What justifies significance? Is there a universal standard or can things only have specified importance? As in the hammer and the architect. Is not a hammers significance in its use. A hammer serves the function of helping an architect produce his work. Hammers are in fact made simply for this purpose or use. Its existence is comparable to that of the artist’s paint brush, another item with a specified use. Which forms and bristles differ, despite maintaining the same purport, with these differences does its significance stay the same? So in the hands of an architect a hammers presence is crucial, but in the hands of an artist does it become simply metal attached to wood, thus losing its identity with its function? If unfamiliar or disinterested the artist may even toss away the hammer regarding it as trash? Thus making it trash. Is worth an equation of use and function?
In the abstract how does a notion become worthy? What is the distinguishing line between nonsense and rationale? If an idea serves a purpose does its existence take on weight? Is its value directly tied to an end? Contrasting an idea with the hammer and the paintbrush are some ideas only valuable to certain people and thus productive only to some? Does each idea hold a specified importance to each person on this planet? By this same logic are some ideas set to be nonsense to certain groups of people and tossed away? Who defines crazy? For what desired outcome are ideas formed? To secure comfort and well-being? By channeling only the thoughts that bring us comfort do we thereby devalue the thoughts that don’t? There identities being shaped by their disconnect to such a purpose? Is perspective fragmented to preserve well-being?
Following the agent, tool, purpose format. What other agents apply tools and notions and for what purpose do they do so? Does society prioritize a select purpose? Are thoughts effectual in producing this purpose? For what purpose is an ideal constructed? How is dignity dependent on said ideals? How does one qualify and maintain dignity or a sense of worthiness? Is it by performing a function or conforming to an ideal that societal esteem is granted? In achieving this purpose must one shape an identity to match a function? As with the architect. Society is the agent, the architect the model, and societal well-being the purpose? What is the worth or use in esteem? Is it to secure the voice and office of one or to reinforce the ideal through non selection? Is dignity degraded with the inability to serve a function? Is the scope of said functions and identities delineated by what is good and what is bad for society? Outside of these roles and society its self who are we?
Forced to the ground once the abjection of its dream becomes too much to bear
A cloud empties its-self upon the ground an imposition to those who care
It is treaded upon without so much as a thought
A word is rarely spared towards the beauty of its presence or the blessings it has brought
In these moments it is still, motionless
The same caress others receive complacently to it is freeing
The fleeting embrace of light is sweet and becomes its ecstasy
It does in deed crave to be with that which loves it acceptedly
It is reborn in this love and its spirits begin to lift
It leaves behind the dissuasion instilled in its prior existence
It climbs higher to give back the sun’s gift
Eternally locked in its quest for the sun’s lips
Written as Guey2 On Gspoetry.com
Sojourn Status Quo. A situation current and fated to change. This is my term and it is centered around balance. It’s fair to say that everything in this world seeks balance. Humans seek tranquility, by subduing threats and providing for their needs. Oceans become unstirred and even the universe endeavors to correct its self. So the thought occurred in this manner, ‘Why are states and conditions so transient? Why would they need to be? What is gained by disturbing balance?’ It occurred then that after disintegration during the rebuilding new substances are often incorporated. Which is to say to break a substance is to unleash its potential. This thought brought me discomfort. Because in this dogmatic logic lies the necessity to face insecurity. To grow is to face this chaos swirling about me and to do so willingly.
In summary are we to pass through a category of states? To do so internally and without compulsion is this growth? Aside from these, if each state is momentary how do we appraise them? Our condition whether it be in suffering or in complete bliss, is mostly viewed upon as permanent or just the way life is. Why do we give permanence to what is fated to change? What is the truest perspective with which to view these states? What is it that we place belief in, that life is suffering tailored to our growth. Or a state of bliss obscured by momentary pain. These conditions, these thoughts are present for but a moment. They are the Sojourn Status Quo.