Salmon struggle against each other to breed

by clamoring upstream in a crowd.

And now the streams are shallow

you can only see fish

with almost no water, breathing one drop is success.

In an epic battle to preserve the species,

The stream becomes corpulent, uninspiring,

One fish just gives up

He is run over, what a bum!

He receives rest under the mud

Most of them compete:

a bottomless Abyss of fighting,

All while praising god or science for the opportunity.

No meaning, only a dry, formulaic victory

of pushing a broom out

into the future faces of the unborn

The horizon is not a straight line, it is a circle that is too big. Everyone has a perspective, none of these perspectives are circumspect enough to see the big circle between heaven and earth, without losing the individuality of an artist. The artist is a fool for art, the accountant is a fool for counting and shuffling imaginary numbers, and procrastinating with their pretense of work on any worthwhile application of mind. The priest is a fool for Jesus. The spiritual seeker is a fool for salvation.

The theory that there is no theory is not a theory. Theories are supposed to be worked into a semblance of consistency, but this "non-theory" is only disproven if you need to hear a theory, or expect one. The reason for a theory well-worked into hiding its falsehood is to make the creator feel as though he has created something to clutch to his chest, like a book to hold up and shield his heart. The books do not belong to anyone. They are all derivative of great minds that wrote no books.

Axioms are a popular rhetoric, just because they are not true, does not mean there is nothing. The Buddha had no philosophy, no theory, no book. He spoke to a student, or many students, and said what they needed to hear, because only the ignorant need to hear anything, need to know anything, need to think about anything, or say anything. The Buddha taught out of compassion, he spoke because it was a way of conveying something better than words. We may write zeros around all the things we think have a soul. There they are, not nothing, but not like a Being that the west sold its soul to grasp. There are no proper names. The heights of all the books are no higher than the creepers on the forest floor.

I wish I knew how to help you. Guilt is not something I feel at all. I feel fear at the consequences of my words, I feel anxiety about facing judgement. I feel shame when I speak too loud or too often, or remember the moments in my life where I should have done better. (all my moments)

Criticism leads to nothing, yet it helps people who ingest modern information. It is a reaction I have for people who need to hear something.

Salvation is just another spoke on the wheel of fortune. I work from my heart, to say the things people need to hear. That work is certainly damning, but Hell is only another spoke on this wheel. Condemn me, I am already condemned. When the great spiral of time curves up again, you will find me again as an angel. You cannot get rid of me, only I can do that. I am trying, and the world will be better when I am gone.

Dear Pierre, you ask if the aphorism should be better represented in question form.

In answer, I quote Archimedes:

“Give me an immovable fulcrum and a lever long enough, and I shall move the Earth.”

The “lever long enough” would be a very long definition or aphorism and the fulcrum would be the point at the end. The long sentence would include (along with every other definition about the Earth) the longest word in the dictionary, a 45-letter word about a lung disease preventing someone from breathing. (Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis)

Interestingly, the more still and stable the fulcrum, the more power we have to create movement.

This is exactly the elementary relationship between a statement, period or point, and a question or question mark. An elementary use of a period is for a statement about earthy things, as in objects touchable, visible, smell-able, taste-able, etc., but the statement has been expanded into non-elementary use for almost everything. There are very few questions recognized as unable to be transmuted into statements. All questions are transmutable to statements (and vice versa) in a mystical sense. ( difficult is a definition of the question, see my paper “Many Roads from the Axiom of Completeness”) The elementary question is to suggest possibility and inspire wonder, but less lofty are to suggest uses, ways, means, and to compel specific actions or beliefs in others.

An example of how statements can compel is a published exchange between the Dalai llama with a group of scientists trying to persuade the Dalai Llama, or at least the audience, to the side of science. The Dalai Llama asked how life originally sprung from the primal molten Earth, and a scientist answered with a long string of statements that went on and on, somewhere lost in that string of statements life sprung, but the mystery and wonder of it was disguised by a pretense of hard work that produces heavy, relentless, knowing statements.

Another example of transmuting an unanswerable question into a string of statements is the mathematical proof of the impossibility of squaring the circle. We have, essentially, a question of means and we write mathematical statements to circumscribe this question as completely as we can. Once we have closed all entrances to this mysterious question “How do I make a square of a circle?” we may be persuaded of its singular openness with “One cannot square the circle.” This is not at all the truth, it can be done with mathematical imperfection, imprecision, vague pragmatic attempts. With one of these attempts, the mathematician will argue that it is not done. Only mathematicians decide when work is really finished, and the “…” ensures that we never are finished.

In the same way that we can transmute perfect stillness to the most irresistible movement, we can transmute all questions into statements, and that is exactly what is attempted by Aristotle with his Law of the Excluded Middle. The Law assumes that in any question of “this or not this?”, the reality is not a question but an answer of either “this.” or “not this.” (the elementary this, about an earthy thing). The question is unreal, it is purposefully split in two, like a doctor producing a schizophrenic.

Here I am going over ground that I have run so often, it feels like a hamster wheel. This is the feeling teachers get from teaching the same specific subject every year, which was my profession before illness.

We ask how to make the most stable truths, the aphorisms, into forms of movement. Generally, the movement of the aphorism is from an example, or a smaller sentence, that indicates or is inscribed in a generality about many sentences. This movement from the inscription to a generality is traditionally called induction. Bachelard conflates the word induction for the general action for his subject in “Air and Dreams.” And induction is conflated in many other ways in philosophical literature. I add to these conflations the symbol “…” used for mathematical induction, which has been the replacement for persistent questions, (such as what is the smallest particle). Here, the question is replaced with an imagination of answers beyond the horizon, deferred to future investigation. An imaginary continuousness of answers, not answers directly experienced here and now.

The most general movement is the movement of time, such as with a still rock, or water that flows in a way that appears still (Aj. Sumedho). This general movement inscribes another kind of movement: the movement from one time-stream to another. This is allowed with discontinuities in mindfulness, in vagueness, expanding on the general, on grasping beyond the horizon by inquiring about possibility. How to make the leap between time-streams well-leaped? What axioms and global constants/concepts do we wish to leap to? This is the next kind of airplane we must construct. If this airplane ends up as something commercialized, like our form of utilizing electricity and commercial airplanes, we will still find this last and most free kind of movement contained in another cage owned by our masters of capital.

While we have reached the heights: the power in the vagaries of clouds to generate light in the form of a shocking idea, we must remember that this is only enjoyable as long as we have the heart for it. And love is the fundamental reality, cutting through all time streams. To leap well, and be Well-Gone, is to leap between time streams to this fundamental: the molten iron from which the worlds are forged both hot and cold: Ultimate Truth: this door between all worlds that leads to unbinding:

Peace and friendships,

Andrew