Yes, language is beginning to fall short, I fear. I might start
inventing words ... be careful.
<present> implies, IMHO, a 'best-possible-thereness' within a
time-lapse, and at an optimal subject/object *subjective distance*,
which is neither the 'airy disk' (too tight), nor a 8x or beyond CoC
(too loose, where boundaries among subject/object start to degrade
[could be useful, nonetheless]).
Presence must allow variable distance, to allow understanding - not only
an 'operative' understanding, but a broadening in understanding - broad
enough to evoke personal (individual) recalls but (arguable, imo)
collective and further; cultural -but at a minimum- expressions.
So, self should not be kept tight to any perceived input, but able to go
back and forth, 'freely floating' around a supposed 8x, and sampling at
variable ratios, until something is spot-enlightened as meaningful /
significant.
Then, this spotted *construction* - could it be shared? - how much does
it matter if it's 'shareable' or not?
Fernando
--- half asleep.
Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Buddhists call it "being present." Close enough for me. <g>
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> www.bwp33.com
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|