I liked this quote because it gets truer the more you look at it
It's reminding me, for some reason, of a quote I have in my sig collection: "The distinction between the enlightened and the terminally confused is only apparent to the latter."
What I like about that quote is that it can be true on very different levels. Clearly what it's intending to imply is that the terminally confused person has a hope of eventually becoming unconfused whereas the enlightened person is terminally confused but knows that this is the natural and unavoidable state; it's also got the nice piece of almost-paradox in its wording since it simultaneously asserts that there is no difference (since enlightened people think this, implying that it's the true state of affairs) and yet that there is (enlightened and confused people clearly do differ on the point of whether they think there is a difference).
But the crowning glory of the statement, for me, is that it would become literally and unparadoxically true if one were to redefine "enlightened", or replace it with another word, meaning something like "in a permanent vegetative state" or "dead" or otherwise unaware of anything whatsoever. Then clearly there is a difference between being in that state and being conscious-but-confused, and equally clearly only the latter can perceive that difference – since only the latter can perceive anything at all!
no subject
Date: 2009-04-15 10:59 am (UTC)It's reminding me, for some reason, of a quote I have in my sig collection: "The distinction between the enlightened and the terminally confused is only apparent to the latter."
What I like about that quote is that it can be true on very different levels. Clearly what it's intending to imply is that the terminally confused person has a hope of eventually becoming unconfused whereas the enlightened person is terminally confused but knows that this is the natural and unavoidable state; it's also got the nice piece of almost-paradox in its wording since it simultaneously asserts that there is no difference (since enlightened people think this, implying that it's the true state of affairs) and yet that there is (enlightened and confused people clearly do differ on the point of whether they think there is a difference).
But the crowning glory of the statement, for me, is that it would become literally and unparadoxically true if one were to redefine "enlightened", or replace it with another word, meaning something like "in a permanent vegetative state" or "dead" or otherwise unaware of anything whatsoever. Then clearly there is a difference between being in that state and being conscious-but-confused, and equally clearly only the latter can perceive that difference – since only the latter can perceive anything at all!