(no subject)

[lhexa]

A comment else-journal.

A world in which a person can walk on water is an interesting one, but a world in which the symbol of walking on water can have as big an effect on humanity as the actual deed would is an incredible one. This is a world in which it is precisely symbols that have the power of miracles.

Maybe people yearn for a grander world. But maybe what they yearn for is the grandeur of this world, present but occluded. Or, because I really feel like I'm not articulating the thought well: one can feel meant for a better world, and one day discover that this better world is the one you already live in.

Comments

[lhexa]

The only alternative that separates the two completely is to interact with humanity on one's own terms alone, which requires a significant amount of dedication and effort (surviving on your own, and so on).

That's an interesting way to put it! If I had said it, it would have been vanity. :P

It would of course be best if I could realign myself, or if I could keep those parts of the world that I do like, and bring my focus to those parts while handling the rest, for I can't easily go to that other world.

What I have to add is that such a transformation, from my experience and those related by others, cannot be designed to produce a specific outcome. I think it could just as easily produce less alignment, which seems to manifest as asceticism and a hermetic life. More, I can't say that alignment is consistently worthwhile: there are people who would benefit from less inner alignment: for instance, some who unknowingly sacrifice much in order to adapt to humanity, or who demand that all others do the same.

[davv]

That's an interesting way to put it! If I had said it, it would have been vanity. :P

I was thinking of the sense of individualist anarchists (and Thoreau, perhaps), and of hermits. I don't think vanity would figure into that :) If anything, excessive belief in one's own abilities would make it harder to be self-sufficient, which I think one would have to be to interact with humanity on one's own terms alone.

What I have to add is that such a transformation, from my experience and those related by others, cannot be designed to produce a specific outcome.

Not of an outer design, no, but it might be possible to focus on those parts of oneself that is conducive to dealing with society. If one has a weak point, one might still be able to train it, as it were. If personality doesn't want to give (or one would have to betray one's sense of self and identity to "align"), though, the next follows...

I think it could just as easily produce less alignment, which seems to manifest as asceticism and a hermetic life. More, I can't say that alignment is consistently worthwhile: there are people who would benefit from less inner alignment: for instance, some who unknowingly sacrifice much in order to adapt to humanity, or who demand that all others do the same.

I wouldn't call that realignment, either. If one forces oneself into humanity despite not feeling it as right, there's a tension. If the realignment was proper and actually worked, there would be no (or little) tension, and so it isn't. I agree about the latter, too: some changes to fit society can come with too high a price.

[lhexa]

I was thinking of the sense of individualist anarchists (and Thoreau, perhaps), and of hermits. I don't think vanity would figure into that :)

Thoreau was who came to mind, and since I'm trying to live a Thoreauvian life, I try to keep the praise thereof in check, since it easily veers into vanity. :)

Not of an outer design, no, but it might be possible to focus on those parts of oneself that is conducive to dealing with society. If one has a weak point, one might still be able to train it, as it were.

Hmm, I still have to object. A transformation is more than just a training regimen, in that it affects one's entire self, or nearly that much. You can't have one superego-like part that stands off to the side and dictates how the rest changes. In the physical counterpart, a partial transformation wouldn't produce a new, viable creature, but instead a chimera. A partial transformation is a failed transformation.

*grins* Oh, and have a Thoreau quote about the sort of experience I mean: "Our moulting period must be a crisis in our lives. The loon retires to solitary ponds to spend it."

I wouldn't call that realignment, either. If one forces oneself into humanity despite not feeling it as right, there's a tension. If the realignment was proper and actually worked, there would be no (or little) tension, and so it isn't.

I don't think I know enough about this realignment to say what is or is not proper, or what does and does not count as real realignment. :P