Philosophical Notes...

Are we what we are, or are we what we aren't?

Both options present themselves as tempting to be truths.

Both options present themselves as tempting to be falsehoods.

Seems it is both, depending on scale, time and position.

But what does this mean?

 

"If it were it, it means that perspective is limited," said thedope, and beyond that temptation is the desire to have illusion be real," but since the OP had a question of it, thedope wondered what fig wanted to learn from it?

 

to learn how to be when one is not what one is

 

"Nothing real can be caused to be unreal, nothing unreal exists. Reality supports fully it's constituents. Certainly we cannot exceed our own conclusions and there was a time in my life when I invested a lot of energy in being right with the result of being frustrated and concluded a brutal battle with doubt by being relieved to discover I had been fundamentally mistaken. You cannot be other than you are but you can have many ways in which you seek to identify yourself. What are you then than the desire to be what you are, sounds like we are fundamentally loving, our treasure and our heart the same," said thedope.

 

Desires and imaginations are real, since reality is but the experience of sensations and emotions.

Many realities coexists, and enter in conflict, for the tendency of each reality is to dominate the other.

The archetypes are many, more than allows the person type; thus the archetypes fight to manifest themselves, where some are victors, and other victims that are discarded, and some prisoners waiting for release or vengeance...

 

(the goblin had no answers, merely he knew that what was here was an alter-ego of himself, saying "...this is my representation now, that's what you see of me here, but I can't prove anything about myself to you by what I write, no, I am fiction in effect...")

 

This view is the product of not of fractal mathematics but of a fractured mind
One type, many expressions and as of the same type all equal to any expression. The voices that vie for ascendancy are all the voice of I. I am happy, I am sad and neither finding a way to stay engaged at the forefront and these seemingly disparate representations of self do not recognize each other and this accounts for the perception that people can act out of character. Had they recognized each other at all they are reconciled in a holy instant. The arch of type is upheld without supports as a single unopposed ray of creation.

 

"What is the fall of Man from Paradise, if not the fracturing of the mind"; said the Trickster, remembering the fiery sword held by the angel; adding: "When no longer instinct held sway unchecked, but was held to accountability, and required permission to act...."

 

I offer no substitutes, my meditation beyond symbols.

 

There must be some superficial truth of you, but how can you ever know it's coinciding perfectly with the subjective truth of you? Is your body a meaningful representation of you? How would you ever know from the way you feel? Sometimes the way I feel, I think I should be seen as a soaring hawk, yet am treated as a frog.

 

"We're what we are" laughed Dejavu, not being what we are not being an option for him, or anyone else. "What we think we can be is our real interest." he suggested. "Being and becoming - even if we conclude that the ideas present a seeming contradiction, our instincts have not altogether been persuaded to waste our potential on it."

 

"I'll rather say some preferred instincts have no been able to break the hold and bonds ingrained by custom and force upon the individual." Remarked the Trickster, rolling his eyes at the naivete so proudly seen displayed...

 

"We are the many, seen as the whole, it is both a curse, and a blessing... Depends on the situation: Hawks can rule the sky, yet can not survive the storms like a frog." Observed the trickster, reflecting upon the wilderness of life....

 

"Which ones are you referring to?" asked Dejavu.

 

"those that are preferred by the self;" answered the trickster, adding, "and thus they vary from self to self."

 

"There are no special cases only a moments concern," broke thedope, "hawks can't survive the storm like frogs because they are hawks and in that way they soar on any clime."

 

"They do" said Dejavu, "so why then do you rather say they haven't been able to free the individual, when the individual remains?" Dejavu didn't really mind the trickster thinking he had the option of not being what we are, we could always die after all, only he wasn't about to pretend he understood why, even though his naivety had been ever lessening since nativity.

 

The Trickster wondered if he had actually said what was being claimed as his words...

 

"Well, I said our instincts have not altogether been persuaded to waste our potential on a seeming contradiction. You then said you'd rather say some preferred instincts of the self, varying from self to self, haven't been able to break the bonds upon the individual. I then asked why, and now we're both wondering what has been said, or rather I am now that you are. What was written is plain to see." said Dejavu, not wanting to claim anything for anyones words they didn't want.

 

"I don't get it." thedope turned his speculum on the issue wanting to spread open the orifices of the mind and allow in-formation proceeding, "The form of the individual is defined as much by negative space as peculiar integrity. An individual can be any number of persons of a specific group as in an individual family sporting several individuals. No individual is free on the basis of individuality but on the basis of the talents we share. We are not an isolated phenomenon and growth is a collaboration. You cannot be a human individual without your shared humanity, knowledge being shared and all.
What negative space, well that is not me you see over there, I am right here. Negative space is the part of the mind that says, not me, the isn't of is-ness, our powers of distinction being acceptance and negation."