P: I think it is because their energy is one dimensional.
K: The artist still remains ambitious, greedy, a bourgeois.
S: Why do you say that greed would come in the way of energy operating? Man
may be ambitious but he is also good. These are the elements which structure his
self.
K: We are asking why, when man has that energy, it does not bring about a
radical change.
P: Man has energy to operate in his environment, but there are large areas of his
being where there is no movement of energy.
K: Man uses energy in one direction only, as he operates in only one direction;
energy is dormant in one part of his existence, and is active in the other part.
P: Even man’s sensory instruments are utilized partially.
K: He is a fragmented being. Why does this division take place? One fragment is
tremendously active, the other does not function at all. One fragment is ordinary,
bourgeois, petty. When do these fragments coalesce to become a harmonious
energy, an energy which is not fragmented?
P: When the sensory instruments operate fully.
K: When does this take place? Do they operate completely when there is a
tremendous crisis?
P: Not always, sir. The action of crisis can also be partial: when you see a snake
you can jump into a bush of thorns.
K: When does the fragment cease to be a fragment? Are we not thinking in terms
of movement, in terms of action, in terms of change? We have accepted the
movement of becoming; we have accepted fragmentation. The movement of
becoming is always a movement in fragments. Is there a movement which does
not belong to these categories? See what happens if there is no movement at all.
P: I have always found it difficult to understand this question of yours. The
nature of the very question suggests the other—the opposite.
S: One really does not know the dormant movement.
K: At the beginning we said that there was fragmentation. One fragment is very
alive, and the other is not alive.