Everything I've ever written is wrong.
'I' slip out of my hands like sand, every moment of the day; at night I disappear. Tomorrow I will be different, with different (red) waters flowing through my mind.
Can't you feel those chemical explosions in your brain? Doesn't that electric shock make you feel alive?
Absolutism -- it is maddening to grasp for something that isn't there. You can almost sense it, you can just see a little of its light leaking through the cracks of the Realist's stone ceiling. Is it just my mind fooling me, or is it really there?! It is like trying to cover a missed paint spot while being perched on a ladder at a precarious angle, two stories up from the ground. The hard concrete below is begging your bloody submission, but your Idea perseveres and fights Gravity's seduction--you reach out to paint but your brush comes up just centimeters short. How far out do you lean before the ladder tumbles?
There are two halves colliding, like a cold fist of Abstraction against my fleshy face. I am a walking paradox--THERE IS NO SYNTHESIS TO GRASP. Somehow I am the synthesis, and I escape mySelf.
My death calls out to me--Love seems just an illusion compared to its monolithic presence.
Flesh is too fleeting--
can I retreat to my imagination? It is where Father Death has imbued in me his eternal power--his freedom--
I don't know what to think. Do I even know how to think?
I think thinking will get me overthunk.
The Self does not exist in thought, but in action. Thought is the result of action. What I mean by this is the following: the Self cannot plan itself out, it must only act out of its own interests at any given time.
(My question is--is it desirable to abolish the self, or is that nihilistic rejection of humanity's most basic condition?) I am starting to think abolition of the Ego is what is necessary. Have I only become more attached to my ego, to my ways of thinking, than before?
What has been the point of all this--Challenging reality's limits, pushing mySelf and my thoughts to the edge, to the abyss where there is nowhere left to fall from? Is driving oneself mad in search of Truth really the answer?
I cannot find--me--any immutable self. It is not there. What, then, is this Ego I am attached to?
The ego is a blockade to the Will? I don't want to come upon this dualistic idea but it's there in my mind, in my life, in my actions. The Will that drives life, that infuses me with my anima, that allows me to declare with no uncertainty "I AM ALIVE" is flowing, in constant motion of change, reconfiguration and energy-exchange. This is the intersection of knowledge and Faith. That somehow, regardless of the Ego's panic, everything is flowing the way it should, the way it ought.
Ought--and there you are again, you IDEALISM. Curse you! The Will is the ought? Aha! What is, ought to be. That is all.
The trouble is this: Through actions I see faith, through actions I witness faith, through actions faith affects me.
But I am an outsider from this ring of right-brained do-goodedness.
You see, I HAVE NO FAITH.
I HAVE NO FAITH.
I HAVE NO FAITH.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Morality
orality is Dualism's screaming daughter.
Dualism as a metaphysical position is in its final stages, dying a messy death, but it is not going out quietly.
Morality is revealing itself as a human abstraction. Anything which can be spoken of non-contextually is an abstraction of the human brain and therefore refers to, or models, reality without itself existing.
Morality is thus a framework, a structure, by which humans may navigate their surroundings. It is an offshoot of the conscious Intellect, that is to say the tool within consciousness responsible for creating linear structures between objects where previously there was none. This structure implies connectivity between its agents, and therefore is relegated strictly the realm of the Ideal. One then comes to find that the Ideal is actually the non-existent, and morality is questioned.
Thus, these so-called structures are symbolic. Symbols obtain their meaning only through existential need, or lack. When a lack is sensed or fulfilled, a symbolic representation is applied thereto. The framework that is built through symbolic manipulation refers, therefore, only to the internal life of the subject manipulating those symbols. Because symbols are not a part of empirical reality they are subject to an ambiguity of identity.
When one discovers the efficacy of a symbolic representation, publicly expressed, one attaches to that symbol the context of the situation in which the symbol was seen to be effective or ineffective at communicating the need. Thus, contextual evidence is responsible for the meaning of symbols, the subjective meaning being altered by existential considerations. The framework that is built by the process results in an Ideal Absolute, the way that subject perceives what 'ought' to be. In 'ought,' all need is met and all symbolic manipulation is relinquished and unnecessary.
Morality, then, is a part of this subjective conceptual framework, wherein the subject devises an Ideal Absolute ('ought') and works to reconfigure the elements of spacial possibility to match this goal. When one holds a morality close to him, he is delineating his own path to the 'ought.' The persons' belief that someone 'ought' to do something or 'ought' not do something, is only a preference signaled by the symbolic interpretation of an act's efficacy towards the subjective 'ought.'
Thus, morality cannot be established, since morality is a subjective preference toward attaining the non-existent Absolute. The Absolute cannot exist but within the head of a subject who has applied a symbolic meaning to empirical events and their linear path to the Godhead.
Morality, then, is a series of preferences expressed by the subject, in which the subject attempts to attain a symbolic singularity of the elements of possibility, a singularity which can only be imagined, not attained--this is because reality is fluid, always producing lack. Morality, then, doesn't exist except as a tool of the Self's own self-preservation tactics. It is, as the Self, a process of reconfiguration, integration and survival.
For example:
Moral (illusion): One 'ought' not be violent.
Preference (real): I would prefer that others are not violent towards me, since I am not violent towards others. My idea of an Absolute utopia is one in which all humans are peaceful; therefore, your attempts at violence sabotage my imagined utopia.
Moral: It is wrong to steal. I am in a comfortable enough position in life that I do not need to steal, therefore I believe no one else should steal either.
Preference: I would prefer that others did not steal my belongings, because in my Ideal world everyone has access to, and can afford, everything they need. If someone steals it goes against my ideal world.
___________________
One's true preferences show through in one's actions, and also are by nature contextual and not universal. Morality, on the other hand, being an abstract conception of 'ought,' implies a universality that is untenable.
Dualism as a metaphysical position is in its final stages, dying a messy death, but it is not going out quietly.
Morality is revealing itself as a human abstraction. Anything which can be spoken of non-contextually is an abstraction of the human brain and therefore refers to, or models, reality without itself existing.
Morality is thus a framework, a structure, by which humans may navigate their surroundings. It is an offshoot of the conscious Intellect, that is to say the tool within consciousness responsible for creating linear structures between objects where previously there was none. This structure implies connectivity between its agents, and therefore is relegated strictly the realm of the Ideal. One then comes to find that the Ideal is actually the non-existent, and morality is questioned.
Thus, these so-called structures are symbolic. Symbols obtain their meaning only through existential need, or lack. When a lack is sensed or fulfilled, a symbolic representation is applied thereto. The framework that is built through symbolic manipulation refers, therefore, only to the internal life of the subject manipulating those symbols. Because symbols are not a part of empirical reality they are subject to an ambiguity of identity.
When one discovers the efficacy of a symbolic representation, publicly expressed, one attaches to that symbol the context of the situation in which the symbol was seen to be effective or ineffective at communicating the need. Thus, contextual evidence is responsible for the meaning of symbols, the subjective meaning being altered by existential considerations. The framework that is built by the process results in an Ideal Absolute, the way that subject perceives what 'ought' to be. In 'ought,' all need is met and all symbolic manipulation is relinquished and unnecessary.
Morality, then, is a part of this subjective conceptual framework, wherein the subject devises an Ideal Absolute ('ought') and works to reconfigure the elements of spacial possibility to match this goal. When one holds a morality close to him, he is delineating his own path to the 'ought.' The persons' belief that someone 'ought' to do something or 'ought' not do something, is only a preference signaled by the symbolic interpretation of an act's efficacy towards the subjective 'ought.'
Thus, morality cannot be established, since morality is a subjective preference toward attaining the non-existent Absolute. The Absolute cannot exist but within the head of a subject who has applied a symbolic meaning to empirical events and their linear path to the Godhead.
Morality, then, is a series of preferences expressed by the subject, in which the subject attempts to attain a symbolic singularity of the elements of possibility, a singularity which can only be imagined, not attained--this is because reality is fluid, always producing lack. Morality, then, doesn't exist except as a tool of the Self's own self-preservation tactics. It is, as the Self, a process of reconfiguration, integration and survival.
For example:
Moral (illusion): One 'ought' not be violent.
Preference (real): I would prefer that others are not violent towards me, since I am not violent towards others. My idea of an Absolute utopia is one in which all humans are peaceful; therefore, your attempts at violence sabotage my imagined utopia.
Moral: It is wrong to steal. I am in a comfortable enough position in life that I do not need to steal, therefore I believe no one else should steal either.
Preference: I would prefer that others did not steal my belongings, because in my Ideal world everyone has access to, and can afford, everything they need. If someone steals it goes against my ideal world.
___________________
One's true preferences show through in one's actions, and also are by nature contextual and not universal. Morality, on the other hand, being an abstract conception of 'ought,' implies a universality that is untenable.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Travel
I keep my mortality close with me as I travel;
I see myself running away
and feel the cold wind of the moment
sweeping past my face
Here I am
child of the cosmos
A tick-tocking collection of stardust
An unfortunate occurence
in time and space.
A resistence to the Nothingness that seduces
my Mind
Sometimes my reality buzzes
& I have to get off the train.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Third Time's the Charm
Maybe third time's the charm
But maybe there's no charm at all.
Ever think of that?
Maybe at the end of this candy-rope
When we've filled our guts
With unbreakable bits of sugar suicide,
there's no juicy morsel
at the center
But maybe there's no charm at all.
Ever think of that?
Maybe at the end of this candy-rope
When we've filled our guts
With unbreakable bits of sugar suicide,
there's no juicy morsel
at the center
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Solitary questions of the ego
My solitary nature is colliding with reality in certain ways.
I feel that I am surrounded by people whose projections of reality are muddled and confused.
I feel my own philosophies cheapened by the rhetoric of solipsists who have devoted mere fractions of the amount of time I have to thinking, to observing, to exploring, to the dedication of wisdom.
The perspectivists are finally revealing themselves to me as what they are: weak.
They cannot bother to chisel away their models of reality, they cannot align their imagination with the cosmic, organic nature of our existence, enough to search for truths that apply outside of their own heads. They are frightened of the challenge, they cannot stare deep into the void. They do not want to lose control, but also do not realize that control comes at a price. They maintain a superficial control over their own minds, but allow the fundamental nature of their thoughts to swim with the current of the socio-political norm.
I feel that I am surrounded by people whose projections of reality are muddled and confused.
I feel my own philosophies cheapened by the rhetoric of solipsists who have devoted mere fractions of the amount of time I have to thinking, to observing, to exploring, to the dedication of wisdom.
The perspectivists are finally revealing themselves to me as what they are: weak.
They cannot bother to chisel away their models of reality, they cannot align their imagination with the cosmic, organic nature of our existence, enough to search for truths that apply outside of their own heads. They are frightened of the challenge, they cannot stare deep into the void. They do not want to lose control, but also do not realize that control comes at a price. They maintain a superficial control over their own minds, but allow the fundamental nature of their thoughts to swim with the current of the socio-political norm.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Metaphysics of Becoming
I stumbled upon something many months ago, which was later confirmed by the current-day philosopher Satyr, whose metaphysics is the clearest model of reality yet developed.
All is 'becoming,' not 'being.' Being describes an abstraction of the human mind, a resistance to reality. Becoming describes the motion of change, much as like Heraclitus' metaphysics of 'dynamic reality.' The Self is an abstract projection of the human mind, in order to unify the concept of an organic, ever-changing process with the human brain's projection of absolute being.
All is 'becoming,' not 'being.' Being describes an abstraction of the human mind, a resistance to reality. Becoming describes the motion of change, much as like Heraclitus' metaphysics of 'dynamic reality.' The Self is an abstract projection of the human mind, in order to unify the concept of an organic, ever-changing process with the human brain's projection of absolute being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)