Your invisible nearness

The story of a lingering fragrance…

When thought ends, Love begins

Why do you need so many Whys?

If you asked Life why It exists, it will simply answer:

The saving of our world from pending doom will come

…not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.

– Martin Luther King


(Through Monica Cassani)

Asking Rox – is there a free will, after all?

How much Fate is there in Life, and how much Free Will?
You must have posed yourself this question. I for one, inevitably do…

Fact is that more often than not, I feel there is no free will; not in the sense that we are deprived of freedom, but rather that Fate seems to govern our Lives.

It´s really my case: Whatever I try to make happen, fails. And when I least expect anything, something happens. Truly puzzling…

It feels as if Providence has always the last word.

To Melissa

Poetry knows without knowing…

Mirrors of Encounters

The shore is awaiting the evasive shadow…

Your eyelashes are tremblingly eager

Like your fading glance

Reaching far a purple dream

The season

The melting silk

The mute swan

They all wait

For the return


View original post

Can we grasp anything without any preconceived knowledge?

Swarn Gill:
Words must have meaning. I have just written a sentence, if you do not know the meaning to any of the words, there is nothing to ponder. To ponder the concept of ‘ego’ one must have their own definition of what ‘ego’ is to have an opinion of it. To have a discussion with someone else they must either share the definition or if they have different definitions they explain to each other what Ego means to them.

That´s my question:

Is Meaning something we ascribe based on a certain standpoint or argument? Do we understand anything according to an ubiquitous thesis after all?

Of course I hear what you say. Freud speaks about Ego – or, of whatever else – in a certain way, Jung, in a different manner. Philosophically speaking, we are expected to build up a suitable consensus – a system – if we are to appropriate anything.

That´s exactly what I am trying to avoid. That is:

Can we be so free and unbiased as to have a discussion without taking account of definitions and explanations?

Can we be so direct and intuitive as to take on something without any preconceived knowledge?

What happens to a poem if we try to “explain” it? Don´t we kill the very essence of music, if we are to define what music intrinsically is?

Can we thus be so free of any preconception to grasp a “truth” without “understanding” it?


Related articles:

Can we understand anything at all, as long as we base our understanding on someone else´s surmise?

Swarn Gill says:
Definitions are different than labels. Words mean what they mean. Some words take on different meanings as they get used commonly so I was simply asking what you meant by ego. I guess I just define the ego differently, or see it playing a different role based on my study of psychology.

Can we analyze this with an impartial outlook?

What is the purpose of definition? Of any definition.

Can we linger on this for a while before giving an answer?
Why du we need definitions? Why are we urged to define things eventually?

Can we learn anything directly through accepting and
taking as good what other people have termed as “real”?

Can we understand anything at all, as long as we base our understanding and rely on someone else´s surmise? – even if this suppositions are called “science”?

Or are we maybe afraid to understand, that is, exposing ourselves to direct and unmediated experience?

How can words and their inherent meaning become other than “common” if we are
to approach them through the filter of yesterday experience…?

Can other people´s “yesterday experience” apply to who we are and what we are being confronted with just now…?

Definitions imply that there is an all-knowing authority. I thus ascribe authority importance, as I am afraid to know, that is, to find out for myself.

So I do wonder:

Can it be so that whatever preconceived definition deprives me of my spontaneous relation to Life and the object of my inquiry?

Ego – this nauseous fraud

There is no end to the whims and idiosyncracies of the ego.

It twists and warps everything it tackles. Fragmentation is its only reality, meaning
that whatever it claims to understand, is in fact, a total misunderstanding. When it
comes to anything.

As ego is the outcome of a delusion, it is utterly unreliable and unpredictable.

What I want to highlight is the very fact that Ego hates whatever you could term as
genuine relation. It loathes contact, communion, communication. That because it is
always prone to dominate – that is, to create and reinforce distance.

It sees to always be busy, but never achieving anything for real.

It loves to have the whip hand. Remoteness turns it on.

It can only thrive in isolation. Isolated, can it play special. By blocking
and isolating the other, can it be right. Loony, but standing out.

Whatever is reminding it of togetherness is harshly discarded.

It abhors whatever is light and pleasant. It complicates things beyond recognition.
It needs conflict to survive.

Joy is its worst nightmare. Suffering its highest joy.

Look at people around you:

Do you recognize this ghoul in them?…

We live in a mad world

But know that you´re mad too.
Otherwise you wouldn´t be here.

The cat from Alice in Wonderland said the same thing,
so don´t put the blame only on me 😛

Not very exhilarating to hear that, ha…?

Yet it is – if you have the guts to see that your
separated ego is anything but healthy.

You can only recover once you openly acknowledge your disease.