Before a note: the English here is slightly different from the
grammatically
standard and/or 'correct' English, though there is some
adaptive worded language used, as at times too in punctuation marks.
It is
on metonymic logic, but no: no definition of it, since that would
not explain any.
It is on the sense, and the sense of understanding,
unlearned, by yourself, no school to help but life itself.
To
give you some direction: keep in mind
to go forward instead of back. ...
Hoping you'd know then when to go back or when to go forward...Furthermore:
keep in
mind the phenomenon of intonation
and so that 'emphasis' CAN
make a whole different meaning, which has nothing to do with a stronger
variety when 'non-emphasis'. Another
serious hint is to open all your life
knowledge
as you do, hopefully, when dealing with reality. Furthermore,
you really need to open
all various meaning and significance modes
you
can find within your knowledge related to words (exactly this IS the problem
when non-communication by the way), with the consequence,
if you are able
to find so, to kind of touch the veil of life.
The logic is the logic of the
phenomena of chaos. So that logic is 'underlying' being. Otherwise:
trying
to read this text is useless, since it is senseless.
Another level of
meaning so, wherein what seems to be nonsense in daily life, isn't; it only
has more depth and reaches another meaning "field". However an also important
and serious hint is to not think of 'chaos' as how used in 'ordinary daily
speech' often: 'confusion'.
And the consequence of the former
hint is
this last serious guide: keep to "known steady rooted pure"
meanings while
almost at
the same time letting go of them, not hanging on
to them, and
throw your own implications
away when wanting to put those on me. If you
could indeed
distinguish intelligence from dogma, of course and naturally
nothing "dramatically emotionally overdone" will happen. The human aspect
of 'fame' is another formality, a formality as creating a so selfmade 'hell'
or, in a lesser strong gradation, a willess 'difficulty'
between
supposed-to-communicating-partners, as in fact
any formality is: a
supposed-to-communicating-partners. (The structure of the former
phrase is
not on 'equal level', though not one of the two levels is more or less
in
relation to eachother.)
And so within these swamp-like words
solving
this given puzzle is up to you, so to say.
Because you will want to let
in all sorts of meaning that doesn't fit here;
meaning that only will
confuse.
Anyway: it is true that the 'ordinary daily world' is much based
on rigidity
and exactly this rigidity is found back often too in people
psychiatrically and so medically diagnosed being in schizofrenia or autism.
If now you would not be too much searching in your brain, you could
follow this metonymically based worded moment.
Within the statistics, as
these are helpfully made to signify a little,
it is proved in that
way
that most humans 'likely' to disappear from the ordinary
world,
the metaphoric ruled one,
are the most creative ones as named 'artists'.
And among those practising the arts is the highest number
of suicides for
the poets.
Though I am not willing to follow any statistics,
I can come to at least '5' reasons to commit suicide, though those reasons
are here of no importance or not yet.
Anyway: it is clear there is some
more deep
within a human than superficial ethnic
difference (and don't
let your mind get trapped now, by making the mistake of hanging on to this).
And this is or concerns the being within.
And it is the rebellion or the
standing up against this rigidity of selfmade
life as
society-is-functioning as being someone fine when earning
enough money, so
doing or executing whatever service that suits the money exchange
(and
don't let your mind get trapped this time by hanging on to the mentioning of
'money'; if not money, it could be any whatever
else that would dominate
the society structure or would follow from an even deeper domination)... and
going to work day in day out,
as in the rigid movement (which is wondering
a paradox), somehow
related to catatonic horror. It is, so, NOT on the
working for money, when money indeed a medium of exchange,
but the
rigidity of movement what it is on: a stuck paradox. That, so, can be compared
to 'frozen'.
To deal with 'life' giving incidents as happenings and that
what happens and goes on
and coexists in existence of coincidences upon
the law of synchronicity,
which is a dangerous notification, since most
'fools' start there to end
up in psychiatric hospitals, and anyway the
"structure" of life asks
from a human to almost be a magician, though
most magicians use a disadvantage
and follow the same rigidity because of
the use of manipulation, in which is no
transcendence. So to do without
the formalities, as formalities mostly coming out
in words spoken and their
meaning within 'saved'
or 'conserved' coming out into existence when
used,
and so used in the formalities of underlying stuck paradox,
to
change all this very interestingly radically though subtle
and friendly,
requires art of knowing that life exists of coincidences coming
any time
and any way and how to put those in your own
comprehension as simple
understanding, without the formalities,
hence simply with and in being a
human who is on Earth to find out and do alike.
Some time rigidity is apt,
some time the letting be of chaos without manipulation
is best to be with
and live in. And this is the area of art, or the art of making whatever art:
making what comes or more simple even: making
what is there, and in
the moment: making what is here, making what is, and so on.
Reminding
you of letting go of confusion which is caused by
thinking
metaphorically and formally so.
So making what is here,
making what is, and so on. Making for life. Making for being here. And so on.
Making even when Death,
if in persona possible, would knock
at the
door of the studio the artist is working in. And meaning
this 'literally'
(however: the biggest metaphor used...,
how sad in fact, where exactly is
the turning into metonymia possible).
So this 'illustration' could show
the profession of 'artist',
and exclude people now considered artists as
in the categorical rigidity
system, as in the stuck paradox system, as
in the sort of 'frozen' system, so exclude people now considered artists as
in
the rigid and so on system, and include them who are now, in that rigid
system based on a stuck, considered no artists.
Do you 'get' this
swamp... or did you... already drown?
Or can you make steps on firm
ground, knowing the way in a swamp?
What is a poet? A poet is a human
creature responsible for words.
As history clearly shows, the profession of
poet is not undangerous.
Since the existence of 'word' as a human phenomena
only,
the word 'god' is the hardest, and therefore all other words, at
least:
according to the observation of the many made "religions" and so
on.
To do without the formalities
that obstruct unification without
uniformity, the specific hierarchical
categories as still being as often
silent codes in society now in
the outcome of position related to
"accepted status",
as much caused by the phenomena of fame
in the
wishing of many to become famous or alike, overlooking
the here and now
and the within, running in
torn off "religions" that in fact have
lost
their wordless root or their root including only words in a
language
already spoken and understood
so running in torn off
"religions" to try another indoctrination, and to remain in the physical and
brain zone,
... now so... to do without the formalities that obstruct
unification without uniformity, and so on, another knowledge is required that
is natural and naturally fit for the knowing.
So in fact another
knowing is required.
True: the sad part is that all this is easier said
than done.
So another education is required. But since the alternative
"right available"
now is often the one or the other dogmatic principle
still, asking for rigidity so,
that again or once more exactly shows the
frustration in
dealing with life, instead of playfully but seriously
examining within oneself and in relation with all that is further,
using
a model and an unmodel for it, without mistaking
the unmodel for another
model..., and yes: education is required
that allows this free use of
spirit,
(instead of comdemning 'it' a fool: it might be exactly this
shameful fear
that keeps people away to examine themselves and more grave:
that "prevents" that serious education can start,
knowing metonymia
and its consequences, being able
to compare so with metaphor and its
consequences,
and such education will very probably preventing
(change
of grammer already)
many people to lose sight on reality,
as happens
often when starting to spiritually grow up (around age: 21)
and however
then naturally learn to deal with chaos as a phenomena (so not as
'confusion'):
and it might be here that technocracy and poetry come
together,
where it comes to the knowing of the phenomena of chaos (poetry
from poesis: creation)).
Education is necessary if genuinly the knowing is
not given so easily (which seems to be the matter);
furthermore, by the
way: it is precisely the evangelization
or alternatives of it, the
dogmatism of it all, the rigidity unknown,
that goes with whatever
"religion" including the model of modern science, that, let me say so,
fucks up a poet's job or task, since the claim put on words,
that
number 1) puts a poet high in considered categorical hierarchical rigid
structure
as being in underlying coded existence as well as manifested in
more or less physical structures now still,
with the consequence that
'fame' still can exist,
and so the way 'fame' is treated and
exploited
within the rigid system, causing paranoya all-around in more
or lesser gradation
but also intimidates, fame so intimidates, which fact
somehow unconsciously must discourage all kinds of other talents
people
might have that don't fit 'fame', implying they are all meant to forget
about
their own private searching within and instead fit into the
"prefab"
categories in society's system to lead a relatively anonymous
life,
and instead of recognizing the freedom anonymity grants,
often
wish to become famous or alike, "right into" the parodic language and
assumption of metaphor, and that number 2) pushes a poet to the almost most
outside edge of society in the "realm" of fiction, fools and madness, a voice
in the desert, whatever, a roman-tic candlelight talky-talky..., and that
number 3) the denial and denying all this (understand-able: since only no one
maybe, wants to be bad...) insists and will persist and so resists further
understanding.
(A rigid system asks for emotionally unbalance.)
Consider
this part of text
an introduction only of and to the metonymia.
So...:
here is and/or was... written a depth reality example that asked for active
reading.