The Wanderer...


"En retard – late –
The retarded mind comes late to thought.
It acts first and then justifies its actions afterwards – usually to others through itself.
The advanced mind comes late to action.
It thinks first to justify its acting beforehand – usually to itself through others.

The first will appear decisive and daring, especially to itself, even if it is thoughtless in its acting, and will claim that the justifications which it finds for its actions, after the fact, are supported by the consequences of its acting, in hindsight.
It will convince itself that it had thought itself forward when it has done so backwards.

The second will appear indecisive and cautious, even if it is thoughtful in its acting, and will claim that the justifications which it finds for its actions, before the fact, are supported by the consequences of its acting, in foresight.
It will convince itself that it has acted forward when it has done so backwards.

It is true that of the two methods the first is the most ubiquitous, owing to the fact that it is always an easier task to explain circumstances when they have already occurred and that have now become established instances of the past which can then be analyzed and memorized from the distance of the present. This requires neither great insight nor a completeness of thought or accuracy of awareness. It only requires the ability to construct a reasoned plausibility drawn from the selective interpretation of details as they become available through others – such as in history – and an instinctive drive to release oneself to whims and desires in the most primitive way.
The added advantage of this method of being is that it allows for the constant reinterpretation of events and the distance created by time creates some objective clarity, if the mind can retain the memories intact and devoid of egotism and if it has access to the details, either through abstracted memory or historical documentation, that participated in it.

It is for this basic reason why history repeats itself and why many people seem to fall into a pattern of action that can make them predictable and irrational. By the time an event is comprehended it has already occurred in imitation of previous events and the mind(s) that participated in recreating it took little heed, beforehand, of the signs that pointed back to a previous time.
The ego, often, resists projecting itself forwards, choosing instead to believe that the errors of the past were caused by another’s weakness and another’s inferiorities which it can avoid or surpass or correct; it resists learning from the experiences of others and is forced to repeat them in order to understand them – limiting itself to first-hand knowledge and placing emotional barriers between itself and the vast amounts of information available in its surroundings.
This lack of imagination coupled with arrogant egotism is a fundamental aspect of human frailty and establishes a limit to reason.

The second method will have the more difficult task of projecting into the future the accumulated result of its abstracted perceptions of the past and present – whether these accumulated perceptions were first-hand or second-hand experiences is of little importance.
The accuracy of its imagination and of its consequent predictions will be determined by how closely the results correspond with its expectations and how well it has perceived and incorporated details into its plan.

The first will rarely be disappointed or disheartened - it has few projected expectations but adapts its abstractions to whatever occurs, and interprets them according to its needs and desires; acting occurs intuitively and instinctively and is then incorporated into expectation.
The second faces the specter of disappointment and disillusionment constantly and will often feel unconfident with its ability to perceive and control its destiny, due to the vast amounts of information needing incorporation into a reliable abstraction and the acknowledgment that much more has been lost. It will often turn on itself in condemnation because, being a mere human mind, it cannot fully avoid error or control circumstances - taking full responsibility for its failings.

Where the first will blame it all on others, since it has participated little in its own destiny and has found an identity in acting and being for others through which it finds itself there in its past and explaining its present as predestined - the second will mostly blame itself, since its participation is greater in its own destiny and has found an identity in acting and being for itself and then imagining itself there in its future; a future that can never perfectly correspond to expectation and so always a source for dissatisfaction.

The retarded thinker will be weary of thinking – calling it “over-thinking” so as to avoid the shame, towards others, of thoughtlessness – because it is a hindrance to its acting through which it discovers itself in how others appreciate and value its acting.
The advanced thinker will be weary of acting – calling it “foolish” or even “meaningless” so as to avoid the shame, towards others, of inaction – because it is a hindrance to its thinking through which it realizes itself."

Man, this Wanderer dude sounds like a pretentious goofball.

Maybe he’s retarded.

Brilliant. But are you trying to say that it would be better if no walls were in place in society? We could all paint our houses in pink and purple polka dots and run around naked frolicking hand in hand, laughing, playing with no rules or perameters. How can we still be free to be individuals and stay within — dare I say: guidelines? I am such a free spirit that I struggle with this daily. What do you think, Satyr?

I enjoyed reading the retardation quote.

I enjoy allot of your threads.

One of the main issues with a persons inability to handle and think about reality is:
All of the false reality and delusion that they have set up in place of truth.

“Thinking too much” wouldn’t be so hard on them if they didn’t have such a silly worldview.

Thanks again.
Take care now.


Control is essential.
We place limits to our horizons so as to become masters within them.
Walls are how we exclude and distinguish.

But social/cultural walls are pre-existent and not decided upon by the individual, who is born into them and is forced to adjust to their boundaries.

Should we accept the identity imposed upon us from birth by others or should we be free to decide for ourselves?
Is not knowing what binds us half the work towards emancipating ourselves from them?

My elitism dictates that social walls are essential for the masses who make things comfortable for us all.
Sheeple should be kept as they are – confined within their beliefs.
The rest of us – if we wish to call ourselves “free-spirits” - should explore the possibilities.

I’m not sure I understand the “Retardation”; it seems like a large set of generalizations that aren’t tied together logically. Why would the same type of person who comes late to action justify its acting to itself through others? Why would someone who justifies their actions beforehand come late to action?

I think I understand Walls, but I disagree with it. Society may have limitations, but so do people. You couldn’t achieve every possibility just because you weren’t limited by society; you couldn’t even always achieve every possibility if those possibilities were limited by society. Democratic society tries to limit people in such a way that everyone is served; people can choose their limits, for one thing. Furthermore, without limitations, there would be no definition. Without definition, there would be no perception. Without perception there’d be no truth or freedom.

Someone coming late to action justifies his actions to himself by invoking a necessity imposed upon him externally, beforehand.
He might not always want to act, thinking this acting is meaningless or absurd, but he is forced to by others or by the environment or by circumstances.
The other becomes the reason why he acts.

I do not want to go to work but I am forced to by a socio-economic system which imposes itself on my being. I justify my acting to myself by using the other(s) who make up a system with rules and who dictate the direction and purpose of my acting.

I do not want to eat but my participation in this universe, as an existence, imposes a necessity upon my rational mind and forces it to act in order to maintain itself. I justify my action of feeding - or my action upon another being which I kill with my need so as to consume it - by using it to justify my actions to myself.

I may think that sex is absurd and a primitive drive which controls my being and determines my existence with a pulsating need, but I act on my sexual need anyways, giving in to my need even though I think this beforehand, as a necessary means forced upon me by my own mortality (that is the attrition of the other or the other-than-that-which-I-call-me, upon me – that is that which I long to be and only am incompletely) and due to the fact that it is my only viable option in continuing myself using another (mate) or through another (offspring) or I am forced to by my need for the other(s) (that is the psychological need passed down to me from the other(s) through genetics) and for my own well-being.
So, I justify my acting to myself using the other.

The unthinking mind acts upon its physical need to have sex or to eat and then, afterwards, justifies its acting, even if beforehand it needed no justification but was only blind physical need seeking its own completion without awareness.
It acts first, instinctively, and then comes up with reasons why it did so or why it did so in that way. Its action is unconscious and becomes conscious afterwards when the act is over.

I justify my life (life being perpetual action; perpetual need- suffering, incompleteness) to myself by using others, even if my thinking has lead me to the realization that life is meaningless or absurd or without purpose.
I find purpose in and through others as I find my sense of identity through them. I might make life meaningful in posterity or in pursuit of an ideal.
I live to be a good father to my children or in hope or with an ambition, as a projection of myself into a possible future state - as the other, the self, which I want to become but I am not yet.
The other, in this case, becomes a hypothesized, imagined projection of self into the future; an idealized self constructed through others.

Because he has to think through all the implications and possibilities so as to ascertain a justifiable reason to act in a specific and efficient manner, or to act at all.
This takes time and so acting becomes a cumbersome act of evaluation.

In this case action becomes awkward, even if more efficient.
One need not learn through trial and error derived only from personal experience, but the trials and errors of others can be used, in unison with an accurate self-evaluation, to imagine one’s self within a trial and avoiding an error.

So the limitations of self are an imposition of the other upon your being.
I am me because I am not him or her or it.
Now when the other is inanimate its limitation power is physical. I cannot walk through the wall because “I” am restricted by this Other phenomenon.
When the other has the added characteristic of life (that is animated) then its limitation power over me is also wilful or it can be wilful.
I cannot have that car because it is owned and wilfully controlled by another.
I cannot freely walk through these woods because there might be a another conscious being that might willfully take my flesh for its own use, by killing and feeding on me.

The more others there are the more limits there are, as more and more possibilities must be accommodated (preventing strife) and therefore the more walls there are.

One way systems deal with this multiplicity of possibility is by imposing an ideal or by indoctrinating minds into a way of thinking which limits the options of what is possible or desirable.
We call this culture.
They harmonize a unity of individuals by making individuals similar – carbon copies of one another – with similar desires and so similar possibilities.
This is accomplished by levelling every mind into a community of being, where individual qualities lose their significance and everything that differentiates is disregarded.
Then everything from race, to sex, to culture to individuality becomes undesirable, since it serves to promote distinctness and so more possibility.
Ironic that in a culture which glorifies individuality, such as our own in the west, the expressions of individuality are limited to particular types.

Ambitions are streamlined by making them a systemic ideal.
Wealth and consumerism is maintained, for example, by indoctrinating minds into a way of thinking, or by diverting pre-existent instinctive drives, which makes the pursuit of wealth paramount and which makes consuming a way of evaluating self-worth and meaning.
Identity, that is individuality, is defined using particular methods and so individuality is restricted in its possibility.

I understand that the angels of the highest heavens live in their own houses. However, when viewed from afar, they appear as little children, and naked. :wink:

And who here is not a child or naked?

We are naked, but (unfortunately) are encouraged to be naked on our own time. We are children but need to act like adults. Why? We are trying to be civilized although running naked and throwing things at each other might sound fun. In board meetings it might get a little hairy. We have the same problem here at ILP… trying to maintain some level of civility even tho’ we enjoy throwing sand in each other’s eyes. Sandbox… remember the sandbox, Satyr? I know you do. :smiley:

So how can we maintain childlike qualities and live in the adult world with rules? Why is it that everyone gets so jaded? The book about what we learned in Kindergarten was most important.
Share everything.
Play fair.
Don’t hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don’t take things that aren’t yours.
Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.

[/i]Everything you need

[size=75](except the kissing and the hugging)[/size] :wink:

What… :confused: …I’m nice… :wink:

I would suggest that giving in isn’t quite the same as giving up. I refuse to accept a black and white picture of humanity. The social ‘slave’ or the stand alone individualist. We are neither and we are both But we neither see nor understand the reality of either or both together until we let both ego-visions go and simply be. Mind exacts a terrible price.

I’ve had dreams where everyone around me appeared to be clothed, and I happened to notice my own nakedness. Usually I would be without my shorts. And I felt it was either necessary to get out of that situation or, find a way to conceal it. It’s funny how no-one rarely even noticed it though.

Wearing your shorts doesn’t mean that you aren’t naked. [-X
It means you’ve concealed your nakedness underneath a uniform, a cultural metaphor, a social construct, a title.

Wearing clothes will not hide your nakedness from a discerning eye. It will only distract the superficial and the inept one with their flowing, graceful, and often exaggerating, fabrics.

Such dreams are usually a symptom concerning being seen as what you fear you are by those that are mesmerized by what you would like to and pretend to be.

Notwithstanding that a certain amount of comfort and “suitability” is derived from wearing clothes. :laughing:

That depends, on whether or not they’re comfortable with their lot and looking beyond that.

Either that or it means I don’t quite fit in and feel exposed.

So it is that the Sage traverses the pathways of the world, without care for others ideas of him.

From the righteous will be heard, “Look at him, he is wicked, and walks here and there, and does not abide our laws or customs.”

From the lowly will be heard, “Look at him, so aloof and arrogant, he pays us no mind, as if we don’t even exist.”

From the leaders of nations will be heard, “Look for him, he cares not for our policies and borders, he is wanton and without loyalty, a danger is he.”

From the Sage will one hear nothing, as he follows the path that ascends, and listens only to the world outside of men for his direction. Acting only upon that which he needs react to maintain the path.


Let’s take it a step farther…What if the Sage is wicked?


I agree the Sage is outside of the world, but he still interacts within it, for if he did it not the ‘sage’ would not exist. It would likely be replaced by the unknown, or the loner. The sage is such because he exists among us, standing out like a sore thumb of wisdom/introspection.

Killer? sure. Wise? Yes.


Oxymoronic … wicked is not the Sage. No more discussion necessary.

skids to a stop


Sages who don’t care are not as wise as they may seem. Are they sages at all? hmmm.

Those who seem wicked are, in fact, just human; we, as humans, all have such earthy ways. Those righteous ones know what is truly the essence of life and are not concerned with such trivialities.

And those enlightened ones see the bigger picture, knowing those who speak the loudest usually know the least.

No, no. The truly learned never looks down upon those who seem ignorant. He knows that the wisdom of the simplest man can rule the world.

He is only a danger to himself. He is like all men until they see the truth. The truth is not what they want through their wild emotion, but that which feeds all men. That which is love. That which even the lowly understand. Most especially the lowly.

A sage is never so single-minded or selfish as to listen only to that which isn’t worldy, for he lives in a world of simple men whom he regards fully and completely… as he regards himself.

Sara :slight_smile: