Curious a folly is man when with fear he is proud, seeking breadth and wealth when he was a creature of depth and health. So don’t we each have good reason to hide something from each other when divulging too much is presumption on both ends?
Do you see any common theme amongst those men of mind and heart society labels so but that something says they choose not to think a certain way—what then do they refuse to fear? And then who are those who choose to be molded by society?
Equivocators, driven by a fear which must be corollary to another; when one is inclined to hide away the internal, the opposing voice seeks to silence the external.
We can claim objectivity, still, in favor of subjectivity, but to what end and by what beginning?
If it is man himself, than our only danger is his corruption—then, who is fit to judge and bind him?
If it is men (society) and what they produce—then all share the same fate, for what else can the product say of its source?
If it is neither, then something—truth—must guide and something—nature—must stand as representative of its right and authority.
It is for this that I believe language to be the primary method of instrumentality with which we control (or create the illusion of controlling) reality.
And is it then surprise, that we hide from each other what we have of each other, if not out of respect and loving precaution? Is it surprise that the writer tells us some but not all of the story? Or, any wonder why the philosopher tells us what to think but not show us? Or, any reason to reason why the poet believes no one else but his soul and its source can hear him?
And then who would believe they each exist in us all, artists and artisans of our hopeful trades; the one praying, the other selling (or trying), but all together in some fast-fear-driven-drive forward to our own self-account; at times, too scornful, at others too daring, but with loving mercy beautified once and for all.