in this case, syntax is everything and/or nothing. consider the difference:
priceless is worthless
seems cynical and faithless, as if nothing is of any value.
worthless is priceless
seems full of faith and hopeful, as if everything is of value.
either way, it means the two things are the same. so, it's not even a syntactic difference. it's semantics, not of definition but of meaning. in this case, the affects of the language oppose one another. to one folly, there will be another one opposed. semantics may seem meaningless. but i insist it is not. the commutative principal in a subtraction equation is like syntax. 0 - 1 ≠ 1 - 0. order determines truth. but in another language, indian music for instance, ragas (melodic themes) necessarily have differing ascending and descending patterns. the notes' relative situations change their meaning. that is semantics.
enlightenment cannot be attained with language or without it.
it seems to deny the possibility enlightenment. but it's a fool's play, as zen is a power play. the inaccuracy in language seemingly yields invalidity, untruth. but it's just inexactitude.
more accurately, enlightenment cannot be attained with language nor without it.
it's the same. isn't it? it isn't.
absurdity turns on paradox. i do not claim that enlightenment cannot be attained, only that language is necessary but not sufficient. that is, one cannot attain enlightenment with language, but neither will one ever attain enlightenment without it. the absence and denial of language is also necessary but not sufficient. the necessity of its limits must be explored, appreciated, valued, cherished. this is the human dilemma. learn it all, lies and all. then unlearn it all, including the truth. all that aside, who says one can attain enlightenment with language or without it? the fool falls, therefore flies.
the truth is: there is none. or, there's not one. which amounts to the same thing. or does it? consider the difference:
to say:
i know there is no truth
seems utterly foolish.
to say:
there is no truth i know
seems the beginning of wisdom.
this idiotic dichotomy is set by cartesean dualism, which posits there is a monolithic truth, which exists absolutely outside of, or at least independently from our minds. and yet, this stance is named for rene decartes, the same man who claimed: i think therefore i am. now, how can one say at one moment that thinking proves one's being and yet claim that being is separate and independent of whatever one may think? it's preposterous. think that you are merely because you think, but it's just another pointless and vapid assertion. talk about begging the question! there are so many unspoken assumptions in that assertion, it's ridiculous. it's actually a logical argument in a single sentence. yet, it contains as many undefined terms as it contains words. and yet again, at one time, it seemed to me that it made perfect sense. it seemed a redoubtable fortress of truth, unassailable, irrefutable. but it's folly, and i oppose it. to one folly there is another one opposed.
any time we realise we are foolish, we must realise we are foolish in ways we do not yet know we are being foolish. is that the beginning of wisdom? it's just more fool's play. the fool falls therefore flails.
truly, the problem is meaningless, a distinction without a difference. 1 = 1 - 0 = -(0 -1) = 1. it's the same difference. though the aphorism seems foolish, a difference makes a subtraction equation true. a difference is a solution to a (subtraction) problem. in this case, two problems, one solution, there is no difference between the differences... the same difference.
i have honesty, but i try not to mistake it for truth. the fool fails. one's brain projects sensory data with incalculable involuntary interpretations and (undoubtedly) foolish elaborations seemingly seamlessly. the end result: one doesn't know (if) one is dreaming. still, the result is one, a wholeness, seamless (or, so it seems) whatever what one may think. and, one is the result of whatever one may think. incidentally, (or coincidentally) one is not a prime number, though it only has itself and one as factors. one is itself. so, it is considered an identity. consider it a singularity, if you will. i do. but it is folly.
one is not one. infinity is within one. how can this be? one is just one. one is simplicity itself. isn't it? it isn't. there is an infinity between zero and one. one contains infinite fractions. everything falls out of, and back into one. one belies itself. simplicity itself belies itself.
it's ok, and none of it is. even the bible claims it: god's wisdom is the foolishness of (wo)men.
tarot's trump card is the fool - the zero. one can aspire to such folly. god is one. but god is also zero. how else could (s)he remain unprovable, therefore undefined by our folly? (and our wisdom).
one can attain to such folly. even a fool realises the difference between one and zero. if i have zero, i have nothing. if i have one, then i have something. the difference is one of being - one of being. a difference of one and an infinity of difference. indecently, a difference of zero is never the same as no difference at all.
dis(card) the folly of the dualism between zero and one. trump one. trump oneself. zero the ego. that's identity in singularity, undefined by one's folly, though it is opposed. what is it worth? everything and nothing.
and it is worth one.
peace,
sarva
No comments:
Post a Comment