When I look at things
The thought occurs — how
is this not me, of a piece?
begins with one, goes with one
Je vois les effroyables espaces de l’Univers qui m’enferment, et je me trouve attaché à un coin de cette vaste étendue, sans savoir pourquoi je suis plutôt en ce lieu qu’en un autre, ni pourquoi ce peu de temps qui m’est donné à vivre m’est assigné à ce point plutôt qu'à un autre de toute l’éternité qui m’a précédé, et de toute qui me suit.
—Pascal, Pensées sur la religion
I see the terrible spaces of the Universe which enclose me, and I find myself attached to a corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am rather in this place than in another, nor why this short time which is given to live is assigned to me at this point rather than at another of all the eternity which preceded me, and of all which follows me.
A morning encouragement:
Pope Francis went to the Russian embassy in Rome on Friday to personally express his concern about the war in Ukraine, in an extraordinary papal gesture that has no recent precedent.
7:57 AM · Feb 25, 2022·Twitter Web App
Being is an issue.
Behind, below, beyond, because -- Being is that for which and into which everything has its particular shape, existence and essence.
Or, as once heard almost daily in philosophy studies in the middle sixties -- Being is. Non-Being is not.
Heidegger extends Husserl’s concern with epistemology into the domain of ontology and in the process, according to some critics, departs from phenomenology’s original methodological rigor and cautious avoidance of speculation. Being and Time provides a description of the structures of human existence (Dasein, or "being-there"), which can be seen as an application of Husserl’s investigations of consciousness to other regions of experience, including relations with others, the meaning of death, and history. Heidegger’s descriptions of existence as a "thrown project" (geworfener Entwurf) and of "care" (Sorge) as the founding structure of human being are the basis of the theories of such existential phenomenologists as the Swiss psychiatrist Ludwig Binswanger and the French philosophers jean-paul sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Heidegger’s own conception of human existence is guided by his concern with the "ontological difference," the relation between "beings" and "Being." He defines human being as that being for which Being is an issue, although he also finds that for the most part in everyday life the question of Being is neglected or forgotten. In Being and Time he explores everyday existence for indirect evidence of Being. In his later work Heidegger turns to the study of language, which he regards as the "home of Being," and especially to poetry, which has in his view special powers to disclose Being (see "Origin").
(-from Phenomenology, Paul B. Armstrong, cf Johns Hopkins Guide for Literary Theory and Criticism entry, 2nd Edition 2005)
Heidegger felt we'd forgotten Being. His words that language is "the home of Being" have travelled many miles with me.
When composing haiku or waka there is a feeling that what is Being is being composed for viewing-through in order to see what is there -- beyond, beneath, before, and because of words wording reality.
Socrates: ...If any one of you has composed these things with a knowledge of the truth, if you can defend your writing when you are challenged, and if you can yourself make the argument that your writing is of little worth, then you must be called by a name derived not from these writings but rather from those things that you are seriously pursuing.
Phaedrus: What name, then, would you give such a man?
Socrates: ...call him wisdom's lover — a philosopher...
Of course, I concede, anything I write "is of little worth." And this cheers me. Being worthless is a blessing (a consummation) devoutly to be wished.
These two COVID years have thrown me out of all the volunteering opportunities I'd been graced with -- hospice, hospital, nursing home, prison, university -- and thrown me into a new solitude.
I wait for appearances to present themselves. As a hermit, I recuse and recluse myself from the too overt. Less anti-social than pro-emeritic, there is little desire for conjunct occasions. This desirelessness might be a deficiency. At times it is boon. It is a hat I wear in a chilly room. (Wherein I dwell.)
Such are appearances.
As soon as the assumption is spelled out in this way, Parmenides thinks we will see the impossibility of the claim. To say that being becomes being is to say that there is exactly the same thing before the change and after, that is, no change occurs. To say that non-being becomes being is to identify non-being and being, which is clearly absurd. Since these exhaust the possibilities, there is no way in which motion and change can be regarded as real.
(--from, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy - Study Materials , Lesson 2: Appearance and Reality (Parmenides), The Enigma of Parmenides, on International Catholic University website)
There's someone who participates in meetingbrook conversations who feels that people don't change. Her claim is often met with countering thought. But the Parmenides writing suggests a second look. It always seemed like a curious argument between Parmenides and Heraclitus, between their "static/change" different points of view. As well as Zeno's arrow never quite completing its journey.
There is a saying: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (traditionally translated: "the more things change, the more they stay the same." It is an epigram by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr in the January 1849 issue of his journal Les Guêpes (“The Wasps”). Literally “The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing.” Although I've wrongfully attributed it to Blaise Pascal over the years, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I've translated it differently, Namely: "The more a thing changes, the more it becomes itself."
Change, in this regard, isn't becoming something else. It is more the shedding of accreted flotsam and jetsam until the core reality or original being (Being) is revealed. One might say that nothing changes, that one becomes itself.
It answers the question "Who are you?" with "I am this. Always have been. Didn't appear so. But here I am."
Some medieval thinkers thought God to be Being. Contemporary religious thinkers tweak this into "The God Who May Be." (Richard Kearney)
Or the thought of Jean-Luc Marion, whose -- "phenomenological approach leads the philosopher to the concept of “God without being” – God is not a being but love and a gift. The abolition of concepts related to the being in philosophical reflection on God should have a similar place in theology." (--in Theology of Jean-Luc Marion as Hermeneutics of the Eucharist, by PIOTR KARPINSKI)
Were egos to evaporate and transform, that prospect might be realizable.
Look around -- see this
There's really nothing to see --
God help us -- see this
Maybe this (love of) God is all there really is.
And, we, accreted beings, long to surrender the flotsam and jetsam of our distressed journeys.
May each dwell within (the love of) God, surrendered, salvaged, come to calm homeport!
It is enough to have once practiced.
It is practice that is never enough.
('Once' is missing from second fragment)
Up is down
Bad is good
Out is in
Putin great Trudeau tyrant
Trump saint Biden devil
Slaughter good laughter bad
Murder yes compassion no
Autocrats help democrats harm
Invasion yay diplomacy nay
A strange time becomes a strangle time
No healing, yes stealing
Brake (or break) things don’t create things
We’ve forgotten what we’ve learned
Turned everything into its opposite
Look into mirror, you’re no longer reflective
What to do,
What to do with
What is being done
Some think the real evil in this existence is our ability to choose.
That choosing means two options. That one opposes the other.
This adversity, this opposition, some call evil.
Hence evil is in the world because we have choice.
And some call the adversary the devil.
I don’t think that way.
I think this way.
It rains tonight.
Glancing at passing words:
Verse of the day
Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love for one another, a tender heart, and a humble mind.
- 1 Peter 3:8
Voice of the day
To be just, it is not enough to refrain from injustice. One must go further and refuse to play its game, substituting love for self-interest as the driving force of society.
- Pedro Arrupe, SJ
Prayer of the day
When I move toward self-interest, point me back to love.
Wording a passing glance.
Wondering — (whence and whither hence) — (seeing, itself) — embodied?
But not before Doris, Tina, and Tom read Meredith for us:
The op-ed writer asked "Can Dems Dodge Doomsday?"
Ama Nesciri | Camden Maine
It’s not democrats versus republicans. Let’s stop that simplistic thinking. It’s become the story of who’s going to tear it down first. America is tired, fed up, and at wit’s end with itself. Unprepared and unwilling to do the hard work of repairing and re-creating itself from ground up with authentic justice and compassion, the country, populace and institutions, just want to rip off the old wallpaper and tear up worn linoleum with no appetite or courage to rebuild the moral or intellectual substructure necessary for reasonable, healthy, and viable continuance of our only hope — selfless participatory democracy. Yes, deep trouble nears.
Just an opinion.
Which is, by now, gone and forgotten.
As is, to be, wished for.