If you haven't heard about my new blog series "Old School Sunday", read the back story!
And if you want, catch up on what you missed (read from the bottom up!)
Just finished my first semester, sophomore year . . . I was definitely finding myself spiritually and a lot of other ways during this time. Here I am once again rescued by Greg, always up to answer a difficult question with a well-thought out answer (and accompanying metaphor? Ha).
19th December 2002
4:32pm
Current Mood: artistic
Current Music: Phish--Way back home
AdriN2001: To what extent is participation in the world important? If one participates in the world, they are providing themselves as a human resource, possibly causing change to those parts of our system which so badly need it. However, the path to enlightenment requires one to turn away from worldly thoughts and actions. Is the path to enlightenment, then, wholly selfish? Would I reach enlightenment by removing myself from society, while society suffers from the lack of what I could add to it? My mind is troubled--thoughts very welcome.
DebilNoxin: while turning from worldly actions does necessitate non-involvement, it does not precipitate a lack of understanding.
DebilNoxin: In fact, to draw a bit of an analogy-- it is very difficult to discern the workings of a clock while standing in the middle of it.
DebilNoxin: however, with a bit of distance and perspective, the function of each part and their interaction as a whole are more apt to be understood
DebilNoxin: to generalize from this analogy, being a part of society, while immediately helpful on some levels, is bewildering because it presupposes intimacy and involvement with society-- much like standing in the middle of the clock
DebilNoxin: with distance and perspective-- the removal from society-- the social significance of actions and reactions can be observed and pondered more readily
DebilNoxin: this, however, begs the question: is it better to interact with a measure of blindness on a practical level, or is it better to understand on a theoretical level?
DebilNoxin: understanding things on a theoretical level facilitates the observation of the whole-- not in its individual parts and actions (such as every-day life)-- and hence the ability to more correctly discern the appropriate paths of action you and others may take in society.
DebilNoxin: Therefore, the removal from society to achieve enlightenment, or 'understanding' if you will, in actuality enhances one's ability to interact with the same society in a manner at once more concise and more far-reaching.
DebilNoxin: in short, the removal is a short term sacrifice for a long-term yield of very large proportions.
DebilNoxin: To return to the clock analogy-- imagine being part of the clock itself, going about one's task as part of a whole to achieve a purpose you cannot see or comprehend.
DebilNoxin: No imagine that as the piece of the clock, you remove yourself from the works and observe how all the parts function together and what their ultimate purpose is.
DebilNoxin: When the piece returns, or even if it does not return at all, it has gained knowledge and understanding of the system in which it functions.
DebilNoxin: this knowledge may enable the piece to function more efficiently upon its return, or it may enable the piece to devise a better and more appropriate manner in which it may function.
DebilNoxin: Like the piece of the clock, the enlightened individual may return to his society and function with greater poise and aplomb in his original function, or may seek to change the theoretical functions of society from within or without.
DebilNoxin: Thus, to answer the question posed previously, it is by far better to gain knowledge through temporal removal than to function blindly with unanswered questions obstructing the efficient or appropriate completion of one's larger function.
DebilNoxin: good night and peace
DebilNoxin: if I'm still around when you return feel free to come talk
DebilNoxin: did i just send you something long and nonsensical?
No comments:
Post a Comment