Wait a minute Merry... you can't tell people to just give up. Of course we've gotta try.
Yes.
Yes what?
Yes, of course I have to agree with you.
Then you're contradicting yourself.
Yes.
Well that's unacceptable. You can't hold two completely opposing positions.
No.
Well then why do you do so? Explain yourself.
Ok Sem. I'm word sculpting.
You're what?
Word sculpting.
And what's that meant to mean?
Well when someone sculpts with clay they have to...
What?
I think you have an idea of how people sculpt - there's no need for me to fill you in on the subject.
Ok - but what's the link between that and your so-called word sculptures?
I'm using words to mould and shape this reality we're living in.
You are? Er... why...
Because that's what I do. That's what I am. You may as well ask the sculptor why he does it, or the musician, or the mountaineer. You'll get a range of answer:
because I'm good at it, because I enjoy it, because it pays well... Whatever. But ultimately they do it because that's what they do. Each of us has something we're born to.
Ok - so you claim you're born to word sculpt.
So I say.
And how?
How what?
Do you word sculpt?
Well you already have an idea. You've already seen that I appear to contradict myself.
Yes. And I...
Which is something that people are not supposed to do, are they, though if you check what people are saying and doing on a regular basis you'll see that most of them do, in fact, contradict themselves.
Well, perhaps they do, but they certainly don't admit it as if it's acceptable the way you do.
No, because they're not word sculpting, are they?
I should think not. And I don't see why you take it upon yourself to mould and shape reality using words. It sounds sinister and manipulative.
Yes.
And you have no defence for what you're doing?
Should I? When push comes to the shove we're all basically doing the same thing.
We are? You could have fooled me.
If I did I assure you it was unintentional.
That was a figure of speech.
Oh, so you were playing with words.
Look Merry - I want to get to the bottom of this. What are you playing at? What's your game?
Well a beaver has big teeth and can't resist the desire to gnaw at trees, toppling them into the river where it makes dams.
Right.
And I take words - the very words that you are all using.
You as in humanity?
Precisely. I take these words and I run with them - I let them out of the box that you tend to keep them confined in and play around to see what they can achieve.
You speak as if the words themselves are leading the process.
As indeed they are. I remember watching a great sculptor at work - and whether it was a piece of wood or stone - he always discovered the sculpture that lay hidden within the block of stone or piece of wood. It wasn't a matter of imposing his own vision on it. That would have been trivial and inconsistent with his purpose.
And what was his purpose?
To create art - I suppose - rather than projecting his inner state, his thoughts or emotions onto materials.
So art, you're saying, has to be unconscious? It can't be...
Who am I to say what art can or cannot be. I'm merely reporting what he said and did, and obviously I resonated with that - which is why I've never tried too hard to understand what I think or why, still less to impose my vision on the materials that I'm working with.
And these
materials you're referring to just happen to be our reality - is that right?
Yes.
But that's outrageous. You have no right.
To contradict myself? To sculpt with words? To help bring out the beauty that is hidden, trapped within the raw materials? Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I have no right, but then again, I never claimed a right or a left.
There is no left.
Ah, but that's where you're obviously wrong, and dare I say it, contradicting yourself.
I am?
Yes. You see any assertion, any thing or idea can only be in conjunction with an alternative, an opposite, an unnoticed or unnamed what-have-you.
I don't see why.
No, you'd be hard pressed to. It isn't visible.
Then how do you know?
Because I'm a word sculptor. I shape the reality you're living in. In a sense I reprogramme it with what I say, and equally what I don't say. It's my craft. I do it without thinking, without any real thought of gain, in the same way I breathe.
And to what end? What have you achieved?
You know, the word
what that you so frequently use refers to one side of the equation. What you might call the material or mechanical side.
And?
Well, all that you're saying and doing amounts to a kind of self-imposed conspiracy, to avoid seeing or engaging the other side.
What other side?
Not what.
?
Well, if you say things are right or wrong - then presumably the other side, in your parlance, is wrong, but I'd prefer to be non-judgemental and call it
left. It's the side that is non-material and non-mechanical. But it's very difficult to say
what it is because it's not what.
Well what's the point talking about it if you can't describe it?
No point whatsoever - but I was merely helping you to understand why I might happily, unperturbedly contradict myself.
Well in that case you've failed utterly.
Yes. I rather thought I might. It's a bit like trying to describe a hole in a piece of wood.
A hole?
Yes. You invariably end up describing the piece of wood surrounding the hole rather than the hole itself.
You do?
Yes. People see that the wood itself has a round inner edge and there's a hole in it - so they describe the hole accordingly.
And what's wrong with that?
Nothing. But equally there's nothing right about it.
Why not?
Because the hole has no shape. It's by definition formless.
No it's not - not if the wood has a round hole in it.
Ah - but it doesn't. The wood has a circle cut in it which in 3 dimensional terms describes or marks the boundary of the hole, but the hole itself is not of the wood and has no relationship to the shape of the surrounding surface.
But that's absurd.
Yes. Precisely. It's absurd. Or alternatively you might say it's
left which is where the word sculptor gets to work with equanimity, and the normal human being digs in and puts up a fierce resistance - because it seems to make no sense.
You're telling me.
So when I contradict myself and appear to take opposing sides of any matter - that makes perfect sense when you realise that these opposing sides merely represent the underlying paradox of matter itself.
The what?
The paradox of matter itself.
What's that supposed to mean?
That matter, though it appears to matter, in fact matters not.
?
Matter does not matter, and yet we're ready to swear it does, such is our attachment to one side of things, to one side of the equation and one version of reality.
Now wait a minute...
Yes?
You're saying you're not attached to one side of things - that you're above it all?
Am I?
Well you must be. How else could you take both sides? How else could you be so cavalier in your disregard for social or linguistic conventions?
Well consider an actor. Presumably you're able and willing to accept that he or she is performing what is palpably unreal or untrue, but which in some way becomes real and or true in the performance, if the actor is able to bring it to life.
But the actor isn't manipulating people and society.
No? He gets people to laugh and cry, and to think about matters that have no basis in fact. If that isn't manipulative then I don't know what is?
But everyone knows it's just a play.
Yes. But their bodies don't; Physiologically people react as if it were real or true.
Well that's hardly our fault is it, if our bodies are programmed in such a way.
True.
And what you're doing is different.
Why so?
Because you're not following a script. You're not abiding by the social conventions.
You mean I'm not a part of the grand experiment.
What experiment?
The tyranny of what.
The what?
The tyranny of what.
What on earth are you on about?
Because this belief that things can and should be explained - that there is one side that's right and another that's wrong - that we're able to ascertain which is which, then take sides and act accordingly - is surely, inevitably leading to the destruction of humanity and causing enormous damage to our planet.
No it's not.
Oh.
What do you mean
oh?
I'm intrigued, in that case, to know what is causing the destruction of the planet.
Oh you know, things that people do.
Things?
Yes, lots of little things - unthought out, selfish...
Things you say... well from a left side perspective these
things you're referring to are neither here nor there.
But that's absurd. Material factors always are key to understanding what's going on.
Yes. You see
understanding also pertains to one-sided perception - even if it's the underside.
And what would you have us do?
Do? What difference can
doing make?
Well doing is the driving force - the engine of change. Nothing happens without it.
So you believe. So you say. But how much serious time and thought have you given to other side.
To not-what? None whatsoever, I'm frankly pleased to admit. What could possibly be the purpose of paying attention to nothing, as you yourself put it?
No purpose. No point. But then again,
purpose and
point are right side words that merely enforce the ruling dogma.
Which is what?
Which is
do or die, no matter why, no matter what.
I'm sure you're contradicting yourself again here.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if I were, and yet in my contradiction there may be more sense and reason than your right mindedness.
Ah - so you see - you
are attached to sense and reason.
Yes, I'm not wholly unattached to it, but then again - I'm equally attached to non-sense and cuckoo la la.
Cuckoo what?
Cuckoo la la.
Yes, I thought that's what you said. But what does it refer to.
Not to
what. It's the other side of reason. The story side, if you like.
Oh here we go. How can reason have another side. Either it's reason or it's just plain absurd and unreasonable.
And a work of art - does it have to be useful? Does it have to be reasonable? Have you ever considered why art is among the most valuable things that people buy and sell.
Well, it's obviously supply and demand, isn't it. The greatest works of art are in short supply so their prices rise astronomically.
Good. But what makes them "great".
Difficult to say.
The way they faithfully reproduce, realistically, what we see around us?
Not necessarily. They can be highly abstract and still valuable.
Then what is it?
It's art, isn't it. It's subjective.
And yet you said it's supply and demand. Contradicting yourself, aren't you.
I suppose I am, but I've never given it a lot of thought. In any case, artists are hardly claiming, as you are, to be able to sculpt reality.
No, because their art uses paper, stone or wood as the medium, whereas mine works with the id.
The what?
The unconscious what, which surfaces as this or that - as something or other, as what not, sooner or later - through the lives and endeavours of all humanity.
I'm... lost for words.
Yes. Such is the power of the id - that we are all id-iots when it comes to it, but at the same time, can rise above that state. There is always
other and we just happen to hold the two in perfect balance, whether we're aware of it of not.
Balance? What do we hold in balance?
The two sides - call them what you will - the names are largely immaterial.
Like right and left?
Like whatever you please.
And you're really saying that we're the centre, the balance point.
The fulcrum, the zero point, the isness of be... whatever you like to call it. How can we be otherwise? Our very beingness depends upon it. Our conscious awareness would collapse on one side or t'other causing our entire universe to fade into oblivion.
You can't seriously be suggesting that the entire universe hangs in the balance with us at the very centre.
No. I wouldn't suggest it seriously - but gaily, lightly, gently, peacefully, merrily I would, for such it is - I am.
Such it is - I am?
Yes. The balance of be and is, of matter and mind, or whatever you wish to call it.
But this is the most monstrous form of humanocentric egoism. It's worse than what they used to say about the Earth being the centre of the universe.
Worse, and at the same time better, because it puts you, or your mind's conscious awareness right back where it needs to be - right at the very heart of all that is. But once you realise this is true, it gives no grounds whatsoever for "monstrous egoism", because you fall into a deep state of humility and reverence for what which is - and for the vastness of Self beyond the shallow paltriness of the self we're presently aware of. There's no way we can grow in awareness without realising and feeling the fundamental relationship between all that is - the entire universe if you like, and that which I be - the I am, whatever that is.
I'm...
Yes, but don't worry. You're designed to resist these truths until the time is right, and, once you're ready to move on to a deeper, more fulfilling relationship with Self, then it happens quite naturally.
So there's no need to make an effort.
You can try if you like. There's no harm in it, but most often your trying will be guided and motivated by your current prejudices and dogmas, rather than effortlessly resolving all the problems you seem to be beset with.
And you really believe that to be possible?
It is - I am, or to put it another way: One.
One?
Yes. Zero equals one.
Oh... I... O
Yes, I know :-)