Multi-level thinking stops where? How much is too
much? What infinity has a boundary? Which universe ends? Once we sector space,
give it map-like quadrants and demarcations, are the invisible lines (like
latitudes and longitudes imposed on the ocean) observed by the asteroids now
swimming fish-like and free? Or does my passage dip into Black Holes? Metaphor
and Analogy and Simile and even Warhol keep one smiling. (Did you know he
painted a Barbie?)
Ideals and ideas are marriageable. They create an
‘other-than-what-is’ quality that captures the music in one’s head. Ideas engender
our sculpting from clay, help us make images (however idolatrous,) and let us
materialize cathedrals and skyscrapers and fly-planes. We rose from watching
shadows cross our Cave Wall to watching TV. And since time immemorial we've
made certain our ideas are imposed upon others; or why do we have cultures, borders,
rules, and an education system? Even these thoughts of mine, transcribed here,
become but part of the loose-language meteorological swirl that may (or likely not)
make itself concrete in your head. After all, my house is quite different from
your house, as similar as both houses may “equally lay.” (Recall the Montagues and the Capulets?)
Thing is, if Unilevel Thinking keeps one focused on
Things, and if two-dimensional-thinking has one preoccupied with Others, then
multi-dimensional thinking, if predominant, may have one being very ‘verstroid’; or
straw-minded. Yes? Too many variables become intangible. And tangential
thoughts seldom stay on track. So much so that ideas, unsubstantiated and
without seeming purpose, may become a psycho-neurosis. But “psychoneurosis is not
an illness,” Dabrowski wrote. What it all really takes is allowing for each Other to exist (which best translates into ‘accepting’ each other’s existence.)
Now there's an idea! (Or does that become ‘a practice’?)
What am I getting at? For each of us there is a
limitation to the want to understand the ideas of another. (We even hope to
understand our own ideas!) We struggle with political and religious differentiation
in philosophies. We struggle with a definition’s leaving things unclear. We
imagine and envision and expostulate and perceive. And we prefer fact,
progression, clarity, and tangibles. (At least, even in this essay one presumes
my readers are hoping for us much.) Yes, abstraction and multi-level-ness can
obfuscate, confuse, and be-devil. To the devil with it all!
But not just yet! If I just read one more sentence, hear
one more explanation, explore one more Bay, surely I might understand the map
to the thoughts, the ideas, the topography of what may at times have been a startling journey!
Thing is, multilevel-thinking, since it is not
necessarily linear (with an ‘if-this-then-that-and-it- follows-therefore’ formula) involves a multi-dimensionality that can be simultaneous. It easily
allows for metaphor and simile and abstraction and falsehood and indecision and
impurity and the obtuse, the inordinate, and the unclear too.
So what am I saying with all of this? I'm saying that
multilevel-thinking cannot 'rest' at simply naming others inferior or mediocre or
stupid or fools or even idiots; the very nature of the impermanence of action
and thought and being and potential is too replete with moving atoms. (And now
to check up what ‘replete’ means; or is that too concrete a necessity too?) Hm?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your contribution, by way of comment toward The Health of the Whole, always!