If one could see how flesh wraps around itself, how the skin is knitted in opposition to itself, one would better understand the blessing of friction — rock on rock: a fire.
The figure of the mendicant is oft-abused by fanatic philology: he is not that dissimilar from other more conventional archetypes — often, the arrogant observer is also forced to wear one tunic for years, not out of financial hardship, but as penance for stomping on soil while grazing on it.
Precision is not only arrived at through a thin razor of extended claims, but often through rough accretion, as rock erosion over centuries.
The fused unit of pain and fear cannot be managed through the same apparatus even if they emanate as one at a particular moment, this is because pain, despite its nature of being physically unbearable, can be constricted in scope within the mind as a constant stable misery, even if it fires sporadically as a chronic habitation — that is not control in the total sense of being bound, but rather an epistemic consideration that the nature of pain is knowable in its relation to its particular subject. However, fear is concomitant with a particular kind of uncertainty, which, while being relational to the pain it is fused with, is pegged first to its source, which is a particular fear, and it is that uncertainty that cannot be accounted for only with tools that one uses to arrive at a sense of control in regard to even their otherwise uncontrollable pain — there is simply no such heuristic for uncertainty — uncertainty is uncertain, it is not modified with an adjective, something that could have been determined even by the fair-folk who speak of ordinary language, if one seeks to grade uncertainty like one grades pain, they will falter because of the former’s elusiveness in matters of empirical judgement — nevertheless, the irresolution of this uncertainty that fuels fear is what the Lord addresses in a two-step manner when man is first urged to direct his fear towards Him, a call towards redirection of the gaze, which is fortunate as men have limitations on the capacity of their attention, and second, man is assured that he shall not fear once his belief is proper, but this is not necessarily a guarantee against fear as a total category, but rather may manifest as a protection against phenomenological fear, the very shuddering in the bones, or against epistemic fear, in the sense of a cognizance of the feeling of fear being incommensurate with one’s future movement in time, or in an ontological manner, wherein fear dissolves as a category of perception altogether, subsuming the first two senses within — and because now grace is introduced into the problem of fear, it becomes even more evident why voluntary mechanisms of control are rendered irrelevant.
The conjunction of 16 September 1186 finds voice again.
There is no canon at the level of the spirit.
Gratitude as a mode of being was hollowed out through modern technologies that served to exaggerate certain innate propensities of the self that had existed as default, qualities that, among the total set of propensities in the self, were more externally oriented, but were then pushed further towards the end of being calibrated towards their relativistic self-appraisals of the composite self.
The individual in health must always, without exception, through precise discipline, accustom himself to be adjacent in perception to the state of sickness, through a certain arrangement of the soul, mind, and body, a particular hexis, that acquires a particular degree of solidity, not a fixation, which becomes pathology — the purpose of such is to ensure that one remains firmly within the norms of ethical behavior pillared by humility and modesty, both conditions reflected best, but not always and exclusively, in a palpably sick person — hence, the one in health must cultivate a stable presence in the vicinity of an imagined sickness, which, if imagined correctly, become real in a tactile but not total sense, because totality is reserved for the person in perceptible ill-health, not the one who has arrived there through spiritual practice — the cost of not doing so is a slippage into an over-extension of the self into the material world along with an attendant destabilization of an otherwise properly ordered perspectival sense of the relationality of man with other discrete beings which alerts him to the proper weight that is to be affixed to the frictions that arise as a natural aspect of life — in fact, this is more practical for the one who has trouble using the remembrance of death as fact as a moralizing corrective, because in general, that practice demands a higher level of abstractive attention as physical death in itself cannot be phenomenologically inhabited, even if there are claimants of spiritual death as a mode of being, and hence, due to this hermetic nature of physical death, inhabiting sickness remains a more plausible possibility, but this practicality is not to be conflated with ease of practice even if one believes they can simply translate the cognitive map of their previously experienced minor sickness onto possible instances of future major sickness, this is because despite the prima facie appearance of all sickness belonging to one kind, the actual perceptive difference on that spectrum can become so elongated as to practically, but not epistemically, render minor and major sickness incommensurate.
If one falls down a deep dark ravine, are they really a conqueror or simply dead, a wielder of thought, or blinded?
Biological age is largely irrelevant at the level of the self beyond being a basic signifier of approximate conceptions of the self’s movement in society and as an administrative placeholder for bureaucratic or mundane activities — rather than what one may first assume, biological age is not essential but accidental — on the other hand, age at the level of being operates within norms of a different categorical field, which is essential — so, one may age and de-age at the level of the essence regardless of biological age.