[Xmca-l] Re: Verismo and the Gothic

[Annalisa Aguilar]

Dear Vera, David and esteemed others,

The exact reason that the present moment cannot be divided or bounded is a distinct clue to understanding being, because being doesn't change, though the mind does change. Which is to say there is a distinction between being and mind, in the sense that being is a field of awareness which includes the world, and the mind is the instrument which takes it all in (via the present moment). 

That is why the being of the sky is no different than the being of the sun, or any other being in terms of existence. It is as if the sky is beingness in the shape of the sky, the sun is beingness in the shape of the sun, and so on. 

If being doesn't change, and the mind does, the mind is dependent upon being in order to change (which provides mind the sense of becoming, of the mind developing and maturing in time); like the sky is dependent upon being in order to change.

Being, on the other hand, unlike the mind, is outside of time and of space, because it cannot be bounded nor divided. We can see this in our experience of the three states of mind: in the awake state, the dream state, and the deep sleep state. In all three states of mind we each are aware of that state, even if the mind has different qualities through these states (that change). The I AM of "I am awake," "I am dreaming," "I am in deep sleep" is the same, but the mind changes. This isn't a description of anything that is outside of anyone's experience, to see it for oneself. Just like the present moment is always available, it's like that. 

What can be a sticky point for some is when we take our being to be dependent upon the mind. That I am my mind and all my reality is based upon the changing states of my mind, when actually it is the mind that is dependent upon me. (That is why I say "my mind": my mind is me, I am not my mind (because I am more than my mind)). But reflection upon this can reveal this is the case, not because I say so or post it in words on the list!  :) It is self-evident, meaning you can see it for yourself.

Birthing and dying are experiences that come and go, but we could not experience them as coming and going without having some stationary point by which to know they are coming and going. That stationary point is being, as alive to us through awareness, which is always available in no other time other than the present moment. 

In fact it is so available to us that we take it for granted, like fish take the water for granted.

I am suggesting most earnestly, that the notion of hope arises from a mind that longs for something better because that is always the nature of the mind. It is a sensing tool (called perception and feeling) with a built-in problem solver (called thinking) which combined is an "inner instrument" that we call mind (in a body)(in a history)(in a culture)(in a society)(in an environment)(sometimes, grasping tools) as united, in being, in the present moment.

What I learn from Vygotsky is that the developing (changing) mind is motivated by meaning. I love this. Meaning cannot be preordained. It arises in the present moment for that person who experiences this meaning, and it can manifest in many different forms. So hope is to meaning like the bird flying to its nest. Though meaning can manifest even in hopelessness.

I believe it possible that znachenie slova (word-meaning) is a unit to reference meaning but in relation to the word (or words as representing that meaning at that moment), while at the same time this same meaning could easily be attached to other modalities, perhaps intertwined with the other senses, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching (and may explain why smells or songs conjure memories...meaningful to us). The are kinds of embodied meaning or meaning embodied.

So meaning doesn't happen by words alone: we add meaning through the tone of our voice, how slowly or quickly we are speaking, if we are avoiding eye contact vs holding it, if we are speaking while moving our hands or with our backs to those we are speaking to, for example. Still, even though we rely upon the social conjurings of meaning through language in various contextual circumstances, language isn't all there is for meaning-making and sensing meaning.

Artists, musicians, and writers are adept at creating meaning beyond the word, by recreating sensual moments we can live through in the present moment. 

But how to be scientific about these meanings, the "most precisely"? The only viable path is through verbal language, which is the only form of transmission (of meaning) from one mind to another, independent of perception (and independent of time and space, if we write it down). Perhaps this is also because language possesses more precision or granularity from its powers of description and abstraction. Yet it isn't exact because we have so many opportunities to misunderstand one another through language. Is it not amazing that we can even understand each other at all?

It is magic!

Kind regards,

Annalisa