| is a strange emotion. i feel so much of it for so many things. just life, and everything in it. we are gods. we can give life, we can take life away, we can cause suffering, we can affect the land around us. we are fucking gods. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20090318
love
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjPnablJ7AE
well omniscience tends to involve more than one voice or perception. To be omniscient we would have to know how others saw and experienced the world, and how it feels to be a whale or a mouse, and know all the things that happen beyond what we can see. We can't destroy everything, like fear and growth and life cycles of things human or not. And the most important thing to us is the desire for control of these things. And I think lifes beggest trickery is to make us percieve ourselves with huge amounts of control, almost godly control. We think were all that when we compare ourselves to animals. But look at us desperately trying to figure out what is out there, and why we are here. The universe must be laughing down on us, because the clever little animals will never know. Even a cat has imagination i guess. I guess, i jus don't know. I got nothing.
And i understand the idea that all we can percieve is all we can percieve, therefore that in a sense, is our world, and we control it. But that's simply a way of describing how restricted we are to our senses, and how our bodies and reactions are still in control of our mind and the way it is shaped. We react to a book of philosophy by telling others of philosophy, these are not idol thoughts...
i feel, but it's just my opinion.
hahaha yay my useless contributions are present! Cheers for that N-Ry.
unnita!
i meant omniscience more like from a phenomenalist perspective, so "if you don't see/experience something... it's not even there". if this idea is put up against omniscience, then i for one, must be omniscient becuase everything i see is 'all there is'.
even though, in the same vein, that sadly means i'm the only one who exists in the world, because everyone else is a figment of my imagination and stop existing when i stop experiencing them...
(therefore i couldn't possibly know what a mouse or whale saw, becuase they don't actually exist, i can only be sure of my own existence because *I* think - (descartes?)). hahaha. but yeah, phenomenalism is definitely a theory that does NOT stand up, compared to the realist theories. i know i can't be the only one in the world, etc. so, good call!
I think *in a way* we can destroy everything, and we can do that by destroying what experiences it - us. Is there no fear or growth if there is no experience of fear or growth...? (i say a bit about this in the next paragraph)
Basically, anything that exists, only exists because we perceive it to. If we don't experience something's existence, can it exist? (An interesting counter to this might be ultrasound!)
Yeah, it's so true that it's dangerous to perceive ourselves with godly control. I guess thats what makes people psycho, and like... tyrannical. I think the key is to not use our abilities and power to their full potential all the time, the full potential being the 'maximums of power', which i believe to be destroying and creating life. because when you destroy a person, you don't just destroy them... you destroy this entire world, for them. imagine yourself dead - it's gone, everything is gone. to make the universe disappear, (and make sure that person can't even experience it), is a lot of power!
Yes, we are limited to our senses.
I guess theories of perception, in general are ways of bringing in bigger ideas than senses, or coping with the way we perceive the world through only our senses.
But I guess that leads back to the (flawed, as we figured earlier) argument for phenomenalism... since we ARE limited to our senses, what is there to disagree with the fact that "everything only exists when i look at/touch/smell/experience it?"
i like your end statement "i feel but it's just my opinion", that definitely puts you in a context where you are one of a collective, many, the human race? this point goes lots against phenomenalism, and lots with exactly what relative realism is. like... things exist, and i can experience them and like... touch something like a tree and feel texture and shape.... but if someone else touched it, they might have a totally different feeling BUT still use the same word to describe it because that's all they/we have ever known that word to mean.
who really knows what is 'right', what is the correct way that we perceive, what is the correct way the world works?
i am probably a relative realist, but i think the things that i/humans experience with our senses, are very close to what ACTUALLY exists. senses are like a veil to the world of real existence, because they do have limitations, but i estimate that our senses are pretty accurate when it comes to mass, shape, texture.. maybe not so much with colour/smell/taste though, that is WAY more subjective.
thanks for commenting back man :D
good to get my brain thinking about big things, it's been ages. holy shit i wrote a lot though. hope you don't think i believe i'm a god, or anything. i'm not THAT conceited, haha. i just thought that the qualities people see in gods, (using the christian qualifiers as an example) can be found in humans. :)
you were way more constructive than owen! *facepalm*
I believe...
Well I'm not quite sure I'd like to finish that sentence. Belief is a concept that forever wary of seeing as it has attachments with a total commitment to an idea. I'm not sure that needs to be stated though as I'm almost certain you would agree. However, I THINK that the main issue to consider here, is how much time can be justifiably assigned to working this stuff out?
Firstly, despite a hunger to change, I am a defeatist. (Haha, fuck. Obviously spoken honestly). Secondly, I decided long ago that although it may not be as easy or fun to let yourself fall into negativity when it strikes, it will result in no less valuable findings than that which you would discover in the opposite position. Of course, no one should spend too much time lingering in negativity. It could lead to great things, but you'd ultimately be sad as fuck.
I think that all this 'big stuff' has its gems of realisation here and there when considered in moderation; because of course the things that will lead to a useful piece of information will spring to mind as and when they are needed.
I guess what I was ultimately leading up to, albeit veering just a little off course along the way, is that the biggest things are not the most important, and that the truth (if such a non-concept can be tolerated) is quite the contrary. This may be one of the few things I am willing to offer my belief. Wow.
We are small. Godly status is not something I don't think we should dwell upon; lest we are willing to accept an equal status of all living entities.
For the time being, I think the best we can do at least, is not to try exactly to give respect to all things (this is not the defeatist, but the realist in me speaking) for I think it is too big a feat to ask of a naturally suspicious and judgmental species. What I think we can do is show courtesy. After all, what truly makes a bigger difference to the world: A smile in the street, or an unprovable theory on where life began?
The smile.
I BELIEVE respect will follow such courtesy, but that may just be the optimist peeking out to will such a result; and the reverberations of such a result would be phenomenal. I think that if we could honestly understand ourselves (through reflections of ourselves, as we comprehend all things) we'd be open to a lot more honest answers that have been there all along.
This all sounds very religious; but where religion has made a its more than fatal error, is in giving this idea a template. I feel that this is perhaps the world's most hazardous contradiction to date.
I am a firm believer in experience before research. Why READ then form your own opinions? There's is more information in the wind, the earth and all that stuff than could ever be expressed by someone in a book. Experience and THEN seek some diversity amongst humans. It's only logical.
I've finished, I'm not sure what I've written.
I agree with thom, i feel like a Defeatist, and i can see how solisism could grant me the mind set where I am in control of my own world, but i just guess i chose that even though it's could be seen a big thing that i'm on my own in my own world of perception, it isn't that big at the same time. Like if that was the way things were, well i still can't seem to take control of the nasty bits in this world of mine i've creted like war though just wishing them away. I'm just gunna do what works for me. There are all these templates out there like religion and philisophy. And just i don't wear all of one colour, i'll take a bit that i like from each of them and paint a picture from them that makes me as happy as my ability allows.
Man, I just realised how right you are about belief. I thought, well, I believe [blank], then realised after you said belief has attatchments with commitment to an idea, that I used to believe in other things, and that my beliefs changed. Is it really belief if you can chop and change it whenever you like? Probably not.
Hahaha, it's so true that often there is futility in simply discussing the 'big things' in life, and that like you say, we probably shouldn't allocate all our time trying to figure it out, but i guess i like hearing what people think about the stuff that 'just is'. No way do I intend to do it everyday though, it's just been a while :)
For sure, negativity/sadness can be awfully productive. I'd say a metaphor might be a hole thats getting deeper and deeper beneath you. You keep climbing and climbing constantly to try and stop yourself getting worse and worse (and ultimately falling down forever), and you eventually come out at the top with a really strong set of arms and legs. Happiness is relaxing at the top of this hole in a deck chair. No (emotional) "strength" in his muscles.
What a strange analogy, but I hope that makes sense?
So true that the biggest things aren't always the most important, sure, they might be fundamental - but the reason why we discuss them is because... there is no one 'truth' in how we perceive or what the 'meaning of life' is. Like you say, the truth is what's more important, and sadly it doesn't look like after so many years of pondering, we will find truth in these 'big things'.
I remember sitting in that field outside newmarket in the wee hours, with you, tim and adam. I think we all agreed on that, then - the smile. that what we should do to others and other sentient, living beings is show courtesy. Because respect really is a big big thing. A thought that you just put into my mind: would God equal himself with all living beings? (Haha, for reasons previously discussed I expect we don't need to go into this 'big' idea :P)
I think respect CAN come after courtesy, if you are not courteous to someone and instead are mean, why would they respect you? Respect is given to people with strong positive values, and i think (unconditional?) courtesy is one of these values, and totally commendable.
Again, i think this is partly why people turn to the big ideas - to try and understand how we work as humans, in order to open up these 'honest answers that have been there all along'. but almost always the debate is circular, and is just made up of opinions... not truth. i have no idea when humans will figure out a way to look inside themselves and get these answers... ever?
I agree about the danger of religion too, and that any sort of template is quite tough to put upon a whole world, when there are so many different opinions and experiences, there is no yes or no, there isn't a binary choice, you can't put templates onto a world which is (in my opinion) essentially an abstract place.
Yeah, I guess you could let a guy live his life full of people and experiences, without knowing how to read - then get someone who is a total bookworm and never gets out/doesn't experience what it is to be in the 'real world' with real people, and ask them both what they thought about these big questions... I bet the scholar could say a lot MORE about it, but the i-cant-read-guy will have a lot more TRUTH in his words, purely because he is living a real life. I would be more likely to understand and trust what he is saying.
Thanks so much for sharing what you think, and a bit of what you might 'believe'. Awesome stuff. :D
And factoring in Joshes new comment, too - I am in agreement with both of you. I guess no matter what anyone thinks about 'theories of perception' or 'belief' or anything really... there is nothing we can do but live life. How we do that can only be subjective, and we have to make the most of what we have, to each paint our own picture from all the thoughts/knowledge we're given.
Thanks loads to you both!!
I'm sure it'd be more useful if I said something meaningful here, but I'm sure whatever I say won't do my thoughts service. Or this conversation for that matter.
I'll get back to you on it!
Thank you Narayan.
We're all gods...
In our own way and our own right.
We hold power over ourselves, over our actions and over others.
But we'll only ever know our own point of view.
Does anyone else ever want to be someone else for a day or an animal for a day?
Just to see how they tick, compared to yourself...
Post a Comment