If rationality and consistent thought are the preferred
distinguishing marks of man, then even if it is admitted that man, as a whole,
also has passions, the supremacy of rational thought over them may well seem an
unquestionable idea. This is all the more so, since it is quite obvious that
gaining some such control is a basic condition of growing up, and even, at the
extreme, of sanity. But to move from that into making such control into the
ideal, rules out a priori most forms of spontaneity. And this seems to be
absurd.
I would suggest to find your deepest impulse, and follow that. The notion that
there is something that is one's deepest impulse, that there is a discovery to
be made here, rather than a decision; and the notion that one trusts what is so
discovered, although unclear where it will lead—these, rather, are the point.
The combination—discovery, trust, and risk—are central to my sort of outlook,
as of course they are to the state of being in love.
Although this is not print, I write in a manner that facilitates transmission in other forms such as print, spoken word, and via a screen reader. So terms such as "this article" are preferable to "this website," and I avoid terms like "click here," which makes no sense when using a screen reader, for instance. In determining what language is most suitable, it is helpful to imagine I'm writing the content for print. So my work is no longer a finished corpus, some content enclosed in an object or its margins, but a differential network, a fabric of traces referring endlessly to something other than itself, to other differential traces. The content in these traces is a glimpse of something, an encounter ...
-SMALL.jpg.100x100_q95_crop_1.jpg)
marc garrett