Construction And Destruction (in Regards To Life)

[Gabriel David Gomez]

...Construction cannot exist without deconstruction and deconstruction cannot exist without construction. Consider both before either and for the benefit of all...

I believe that this method of mine is useful to learn both offense and defense as well as to increase in strategical skills and tactic. During the course of writing my book, this advice came to mind and I have only recently thought to apply this advice in my search for experience to flavor the remainder of it. If someone has feedback, that would be appreciated

Experiment with a mindset to deconstruct when you construct (the splitting of wood by nail and hammer) and with a mindset to construct when you deconstruct (aim for the the shape which remains after deconstruction)

In regards to life, martial artists discipline the enemy. This is different than simple violence. The act is meant to shape something by deconstruction of only that which isn't beneficial to all. Also, a person can increase in wisdom, strategy, and develop tactic if they focus on building something by deconstructing something else, they can learn the very many things involved in their construction. To strike a nail is to take from mass and to deconstruct the surface of the wood. I'm sure this can be compared to a much bigger example of which the variables often not considered are helpful in the many searches of science. The ky is to balance your focus on deconstruction and construction so that you yourself do not become unbalanced. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Gabriel David Gomez
wasn't sufficient

[J. M. Wigglesworth]

@Gabriel David Gomez

28 minutes ago, Gabriel David Gomez said:

 

Build into rubble and break into structure. By strategy and tactic break something such that the rubble itself is a structure, though abstract and irregular. Let your attacks be to build a monument. By strategy and tactic build something into rubble such that your attacks are more like using a hammer and nail to accomplish the basics of an acceptable result. Let what you built be built by destruction and what you destroy be destroyed by construction.

 

What exactly... what? Are you referring to the principals of yin-yang? Form and emptiness? Top down versus bottom up structuring?  Thirty six strategems? 

Honestly this sounds like fluff. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Could you reword this and use examples of how it's applied? I have learned a helluva a lot of paradigms, modalities of thought and higher principles and this one doesn't sound like it relates it any of them in the slightest, which is very odd, especially if what you said was supposed to be profound.  

23 minutes ago, Gabriel David Gomez said:

During the course of writing my book,

I hope you learn to explain concepts much more clearly than this or nobody will publish you.
 

 

[Gabriel David Gomez]

for instance, the state of mind someone has when they break something is merely the act of destruction. But destruction can be an intellectual construction into rubble rather than whole mindless destruction itself. Rather than chaos, order which results in more order. Just as when you see pointilism up close and it looks disorderly and chaotic, but when you back up it is actually order.

Another example is of breaking into structure. Regardless of how you build, you must break to accomplish it; and in order to build something must go and something must develop. In order to arise from the dirt, a flower must pierce the soil. Most animals mate by piercing the skin of the female (destruction amid construction). There is beginning and end as one. So the method is to treat destruction and construction as an equal so as not to be inefficient and totally ruthless. It's almost like discipline differing from abuse. With discipline, it is like sharpening a sword. The result is meant to benefit. Like how martial artists do not often kill but instead use non lethal self-defense to preserve life but teach a lesson. 

I think this method is very useful for world peace. Let what you built be built by destruction so as to give birth to form, and what you destroy be destroyed by construction which results in multiple abstract yet useful forms.

I'll add this to the information above.

[Gabriel David Gomez]

Maybe the update will suffice.

[Gabriel David Gomez]

I was watching this spongebob episode where spongebob broke a piece of stone once and the result was an actual statue (or monument). So I considered an actual scenario and felt that to build, there must be a scarring or destruction which must be considered so that even the condition of the wood and the exterior of the nail is considered as precious upon the strike of the hammer. It's like an increase in compassion. I also considered how to break something and that the result was always yet another form. So I felt a person should also consider the form which was to become of the pieces leftover (such as to paralyze an enemy but not to leave him without a way out). This I likened to discipline.

[J. M. Wigglesworth]

@Gabriel David Gomez

The idea is starting to take shape a bit better in my mind. As I see it, this an application of yin-yang principles to creation with a minor study of form. It's not bad but it's a little... heterogenous? Like you've added too many ingredients, to detrimental effects. Could you distill it further?

For instance:

1. Destruction is not obliteration but the unveiling of a new form and is therefore creation.

2.Creation necessitates destruction to reveal it's new form and stand out by itself, apart from what once was there.

 

 

 

[Gabriel David Gomez]

Well, you have the process external to the person committing the action correct. But the mindset itself is what helps a person grow in strategy and tactic. 

 

you rightly said, "Destruction is not obliteration but the unveiling of a new form" but I is only another assembly or arrangement of the matter used.

Building necessitates destruction to reveal it's new form and to even arrange the matter as a new form.

 

But the state of mind during destruction would be building. People know too much of a destructive mindset during the act of destruction but they do not often have a mind set to build during an action primarily considered to be destructive. For instance, when tearing down forests they do so to build. The honorable thing about planting new trees is that they considered both construction and destruction during their actions. This is what causes a better environment for the most recent generation. If applied in other areas, it can effectively teach principles for everyday life towards world peace.

The state of mind during destruction should be construction and how to construct what the destruction will reveal. The state of mind during construction should be destruction and how to destroy something into what the result will be. What this does is focuses on somethings antithesis so that, during the thesis, neither get out of control. It keeps the balance. By having a constructive mindset during destruction (such as a fight), one can have humane wits about themselves and strategically break rather than by sheer luck or the usual approach to destruction which is to simply create chaos because chaos takes everything down. By having a destructive mindset during construction, the goal is focused on defense and it will be harder for things to get in your way. The humaneness of wit is more soso revealed externally because the result is order (because you would be building). by the state of mind being to build during the process of construction, you may not focus on how to take down obstacles more than you consider avoiding them. But the antithesis of that mindset may also remove barriers unuseful to humanity because they will not be partial while building. Their mindset is to destroy while constructing (which is humane and fun if done with wisdom) and to construct while destroying (as stated)

[Gabriel David Gomez]

I think what you may have missed is that I didn't mention that the destruction during construction is also the mindset rather than merely external and physical. So that the thing destroyed which becomes only another form has been destroyed by one with a mindset to build that which it will become. Also, that the thing which is built and has become a structure only by destruction has been constructed by one with a mindset to destroy. The intent is to make all action "constructive" and less futile lol. Much of man's actions have resulted in more harm than benefit in the long run. But of course nature will nonetheless remain on its course.

[Gabriel David Gomez]

part of me is thinking that construction is nothing without destruction unless there is creation but that destruction can exist without construction because of obliteration.

[Gabriel David Gomez]

Okay, here is the simplification so get ready: 

 

"Construction cannot exist without deconstruction and deconstruction cannot exist without construction."

-Gabriel David Gomez

 

You were right, I definitely considered too much. Bruce Lee rightly said that simplification is the way to go. Better to say much in a little words. I will add that it is necessary to consider both construction and deconstruction before doing either.

 

"Construction cannot exist without deconstruction and deconstruction cannot exist without construction. Consider both before either and for the benefit of all."

-Gabriel David Gomez

 

[Epiphany_Inspired]

Reminiscent of the goddess Kali....

[Gabriel David Gomez]

On 8/30/2016 at 10:21 PM, Epiphany_Inspired said:

Reminiscent of the goddess Kali....

This topic has nothing to do with mythical beings. I already looked up this "Kali" and I found nothing I didn't know already. It's a picture which represents something. You might as well just learn what it represents and forget "Kali" altogether. Please post appropriately.

[Emerald]

On August 30, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Epiphany_Inspired said:

Reminiscent of the goddess Kali....

I was going to say that's Durga not Kali but Durga is just a different personification of Kali. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Emerald Wilkins

[Epiphany_Inspired]

@Gabriel David Gomez What Kali represents is exactly the point...some of us are visual thinkers ("a picture is worth a thousand words"). She's destruction & creation, death & rebirth, construction & deconstruction, etc....Kali represents your philosophy precisely; how both sides are necessary and intertwined. So, I thought she was completely relevant (also super hot...lol)

The process of actualization emphasizes open-mindedness, yet I find there are continual requests on this forum for me to censor myself...like you have asked...Do you feel all posts should be in text format, or do you simply dislike that particular image, or her representation? Also, calling Kali a mythical creature does not show compassion to those devoted to the Hindu religion....people may disagree on weather or not Jesus could walk on water, or be resurrected but he is rarely called mythical...therefore, I feel it is inappropriate to call Kali "mythical" based on her unique appearance, or her definition.

There is nothing wrong with rediscovering ancient wisdom (like how your insight appears equivalent to Kali's representation). Every epiphany we have does not need to be a fresh addition to the consciousness of the world. You have a unique way of expressing it, and that's totally awesome!

[Gabriel David Gomez]

On 9/5/2016 at 7:22 PM, Epiphany_Inspired said:

@Gabriel David Gomez What Kali represents is exactly the point...some of us are visual thinkers ("a picture is worth a thousand words"). She's destruction & creation, death & rebirth, construction & deconstruction, etc....Kali represents your philosophy precisely; how both sides are necessary and intertwined. So, I thought she was completely relevant (also super hot...lol)

The process of actualization emphasizes open-mindedness, yet I find there are continual requests on this forum for me to censor myself...like you have asked...Do you feel all posts should be in text format, or do you simply dislike that particular image, or her representation? Also, calling Kali a mythical creature does not show compassion to those devoted to the Hindu religion....people may disagree on weather or not Jesus could walk on water, or be resurrected but he is rarely called mythical...therefore, I feel it is inappropriate to call Kali "mythical" based on her unique appearance, or her definition.

There is nothing wrong with rediscovering ancient wisdom (like how your insight appears equivalent to Kali's representation). Every epiphany we have does not need to be a fresh addition to the consciousness of the world. You have a unique way of expressing it, and that's totally awesome!

Keyword, Kali "represents". But a representation isn't what it represents. Forget the mythology and stupid non-essentials and focus on the point. Strong emotion and wonder doesn't equate with convincing truth. There are enough futile traditions in the world and the guidelines for this website is against that afore revealed thing,

[Gabriel David Gomez]

No need for representation, mere fashionable things, and non essential extras. Follow bruce lee's advice and hack away at the non-essentials. Also, do nothing that is useless. If you presented that to someone who desperately need that information, they may turn you away because they don't like "Kali", but if you present the useful information, what can they have bias against?