KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA63 (Leslie / Rees)

Commentary 39 (to Johnson, C34)

AT - ORIGIN OF MAN ?
by Adrian van der Meijden
27 February 2004, posted 10 April 2004

Is not what we are saying by or with "subjective" proposing that ultimately it lies beyond our sensory ken, as was once said about God, beyond understanding. Call it complexity and it boils down to the same thing does it not ? I like the tree image in the brain, which makes it a dynamic tree and a universal, ie unimaginable, except in the very instant of an event, and changed by the next event or whatever changes it. What puzzles me then is how it can remain globally, or beyond time, consistent with itself. In case you may not have noticed that is the form of thinking of the Kabalah, reduced to either ten or 33 dimensions. To universalise it is to call it all one tree but then we may think of it as a tree we can see, which is a form of literalism. In a way our senses suffer from a kind of literalism of the moment, mapping it as content in a background which last it ignores.

My mind is a kind of chameleon or kaleidoscopic funnel where every next event changed the lot. I had to doggy train myself as a kid to freeze frame the charade so it could be pickled in words. And then silly Plato eternalised that into the real of the ideal, which Freud would call a projection as all the dynamics has gone down the plughole. And now I am a word juggler not quite sure whether to bounce the ball of discourse from the right or left hand.

-------------------------------------------

Adrian van der Meijden