Now imagine a set of ideals. Now stop imagining, we'll get back to that later.
I've mentioned my theory of ideas before, in which I stated that anything that isn't matter or energy is simply an idea. And since we can't explain God, religion, the soul, consciousness, etc in terms of matter and energy, then they simply exist as ideas.
But then I just stumbled onto something even more(or maybe less) radical. Either way, it's a new idea and I'm still working on a workable answer.
If I've stated that nothing is true and everything is permitted. Just look at how contradictory the whole thing is!
Nothing is true?
Is that absolutely true?
See?
And if Buddhism teaches balance, then why are people so FULLY committed to it, if balance means half and not full.
And if monotheistic religions teach absolute truth, why isn't there just one religion with one God, and not 3 religions that have one God each. That's a math equation I'm sure God has problems with. Ideas? Sounds like bad ideas to me.
And if Karma is real, then to plants get what they deserve? Don't they have lives too? Or souls are the essence of animals? Yeah that makes perfect sense(sarcasm).
But there's always something that catches my eye. In Buddhism, I can pinpoint the exact moment. I was watching a video with my dad a year ago with the French Buddhist Matthieu Ricard. He redefined happiness for me when he separated pleasure from true happiness. Then he went on to say something like this:
When in life, we imagine happiness, we imagine perfection. We think in our minds that if we could have everything to be right, that we could obtain happiness. But this is the utter destruction of happiness. To HAVE EVERYTHING. That means if something is missing we begin to patch that up and soon everything crumbles. Happiness becomes frustration and anger.
Enough about Buddhism, I barely scratch the surface of any religion or science. I don't think I can use any power of rhetoric to make anyone believe i know more than I don about any of that. (what?)
Christianity and Islam are the two super-religions right now. This sounds like a game, but it's not. Not my place to say who's more true, my guess is as good as yours. I've discussed them so many times and got so many comments (ok, just 2 or 3) when I did. It's sometimes so tempting to bring up the subject of God just to get some decent feedback. But not today. Today I'll just say having one God sounds like a good idea, except when you use animalistic terms to describe God. And by animalistic, I mean converting what humans need to progress, socially, into something God needs to simply be God.(there was more on this earlier, but repeating myself would be... repeating myself).
Science has proven to be quite useful. It's objectivity is so appealing. But science alone cannot exist without language. And the fact that more people are more interested in the problems of science than the problems with language is scary. I don't see why language can't be a science.
And so, the problem with truth isn't that it isn't true, it's just that we can't find the right words to say it.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Language, the problem.
As I've mentioned before, everything immaterial is an idea. A subjective, personal idea. Just like how the perception of time, God, good, evil, the soul, the mind, thought, karma, etc are never explainable objectively. Understanding objectivity in explanation is simple, just think of the format of a lab report, and sometimes the format of this blog. Objectivity is about clear concise reasoning based on a universal truth(or reflection of the true nature using language). This cannot be done with the immaterial, for the immaterial cannot be perceived by our 5 senses. We can only experience ideas and make sense of them personally, any attempt to move out of the mind makes immaterial ideas subjective.
The problem is always language, every and any language for that matter. Language allows for misinterpretation. Though some are extremely good at putting into word what they experience in their minds, the problem lies in the reader, or learner who is not as established in language and interpretation.
Writing something down and expecting it to be understood the way the writer understands it is a grave mistake. The writer has put into language his experience, the reader will convert word into 'virtual experience' (basically putting yourself in an alternate reality in your mind), based on his idea of the universe. Virtual experience is where things go wrong. When something is read, virtual experience is always needed. It puts the reader an emulation of the story, if it a piece of fiction. And in this emulation, there is a virtual universe based on the ideas of the reader so far.
The reason why a child cannot enjoy a good piece of fiction and a grown man can is because these virtual experiences require actual experiences.
For example, to imagine something, like a random shape, you must first have already experienced(as in seen) lines and curves. After knowing what lines and curves are(which are the first and only 2D things we see, other than dots, but dots cannot be used to form a closed shape), can we begin to imagine every combination of lines and curves to create the random shape. And this random shape cannot be formed by anything OTHER than lines and curves, because we haven't experienced anything other than lines and curves. You see?
In essence, the more we experience, the more options we have when stepping inside a virtual experience, but to experience text the same way the writer imagined it would be impossible, unless the reader's actual experience is similar to the writer's, which is, sadly also impossible.
In an alternate universe, where language is substituted for something less vague, thought, perhaps, there might be a universal understanding of things.
And that is why language is the problem, now we can proceed with something more interesting.
The problem is always language, every and any language for that matter. Language allows for misinterpretation. Though some are extremely good at putting into word what they experience in their minds, the problem lies in the reader, or learner who is not as established in language and interpretation.
Writing something down and expecting it to be understood the way the writer understands it is a grave mistake. The writer has put into language his experience, the reader will convert word into 'virtual experience' (basically putting yourself in an alternate reality in your mind), based on his idea of the universe. Virtual experience is where things go wrong. When something is read, virtual experience is always needed. It puts the reader an emulation of the story, if it a piece of fiction. And in this emulation, there is a virtual universe based on the ideas of the reader so far.
The reason why a child cannot enjoy a good piece of fiction and a grown man can is because these virtual experiences require actual experiences.
For example, to imagine something, like a random shape, you must first have already experienced(as in seen) lines and curves. After knowing what lines and curves are(which are the first and only 2D things we see, other than dots, but dots cannot be used to form a closed shape), can we begin to imagine every combination of lines and curves to create the random shape. And this random shape cannot be formed by anything OTHER than lines and curves, because we haven't experienced anything other than lines and curves. You see?
In essence, the more we experience, the more options we have when stepping inside a virtual experience, but to experience text the same way the writer imagined it would be impossible, unless the reader's actual experience is similar to the writer's, which is, sadly also impossible.
In an alternate universe, where language is substituted for something less vague, thought, perhaps, there might be a universal understanding of things.
And that is why language is the problem, now we can proceed with something more interesting.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The idea of an idea
I stumbled onto something new recently. And this was after talking to myself. I needed some time to put it all into words, so here it goes.
What if everything immaterial(not an object or physical thing) were just ideas? Things like Law(scientific and legal), God, thinking, reasoning, religion, relations and theories. All of that. I mean, it is beyond obvious that there are more complex ways of looking at the universe than just through out 5 senses.
Perhaps Nietzsche was right in saying this is the only way our minds can experience the universe without breaking down. Perhaps people have seen the universe in its true form and been driven insane(thus, this way of experiencing the universe being discarded).
But back to ideas. I think everyone has an idea of the way he/she experiences the universe. And these ideas depend on personal experience and how conflicting and similar ideas have influenced it. That's why humans cannot conform to one general idea of the universe. Or at least part of why. Because personal experience can only manifest in the form of a personal idea of the world, which at best can greatly influence another human, but not set another's mind to it 100% without resulting in epic failure.
And if we presume religion and the idea of God as an idea, then it must have been a very comforting idea. To not be in charge of things. Sure, we aren't in charge of much. But we must not forget to not allow another persons idea influence us or anger us too much. Moderation is key. Extremes are always harmful.
What I mean is, if another person's idea seems to make sense, do not take it in fully, instead, allow it to influence the way you perceive the world, but do not live through someone else's idea of the world.
And if another person's idea contradicts your idea of the world, do not hate it, but instead find a reason why your idea makes more sense to you than the other persons.
We must remember that ideas are simply ideas. They are words that seem to make sense when put together in a general idea of the universe. The law is an interesting idea. A very useful one. But because it is treated as an absolute, in a more of humans, it isn't as effective as it should be. I think there is a better idea out there. A system of law that is strict and bound to robot-like rules will appear to restrict freedom. And a system of law that isn't strict enough will be too permissive and the criminally inclined will not have second thoughts. As I've mentioned, extremes never work.
But maybe the entire system of law needs a relook. Right now we're so caught up with it that it has trancended the realm of ideas into something more divine and less maleable. The first step would be to demonstrate how imaginary the law really is before thinking up a new system. But without responsible humans, that would be crazy.
This post contains ideas. Remember what I've mentioned.
What if everything immaterial(not an object or physical thing) were just ideas? Things like Law(scientific and legal), God, thinking, reasoning, religion, relations and theories. All of that. I mean, it is beyond obvious that there are more complex ways of looking at the universe than just through out 5 senses.
Perhaps Nietzsche was right in saying this is the only way our minds can experience the universe without breaking down. Perhaps people have seen the universe in its true form and been driven insane(thus, this way of experiencing the universe being discarded).
But back to ideas. I think everyone has an idea of the way he/she experiences the universe. And these ideas depend on personal experience and how conflicting and similar ideas have influenced it. That's why humans cannot conform to one general idea of the universe. Or at least part of why. Because personal experience can only manifest in the form of a personal idea of the world, which at best can greatly influence another human, but not set another's mind to it 100% without resulting in epic failure.
And if we presume religion and the idea of God as an idea, then it must have been a very comforting idea. To not be in charge of things. Sure, we aren't in charge of much. But we must not forget to not allow another persons idea influence us or anger us too much. Moderation is key. Extremes are always harmful.
What I mean is, if another person's idea seems to make sense, do not take it in fully, instead, allow it to influence the way you perceive the world, but do not live through someone else's idea of the world.
And if another person's idea contradicts your idea of the world, do not hate it, but instead find a reason why your idea makes more sense to you than the other persons.
We must remember that ideas are simply ideas. They are words that seem to make sense when put together in a general idea of the universe. The law is an interesting idea. A very useful one. But because it is treated as an absolute, in a more of humans, it isn't as effective as it should be. I think there is a better idea out there. A system of law that is strict and bound to robot-like rules will appear to restrict freedom. And a system of law that isn't strict enough will be too permissive and the criminally inclined will not have second thoughts. As I've mentioned, extremes never work.
But maybe the entire system of law needs a relook. Right now we're so caught up with it that it has trancended the realm of ideas into something more divine and less maleable. The first step would be to demonstrate how imaginary the law really is before thinking up a new system. But without responsible humans, that would be crazy.
This post contains ideas. Remember what I've mentioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
