While in Los Angeles to see a show of Diane Arbus's photographs, I was thinking, as I often do, about whether or not I should write things down. The monologue was falling more and more on the side of not writing. Whenever I do start to narrate thoughts or things that happened - it seems as though I would have to cover pages and pages just to do justice to a single theme, and while I'm doing that I'd be missing out on life - not only that, but in the end the product would in any case be unfaithful to life. It seems futile to go on about things, just as I often find photographs to be futile and pathetic as representations of reality.
Diane Arbus appears to have had an irresistible urge to take photographs, which I suppose is what makes an artist. It is said that a real artist must create - there is never any question of whether to create. "It is said" equates to cliche, but there must be some truth to it in the sense that one could never get anything of value accomplished without a certain amount of obsessiveness and zeal.
From reading excerpts from her journals that were on display at the museum, I got the impression that she was overbrimming with excitement and lyricism, and that the photographs, rich as they were, were really just inadequate recordings of the richness of her experience. At least we have the works: intimations. "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know."
I thought perhaps that if I do any writing the best form would be the brief aphoristic distillations that I have written in the past. I must ask myself what is essential: if I knew I were going to die tomorrow or in a few hours, what do I have to say that must be said, or at least that would be a pity if it remained unsaid. Could I save someone else a lot of trouble by saying something simply? Could I have saved myself a lot of trouble if I could express something I know now to myself 30, 20 or 10 years ago?
For example, this idea that keeps recurring to me that each and every life form, and possibly even what we think of as nonliving matter, is a momentary and sacred locus of sensation and consciousness that is acting and being on behalf of the whole universe. The hummingbird I saw today that paused on a power line and turned its head this way and that - the eyes and consciousness of the hummingbird are the universe contemplating itself in a very specific, momentary and sacred way.
And if we must speak of a "meaning" or "purpose" to life, is it not sufficient to say that we are here to serve as the eyes of the universe in the act of contemplating with joy and curiosity its own being? This is not of course an original idea - I believe I encountered it in Tolle and/or the Bhagavad Gita or perhaps James Campbell - but it is one thing to entertain intellectually a spiritual/mystical idea (which is all I think many people ever do), and quite another to experience it and see it and live it and understand it deeply and intuitively to be true. How lucky I am to have lived long enough to do that. But perhaps that is my reason for being.