(A5-sketch with copics and ballpoint pen)
“There are things known and there are thing unknown.
And in between are the doors and windows of perception.“
Finally, after being focused on narrative words the past two years, drawn Otherworld-art has returned. (More about that here)
I’m not sure of what do you mean in the text, because in my opinion you can’t have a real knowledge of something only through perception: I’ve seen you, I’ve heard you and perceived you by other senses as well, but do I really know you under the surface?
I’m not sure if the essence of something can be captured through perception other through something else.
What I want to say there is, that there are things we know, things we see, can touch, etc. Und then, there are things we don’t know, which are beyond our realm – that’s what I mean when refering to “Otherworld” here. And those two things are connected through those “doors and windows”. I’ve seen many people creating/having their own kinds of “otherworlds” – each in their own way (that’s why it’s doors and windows in plural and also, what I mean when talking about perception – because it’s individual and subjective.)
(I guess you’re too much focusing on your logical mind and ‘fact-based-knowledge’ here, but there you are limiting yourself, because here I’m aiming more for a romantic/spiritual/dreamy meaning.)
And I disagree. I sure believe you can really get to know someone under the surface through perception. Not everybody for sure and not on a regular base, but there are a few people whom I’ve meet for the very first time and just by looking at them we had a sort of “connection” – because we were similar in the “unknown”, in the “otherworld” – and when talking with them etc I realized that I was right and that they felt the same way. Those were the three times when I really, really felt understood. I think, when you meet someone in the “otherworld” you immediately gain a deeper understanding for them. – at least that’s a experience I’ve made with three people so far. I know, I know, three really isn’t a lot ( as I said: not on a regular base) xD but still, I experienced it that way.
(not sure if this makes any sense to you or explains well enough what I mean, but I’ve tried xD)
I think we agree actually, but we just have a disagreement on semantics, because I agree on the connection between minds, but I don’t consider it as perception-dependant, because I think the mind alone could establish this connection, even without the intercession of the senses (I’m not sure how much you know about shamanism, but some practice of it are examples of how the mind can travel to other worlds and connect to other minds without intercession of senses),
Lucky are those people x) I suppose your friend from Germany is one of them, but I wonder who are the other ones.
I see what you mean.
And I agree that the mind alone could establish a connection too, but I think it’s different from what I mean. Personally, I think that connections between minds is “colder”* (as I associate the mind rather with logic and thinking rather than ‘feeling’ and ‘intuitive understanding’) compared to what I mean: which is rather a connection between “souls” or the “inner/’true’ self” of things/persons.
*but that highly depends on what one thinks the mind is; on the interpretation the word itself – as “mind” can mean a lot: ranging from head, intellect, way-of-thinking, etc to soul.
So we probably actually mean the same, but are associating something different with ‘mind’ here x)
Yeah we mean the same x) I just don’t reduce the mind as the intellectual part, for me it’s the whole.
The difference may come from our different language, in French the word is traditionally not used for the intellectual processes (there is other words for that), but mostly for soul and the inner self.