Alex: 'Someone like Gustav', but not quite Gustav himself, or perhaps an even more solid version of Gustav? is said to have many many different opinions about knitting and knotting and grouping. Yet his first order of observation is simply to point out that the one 'like Diebert', or most like Diebert, or the one acting here as Diebert, indicates a man working hard on many different levels to establish a managed space.
As are you. As is every member here. The will to consciousness in action.
At the end of the day, and if I were to make some Ultimate Statement, I would be forced to mention that 'the board' as Pam describes it, is one under the rulership of a religiously-minded group of persons, and thus the conversation is constrained by the set of aprioris that define that religious approach.
Back to my thoughts above. Is it fair to say that what is happening on this board is dialogue between people who understand, in varying degrees, either intellectually or existentially, the will 'to be or not to be?'
Now, 'Gustav' or the one who is here appearing in Gustav's garb, merely wishes to suggest that The System which seems to be presented by some who seem to post here on these pages seems to look like 'a system of idealized entity' ... fictions compounded out of conceptualized uniformities and which are turned into a sort of forum-furnishing.
Most here cannot complete with your lust to decorate. In you, the force is strong. :-) Is it also fair to conclude that the will not to decorate is just as strong?
The first severe control episode only leads to another and another and another. It is simply a 'curious observation', more of a question really, about how the 'creative imagination' functions, or perhap more precisely to what a sterile and controlled imagination will tend when spinning its knots.
The creative will and the non-creative will both share the same goal - to remain conscious. When they are unaware of this shared goal, they appear as enemies to one other. Rationality vs. irrationality, men vs. women, religion vs. philosophy, etc.
Pam's Rumi poem now becomes even more terrible than it first seemed.
Rumi's poems seem terrible because they are of the existential understanding of the battle of the will to be conscious (to cause the finite) and to be unconscious (not to cause the finite). My interpretations of his works is that he was very strongly pulled into the latter of the two and countered that pull with his great volumes of odes and quatrains devoted to what he called the Friend (and his fellow sufi mystic Kabir called the Guest), the imagined Other.
No different than the scientist or philosopher or logician (or assumed master metaphysician :-) who finds him or herself in this same existential place of 'to be or not to be' and speaks and/or writes about their particular Friend. I checked out the link Diebert provided about the parasite (very timely as hubby and I just removed an engorged tick from the neck of The Poodle [our resident Queen]) and found myself reading the entire thread. And there it was in black and white, David Quinn's Friend of 'to be' that fends off 'not to be', his 'She/Her/It' - 'the marvelous play of God.'
It is my experience that there are very few who stand in raw existence with the wisdom of 'to be or not to be, that is the question' and successfully ride the edge of both. In order to successfully do so, the ego must be dismantled because the ego desires only to be, ignoring, at its peril, the flip side of the relativity coin.