Seven pointers between you and me.
The master and the pupil.
Which of us teaches? What s it to teach anyway/ on the one hand what teaching is simply. It is the engrained in one mind in a perfectly respectable manner of information for another mind. One minds therefore become the library for another. It comes the point that the other must reach to. Or o course better it becomes the proactive library that can endlessly enforce what it is upon the mind of someone else. It demands that what it has in the mind of the other.
That other, the pupil is then the point in which the mastery fall. I is the point of rupture. The point that ins never allowed any piece, until it can ape the master. It is therefore that in the process of being as the masers mind. Whenever there are of course absolute variations for the pupil. The pupil does not need the fast as they are for the master. That is they do not need them laid out answer ready to teach, ready to instruct another. The may take the facts up as they might chose or now the will. There is therefore something oddly fruitless in teaching. The master’s mind is educated to giving what they give. But the facts in the minds of another ought to speak up for themselves (or else they have not been given aright). The master wants to force their attentions on the pupil, and yet this force undermines itself. Or at least it ought to.
The school teacher educates other that they might therefore be different in some way. That is that they are facts, that what they preach and think about might be surpassed in some manner. Teaching is very respectable, and yet it might teach other contempt.
The master therefore always faces the problem that if what they teach is valid in itself, it will occlude their power and sense from the picture. It will make them not matter.
This problem I then on the master might respond to in two ways. They might withdraw into authority or quirky behaviour. They therefore stop being vulnerable to their own limits, by withdrawing into someone else (who is rejected).
Alternatively they might find a direct pupil of their own. They might therefore find another mind to instruct or dominate. This other mind will become a fragment of them. They will also be the master. Taking this second option then expands what a master if. It becomes something between two people. A element shared. Master and junior master. Each with the same powers, but one increasing and one at full blossom. The mastery, is therefore something than can and will locate others within and through it.
However this move is dangerous take up another amid into the rubric of mastery is to absorb what it is. one is then taken on a new journey- a journey it is to clear where it goes or ends. One might therefore in attempting to enforce oneself own mastery in the mind of that other, be taken to a land where all master ceases, and breaks. Even whose one might be taken to a place where the rules of who is master and who is pupil slip. After all one can have no real and special claim to ones own master hood. It is merely given to one in ones face. Ones life is therefore peculiarity not ones own (and ones facts are always borrowed from someone else, and only given a mind of condition they are given to another). What one is, and what one might become therefore becomes highly volatile one might be caught up in the problem that the mind is suddenly eclipsed by one pupil. They might become the master, and take over that life one might have had. They might be what one was.
The Master is therefore caught up in an agony: educate and loose sight of ones specialises in knowing or living – what a choice.
The lover 1;
What is it to love? Perhaps a love is given is a desperate look. The look is the point one sees another body in action, and that action is enough. One therefore watches As one watches one sight. As one watches ones eyes fill in the loved object. One sees how they act, and what they will do. One takes this sight and build into a world. a word where both they and you are. World of love. To love is therefore to watch.
But is this is true is not the lady of shallot right? Can one watch ones own loved object? how can one without forcing oneself on that loved individual, and what right can one have to do that? Surely love ought to demand that one keeps oneself to oneself. One ought therefore to remain sowing (and as one love, in the fantasy of love dreaming one ought then to have another to watch. To watch oneself is to love too much.
One needs therefore the eyes of another mind, a look to mark up love. There sight becomes the point ones own fantasy run from.
In this fantasy though there is a real kind of love. That is there is a real knowledge of another minds. One might not share their soul, but one knows their habits and their practices. One also in watching (or having others watch them0 shares a little in how they might think, and what is effecting them. On antennae as are therefore up. One can predict both when they behave oddly – but also what the cause might be. that is that bit of ones mind that is about them. habit that one has programmed to think as they think and dream as they dream, is up to the prediction business. In it nests of habits and impressions, I feels genuinely as the other feels. Or perhaps more truthfully it successfully shares there experience. It knows from the behaviour what the feelings drive that behaviour on.
One mind therefore in taking on and feeling that bits of another, takes u their burden. One thinks in through habit what they do. one feels in the breaking of the habit (why break them own are they broken) echoes of the feelings that led to that break. One knows why they might break up.
The habits of another are therefore turned in watching love, into the rubric of a soul. that it the [patina in which the minds of that other are caught as translate. The point their feelings become clear to the lady of the school. The silent watcher in love: The good genius of habit.
The child.
But then hat is it t child at all? How is a child/ this is a far more complex problem Childhood is merely a position or a pointer of relating. As one is a child one needs a little care. One needs to be related to as something as yet incomplete. Something with a fragment missing. But hen how can one be that chid oneself? How can one have an element or dimension missing? What sense is it to be childlike? There appear only three basic strategies. May be what is missing is something that ought to be their. Civilized behaviour. To be a child is therefore to be caught in the any of the bully and the school yard. One is a child, and feels one is because others of a certain social group torment so. To be a child I to be thrown on with ones tormentor. It is to allow the torment to start. Children therefore divide into bullies and victims. I I on this ate that their childhood is felt. O be bullied or to expect o be bullied or to bully. This is childhood indeed. That is the fracturing the incompleteness of a mind.
Alternatively one might be a child I lacking something. That is o be a child is to miss elements others have. These elements are elements you might have (or you might have lost). One is a child therefore in having to rely on another because of something one perhaps ought to have developed oneself. The child is therefore the one who realise on another for their feelings or their living. They are someone who will have to draw upon and draw through the discipline of another in order to be what they are. The child is therefore the person with the thing lacking and two therefore needs the other to give that thing. At which point of course childhood shatters into adult hood.
Finally to be a child is to be caught up in the exchange of knowledge. Everything tumbles into ones own mind as the first time, but it tumbles from others who appear to already have known the fasten mind therefore becomes merely a rubric of translation new own excitement becomes for another merely a symptom o what it. One learns for the first time what others already are knowing. The be a child is therefore to reconcile the two : The novelty with the custom. The easiest manner of owing such is surely to make duos. That is to have other element toys or figures who are also learning, and to whom one can explain the real facts of life. One own life becomes therefore caught up in the live on ones to. One expresses the realigns whip of explaining in them. One therefore learn not only in enthusiasm but also in jaded explication. On is taught and teacher as one play. The grown p world therefore becomes something the explain and re-enact with ones dolls.
Running across all these embodiments though is a problematic axis. To be a child is not a simple thing. It throws into doubt exactly who is the child. Is it the adult? Are they becoming as a child. Becoming fractured and enthusiastic as the forget again in explicating. Or the child who becomes as an adult. That is they expand into the others knowledge. To talk o a chid is there to echo in a paradox. One is as a child a shy becomes as an adult, and there is no necessary reason why the two might with each other. Their adulthood is likely to expands way beyond ones childhood and visa versa. Children therefore fracture into adulthood s adults attempt to become as children, n an asymmetric exchange.
Te child is therefore a challenge. A partner that cannot be treated as normal. And yet now one dos treat them easily and readily compromises ones own adulthood. One might every readily become as a child in grasping at them, and through them. one might becomes as they are, even as they become something else (and despise ones actions). The child looks at the adult, and the adult is made a child in the look. The adult is unpicked and made not to know where they are and what is seen.
Children can e very scary, as the rob and adult of dignity…
The lover ;
What I it o love?
To love is to have a powder keg g off in ones mind. A keg that cannot be controlled or limited. I is clearly to go mad.
One looks at the loved, nothing (particularly not them) seems aright.
One mind starts generating the adrenaline.
Neat little realties so by the wayside, and one new feelings become the through.
That is the world other might share in it lost.
All that matter is the high energy of love.
One looks, one is caught.
Nothing in s the same.
Nothing is quite possible,
.
The only realist one can feel for this is the expanding of the knowledge of the other. In knowing them, his feeling is houses. In loving one. To love is therefore to demand more and more information. I is to want to know.
And et monsters luck in their knowledge. For any things might lie it, many monster of love.
The problem here is that as one is caught in the silent agony of love, as one does not know what to do or where to go or hw to express ones feeling, one is a least safe in ones own world. One has not (yet) ransomed ones own reality not the thoughts and dreams of the other.
However ones one has entered their world that world becomes the reality.
One own place in it might then be hard to find. One own love might therefore occlude oneself, and do so just at the movement one demands to be.
One is therefore lurched into an utterly mad and extremely horrify world.
The world one creates as the most important.
Te world that dos not need o have oneself within it at all.
The only contact one has then with this loved world f the prattling of others. O a view implicit snatches or glimpses, and a whole lot of fantasy.
This world is then one that easily slips elsewhere. It slips into a hate of the world one is form denied from and a anger that can very readily overspill into loathing and the desire to shatter that which is so real and so so painful.
Great lovers hit the point therefore when the world of the loved is a torment for them.
The suffer agonies and wonder what to shatter?
There own nature?
Thee loved/ or the world.
Not a choice a mind can readily make.
The drunkard.
To absorb in perception of consumption the elements of the world is never entirely straightforward. One might after all be caught in what this other does to one. In a sense one must be. This is after all what a mind actually is. it is this catch up. And yet the mind is a position in this being caught. It relates and feels itself the master of a certain series on chemical reaction and process that present to it a world in which it is and though which it acts.
that is that which a certain series of hoops and loops of chemicals become internalized within the reactions of the brain it a mind. There is nothing of course stepping these hoops and loops of chemicals from behaving simply or in a manner that allows the mind simply to assume the outside is real.
On the contrary there are numerous ways one might short cut the process. One might therefore ever easily create minds not based on external position, but gin or cocaine. The external world and it peculiar sharing of vivacity is merely one reaction amongst the numerous others the chemicals of the mind will be caught into.
The mind is then caught in a problem what some of its worlds will not be as real as others. Or to put it another way the perception in one world will not be simply applicable o the perception of the other. The world is fractures.
And yet this is a strange fracturing. The vivid is the element which will always seem most important. And that vivid might well the truth of the drug and not the truth of the real. The and is therefore impelled to world together, to hold the unity of a self and an experience into further drug taking.
The drug is that niche ensures that it is the only thing that can be as real o a mind.
The drug has its own reality a s a part o it.
The drug therefore grows the mind and not the other away around).
The kind distorted its reality not the druggy kingdom.
It is so hard to escape: for reality becomes vapid and empty with out it.
Worse this other world is of course contagious. It will spread. It demands to spread. Other can only touch it or share it as they to take the drug. Drugs therefore always demand other drug users (if nothing else o stop their life being lonely).
One is immediately caught up in the world of drugs and collective use.
The drug being the excess the muck secret that passes all simple understanding or even location. It is that we are sharing. That which allows as dust in our world.
R at least it would if it were not poisonous.
It poses a mind by first dethroning it, and so forcing it to dance into another turned. The problem with this tune is that is of course demands richness only be constellated in one way. the cheap and easy richness of the gin bottle replaces the far more problematic richness of the world. One becomes driven in gin, and it replaces the richness in living.
Third therefore usurps the role of life in the mind. The role that ensures new experiences and new possible. The role that buggers up al plans or makes them fall anew or as different.
Gin is that difference. there is nothing more.
At which point of course whatever chemical incompatibility between the drug and the brain slip not the fore. It will poison if nothing else by the amount one needs for maintenance.
And so death comes.
Lover 3;
There is a mystery to love.
People go for walks. People disappear.
Love is what makes other never sure what the other is up to.
Love is what makes the other unpredictable.
A they love they might be doing good.
As they love they might be locked in coincidence.
As they love they are behaving is a manner that others cannot not fathom.
This manner is give in the exchanging glance. Or half seen element.
This manner is given always after the event.
One sees their love not in the initial reactions thy make. These are hidden. Bt rather in their effects.
Love is that which actins grow and rebound in significance in time.
The lovers true love is the fantasy that which survives into reality.
However the process that gets to this point is often hidden
This hiding is natural and Normal? But then how could it be anything different?
What is hidden is the extra dimension ht love bringing to the world.
That is I the day to day weave of everything, there is an wonky element. An element with too much reality.
Or better there are two elements.
These element this excess is ain a silent complex communication.
This communication will not be simple as both elements are already in excess.
both contain more reality than they should. Both have the power therefore o turn mundane events into a real drama or into something to linger in memory.
However in this change they act alone.
In this excess they are alone in their own love.
I is not clear therefore that which will take the same series of events . Compatible worlds.
The will build worlds of live that I true.
But nothing more need happen or need be known beyond that love.
This love itself need not make that much sense.
It might not have that much reality.
It is as blind and anything else there is in the world.
To love is to be on a secret mission. We start together on the journey – but as I burrow away in my mind building molehills of love, I do not (quit) know what you are about. We have already loved, we have already exchanged. We might love again. But as we are the lover, we are making out own little world of excess.
Do you think they ever will meet?
The brother and sister.
What is it to be a brother or sister?
It is to cross he full gamut of exchanges. One is children together. Rivals in the, love of a parent. One is helpmeets. Points the others mind is transformed by another (and allows for the fact). On is therefore the element closest at hand for another to think. And yet of course in that thinking on is also the element they must break with must clearly. One is therefore that which is most real, and yet that which in that reality is most difficult for another.
One exchanges in the sense that one has always been their for another. One is what they have. May be what they have they must also hold at distance.
To be brother and sister is therefore to be open to the impossible friendship. One knows the other too well. One realise on them, and their minds. One is used to them and there differences. and yet these difference oared also difficult. No only must one keep oneself as a part from them, but also the siren call becoming one into world one might also have explored.
Ones very difference to them is therefore a challenge
We started you and I brother and sister in the same place. How did we end so far apart?
Why? Where is the sense of a split ? Or is the only sense that we sparked off each other?
Was then the only reason that I am not more like you, because you are there?
But if this is true what then? What can that fact mean?
Does it signify anything I can relate to as oak at my other life in you?
Should I hit you for being as another me – a me lite an forced split in a me so we take other paths.
Or can I someone share in your learning? Can it be what matters to me? What makes me more than I might otherwise? What allows me an extra reality?
If so then where exactly are we now?
How are we now?
hat is how a I going to take up those other lives you allow me to see. Will I allow them also o be in me? Or will I take them up in a fight. Will I breed you as my rival and so take you on as take you up.
All I am certain of this I cannot ignore you.
I cannot be other than in your sibling shadow.
However if you are my sister to my bother or visa versa the problem is even more acuter. For how can I know which bit of difference is difference of gender and which a sibling difference I might have this other brothers or sisters? Where I we going to start to differ what we are? And are we going to take up into our relation our parents effects upon us. Two we split a gender of our parents? That is alt least easy! Or perhaps sexual attraction ( you are the one I do not fancy), is a sensible pointer for the split. For split there must be.
Have you any ideas?
The Epilogue – the glance or message
Allot ease element pose the same deep problem. How can my mind resolve itself using others. How can I be a mid at all without others. A brain lights up in the grasping of other elements. It exists in the ability to exchange with others. Others therefore rightly or wrongly set the parameters into which I must poor a self. The exchange predates the individuals. I is that in which the individuals bound there minds.
The problem then with exchange is what is being exchanged. Or better what is the pointer or point at which one is getter the other wrong?
That is how is one missing them. it is in these misses, in these illicit tumbling, this too much of a thing, that the reality of the exchange to an individual is felt. That is that is the point that they come into the scene as the error. The but that went wonky, and used information that was elsewhere in a way not defined by that other. There is meaning in glances the deeper the meaning to more ambiguos the glance!