I remember when I taught at university. There was a desire to think. Alongside the expectation that theories and facts, trends and history were part of the learning experience, thinking might have been a luxury left to the side while trying to convey the data of philosophy and familiarity with language and concepts.
There was a waterfall of possibility and a slender stream of time to foray the gushing offerings of the texts and barrage of potential tumbling toward that swept-away wisdom downstream.
A more skillful pedagogue might have been content with the limitations of time and speculation and focused more clearly on breaking open the names dates and theories nicely displayed in the table of contents.
Perhaps I inadvertently tried to make graduate students of newly arrived and neophyte to-be students of a required stepping stone course. Upper level courses had more elasticity and I was invited to that niche. I should have figured this out decades ago and angled toward Oxford or Cambridge to fully embrace the lecture and tutorial motif.
Philosophy, I might have said, is the conjunctive between Life and Death.
I would prefer to take up residence in such a connective, and deconstructed the "and" and recomposed a new sive/sive where life is a variant of death and death a mirror of life.
E.M. Cioran:
I think of so many friends who are no more, and I pity them. Yet they are not so much to be pitied, for they have solved every problem, beginning with the problem of death.
&
In the fact of being born there is such an absence of necessity that when you think about it a little more than usual, you are left—ignorant how to react—with a foolish grin.
&
Two kinds of mind: daylight and nocturnal. They have neither the same method nor the same morality. In broad daylight, you watch yourself; in the dark, you speak out. The salutary or awkward consequences of what he thinks matter little to the man who questions himself at hours when others are the prey of sleep. Hence he meditates upon the bad luck of being born without concern for the harm he can cause others or himself. After midnight begins the intoxication of pernicious truths.
&
As the years accumulate, we form an increasingly somber image of the future. Is this only to console ourselves for being excluded from it? Yes in appearance, no in fact, for the future has always been hideous, man being able to remedy his evils only by aggravating them, so that in each epoch existence is much more tolerable before the solution is found to the difficulties of the moment.
&
(--in The Trouble With Being Born, by E.M. Cioran, trans by Richard Howard)
The evils of the current day are aggravating the composure of our minds. Cioran might suppose that this aggravation is necessary preparation for any successful resolution of the evil we experience.
It is disturbing to consider that the flaring of evil is prelude to identification, encounter, and possible resolution into something less evil or even good.
Does the "O felix culpa" lend the notion that fault and resolution, that good and evil -- (like life and death) -- are directly up against one-another in a symbiotic dynamic of interaction?
Is there in Cioran's thought the implication that the very notion/act of "being born" is troublesome in that it introduces a faulty dualistic conception that there is some applicable distinction between being-born and being-not-born?
It also conjures an odd distinction between being-born and not-being-born. (Can "not-being" be born?) Can nothing come into being in a similar way that something comes into being?
This, from Forest City Zen:
When I was pretty new to Zen practice, I came across a quote, Unborn mind is Buddha mind. I was baffled at this term “unborn”. Subsequently, I've learned that whenever our interest is piqued by some Buddhist teaching, like Unborn mind is Buddha mind, it is a good idea to pay attention. This is our body's way of asking us to grow. At the time, however, I was confused. How could something be “unborn”? Was this some sort of baffling Zen koan? It kind of got under my skin. So, I decided to set out and try to find out and understand this expression. The expression was used and popularized by a 17th century Japanese Rinzai Zen teacher named Bankei who lived between 1622 and 1693.
Bankei describes the unborn mind in glowing terms,
What I call the “Unborn” is the Buddha-mind. This Buddha-mind is unborn, with a marvelous virtue of illuminative wisdom. In the Unborn, all things fall right into place and remain in perfect harmony.1
Bankei gives an idea of how the unborn mind functions with this quote,
The Unborn manifests itself in the thought, “I want to see” or “I want to hear” not being born … The reason I say it's in the “Unborn” that you see and hear in this way is because the mind doesn't give “birth” to any thought or inclination to see or hear.2
-- (from Unborn Mind, Kuden Paul Boyle, Forest City Zen Group)
It is intriguing to consider that we human beings are a sort of nexus between the seen and unseen world, where things can emerge, if you will, without fully entering this visible realm with independent existence, but, rather, participate in active engagement in this physical realm, straddling the seeming divide without inhabiting either realm, but only as co-responding echoes criss-crossing this or that without permanent residence or even graspable tangibility.
Those who claim there is no birth and no death seem odd to those of us for whom such a claim rings preposterous.
And yet (and yet) this existence we cultivate as a given fact, is, indeed, troublesome.
As such, Siddhartha Gautama, was given to such exploration that the truth of suffering, craving, seeing through, and actual ways of being in this (Maya?) world constituted his Four Noble Truths.
As such, Jesus of Nazareth, wandered through a fantastical narrative of transcending (life and) death that we are uncertain about whether death is real, whether resurrection is a thing, whether everyone who has "died" will transcend that belief and arise into a realm beyond our understanding or conception.
Conjunction.
Heidegger said that language is the house of being.
And non-being?
How is it we dwell in these two expressions of phenomenal and spiritual reality, and still have such difficulty (trouble) navigating and negotiating them?
(I just sat with some Friends, the Quaker variety, at their Wednesday mid-week zoom.)
Practice, practice, practice!
moonrise over spinnaker trail Ragged Mtn (sh, 3dec25)