Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
andrewss precariously aggrandized Registered: 08/17/07 Posts: 8,725 Loc: ohio Last seen: 3 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Alright, this might be WAY too big for this forum, I just want to see if I can get any feedback. Anyway, I am pretty happy with the essay, I like to think I made some sort of cohesive point with it all. But anyway, I submitted it for a undergrad philosophy journal. The essay is a bit styled and maybe a bit silly/sarcastic in areas in order to not make it so dry. Anyway, I would really appreciate anyone that could read it and tell me whether or not it made much sense to them or whatever.
But then again I dunno if I would read such a huge post from anyone else, hahaha hmmmmmmm -Gasping In the Wake of Dogma: Who’s got a Life Preserver? -Abstract: Can being ever substantially reconcile itself with mankind in a way that goes beyond that which religious dogmas have supplied us thus far? Has religion provided the highest option to satiate our death anxiety? Can anything come close for the often terrified modern man? I assert that the crisis of existence is dormant in all of us, and that some of us see the use in ignoring it, but some want to preemptively engage our “darker” side. Is there an ontological function involved in the life process? This paper is essentially a conversation on the magnitude of being for the finite human mind as well as contemplations of some philosophical issues that seem supplemental to me. The essay could be considered world-as-is apologetics, if that makes any sense. -Start: What is the most important thing to realize about the existence that I am? What are we beyond the great inflected sum of a reflecting intelligence? Ah the concern of a stirred spirit, how humorous this may seem, yes but (unfortunately or not) self examination has always been an intimate part of the human condition. The crisis of existence seems dormant in all of us, some of us see the use in ignoring it, but some want to preemptively engage our “darker” side. This mortal awareness is often repressed until the last parts of life, or maybe drowned through inebriation, piety, knowledge, work, etc. No doubt there is some sort of need in the modern man to be reconciled and I suppose that it can be fulfilled with certain degrees of effectiveness (if I so allow myself to make such a judgment). So, beyond these very human concerns, I want to begin by saying I think it is a marvel that any sentience has formed into existence. Supposedly this animated life is immersed in but somehow emerges from being. It seems a puzzle to try to explain why (and at some point how) anything became animate, the genealogy (or perhaps lack thereof) of life is a puzzle. Beyond that, is there a function involved in the life process? At least, being itself provides possibilities and because of that can we truly assert the fact that merely existing implies connotations of necessary function, at some level. Just because we explain how things work according to our sense of science doesn’t mean we haven’t omitted the fact that we are immersed in being from the top down; thus it appears to me extended consciousness is primarily receiving while imposing a bit on it for the sake of order and survival (but what about us really holds). Alright, so its not a problem that sentient beings do exist without a magician god, (contrarily, which is a great distress that some religions provide for mankind) it is just that somewhere deep within our hyper conscious mind there grows a desire that yearns for something like “existential ground rules;” and thus proceeds the never-ending hunt (progressively for the human being through history) for a reconciliation with the great nature that has given birth to us. There are surely many routes to be found within human history for so called peace of mind or reconciliation. But I wonder, can being ever substantially reconcile itself with mankind in a way that goes beyond that which religious dogmas have supplied us thus far? Has religion provided the highest option to satiate our death anxiety? Can anything come close for the often terrified modern man? Nonetheless here is a conversation on the magnitude of being for the finite mind as well as contemplations of some philosophical issues that seem supplemental to me. I will warn that this may seem to go off on a few jumbled tangents, but I am assured (hopefully it isn’t a problem of perspective) that these mini essay like stepping stones will lead to some sort of cohesiveness. At least that is what I hope. Where can I start? Ok, so the smart ones among us know that in the least we are thinking things and we exist together socially (divvied up via the animated ego) in this ocean of chaos that we have made sense of. Can we not all but conclude the most crucial realization for all life is that life for the self is a sudden mortal manifestation; thrust from slumber into the sensuous? This seems to be the foundation. The crucial truth, realized most insidiously by the human, is that this unique instantiation of life is most definitely not eternal. This absolute mortal realization is the catalyst for so much in the human psyche; this is what makes us so interesting (fucked up, hah). The naïve fear of this most conscious mortal ego lends it to latch on (hand in hand with ontological legitimacy) to the vague idea infinite and many often hope for an afterlife or at least nonbeing. But I believe physically expressed life has to be mortal, in fact the paradoxically unique ego is only unique because of the brief physical expression that it is. But then we wonder if there is something more about us. So how did the human intellect ever totally emerge from nature, from the dirt, or perhaps there is something a bit more metaphysical about us? To those who like the idea of heaven and hell. How could there ever be physical, real bodily existence without strife, competition, and the possibility of bodily harm? What about a sliver of freewill (some sort of decision making) in this ideal state? Could there ever really be an ideal level of being which is not life as we know it? Any more ideal realm could only be an eternal consciousness, devoid of any experience. But how does consciousness operate in the absence of a correspondent physical extended bodily form? It appears hard to fathom, truly beyond us. But can we not remain aware that there is something absolutely beyond our ability to comprehend, some sort of “blissful” ignorance seems to be present in animated life as we know it. Existing seems necessary once it exists and what we are immersed in seems to be a most powerful and monstrous machine. To those who speak too soon, or those who reason too quickly, I find you laughable but sometimes contemptible, nevertheless laughable given the times we live in (perhaps it’s a personal infirmary that I do not want to see myself as jealous of this). In certain instances, we see individuals who determine conclusions for themselves so quickly, it seems very passionate. You can almost see it happen in their face. Their intellect seems so eager and so quick to comprehend. We can see their mind hastily operate; it is so fast and wants its answers! But these traits are not really to be deprecated, they are in us all. Grasp, yes, but at least remember to throw away what you think you have grasped time and time again, so as to better acquaint yourself with what you think is familiar to you (that is if the opportunity is there). But what does this mean? Is there anything that we never are able to grasp or throw away as a finite mind? Perhaps. At times (usually on Sunday) we see the masses stumble, in their eager fashion, around some of life’s core issues; and this is when things really get interesting. But I wonder who is more serious about the act of living these days. One who suspends their faith in dogma or one who laps up dogma like a thirsty animal? I do believe the skeptic is more serious, yes, but sick according to this masses standard (ah, but they have gotten something right, no?). But, I wonder, are the pious more sick because they are convinced they have the ultimate answer? We are all stumbling around I suppose, just how many of us will slow down a bit and try to take this all in? At least for proprieties sake! Who has the time!? - many of us think. Praise to the predators. In them I see more ingenuity than the species that have learned to harness more sedentary energy sources. You can see their cunning in their eyes. When we look at humans don’t we see an organism that is the best predator on earth? Sure, there are other species out there that are stronger in certain mechanical ways, but we figured out how to forge mental powers into real powers, what sorcery! We have become most fucked up lately because our predator instinct, by in large, is being bred out of us. The human species is getting more and more interesting as we progress in time because of this. Where are these energies discharging? Shall we sort that out? Could our earlier humans not be a bit disgusted by us modern men? Are not many of us a bit gross? Ah, yes, but they would surely be a bit jealous if they only knew. We are all tyrants, one and all. It has been said time and time again; life feeds on life, thus goes the cycle or rather ebb and flow of the phenomenon we call life. Any mobile organism that has pursued power and freedom, having been successful enough to stake a genetic claim, surely could be accused as a species as tyrannical. But what does nature care about tyranny? Why do some of us think something went wrong? As we humans have reached such a level of supreme earthly sentience it is true many feel obligated to define “good and evil” actions, but perhaps this is due to a sheltered and forgetful consciousness? Good and evil almost imply luxury, a very human luxury. Our species more strife-filled eons are no doubt hard to fathom for us. But as the human being has dominated nature one could imagine a slow decline in the conquering mindset among the average men. In my mind a high degree of respect goes to those tyrants of early man who forged our species supreme success. It is amazing to imagine how many forms of higher “apes” were transcended and lost in humanities emergence as the highest form of an organism that delights, most of all, in sending more blood to the brain than to the muscles! How conniving we must have been! Ah how much we could shake our heads at this idea prehistory, but many often don’t remember to shake our heads at ourselves for thinking we don’t owe them any homage. Our species has perhaps long been over abundant in benefactors that have no idea how difficult it was to become what we are; fate leaves us out of so much. Surely the human race’s prehistory was full of unspeakable things for the contemporary human (just watch most peoples reaction to the food chain in action). The pinnacle of dominance on this earth is no doubt man, it remains a marvel how balanced nature is, and it is as if the different species and life forms create an amazingly balanced hierarchy which reflects the drama of conflicting wills and environment. But for us humans, one of the most important questions seems to be; at what point did humans become conscious enough to despair? Was it because of our species overflowing? Is it a logical sickness from too much success? Could it really have been because of rebellion against God? Isn’t that too crude, too simple? Is not modern man a parallel to the infirmities of bastard children who scavenge for scraps from the bounty provided by warriors of tribes long forgotten? The excess bounty, from the ingenious early human hunters, is their life work, and it is for us to reap and sow new ingenious abilities. This excess of energy I imagine was expressed early on in the sexual deviancy and possessiveness that early man and his societies must have been characterized by (and we still compound on this). Perhaps this is how we learned to be so aesthetic. What other things could be the earlier discharges of our incredible successes? It is funny to think how crazy we must have been. During this time perhaps the early “rejects” (overflow from our success surely created so many humans which thus made it difficult to categorize socially with much dichotomy) were those who formed the foundation of the modern man. I’d like to think that the excess of freedom that developed by a group’s hunting success begat the harnessing of overflowing energy which was forged into creative works, imaginative works, and all sorts of artistic work. These para-natural behaviors show how we learned to be great manipulators and aesthetics. What greatness is revealed here, this life overflowing whose primal efforts of, once upon a time, was what made possible the rise of a luxurious way to apply our ancestors ever increasing mental powers. Such cunning discharged to so many ends, we seem to have been quite driven, and it is funny to see how this creature’s seemingly confused stumbling progress eventually tripped up on the ability to reflect deep within its intellect and be utterly dumbfounded by being. Looking beyond the most essential of all contrasts for finite beings, of possessing life and not life, the meaning behind the words good and evil have come into being only after an organism became conscious enough to recognize real pain and bodily harm. With a sense of prudence it seems that nature gave to some creatures the ability to properly identify effects upon oneself as either an advantageous occurrence for the organism or not, so as to act more concurrently with what extends life. This operation of the ego coincides with the organism’s ability to attribute a delight in what has increased such an organism’s vitality, or the dreadful feeling of a decrease of ones vitality. What more prudent way, than through the simultaneous intelligible expression of such deductions or increases for the individual by the feeling of pain. Severity of what we call pain is quick to be ordered, which is made possible, most thoroughly, by the visceral emotion of pain which appeals directly to the ego relative to the contrast it makes with the emotions which are attributed as homeostatic for life progress/sustentation. It seems this now intrinsic ability that nature gave to many organisms was the catalyst for the higher intellect to actively and individually contrast between what is thus proclaimed “good” or “evil” for oneself. So this very physical operation seems to me the proper substrate for the idea of positive (good) and negative (evil) in organisms, and most complexly in the human. Yes of course this distinction between destruction and construction will be expanded and multiplied (like axioms of mathematics) when we come to the use of complex language which can flourish only when we are prosperous enough to create the higher form of social harmony. But of course the ability to lie, cheat, steal, and destroy (seems a cornerstone of what the finite ego represents) is always possible given the nature of being, we seem to have ended up using the power of legislation in words to mold behavior and real punishment to command our sense of justice. But of course there are a variety ways to enforce this desired harmony. A little bit of force and a little bit of reason! So, at bottom the concept of good and evil arise as basic contrasts correspondent to the egos immersion in being and the possibilities that assault it; good and evil were sown in and by the world as we know it. Subjective? Yes indeed, they are socially dynamic and depend on the real possibility of anti-tyrannical behavior. This nobler outlook knows how to say not only “why not” but also “why” when presented with “prey.” So to me the possibility of good choices depends on “good energy” (history) surrounding the individual (through ones own effort but more primarily the work of ones masters/ancestors) as well as the individuals ability to cherish doing things that bring other people sustenance, rationalism, and pleasure (which seems to me relates to empathy). A good sense of empathy is an egotistical manipulation that can be a useful tool for construction or destruction (good/bad) among comrades or of the other. We see how this sense has been harnessed best by predatory herd animals. It surely is a useful thing to see yourself in your comrades, and to figure out from experience that group harmony requires at base a certain sense of knowing how your comrades feel. Being always brute in your actions ends up in failure as a group, but this isn’t to say this empathetic emotion requires a bit of trial and error to hone it instinctually. Empathy seems to be a notion that emerged through group cohesiveness, it is not necessarily moral though, just a tool in its emergence. It helps to create harmony within the chaos of conflicting egos, thus we see how the self can be paradoxically un-egotistical, but never totally so. This telepathy seems to show how very complex a sense of communication is and how connected it makes us. Communication at base seems contingent on this flickering sense of empathy that we see in nature. So as a species at the helm of the food chain how exactly did we get so complex? Can we ever figure out these electric impulses in our brain that lead us metaphysical ideas and of a teleological existence? I do not know, and at the very least it is hard to track down a good why explanation for these soft feelings. Was it really because of our species overflowing? Is it a logical sickness from too much success? Could it really have been because of rebellion against God? Isn’t that too crude, too simple? Again I wonder. It seems to me that many people do not take life seriously (ironic in a sense) enough to be able to laugh at what is considered sacred, which would be to see how delightfully pointless so much of what is human is in the wake of supreme success. Jovial nihilism could be the name for this most honorable outlook. Religion, science, and society can always incite some sense of humor in us, no matter the merit of their function. Ah, I sound like a bit of a sociopath, maybe a bit immature? Hmmm, perhaps stoic and repressed, ah enough on my own problems. I guess it is not like there is anything flawed with the race of men that really lends me to want to be a “buzz kill” except that I see many of us have a hard time glaring in/at ourselves - thus softening up enough to be awestruck by just being (existential piety)! But those of us that want/need these emotions are we a bit overwhelmed about our plight? Is there merit in this perhaps vulnerable and weak state? But I wonder if society itself is sicklier than the reflecting hermit? Is humanity a herd gone crazy? Surely there are extreme degrees either way. Why these fundamental differences? Maybe some of us think too much about mortality and can’t loose ourselves. How can we ever balance life without ignoring any of it, including what one thinks has been shed? Sounds like a dance. Perhaps there is reason to be skeptical about our best attempts at ontological explanation. A thinker thinks, and thinks on and on, but what do our functions of analyzing really amount to? When we reflect are we not only scratching the surface of our whole nervous system? Shall we really think that ordinary consciousness can go beyond what is worded? We higher living beings always think in words, barks, yelps, howls, cries, etc. But is this always the way the human thinks? Can’t we get impressions of raw feeling that lend us to dumbfounded awe at that which we feel lies beyond the worded? Oh you analytic types, please never forget how you are always, at base, holding hands with passion no matter what you say. Excuse me while I babble on metaphysical like! Your existence has many layers. What is scale to actuality? You and me, we are just in the act of harnessing the ideal. Can we not legitimately recognize that there are quite a few ways to regard yourself? Our intellect is like a phantom moving about pure being, but everything about us is so tuned into this so called idealization. How have we shaped it? How has it shaped us? Not much of a way to sort that out. But you and I, yeah, it seems our existence is a necessary and brute gift. Indeed, but oh how paradoxically close we are to the concept of divinity, how tricky we are. Finite autonomy - or the abstract conviction of it, what perfection! What jesting! You must die so that you can live; I have often thought something “transcendent” about being/us relishes the struggle. Dance while you can! But never forget to balance. Ahhhh, no matter, no matter indeed, are these diatribes says the wise human, imagine not worm! The primary focus of your brain (and thus your self) purely stems and deals with what is being impressed upon it from the senses, from the outside world, beyond our body. However the scope of your intellect can shift focus away from that more flashy reality (no doubt it is more significant to real survival) to the lucid realm of just your own bodily realization. When our language using self begins to shed the barriers of this cozy room and dabbles in the inner chaos of reflection the feeling that is sparked at this time when the intellect begins to get an idea of how foreign this substrate is, one cannot help but be a bit disturbed. The ground seems flooded by confused basic emotional operations which lends us to realizing how all too foreign and utterly confusing the operational foundation of the intellect really is. This usually outwardly impressed scope of cognition has somehow confusedly slipped into the chaos it is built upon, chaos it has good reason to be ignorant from. However, how can we account for utilities in these discoveries? Is it not true that the self can access the outside and inside on a continuum? Can we ever be so astounded of ourselves and being that will force even the most assured of us to learn a sense of existential/ontological piety? I guess it only matters to those who are sentimental enough or poetic enough. Circumstance, possibility, chance, actuality; these seem to be the categories of being. But the pure nature we see in being is that there is always some sort of possibility. An axiom of all being, as it pertains to the human knower, it has been said - space and time are pure properties of reality and the intellect, which hand and hand form our concept of reality. I would just like to throw this in. Space, frequency (resonance/vibration if you will), and reflection are the axioms of the human experience. Space itself is the infinite mass, but this raw congealed mass of energy can take on a myriad of frequencies, which corresponds directly to our brains “tuning” which gives us experience. And then due to the act of the human experiencing a higher nature of extended thought we ascribe to phenomenon a sense of time, and time appears real inasmuch as it is a very useful tool for us here. Can’t we admit that as the perceiver does what he does, he is at an fundamental level static and being itself dances by like a jester, yes, what a wonderful jest, you good sir! The mind and being form an oh so perfect equation of actualized possibility, and really what would being amount to if not for the cheeky spectators? Is all of thought the same thing at some level, is it not just divided up by degrees of uniqueness or individuality? The ego is thrust into existence but subjectively as a product of its vessel it has a learning curve to form its unique self conception, which is the work of life experience. But before and after that division how do we deal with the possibility of that actualized possibility really beginning and ending? Where is the economy in this? Couldn’t we assume that all self hoods are finitely unique but infinitely similar in that they are operators/cognizant (are there pure parallels between anything that is animate)? If we think that life is economical can’t we then assume that the influx of life energy is always a balanced equation? What could this mean? Alright so let’s say that I died and that my self conception fades away. As this process ends can I then imagine my self as never have existing. Is there a concealed absurdity here? Can the “I” not be imagined as some other animate thing (but eternally ignorant of the reincarnations)? Where did my so called unique self conception really ever go, it seems either that way or that my selfhood is a total illusion. Which one is more absurd? Should we ever assume there is ever cessation of awareness in all possibilities? Are we not always going somewhere? As our life energy discharges, is it not then proceeding on, ah but that doesn’t seem to entail the unique experiences this body had. We see this decomposition happen in our actual material body. But at some level in an economical way is not the self perhaps illusionary to our finite mind. Does this seem like a system that stinks of perfection? On some level anything that can “say I” or, know oneself as one thing, is the same as any other thing that can. Is this just like chasing ones tail? But what is the significance of positing that self conception is fragile? Alright, but at the least should we not be astounded by the existence impressed upon us? It seems the continuum of sentience reveals a necessary exercise and exertion in the extended realm. Again, it seems that the universe’s actuality yearns with and through us as to make a show of itself. The best possible universe might seem ruthless but quite perfect. Pious religious people and the so-called knights of eternal resignation all have their work cut out for them, each are obviously concerned about living and dying well (profoundly?), it is just by different means. Most religious person’s taste progresses through life reminding oneself that life as we know it is merely a bastard child of a failed utopia, this life which now can only be reconciled through the soul’s guilty salvation. What a crude and dreary way of putting it one may think, yes indeed, thus the reality that it’s genuinely difficult to find real pious religious people around here. The pious person should look at life as a means or opportunity to attaining favorable communion with god and how much more would be proper? Still, the deniers of dogma and eternal justifications for our existence, commonly still have their own work cut out for themselves. Should we ever suppose we can transcend the human behavior (damn near need) of reconciling ones own life on a grander scale than what we think we individually consist of? Hard to say, thus the reality that many of those people who fancy themselves free spirits or beyond religion never really strayed that far from the concept. Surely many rebellious so-called godless men that have lived to ripe age have ended up converting back to a religious subscription, why is this - perhaps because of the perfect structure of dogma which lulls us into believing - and/or not enough sense of autonomy. Hmmm, but I am assured of this concept quite absolutely: that he who fancies himself beyond religion better be ready to think through with the utmost clarity about your abilities to be autonomous and decide accordingly… what an absurd accounting! Plus one ought to be careful where ones thoughts stumble around, have a tight grip on ones own reigns! Oh the silliness in being conscious that you are conscious of the supposedly damnable choices you are given to reason through, what a game! Yes, for these autonomous ones living in the wake of religious conviction, even in everyday comfortable life the crisis of existence is able to surface like a sudden inspiration; shall we puke from our disgust? From time to time, but one can even learn to enjoy ones filth! Laugh demon! Ah yes but better yet, maybe because of the bouts of nausea one feels enriched beyond the herd from time to time! Not to mention there is some degree of practice in this. Well, the work of a lifetime for a free spirit is to learn, for at least the sake of general health, how to actualize for oneself a spontaneous “reconciliation” for ones life. Reminding yourself that you have the ability to place weights on and make decisions about even sacred things; this is perhaps the most important revelation of a thoughtful self. However we realize that much of this grand work has been developed through religious dogma. But religions do not have a patent on what is constructive for the human race. But yes, anti-degenerative nihilism is a positive outlook. We just know things are not so dichotomous in reality, we seek balance, and what else could we do? But I cannot help but thinking, what then? These virtues of a so-called free spirit amount to what? Not much in the usual sense, however that is not all that bad. At bottom, what seems to me as subsequent and the most important task for these free spirits always has and always will be to learn to act-tualize ourselves even though it can feel absurd but we must, lest we become like weary nihilist hermits; but we demand better company. shall we cultivate it? Ah too much time in the thoughts is only good if one can play with them and exercise them with others, why not, we are at the core herd animals. Taking true delight in this life, even in the midst of a “sickness,” is the ideal! Lets be honest, honesty is a bitch, who wants to be honest through and through? Sick souls, yes but at least they can swallow their vomit grinning! How disgusting, you might say. But is this not intrinsic to life these days? Just many of us like to omit it. Thus to me infinite wisdom is the wisdom that predicated the impulse of life as finite and fully comprehending that for these conglomerates of harnessed energy extended as bodily form need to be conditioned by an insatiable desire for the continuation of life, this desire thus gives some cadence, urgency, and linearity to life. Our survival instincts stand opposed to our imminent cessation absolutely, as they should. When looking at nature as we know it, it seems that when it really comes down to it, it bleeds true wisdom as a system. Perfections in our finite minds are truly arbitrary, does not religion overstep its bounds by prescribing the earth as imperfect and the supposed afterlife as perfect. Is it any wonder that we organisms who sit on the top of the food chain here on earth possess the capacity to despair? It seems we pay an ironic price for our higher level of sentience (which of course gave us our ability to be top dog). Was it destiny for humans to become hyper conscious? Perhaps we were fated to reflect to the highest degree the desire for power and tangible experience. Nevertheless the actuality of existential questions and answers are only absolute inasmuch as they are absolutely not objectively determinable in this finite timeline we are exclusively aware of. As such infinite wisdom is the wisdom to see that for us mortals a true teleological justification to being need not be ordained in any way directly. This infinite wisdom was to see that the mystery of being sentient in a mortal realm (thus not knowing in concrete terms the real point to anything) is at the very least the verification of an true wisdom, albeit a harsh or brute wisdom, but alas true infinite wisdom. So as an attempt to tie this together, how come we ask why? How come we wax poetic about supposed metaphysics and teleological things? Is this question an infirmity? But it is so prevalent. Man is infatuated (rightly so) with the science of how, but is not the human intellect balancing in a bit of the why part of an inquiry when staring at life. Why seems to be the epistemological accountant. So, is reality a brute fact? Yes indeed. However I think it smells of a necessity, a necessary brute-ness; and this is an actuality inasmuch as we are trapped by fate in the form of a thinking thing. I think striving to a modest why is what someone would do who is truly insatiable, even by science. Is there not something deep or shallow (depending on the individual) within us that is trying hard to reconcile itself? Why explanations, do not always step far beyond out of bounds, but often do I suppose. Shouldn’t it be important to realize that many of us do not appear to be reconciled in the sublime manner of an aging beast who might find a quiet cave in which to fall into his final sleep, when the time is right? No, no, I think most of us are quite in the throes of passion for life (what a human corner stone). How will we find peaceful wisdom when our pulse runs out? Limit possibilities or exaggerate them? How many of us have learned to just sit still and let being assault us moment by moment? We are so aesthetic! The trickster irony of the all too conscious human existence is the recognition of the pure mystery being itself presents, which is as close as one could consider highest essence of being for the intellect, and its perfection. I would say religious devotion and devotion to the act of just being (of being bewildered and relishing what is being presented, even if one is a bit nauseous; and of course this idea could be further developed) both migrate to the same peaceful resolution in the minds of the concerned. This secular sense of piety really seems counter part to the religious version, however I see some virtue in its higher will to truth, even amongst this intellectually muddy arena. These schemes seem the wisest ways of reconciling oneself with nature, which are marked by a sense of harmonious gratefulness. Just figure out if you are or are not concerned! Should you and I? -------------------- Jesus loves you.
| |||||||
daytripper23 ? Registered: 06/22/05 Posts: 3,595 Loc: |
| ||||||
Working through this
I am a little confused as to how you in certain instances, will circumscribe notions of being, and in others seem to assert it. For instance, it seems to me a bit blurry when you might say "emerging from being" and other times say "immersed in being". I can vaguely see you are coming from an existential perspective, but it would help me if you clarified where you were coming from. For instance, if you have read Jean Paul Sartre, however dryly he accomplishes this, he is abundantly clear upon what he means by being in itself, being for itself, being in the world, being for the world...etc Anyways I like the introduction, and can at least follow along until this part: Just because we explain how things work according to our sense of science doesn’t mean we haven’t omitted the fact that we are immersed in being from the top down -pretty sure I understand what you mean; but again I feel like I am missing something concerning particular relations between consciousness, being, etc - thus it appears to me extended consciousness is primarily receiving while imposing a bit on it for the sake of order and survival (but what about us really holds). So I guess you could clear alot up for me, including my previous question, by clarifying what exactly you mean by this, because you seem to shift gears, and I find it hard to move on. Are you still speaking phenomenologically, or are you breaking from the scientific mind? Is this a mind body statement? Or what? Note I am just being critical at this point to understand your terminology.
| |||||||
daytripper23 ? Registered: 06/22/05 Posts: 3,595 Loc: |
| ||||||
On second thought, hold that thought, I am sort of just thinking through this aloud.
Ill probably come to terms, your approach is making more sense to me now.
| |||||||
daytripper23 ? Registered: 06/22/05 Posts: 3,595 Loc: |
| ||||||
Ok here is my critique.
Consider who you are writing for - if you are writing for your average existential philosopher, this person is not interested in the why good and evil is an illusion. To the extent that he is existential, he knows this. Speaking for myself, I do not need to wake up from the church, I need to understand the residual trails of this structure. Or similar to this, is your claim that we are all tyrants. Again, I realize that the popular notion of freedom is a meaningless and vague sentimentality, but I am more interested in what to do about this. Speaking for myself, in general I like some of the ideas here, but your focus just seems to be another articulation, another set of terms concerning the despair I already realize. I am more interested in the "function" that you briefly mention, the function itself. Maybe use your historical approach to explain "para-natural" (I really like this term!) and its essential connection with deviency that you only briefly described. I would be interested in hearing how they became good and evil (that residual trail of para-natural and the deviant becoming what we now refer paranormal and morality, rather than the energy you have put into critiquing and deconstructing "good and evil". Just some thoughts Andrews; as usual I agree with a lot of what you say, but I am still not exactly on board. It was an interesting read in a few parts, but lacked a real focus, in my opinion. It seems like you are more focused on pigeonholing your reader into an existential perspective, which is where many of us already are, and the good many others (of whom you are quite openly scornful of), will not want to be based on how you describe it. As I said in my first post, I think you are somewhere in between circumscribing a point and asserting one: Id say if you had made a cohesive point, you would know it. Based on the way you laid it out for us at the shroomery, I think you already know that this is still a work in progress. Edited by daytripper23 (02/28/09 01:18 PM)
| |||||||
andrewss precariously aggrandized Registered: 08/17/07 Posts: 8,725 Loc: ohio Last seen: 3 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
First off, thanks a lot for reading through the essay man, I really appreciate it. It is really hard for me to imagine how other people might "connect the dots" of the essay, because as the author I guess I just have a lot of my own perspective there to do so for me. So I have been worried if people can work with what I put in writing.
But I guess the style of this essay is a bit "Nietzschean" or even existential like - in the sense that I sort of disdain the very constructed and linear approach of writing philosophically. I guess I like to throw out a lot of points that can be tied together in perhaps a variety of ways. I suppose I hope I made some point in the paper at least as to give my own opinion on the matter(s). But the method I usually gravitate towards is in a sense a series of prompts that author and reader can think on themselves beyond the words. I worry if this approach is too weird and maybe the by product of my lack of talented writing skills concealing itself in a jumbled approach. Now, as far as audience goes. I find myself addressing parts of myself a lot of times when it comes to despair and religion vs autonomy. It is probably due to the fact that I am a new comer to this stuff in a way. I was raised in a very Christian family and went to Christian HS and 2 years of very Christian college... so yeah there is a lot of history/experience with that perspective and it is still part of me because of that. So did you maybe figure out my meanings behind the more technical terms later in the paper? (such as being, etc) I have wondered if my discussion of good and evil was pretty trite and superfluous, but I felt like it sort of had its place to be mentioned in the course of the essay. Well man, thank you very much for reading. I sent it to a friend of mine and besides him (havent heard back yet) and you I havent had any readers or feed back. I regard this essay as good exercise for me as an undergrad to figure out if this philosophy shit really is for me, haha oh and... Quote: True story man, I mean in some sense the essay seems like I could cut it up and develop parts of it more so into bigger and bigger parts. I know what you mean. Work in progress indeed. As a matter of fact a lot of the sections were ripped from my on going journal of random thoughts and then molded a bit. -------------------- Jesus loves you. Edited by andrewss (02/28/09 02:03 PM)
| |||||||
deCypher Registered: 02/10/08 Posts: 56,232 |
| ||||||
You write very well.
I suppose my criticism would be in the seeming absence of a focused purpose for the essay; you explicate the status quo with well-articulated rhetoric (although occasionally you seem to forego precise and clear wisdom for a more impenetrable forest of diverted philosophical tangents), and I definitely dig the Nietzschean style of commentary, but as Daytripper23 said, I would like to see more insight into what one should do upon realizing the truths you espouse. Keep up the good work!
| |||||||
andrewss precariously aggrandized Registered: 08/17/07 Posts: 8,725 Loc: ohio Last seen: 3 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
^ Thanks for the input man, I really appreciate it.
I know what youre saying about the lack of focus. I guess I sort of approached it as a bit more fun/entertaining to write in the stle that I did compared to the sometimes dry and boring 20 page focus of some philosophy essays. I dunno, I guess I prefer writing that might lack some focus which tries to make the reader react more. But with that said, I am slowly trying to develop my thoughts a bit more, no doubt this whole essay is one step in that direction and I am just trying to brainstorm where it will go. Thanks again. -------------------- Jesus loves you.
| |||||||
|
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
wake up! ( 1 2 3 all ) |
KingOftheThing | 2,690 | 48 | 10/30/06 11:06 PM by Maitereya | ||
Dogma for the People | GazzBut | 838 | 9 | 08/07/03 03:31 PM by GazzBut | ||
reconciling spirituality and reason | crunchytoast | 2,334 | 18 | 05/03/05 02:11 AM by Alan Stone | ||
Dogma ( 1 2 all ) |
niteowl | 2,471 | 28 | 07/06/05 04:35 PM by Huehuecoyotl | ||
Holding a Wake for My Self-Concept ( 1 2 all ) |
Veritas | 2,275 | 30 | 01/28/17 08:37 AM by graceful dragon | ||
Dogma Sucks. Not to offend or annoy... | Sclorch | 1,782 | 8 | 07/21/02 05:46 AM by World Spirit | ||
Psychology and Dogma in General as Bunk ( 1 2 all ) |
Kalix | 5,136 | 37 | 06/16/05 10:54 AM by WanderingStudent | ||
Big Bang Dogma? | OrgoneConclusion | 689 | 9 | 03/21/08 08:24 PM by WhiskeyClone |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 818 topic views. 0 members, 7 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||