4 comments

• 

  Clay Schulenburg

  11 months ago

  The price you pay to see the Giants lose. (thank God for the customer experience at AT&T park)
  
  
  *RIP Heath Ledger
  reply
• 

  Daniel Graaff

  11 months ago

  Barfield would say you're working off Dashboard knowledge. What seems like it isn't related is related, but not on the Dashboard. The term comes from being conscious of the present situation inside a combustion chamber in the engine, or being conscious of the precise reality inside the Transmission, or looking at the instruments.
  
  There is an intricate network of conscious connections inside humans. This is something that explains most of what seems backward. It is not backward at all. If it seems backward, then the focal point of the observer is fixed on an irrelevant reference point which is not meaningful in greater scheme of things, or even in microcosm.
  
  But then people say, well, you're being too serious, "you know what I mean" one is ugly one is attractive. Says who? Are the two individuals physical only or is there more to them. And if so, is their physical appearance a pitance set against the content of their talent or character? And if you know what humanity is truly made of, would not it make perfect sense that abundance of choice is an innovation in Quixotism? The issue is point of view. Taking another of your examples - death before recognition of talent - of course. Up until now, the human organism has been in a fight for its life. It is rejecting one life type and defending another. It is trying to purge what is called Zoe life, and clutching Bio life. Consciousness is being rejected, Biological appearance reality is being upheld. The question is which are you primarily? Until we are primarily Zoe and the pendullum swings over to consciousness in the overall organism, death will always come before talent recognition. That is, due to the in-depth conscious mathematics involved, not the dashboard knowledge.
  reply
• 

  jacob morgan

  11 months ago

  @clay
  i still haven't seen a giants game, im a horrible local, of course i just moved here 7 months ago from l.a. so i'll use that as my excuse for now :)
  
  @daniel
  truth is in the eye of the beholder, therefore if i believe something to be backwards, then it is :) of course the fact about attraction was written partially in jest, im sure there are plenty of things going on that i don't know about (maybe!)
  
  i would respond in more detail, but its around 1am and quite frankly my brain is just shutting down. excellent comments daniel, i love time you take you take to respond with your thought provoking replies. you never did tell me what you're working on...
  reply
• 

  Daniel Graaff

  11 months ago

  Hey Jacob - I have been finishing going through a massive strategy pass and finishing going through manuscripts, sorry for not getting back to you. I don't know if you'll really be interested if you think truth is only in the eye of the beholder. In one way it is, but in another way it is not. We could have crossed eyes, and I believe we do, so does that make it true or what it true already? Truth is truth. Either I am with it, or I am not. My perspective is not so normative that I condition truth to be how truth is.
  
  The surface is the deepest. If we do not embrace the connections under the surface then we do not truly see the surface for what it is. This is to say that the outer world is not really outer, but a view of the inner as an allegory. This is not pantheism or anything. Just saying that the human organism is one thing, and the outer world is like our interface which reveals things about us. Like when we go to the ocean, we understand the ocean because we have emotions and the ocean is a pretty damn good metaphor for our emotions which are deep, sometimes rough, sometimes calm, always moving, etc... So I just put out the idea that there is more to life than the beholder's limitations. Or I could go so far as to say that truth is only as visible as your limits.
  reply