"Ju-nie would like your attention, excuse me." You have my attention, Junie. 🫡
I have always loved the idea of ignorance in Buddhism, that the true nature of things is a misrelation in oneself, that there is both progress but no progress: finding oneself in the same spot in a different manner. I'm interested in how you connect the Buddhist idea of ignorance to the Christian's ideas original sin and fallenness. Hmm! Hmm, I say! I love your seeing but am never totally on board...oh how you tease my meaning, orange horizon 🙈
Love to see you post, and a beatiful tribute to Junie. You guys are so cute. Thanks for this. Wishing you the best always.
This is adorable, and you are a fantastic writer. Cats have a way of expressing divinity that I think us human beings generally do not see; I think we could benefit from more folks with perspectives like these. Right now I’m reading Feline Philosophy by John Gray, and while a generally lighthearted text, it does make me think existentially about the nature of owning pets, and how that dynamic might be better if we did not imagine ourselves as owners at all. Disciples, even. I think of Anna Kingsford, a woman who, Henry Olcott claimed, denied human conceptions of affection except in the context of her Guinea pig. A new favorite of mine is Mary Olivier: A Life by May Sinclair, and I’d be lying if I said my preference for it wasn’t at least subtly influenced by the hundred-year-old pictures I found of the author and a black cat. The realm of the mystical and the realm of the feline, I think, are intertwined for all those who have ever awoken in the hours before dawn to find a familiar furry shape asleep directly atop their ribcage— for all those who have seen strays with the same color eyes or same flash of fur as a beloved childhood pet. Oh, I miss my cat! Thanks for this post, Sam. Your writing is always a joy.
Thank you, Cara! Perfectly put - the feline is one more of those realms (alongside laughter and inebriation, of course...) where the Divine speaks with a tad more clarity.
Ebtsam - sorry I took a little while to respond. Yes, all wisdom, as I predicted. I (radically) think we tend to agree more frequently than we realise, and perhaps that misunderstanding is due to the strange experience of meeting someone for the first time in a philosophy class. I don't know that it's always best for the spirit to spend the opening weeks of a relationship debating ideas that tend to be very close to one's heart. Alas.
I think the format and time of Evans' class was a little limited, and so I wasn't able to convey much about the reality - and so the necessity of acceptance thereof - of sin and suffering. It was more an attempt to defend the metaphysical principle of privatio boni, which I will admit I am reconsidering a little after reading Schelling but to which I still maintain my allegiance. In a way, though, the extremity of discourse was sort of necessary for my viewpoint: in one sense, I believe one must speak very strongly about the vacuous and privative nature of suffering (I find the idea that it really does have a say in the Grand Scheme of Things most repulsive of all, rather than merely being a catastrophic mistake), whilst at the same time also speaking very strongly to its absolute acceptance, as I say in this and the last article. It is perhaps easy to think me on one side or the other as a result, but I try to insist on both in equal measure, even if my Protestant heritage sometimes skews the scales.
I do love the idea of a culture that knows and loves siestas and 'sitting and eating it', whichever nation it belongs to. It is a very mature philosophy which allows that sort of thing. And I also agree, on a very important level, with your point about life saying 'no'; it really is that which shakes us away from egoism, and allows us to realise the Divine will or 'hukam' (to borrow from Sikhism) which always unfolds infinitely beyond the petty attractions and aversions of individuals. But I'm doubling down on the sadism comment (so long as you know it was a joke) :)
"Ju-nie would like your attention, excuse me." You have my attention, Junie. 🫡
I have always loved the idea of ignorance in Buddhism, that the true nature of things is a misrelation in oneself, that there is both progress but no progress: finding oneself in the same spot in a different manner. I'm interested in how you connect the Buddhist idea of ignorance to the Christian's ideas original sin and fallenness. Hmm! Hmm, I say! I love your seeing but am never totally on board...oh how you tease my meaning, orange horizon 🙈
Love to see you post, and a beatiful tribute to Junie. You guys are so cute. Thanks for this. Wishing you the best always.
This is adorable, and you are a fantastic writer. Cats have a way of expressing divinity that I think us human beings generally do not see; I think we could benefit from more folks with perspectives like these. Right now I’m reading Feline Philosophy by John Gray, and while a generally lighthearted text, it does make me think existentially about the nature of owning pets, and how that dynamic might be better if we did not imagine ourselves as owners at all. Disciples, even. I think of Anna Kingsford, a woman who, Henry Olcott claimed, denied human conceptions of affection except in the context of her Guinea pig. A new favorite of mine is Mary Olivier: A Life by May Sinclair, and I’d be lying if I said my preference for it wasn’t at least subtly influenced by the hundred-year-old pictures I found of the author and a black cat. The realm of the mystical and the realm of the feline, I think, are intertwined for all those who have ever awoken in the hours before dawn to find a familiar furry shape asleep directly atop their ribcage— for all those who have seen strays with the same color eyes or same flash of fur as a beloved childhood pet. Oh, I miss my cat! Thanks for this post, Sam. Your writing is always a joy.
Thank you, Cara! Perfectly put - the feline is one more of those realms (alongside laughter and inebriation, of course...) where the Divine speaks with a tad more clarity.
Ebtsam - sorry I took a little while to respond. Yes, all wisdom, as I predicted. I (radically) think we tend to agree more frequently than we realise, and perhaps that misunderstanding is due to the strange experience of meeting someone for the first time in a philosophy class. I don't know that it's always best for the spirit to spend the opening weeks of a relationship debating ideas that tend to be very close to one's heart. Alas.
I think the format and time of Evans' class was a little limited, and so I wasn't able to convey much about the reality - and so the necessity of acceptance thereof - of sin and suffering. It was more an attempt to defend the metaphysical principle of privatio boni, which I will admit I am reconsidering a little after reading Schelling but to which I still maintain my allegiance. In a way, though, the extremity of discourse was sort of necessary for my viewpoint: in one sense, I believe one must speak very strongly about the vacuous and privative nature of suffering (I find the idea that it really does have a say in the Grand Scheme of Things most repulsive of all, rather than merely being a catastrophic mistake), whilst at the same time also speaking very strongly to its absolute acceptance, as I say in this and the last article. It is perhaps easy to think me on one side or the other as a result, but I try to insist on both in equal measure, even if my Protestant heritage sometimes skews the scales.
I do love the idea of a culture that knows and loves siestas and 'sitting and eating it', whichever nation it belongs to. It is a very mature philosophy which allows that sort of thing. And I also agree, on a very important level, with your point about life saying 'no'; it really is that which shakes us away from egoism, and allows us to realise the Divine will or 'hukam' (to borrow from Sikhism) which always unfolds infinitely beyond the petty attractions and aversions of individuals. But I'm doubling down on the sadism comment (so long as you know it was a joke) :)