The Secrets - Samantha Reynolds

I whisper nonsense

into your feet

and it makes you laugh

so that you can barely stand it

but you kick at the air again

wanting more.

They say you won't remember this

but the mind is not the only scribe

I tell your feet to hold onto these kisses

same with your belly

and the fattest spot on your cheeks

just in case there comes a day

when you are older

when you are hurting

your limbs will release the secrets

I buried into them

and you will wonder

why you suddenly feel

so strong.


(a personal gift for Leo from Thomas Arthur).

Pablo

http://www.thepresentparticiple.blogspot.com

.

http://www.thepresentparticiple.blogspot.com

Ontic and Epistemic Fallacies

"In the epistemic fallacy, statements about being are to be interpreted as statements about knowledge. Basically, being is understood as perceived being, something that is unperceived being a thing-in-itself at best (and neither real nor actual at worst). In the ontic fallacy, knowledge is analyzed as a direct, unmediated relation between a subject and being. The ontic fallacy ignores the cognitive and social mechanisms by which knowledge is produced from antecedent knowledge, leaving an ontology of empirical knowledge events (raw perceptions) and a de-socialized epistemology.

Bhaskar sees a close relation between these two fallacies, especially in relation to classical empiricism. The epistemic fallacy first projects the external world onto a subjective phenomenal map, then the ontic fallacy projects the phenomenal entities of that subjective map back out on the world as objective sense data, of which we have direct perceptual knowledge. So reality independent of thought is first subjectified, then the subjectified elements are objectified to explain and justify our knowledge".

Louis Irwin, from an entry on Epistemic and Ontic Fallacies in the online Critical Realism database: www.criticalrealism.com

Along the run... Existential Phenomenological Ontology

A point in reclaiming the existstential dilemma at the level of the phenomenology of being. Seemed to have wound up around this point, rather than through it. Cheers Spark Notes! :-)

"To escape its own nothingness, the for-itself strives to absorb the in-itself, or even, in more profane terms, to consume it. Ultimately, however, the in-itself can never be possessed. Just as the for-itself will never realize the union of for-itself and in-itself, neither will it succeed in apprehending or devouring the alien object. Thus, at the summation of Sartre's polemic, an incredible sense of hopelessness dominates the discussion: I am a nothingness, a lack, dehumanized by the other and deceived even by myself. Yet, as Sartre continually emphasizes, I am free, I am transcendent, I am consciousness, and I make the world. 

How to reconcile these two ostensibly unreconcilable descriptions of human ontology is a question Sartre does not attempt to definitively answer. This avoidance of reaching a definitive point of philosophic conclusion is in many ways intentional, however, in keeping with both Sartre's personal style and the existentialist maxim that there are no theories that can make a claim to universality".

Beyond

"…it is possible that there are situations that exist beyond your logic, beyond your system of thinking. That is not an impossibility. In fact it is quite possible."

—Chögyam Trungpa

Bhairava Tantra

"If your own mind-itself, the root of all phenomena,

Is not realized,

Even if you train well in hearing, thinking, and meditating,

The result will not be achieved.

You will be like a blind man without a guide.

So realize your own mind."

—The Glorious Bhairava Tantra (translated by B. Alan Wallace)

Nature as Self and Societal Shadow

"The deeper layers of the psyche lose their individual uniqueness as they retreat farther into the darkness... Here they become increasingly collective until they are universalized, merging with the body's instinctual and biological functions and eventually with nature itself" 

- Carl Jung

(via Bonnitta Roy).