It can be posited that we create meaning through being. Our mere existing is being. But on a much deeper level, in a more significant way, we ourselves create being. This creation is meaning. Existing itself does not create meaning. Meaning is derived from the work we do every day. This is work that matters most. I work therefore I am.
The ideas in "All the World's a Stage" are not novel; they are eternal, forever thought-provoking in creating being, in creating work that matters. What matters most is the creation of being through performance. But performance is influenced by many factors such as the audience, ambitions, aspirations, dialogue, inspiration and value. As "All the World's a Stage," there are always others who are watching us, even when we are unaware.
Because we are forever on stage, these things, though seemingly insignificant, matter: our tone of voice, the kindness in our eyes, the warmth around the corner of our mouths, the encouraging of others, the hope in our step, the passion of our efforts, the judgelessness of our squint, the light of introspection, the gentleness of our stride, the determination of purpose, the welcoming of extended hands, the strength of our character, the embracing of all others, the intensity in which we seek solutions...
Work that matters most does not simply include what we do but how we do it. As "All the World's a Stage," others are influenced by our actions. Our conscious understanding that both what we do and how we do it then becomes increasingly more important. Our actions affect everything else. Everything is everything. Vibes are released into the world that cannot be recaptured, though they can be overridden by forthwith improved continuous actions. "All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players."
In the circle of life, I work therefore I am. Work that matters most constitutes being.
7 comments:
Judith, your intriguing focus on "being" makes me wonder if you are a Heidegger fan?
I am indeed, John. I also appreciate the work of Hegel, Husserl and Sartre. It's not that they got it right on everything, or that any of us ever do; it is the clarity, dedication, and passion with which their notions were undoubtedly conceived that causes me to act. These things I value.
Judith, as you know, many a philosophy student broke his or her pick on Heidegger. I only began to understand him (despite being a philosophy major at one time) when I was exposed to Fernando Flores's interpretations of his work. Are you familiar with Fernando or Werner Erhard or the Landmark Forum?
Just found this article on Heidegger, Flores, Erhard from 1990: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5D8163DF934A35752C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Thanks, John. I will check out the article. Don't know the work of Flores or Erhard. But will check them out too. Thanks!
I tend not to do an excessive amout of reading on readings, especially in the beginning stages of learning the philosopher's work. But I've been reading Heiddegger for some time now so it's safe to branch out. :-)
My focus tends to be on the body of the philosopher's work itself and use the readings of others as references. This can be great, however, as misreadings are often in themselves great reading. It has been posited that Sartre and other great thinkers created such works.
Very interesting article, John. Thank you.
When I read Tom Peters' Brand You article 10+ years ago I immediately aligned it in a real sense with Heideggerian being. I am exploring this link.
The article also reminded me of the work of Derrida and Foucault. I have studied their work for many years, undoubtedly creating my share of misreadings.
Post a Comment