I couldn't sleep. I wrote something about circles. This quote of yours drove me to write somehow...I think...but I could be wrong...I am tired. Take a look if you want.
"The amelioration of jagged potencies is really the second center" ---Nathan Coppedge
http://ourforgetfulness.blogspot.com/2015/07/55-circle.html
"The amelioration of jagged potencies is really the second center" ---Nathan Coppedge
http://ourforgetfulness.blogspot.com/2015/07/55-circle.html
----James R.
I responded to his circle idea at his blog, where I said:
There is one way where you might be wrong, in that there is no definite relation between the person and the circle. I think the human may be more specific than the circle, and in that way you may be right. The question I think is really 'how to find relevance for the circle?' And I think in this respect it is useless to commit to specific traditions, and more appropriate to find a personal meaning for the circle. Otherwise the result is a trope.
On the other hand, if what you are looking for is a rational system, then the circle may or may not be rationalized, and rationalizations can be interpreted as literal or else formally irrational. And the result is to accept or reject the meaning of the circle.
In my own sense of significance, I often return to the idea of the 'sublime' to explain the meaning of symbols. To some extent, what something means is its aesthetic role in the environment. If the symbol is not a sensory experience in some way, then we must define what it means for ourselves. The symbol will not always choose its meaning for us...
---Nathan Coppedge
At the same time 'follower' may be the wrong word to use, since his writing style is in some ways more compelling than my own...
