FA+
Shop
A compass displaying the temporary state of "you"
Communion, Alienation, Solitude, Isolation
Communion, Alienation, Solitude, Isolation
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Doodle
Species Dog (Other)
Size 400 x 369px
File Size 58 kB
Listed in Folders
"Now" is the eternal state of seeking, physically simulated and experienced by our bodies, which is limited.
One axis would be this fulfilment, and the other would be how "tuned in" you are physically to the rest of the human body, in relation. This is important, because being alone itself, isolates the internal problem, while the "human body" (the rest of em'), because it appears conscious, can be misleading when it seems to eject the one. Of course, people are individuals, and conscious, and can reject the one, but this is an "objective event" as compared to the subjective state of "experience", which is "now".
If you seek something that cannot be obtained, you stagnate. So this disconnection begins to manifest itself beyond the temporary, but only because "you" are still stuck in "now".
But even the lack of connection can be utilized, because it is physical, and therefore exploitable. "You" are intended to seek, and that's what you are seeking. Any physical activity can be fulfilling in this way, and therefore it can still be a vessel of your intentions.
It helps to realize, too, that past and future can only be simulated by your faculty, which is flawed (and very much open to impositions that aren't yours). When it comes to being trapped between past and future, the vessel is wired to maintain itself best as possible, and therefore, the "better" your faculty is, the harder it is to impose yourself over the maintence routine.
Routine itself is a an art, a pure manifestation of intent, and similarly, spiritually fickle to access, despite it's definite physical presence and place as a skill.
One axis would be this fulfilment, and the other would be how "tuned in" you are physically to the rest of the human body, in relation. This is important, because being alone itself, isolates the internal problem, while the "human body" (the rest of em'), because it appears conscious, can be misleading when it seems to eject the one. Of course, people are individuals, and conscious, and can reject the one, but this is an "objective event" as compared to the subjective state of "experience", which is "now".
If you seek something that cannot be obtained, you stagnate. So this disconnection begins to manifest itself beyond the temporary, but only because "you" are still stuck in "now".
But even the lack of connection can be utilized, because it is physical, and therefore exploitable. "You" are intended to seek, and that's what you are seeking. Any physical activity can be fulfilling in this way, and therefore it can still be a vessel of your intentions.
It helps to realize, too, that past and future can only be simulated by your faculty, which is flawed (and very much open to impositions that aren't yours). When it comes to being trapped between past and future, the vessel is wired to maintain itself best as possible, and therefore, the "better" your faculty is, the harder it is to impose yourself over the maintence routine.
Routine itself is a an art, a pure manifestation of intent, and similarly, spiritually fickle to access, despite it's definite physical presence and place as a skill.
Very good. Despite the lack of my explanation, in phrasing. You managed to produce something intriguing and insightful in my taste.
Now, I do wish you had, and would break up and organize your points cause I had to do that myself, which is no issue on my part... Just saying, maybe that's how you like it, and that is up to you to keep it that way... Thouuugh- meh.
---
Anyways, but my question for you (going from the top- down of your response) is if one is to never consider the activities of *now besides the past they've likely forgotten and planning the unforeseeable future. Wouldn't that way of thinking harm more than benefit the "seeker," and wouldn't the limits of said simulation be that of the mind setting our bodies apart from total autonomy within ourselves? The man is mortal for a reason; his mind can be a weapon, that being said can be turned on itself, which is unstoppable.
That's point one... Now secondly:
You: "This is important, because being alone itself, isolates the internal problem-..."
There are parts I can only lead through surmising, currently that you're possibly connecting the one with the "mind" and the "rest of em'" possibly in connection to the body of a singular person that is hosting said thoughts? Though what is the problem that exists where being alone is one of the many solutions? Does this part resemble others relevant to why solitude is the only solution, because one has viewed the others through topic and appearance, instead of the rationality and or brashness of others' minds? This part is tricky in the way you've positioned it, so I'm only asking, not stating, what I believe.
Third point:
You: "Of course, people are individuals, and conscious, and can reject the one, but this is an 'objective event...' "
But even without the means of understanding the objective event, would that "one" even matter if the goal has been achieved despite the use without its awareness? Whereas the subjective state has already been exposed to this scenario and therefore can go off of information based on its own, yes, but that would mean it has gone through a stage requiring the objective state to grasp what is actual, and therefore would mean that you could use that to form a reasonable outcome. Not necessarily requiring experience to be a foolhardy requirement to process the only *now that would come to mind as dual use is plausible?
---
I'm stopping at "If you seek-..." For this response.
Now, my dear Ash, you gave me a run around the mill; let's hope you can bring some clarity to me.
Now, I do wish you had, and would break up and organize your points cause I had to do that myself, which is no issue on my part... Just saying, maybe that's how you like it, and that is up to you to keep it that way... Thouuugh- meh.
---
Anyways, but my question for you (going from the top- down of your response) is if one is to never consider the activities of *now besides the past they've likely forgotten and planning the unforeseeable future. Wouldn't that way of thinking harm more than benefit the "seeker," and wouldn't the limits of said simulation be that of the mind setting our bodies apart from total autonomy within ourselves? The man is mortal for a reason; his mind can be a weapon, that being said can be turned on itself, which is unstoppable.
That's point one... Now secondly:
You: "This is important, because being alone itself, isolates the internal problem-..."
There are parts I can only lead through surmising, currently that you're possibly connecting the one with the "mind" and the "rest of em'" possibly in connection to the body of a singular person that is hosting said thoughts? Though what is the problem that exists where being alone is one of the many solutions? Does this part resemble others relevant to why solitude is the only solution, because one has viewed the others through topic and appearance, instead of the rationality and or brashness of others' minds? This part is tricky in the way you've positioned it, so I'm only asking, not stating, what I believe.
Third point:
You: "Of course, people are individuals, and conscious, and can reject the one, but this is an 'objective event...' "
But even without the means of understanding the objective event, would that "one" even matter if the goal has been achieved despite the use without its awareness? Whereas the subjective state has already been exposed to this scenario and therefore can go off of information based on its own, yes, but that would mean it has gone through a stage requiring the objective state to grasp what is actual, and therefore would mean that you could use that to form a reasonable outcome. Not necessarily requiring experience to be a foolhardy requirement to process the only *now that would come to mind as dual use is plausible?
---
I'm stopping at "If you seek-..." For this response.
Now, my dear Ash, you gave me a run around the mill; let's hope you can bring some clarity to me.
"wouldn't the limits of said simulation be that of the mind setting our bodies apart from total autonomy within ourselves?"
I never intend to assume that anything outside of the simulation isn't, it most certainly happened, but it is now concept, for "you" and "you" alone, who is and can only ever be "you", "now". Permanence does not define value or existence, but for "you", who is chambered into flesh, you cannot have the full picture. There is plenty to be found in trying, and it almost seems like the point, doesn't it? But only because we have adopted that point as our own. There is no point, the point isn't real. Hint-hint.
"-possibly in connection to the body of a singular person that is hosting said thoughts"
I find multiple definitions of "the human body".
A - There are social bodies, where the connections themselves are maintained and protected via the individuals within.
B - There is also, simply, language itself, and how every word is a body (in this case also an image made up of aspects), almost, up front, that is maintained by the associations pushed or found by the individual.
C - Then, there is the inherent act of being human, and the shared subconscious knowledge of physical interaction, and the chemical reactions. Why flirt? Why get angry? Why cry? This is not to dismiss the source of said emotion, but regardless of intelligence, it is ingrained in us to interface with this. At the heart of this, is self-maintenance through others.
C is a constant where A and B may act as a flag.
I considered it, had to be clear.
"Does this part resemble others relevant to why solitude is the only solution, because one has viewed the others through topic and appearance, instead of the rationality and or brashness of others' minds?"
If you find yourself without that connection to others on a day that should otherwise be like no other, you could also find yourself the same way alone. Or, you could find yourself at peace within a social body, and then find yourself uneasy alone. To try to connect, can be used to demo the problem (see above).
Knowing where you are and where you might be, helps you plan ahead and also realize that you're just going to be short, and that the lack of connection will not persist.
*/ - Possible other thing that has not returned to me yet as of 5/5
"But even without the means of understanding the objective event, would that "one" even matter if the goal has been achieved despite the use without its awareness?"
At that point, it simply isn't "yours", as it happens.
"Whereas the subjective state has already been exposed to this scenario and therefore can go off of information based on its own, yes, but that would mean it has gone through a stage requiring the objective state to grasp what is actual, and therefore would mean that you could use that to form a reasonable outcome."
"Not necessarily requiring experience to be a foolhardy requirement to process the only *now that would come to mind as dual use is plausible?"
May have covered this bit in full, I feel.
I never intend to assume that anything outside of the simulation isn't, it most certainly happened, but it is now concept, for "you" and "you" alone, who is and can only ever be "you", "now". Permanence does not define value or existence, but for "you", who is chambered into flesh, you cannot have the full picture. There is plenty to be found in trying, and it almost seems like the point, doesn't it? But only because we have adopted that point as our own. There is no point, the point isn't real. Hint-hint.
"-possibly in connection to the body of a singular person that is hosting said thoughts"
I find multiple definitions of "the human body".
A - There are social bodies, where the connections themselves are maintained and protected via the individuals within.
B - There is also, simply, language itself, and how every word is a body (in this case also an image made up of aspects), almost, up front, that is maintained by the associations pushed or found by the individual.
C - Then, there is the inherent act of being human, and the shared subconscious knowledge of physical interaction, and the chemical reactions. Why flirt? Why get angry? Why cry? This is not to dismiss the source of said emotion, but regardless of intelligence, it is ingrained in us to interface with this. At the heart of this, is self-maintenance through others.
C is a constant where A and B may act as a flag.
I considered it, had to be clear.
"Does this part resemble others relevant to why solitude is the only solution, because one has viewed the others through topic and appearance, instead of the rationality and or brashness of others' minds?"
If you find yourself without that connection to others on a day that should otherwise be like no other, you could also find yourself the same way alone. Or, you could find yourself at peace within a social body, and then find yourself uneasy alone. To try to connect, can be used to demo the problem (see above).
Knowing where you are and where you might be, helps you plan ahead and also realize that you're just going to be short, and that the lack of connection will not persist.
*/ - Possible other thing that has not returned to me yet as of 5/5
"But even without the means of understanding the objective event, would that "one" even matter if the goal has been achieved despite the use without its awareness?"
At that point, it simply isn't "yours", as it happens.
"Whereas the subjective state has already been exposed to this scenario and therefore can go off of information based on its own, yes, but that would mean it has gone through a stage requiring the objective state to grasp what is actual, and therefore would mean that you could use that to form a reasonable outcome."
"Not necessarily requiring experience to be a foolhardy requirement to process the only *now that would come to mind as dual use is plausible?"
May have covered this bit in full, I feel.
1. Which I had realized, I had merely wanted your input to further the contrast between what I had and yours,
I think you summed it up pretty well on your own behalf. Thanks.
2. Facts are those that you're coming from a grounded point, but that is the way we're made. We often refrain from oversimplifying the man and the creature together. What is based in the mind isn't based on what we see naturally; we are to bear a mask and therefore have clear, set pictures of it often. Applying those masks to topics we shouldn't.
Really, I enjoy the definitions, but I boil it down to the preexisting standards of what a human would be, not to fiction or hearsay in my definition. Then apply the many open-faced basics of psychology, and there you have a man that sets us apart from the flimsy classification of a wild animal. Not to dehumanize, but chemically, that's the basis; if you mistake emotion for the truth of existing, the error has been made. But, *mistaken- a man for his natural inclinations, there's a flaw in one's own self.
Simply put, I wouldn't be caught in the winds, trying to figure out where it's going... Factually, I'd rather be in the shelter, trying to piece together the rest of my days.
3. Funny in the ways you've processed the third section. Honestly, I've found myself more alone than trying to fit in where I shouldn't. It's not about connection; it's more or less emotion, complicated in theory, answered in verifiable solutions pertaining to varying conversational reactions.
You're using a modern graph to read a human's outline. Therefore, it's overstretched its purpose. You can be alone, you can be a group, but you're made to do both; there's no shying away from that fact. Now, how you consider it is up to interpretation.
I enjoy being alone to think things through, and when I'm ready, I consult the group. That doesn't mean I've found peace or made myself the focus to stay alone. Sometimes it's best to have your own reflections, then have them judged by others, and have the real limitations at stake.
That's just the way things develop. Now I could be spotty here.
4. Now that last part was just me going into unnecessary depth, basically thinking out loud. Don't take it word-for-word literally. But thank you for kicking it a few more times before I put it to rest. I'd rather just chuckle at that and move on.
Good stuff... You kinda took up the space I had for the second response, I'm not going to lie. But I think that part is far overdue and not really needed, haha.
Though I'm starting to think we may have strayed from the compass quite a bit, haven't we? Or do you fancy this within those regards? To me, I don't think we even touched the darn thing, hah.
Now, to instate this into the topic, finally, I have a direct question for you.
"Would you honestly- hand on heart, align yourself to invoke on this compass and demonstrate use of it in a real setting?"
I've been asking myself this even without the means of this post. Would you focus on things so hard, such as solitude? Isolation? Alienation? Or Commune? All so fleeting, but none require such a depth to value enough energy for a strict-to-abide-by compass treatment?
I haven't bothered so much trying to chase a worthwhile commune, nor have I pained myself thinking of the alienation that comes with that, leading to solitude, then isolation. But to each their own, I guess... As I've been saying, including myself.
I think you summed it up pretty well on your own behalf. Thanks.
2. Facts are those that you're coming from a grounded point, but that is the way we're made. We often refrain from oversimplifying the man and the creature together. What is based in the mind isn't based on what we see naturally; we are to bear a mask and therefore have clear, set pictures of it often. Applying those masks to topics we shouldn't.
Really, I enjoy the definitions, but I boil it down to the preexisting standards of what a human would be, not to fiction or hearsay in my definition. Then apply the many open-faced basics of psychology, and there you have a man that sets us apart from the flimsy classification of a wild animal. Not to dehumanize, but chemically, that's the basis; if you mistake emotion for the truth of existing, the error has been made. But, *mistaken- a man for his natural inclinations, there's a flaw in one's own self.
Simply put, I wouldn't be caught in the winds, trying to figure out where it's going... Factually, I'd rather be in the shelter, trying to piece together the rest of my days.
3. Funny in the ways you've processed the third section. Honestly, I've found myself more alone than trying to fit in where I shouldn't. It's not about connection; it's more or less emotion, complicated in theory, answered in verifiable solutions pertaining to varying conversational reactions.
You're using a modern graph to read a human's outline. Therefore, it's overstretched its purpose. You can be alone, you can be a group, but you're made to do both; there's no shying away from that fact. Now, how you consider it is up to interpretation.
I enjoy being alone to think things through, and when I'm ready, I consult the group. That doesn't mean I've found peace or made myself the focus to stay alone. Sometimes it's best to have your own reflections, then have them judged by others, and have the real limitations at stake.
That's just the way things develop. Now I could be spotty here.
4. Now that last part was just me going into unnecessary depth, basically thinking out loud. Don't take it word-for-word literally. But thank you for kicking it a few more times before I put it to rest. I'd rather just chuckle at that and move on.
Good stuff... You kinda took up the space I had for the second response, I'm not going to lie. But I think that part is far overdue and not really needed, haha.
Though I'm starting to think we may have strayed from the compass quite a bit, haven't we? Or do you fancy this within those regards? To me, I don't think we even touched the darn thing, hah.
Now, to instate this into the topic, finally, I have a direct question for you.
"Would you honestly- hand on heart, align yourself to invoke on this compass and demonstrate use of it in a real setting?"
I've been asking myself this even without the means of this post. Would you focus on things so hard, such as solitude? Isolation? Alienation? Or Commune? All so fleeting, but none require such a depth to value enough energy for a strict-to-abide-by compass treatment?
I haven't bothered so much trying to chase a worthwhile commune, nor have I pained myself thinking of the alienation that comes with that, leading to solitude, then isolation. But to each their own, I guess... As I've been saying, including myself.
Comments