In fact a mature person does not fall in love, he rises in love. The word ’fall’ is not right. Only immature people fall; they stumble and fall down in love. Somehow they were managing and standing. They cannot manage and they cannot stand – they find a woman and they are gone, they find a man and they are gone. They were always ready to fall on the ground and to creep. They don’t have the backbone, the spine; they don’t have that integrity to stand alone.
A mature person has the integrity to be alone. And when a mature person gives love, he gives without any strings attached to it: he simply gives. And when a mature person gives love, he feels grateful that you have accepted his love, not vice versa. He does not expect you to be thankful for it – no, not at all, he does not even need your thanks. He thanks you for accepting his love. And when two mature persons are in love, one of the greatest paradoxes of life happens, one of the most beautiful phenomena: they are together and yet tremendously alone; they are together so much so that they are almost one. But their oneness does not destroy their individuality, in fact, it enhances it: they become more individual.
Two mature persons in love help each other to become more free. There is no politics involved, no diplomacy, no effort to dominate. How can you dominate the person you love? Just think over it. Domination is a sort of hatred, anger, enmity. How can you think of dominating a person you love? You would love to see the person totally free, independent; you will give him more individuality. That’s why I call it the greatest paradox: they are together so much so that they are almost one, but still in that oneness they are individuals. Their individualities are not effaced – they have become more enhanced. The other has enriched them as far as their freedom is concerned.
Immature people falling in love destroy each other’s freedom, create a bondage, make a prison. Mature persons in love help each other to be free; they help each other to destroy all sorts of bondages. And when love flows with freedom there is beauty. When love flows with dependence there is ugliness."
"A poem is an organism. It is a projection of our existence, a cosmology of a particular experience. It is a sequence imposed on the simultaneity of that experience in order to recreate it. Its ‘poetry’ is nothing more than the presence of someone existing and acknowledging his [or her] own life. The condition is more fundamental than any description of its properties. To define what a poem is would require defining human existence. It would require answering why is there something, rather than nothing.”
—Charles Simic, from The Uncertain Certainty: Interviews, Essays, and Notes on Poetry (The University of Michigan Press, 1988)
"There is something very interesting about the relationship between philosophy and madness. Philosophy is the study of reason, while madness is often thought to be the anti-thesis of reason. So how does a philosopher — a person preoccupied with reason — come to be in a mental state that lacks it?
In philosophy, philosophical problems are often taken to their logical extremes. In madness, real-life issues are taken to their logical consequences and acted upon. So, is madness simply an extension of philosophical reasoning? And if so, could it be that philosophy and madness are somehow inextricably linked?
No link has been established between madness & philosophising. Naturally there have been mad philosophers. Nietzsche stands as one of the more notorious; he was known for writing mad letters to his friends.
But the existence of mad philosophers does not mean madness is a natural extension of the thinking about fundamental questions. On being seized by madness, one loses touch with reality. It is possible to do the most absurd of things, like standing upside down in front of a doorway, and yet believe there is logic to it, like knowing that it is in conformity with a Code.
My personal madness is the result of actions which in retrospect seem very stupid. Like Descartes, I attempted to ‘doubt as much as I could’. Unlike Descartes, I treated the exercise as a practical and not just a theoretical one.”"