Truth is fundamentally a judgement. A judgement on relations, an event, an idea, etc. So, Truth presupposes a judging being. There exists no Truth in the world as if it is an object waiting to be discovered. It has no "objective" existence because a judgement existing outside of a judger is absurd. A judgement is based on a way of understanding, or in other words, a knowledge-base, a set of principles, a rationale. In Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he claims that the determination of scientific facts needs a paradigm (a way of understanding), which enables the interpreting of data in order to find what is relevant from what is not - allowing facts to be established. Without the paradigm there is no way to order information; everything is relevant; interpretation has no aim; there's no way to judge. Likewise, Truth requires a paradigm in order to be declared as so. Using a generic example, there are two paradigms: Religious and Scientific. (Think of Classic Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics for something more interesting). The religious paradigm contains a world-view (another way to think of paradigm). It is set by specific beliefs and practices and values. Accordingly, it has a way of determining what is true from what is not. Science also contains a world-view. It determines its own version of truth based on its specific criteria. Which one of these paradigms is true? This requires a paradigm which not only has to contain the two mentioned but also another that transcends them. And is this paradigm true? This requires another paradigm. And is this paradigm true? This requires another paradigm... This does not mean there is no Truth, or that it is relative. The language we use to make these concepts (subjective/objective, relative/absolute) and the inherent logic of the concepts does not capture the full resolution needed to accurately talk about Truth. Any many other things. Truth has utility - not only for making sense of a complex world but also for guiding us. Ultimately the pragmatic approach is the only viable option when facing infinity.
The sun is a bastard Whom I love. Moon does not understand I am cheating with soil. The mossbeds rise like breath The crows do not observe, they do not know I cheat With worms. Locked in leaves, green juice. Find me Polaris burning in a hovel We knew the world was dark and feral Many heads and fangs, as I, pink tongue Cup rainwater in my milksoft skull. Assail wheat and tawny oat The sprucebranch I hold bending forever
What are we looking for when we view art? If a child were in a gallery and two walls were covered by paintings. One side has the works of Rothko, Mitchell, Miró. The other Eyck, Veronese, Rembrandt. Which side would they be attracted to? The engagement to art results the valuation. Each genre requires its own engagement, which can be regarded as a mode of experience. And experience is unbearably rich. What I find enjoyable in abstract paintings is meaninglessness. I hope the work tells me nothing; I want free-quality of colour and shape; aesthetics without reference. But I know the beauty of a Rembrandt is not in Rembrandt. It is in the source- the viewing person. The Rembrandt is a stimulus which evokes. Proof: many are indifferent to paintings. Now think of nature. It has a similar engagement-requirement. "Nature...is nothing but the inner voice of self-interest." - Baudelaire One can extract aesthetic sense from a mountain, a beach, a Pollock, while another cannot and will not because they're not able to affirm, or do not even have, a secret to play with. Imagine you could form one sentence to communicate the reality of beauty experienced. “That for which we find words is something already dead in our hearts...” - Nietzsche And why do people buy millions worth of paint hazardly splattered on a canvas? It's an investment like real estate. Don't think too much of it. Top Mark Rothko - Blue, Orange, Red - 1961 Joan Mitchell - City Landscape - 1955 Joan Miró - Ciphers and Constellations in Love with a Woman - 1941 Bottom Jan van Eyck - Madonna at the Fountain- 1439 Paolo Veronese - The Wedding at Cana - 1563 Rembrandt van Rijn - The Storm on The Sea of Galilee - 1633
I am wondering how to write. I'm reminded of Nietzsche. In The Gay Science his prose was, in comparison to his later works, boring. I think he had a distaste for writing so practically. His thoughts changed; to read what he had had wrote made him cringe. And so, he later wrote as to make the text ambiguous. The perspectives were welcomed. And he was made more than what he was. Reading someone's blog posts, the same person I've silently ridiculed because of how detailed and verbose and well-done they write, I'm inspired. There exists what I want in this person; to write, and do it with conviction. Their writing looks like worship. I'm hateful of stereotypical writing techniques when trying to write a blog. I'm agitated at having a model of a blog post when I am writing. It kills creativity and motivation. I want to write more. My life feels over-saturated with meaning and I want to express it. I have grown a nightmare out of silence. It is hard to translate floating thoughts into syntax and grammar. Intimidating, when you've always done it with your most buoyant ones. Words are like cages. When I was younger I admired long and tangled sentences. Sentences like garden hoses. I considered them signs of high ability, and I emulated them. Now, I'm over it. I like simplicity, minimalism. Emily Dickinson is right for me. I want my thoughts to be fatty. My writing like a razor. The process: to trim and make lean. I think of how I appear to others through my writing. A thing I've naturally learned by writing short stories is that there is an amateurish engagement where one is trying to convey to the reader who and what one is through the story. This is noticeable to nearly anyone, and lame. The writer is an epigram-generator. They are trying to translate the drama of movie scenes, abusing tropes, ending every paragraph with a closure, placing pointless references. Trying too hard, hoping and begging for the reader to see them through the words. I've written like this. I don't, or I'd like to think so, write like this anymore. Writing is vulnerable; I have to be okay with how others view me. Not uncaring, but okay. I dislike this audience in my head, especially because I like to think they're not there. Notice I did not say hate.
Speed disciplined the mind. The mode: time translated to purpose. I've considered poetry to be in-conducive, a fight with memory, shuttled through a black box. What information do you need? You are experiencing through words- What? To sit alone and read was once strange. One had to speak the word, or sing, to an audience. Augustine appeared other-worldy in his chair, reading silently. Is there contempt for inner music?
The one with science and technology being sensationalized – idiosyncrisis
There she is, my love, oh So pretty, so worthwhile Look at the hours go by Take a look at how She uses compassion As 10 sharpened prongs, oh My love, That voice is a Sweet prosody, hear The sizzling of her brand On my skin, oh My empathy, young heart, oh.
sometimes i get stuck in my head.
the green of the grass outside sometimes gets stuck in my vision.
the motion blur in the car sometimes is not blurred enough.
the music in the bar gets into my veins and it’s not loud enough, sometimes.
i don’t want to keep sinking into the same old feelings,
i like the new, like changing old clothes,
it takes time for me to realize i’m not my feelings
There is a need to make sense of experience through a language that is more authentic.
Language sets a standard to define our non-standard selves.
If you analyze yourself deeper, burrowing down to the centre (whatever that is),
the common words, symbols
become disingenuous means to express what it is found;
Convenient placeholders- ready made constructions for mass use.
Poetry is created from an inward movement
orbited to one mind
in the struggle of re-definition.
Experience is the greatest teacher;
Yes, but you need to be humble enough to
understand the lesson.