Meuny 2024-02-29 17:38:20

I have no intention of offending or belittling you, after all, I've read some of your poetic-philosophical aphorisms and I'm sure you've taken into account that at some point someone will criticise you. I honestly don't want to be a pain in the arse, in fact, I want to bring a perspective to the table that might be interesting to you at some point.

Anyway, let's review the first part of your speech:

"To think that one must always focus...... That very idea itself is illusory (...)".

So far, what has been constructed, both aesthetically and in terms of content, is fine if we assume that the part where he says "That very idea itself is illusory" could be changed to "that idea, when isolated from the influence of social categories, is illusory" or, if you prefer, "individually, that perspective is a lie". And then the following thesis could be constructed: "And to think that you always have to concentrate... This idea in itself is illusory because concentration in itself means nothing or produces nothing."

The way the idea is phrased initially makes the content of the text ambiguous, just like a Nietzschean aphorism. However, from there we must move on to the second part of the text, which gives the context of his thesis:

"(...) for if one never puts their thinking outside of the box, they shall never see the bigger picture.".

A beautiful conclusion! However, the ambiguity of the term "thinking outside the box" makes it difficult to synthesise a material solution to the point you've made. After all, what should be considered "thinking outside the box" and, taking a poetic liberty, what would that "box" be?

Standardised parameters imposed by a culture industry? A status quo that prevents us from exploring different perspectives on one issue or another in our social life? A strict imposition of a creed, an ideology, methods, traditions, beliefs, etc. that restrict us from being the most genuine form of ourselves? The formulated ambiguity doesn't stop there, however, it would be too exhausting for me to list every possible formulation that can be made with this phrase.

If we use the assumption I mentioned earlier, the phrase makes enough sense. We could say it like this: "Demanding that you always be focused is a mistake, this perspective that we should always be productive or highly engaged in the conceptions of what we produce is in itself an illusion, because if we don't know how to deviate from the cultural, ideological, religious, etc. perspectives imposed in the status quo of a specific society, we are merely blinding ourselves to the bigger picture, to the managerial root of the ideas and perspectives that we possess as artists and, above all, as social beings."

If we take your aphorism in this sense, the synthesis we will have will therefore be sufficient and, what's more, aesthetically satisfying.

Proceeding with your text, you conclude:

"(...) The kind of perspective that makes one see the whole world in a single stone, thus gifting them an even stronger sense of focus that they never would've received had they not gone out-of-focus.."

And that really is the end of the aphorism.

And again, I don't mean to be offensive or anything, I just wanted thnki about what you said.

Meuny 2024-02-29 19:12:10

@Jojo um, that's not how others feel, mate. It is I who's a bother. Sorry to make you feel like everyone is annoyed by your stuff, i cannot speak for the other people that see your work but I surely ain't annoyed. I'm sorry, mate.

Meuny 2024-02-29 23:25:02

@Jojo oh, ok then. thats neat