Love Poem

Love

Surrender to Love and master all:
The enemy’s threat is removed, when he ceases to be the enemy.
Embody Love and you will transcend all:
What place can fear or hate have in Its presence?

The greatest possible force lies around and within.
Love not for profit, but for Love’s sake:
True Love cannot be used selfishly.

Love is the end, not the means.

Faith

Faith

Faith is not the suppression of doubt, but the overcoming of it.

It is the acceptance of reality
The reality of things unseen,
But not unfelt, unheard or unsensed.

Reality demands the loss of control

I am

I am

I am just a pair of eyes,
But my eyes are not autonomous from myself.
I am just an interwoven tapestry of cells,
But the cells fail on their own.
I am just a collection of thoughts and memories
On their own do they exist?

As the painting says to his painter,
As the clay pot says to his sculptor,
As book says to his author,

I AM because YOU ARE.

True Freedom

Something John R. and I have been working on/discussing:

True Freedom

Lust is the natural reaction to the illusion of not being free
Shed the illusion and let freedom in.

Not freedom from, but rather freedom to
Freedom is not about escape, but the ability to arrive
As freedom goes so does love

True love comes only when one has true freedom.

Truth in Postmodern Society*

Truth -the very word has been reduced to antiquity in postmodern thought. Many refer to the word in past tense as though its presence has left the world long ago; however these same people also refer to it in passing. The most staunch relativist will always slip into set phrases: "He is the right man for the job," or, "that was the wrong thing to do." The dichotomy between intentions and actions toward the same, previously simple word leaves us with the unavoidable question: is truth practical, or even possible?

I believe that in each particular situation there is a right and wrong. But this is not relativism. Though I may deny broad and sweeping rules which exist for all people in all situations, I do not recant that Truth itself exists. When an individual is faced with a choice, there is either a correct or incorrect way to respond; or else every choice we make in this life is of no consequence. This is not a false dichotomy fallacy -it applies to every facet of life. In Wonderland, Alice asks the Cheshire cat which way she should go, but is unsure of her destination. His logically sound response is that it does not matter which choice she makes. Analogously, if we are unsure of the existence of Truth, all choices are equally valid.

How can we say that "Truth is relative," a statement which is absolute, and not see the inherent contradiction? I submit that the word IS should not exist for deniers of Truth. The moment any relativist tells someone that he or she is wrong, he denies his very philosophy. As unpopular as unpopular as universality may have become in today's society, its merits are undeniable. Thoreau once said, "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." It is this, our transcendentalist roots, which at least partially endows us with the inexorable drive for truth-seeking. The existence of Truth is what we realize. 'To be true or to be false' is less the issue than simply 'to be or not to be?'

*Truth, in this paragraph, I define as something which is in accordance with transcendent, fundamental, and spiritual reality.

The practicality (possibility?) of 'one true sentence'

"All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence you know." -Ernest Hemingway

The instructions of the well-known American writer seem fairly straightforward, and maybe even a little easy. But I wonder how many times (if at all) this has even been accomplished. Noam Chomsky, a famous linguist, talks about words as signifiers. That is, the group of letters that spell the word, 'tree' are signifiers for the actual bushy, leafy thing that exists in nature. Likewise the verbal sounds we make -CHREE -are signifiers. So the leafy thing outside that sways in the breeze is the signified, and the word, 'tree' is the signifier. The picture I bring to mind, however, may be completely different than your tree. Mine is a great oak tree, whereas yours might be a weeping willow. The signifier does not always equal the signified, but all meaning are signified by the word tree.

This concept becomes infinitely more complex when we stop talking about tangible concepts (persons, places, things) and begin talking about ideas. This makes the idea of one true sentence unimaginably more complex. How do you explain to someone who has never been loved before what love is? More importantly, how do you explain what perfect love is (or perfection, in general) to someone who has never felt perfect love. It is a bit like trying to explain to a blind person the beauty of autumn, or conveying the majesty of Beethoven's 5th symphony to someone deaf from birth.

So, how do we break free from this linguistic prison. For most, we add on adjectives, adverbs , infinitives, ad infinitum to get down a specific, objective, picture of what we are talking about. Some poets, such as Whitman, would say this is a good thing. I tend to think, however, that as a sentence increases in its verbosity, it decreases in its tangibility. I believe that truth comes in simplicity. The challenge then becomes: write the truest, most succinct sentence you know. For it is in its seeming simplicity that I have always found the most complex truth (see quantum mechanics -the ridiculously complicated study of something so simply minute that it cannot be seen). I think that too often in Western philosophy, we take the example of Aristotle who knew how to defend his positions and philosophize for hours on end. His way divided the universe into A and NOT A (or 0 and 1). While mathematically it stood to logic, it oversimplified the world and removed the gray (grey) areas of life.

I believe that the 'truest sentence' that Hemingway was looking for would sound a lot different that he (or maybe anyone) would have expected. The Truth, I have found, always is...