someone asks about meaning and intention and i say :
i think humans have intentions and make meaning - and therefore they see meaning and intentions where something much more complex is going on … the infinite enfoldings and unfoldings of the ten to the power of 500 universes and the countless intricate intra-actions between the phenomena that come about as part of this unfolding and enfolding.
Everywhere there is the casting of spells.
Which one have you fallen under?
Is that the point of life, to be enchanted?
Or might there be something else?
What is it?
Let’s find out…
Can being an aspiring posthumanist not also be about the ego?
it is everything to do with the ego. both the collective ego we call ‘humanity’ and the individual ego or self (which is just something talking to itself about something :)
What to you is the difference between entertainment/a game/a hobby and when it’s for real?
well your intention is part of your being since it is you (or what appears to you as ‘i’) that is doing the intending —and since ‘the real’ (such as it is) is affected by, or more properly, is the effect of, your being intra-acting with all the other beings and not-beings, things, rivers, phenomena, electrons, if you do something with seriousness and with an intention — which is not ‘just to have fun!’ (not that there is anything wrong with that :) — say, playing a game’, then ‘the real’ that is produced by that intra-action is entirely different.
in response to that someone says: When you play a game/ do a hobby then you can stop when you feel uncomfortable. When it is ‘for real’ you cannot stop your uncomfortable feeling because what is happening is really there.
i wonder if the problem is with the binary : ‘real’ and ‘play’ or playing/not playing. where does play end and ‘reality’ begin? sometimes when you are playing the other person doesn’t know it’s ‘just’ playing. sometimes you play a game, say if you’re a footballer, and you have to believe that it matters more than anything. cue the faces of heartbroken footballers after losing an important game or missing a crucial penalty in a shoot out. my favourite sad football footage is of clarence seedorf in 1996 after missing the penalty and i found lionel messi and his despair one of the more intriguing spectacles at the recent world cup but then you are not interested in football so.
but i didn’t write that. what i wrote was this:
your comment about play is interesting and you are right of course but is there also a ‘real’ dimension sometimes to particular forms of play? it may be possible in theory to stop playing because you’re uncomfortable or for another reason but are you able to stop?
when you hear or read accounts of people leaving the church or escaping from some cult it’s like they have been playing a game, but too seriously… they had managed to more or less permanently suspended their disbelief and then they stopped being unable to suspend it.
but what i was trying to get at was that a serious intention and an intention to have fun are quite different and each therefore produces a very different ‘real’ — but i really think the separation between ‘real’ and ‘not real’ is problematic and what happens in play, as in magical thinking, is that it allows a shifting of that border.
To say ‘all that matters is this’ is a ‘soft’ observation. In a world which prizes science and knowledge, softness is a quality only valued in kittens, pillows and fabrics, as well as certain parts of the human body (although reviled in other parts — a bit like hair). But when it comes to facts you want them hard — and when it comes to statements you want them strong. Soft facts or “an observation” … weak statements… you’re not going to win any votes with them. Your book won’t sell. Crowdsourcing will fail miserably, and people will find it difficult to trust you and they don’t believe you when you tell them something, even if, given two hours of their lives, it would be quite possible to make it believable to them. But where is you elevator pitch?
grace is an old word which i understand as the generosity of the world, of the ten to the power of 500 universes and the eleven dimensions. everything that is (and ever was or will be) is continually giving, giving, giving without asking for anything in return — except the humans : they are mainly interested in buying (for a good price) and selling (at a profit), and in relationships which are ‘profitable’.
“…The separateness of our lives is a sham. Physics, mathematics, music, painting, my politics, my love for you, my work, the star-dust of my body, the spirit that impels it, clocks diurnal, time perpetual, the roll, rough, tender, swamping, liberating, breathing, moving, thinking nature, human nature and the cosmos are patterned together…”
“…Every person is driven by some deepdeepdeepdeep secret…”
sometimes what is given is not what you want/ed or expect/ed or hope/d for.
the ego is like a spell, you can ‘fall under’ it, be caught in it. it can be endlessly fascinating.↩
This is not an assertion. It is not hard and fast or objective, rational statement. And it is not a statement that says nothing else matters, and never will, or did or could. This is about here and now.↩
“…what’s in it for me…?”↩
Jeannette Winterson — Gut Symmetries (1997)↩
this is often called ‘disappointment’.↩
(you feel uncomfortable.)↩