" ... we don't hurry through life looking for outcomes all the time, however many times we're told that we should, and that we should be overtaking people, and overcoming things as we go. The labyrinth doesn't tell us how to live; it shows us how we do live ..."
That's a quote from the last page of "Our Tragic Universe" by the way, not the David Bowie film. It resonated, just a little. Although I am a competitive person by nature, at the same time I don't act competitive because I should. It made me think of how I've approached labyrinths I've been in, like the one at Black Gang Chine, and in Disneyworld at the Alice in Wonderland feature.
In Black Gang Chine, when I was about ten, I figured it out pretty quickly. I didn't hit as many dead ends as my brothers and sister (who could've cared less). It was the first thing we did there, and when I looked back over the maze, because the exit went up a hill, I saw one path that would have gotten me out quicker.
The Disneyland one is less satisfying. I went into all the dead ends on purpose. The main route was laid out, was over-populated. I went into all the nooks and crannies to get more of an experience.
My point is, if the way we approach labyrinths is about how we approach life, then I should notice some key facts here; my competitive nature, my ability to figure out a problem quickly (and act on it, though there's a little more of a delay in the last couple of years), my dissatifaction if something's handed to me too easily, if there's no need to work at a problem. It's in the work I find happiness.
I've recently discovered an opportunity to do some hard work to achieve something I'd find admirable. It'd help me escape from the thing I was given too easily. Was it Groucho Marx or his brother who said 'I don't want to join any club that would have me as a member'? I shunned one university option who, after a terrible interview on my part, offered me a place with a reduced A level grade from advertised ... and if I'd had the luxury of choice, maybe I would have approached my current situation with the same distaste. I'd gladly take the hypocracy of that statement if there's a challenge though. But lets not hold our breath ... sorry for the lack of proper information here, I don't want to announce I'm doing something I'm not. At the moment, I'm just living in hope.
Let's have a subject change, shall we? Sort of. I finished Scarlett Thomas' book today. I kinda feel about it how I felt about The Tree Of Seasons. I understand how the book flowed like it did, why decisions were made and events happened, but there was something still a little dissatisfying. She talked endlessly of the Storyless Story, and in some ways this book manifests as that - she doesn't get the guy (she doesn't get any guy), the book is a story of ideas and theories without the proof. Like it's left to the reader to prove what's said, or treat it as a 'Zen Story' (I'll find one and put it at the end. It won't be long!). She also talks about this fictional writer, called Kelsey Newman, who hypothesises about how we're already dead and living in this Omega Point as created by this supercomputer, reliving our lives endlessly until we do something worthwhile with them, becoming the hero and fighting personal demons to prove we are worth our heaven (like if Second World were jigsaw, from the saw films, or if we were all meant to live out books like 'On The Road' to reach enlightenment). But the guy encounters this beast that never was and at first they think he's dead and it turns out he got bitten by a dog. Which I guess in some ways is a little like a storyless story but once again, dissatisfying. Another character may or may not have committed suicide but there's nothing concrete about that either. The protagonist leaves her long-term boyfriend halfway through, but little more is said about him, and she doesn't seem to grieve.
I much prefer the end of Mr Y. I mean, it was good, but 'the gun' didn't go off (actually, a real gun was fired, but you know what I mean) which was the whole point but why that would be desirable I don't know. It perplexes me, which I'm sure was the point. Dissatisfaction must be what she was after. But it didn't excite me the way the ideas in TEOMY did. I miss the excitement Scarlett ... again, this must be the entire point, and is certainly the point of the above statement, hence why I included the first bit.
So, the Zen story, straight from the pages:
"There is an old woman who looks after a monk while he meditates for twenty years. She gives him food and water and makes his clothes and eventually sends a prostitute to throw herself at him because she wants to see what he does with all his wisdom. He's taken a vow of chastity, but will he be tempted? The monk says something poetic to the prostitute about an old tree growing on a cold rock, and tells her there is 'no warmth'. When the spurned prostitute tells of this, the old woman is angry that she has supported someone who after twenty years has not learnt compassion. Then she goes and burns his hut down."
That's a quote from the last page of "Our Tragic Universe" by the way, not the David Bowie film. It resonated, just a little. Although I am a competitive person by nature, at the same time I don't act competitive because I should. It made me think of how I've approached labyrinths I've been in, like the one at Black Gang Chine, and in Disneyworld at the Alice in Wonderland feature.
In Black Gang Chine, when I was about ten, I figured it out pretty quickly. I didn't hit as many dead ends as my brothers and sister (who could've cared less). It was the first thing we did there, and when I looked back over the maze, because the exit went up a hill, I saw one path that would have gotten me out quicker.
The Disneyland one is less satisfying. I went into all the dead ends on purpose. The main route was laid out, was over-populated. I went into all the nooks and crannies to get more of an experience.
My point is, if the way we approach labyrinths is about how we approach life, then I should notice some key facts here; my competitive nature, my ability to figure out a problem quickly (and act on it, though there's a little more of a delay in the last couple of years), my dissatifaction if something's handed to me too easily, if there's no need to work at a problem. It's in the work I find happiness.
I've recently discovered an opportunity to do some hard work to achieve something I'd find admirable. It'd help me escape from the thing I was given too easily. Was it Groucho Marx or his brother who said 'I don't want to join any club that would have me as a member'? I shunned one university option who, after a terrible interview on my part, offered me a place with a reduced A level grade from advertised ... and if I'd had the luxury of choice, maybe I would have approached my current situation with the same distaste. I'd gladly take the hypocracy of that statement if there's a challenge though. But lets not hold our breath ... sorry for the lack of proper information here, I don't want to announce I'm doing something I'm not. At the moment, I'm just living in hope.
Let's have a subject change, shall we? Sort of. I finished Scarlett Thomas' book today. I kinda feel about it how I felt about The Tree Of Seasons. I understand how the book flowed like it did, why decisions were made and events happened, but there was something still a little dissatisfying. She talked endlessly of the Storyless Story, and in some ways this book manifests as that - she doesn't get the guy (she doesn't get any guy), the book is a story of ideas and theories without the proof. Like it's left to the reader to prove what's said, or treat it as a 'Zen Story' (I'll find one and put it at the end. It won't be long!). She also talks about this fictional writer, called Kelsey Newman, who hypothesises about how we're already dead and living in this Omega Point as created by this supercomputer, reliving our lives endlessly until we do something worthwhile with them, becoming the hero and fighting personal demons to prove we are worth our heaven (like if Second World were jigsaw, from the saw films, or if we were all meant to live out books like 'On The Road' to reach enlightenment). But the guy encounters this beast that never was and at first they think he's dead and it turns out he got bitten by a dog. Which I guess in some ways is a little like a storyless story but once again, dissatisfying. Another character may or may not have committed suicide but there's nothing concrete about that either. The protagonist leaves her long-term boyfriend halfway through, but little more is said about him, and she doesn't seem to grieve.
I much prefer the end of Mr Y. I mean, it was good, but 'the gun' didn't go off (actually, a real gun was fired, but you know what I mean) which was the whole point but why that would be desirable I don't know. It perplexes me, which I'm sure was the point. Dissatisfaction must be what she was after. But it didn't excite me the way the ideas in TEOMY did. I miss the excitement Scarlett ... again, this must be the entire point, and is certainly the point of the above statement, hence why I included the first bit.
So, the Zen story, straight from the pages:
"There is an old woman who looks after a monk while he meditates for twenty years. She gives him food and water and makes his clothes and eventually sends a prostitute to throw herself at him because she wants to see what he does with all his wisdom. He's taken a vow of chastity, but will he be tempted? The monk says something poetic to the prostitute about an old tree growing on a cold rock, and tells her there is 'no warmth'. When the spurned prostitute tells of this, the old woman is angry that she has supported someone who after twenty years has not learnt compassion. Then she goes and burns his hut down."
