Thursday, August 5, 2010

Immobility


Perhaps the immobility of the things that surround us is forced upon them by our conviction that they are themselves, and not anything else, and by the immobility of our conception of them.

Remembrance of Things Past, Swann’s Way, Page 5




Update:
In the Forum: fromage.

7 comments:

nouvelles couleurs - vienna atelier said...

I agree totally!

Anthony Duce said...

This is probably true in most cases. I'm curious though if sometimes we just don't take the time to take a closer look. Thanks

William Michaelian said...

The key word, I think, is “perhaps.” You’ve probably noticed already that I use the words “it seems” a lot.

Thank you, Laura. Thanks, Anthony.

donnafleischer said...

i hear tell from quantum physics that particles do move (in this case not move) in response to our observation of them (in one sense or another). and thank you William and Marcel for reminding us (me) that not only have Eastern philosophers and spiritual-yogi- practitioners intuited and apprehended the nature of the universe and human apperception long before the socalled advances of science, but artists have done and shall continue to tear apart and regather the theories of intellect without mind, as it should be, since art has long understood the intimate interrelationship between the two, science and art. just ask any clinamen swerve . . . thanks, William.

William Michaelian said...

Thanks, Donna. I’m probably in over my head, but isn’t it also interesting that the same can be said (perhaps) if we substitute the word “inside” for Proust’s “that surround”? — “things” meaning thoughts, ideas, perceptions....

Obiterspeak said...

i'm inclined to agree but i won't? move by whatever means... thanks for the jolt :-)

William Michaelian said...

Hi, Regina. Thanks for dropping by. I’m glad you were “moved” by this quote.