Truth (pt 2)

"Intent is prior to content;
those things most vehemently suppressed are often closest to the truth."

Those who think it is easier to deceive than to speak and live truth are hopelessly confused. When a small child responsible for cleaning the family bathroom attempts to deceive a vigilant parent with a half-done job, the child soon realizes that faking certain jobs is harder than completing them. The classic idiom "to cover one's tracks" is a great example of this; for it is well known that it is easier never to go where you are not permitted, than it is to attempt to cover one's tracks in the snow after having trespassed.

Thus it is with Truth. Those who seek most vehemently to suppress and hide it, demonstrate their fear of it. Fear has been discussed, and when it is based upon an object of Truth, it is true wisdom, and becomes a tool of elucidation towards life. Yet, fear when based upon an object of truth is merely sagacity, and can still lead men to foolishness, which leads (as has been previously determined) to death. Fear of the truth cannot be rational, for if it was truth, there would be no need for fear; reality is not so fearful as mystery. Conversely, love of a lie cannot be rational, for since it is a lie, there can be no love; love must have an object. It is clear to all liars that their love of the lie is irrational; for it is merely a cover for a self-absorbed barathrum.

The object however, is to show that lies which are championed demonstrate the most prideful and arrogant works of fear are suppression and denial. Those who deny the presence of something with their very life -just as those we have discussed who hate another with their very life- are defined by that thing. Further, those who suppress something with their whole life, show their whole life to defined by the reality of such.

This does not mean that the man who lives his entire life under a wrong impression (that pigs can fly, for instance) is an exception to this reality; it merely means that he has believed a lie, and while not necessarily suppressing the truth, has stepped outside of reality's protective wall -reason- and has become susceptible to the many unreasonable and irrational beliefs which roam about outside that wall. Those who seek to suppress anything, no matter how ridiculous, remove the possibility for reason. When reason has been removed from an equation, it is easy to preclude the 'inconvenient' truth, and demonstrate one's predispositions and biases.

This should be applied in two areas:

Those who teach: Never avoid a question which seemingly has no answer. Answers are determined by the question; not the question by the answer. Any variable can change the answer, but the question will remain the same, regardless of the answer given. Further, never answer a question which has not been asked. Answers which are given before a question has asked only discourages the questioner's inquisitive growth, and precludes certain questions; destroying further creativity in learning.

Those who learn: Never ask a question simply because you have heard it before. Questions which are needlessly repeated are ignored and sometimes lost. A question can always have power, as long as its variables have been matched in application to the questioner and the answerer. Questions which have no application are 'academic' and by nature, do not increase knowledge, merely institutionalize it. Seek to ask questions for which you fear there is no answer. Those are the questions with power, and when asked can unleash a force of intellectual grandness which could only be matched by God's miraculous answer to Israel's cries for deliverance at the side of the Red Sea.

When recognized as a potential candidate for reality, any fact (in its fullest ability) will itself prove its relation to Truth. And, as we have already discovered; the relation to truth is determined in part by the perspective location of the fact. And thus, any perspective location which seeks to suppress another perspective location demonstrates itself as false; since Truth maintains within itself the power of reality. Only those things fearful of being discovered (of having their tracks uncovered) will suppress facts. Observe around you those things and people which seek to suppress facts; those are the lies and liars, for they are fearful of this fact: Truth Will Out.

Truth (pt 1)

"Guilty feet do have rhythm;

they just dance to the wrong theme music to amuse the villain."

Sickening thoughts do not retain their own placement within contextualization. They are kicked, like so many Latin American dogs feeding off their young to gain the energy needed to find another mongrel to produce more young with. And with poets sinking their feelings, so thoughts of a diseased nature finish far before they diminish in the great halls of humanity's proud insipid humor. The last vomited words of a great fool are still only disgusting thoughts from a diseased intellect. As all is known in Time, so it will be in eternity, shrouded in Mystery. For truth, in this found; Murder Will Out, carries itself to this: Truth Will Out.

Atonement

Seeking the peace which hearts so desire,
Why those things in gentle speech retained,
Do I only recover after I have lost,
Things through deep love maintained?
Or am I just lost in what I don't know,
And grasping at what shall never be gained?

I think the reason in purposefulness,
Misses the logic I hope to summon,
For when I strangle those things I love,
My grip only holds what is common.
And so in my deepening despair I do follow,
All of the lost whose hearts beat on.

Dangerous then, is this strangling love,
For when it has captured its purpose,
The only delineation is "those unacomplished",
And the goal is forever marked "hopeless."
For those things which are sought never relieve,
And peace through their capture is lost to us.

So hold on, my Lover, hold fast now,
And know that so too I hold tight,
For the danger of keeping is hurtful,
So let us, each other grasp light.
Or when time escapes from our fingers,
Our joy will be lost to our sight.

Mouton Enragé

Deal not in overbearing understanding or in favor that is too quick to rest, for when you do you shall find a lion and not the lamb you first perceived. Those who have hurt themselves most severely have used the means they thought best suited to their character, and not the situation. Those who have hurt others most severely have used the means they thought best suited the situation, and not the other. It is a given that pain will be dealt; that it will be felt. Yet is it too difficult a task to seek in one's doing the best interest of that thing which is not so easily contained in one's mind?

Effusive greetings and flattery aside, deal directly with that which you have so vaguely been entrusted. And if you know not that which has been entrusted to you, or you doubt that it has been entrusted at all, then with even more caution and reserve, control yourself in such a manner that those around, seeking that which they cannot understand will be humbled. This intended humbling is not for the purpose of mechanical dissatisfaction; progress, but rather for the purpose of remaining within that which you never had the right to leave in the first place. The danger of leaving this first place is that in leaving, a mind is all that changes its location, as the physical has all but passed away already, a victim to understanding and favor.

So easily understanding a new experience as to completely kill within that experience any chance of growth or development we deceive ourselves. And so quickly favoring the other, as to literally smother him within that experience of life which is wished for, dreamt of, and rarely enjoyed, especially by those who claim to have it; we submerge ourselves within our pathetic dreams. The misappropriation of thoughts never did sit well within my mind, and neither does this, but as it is clearly important in its pure relation to reflection, I will write it out in full public declaration of its importance, writing, as it were, the warrant for the arrest of a criminal whom I hope to never see again.

Perceived

Different from a perspective, which is a location or manner of viewing something, a perception is the place at which the object of observation has been obtained. Thus, while it is easy for people to have many perspectives of Love, determined by their location and manner of life, there is only one linear location on the plane of understanding. For while the perceptive place is the place where the object of attention is obtained, the actual knowledge of that object is still a far way off, further down the plane, on the same line as understanding.

What I am about to do will probably be unpopular, but I think through this simple deliberation the difference between perception and understanding can be better revealed, and thus, a new element of Love elucidated. I wish to delineate between the sexes, and both their understanding of, and perceiving power of Love. Now, before I begin this deliberation, I would like to point out that while I have made it a habit to update this blog each month, I missed the last month due to the large amount of time which was needed to work out some of the intellectual burrs of this idea. I apologize to my non-existent reading base for the tardiness of my mental concentration.

Often I have heard it said that there is an inscrutable affirmation of true Love, when the Lover is present in mind and in body. This has been often realized in such a way that the Lover takes the elevated place of another's affection; the "one." In discussions where this term is used, I have seen a tendency (which cannot alone be held responsible for my conclusion in this matter); women often recognize this more than men.

I realize that much of what I am saying will be clear in understanding to women, and I can almost hear the snickering laughter, even in my own present "entanglement;" where such slowness of identification was my calling-card. To be candid, women really do recognize Love before men do; this I think is well known and almost expected. However, the dangerous place I find myself is here; while I do think women can perceive or recognize that Love is present, I would submit that men are the first to actually identify and understand love. That is, I believe that men have an inherent ability to actually analyze and synthesize the everyday actions and feelings which are essential ingredients to Love. Yet, even while they can do that extremely well, they are terrible at actually perceiving if Love is, in fact, present in a relationship.

I think it is because of this that we can find ourselves at my tentative, but sure conclusion; often men can only know for certain that Love is present in a relationship if the woman perceives it, and he is able to determine that what she understands Love to be is accurate. What this means is that while women can perceive if Love is actually present, the responsibility of the man is often to help his Lover understand if that Love is pure and is not something less than full. Therefore, only after the man has taken the responsibility to purify his own understanding of Love can he help the woman do the same, in such a way that, following the mutual exploration of these feelings, the woman can be sure that what she perceives is Love, and the man can be sure that what he knows to be Love is what is between them. This complex and delicately beautiful relationship is what we used to affectionately call "an understanding." This understanding is not of the woman that she Loves, but that her Love is true, and this understanding is not of the man that he recognizes Love, but that the woman does, and it is true, and therefore, he, as the beloved, has a responsibility.

This responsibility may be the subject of another discourse; but that discourse may never make it to this journal. What can be said about this responsibility is that men, when being found in a woman's affection must first make a determination; they must determine if this Love is true. If it is not, then the man must take responsibility to pass this understanding to the woman, who can then help him in suppressing and correcting that selfish or impure relationship. If is true, then the man must take the responsibility to respond to this Love, sharing his affections or removing them, and sharing this understanding with the woman.

It could be argued that what I am condoning is a woman-led Love relationship, which may be offensive or seen as narrow-minded to some. However, I would submit that this is not woman-led, but woman-determined. What I would like to point out is that the man is the one who has the responsibilities of information sharing, initiating, and determining. Thus, the man is clearly the active agent in this relationship, but the woman is the focus. This means that the man does all of his actions out of a desire to respect and value the woman and her feelings. Thus, this is not a woman-led relationship, but a relationship where the woman is the factor which the man uses to determine much of the action. I do not claim to know much about love or its workings in our world, but this is something I have observed and think is worth serious consideration, if not considerable discussion.