Photo: The door shown is east entrance-exit to “Inspiration,” the library’s rustic mountain refuge by the mighty Manuelitas (“Man-will-eat-us”), a sometimes beavered creek in the mountains of northern New Mexico. The humanoid figure dimly reflected in the glass represents the ghost of selfie photographer Yours Crudely, facing west, likely on his way out….
Long, long ago, a colleague claimed he’d seen Yours Crudely’s face in a cracked adobe wall far from town, the artists having been gravity & weather. Others have found gods in trees &/or virgins in tortillas. In fact, the image here is meant to represent your reflection—on the way in.
Post #0: Nothing is just what it seems…only. (Not even nothing.)
Territories used to be totally separate from maps except when maps themselves were the territories. Now technology can overlay (or let us flip between) map & camera, two quite different “translations” from an actual place to a transmissible representation. Neither are much like actually being there physically, but their information may inform the imagination even so.
It seems not even nothing stays still; even stillness dances. Objects seen in a mirror may be closer than they look, sound or smell, if they are there at all, turned around. Looked at closely enough, “thingness” itself disappears, leaving nothing but reflections in the mind questioning both in & out, mind & nature, exploring in many directions at once, from various angles–& at many scales, an often ignored feature of reality….
Searching for our nature, we find searching itself part of that territory: both the QUEST & QUESTIONING: What? Where? Who? Why? And then? We are sapiens not primarily because we know so much, but because we seek to know…more, always more, & more deeply. And not just–or primarily–as individuals. Language itself is a form of both knowing & sharing, at once recognition & transmission.
From learning the names of people, things & actions to discovering for ourselves, we never stop wondering, asking, considering at sometimes increasingly deeper &/or more fundamental levels. All our senses are questioning mechanisms, agencies providing data at various levels of urgency, attention, & response. In this, we are like most other sentient beings, at whatever scale or level of complexity.
Sapien languages & technologies seem to have rock-&-rolled the scale of our questioning–into outer & inner space, with cross-generational rocket boosters from the compounding of accumulated know-hows. We may attribute this largely to the evolution of that higher-scale “sense organ” that amalgamates the various senses & goes on sensing, trying to make & apply additional sense to advantage–even accumulating “sense” in ways passed across generations.
Yet as much as the species has apparently learned, the range of what’s not known has clearly expanded to keep pace, particularly about many, if not all, of the most basic questions, i.e., those with ultimately the most direct impact on us, our lives & (sooner than we think) deaths.
Although the language used to ponder & discuss fundamental questions of our existence may seem abstract, the issues themselves are not, being matters of direct experience–consciousness, the mind & feeling; the nature of reality, self & world, life & death; the trans-sentient self that experiences them.
While these have been universal questions over the ages for philosophers, scientists, & others who left a record of their thought, they are also intensely personal issues quite as real to each of us as to those who pondered them in ages past.
Meanwhile, if you think you’ve been here before, welcome back–though what’s here now (21 Dec. 2020) (12 March, 17 April, 27 August 2021) (2 Dec. 2023) may not have been here then. The site evolves…develops…; even parts mostly as they were may reveal new dimensions from small tweaks, as each return encourages clearer pondering. For the most part, the questions addressed aren’t the kind answered once & for all….
Serious visitors may have many happy returns. Humorous visitors also, possibly all the happier. A more serious guide than Yours Crudely might try to apologize for a having a humorous bent, but enjoying the exploration is part of the process. Nor is there one route for doing so, like a single nature trail in a rich & varied landscape. Trails fork, converge, intersect, as each adventure unfolds, sufficient for that visit.
Each “page” or “room” scrolls down in sections through successive chapters or levels, as inquiries deepen &/or reflections fork…. Each time back, you may SCROLL DOWN to another chapter/ level/ twist &/or loop, &/OR CLICK TO OTHER “ROOMS” (more or less left to right in official guides)….
Post-hole #0:
~~~~~~~~through the looking-glass door…
Post-hole 0: a footnote on “Inspiration”
“Inspiration,” the mountain refuge pictured above, earned its name & association with pondering the old-fashioned way. Home to our first full translation of Basho’s oku no hosomich (backcountry trails), and many “Seeds of Thought” inspired by the living place & Aldo Leopold’s writings, it’s also been the setting of countless poems, including one by (our own) Virginia B‘s just published (2023) in New Mexico Poetry (Museum of N.M. Press). As reflected in the poem, Virginia often replenished her creative energies here between weeks absorbed in students & school activities.
Many moments snapped in words here (more or less in the Basho tradition), later picked from the Inspiration log, ended up in an Albuquerque picnic grove, rendered by calligraphers & hung from trees, then left to weather all year as Weathergrams. Many “Dragon Mountain” trail sequences (by single poets & groups) set out from & returned to here to share their poetic impressions–“linked-poetry” adventures described elsewhere in the library.
The creek reflected in the door can be seen on the cover of (& even briefly heard directly in) Like Water: in spring runoff, the Bernstein-Bodner album of poetry-music compositions it helped inspire [now in the Audio room at bod-library.net). Not to over-toot the horn, but Inspiration’s power to move, reveal, inspire, & teach shows up throughout the library.
With ordinary chatter & busy-ness left behind, mind & feeling open here to inner & outer at once, what river & mountain have to say, whether out of the blue, on their own in response to fresh observations, or contemplating questions intentionally brought along for PONDERING–that peculiar combination of exploration & wonder; fresh reflection & focused inquiry; pure perception & free ranging imagination….
The process can start simply by noticing, attention being both the mother of wonder & father of pondering, giving rise to inquiry, sharpened observation, discovery, & transmission of findings to others (even across generations), with no actual line between any of these. The attempt to articulate, ostensibly to & for others, becomes part & parcel of what’s discovered, including the sharpened observing.
Many observant writers have reported something like, “I didn’t know what I thought (or believed) until I tried to write it down, explain & share it.” Writing it down invites not just the writer’s more closely focused attention, but the inner voice that leads the unfolding & a critical scrutiny that tests the expression for soundness as it unfolds, tweaking as found necessary– and comes back to re-test again later, reading as if for the first time.
So reader & re-reader become thinker & re-thinker as writer becomes re-writer as re-reader (& re-re-reader), scanning both thought & expression for fuzziness & weak spots, murk & muck, as if from a new reader’s point of view, as actual & imagined impressions focus what’s expressed, and how.
The reader’s point of view, ultimately key, is to some degree, then, already entangled in the writer’s. The writer discovering his or her thoughts re-reading what’s found above might just as well have said, “I didn’t know what I thought (or knew) until I read (&/or re-read) it….” In that sense writer & reader are one, united by questions confronted in common.
Post #2:
WHAT QUESTIONS?
WHAT KIND OF QUESTIONS?
Content reflects those that have drawn (Yours Crudely’s) attention to an irresistible degree, some presumably yours also. They don’t fit easily into neat categories, but they include:
# the really big (more or less timeless, existential) questions personal to all–nature of life, mind, self, time, death; universe, meaning, human experience; form & feeling….
# the big (more or less historical) questions, including some twists & warps in how history lays down “entanglements,” e.g., most recently, coverage of the JFK “big event” 60 years later; manifest destiny; frictions, factions & fractures; how real-world (especially human) systems work….
# the quirky questions not necessarily so big in themselves, but which end up connected to bigger issues after all (e.g., the Diego Garcia story). Apparent bigness is a function of distance, of course, i.e., perspective, how close the effects….
Exploration is sometimes as close to answering a question as possible, being a process of expanding awareness more than a single bit of data or explanation, the journey itself, in other words, not a destination. For some questions, more or less complete answers (or at least promising lines of inquiry) can be offered, in which case links to the best sources we’ve found may be provided, filtering for reliability….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(4 Aug. 2018; 1 Dec. 2019; 20 Nov. 2023)
As thinkers, seekers, students, teachers, & totally involved beings, it’s deep in our nature to explore new territories, not just what’s over the hill, but under the rock, & in the heart of the mystery. Wonder and reflection generate questions and efforts to understand, which in human terms means using language, the primary medium of thought (even in math).
Neither language nor understanding are primarily individual, but more like individually fluctuating field-potentials held more or less in common, part of a dynamic give-&-take between personal & cumulative mind. The urge to know merges seamlessly into the urge to share, to make a contribution (no matter how small) to the common awareness, whether that belongs to a single interacting pair or to humanity at large across centuries.
The individual thinker in search of understanding makes no distinction between knowing for the personal self & for others, using essentially the same language for each–being the language of working it out. Whether in mathematical characters or verbal language, the thinker & new readers alike test the soundness of its thought from the expression itself.
History shows that “experts” can sometimes be so full of what they believe they know, they’re wildly blind to the actual. What Yours Crudely calls “expert’s disease” seems to affect many academics, pundits, opinionators, fatuous old farts & fatheads of any age, status or level of education, not just the over-educated, under-aware, & hyper-critical.
In fact, the best academics tend to be the most humble about what they know, most excited by exploring what they don’t. They teach not primarily “knowledge” supposedly accumulated from the past, but the living example of seeking to learn & understand more, transmitting their own contagious excitement at learning itself, at once open-minded & questioning….
The really big questions affect all more or less equally, meanwhile, independent of education level or economic status, though not everyone pays them equal mind or attention. The real answers aren’t ultimately abstract, meaning that insight, understanding & wisdom are open (more or less equally) to all, including the least “educated,” who may actually have the least to unlearn. Those with the most to unlearn tend to be those who believe they know everything important, whereas their knowing may be mostly about niche mechanisms & quantifiable correlates.
Unlearning can be considered the hole a new post needs to get set in to stand up securely. Some significant degree of un-knowing remains the baseline, after all, given the fact that understanding itself remains such a deep mystery, even to itself…. [20/12/20, 3/12/23]
Some level of abstraction exists wherever a subject represented isn’t directly present, a definition that even applies to what seems directly perceived by the mind. To perceive a fire–the brain where perceptions are processed isn’t itself in flames, for example. Even more obviously, a fire past, to come, or in general is an abstraction represented in the mind by language &/or images. The actual blaze a few miles away is no abstraction, however, though our references to it in language remain representations.
The distinction between direct experience & abstract representation by the mind once removed, quite fundamental in many instances, blurs under many conditions, sometimes breaking down completely, with leakage in both directions, e.g., between levels of perception & stored memories.
Ironically, the most subjective experience, as in personally felt sensations, may also be considered the most objective, whether triggered by directly measurable stimuli from outside or not, internally arising as pain or pleasure. Sensation itself, not our interpretation of it, may be considered the most ‘real0’ (least abstract representation) of anything we know.
One level further, the mind may be considered that aspect of what exists most directly known &, in theory, most directly knowable, yet first to get left out of scientific explanations of supposedly objective existence, partly for being so elusive, outwardly invisible, transparent, seemingly immaterial & ungraspable. Isn’t it ironic that the most visibly active presence at hand in every scientific discussion, article, argument, experiment, speculation & conclusion–the mind–is so completely ignored in descriptions of what’s supposedly the most fundamental physics, hardly a reference in anyone’s “theory of everything”? Yet without the mind, physics no longer exists.
Although there seems to be a strong ego-centric tendency (not unlike the pre-Galilean idea of an earth-centric universe) to consider mind a primarily human attribute, an emergent feature of the highly evolved brain, the sum of the evidence suggests otherwise. It seems like a far more sound working hypothesis from our perspective as sentient beings to consider the mind as fundamental–whether to life (sentient beings) or more basic, that likely being mainly a matter of semantics, just how broadly “mind” is defined.
We tend to be scale-bound in such matters, with no way to presume entry into the inner life of atoms (or black holes). No doubt, we can attribute the ability to think about the mind in the ways we do largely to our specifically evolved brains, as well as to the available language, & technologies of transmission, as well as t0 countless examples that left an impression.
Nevertheless, the quest to understand more comprehensively seems to be entering a new phase…a statement arguably as old as life itself….
[Not to mention inspiration from the convoluted musical stylings of the Franz Kafka Trio, reminding us that before thought was philosophy, it was jazz & dance, after all.]
[Click HOME to continue, or other rooms of interest, on menu at top.]
Howdy, old friends & new visitors. The amount of random junk spam means we delete all “comments” automatically without reading any, so the ON-LINE COMMENT FUNCTION HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY DISABLED. If you have an actual commont on (&/or contribution to) the discussion, please email Yours Crudely at bodlibrary2020@gmail.com with “WEBSITE COMMENT” on subject line. (Spammers don’t relate to site material, & artificial unintelligence not yet reading content like this, while genuine comments remain imaginary noodles in a virtual haystack.)
If you’re real, you’ll think & feel.
You’ll come & go, & want to know….