My Theory is as follows.
If the mind concedes that it can perceive talent either externally or internally, then the mind must also concede that it can perceive what it is to be un-talented. Therefore the mind must concede it is merely a scale of judgement.
If talent is a scale of judgement then it is a matter of perspective, as only the mind that perceives will be able to exact the correct amount of judgement adequate for the talent seen from its perspective.
This however leads to disagreement as perspective is dynamic. One might argue that they have just seen a talented action, but another witness might argue that the action was not talented at all. This is because they both have different perspectives. They both judge talent differently.
So the mind must concede that talent is indeed a matter of opinion. In fact the mind can perceive all systems of judgment to be a matter of opinion. Further more to disagree with this statement will actually prove the point, as this theory is coming from my perspective.
So if all systems of judgement be they of talent or not are perspective related and therefore argumentative, then what is the point of talent if it creates incongruous behaviour. So the question becomes not what is talent?, but why is there talent?
So talent exists merely as a lesson in perspective? In essence to teach that perspective is fragmentary and incongruous. When the mind can view without perspective it can then view everything as a whole. That means it is in harmony with everything and not trapped within itself. It is free to create and explore all.
This however leads to a paradoxical question because in order for the mind to stop judging it must judge itself. And this is a question I will answer in my next post.
If talent is a scale of judgement then it is a matter of perspective, as only the mind that perceives will be able to exact the correct amount of judgement adequate for the talent seen from its perspective.
This however leads to disagreement as perspective is dynamic. One might argue that they have just seen a talented action, but another witness might argue that the action was not talented at all. This is because they both have different perspectives. They both judge talent differently.
So the mind must concede that talent is indeed a matter of opinion. In fact the mind can perceive all systems of judgment to be a matter of opinion. Further more to disagree with this statement will actually prove the point, as this theory is coming from my perspective.
So if all systems of judgement be they of talent or not are perspective related and therefore argumentative, then what is the point of talent if it creates incongruous behaviour. So the question becomes not what is talent?, but why is there talent?
So talent exists merely as a lesson in perspective? In essence to teach that perspective is fragmentary and incongruous. When the mind can view without perspective it can then view everything as a whole. That means it is in harmony with everything and not trapped within itself. It is free to create and explore all.
This however leads to a paradoxical question because in order for the mind to stop judging it must judge itself. And this is a question I will answer in my next post.
Words: Free Speech
No comments:
Post a Comment