No arc, love is understandable, it’s just we dont understand it. Thats not the same as the undefinable greater reality.
Trixie
True, and that’s kinda the whole point here. The indescribably greatest reality can only be one, where discribable things are many.
]
True, and that’s kinda the whole point here. The indescribably greatest reality can only be one, where discribable things are many.[/quote
Then what is it you are experiencing? You’ve given a name to this so called reality and labeled it according to your description while claiming it’s too vast to discern. Where exactly would you be in any reality if you were not given the knowledge of it? Or what if another described reality in a different way? Is it an absolute fact that it would be that which he is experiencing?
She is ugly.
finishedman
I didn’t label it? Mine or others descriptions are irrelevant because the set of all descriptions are. This is not semantics.
Tbh i dont know where i am or what i may be in reality.
then there may not be any meaning or purpose in trying to find out what is there. what does it matter anyway if you are not there?
I know what reality is. Your brain, is a microuniverse.
Reality, is whatever you percieve.
The microuniverse, grows larger and larger.
More and more cumbersome, tedious, and mundane to be in.
Consciousness is always expanding, more knowledge, more neurons, more branches on the tree of life - your life.
You become weighted in thinking.
Thinking becomes monotonous, life monotonous, same old branches, same old paths, same old connections, circling, regurgitating.
There are three classes, the thinker, the atheletic, and the hybrid.
The atheletic undergoes spiritual meditation, and atheletism, and dreams, to become ascended, using the power of delusions.
The thinker relies upon machines to craft his ascenscion.
It’s because I am honest with it that I attempt to know what’s out there, that’s all.
No it’s not, that’s just my little reality.
Interesting and wise notion, I often feel the same. …but there is a greater weight, that which is beyond us, and I don’t just mean aspects of the world we don’t know.
And you aren’t?
She was in black-in-white films in the 1950’s.
What is your excuse?
I am beautiful. You are a nerd with thick glasses, so I wouldnt expect your vision to work properly anyway.
Also its common knowledge that black and white enhances beauty.
Only to the hypnotized youth of the West.
Keep it civil, please.
To decide to value the world in a certain way - say to extract love, or money, or moral meaning from it, is to gain control of it in a certain way; adopting a behavior that, if it is conceptually seen to include the body that gives means to it, will sustain itself through the attaining of whatever it is that is required for sustenance, which in virtually no case is exactly what is aspired after.
This brings me to the point of the OP. I see two different ways for a thing to be seen as great. One is ‘what it is’, say ‘mount everest’, an the second is ‘what it causes’ or in a more Heideggerian phrase, what is allows into being; say, a great effort allows us to scale the mount everest. Of course the mountain itself is a result of great tectonic effort, the two meanings aren’t separate from each other; they represent the epistemic and the transcendent. The latter is the fabric of goals; it includes what could be. In terms of dead matter, we are speaking about probabilities, decreasing in precision as we move away from our own reference frame, and in terms of sentient life we mean goal-oriented movements which set into motion chemical processes of monstrous complexity. (It seems to me that consciousness might have emerged out of an excess upon the radical electrochemical machinery, an interference of sorts, which only through habit could be brought to some kind of service, rather than a terrible will to mayhem, an ‘irrational indifference’ - a place between ape and common sense, somewhere along the lines of which nature had to invent irony. Art brings us back to the root of the balance upon insanity that allows for ratio; the will to undo what the mind did to us in the first place; no-mind. To slay the mind by subjecting it to the sword of observation; a bell in some valley can demonstrate the asphyxia that characterizes the mind; it is best used to merge in ink with the tip of a feather. “Meaning” is, I find, most sufficiently defined in terms of the point where the artist is becoming to know the thing he is producing; meaning is essentially given out of the flesh of the beholder; ‘everything is meaningless’ is first of all defense by a weak mind. And “god is great” is axiomatically true. Whether he exists is another matter; if he is great anyway, it doesn’t really matter. It is then a form of transcendent greatness; the truth or untruth, the thing that is defined by the effect it produces, by the effort it represents. Ideas exert effort. Some ideas seem to me self-causating; even causing entire peoples in terms of their ‘Dasein’ - ideas stronger than individual men; ideas for which men perish, sometimes gladly, such ideas are by my definitions entities. They require humans like humans require water - only as inferior to humans as humans are to water molecules; and the best part of the human being seems to be wonder, the trance that aspires to contain that which is greater than itself. It is always this which kills everything else and itself, youth, from which also science is built. And here is the origin to the self-controlling mind; the stars, planets our moon and solstices, tilt and cycles of angles, all of it used to calibrate certainty; a transcendent goal and empirical fact at once - perhaps violence is explained as a means to this end as well, but science is more solemn, greater, and actually alleviates the primordial condition of our increased awareness, which was of course pure pain.
Fixed Cross
Nicely put.
Another is scale and another is the all encompassing [everythingness]. The greatest thing would hold everything else within it.
Interesting singular notion there. I think that being alive and conscious is also a driving ‘force’. In the womb the infant would mostly grow from knowing nothing to being taught by habit, then once born [or at a given stage in it’s development] the drive to make utility of habitually taught skills becomes foremost.
I see. The calibration is the means to know the world, and comes also via derivative informations and correlative concepts. It doesn’t matter if that’s a bit ‘loose’ because most objects and events in the world are macroscopic. I don’t think the process in some way suggests vagueness though ~ if that’s what you were implying by the whole circle of the argument?
From a single point we come [grow] to have command over the world in that way, no?
_