RE: Godot: An Introduction

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Scottie Bowman: "unexpected balls"
• Previous message: Malcolm Lawrence: "Re: Godot: An Introduction"

You know, I wanted to say that for weeks. 

As an 18 year old with the burden of the generation zero surroundings 
I've got the same issues which, in the adult context, are referred to as 
"Teen angst." To me, it just seems crucial that I avoid mediocrity. Not 
mediocrity in the sense that most people take it to mean; rather; 
spiritual numbness.
 
There was a comment made by the only other kid who talks in my English 
400 class; about Ernest Hemingway. He said that Hemingway was, more or 
less, ruled by an unwritten set of codes about when and where to do 
everything. "You catch the grasshopper at a certain point, and you let go 
of the grasshopper at a certian point." Is what he said. 

And, for much seperate reasons, I feel the same way: Spiritual 
Perfectionism, as hypocritical as it is. There is a certain way to act, a 
certain way to react; that is in lines with "God," if thats what we call 
it; and certain things that are merely a result of "god." 

Now I know what this sounds like. It sounds terribly elitist and directly 
against the concept of the universal beauty. But it isn't...because being 
in line or out of line with God  doesn't matter, since all of it is a 
direct reflection of God. And they say that god is beautiful. But what if 
beauty is god? God is everywhere. And so is beauty. 

Meanwhile; we have Seymours description that Abraham Lincolns speech at 
Gettysburgh should have simply been to shake his fist at teh audience. 
I agree; I think most of us see his point. You let go of the grasshopper 
at a certain point.

Then there's Muriel Fedder; who can't be in line with god/tao/beauty 
because she can't see it, lucky girl. She paints her fingernails and 
quibbles with her mother. She's missing the meta-narrative, the 
detatchment that allows you to see "it."

Is Muriel any less beatiful than Seymour? I don't think so. In fact, 
Muriel is more "beautiful" as a creation of it, the result of "it"...and 
Seymour is beautiful as a reflection of it.

What shall we do, what shall we do, with all this useless beauty?
-Elvis Costello. 

The overrall temporariness of this existance just doesn't seem to phase 
people as much as it should. I'll tell you this, not to brag, but a 
certain person I know once sat still in the woods at night just to let 
mosquitos bite him; because that was a part of teh human experience. 
maybe its melodramatic, but personally, with the limitations of an 
80-year sentence to this "perfect playhouse prison," I think we're all 
being rather UNDER Dramatic about the entire nature of "living." No one 
does it, it seems, no one allows themselves to detatch themselves from 
"Their Lives" and connect to "life" (minus the ownership.)

Salinger, to me, captures the crisis point of that moment of realization. 
Everything Franny says is true, nonetheless, she didn't allow herself to 
sit in the academic woods and be bitten by those english proffessors as 
part of the human experience. She didn't accept things as they are.   


The man who calls himself ecas

			<MaTRiX>WWW.ONE38.ORG</MaTRiX>
		    <a href="http://www.one38.org">TOYS!</a>
    [INLINE][INLINE][INLINE][INLINE][INLINE][INLINE][INLINE][INLINE][INLINE]

• Next message: Scottie Bowman: "unexpected balls"
• Previous message: Malcolm Lawrence: "Re: Godot: An Introduction"