My Grand Project seems much less grand when I go weeks without devoting any time or energy to it. I think I've already mentioned that its sometimes hard to care about something that doesn't have much to do with my day to day existence. At any rate, the wannabe philosopher slash revolutionary in me goes into hiding from time to time. Its quite predictable.

So, I just returned from the Flying M where I spent some time reading "The Enduring Quest" by H.A. Overstreet. The book is something of a critique of science's focus on minutia and particularity within the universe. Its main focus, it seems, is coming around to a better, progressive view of human "evolution" (or natural evolution) that emphasises the coming into being of new qualities as well as the broadening of our awareness/conceptions of those things we come in contact with. The most significant thing about our reality, the author seems to say, is humanity's ability to progress and bring new things into being....or something like that.

While I read books or essays of this nature (as I tend to do), thoughts that have been germinating in the back of my mind often spring to the fore. In addition, I sometimes have trouble getting in a rhythm reading, because of both these thoughts I have and because of my tendency to want to counter points I read. I have a difficult time not challenging any statement, if even only for a couple of seconds. And thus was my experience this beautiful afternoon while reading "The Enduring Quest".

After about 30 minutes I set the book aside and felt compelled to scrawl some of my thoughts into my sketchbook. The thoughts might sound weird to you, but they're a very consice representation of the latest developments in my thinking/perspective on the subject of, well, us all... I definately don't take them too seriously. If anything the thoughts humor me due to their very unwestern, unmodern, or ill-liberal bent. I could be wrong about those labels. Anyway, the thoughts don't require such an overblown preface like this. Here they are, unedited:

"Individuals are not really individuals.
A human being is not really a single being.
Viewed across time, his connections with the past, his social relations, and his part in the system of society become literal, physical connections.
He is not simply a physical entity. He is the change affected by his extended self. He is the change external forces cause within himself.
Each of us think and act the way we do in response to personality and external forces/environment. Our personalities-like a never changing, stubborn seed within-may hold great sway over our outward manifestations, but it is often the case that what we feel at a particular moment does not originate from within ourselves, as in instances when we're listening to music, watching a movie, or interacting socially. Emotion producing chemicals/hormones are confined within our bodies, but feelings are literally projected across space; through expression, alighting definite chemicals and physical feelings within other bodies. A forest fire may scatter into smaller blazes, but each flame is part of the same fire...
Each person's openness or closedness to their environment's various expressions varies. While a bright sunny day may not guarantee that everyone feels happier, it should be safe to say that, on average, people experiencing the weather will feel happier...
My point is:
I think our conception of the individual, individual will, and individual action is grossly glorified, exagerated, and misguided. A truer conception may view humans as beings much larger in size (but like a forest fire, seperated into parts) who rarely, if ever die (idea not yet explained). This is based on a definition of a being as something consistently the same and possessing a common "will"...
Worldly knowledge is not yours-it does not originate from you.
Language is not yours-the words you think and speak do not come from you.
Your instinctual responses are not yours-they are not unique to you.
Even your "personality" can be seen as originating from a biology and environment that is not exclusively for you.

However, this knowledge, language, instinct, and personality may define a larger being." that is, if you try to step outside the traditional perspective on individuality, you may view things this way...)

That above is what I wrote while high on caffeine at the flying M. I also tried to illustrate this perspective of humanity as larger beings-or one large being, by sketching a picture of bodies connected at various appendages. You might imagine a picture of Jesus's head, with hair swirling about, connecting to a number of other figures who, in turn, are physically connected to each other in one way or another--symbolizing the unity of humanity through time, genetics, cause and effect, or what have you. Of course, you the symbolism works with any figure at the forefront. In a painting or illustration, an artist could reasonably place a figure or two in the forefront since some people have literal connections with many more people than others. You might call these people "influential" or "fertile" or "powerful"....