There had to be a world of ideas, Plato’s “forms,” where if we saw something that was a table, the way we’d recognize it is because in our head was an ideal form of “table.”

This really weird notion is obviously meant to be a metaphor, which is: “being” (what is) = “truth.” Now the funny thing is that “being,” what actually is the case, is the truth. Why on earth do we need a weird metaphor to express this?

So once again there’s some kind of divorce between who we are now and our origins, and maybe all we’re doing is acting out our origins. I mean, remember how heroes work — we copy how another person acts, we imitate. We pattern ourselves a certain way. The notion that “for everything there is a season under the heavens” isn’t that alien.

There is obviously a way to account for originality in this scheme: there’s tons of ironies and loose logic at points. One way to directly challenge “being = truth” is to ask whether anything is ever stable within time. Heraclitus said you can’t step into the same river twice, that all is flux. If “being” is actually “becoming,” then what about truth?

“That I cannot — must be
Unknown to possibility –”

i think the “that” may have all kinds of meanings. i suspect she is definitely playing with the fact that the “that” and the “what” are to similar, giving us more than one layer of meaning.

and the “must” is interesting, too. should it be unknown to possibility? must it never?