A RESPONSE TO MINOA

Minoa, thank you for your comments. I'm glad you like the post. I also wish I had an answer to the questions I posted. But then I think our challenge as human beings is not to find the "right answers", but rather to discover the right questions. The right question changes the whole focus. But then, even the notion of "right" anything makes it all too formulaic and too prone to remain clinging to such "rightness" as if it were eternal trueness.
 

Though we believe in our "deep structures" or "archetypes" or "universals" that appear to be "true" and "eternal," I believe we do not comprehend them in their multidimensional interpretations, and that we consequently misinterpret and simplify them so that they "make sense". Such "making sense" to us gives us a feeling or belief that we are somehow "in control".

Regarding, "our existence", my questions, in retrospect, are a bit artificial and imply one or the other, i.e. "value" vs. "shadow play". In truth, it would be both, wouldn't it? Our existence would have value AND also be "mere ephemeral shadow play". Jung speaks of the vital importance of fantasy as reality, though I shouldn't go there now, since my understanding of that is probably too superficial. Hinduism speaks of the "flux" or "play of the universe” (lila), in and of itself, as though the Atman (the Allness?) "plays with itself" to amuse and probably pleasure itself. It tricks itself into believing it is ... actually differentiated into so many varying expressions in forms. 

Your response generated a further movement in this ongoing unfolding/unraveling/unwrinkling of penetration of the fabric of the matrix of our human existence and conceivably much more than that. We touch into the seemingly perpetual, at this point, fractal, paradoxical chaos/order of … what, life?

So please feel free to continue the conversation. And anyone else who cares to is also always invited… 

Your Host,

Joe Leone 

JUNG'S RED BOOK, NOT SHAMDASANI'S RED BOOK by Joseph D. Leone, Ph.D.

Shamdasani is fine; he probably did his best. However, he so often distorts, misinterprets, or simply misses Jung’s archetypal references and overarching meanings, that his direction and guidance into Jung’s portion of the Red Book is too much of a misdirection and misguidance. The result is a tainted perception that is given the reader, especially the reader who does not know Jung, that is then brought into the reading of the actual Red Book as written by C. G. Jung. I give Shamdasani credit for what he attempts to accomplish, and do not necessarily suggest that he be simply ignored and not read, however, I do strongly recommend that Jung’s portion of The Red Book be read first, to be then followed by Shamdasani’s portion, which is best taken as a commentary and no more than that. Let Jung explain Jung, and let the reader find meaning in Jung rather than having another rather “in the box Jungian,” exactly the kind that Jung warned us about, explain and interpret such meaning for us.

From the beginning, with my own background in the writings of Jung, I found Shamdasani’s explanations and interpretations of Jung to be too concise, too simplistic at best, and sometimes just plain inaccurate at worst. And so I suggested the radical notion of not reading Shamdasani at all and to go directly to Jung. However, no one else has undertaken the unforgiving job that Shamdasani has, and, for this reason alone, earns him a reading—but only after reading Jung and only as commentary.

I’ll give one case in point, which, in my estimation, is a quite important one, and reveals a rather profound misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Jung, as well as a case of seeing the trees but missing the forest. On page 215 of his Introduction, Shamdasani writes: “This explains why he commented in his afterword to Liber Novus that to the superficial observer, the work would seem like madness, and could have become so, if he had failed to contain and comprehend [my emphasis] the experiences.” When I read this, I thought, “Jung simply would not believe he would necessarily “comprehend” the experiences of The Red Book, though he would focus on containing them.” So I then read the Epilogue (and wondered why Shamdasani referred to it as the “afterword”), in which Jung writes: “To the superficial observer, it will appear like madness. It would also have developed into one, had I not been able to absorb the overpowering force of the original experiences. With the help of alchemy, I could finally arrange them into a whole. … I knew how frightfully inadequate this undertaking was, but despite much work and many distractions, I remained true to it, even if another possibility never…” (and Jung stops abruptly right here never to continue).

It seems to me that Jung is clearly talking about the notion of the all-inclusive transcendent function here, though, to my knowledge, he only later in his career defines it as such. In this all-inclusiveness of the unconscious and the conscious in all its differential and oppositional tension, “comprehension” is probably not possible; rather, “containment” defines the transcendent function. It refers to the ability to hold the tensions of all the archetypal forces without having to react or act them out. To be able to “be with” all of it as proactively and as consciously as possible appears to lead to and achieve a state of “wholeness.” Some comprehension or understanding may occur in the process, but Jung would recognize that such understanding is not vital to attaining “unity” or “wholeness.” And so, Jung accordingly speaks of being “able to absorb the overpowering force of the original experiences,” and being able to “finally arrange them into a whole,” while recognizing “how frightfully inadequate this undertaking was.” To “absorb” is a kind of “containment,” with which I agree, however, there is not necessarily “comprehension” of what is happening.

Once we read Jung’s Red Book, we see that it is not about comprehending the experiences, but about experiencing the experiences deeply, accepting the experience as it is, and re-membering them, which is the “finally arrang[ing] them into a whole.” I do not believe that it serves our understanding of Jung and our trusting of our own experience to allow Shamdasani to explain and interpret Jung’s Red Book experiences for us. It’s as simple as that.

DEFUSING THE POWER OF "NEGATIVE" THOUGHTS

I can be quite a "negative" thinker at times; full of thoughts of anger, disappointment, failure, hurt, etc. In the past I have been able to maintain a "positive" outlook, reflecting faith in myself, in life, in others, and a hope and confidence that I could "keep on keeping on" in spite of life's challenges and difficulties. But the "negative thinking" of hopelessness and despair sometimes is sometimes simply "what's there" and is not about to be replaced with "positive thinking" regardless of how hard I may try to accomplish this. At these times what might be referred to as "depression" takes hold of my thoughts and prevails at least for a while, perhaps a few days. Whatever I see is interpreted in such a way that I am a victim or others are victims at the effect and mercy of something or someone else. This state of mind is accompanied by a powerlessness and hopelessness that I can even feel in my body as it becomes sore and exhausted, causing me to want to just sleep.

During these times I seek some kind of relief from this onslaught of negative thoughts. I don't pray because I really don't believe in that kind of "rescuing God," or any God, for that matter. I find that to be more wishful thinking than anything else, and very disappointing in that respect. I don't believe in depending on something like that which I really can't trust within my own experience, if that makes sense to you. So, what I've found most helpful over the last thirty years or so is Buddhist meditation, specifically zazen or vipassana, which are variations of the same practice of what I would call simply "being with yourself" in the sense of self-observation, or observing your thoughts as they come and go without following or becoming involved in them, which I call "following them down the rabbit hole."

When I find myself affected by very funky moods that derive from this particular line of negative thoughts, I recommit to a daily schedule of forty minutes of zazen. These last few times I've sat have revealed certain insights of what this process is doing for me, and I trust it because it "makes absolute sense" to me and I also experience a deep sense of peace, if not self-understanding, as a result. For me, zazen effectively defuses the power of my negative thoughts over me. Though I started meditating in the local Buddhist zendo, it is probably just as effective when I do it in my own home. I don't need or particularly appreciate all the Japanese Buddhist accoutrements; I just need the self-observational, or perhaps more accurately, the thought- and body-watching attributes of the meditation.

This meditation allows one to sit and simply observe one's thoughts as they arise, and also one's tendency to "go with" the thoughts, i.e. to react and respond to them, which, in turn, creates more thoughts to react and respond to. As I sit and watch, I am able to see these thoughts as angry, or hurt, or bitter, or painful, or depressive. Sometimes I can even feel them in my muscles or in soreness and tension within my body. But my point is that, by watching the thoughts without following them further, that is, by recognizing them but not reacting to them, they lose their draw, their power, and I am more detached from them. They have not so much control over me. I can see that they are merely my thoughts; I can desensitize myself from them and not have to feel this way or that way because of them. Their power over me diminishes simply through my detached observation of them and of myself as they come into my mind. They also slow down since I am not "feeding" them with my own reactions, and they lose their intensity, and their power, until, at times, they simply ... stop.

In addition to this, as I am aware of these negative thoughts and their connections within my physical body, and as I notice them and their sensations and tensions within my body, they move around my body, sometimes becoming very intense. But then they fade away and vanish, at least for the time being, an my body becomes more and more relaxed. I find my mind becoming peaceful and my body becoming relaxed simply by doing this practice of meditation. Of course, I say "simply" knowing full well that it is not simple in the sense that it is "easy"; it requires a commitment and discipline, but, as I do it each day, I am furthered by its "positive" effects of peace, relaxation, and clarity of mind.

I offer this not as a remedy for everyone, but as something that helps me. It is within my power and not some external magical or divine deity; it is within my grasp, so to speak, and I can trust it as my own. It is not so beyond me as it is within me, which is what I prefer. For those with more faith than I, Godspeed them, but I, for one, prefer my own psychological speed of understanding and comprehension. That's how I am. I offer this in the hope that it might help someone else to find peace, relaxation, and clarity of mind.

ON BEING "TORN": A DILEMMA OF "BEING"

My original intention was to write something in this blog often, even daily. But it hasn't worked out like that. The exigencies, and, frankly, the distractions of life have taken my attention too often to other places than here. And this dilemma faces me in many forms almost constantly. For instance, on one hand, I feel that I should sit down and write as I am doing right now. But, in truth, I seriously wonder if I'm saying anything worth saying, and that my time might be much better spent if I were reading the "wisdom," or, at least, insights and perceptions of others. I don't know if anyone finds this blog in any way useful, but I certainly find what some people have to say to be interesting, if not useful. And I have an inherent reluctance to try to decipher my own thoughts so that you might understand what I'm talking about. I say "you" but I probably mean "me." Isn't that how we are anyway?

So there is this notion of being "torn." But there is more that I see in this dilemma; it pertains to "fate" or even "Fate." I saw a thought-provoking movie last night, called The Time-Traveler's Wife. For me it was a portrayal of the fluidity and relativity of time and space, and of how we lock ourselves in, if you will, to certain realities and very specific ways of seeing. Tied in to this line of thought, for me anyway, is the idea of Fate, or what is destined to occur. We usually view Fate as "out there" rather than "in here." In other words, it is extenal to our internal being. It happens to us and we are the recipients of Fate. I almost deifying it with the capital "F" and I don't quite want to do it like that, so take it with a grain of salt.

We see Fate much like we see Nature; as "out there." We separate ourselves from both Fate and Nature, that we view as happening to us. However, this is NOT how it is at all, in my estimation. The way I see it is that there is Fate "out there" to the extent that we are out there and not present with or within ourselves. In truth, we are a part of Fate, if you will, just as we are a part of Nature. Or Fate is a part of us just as Nature is a part of us. We cannot separate ourselves from either Fate or Nature. And I see that this is part and parcel of the argument that we have "free will" even in the midst of the power of Fate and/or Nature. I'm biting off more than I can chew or care to chew here, but now I see us in the role of Job, who is nothing compared to God, but he discovers that his recognition of the power of God, and his absolute reality of comprehension in that recognition, ties him to God and, consequently, God's power. Could this be Ahab tied on Moby Dick?

I wanted to keep it simple and then just wind it up more or less neatly, but I've failed and only confused things more. However, this is the Fate of the moment; to open it all up further and make it more and more complex. Fate is no so simple, and the problem is that we want it to all be "understandable." If it could all just "make sense," we would be happy. We would know we were "good" or that "God loves us" or even "bad" and are going to be punished. But it's not so easy or so simple as that, and, what's worse, we have to live with the often horrendous contraditions. We are contradictions to ourselves. This is what happens when you realize that at least a very small part of your fate lies in your own hands. One who claims to know told me that the Tibetan Buddhist prayer, "Om mani padme hum" translates to, "I hold the lotus in my hand." And I am the lotus as well as the hand holding it. This "fatedness" is the essence of existence. It is also reflected in Jung's notion of the "transcendent function," in which all the variables of life are included, even those not known. And so I find myself abit "torn" somewhat often. Sealing the deck of my home has been somewhat properly distracting. Perhaps life is meant to be one big overwhelming distraction...

APOCALYPSE, "TO UNCOVER, REVEAL"

The first thing that crossed my mind as I watched the aerial view of the tsunami surging across the coastal area of Japan was "apocalypse, the end of the world." I experienced the 7.1 magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake whose epicenter was just a few miles from my home back in 1989. But this Japanese earthquake was 8.9 and lasted approximately two minutes compared to just fifteen seconds. We humans are as ants on a big, round anthill -- that has natural distasters now and then.

But as I thought "apocalypse" and "end of the world," I realized that this kind of thing has been happening throughout the history of the Earth. It is not a stagnant, inanimate round lump; it is dynamically alive and organic. Some natural disasters could end much of life on the planet, or, more likely, could dramtically change the way in which various species survive. Civilization as we know it could end; solar storms could easily burn out space satellites and disrupt communication and the grid of communication for some time.

What I noticed was that I immediately went to a Biblical interpretation and view of "apocalypse," complete with the "end of the world" scenario, with "God" inherently if not directly involved. It was almost a comfort to automatically bring in a mythological story about "what would happen." We do the same thing with ourselves when we think about or approach death; when people die, they are free of all concerns and, if they were "good," they go to Heaven and are with God.

I don't believe it's like that though. I don't believe anything is so simplistic and superficial as that. So I checked "apocalypse" and found it to translate as "to uncover, to reveal." On a grand Biblical scale, it means "Revelation," however, "apocalypse" is not "The Apocalypse," and should not be defined as such. So, now I consider apocalypse as an uncovering or revealing. What is uncovered? What is revealed? Our selves as human beings, first; in fact, as human beings quite interconnected with all other human beings. I watched what was happening in Japan, and I realized that what mattered to me was that people like myself were drowning, that people like myself were going through very painful, hellish experiences. I felt their fear, their pain, their confusion, their helplessness in that moment -- even as I sat comfortably and safely in my living room watching it all TV. At that moment, in their lives and in my life, our humanity was being uncovered.

Was this merely a fear that "it could happen to me"? Or was it an actual experience of "their" pain and fear as if it were my own? When something "bad" happens to someone else, do we, for a brief moment in our imagination, put ourselves in their place so as to somehow be prepared for such an occurrence if it were to happen to us? Is it a kind of preparation for the worst so that we might be able to better survive? Or is it a kind of almost unconscious compassion; a sharing of the pain they are in so that they do not have to bear all of it?

I am not so interested in answering this question as I am in posing it. It is a question for each of us to answer for ourselves. And what I'm most interested in conveying here is that it is more important to be able to recognize and respond to what is being uncovered and revealed about us as human beings, and particularly, fellow human beings, than it is to revert to some Biblical fairy tale about "end time." It may be that "end time" will, in fact, come in due time, however, in the meantime, we are human beings whose shared humanity is all to often unexpressed, covered up, and unrevealed. Let us recognize an apocalypse as an uncovering and a revelation of connectedness as human beings. We may have many beliefs about God or no-God, which may or may not be valid, however, our relationship and interconnectedness with all other human beings, and all other life for that matter, is a reality most of us can acknowledge. If the world ends, fine, but in the meantime, let us learn to find the other in ourselves, and live accordingly.

DO WE CONSUME OUR LIVES OR DO THEY CONSUME US?

How do we spend our lives? Do we consume our life or does it consume us? Is there even that kind of dichotomy at all? Some of us live quite "purposeful" lives; there is a purpose and direction and reason for us to live, and we do what we can to fulfil that. Or so we tell ourselves and/or are told by the society and culture in which we live -- and have been accordingly brain-washed or made to believe wholeheartedly and without question. This is akin to believing in heaven or believing in God, which, in a greater context, may be human inventions to ward off not only our fear of death, but also of purposeless and meaninglessness. Such is the existential dilemma.

We are possessed within our DNA itself of a reason and purpose to live, and that is: to live in and of itself. We are survival machines, as are all animate forms. But the human dilemma is that somewhere within ourselves we know that this is simply not enough. On one hand, we claim, "I'd rather die than live like or be treated like an animal," while, on the other, we can be quite satisfied living like animals as long as we are the dominant animal. We believe we have scruples, or morals, and right behavior, but in reality we are often quite abominable as a species.

But perhaps I can be more merciful, and forgiving of the human race, which also includes myself. This "paradox of being human," which is obvious to some, is forever not obvious to the oblivious, who are the great majority. Jesus spoke of the need to "turn the other cheek," which is a most pragmatic notion. My own own version of that is, "Go with the flow and roll with the punches." We cannot fight the river's current, but must find ways to use it as best we can to cause as little harm as possible. I suppose I'm saying that our intentions must be good, but I also believe the adage that, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." We must also show some intelligence, some ability to make decisions that are in accord with Reality rather than simply what we believe, or society or culture believes to be real. Unlike the intelligent practicality present within animals, we humans think that we can see things the way we want to see them rather than the way they are. We are willing to die for this, which sets us apart from nature. Is this "divine," as some might claim, or is it absurd. Or, is it absurd that we actually create situations in which such seeming choices must seemingly be made? Is our existence of value at all? Or is it mere ephemeral shadow play?

And the problems in this is that there is always a greater reality, a greater context, whether we are unaware of it by ignorance or by choice. An academic friend of mine, in researching the ancient language of Genesis, found that it actually says something to the effect that, "In the beginning, He created God and then God created ...". So humans claimed this or that "God" as their own cultural property, but what about this greater context. And what about our refusal and/or inability to even be willing to go there?

ON SEEING THINGS AS THEY ARE

The paradox of existence is always present to me, and always (or almost always) of profound amazement to me. That things could happen as they do, both in my own life and in the world, is often utterly strange to me. Of course I can make everything "make sense" in some absurd and/or logical way, but it's far more interesting, and perhaps far more accurate, if I simply take things as they are, that is, as they become apparent. Of course I have acknowledge that the way I see them is also how I view them, or, in other words, the context of belief in and through which I "hold" them. Does that make sense? We think we see things "as they are," but, in truth, we see them as we already believe they are to be seen. I find this truth to be so comical, now that I see that I am not seeing anything as it is. Of course, if you realize that your certainty about how things are is, in truth, more your interpretation than anything else, you are more able to actually catch something as it is, even if for a brief moment. Arthur Schopenhauer, if I understand him correctly, referred to this when he spoke of "the will as representation." But I don't particularly want to get involved in that discussion/direction right now.

Speaking of misperceptions, the idea that our essence, or spirit, or true nature transcends the world of perception, of the body, and/or of nature itself, is absurd. As if we can separate ourselves from our inclusion in the world of nature! We can deceive ourselves in this, and many of us have and do. The Judeo-Christian tradition is based in this kind of unreal, false duality, though there are some groups within even this tradition that are able to embody spirit. Now, I hate to use words that are indefinable, such as "spirit," but I'm not going to define it here or now, and whatever you may think about spirit we'll accept as valid. As I said, some groups are able to embody spirit, such as black churches where the gospel music is sung more from the heart and the guts than the logical mind. This is embodied spirit, just as the dance and chant of the Native American or the Native African is also embodied spirit. There is also the visceral experience of Nature, in its power and its peace-giving elements, within cultures such as the earth-based, often goddess-based Celtic peoples. I'm just touching on this to make the point. Of course there are so many other people and cultures that embody spirit.

As I read the first paragraph again, I believe that the ability to "take things as they are" without having to logically understand them in order to accept them is, in fact, an expression of embodied spirit, a deeply phenomenological experience; a right brain activity, not of the logic and intellect of the left, but of singing, dancing, feeling, and being alive.

DEMANDS OF LIFE AND CHOICES WE MAKE

Life is all about "getting caught up in it." We lose sight of what brings us to any kind of "essence of self" and find ourselves continually distracted. Usually such distraction is both welcomed and sought by us; at least most of us. Most of us never even notice that we have climbed into the great slowly simmering pot along with just about everyone else. This is for the great majority who must look around themselves at what is going on to see if they are having fun yet.

Others find themselves in this same pot, but, rather than having climbed in willingly, backed in unwillingly. This is often due to the belief that they have to join the club and enter into the cultural norm of "having an income" in a conventional way so that they can support themselves and their families as "responsible citizens." In truth, doing it like this is much easier than going against the flow or the grain of the culture itself. Sometimes my motto is, "Go with the flow ... and roll with the punches." Of course there are different "flows." There is the cultural flow which becomes that of the lowest common denominator. Witness the majority of what appears on TV, for instance. And there is the flow associated with what is happening on a deeper,  underlying level of existence or reality. I refer to this as at least the truer reality. And the test is consequently to relate that deeper flow with the living of our lives. Given our current cultural backdrop, the contrast is more and more noticeable. As people become less and less human and less and less sane, it is in fact noticeable to some of us.

Once I firmly believed in such notions as the New Age, and rejected that of the Kali Yuga. Now I see the reality of the latter here and now, and the possibility of the former only after the latter has fully manifested. It appears that much of the false must be lost or destroyed before that which is real or essential can be even noticed, much less appreciated and expressed. As I said, we must ultimately be able to "go with the flow and roll with the punches." This is no silly mantra, but what is necessary. It's akin to "turning the other cheek," a good Christian notion. If we only had more good Christians and fewer good Christian notions.

I have become far more sensitized to the energies around me: the noise, the speed, the anger, the intolerance, the distrust. I don't think it is related to me, for I am probably more pleasant and tolerant than I ever have been. I am more tuned in to how people feel and to what they are probably thinking as well. Perhaps I'm just reading body language better, or body language is more obvious than ever. Perhaps it's because I'm older now. I'll be 64 years old tomorrow. But whatever it is, I find that life -- that being in the world -- is more and more assaultive of me. I feel absolutely accosted by noise, speed, anger, fear, etc. I can barely protect myself anymore and seek to get back home as quickly as possible. And the irony of this is that I genuinely enjoy people and connect with them. I am open to them -- which is probably why I have this problem. And I would rather be open and honest than closed. I would rather be available as a human being to other human beings than not. To close myself up would be to lock myself inside myself and withhold myself from others.

However, to be open invites the possibility of confrontation with those who are invasive and assaultive. This is problematic. And this problem leads to another "discussion" of it at some other time.

TITLES AND OTHER SUCH THINGS

OK, so the title is a bit obscure and too long. The blog address is unruly and hard to remember. So be it.

There will always be a better way to do it, to say it, even not to do it, not to say it. So I'll say it as I will, and without even making it particularly proof-ready. This is not a production; rather, it's simply a conversation. Probably with myself more than anyone else, however, anyone may eavesdrop if they so choose. They may even participate in some way. If they exhibit some kind of interesting perspective, I will show appreciation or, better yet, disdain. We will all agree to keep a good grain of salt handy, since "the other" always seems to be only too present. I would like to be able to tolerate and even merge to Become One, however, these things, given the scheme of things, are unlikely, no matter how actually true they may be.

For it is true that, unsentimentally, we are so interconnected and even interchangeable, that we are, on that particular level, quite one. However, we choose to be far more unaware of this than aware. To be aware of it is to perpetually shake one's head in disbelief that one could be interconnected with such a group of self-destructive crazies who are the most stupid things imaginable and worse than that. And this is me being very positive. "Show me your happy face. This IS my happy face."

OLD BEGINNINGS AND NEW CONTINUINGS

A new beginning with a new title. The previous title and blog, Depression's Seven Steps to Self-Understanding, simply or not so simply, vanished from the blogsphere. I take it as a sign. When things happen that alter the order of one's existence in large or small ways, one can inquire as to how and why, and perhaps affect a reversal to the previous existing order, however, this is generally the exception to the rule of life.

So, given changes, large or small, which can be sometimes quite upsetting and even devastating, one still needs to BREATHE. For this, it may be helpful to have a PLACE to breathe. In addition, whatever is taking happening is doing so within the Greater Context, sometimes referred to as THE SCHEME OF THINGS. Thus, the title to this new blog, A PLACE TO BREATHE WITHIN THE SCHEME OF THINGS. Sometimes the scheme of things seems so personal and so utterly crushing; we can hardly breathe.

The purpose of this blog is to provide breathing space within our lives, but I want more than breathing SPACE; I want a PLACE specifically available in which to BREATHE, and to breathe freely. A place in which what needs to be released or freed or allowed to exist is given this right. Yet, not a place of bitching and complaining stupidly; rather, a place of recognizing and telling the truth about oneself and one's place in the scheme of things, the greater context of all of it. That's where I intend to go. That's where I invite you to go as well.

Our particular directions are not up for discussion; there is no right or wrong direction, personally-speaking. However, there is that which "makes sense". I prefer a discussion in which we seek to comprehend and apprehend that which we share in some way. Our responsibility is to be as honest as we can be, while also being able to hear the other, who may see things quite differently. I do not pretend to be consistent or right or dogmatic or wise or truthful. Thus, the place to breathe. We all listen to each other. We share the same life in some respects, though we are not so much the same in my estimation. We project everything upon others; our lives are such projections. We aren't even ourselves; perhaps there is no such thing as one's self.

My committment is to do my utmost to enter something here on a daily basis, though I don't want it to be mere drivel. Our culture thrives on that but I don't. I am drawn to the unknown, to the darkness. Perhaps the light reveals too much that is simply not very interesting or worthy or beautiful. But nor am I a solemn, suffering romantic or a sentimentalist seeking pain. Life is silly enough. And life is not all it's cracked up to be.

So enjoy...