Contrary to thinking, feeling displays neither organization nor stability which is usually the result of organization. It is always of private use. It displays a lack of a corresponding organizational substructure and interferes like a miracle worker with logical processes, either by suspending them or overturning them.
There is a fundamental contrast between these two elements. A contrast that lives inside every human being. The first force is the austere mathematical organizational principle of logic, which has the same characteristics in every human being, is a survival and a mechanism production tool, a mechanics tool and in general a tool of knowledge. The other force has no specific principles, no common characteristics between people and often becomes a vehicle (i.e. impulse) for fraud and destruction.
Logic displays itself as a tool for survival. And survival means emotional balance and/or harmony. Therefore logic is the worker and feeling is the master who reaps, manages and enjoys or destroys the fruits of the worker. Logic processes subjects towards specific directions. The multitude of directions, often conflicting with each other, thrusts towards the need for total comprehension and decision. Thus things that appear logically correct can be overturned under a total view. This total view is saturated with feeling. Thus feeling displays a non-normality that makes it look like a political system that is lead and carried by the occasional party that holds the majority. A mysterious all powerful god inside the microcosm of a man's logical thoughts.
A rich emotional world I think resembles a virgin tropical forest. One can find in it all kinds of plants and animals in a harmonious coexistence and wonderful balance. A poor emotional world I think resembles a tidied garden and the pruned or trimmed in the shape of cubes or cones trees and bushes of a public park. The first world appears to contain a self-sustained biological hierarchy. The second appears dependent on the gardener. Its future is uncertain without the gardener's presence. Depending on the climatological conditions it can gradually turn into either a jungle or a desert.
Accordingly an organized and operational noetic looks like a rich and tidied bookcase, where you can find very fast whatever your soul desires. The rich and tidied bookcase represents the world's intellectual tradition with which you become one and which you supplement and inherit further. Contrary to the above, a disorganized noetic looks like a warehouse where everything is disorderly stacked against each other, where nobody can find anything and where everything rots in dust and time.
The nature of the contrast between logic and feeling in every human being appears to me to correspond to the contrast between forces that transcend it (occasionally it names them: god) and fails to understand them and forces it (thinks that) controls and uses (occasionally it names them: sins). Two emotions top this contrast that shock existence: The feeling of freedom and the feeling of love. The feeling of non-commitment and the feeling of commitment. There exists such a tragedy - generator in every human being. It appears as though freedom leads to an unobstructed operation of the noetic and a certain existential discipline in the human being's conclusions. Contrary to the above, love interferes and places obstacles in any logical analysis that could hinder its objective. It determines a kind of self-blindness. It sits like a protective hen above the eggs that are its substance and content. It forces a materialization of the notion of "stasis".
Contrary to the above, freedom forces a materialization of the notion of motion with a feeling of void content. A certain force - structure, that has neither found nor determined anything as content or axis and has forced no specific route apart from that of the keeping of its own situation, its self-sustainance in a pure and uncommitted search. The overthrowing thought here, is that even this is a commitment, a form of love, therefore, in its absolute application, freedom must detach even from its own attachment to self-preservation, thus it must self-abolish.
There are several issues here which involve themselves in this paralogism. The notions freedom and love are not easy to be defined exactly. The logical voids in their definitions lead to contradictions. About these, later.
Now I want to conclude with the natural order of these things. Nature appears to prefix love for freedom. The newborn has the need of its mother's attachment to it. Afterwards love evolves into support for freedom and independence of the being in question. In its absolute form love feeds and supports the hand that will exterminate it.
Every subject here gives birth to other ten:
Indulging in a structure has the character of a game. It is a game with successively increasing interest, as the mind achieves freedom of movement and expression in the structure. The picture is that of a musical instrument. As the freedom of expression with it increases so increases the pleasure of indulging in it. The mind falls in a condition of a continuous vigilance, and gradually fails to satisfy its own requirements. The hours of day are not enough for the mind to satisfy its curiosity and its need for further expansion of knowledge. It curbs other needs and concentrates in a main activity which characterizes it. An axis is created.
Contrary to the above the mind which has not succeeded in discovering the structure which delights in indulging in, keeps looking for ways to entertain/block its boredom and doesn't find any. In the nature of the mind is a tendency towards the infinite which is expressed as a greed. The only way to satisfy this tendency is to channel it towards a categorical structure, indulging in which will cause pleasure. The failure in creating an axis is not a non-axis, however. It is the iconic or false axis. A main occupation which divides, attracts and repels. It does not supply the grace of a game and keeps pushing towards other investigations. Those other investigations cannot detach the mind from the fake axis, however, and lead to a true axis. Then greed implements itself as excessive need for money, 'having fun', etc., manifesting in essence the pausing of the game. A futile effort condemned to failure, since the infinite is spiritual, many-faced, inexhaustible and these are finite, monotonous and quickly exhausted.
Structures are approached in a game-like manner. They represent the rules of the game. The image of a child playing is an expression of good-heartedness, an expression of non-violence. On the contrary the image of a child not playing has something dark and violent in it by nature. Much more so the psychology of a child which instead of playing is forced to labor brutally. The game along with its rules is the best example of a structure. And the child's happiness is the image of the mind that has found happiness and has managed to express itself. Rightfully then the word 'school' has as its root the verb 'sxolazo', which means to interrupt, to pause every brutal work.
Subjects that come to mind:
The meaning is not given. It is won over. It is the opposite of the existential void. Correct noematological giving acts like re-occupation of deserted ground. Conversely noematological failure looks like expansion of the desert. As far as bad noematological meaning (unfortunately this exists as well) this looks like the destruction of the environment. The existential void is the biggest threat, and at the same time blessing, of the human existence.
In the animal personal existence exhausts itself in the propagation of its species. While young, the momentum of instinct reduces the feeling of void. The health and power of the flesh, eros, give a feeling of eternity. Life appears to be self-determinate in the young eyes. Noble young souls, only those, get some messages for the underlying existential void. The rest are absorbed in the propagation. Most finally identify completely with the later as the meaning of life and in a way disappear as soon as they achieve their objective. The few that feel are the problematic ones. At the same time they are the creators in art, writing, science. The meaning of life extends itself, for them, beyond mere procreation, in an intellectual work, a creative life.
The huge leap of quantity/quality of mind from the rest of the animals points towards a general direction of giving meaning. The preservation or continuation of this form of life is characteristic or rather the very definition of the intellectual/spiritual human being. A body that evolves within the ages and molds its character, in the same way one human being molds its own, in its short life time. Cells get born and die. The body stays.
From within this perspective, noematological meaning of the human life does not appear as arbitrary or a priori multivariety-like as it seems. But objectively it is. First because the things which I say are not based on mathematics and they are not axioms, canceling our freedom of choice. Secondly, because variety finds pleasure in mind/spirit, in the natural space of the infinite. It would appear that the universal intellectual body appears to exist only in some people's imagination. The body of universal pollution of the atmosphere from factory emissions and car exhausts looks much more real, even though the later existence is a consequential phenomenon to the sooner.
In my minds comes the analogy with music. There exists music, the universal body of which consists of worthy composers, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, folk music of the people, etc., etc. Question is how much copper, the loud cymbal, with its drums in their maximum intensity of its speakers, coupled with its fat tires, its specially empowered exhaust, running around on the streets of the city squares, is more real than Johann Sebastian, who is barely audible, as a whisper. Which ones are the real and which the imaginary existences?
The violent and the noisy appears more real than the quiet and tame, the noble, almost non-existent. The rude and the audacious projects his existence by force. The creator remains invisible according to the measure of his/her dedication to his/her work. The greater the intensity of his/her creation, the more the grief from his/her separation from his/her work and the more difficult to see him/her on the street or with acquaintances. (Kavafis). There exists here a crucial difference: Non-existence finds itself having the need to proclaim its presence using bugles and timpani, whereas for existence it's the opposite.
On the Infinite
|On the Infinite|