Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17

Thread: I need Help Again

  1. #16

    Parsing Reality

    http://www.kafka.org/index.php?id=191,209,0,0,1,0

    Quote Originally Posted by Nabokov
    "The Carrick," "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," and "The Metamorphosis": all three are commonly called fantasies. From my point of view, any outstanding work of art is a fantasy insofar as it reflects the unique world of a unique individual. But when people call these three stories fantasies, they merely imply that the stories depart in their subject matter from what is commonly called reality. Let us therefore examine what reality is, in order to discover in what manner and to what extent so-called fantasies depart from so-called reality.

    Let us take three types of men walking through the same landscape. Number One is a city man on a well-deserved vacation. Number Two is a professional botanist. Number Three is a local farmer. Number One, the city man, is what is called a realistic, commonsensical, matter-of-fact type: he sees trees as trees and knows from his map that the road he is following is a nice new road leading to Newton, where there is a nice eating place recommended to him by a friend in his office. The botanist looks around and sees his environment in the very exact terms of plant life, precise biological and classified units such as specific trees and grasses, flowers and ferns, and for him, this is reality; to him the world of the stolid tourist (who cannot distinguish an oak from an elm) seems a fantastic, vague, dreamy, never-never world. Finally the world of the local farmer differs from the two others in that his world is intensely emotional and personal since he has been born and bred there, and knows every trail and individual tree, and every shadow from every tree across every trail, all in warm connection with his everyday work, and his childhood, and a thousand small things and patterns which the other two—the humdrum tourist and the botanical taxonomist—simply cannot know in the given place at the given time. Our farmer will not know the relation of the surrounding vegetation to a botanical conception of the world, and the botanist will know nothing of any importance to him about that barn or that old field or that old house under its cottonwoods, which are afloat, as it were, in a medium of personal memories for one who was born there.

    So here we have three different worlds—three men, ordinary men who have different realities—and, of course, we could bring in a number of other beings: a blind man with a dog, a hunter with a dog, a dog with his man, a painter cruising in quest of a sunset, a girl out of gas— In every case it would be a world completely different from the rest since the most objective words tree, road, flower, sky, barn, thumb, rain have, in each, totally different subjective connotations. Indeed, this subjective life is so strong that it makes an empty and broken shell of the so-called objective existence. The only way back to objective reality is the following one: we can take these several individual worlds, mix them thoroughly together, scoop up a drop of that mixture, and call it objective reality. We may taste in it a particle of madness if a lunatic passed through that locality, or a particle of complete and beautiful nonsense if a man has been looking at a lovely field and imagining upon it a lovely factory producing buttons or bombs; but on the whole these mad particles would be diluted in the drop of objective reality that we hold up to the light in our test tube. Moreover, this objective reality will contain something that transcends optical illusions and laboratory tests. It will have elements of poetry, of lofty emotion, of energy and endeavor (and even here the button king may find his rightful place), of pity, pride, passion—and the craving for a thick steak at the recommended roadside eating place.

    So when we say reality, we are really thinking of all this—in one drop—an average sample of a mixture of a million individual realities. And it is in this sense (of human reality) that I use the term reality when placing it against a backdrop, such as the worlds of "The Carrick," "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," and "The Metamorphosis," which are specific fantasies.

    ==============================

    Transit - by Richard Wilbur

    A woman I have never seen before
    Steps from the darkness of her town-house door
    At just the crux of time when she is made
    So beautiful that she or time must fade.

    What use to claim that as she tugs her gloves
    A phantom heraldry of all the loves
    Blames from the lintel? That the staggered sun
    Forgets in his confusion how to run?

    Still, nothing changes as her perfect feet
    Click down the walk that issues in the street
    Leaving the stations of her body there
    As a whip maps the countries of the air.

    =============

    Parsing Reality for God and Manhole Covers

    I will tell you an amusing little story... which relates to the above poem by Richard Wilbur.


    He describes his feelings as he watches a very beautiful young woman leave the door of her apartment..


    He describes her movements as being like someone who CRACKS A WHIP... and shatters the air around her... (that is how stunningly beautiful he finds her)...."


    It is obvious from reading the poem.... that the poets mind is geared towards seeing a beautiful woman..

    He does not see anything else..... there may be a beautiful flower... but he does not see

    There may be a beautiful moon in the sky.. but he does not notice


    There may be a ten dollar bill on the sidewalk by his feet.. but he is unaware.

    Here is my point....

    REALITY... is many many many things, an INFINITUDE of things.

    CONSCIOUSNESS, is a process of data reduction.

    If we NOTICED EVERYTHING... we would be TOTALLY OVERWHELMED... our senses would shut down.

    Seeing, knowing... involves IGNORING much, and FOCUSING, on what is important to us.


    Just as a grammarian will look at a sentence and PARSE IT, divide it into nouns, verbs , adjectives, etc... analizing it

    EACH of us PARSES reality... divides,... down to what interest us.


    Imagine a beautiful young woman in spiked high heels , walking in the city.

    She is PARSING REALITY, to notice all the drainage gratings.

    Why? BECAUSE she has SPIKED high heels... and does not want to break them or fall.

    so... reality for her BECOMES, in a sense, drainage gratings

    but now... along comes a teenager in SNEAKERS...and he only notices her.

    The teenager is unaware of the drainage grates, because HE HAS SNEAKERS, NOT high heels, but....

    The teenager is PARSING REALITY for sexy behinds.


    So, he is staring at her bottom, and she is staring at sidewalk."

    Same reality PARSED DIFFERENTLY.. by two different people with TWO DIFFERENT THRISTS (DESIRES, INTERESTS)

    From the Srimad Bhagavatam:

    Uddhava said, "O Lord, you have explained about all these religious endeavors, they sound so difficult. How will I ever achieve UNION with you, the Lord?"

    God answers "If you can simple SEE ME , in every creature, in every person, even the most wicked, in every object, then NO OTHER PUJA (sacrifice) OR PRAYER OR PRACTICE is necessary"

    The religious person, does not see drainage grates everywhere, or derriers. No. They parse reality and see GOD everywhere.
    Last edited by Sitaram; 02-21-2005 at 01:08 PM.

  2. #17
    We few, who write such fantastic notions, are arsonists, attempting to set young minds on fire; not a fire which destroys, but the fire of the mythical Phonix, from which we emerge, anew, reborn.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •