To find the right volume for a music or instrument I am listening to or playing, I find it best if I turn it up too loud, or play too hard and then turn it down, or play softer to arrive at the best, or even ideal volume. Likewise, I think that when undertaking the mission to understand some, a thing, it would be best to "cast a wide net," allow for more intentionally, with the plan to sift through the moreness at later date to find out what the thing is or could be, ideally, as the what it is.*
(I'm going to probably be working on this post for a bit, so if this is what lies in front of you, realize that it is not what is in front of you as much as your computer contains it, in a room, in a building with you wearing your shirt, etc. I am willing to admit that you might not be with shirt, so please be willing to view this in this form now, with the knowledge that it will change.)And now the choice quotes from:Is not, indeed, every man a student, and do not all things exist for the student's behoof?
Whatever talents may be, if the man create not, the pure efflux of the Deity is not his;--cinders and smoke there may be, but not yet flame. There are creative manners, there are creative actions, and creative words; manners, actions, words, that is, indicative of no custom or authority, but springing spontaneous from the mind's own sense of good and fair.
Man Thinking must not be subdued by his instruments. Books are for the scholar's idle times. When he can read God directly, the hour is too precious to be wasted in other men's transcripts of their readings.
*It seems that much of everything is just another person's way of expressing that they do not know, but that they are involved somehow with making some how, some, a thing, sensibly approachable. "Hey, look at my efforts"
is the simple translation of all healthy men. I'm not buying into your system
the translation of everything else. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that much of life has a voice and is speaking, first person style, what scientists call germs is only another voice, disagreeing with their efforts. Nonetheless, it seems that much of the 'economically worthwhile agenda' is a spit spray of man's approach at not knowing something, but expressing facts nonetheless.
Why should man, knowing that there is some sort of equality between him and others, divide the efforts of his self, between others and yet even more others. I probably should know more at this point, then I do about certain things I cannot name. But this is it, in this form to come;
1 "Casting a wide net"
2 "What is learning? What is Learning, and the difference between the question and the statement."
3 "People's efforts and descriptions thereof"
4 Questioning "The worthwhileness of the approach of alotting more some thing to certain people" Without questioning that some people deserve more, only calling into account that not all people deserve more, especially those people who espouse to know, and to learn"
4.5 "The fears of the ramifications of the results in life of the difference between learning when it is a questions or when it is a statement
5 then something else intermediary, perhaps a tale or "what is the hope of? All people's efforts accounted for"
5.5 the tale would be of going to a pagan celebration of food and wine of a learned comparitive literature professor at Princeton, who also writes wine reviews in high culture magazines and lectures at universities in New York City, and writes books about paganism and its details in medieval times, and the event at his property, complete with stables, would be filled with learned people with a knowledge as to how far to take their dark side and the appropriate time to do so, and this knowledge would then be described in the tale, from the point of view as the kind narrator, as the only dark side that exists on earth, but not to such a naive extreme, thus making the tale more revealing of the soul of mankind, although in reality, in the appendix of the tale reads the total complete seriousness of the narrator, that those most praised are always those who celebrate their vagueries and love or rules, and indifference to others, that a learned professor professed to knowledge and learning would in fact enjoy mob sex, daughters of wealthy pure blood, confirmed by matching it to viles of blood from the nineteenth century that the man keeps, confirmed girls spitting their food on him, because he knows it, he read it, and he wants it again for his own, to be smothered in ox blood, and then (in the tale) some analysis as to how man can know history and hopefully show the reader of this tale the hyprocrisy of those who profess to know, especially those in the highest regard of the people who can best control the urge of their dark side by knowing exactly when to crave their flame poker ass rubbings, cruel tests, and cherry gravy beef cubes and how to elevate their stupid cousins to power so as to prolong cancer on earth, linking the events on earth not between disparate people's but between those who cannot afford to know their dark side and those can know it well, and wield like a wand, like a Louis XVI antique chair, or a cane with unknown insignias on it. Who controls history? and eventually a better explanation of what the dark side urges actually are, and how they are the key to uniting people, but not that they aren't united already, just that they don't all have equal power of their knowledge of their own love of decadence, and those who receive praise allow for those who ban decadance so that they can keep their beautiful torture devices for themselves when the moon is right, and skin is consumed at the perfect time that this whole thing repeats itself.
6 asking what it means to be in agreement with a statement such as "who is to be destroyed or at least have their ideas go unnoticed."