Memorialization (re-edited)

I.

Beauty is not obligatory.

II.

The more overwhelming and profound an Experience, the more the Subject will not only be compelled to memorialize it but also reflect upon his own memorialization; reflection that, according to the amplitude of the emotional grandeur that the underlying Experience initially evoked, will – as the distance between experience and reflection lengthens and the amplitude shortens – eventually give way to conceptualization and abstraction, the latter state which will merely be a sad residue of the Original and – linguistically removed from its source as it is – will thereafter bar the original Subject from ever emotionally reconnecting to its genesis and beginning.

The more obscure, indecipherable, inexplicable, and “wordy” one’s final “concept”, the more ambiguous, amorphous, inexact, and therefore necessarily “general” the original experience most surely was; generality which is most probably not the fault of the experience – existentially inert as all experiences are – but is due to the undisciplined, unprincipled, unhealthy, and in all likelihood imbalanced bodily, mental, emotional, and spiritual fitness of the Subject who believed they felt it; fitness or else, “the capacity to repeatedly and habitually forego the immediate needs and wants of the body, mind, and will for the possibility of future self-transcendence”, which is the greatest determinant of whether an experience, however mundane or tremendous, will be able to attain the commensurate level of meaning and purpose that all Experience intends and longs to fulfill in man and by it, nature itself.