Just pen it down, up there isn't sticky enough to retain much of what comes to it.
I don't know, it's a bit of a stretch for me to write incoherent train of thoughts in my head and have them filed in mental cabinets that are more or less organized by accident and remain inaccessible, never to be visited again since the conditions that facilitated that particular configuration of neurons firing will probably never be repeated again.
The will to bring ideas just as they are, as imagined via the mind's eye, unfiltered and raw.
It isn't entirely different on the other side of the spectrum with sages hammering their disciples to see reality just as it is, whatever that may mean.
In both cases, I can discern the desire for uniformity, in terms of not having differences between what is intended versus what's received, perceived, or actualized.
Of course, with the latter about seeing reality as it is, I don't think there's much flirting with the realm of intentionality.
I personally prefer a bit the matter of fact approach that comes with this stripped-down clarity.
If it is, it is. If it is not, it is not.
Saves a lot of mental/emotional energy that can be directed into better activities than wrestling with what should be versus what actually is.
Now, is everything in existence a matter of fact?
Can you sense the trap in the question itself, the unknown or unfounded desire for a clean binary answer bumping up against the messy reality of experience?
I think it's somewhat coming from that same place where we want the mental cabinet system to work perfectly, even though we know it doesn't or is forever inaccessible.
Obviously no, but there's an element of yes attached to the question too.
I asked for what reasons could we claim something is "matter of fact" when so much depends on the observer, the context, the language we use to pin it down?
A stone is a stone, that much is factual. But "this stone is beautiful" or "this stone is sacred" enters into murkier territory and both factual and interpreted aren't always in separate rooms anymore, sometimes they're dancing together and you can't tell where one ends and the other begins.
One could just as well also frame the question by asking what do we gain or lose by insisting it must be one or the other?
In many cases, pretty much nothing, we spend arguably much of our existence in relative states of cognitive dissonance. Try to fit the square peg of one messy idea into the round hole of a seemingly logical universe.
Still, I'll keep the habit of penning what's up there whenever I will and as much as I can. It's not quite journalling in the traditional sense of the term, here putting more focus on the person doing the thinking and moves away from the thoughts themselves as standalone entities worth preserving. Much preferred that way.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.