In response to “two truths” by Siona van Dijk.
At the root of paradoxes
To see the roots of a tree
you may dig (carefully), or
just close your eyes.However,
to see we need to move.
(This is why we often see
so clearly what is absent.)The absence of connections
warrants the truth you may trust.But to be free, my friend,
just keep your eyes on the trees
while you move on.
[Ratta utters: Whatever I say is a lie. So, what do you want me to say?]
Me:
So many questions. When will I get answers?
She:
Later.
Me:
Oh, you my sweet little liar!
Like a painter can clear a picture by adding more strokes
we should use words to describe, explain, and clarify.
If you think that this here is all so very negative
you might very well be wrong. The opposite is true.
A friend has sent me a few lines, strange lines. Actually, an answer to a question I had asked. Nevertheless, I do not understand it.
I guess, a seemingly natural reaction would be to ask
What do you mean?
And yet, it’s only a lie.
A liar’s lie.
To say we do not understand what we have just read, to ask for explanation of meaning which we allegedly failed to comprehend in the first place but pretending we would be able to understand it all if the other could just elaborate, whereas we even do not have a clue what the meaning of meaning is.
[X]
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
