Any philosophical idea can be achieved by the simplest of men. It is not hard to observe the world
(even if this observation is already contaminated and corrupted by knowledge one acquires directly or indirectly)
and attain the same singularity of thought as great philosophers, either eastern, western, southern or northern. What we lack
(for i am placing myself amongst the simplest of men for no more than that am i)
is the diction, the ability to transfer it so wisely from thought to utterance. We lack the connection between the private and the public, between the intangible and the tangible
(metaphysical and physical)
.
Once more I dwell on the realm of young and older Stephen Dedalus. Is it permeability or impermeability?
(even if this observation is already contaminated and corrupted by knowledge one acquires directly or indirectly)
and attain the same singularity of thought as great philosophers, either eastern, western, southern or northern. What we lack
(for i am placing myself amongst the simplest of men for no more than that am i)
is the diction, the ability to transfer it so wisely from thought to utterance. We lack the connection between the private and the public, between the intangible and the tangible
(metaphysical and physical)
.
Once more I dwell on the realm of young and older Stephen Dedalus. Is it permeability or impermeability?
1 comment:
Even the simplest of men is fairly complex, and even the smallest of worlds is overwhelming beyond humankind – I suppose.
Post a Comment