Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Nameless,
Fantastic, excellent, I certainly would be interested in more. Thank you for taking the time.
I find it hard to accept that as far as physical reality is concern that there is really nothing out there. The nature of reality is relational, and indeed any of what might be termed the projected reality has to relate to our own biology. This is not necessarily just as reality is, but what it is in relation to our biological experience and interpretation. So in this sense, it would be biocentric. Just as a maze is built to confound, so the biological interpretation is built to unconfound. Things are as they are relative to our judgement of the relations between subject and object. An illusion never the less you might say, but there is no reason to suppose that there is nothing out there to work with in the first place. Just as we adapt to the physcial world, dependent upon experience, propagation and death, in a relational adaptation of not the indivdual but of species.The individual you might say is the vehicle of species and species is the relational process at its best. Change as a coevolutionary change seems to mean that, that which is relational is mobile in some important sense, change appears somewhat constant as does the process of becomeing increaseingly relational. The interrelational nature of subject and object in its simpliest example, is a binary condition, the complexity of this binary situtation, is the whole at large. Meaning is simply a biological read out of the here and now, as statements about relations.
Hey back atcha.
If I say life is an illusion it is not because I see all of reality as illusion but life itself which is always changing perspectives until it ends, and has nothing solid upon which to base knowledge. Perhaps, more correctly, life is like a mirage that springs up quicker behind us the faster we run toward it. We cannot excuse bad behavior with ignorence. We have to trust that when illusion like people tell us we are stepping on their toes that we are not standing on their tails.
If we can understand life and reality as process, there must be some understandable foundation for such a process. I think there is understanding, but it is relational understanding, though both sides of this relational state are in constant change, knowledge is an understanding of those relations in the here and now, and its is understood biologically, in this, reaction is change, change is reaction and a product of consciousness. To try to understand being however I think it futile if we try to understand it as if we are apart, in other words subject and object perhaps a new term for the process as a whole would be more fruitful, at present we are sitting on a whale fishing for a minnow. Our belief in our own individuality is the real illusion. Neurology in the not to distant future will utterly destroy our idea of individuality. You correct though for process itself has no walls upon which to rest a ladder, but you can understand that much.
Nobody understands life. Everybody thinks they know something of their own life. It's like wrestling a snake in a vasaline lake.
Hey, that reminds me of a joke: This salesman was going door to door in the South giving out coupons and free samples of vasaline. And he would always ask the people if they knew what vasaline was good for. One couple said Yes! Cuts, bruises, and making love. The saleman was surprised at the answer and asked: How do you use it for making love? Well, the man answered; If you put it on the door nob the kids can't get into the room!
And, I would say that it is not that we are not distinct as individuals or that we do not experience our own lives; but that we are a part of a larger organism that holds all knowledge in the form of concepts and culture, and gives life to all. We are not created individually, but born of society, and all we know of eternity is in the life of society.
I am unsure of your attitude, it does almost sound like you believe we should not try to understand as it is futile. If that were the case, it would be a futile sentiment itself, for wonder is the nature of the beast. In referance to individuality, the sense of self, already with the fact that we are a community of multicellular organisms, the wonder arises of what is it of greater significance that has orchsatrated this construction. I am sure you are aware of the book, "The Selfish Gene,"which I think indicates a more elemental identity as the core of our existence. The fact that we come into this world without an identity and only aquire said identity from the context of our birth, only our contitution really a defineing quality, as it meets with context. The reality of the nature of this process I think will be most disturbing to most of us, and devastating to the religious whom will no doubt cling to denial. At anyrate perhaps my impression of your attitude is unwarrented as I doubt if without a very active curiousity you would be here at this site. No offense intended, I have been wrong once or twice before.
Hi Everybody,
The nature of reality is relational,
and indeed any of what might be termed the projected reality has to relate to our own biology.
Fido,
Why ask what life is, why not just live it to the fullest? At the end I am sure we'll come up with the answers on our own. I also want to add that each person's answer will be diffrent from the other as it will be based on their own experiences.
I know I am not thinking philosophically right now but lately I have been loving life so much that I stopped asking questions.
Hi, I am new to the forum and would like to give a brief description of my understanding of the situation called reality. I feel like often the specifics are talked about, but the general is misunderstood. It seems logical to me to think that, in order to understand something specifically, one must also understand it generally; for what are terms like specific or general if not opposites of each other.
I also think that we want to learn something specifically about our reality (science, botany, genetics, etc.).
I will attempt to describe the general as I understand it. Forgive me if I rehash old points, I do so in ignorance.
I think of my existence in several ways. One way is physical, for what is physics if not my thrown ball decelerating by way of air. Another is metaphysical, which is to say, the stuff that makes the physical (similar to taking a step back and looking at the whole, only the whole can seem impossibly large at times).
I doubt that anyone will argue that we exist in a physical reality. What people will argue is how we exist in that physical reality. This is the nature of metaphysics, and also tends to be the "ignorant" nature of spirituality. I use the word ignorant not to offend, but to only describe the nature of spirituality as generally being devoid of pure scientific reason (god does not need science to prove he exists in order for people to believe he exists). This label applies only in the context of science, where statements do need to be "proven" in order for people to "truly" believe them.
I use prove and true in a tentative sense here, as I believe that the truest nature of truth can not be known unless it is already known. But I digress.
When I try to find the center of my existence, I continuously find myself referring to a point inside of my jaw/head/neck. Perhaps because that is where my brain stem is(biology), or perhaps because of where I breath(psychology). Despite differing explanations, the fact remains. Then I think, am I a little person shaped figure when I visualize myself, or am I a sphere? I usually find a sphere to be more correct. I actually can never really visualize exactly where the location actually is, so I don't think of it as either. I think of it as an infinitely small point, so small that it becomes invisible, and even forgotten.
This is to be expected though, as by my way of perceiving the world I would expect to have an infinitely small point, mainly because I don't think of it as a shape even though I can still locate it.
So if my consciousness emerges from a central point in my head, does it have to move to my different conscious faculties, or does it permeate them. This conception is often referred to in Eastern culture as chi. I don't quite view it the same, as I am talking about my consciousness now, and not my energy. Generally I have to debate this question. It must permeate me in a sense, as I am able to control my body at a moments notice (generally the time of neural pathways), so it must be continuously flowing of sorts. But when I think of specific action, is it my consciousness that travels to each fingers as I instruct them to type these words? Or are their movement merely results of my conscious power. I would hope this is not the case, as I do not want to think of my body from being separate from me, even if I do. I would rather think that we are one, functioning in harmony, the body is a direct source to access the physical world, and to cause change in it. The mind, in similar fashion is the direct source to itself. That is to say all of the memories incurred in a life time (memory being thought to be the retainment of sensory information, and understanding for access of that information).
The interesting perception is to perceive these two differing views in unity, each existing in its own right as it does. Mind and body being simultaneously united and separated.
Now that I have established my understanding of myself (which is the simultaneous separation and unity of my mind and body), I can hope to establish my understanding of my reality, for what is reality but all of the things that makes me, my memories and my current perceptions (sight, sound, and the memory of those perceptions long after they have passed, even the continual memory of those perceptions long after they have passed).
At this stage I try to be an external observer (as most do) and visualize all of reality. It is very difficult to visualize as there are points that are "infinitely specific" and also those that are "infinitely general".
I use specific and general here again because they are defined simply by themselves. This enables their meaning to be abstracted to describe what they must. I use them to describe the description of the universe. That is to say that I view a infinitely specific point in the universe as something that, at time t, can be perfectly described in every aspect that description would be applicable to. This is probably impossible to do. But to give an example of my meaning, a specific point in the universe at time t would be a picture I see on my laptop. That point existed for me, even if only temporally. I use general to mean exactly the opposite of the same thing.
I can then only visualize the universe as a sphere. The outermost "layer" so to speak, would be infinity, ie something that can not be reached. It is a sphere because anywhere you were in the universe, you would never be able to reach beyond, or even to, infinity. If one wants to visualize a relatively large space ship moving towards the edge of the sphere from the center, and it is so big and fast that it actually will move "through" the edge of the sphere, or so we would think. As it approached infinity it would be "squashed". It would continue to maintain its velocity and would continue to move into space (maybe empty, maybe not). But in relation to the whole sphere, the parts of the ship closest to the edge would move less and less distance, and the parts of the ship farthest from the edge would "fall into" the parts "in front of" them. Relative to matter the spaceship could observe, the spaceship would maintain its velocity and acceleration (if any) and would continue to move into real, open space; ie, the ship could fly 100 light years towards the edge of the sphere, and encounter a galaxy where they lived, and the could travel forever towards the sphere and find an infinite # of galaxies. Even though the spaceship would never appear to move in relation to the sphere again (it would also appear infinitely "squashed") it would still be able to travel towards the edge of the sphere permanently.
The summarization of my visualization is merely a sphere with a property of not having a center merely because it would be infinitely small and not be able to be found. Similarly to the location of my consciousness, I still have an idea of where the center would be, imagining the sphere as small (baseball or bowling ball). It also has the property of changing, that is to say the things which move about in it are defined by the construction of the universe itself, and so as they approach the outer wall of the sphere, they never reach it, even though they could honestly travel forever towards it.
I will stop here, as I am new to the forum, and am unsure of how far I overstepped any bounds.
-Justin
