 |
 |
The conclusions from my Ontological study is that the outside is in the inside because the inside is all I have with no exist (huis clos). The outside is because of the inside who is responsible for the outside. It is still me who is trying to go outside me to go inside. The inside is perhaps not enough but is all I have. The ouside reflects on my inside as the inside reflects on itself. But the outside cannor reflect on itself. The inside cannot escape itself. Alon On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:09:55 +0100, Sarah Fletcher <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Hi Alon - > >I'm sure you know this. In case others aren't familar with it, I thought I'd >send. I'd love to see Alon Rayner's depiction of this inside-outside in oils. > >One is inside >then outside what one has been inside >One feels empty >because there is nothing inside oneself >One tries to get inside oneself >that inside of the outside >once one tries to get oneself inside what >one is outside: >to eat and to be eaten >to have the outside inside and to be >inside the outside > >But this is not enough. One is trying to get >the inside of what one is outside inside, and to >get iside the outside. But one does not get >inside the outside by getting the outside inside >for; >although one is full inside of the inside of the outside >one is on the outside of one's own inside >and by getting inside the outside >while one is on the inside >even the inside of the outside is outside >and inside oneself there is still nothing >There never has been anything else >and there never will be > >Laing, R.D. (1972) 'Knots' Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, p. 83 > >Thought for the week? Don't work too hard, >Warm regards, >Sarah > >http://www.TeacherResearch.net > > > >Quoting Alon Serper <[log in to unmask]>: > >> And another quote from Laing - The Bird of Paradise >> >> if this I that is the wherewith and whereby is not anything that I know, >> then it is no thing - nothing. >>