°
The melancholic philosopher, such as Baudrillard or Milton, will generate an existential paradise that is somehow inaccessible: a transcendent realm we can no longer reach.
The giddy spirit, such as Deleuze-Guattari, will announce an alternate "coding," allowing for merging, newness, and escape, lines of flight for the hopeful.
Schopenhauer is a curmudgeon, Kierkegaard a hopeless romantic, and Camus a brutally poetic cynic.
Their disposition forms an argument, a rebuttal to the world.
°
The ease of being known through long-term relationships provides a day off from appeasement and mediated behavior.
Of course, behavior patterns and concessions (reversals) are made, but the established familiarity does not require the exhausting drives of producing momentary charm or establishing dominance.
°
Effervescence is surplus enjoyment.
A drink might taste fine flat. Prior to the technological age it would be a glorious treat.
Today there is a shelf life on the bubbly giddiness that comes prior to opening and once opened, which quickly diminishes; it dissipates, leaving us with the flat thing itself.
The thing itself is still great, but our fixation on the almost unsustainable additive of enjoyment, which dissipates as soon as we encounter our desire is also the recognition we must take into every interaction: everything fizzles out in time, leaving you with its raw state, which may still be amazing, but once we have enjoyed it with bubbles it is difficult to accept its normal state.
The difficulty is that we produce the added effervescence through our anticipation.
(In part from Slavoj Žižek)
°
Given the insanity of the world, the contradictions assail us daily (such as the definitional inability to achieve a purpose that is transcendent) the only response is to laugh, or to find it humorous.
While laughing off serious inquiry can develop into dark apathy, recognition of ridiculous situations can help you move through them into something greater: if failure is inherent (immanent) so is rebirth, allowing you to choose optimistic action over static, determinist recognition.
°
When you are under stress your passage narrows from a trail to a bridge, and finally into a thin line upon which you balance. On the trail you could brace, on the bridge you could wobble, but upon the tight rope a gentle breeze can topple you.
Our resiliency is fluid, and while we may weather the wobbles gracefully your increased stress will guarantee a fall from the softest touch.
°
Rationality and faith require leaps from facts to belief into truth to justify our version of reality.
Nature (in this case, reality) does not make leaps but infinitesimal tests and failures producing incremental changes.
When you are baffled at where you are, realize that nature* is the orienting ground you seek.
(*nature itself is a contentious term, which I will post on next time)
°
Do the uncomfortable thing.
Practice being a bit more honest than you want; a bit more you everyday.
°
My desire pursuit is overly strong: I push routine and health aside to achieve.
The reaction is days of pain-enforced respite.
It is a balancing mechanism: the down time is roughly equivalent to the misdemeanors against the body.
The will forces attrition, and the bodily response is sabotage of goals that sustain the ego.
°
The worst part of people opening up is not that we become closer, but we clearly reveal our uncompromising nature that is afraid and seeking stability.
Our transparency, vocally stated, is one-directional: it is the depths of self-revealed, resplendent in need, fear, and longing.
Clouding the waters with murk obscures you and can protect you, but it also keeps people on the banks, only tiptoeing into your shallows. To expose your depths is to invite deep relationships.
As well, your openness models openness: reciprocity of genuine comradery.
