EPTIt is easy for instance to get in the mindset of waking up, as I think many Westerners have begun to do. That this or that will ultimately result in a greater awareness, which it might pertaining to the things it relates to. But again, it seems we see what we want to see to some effect, and that this is not always an ideal but simply something pragmatic. So we find ourselves challenging certain superstitions maybe endlessly and maybe not, and this at some level seems to account for much of our motivation. In short we are taking this seriously, and it is a serious matter. This seems to be sufficient explanation for many things. But it is not clear to me that taking things seriously is an ideal of any kind. On the contrary there seems to be no real motivation definitively in being serious. Perhaps this is my conception of the liberty of indifference.
Could we simply ignore this? The answer is hopefully always 'yes' to the extent we have some freedom of motion. Unfortunately the reality of our life seems to be the opposite, that instead we should have freedom of motion only in proportion to our indifference. Of course this sounds not very good on the face of it. Inasmuch as we are either admitting a sort of global helplessness of the human faculty to address some question or else we are admitting the same frailty of ability to guide our action. We are in effect saying that to change the things we want to change we have to be sufficiently indifferent as to make the consequences obviated. But we cannot simply admit of the futility of changing things deliberately or else we are simply admitting that we cannot change the things we aim to change.
But at some level this seems to be the constant hallmark of intelligence, despite the flowery appraisal or cynicism, whichever. It is for instance usually quite clear to me that the usual intelligence of the form we respect is usually targeted at narrow factors and minute movements. For instance in striving to obtain some point the thing must be seen clearly enough to agree either so distinctly to one or so generally to others that the thing is really not to be had. In shaping some peculiar standpoint which seems to have global appeal, the usual variety of experience tends to favor a sort of ineluctable self-defeat. There seems to be no escaping the reality of awakening to some factors at the expense of losing others. But this indeed to me seems to characterize the human experience, that we have evolved a very compressed system of observation complemented by a rationality and a mode of reasoning just thorough enough that the observation is functional.
But is it functional from the aesthetic viewpoint? The argument from experience seems to be 'no'. There seems to be little hope of obtaining to an aesthetic appeal as it appears in the mind without sacrificing the thing to some global standard. It seems to me easiest to grasp at straws and defer to the functionality of the living thing. The thing functions within parameters and the confines of experience yield a real world out of keeping with vaguely perceived notions of what it would be to have success. It is the same to say that many things are possible but none of them are realistically obtained. And try as we might to have the cake and eat it too there seems to be a pervasive generality to the life of the mind. To that effect as we gradually sacrifice one or the other "dream" to a moribund existence the whole of the notion seems to be encapsulated or lost. Some would argue one perspective and others would argue another. Neither of these are compatible in my view.
