, separated by a few states from each other. It’s a conundrum to be sure. Look how many times I misinterpret something you’ve said. I have fairly high confidence that I wouldn’t misinterpret quite so much if I could just see your eyes and the expressions on your face.

        I just know the trouble I got into when I DID communicate without words.

        And I know I need to build community and I am renewing my attempts to do just that, even though I’m really anxious. I do know that courage is not the absence of fear, but the ability to act even in the presence of fear.

        Thanks for the perspective. Now, off to check if my library has that book.

      • julienmatei says:

        Hi Casey

        Just got home. I did check the spam section but it was nothing there.

        I will respond to yr comments in due time.

        I bow,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: