Okay, I need to reset my mind. The past week has been rough, so now I need to just do a simple post.
I think, no matter how you go about it, God should not resemble anything human at all. Why? Because humans are animals (like it or not, we ARE). I want to make it very clear. We eat, we sleep, we poop. The main difference is that we THINK. Sometimes very hard. That should not be enough to make us be THAT different from animals. Just because a bird can fly well, a fish can swim well, and a bear can smell well, doesn't make them not animal. Just as they all have their special niche, we have ours.
The general idea that everyone is equal is quite flawed, the idea that every human deserves equal RIGHTS is more acceptable(but still only just an idea). No one chooses their traits.
Culture is also not always a choice. Other than the occasional heretic(me!) or convert, no one actually chooses what they want to believe in. It's very hard to let go of something if it's been shoved into your mind ever since you were born. You cannot rightly say you have chosen to believe in (insert religion here) even after you've given it some thought. However, I don't want to mingle in this topic for too long. It get's people upset, and if I present my points badly, religious people get a little more faithful, simply because I gave atheism a bad name.
Could it be, that the only person who deserves an ego is God himself, the creator?
Then again, he's not a person.
The thing is, we can't tell who or what created the universe (but let's all agree that everything after the creation of the universe is quite explainable without the presents of a God, more on random chance some other time), but we can tell, or accurately guess when and where it began, and sometimes poke fun at how it was created.
Nietzsche once wrote about common sense. It's not the normal common sense that I'm talking about. I'm actually talking about the way nearly all humans put two and two together using our 5 senses, our brains and (allow me, just this once) the soul. What Nietzsche said is that common sense is, basically, what keeps us from going insane.
He also mentioned, that perhaps someone,(or some primitive being, earth bound, no less) HAS actually seen beyond common sense, and thus seen(more accurately, experienced) the universe in 4D, or even 11D(according to the string theory). But this ability to see beyond 3D most likely complicated early evolution of brain, and so was discarded, in favor of a much easier to use just sound, sight, touch, smell and taste(and all those other sub-sensations).
I find that because we cannot 'feel' or 'experience' the true universe, then surely we can imagine it. Here, mathematics comes into play. But because I do math like a 5 year old, all I can say is that maybe the only way is to calculate and imagine(using calculations) how the universe really is, in all its dimensional splendor.
Some say that THIS universe is just a fraction of another much more complex one. If that were true, I myself can safely chuck God out of the window. Why? Simple.
Right now, I cannot safely say the universe has no age, because, quite frankly it does. God however(or most ideas of the creator) is ageless, therefore, making sure no one can ask who created God.
If this universe is part of a much much much more complicated, and ageless multiverse, then I can put my mind to rest, because my questions will most likely find their answers in random chance. If we can find out how the universe fits into a much bigger picture, an ageless picture, then perhaps we can rule out God as the creator.
The thing is, most of us cannot escape the idea of us being animals. How social interactions have been so mixed up with all other complications of having a brain to eventually make us feel like we have a soul. Truth be told, the soul is VERY explainable. It is what happens when animals get complex. Watch Richard Dawkin's The Genius of Darwin. It's all on youtube.
After this post, I will no longer try to find truth, instead, I will find use. As in, not if reliogious beliefs are true, but if they are beneficial.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
What it is to be human_part 5
Using Nietzsche's will to power theory and part of the selfish theory, it can be said that there is nothing divine(as in magically unselfish) in any human interaction. We give respect to great people who have contributed NOT because respect is more admirable than material wealth, but because we are trying to show that we can give back too. As in, as I have pointed out before, when a rich man gives money to a beggar(here the rich man is showing his power, showing that he is superior to the beggar), and then receives thanks from the beggar(here the beggar is showing that he is superior by giving something back. Also, when a person demands pity, there isn't any divinity in his sadness (as in sadness is not exactly as unexplainable magical as it seems to be), instead, the aforementioned person is showing his superiority by pulling people down to his level, because at least he can still do that in his state.
Respect is equally explainable. We don't respect people who haven't done anything for us. Even if we don't know someone like Einstein, we still can respect him because he has shown that he is superior to us, our natural instinct is to show that we can respect. Either we respect, or we get jealous(which is the more animal-like reaction, and therefore less human reaction).
When we do something great(or just something admirable, depending on the degree of greatness), and not expect something material in return, subconsciously, we expect respect or at least for another human to be in debt to you (again, please remember to ditch any metaphysical ideas when reading this blog) . This is a feature only present in animals, or more accurately, complex animals. And has a lot to do with ego, but more on ego later(next post, I think).
The thing is, ego is only present in animals.
The idea of a creator always states that God is beyond human, meaning beyond animal. This is quite clear, as animals clearly are quite a new thing compared to things like the universe and the fundamental idea of God.
So why would a God need to have an ego? Would a God beyond human emotion and thought be in need of things like respect, worship and human submission? That would be bringing down God to a very human level.
So to worship a God is to insult one with something a human would want.
I can't tell you how to treat a God. If it gives you comfort to think that you are not in control of your destiny, then by all means, worship.
But being human, being able to conquer nature and do things our own way, we must be responsible for our destiny. Think of life as a scrabble game(stupid analogy, I know);
rules - represents things like law and social rules, MUST be learnt to survive
vocabulary - represents things like skills, wisdom, knowledge, up to individuals to learn up
7 letters - represents random chance, beyond human control, could be good, could be bad. Also has much to do with genetics (including genetic memory)
You can see clearly see that one must not simply submit to random chance. The most admirable people are those who have overcome random chance and achieved greatness. The least admirable people are those who have failed in life despite having the advantage of good luck.
With all that out of the way, I don't think there is a real need to worship a God, unless you have bad luck. In that sense, Nietzsche was wrong in saying God is dead. People will always find a need for God, because random chance is sometimes very random.
I'll be back with a more solid post when I get back home. I'm not in my perfect mind when away.
Respect is equally explainable. We don't respect people who haven't done anything for us. Even if we don't know someone like Einstein, we still can respect him because he has shown that he is superior to us, our natural instinct is to show that we can respect. Either we respect, or we get jealous(which is the more animal-like reaction, and therefore less human reaction).
When we do something great(or just something admirable, depending on the degree of greatness), and not expect something material in return, subconsciously, we expect respect or at least for another human to be in debt to you (again, please remember to ditch any metaphysical ideas when reading this blog) . This is a feature only present in animals, or more accurately, complex animals. And has a lot to do with ego, but more on ego later(next post, I think).
The thing is, ego is only present in animals.
The idea of a creator always states that God is beyond human, meaning beyond animal. This is quite clear, as animals clearly are quite a new thing compared to things like the universe and the fundamental idea of God.
So why would a God need to have an ego? Would a God beyond human emotion and thought be in need of things like respect, worship and human submission? That would be bringing down God to a very human level.
So to worship a God is to insult one with something a human would want.
I can't tell you how to treat a God. If it gives you comfort to think that you are not in control of your destiny, then by all means, worship.
But being human, being able to conquer nature and do things our own way, we must be responsible for our destiny. Think of life as a scrabble game(stupid analogy, I know);
rules - represents things like law and social rules, MUST be learnt to survive
vocabulary - represents things like skills, wisdom, knowledge, up to individuals to learn up
7 letters - represents random chance, beyond human control, could be good, could be bad. Also has much to do with genetics (including genetic memory)
You can see clearly see that one must not simply submit to random chance. The most admirable people are those who have overcome random chance and achieved greatness. The least admirable people are those who have failed in life despite having the advantage of good luck.
With all that out of the way, I don't think there is a real need to worship a God, unless you have bad luck. In that sense, Nietzsche was wrong in saying God is dead. People will always find a need for God, because random chance is sometimes very random.
I'll be back with a more solid post when I get back home. I'm not in my perfect mind when away.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
What it is to be human_part 4
Let us first establish some rules : It is an animalistic feature to be impulsive. And if impulsive behaviour is the true nature of an animal, then certainly, the initial reaction of a thinking being is its true nature, and not a lie.
With that rule established, we can now begin to see the tie that bonds lying with being human.
Maybe the word lying is a little too vague. The word reasoning is more accurate. But if the initial rule applies, then surely, to act out of reason is to lie.
In most cases, as in most human interactions, if it is a good conversation, as in a conversation in which both parties are pleased, there is much rationalization. The bad conversations are those with little in the way of compensation and rationalization. But, again, if the first rule applies, then the bad conversation is one with less lying involved.
Remember, that the lie I am trying to establish is the lie beyond good and evil. It has nothing to do with doing the right thing, for if rational thinking was indeed lying, then obviously, rational thinking is the right thing, the human thing. But when a lie is done to decieve another human, it is a lie done out of the basic animalistic selfishness, and is surely makes one less human and more animal.
If to rationalize is to lie and if to decieve is to lie. Then we all need to choose our lie, and live with the choice.
Continued in part 5
With that rule established, we can now begin to see the tie that bonds lying with being human.
Maybe the word lying is a little too vague. The word reasoning is more accurate. But if the initial rule applies, then surely, to act out of reason is to lie.
In most cases, as in most human interactions, if it is a good conversation, as in a conversation in which both parties are pleased, there is much rationalization. The bad conversations are those with little in the way of compensation and rationalization. But, again, if the first rule applies, then the bad conversation is one with less lying involved.
Remember, that the lie I am trying to establish is the lie beyond good and evil. It has nothing to do with doing the right thing, for if rational thinking was indeed lying, then obviously, rational thinking is the right thing, the human thing. But when a lie is done to decieve another human, it is a lie done out of the basic animalistic selfishness, and is surely makes one less human and more animal.
If to rationalize is to lie and if to decieve is to lie. Then we all need to choose our lie, and live with the choice.
Continued in part 5
Thursday, January 8, 2009
What it is to be human_part 3
Let's begin with a very uninteresting, but easy-on-the-mind debate. Which of the two make art better, curves or straight edges? I will talk about curves first. There is a car designer, a Russian man, who's name I do not know, who believes that the human eye was not meant to see straight edges. In nature, curves are a common sight. There are barely enough biological life forms with straight edged design. Plants sometimes give the appearance of having straight edges but when you think about it, plants don't move much. If nature keeps progressing forward with time, then animals are simply, more advanced. But the need for plants is beyond obvious, and so, nature will have to keep them around until animals find a way of filling the roles of plants. So instead of asking why exactly does nature tend to prefer curves over straight edges, I will simply establish the rule : in nature, curves are the preferred form of design.
Straight edges have a very unnatural look about them. The swordfish (and few other species of fish and shark) have straight edges, making them look unnatural. Remember that fish are quite primitive creatures and sometimes show more straight edges than most land based animals. Humans are, in our own way of seeing things, the most advanced species. Maybe it's simply because no other species has the ability of wiping out any other species with such efficiency. But then, again, there are so many other reasons for us to think we're the more evolved species. As a matter of fact, the ability to think we're more evolved makes us a little more evolved. Or maybe we are in fact very primitive, and all explanations are false, we're just pawns in a much bigger picture; in which case, writing things on this blog isn't useless, but completely useful, because it would mean our purpose is whatever we want it to be. I'm sorry, that does not make complete sense.
Back to topic.
When you stop and think of it, everything straight edged gives a very 'man-made' effect. And if part of being human is to create art, and art should be everything 'man-made', and not anything natural, for if is something is naturally occurring, it cannot be art. Only that which is 'man-made' may be rightfully labeled art. Please don't argue semantics or anything. The reason why I sometimes hate language is because of how 'art' means different things to different people. The art I am talking about is the true, well thought out definition of art.
Back to topic.
With my above statement in mind, can it be said, that the perfect art, as in designed, not written or sung, art would have to be completely straight edged? Why not?
Human beauty, or the beauty of the superior human is all about straight edges. The superior human is well toned, free of excess fat, which would make it more and more curvier. High cheek bones, and straight edged lines should be the core structure of the face of the superior human. That would be the definition of human beauty if strategically broken down. It is the reason why so many humans look for the straight edged look in a human. So many, but not all. But in human beauty, there are so many factors involved, which are beyond my 'not-completely-out-of-the-box' ways of thinking.
Now for the next segment.
Look at anything man-made. A remote control, a laptop, a telephone. Damned near anything. Human ingenuity. The fact that man relish in our ability to make thought reality must mean a great deal, and should be taken into serious consideration when asking the question : what is it to be human? Let us NOT ask how we imagine and what is imagination (just yet), but instead refer to imagination frequently, and without explanation of it's functional definition. The fact that human beings have been working for as long as we can remember to get OUT of the jungles/forests and shape nature(and eventually the universe) in our own image should give us a clear link to what we know we are, but cannot properly say in words.
Continued in part 4
Straight edges have a very unnatural look about them. The swordfish (and few other species of fish and shark) have straight edges, making them look unnatural. Remember that fish are quite primitive creatures and sometimes show more straight edges than most land based animals. Humans are, in our own way of seeing things, the most advanced species. Maybe it's simply because no other species has the ability of wiping out any other species with such efficiency. But then, again, there are so many other reasons for us to think we're the more evolved species. As a matter of fact, the ability to think we're more evolved makes us a little more evolved. Or maybe we are in fact very primitive, and all explanations are false, we're just pawns in a much bigger picture; in which case, writing things on this blog isn't useless, but completely useful, because it would mean our purpose is whatever we want it to be. I'm sorry, that does not make complete sense.
Back to topic.
When you stop and think of it, everything straight edged gives a very 'man-made' effect. And if part of being human is to create art, and art should be everything 'man-made', and not anything natural, for if is something is naturally occurring, it cannot be art. Only that which is 'man-made' may be rightfully labeled art. Please don't argue semantics or anything. The reason why I sometimes hate language is because of how 'art' means different things to different people. The art I am talking about is the true, well thought out definition of art.
Back to topic.
With my above statement in mind, can it be said, that the perfect art, as in designed, not written or sung, art would have to be completely straight edged? Why not?
Human beauty, or the beauty of the superior human is all about straight edges. The superior human is well toned, free of excess fat, which would make it more and more curvier. High cheek bones, and straight edged lines should be the core structure of the face of the superior human. That would be the definition of human beauty if strategically broken down. It is the reason why so many humans look for the straight edged look in a human. So many, but not all. But in human beauty, there are so many factors involved, which are beyond my 'not-completely-out-of-the-box' ways of thinking.
Now for the next segment.
Look at anything man-made. A remote control, a laptop, a telephone. Damned near anything. Human ingenuity. The fact that man relish in our ability to make thought reality must mean a great deal, and should be taken into serious consideration when asking the question : what is it to be human? Let us NOT ask how we imagine and what is imagination (just yet), but instead refer to imagination frequently, and without explanation of it's functional definition. The fact that human beings have been working for as long as we can remember to get OUT of the jungles/forests and shape nature(and eventually the universe) in our own image should give us a clear link to what we know we are, but cannot properly say in words.
Continued in part 4
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
What it is to be human_part 2
We look for divinity, perfection and clarity when we try to make sense of existence, don't we? Before part 2 begins, I'd like to make the above statement absolutely clear to whoever reads this.
The universe may actually not be as perfect as it seems to be, as in, the relationships we see between natural forces, the fact that natural forces can be classified, can be understood, can be manipulated, does not, in fact mean that they are what they seem to be. It may seem that everything in the universe is in order, but that may only seem that way because of how we perceive everything.
Plato had an interesting thing to say. A thought experiment, if you allow. And the rest of this paragraph is dedicated to an explanation. Human beings are limited by their senses. The way we perceive everything through our 5 senses can be related to facing the inside of a cave and seeing the shadows being cast by the light coming from the mouth of the cave. And us humans, being humans, take the shadows cast to be the true nature of the universe.
Nietzsche too has an interesting way of putting things. And I've mentioned it very recently. It's all about language. The fact that most people already KNOW what I'm talking about, but not know how to express it in words is validation of his theory. Well, parts of his theory anyway. Language, and English is not an exception, is flawed. Very flawed. As I've mentioned. The words laptop, chimera, ghost, God, hate immediately make us think of an image in out thoughts, or images and more words. This means that language gives us all a different view on life, because of how vague it gets. And all this while people have relied on that fact for forms of art, and especially written art. What slipped my mind before is opinion. I once thought opinion mattered. And am still open minded on how important opinion might be. But it seems that language has allowed people room for misinterpretation. And that may be why it's impossible to find just ONE truth.
My own theory, thanks to both Plato and Nietzsche, is that the new language should or might be a language of pure thought. Because it is truly difficult to write down what we think, sometimes. This new language will not be written, not be spoken and not be read. I'm slowly giving up any chance of me being the one to invent this new language(maybe not invent, but facilitate it's development, for thought has been around a long time).
Either way, I have no, or little love for fiction. Fiction relies on all the bad parts of language. All the room for misinterpretation. And so does written art. That is why I prefer to write with a combination of Nietzsche-an logic and Plato/Socrates style discussion. I realize the flaw in the way Nietzsche wrote. He used very artsy sort of explanation, which led to misinterpretation, which led to World War 2. Oops.
Plato/Socrates wrote without style. Republic is THE most boring book I've ever attempted to read. But quite simply, it is the most easiest to understand. Because you understand it EXACTLY the way anyone else understands it. It's the way it was written. Much like how I write nowadays I guess. But the content is sometimes rubbish. Especially when it comes to Good and Evil. Both Plato and Socrates never allow themselves to look beyond Good and Evil.
I have a great many theories on how and why we should evolve. The easiest to understand but also the least easiest to accept is the butterfly dream theory. We never really remember dreams. But sometimes in our mind of minds we see our dreams, and they last an infinite length of time, right? A long dream and a short dream can take place in both 1 REAL hour or 1 REAL second, because of how our minds work. In our dreams, sometimes we lose ourselves and don't stop to think 'This does NOT make sense". But the moment we wake up, we begin to get back to reality and slowly regain ourselves. Now imagine that this entire life has been a dream. A complex dream(but then again, maybe our dreams are just as complex, but we forget their complexity once we wake up), and we wake up to be a butterfly, who had a dream of being a human in a weird human universe. We sometimes have dreams of great wealth, or great fear, or great adventure, and though it takes awhile for us to accept it as a dream, we do. The moment we awake and find ourselves to be a butterfly, we would accept that we were just a butterfly, right? Think about this paragraph for a second. (Why butterflies? Don't ask, and forgive language errors, I'm drunk)
The next, and perhaps more acceptable theory is the God theory. Probably the easiest way to make sense of this complex world is to simply believe in God. Because the divine can poof things in and out of existence. And if this world had a divine backing(and divine here means unexplainable in human scientific terms) then, well, it would be awfully sickening, but easier. This paragraph needs no further explanation. It sickens me, and the fact that we CAN understand the once ununderstandable is enough of a reason to continue asking and continue seeking. NOT a reason for people to get lazy. (Read Atlas Shrugged for further nonsense)
And, in an off note, there ARE, without doubt, people better than me at everything I do, and people who understand everything I haven't begun trying to understand. But, if I waste my passion, then that would be a waste of good passion, would it not? Much appreciated though.
I am NOT done with this post. I've allowed more questions than answered I'm afraid.
But I'm absolutely NOT in the perfect mind. I will return, if not tomorrow, then in a few weeks time, with proper explanations. Till then.
The universe may actually not be as perfect as it seems to be, as in, the relationships we see between natural forces, the fact that natural forces can be classified, can be understood, can be manipulated, does not, in fact mean that they are what they seem to be. It may seem that everything in the universe is in order, but that may only seem that way because of how we perceive everything.
Plato had an interesting thing to say. A thought experiment, if you allow. And the rest of this paragraph is dedicated to an explanation. Human beings are limited by their senses. The way we perceive everything through our 5 senses can be related to facing the inside of a cave and seeing the shadows being cast by the light coming from the mouth of the cave. And us humans, being humans, take the shadows cast to be the true nature of the universe.
Nietzsche too has an interesting way of putting things. And I've mentioned it very recently. It's all about language. The fact that most people already KNOW what I'm talking about, but not know how to express it in words is validation of his theory. Well, parts of his theory anyway. Language, and English is not an exception, is flawed. Very flawed. As I've mentioned. The words laptop, chimera, ghost, God, hate immediately make us think of an image in out thoughts, or images and more words. This means that language gives us all a different view on life, because of how vague it gets. And all this while people have relied on that fact for forms of art, and especially written art. What slipped my mind before is opinion. I once thought opinion mattered. And am still open minded on how important opinion might be. But it seems that language has allowed people room for misinterpretation. And that may be why it's impossible to find just ONE truth.
My own theory, thanks to both Plato and Nietzsche, is that the new language should or might be a language of pure thought. Because it is truly difficult to write down what we think, sometimes. This new language will not be written, not be spoken and not be read. I'm slowly giving up any chance of me being the one to invent this new language(maybe not invent, but facilitate it's development, for thought has been around a long time).
Either way, I have no, or little love for fiction. Fiction relies on all the bad parts of language. All the room for misinterpretation. And so does written art. That is why I prefer to write with a combination of Nietzsche-an logic and Plato/Socrates style discussion. I realize the flaw in the way Nietzsche wrote. He used very artsy sort of explanation, which led to misinterpretation, which led to World War 2. Oops.
Plato/Socrates wrote without style. Republic is THE most boring book I've ever attempted to read. But quite simply, it is the most easiest to understand. Because you understand it EXACTLY the way anyone else understands it. It's the way it was written. Much like how I write nowadays I guess. But the content is sometimes rubbish. Especially when it comes to Good and Evil. Both Plato and Socrates never allow themselves to look beyond Good and Evil.
I have a great many theories on how and why we should evolve. The easiest to understand but also the least easiest to accept is the butterfly dream theory. We never really remember dreams. But sometimes in our mind of minds we see our dreams, and they last an infinite length of time, right? A long dream and a short dream can take place in both 1 REAL hour or 1 REAL second, because of how our minds work. In our dreams, sometimes we lose ourselves and don't stop to think 'This does NOT make sense". But the moment we wake up, we begin to get back to reality and slowly regain ourselves. Now imagine that this entire life has been a dream. A complex dream(but then again, maybe our dreams are just as complex, but we forget their complexity once we wake up), and we wake up to be a butterfly, who had a dream of being a human in a weird human universe. We sometimes have dreams of great wealth, or great fear, or great adventure, and though it takes awhile for us to accept it as a dream, we do. The moment we awake and find ourselves to be a butterfly, we would accept that we were just a butterfly, right? Think about this paragraph for a second. (Why butterflies? Don't ask, and forgive language errors, I'm drunk)
The next, and perhaps more acceptable theory is the God theory. Probably the easiest way to make sense of this complex world is to simply believe in God. Because the divine can poof things in and out of existence. And if this world had a divine backing(and divine here means unexplainable in human scientific terms) then, well, it would be awfully sickening, but easier. This paragraph needs no further explanation. It sickens me, and the fact that we CAN understand the once ununderstandable is enough of a reason to continue asking and continue seeking. NOT a reason for people to get lazy. (Read Atlas Shrugged for further nonsense)
And, in an off note, there ARE, without doubt, people better than me at everything I do, and people who understand everything I haven't begun trying to understand. But, if I waste my passion, then that would be a waste of good passion, would it not? Much appreciated though.
I am NOT done with this post. I've allowed more questions than answered I'm afraid.
But I'm absolutely NOT in the perfect mind. I will return, if not tomorrow, then in a few weeks time, with proper explanations. Till then.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
What it is to be human_part 1
This post, shall be my magnum opus, and it shall not be one single post, but a series of posts. I'll not do this alone, like I have before, but instead surround myself with opinion.
My own personal theory of what it is to be human is pretty straight forward. I've yet to see any divinity in it. And I don't think I can explain how it all came about, but maybe, just maybe, if even for a moment, I'd like to take you on a journey through a new way of life.
Whether we know it or not, we humans might have just lived to be a little different than nature. More accurately, and in layman's terms: To question every thing natural, to know how everything natural works, and to live life by doing things our own way.
It's a very simple way of putting it. Long I pondered if there was a Socratic way of putting it, but I guess the simple things make the most sense.
Everything that gives a deep feeling of satisfaction is seen as a more human thing to do, or so I see. To further simplify, I shall say : the human thing to do it the right thing to do.
Though not all humans do the right thing, it is easy enough to see how my theory might just work.
There ARE superior human beings, and there ARE human beings that are more animal than man.
We do feel a little better when we do something that is not natural for any other being to be doing.
Being faithful to just one other human being is seen as the right thing to do, and gives a deep sense of satisfaction to every advanced thinking human involved in such a situation.
A less developed human would resort to impulsive behavior.
So why would a human be less human, if every human gets a deep sense of satisfaction with every right thing done?
Simply because humans aren't born equal. Some humans are a little more evolved than others and some are born less evolved but come to a sort of self realization of their faults, only to overcome it.
More in part 2.
My own personal theory of what it is to be human is pretty straight forward. I've yet to see any divinity in it. And I don't think I can explain how it all came about, but maybe, just maybe, if even for a moment, I'd like to take you on a journey through a new way of life.
Whether we know it or not, we humans might have just lived to be a little different than nature. More accurately, and in layman's terms: To question every thing natural, to know how everything natural works, and to live life by doing things our own way.
It's a very simple way of putting it. Long I pondered if there was a Socratic way of putting it, but I guess the simple things make the most sense.
Everything that gives a deep feeling of satisfaction is seen as a more human thing to do, or so I see. To further simplify, I shall say : the human thing to do it the right thing to do.
Though not all humans do the right thing, it is easy enough to see how my theory might just work.
There ARE superior human beings, and there ARE human beings that are more animal than man.
We do feel a little better when we do something that is not natural for any other being to be doing.
Being faithful to just one other human being is seen as the right thing to do, and gives a deep sense of satisfaction to every advanced thinking human involved in such a situation.
A less developed human would resort to impulsive behavior.
So why would a human be less human, if every human gets a deep sense of satisfaction with every right thing done?
Simply because humans aren't born equal. Some humans are a little more evolved than others and some are born less evolved but come to a sort of self realization of their faults, only to overcome it.
More in part 2.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Like music to my ears
I had a chat with my dad recently. We were both in the car, with pop music playing on the radio. Then someone in the car asks, "Who sang this?".
Instead of replaying the conversation, I'm just going to do it my own way. In
Music is not music once you put a price on it. Because when you put a price on music and actively market it, you take the art out of it, instead replacing it with industrial blandness. For an artist must make art, not for the benefit of his well being(namely being rich and famous).
Then my dad thought of a way to respond, finally saying that these weren't artists, but craftsmen. A craftsman creates something inspired by greater forms of art and makes it marketable for the general public. Ever since the music industry made itself an industry, seeing the potential of selling music not as an art, but as a craft, it has made the mistake of glorifying the craftsmen by labeling them artists.
Nietzsche was right... once again. This language and all other human languages are based on old views and therefore cannot rightly be used to find actual meaning, because human languages are old, very old, and have given allowance for words to have more than one meaning. Which makes poetic art and written art much more beautiful and personable, but makes truth also harder to define. And therefore, a new, modern language must be made, where in saying the word 'God', the image of an old wizened man or anything like that. Words like 'mind' and 'soul' in this language give most people a very fixed image.
And therefore, it is imperative for a new language to be created solely for truth finding. Otherwise, a current language would need to be twisted into mystical stories which could just as easily as the meanings of the words themselves, be misinterpreted.
Instead of replaying the conversation, I'm just going to do it my own way. In
Music is not music once you put a price on it. Because when you put a price on music and actively market it, you take the art out of it, instead replacing it with industrial blandness. For an artist must make art, not for the benefit of his well being(namely being rich and famous).
Then my dad thought of a way to respond, finally saying that these weren't artists, but craftsmen. A craftsman creates something inspired by greater forms of art and makes it marketable for the general public. Ever since the music industry made itself an industry, seeing the potential of selling music not as an art, but as a craft, it has made the mistake of glorifying the craftsmen by labeling them artists.
Nietzsche was right... once again. This language and all other human languages are based on old views and therefore cannot rightly be used to find actual meaning, because human languages are old, very old, and have given allowance for words to have more than one meaning. Which makes poetic art and written art much more beautiful and personable, but makes truth also harder to define. And therefore, a new, modern language must be made, where in saying the word 'God', the image of an old wizened man or anything like that. Words like 'mind' and 'soul' in this language give most people a very fixed image.
And therefore, it is imperative for a new language to be created solely for truth finding. Otherwise, a current language would need to be twisted into mystical stories which could just as easily as the meanings of the words themselves, be misinterpreted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
