What Of Your Essence?

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Re: What Of Your Essence?

Postby gib » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:08 pm

encode_decode wrote:As for the gib you've identified - you appear to be saying that he will have changed. Are you saying that the gib you've identified is different to the essence of gib? In other words - the gib that you are conscious of is different to the essence of gib. Am I perhaps misunderstanding what you are saying?


What I'm saying is that the identification of an object is not the same as the object itself. The object can go through change while you still identify it as the same object (which isn't necessarily wrong). Identifications are like labels. If you have a ship and you identify it as "the ship of Theseus," and the ship has a plank replaced, you still identify it as the ship of Theseus. The label remains the same even though the object has changed. But this doesn't mean the label is wrong. We decide whether the object is the same object (has the same essence) by applying these labels. Sameness of essence doesn't have to depend on sameness of form or structure. It might depend on continuity, or appearance, or function, or any number of other things.

Furthermore, the label itself might change over time in a way I'm not aware of. When I say "Yep, still gib," 10 years after the last time I looked in the mirror (that's a long time to go without looking in a mirror), I may have a different concept in mind of "gib" than I did 10 years ago, but if I don't remember what my concept was 10 years ago and I think it's the same as the concept I have now, I will still tell myself "it's the same gib."
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: What Of Your Essence?

Postby encode_decode » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:53 pm

    gib

    Thanks for answering, that is interesting the way you have put it. What you are saying is very meaningful . . . I have missed our exchanges . . .

    gib wrote:What I'm saying is that the identification of an object is not the same as the object itself. The object can go through change while you still identify it as the same object (which isn't necessarily wrong). Identifications are like labels. If you have a ship and you identify it as "the ship of Theseus," and the ship has a plank replaced, you still identify it as the ship of Theseus. The label remains the same even though the object has changed. But this doesn't mean the label is wrong. We decide whether the object is the same object (has the same essence) by applying these labels. Sameness of essence doesn't have to depend on sameness of form or structure. It might depend on continuity, or appearance, or function, or any number of other things.

    It makes perfect sense to me what you have written. It actually took my mind back a few years - if I remember correctly I think I approached something similar in mathematics . . . or maybe it was physics . . . but yes you are right in this regard . . .

    gib wrote:Furthermore, the label itself might change over time in a way I'm not aware of. When I say "Yep, still gib," 10 years after the last time I looked in the mirror (that's a long time to go without looking in a mirror), I may have a different concept in mind of "gib" than I did 10 years ago, but if I don't remember what my concept was 10 years ago and I think it's the same as the concept I have now, I will still tell myself "it's the same gib."

    Hmm . . . I understand what you mean. There is something else that I have this feeling inside me about . . . I found something today from a week or two ago - I am not certain how long but that does not matter so much. I am not sure how many people feel this way either . . .

    From a week or two ago I wrote:The seed of us - the part that makes us recognize ourselves is unchanging - if we die today and are born tomorrow then we will come to know ourselves again.

    I guess I was thinking about some central reference point here - I am not too sure. All I know is there is something deep down that I feel that determines who I am at my most basic - without any change taking place - I am not sure whether it could be classed as physical either.

    From what you have written and what I feel - I sense a couple of different things going on . . . I totally understand what you have written and totally agree with what you have written and in fact I really enjoyed reading what you have written too for that matter - no ifs or buts about it . . .

    A meaningful exchange gib . . . I only wish my response was as good as yours . . . I would be very interested in more of your thoughts . . .

    :D
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Thinker
       
      Posts: 915
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Metaspace

      Re: What Of Your Essence?

      Postby gib » Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:51 pm

      encode_decode wrote:
        gib

        Thanks for answering, that is interesting the way you have put it. What you are saying is very meaningful . . . I have missed our exchanges . . .

        gib wrote:What I'm saying is that the identification of an object is not the same as the object itself. The object can go through change while you still identify it as the same object (which isn't necessarily wrong). Identifications are like labels. If you have a ship and you identify it as "the ship of Theseus," and the ship has a plank replaced, you still identify it as the ship of Theseus. The label remains the same even though the object has changed. But this doesn't mean the label is wrong. We decide whether the object is the same object (has the same essence) by applying these labels. Sameness of essence doesn't have to depend on sameness of form or structure. It might depend on continuity, or appearance, or function, or any number of other things.

        It makes perfect sense to me what you have written. It actually took my mind back a few years - if I remember correctly I think I approached something similar in mathematics . . . or maybe it was physics . . . but yes you are right in this regard . . .

        gib wrote:Furthermore, the label itself might change over time in a way I'm not aware of. When I say "Yep, still gib," 10 years after the last time I looked in the mirror (that's a long time to go without looking in a mirror), I may have a different concept in mind of "gib" than I did 10 years ago, but if I don't remember what my concept was 10 years ago and I think it's the same as the concept I have now, I will still tell myself "it's the same gib."

        Hmm . . . I understand what you mean. There is something else that I have this feeling inside me about . . . I found something today from a week or two ago - I am not certain how long but that does not matter so much. I am not sure how many people feel this way either . . .

        From a week or two ago I wrote:The seed of us - the part that makes us recognize ourselves is unchanging - if we die today and are born tomorrow then we will come to know ourselves again.

        I guess I was thinking about some central reference point here - I am not too sure. All I know is there is something deep down that I feel that determines who I am at my most basic - without any change taking place - I am not sure whether it could be classed as physical either.

        From what you have written and what I feel - I sense a couple of different things going on . . . I totally understand what you have written and totally agree with what you have written and in fact I really enjoyed reading what you have written too for that matter - no ifs or buts about it . . .

        A meaningful exchange gib . . . I only wish my response was as good as yours . . . I would be very interested in more of your thoughts . . .

        :D


          Man, if you only knew how easily my ego can be inflated... :lol:

          I'm sure there's a way of construing the identity of a thing such that we can say it remains constant. I think, however, that constant would have to be on a more abstract level. I think for sure our physical constitution changes, as does that of every other physical thing. The constancy of things can't be in their structure or form or material content. I'm sure it can't be mental either. If anything changes, it's the mind. There's not a single experience I can imagine that stays in my mind constantly without changing. Maybe constancy lies in continuity. If we know that a thing started out as A and gradually became B, we could say that A and B share a common identity. The butterfly is the caterpillar it once was. What would be constant in that case would be the thing's history. It's not like the butterfly can change so much it ceases to have come from the caterpillar, as if its whole past has changed.

          Another thing that might preserve the identity of a thing might be a range of states (or properties, or structure, or whatever). So suppose I buy a new hammer. It's all nice and shiny, full of bling, no rust. But over time it might accumulate rust. This might wear a bit at its integrity. But so long as its integrity remains within a reasonable range of functionality (i.e. it doesn't break when I hit a nail with it) we can say it remains within the range require to be a functional hammer, my hammer. But if one day, it got so rusty that it just broke apart, it clearly would have falling outside the range of acceptable change, and you would say your hammer got destroyed, it no longer exists.

          This idea of range works well with another theory of identity (not mine). Some philosophers say that we identify a thing based on its essential properties. This is in opposition to a things peripheral properties. For example, what makes a car a car? Is it the color? No, because I could paint my car a different color and I would still say it's my car. Is it the noise it makes? No because if the muffler was damaged and it started making a loud noise, I would still say it's my car. These would be peripheral properties. What would make the car essential to being the car? Maybe its form? Well, it could change form a little, maybe incur a dent from an accident, and I would still call it my car, but if it got crushed in a compactor or got blown apart in an explosion, would I still call it my car in that case? Maybe the form is an essential properties (i.e. without it, the car is no longer the car I identify it to be) but it requires change beyond a certain range of states in order for that property to be said to be gone.

          There's also function. So long as a thing performs the same function, we could say, it preserve the same identity. In my computer, there's an adder (circuitry for performing addition). If I tell it: compute 2 + 2, it will tell me: 4. This circuitry obvious degrades with time. It gets worn from the heat, from corrosion, from physical bumps my computer incurs, but even after several years it still computes 4 when I give it 2 + 2. It's not like the result slowly changes with the degradation, like after a year it starts computing 4.00001, after 5 years, 4.01, and so forth. So we could say that the circuitry remains an adder so long as the function doesn't change, but again, function is an abstraction.

          In any case, whatever it is that makes a thing constant, it has to be abstract. Physics is always in a state of flux. Even solid objects like rocks are constantly undergoing change when you look at them at the subatomic level. None of its particles remain still. But they do tend to reacquire their prior states. That's how atoms are so stable. Though the electrons, protons, and neutrons that constitute the atom are always undergoing change and movement, they tend to push each other back to their prior states, or keep each other relatively close to the same state. On a macroscopic level, this gives the impression of a constant, an object that just sits there doing nothing. Maybe the fact of the particles always remaining close to this state is like the range of possible states a thing can move within while still being consider the same thing. As far as the mind goes, I would say there is way to much flux there to identify any constant, but there is recurrence. In order to identify a constant, the mind has to bring to consciousness the identity of the thing, but it's not like that identity remains in consciousness permanently. Once the thing is out of sight, we stop thinking about its identity, but it comes back to mind later when the thing appears again. That's recurrence, like the state of the atom recurring from the mutual influence of its particles. It might also be like function: though the neural circuitry of my brain obvious changes over time, the concepts it computes might be exactly the same. If we want to define constancy based on something more abstract--like continuity, essential properties, a range of values--then that too requires mental identification (abstraction is, by definition, mental) which is to say it can't be there when we're not thinking of it and so only makes sense as a recurring thing.

          In the end, however, I don't think all this matters that much. I'm quite satisfied to say that my favorite coffee mug is the same coffee mug I've had for years. Somehow, this works even if I know the particles that make up the mug are constantly changing and the mug itself slowly degrades over time. The reason why we need to think of certain things as constant seems to be met in most cases, including our identification of people, not least of which is ourselves. I definitely think it's one of these things--continuity, function, range of states--that we go on when we identify things, including who we are, and so long as this works, there must be something we are anchoring our identifications onto even if that thing isn't literally constant. In other words, I think there is a way to resolve this problem philosophically (which means you probably do get to say you have a constant 'self' within) but I would veer away from imagining that thing as literally an object that literally doesn't change. It's got to be something more abstract.
          My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

          It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
          Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
          - surreptitious75

          The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
          - encode_decode

          Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
          - Rick Sanchez
          User avatar
          gib
          little shitheaded Buddha
           
          Posts: 8414
          Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
          Location: lost (don't try to find me)

          Re: What Of Your Essence?

          Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:13 pm

          Hi gib,

          Man, if you only knew how easily my ego can be inflated...


          ...and here I thought that you were possibly one person (not the only one of course) in here who did not have that negative kind of Ego. :evilfun:
          I am so appalled and disappointed in you, gib. :P


          I think there is a way to resolve this problem philosophically (which means you probably do get to say you have a constant 'self' within) but I would veer away from imagining that thing as literally an object that literally doesn't change. It's got to be something more abstract.


          But IS one's essence their Self? I thought that it was established that it was not.

          I agree with you insofar as *that thing* not being literally, an object, but something abstract that is difficult to name and difficult to see.

          I think of it more as the scent on the rose but I remember having a discussion with someone in here about that scent being an actual *thing* because of what it consists of/comes from and I can understand that ~~ but still, to me, we can have a sensation of it - that is its *constant* essence until it is dead.

          I guess it all comes down to what one's perception of a *thing* entails...solid or ethereal. Can a thing be ethereal and still be called a thing.
          SAPERE AUDE!


          If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


          What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

          Thomas Nagel


          I learn as I write!
          User avatar
          Arcturus Descending
          Consciousness Seeker
           
          Posts: 14835
          Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
          Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

          Re: What Of Your Essence?

          Postby gib » Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:53 pm

          Arcturus Descending wrote:Hi gib,

          Man, if you only knew how easily my ego can be inflated...


          ...and here I thought that you were possibly one person (not the only one of course) in here who did not have that negative kind of Ego. :evilfun:
          I am so appalled and disappointed in you, gib. :P


          I'm like an accordion. Sometimes I'm inflated, other times deflated. Your disappointment deflates me. :D

          Arcturus Descending wrote:
          I think there is a way to resolve this problem philosophically (which means you probably do get to say you have a constant 'self' within) but I would veer away from imagining that thing as literally an object that literally doesn't change. It's got to be something more abstract.


          But IS one's essence their Self? I thought that it was established that it was not.


          One's essence is what one is. It's how you define "me". There's a subtle difference between how we define a thing, including ourselves, and the actual instantiation of a thing. We can define things that don't even exist. We have a definition for Santa Clause. We know what Santa is. Thus, we can project an essence of "Santa Clause" without seeing him or believing he exists. Unless we're able to attribute our understanding of what a thing is to an actually existing thing, the essence is "without a home" so to speak. But if we do attribute it to something that exists, then the thing and its essence become one. The essence makes it into a thing. It becomes the thing's identity. So we have a concept of ourselves, and by itself it's just our essence, but because we experience ourselves as existing, we attribute this concept to yourselves and we become our essence.

          Arcturus Descending wrote:I agree with you insofar as *that thing* not being literally, an object, but something abstract that is difficult to name and difficult to see.

          I think of it more as the scent on the rose but I remember having a discussion with someone in here about that scent being an actual *thing* So they didn't get that it was an analogy. because of what it consists of/comes from and I can understand that ~~ but still, to me, we can have a sensation of it - that is its *constant* essence until it is dead.

          Yes, something there that always has the potential to become scent. <-- Recurrence.

          I guess it all comes down to what one's perception of a *thing* entails...solid or ethereal. Can a thing be ethereal and still be called a thing.


          Sure, the word "thing" doesn't necessarily connote solid. We say that "government" is a thing--an abstract thing. They key is: can we attribute an essence to it? That's the same as asking: do we have a concept of it. Concepts are what make things into "things" for us. The human mind seems quite capable of form concepts of abstract things, so I'd say there's no problem there.
          My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

          It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
          Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
          - surreptitious75

          The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
          - encode_decode

          Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
          - Rick Sanchez
          User avatar
          gib
          little shitheaded Buddha
           
          Posts: 8414
          Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
          Location: lost (don't try to find me)

          Re: What Of Your Essence?

          Postby surreptitious57 » Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:37 pm

          An ice cube is a thing. Heat it up and it turns to water. Heat it up again and it turns to steam. Steam is ethereal. And it is
          also a thing because it has physicality. You may say steam cannot be a thing because it is not solid. However solidity is an
          illusion because atoms which are the fundamental constituents of every object are only ninety nine per cent empty space
          A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
          surreptitious57
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1931
          Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

          Re: What Of Your Essence?

          Postby gib » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:01 pm

          surreptitious57 wrote:An ice cube is a thing. Heat it up and it turns to water. Heat it up again and it turns to steam. Steam is ethereal.


          Steam is not ethereal. Ethereal means ghostly, means something there occupying space but poses no resistance to objects moving through it. Usually invisible. It's like the stuff physicists used to believe in before Einstein's theories, an ether permeating all space and serving as a "fixed" background for all motion.

          surreptitious57 wrote: And it is
          also a thing because it has physicality. You may say steam cannot be a thing because it is not solid. However solidity is an
          illusion because atoms which are the fundamental constituents of every object are only ninety nine per cent empty space


          Yes, this makes more sense. In fact, I'll add that the few points at which there is matter in solids (i.e. the particles) are more like waves than tiny billiard balls, making it questionable whether there's something there at all.
          My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

          It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
          Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
          - surreptitious75

          The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
          - encode_decode

          Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
          - Rick Sanchez
          User avatar
          gib
          little shitheaded Buddha
           
          Posts: 8414
          Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
          Location: lost (don't try to find me)

          Re: What Of Your Essence?

          Postby encode_decode » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:45 am

            I just can not get my head around it all . . . everybody is making sense in one way or another . . .

            I know that we are all trying to talk about the same thing here - the problem I have is that there are many times when I agree with views that differ from each other. So I am just going to throw something in the mix to ponder. Sometimes the views are similar with slight differences and sometimes views are entirely different and all still make sense. I hope that makes some kind of sense. The problem I have with what I just said comes down to contrast.

            Now to my main point . . .

            So lets say we have the following definitions of slots:

              O = Our Origin - Never Changing
              B = Our Biological - Ever Changing
              C = Our Conscious - Ever Changing

            I propose that we each have an origin(O) - a lot like the origin on a graph - except that we don't need any dimensions for the definition of our origin - it is purely a starting point of sorts. I further posit that each of us has a biological(B) which is easy for us to agree on. And lastly we should be able to agree on each of us having a conscious(C).

            Our O is never changing and everything after this point changes so we can say that:

              O < B < C

            In other words; O leads to B which leads to C ~ because ~ O is less than B which is less than C.

            Keep in mind that I am only using the '~' symbol as a separator to make it easier to read.

            Where does the essence fit into this logic?

              Is it ~ O or B or C?

              Else ~ Does it fit somewhere between one of these three slots?

              Or else ~ Is it a combination of all three?

            Somebody please let me know if this logic is not making sense - I just want to make sure I am on a similar page if not the same page as everybody . . .

            I just can not get this essence out of my mind. I was thinking that O(Our Origin) was our essence and is ethereal and eternal - allowing for life after death.
            Another way to look at it is that Our Origin is like a Seed to be planted into the Garden Of Life - and therefore our essence - in my mind anyway . . .

            :-k

            Any thoughts?
              User avatar
              encode_decode
              Thinker
               
              Posts: 915
              Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
              Location: Metaspace

              Re: What Of Your Essence?

              Postby WendyDarling » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:35 pm

              O = Our Origin - Never Changing
              B = Our Biological - Ever Changing
              C = Our Conscious - Ever Changing

              I agree with all this with one change that your consciousness has an unchanging aspect of O as well that occurs before it's placed/born in a physical body/shell so an OC, original consciousness,then the biological consciousness would be the BC, the changing aspect which comes after the O and the OC.
              I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

              I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

              Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
              User avatar
              WendyDarling
              Heroine
               
              Posts: 6203
              Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
              Location: Hades

              Re: What Of Your Essence?

              Postby gib » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:35 pm

              encode_decode wrote:
                O < B < C


              Hey encode, what does it mean to say O is less than B, which is less than C?

              I agree that our origin never changes, but that's a specific case of: the past never changes. That shouldn't come as a surprise. Change requires time, so if we're considering something that happens at a single point in time, it can't change.

              Then again, you could consider an event that extends through time--your birth could be said to take several ours, you were hardly born in an instant--and in that case, you would see change. By definition, an event involves change (you wouldn't call a rock just sitting there for hours an "event"). But it's still change that's "fixed" in the sense that it's in the past, and whatever change it went through, it's now written in the stone of the past. This seems to be because calling it an "event" means that we're thinking of it as a whole, not a part that we know will change as more of the event unfolds.

              The past (time in general) is an abstraction. Moreover, you could say that the past keeps changing in the sense that more keeps getting added to it. Today, the past does not contain what I will do this evening. Tomorrow it will. Nonetheless, once something becomes part of the past, it ceases to change. The question in my mind is: is the past real?
              My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

              It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
              Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
              - surreptitious75

              The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
              - encode_decode

              Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
              - Rick Sanchez
              User avatar
              gib
              little shitheaded Buddha
               
              Posts: 8414
              Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
              Location: lost (don't try to find me)

              Re: What Of Your Essence?

              Postby encode_decode » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:28 am

                Hi gib,

                Sometimes I feel like calling you the gibinator - lol - only because you are so cool man . . . I also figure that you'll be back.

                Let me take a partial response here and make a partial response . . . when I interact with you I find myself having to contemplate often - this is a good thing.

                gib wrote:
                encode_decode wrote:
                  O < B < C


                Hey encode, what does it mean to say O is less than B, which is less than C?

                I agree that our origin never changes, but that's a specific case of: the past never changes. That shouldn't come as a surprise. Change requires time, so if we're considering something that happens at a single point in time, it can't change.

                To say that O is less that B is to say that the Origin by itself is less than the Biological; To say that this is less than C is to say that the Origin plus the Biological is less than all three combined. For it to have made perfect logical sense I would have had to write it a different way using other symbols that I consider a little uglier. To get what I meant straight off the bat requires a certain esoteric leap that not everybody can make the first time around. The beauty of many things in life is that they are somewhat exoteric which allows us to communicate - however there is a lot of beauty to be found in the esoteric also . . . often times there is elegance to be found in both the esoteric and exoteric.

                What I wrote was delicate in nature so I allowed for the possibility that the hidden logic may or may not have been uncovered by:

                encode_decode wrote:Somebody please let me know if this logic is not making sense - I just want to make sure I am on a similar page if not the same page as everybody . . .

                In which case I am so glad you asked - interaction allows for clarity.

                gib wrote:I agree that our origin never changes, but that's a specific case of: the past never changes. That shouldn't come as a surprise. Change requires time, so if we're considering something that happens at a single point in time, it can't change

                This is some deep stuff gib, no matter what angle you take. I have an idea that science as well as philosophy are big parts of your life - they are sometimes difficult to reconcile but most times have great synergy with each other. Your explanations are deeply alluring because they are very communicative and quite rigorous.

                I could also say that change does not require time - that change requires motion. That time is often manufactured as a requirement to the analytical. We could consider each other both correct and both incorrect; this would only require choice . . . people do have some power over choice . . .

                I think there is this other side to many people that can also be communicative yet less rigorous at times and yet it seems to lure us all at least part of the time.

                Poetry and metaphor are fine examples of vocal and or textual information containing meaning of a more delicate nature - this allows for interpretation - it also allows for ambiguity - then again it prompts conversation - the same words can speak differently to many people . . .

                We can not doubt the value of strict meaning . . .
                . . . we also must place value in the less strict where meaning is to be found . . .
                . . . it seems to me that we can not escape it . . .

                You have used analogies in your examples and I use analogy quite often myself . . .
                . . . I think your analogies are better than mine though because they are more expressive . . .

                I assure you that I will respond more thoroughly yet concisely in form than what I have this time around . . .

                In the meantime I am going to contemplate further the rest of what you have written as well as the writing I have partially responded to already . . . You are welcome to and may respond to this post if you feel the want to . . . I would again value your thoughts on what I have written here and it is likely that what you would write will imaginably enhance my thoughts . . . not trying to inflate your ego here . . . just being honest . . .

                :D

                My last thoughts here in this post for now - even if they are a little off track - is that poetry along with its, at times, delicate nature, also has the potential to evoke emotion much like music - I recently read a study of brain scans that showed the same area of the brain activated when exposed to music and poetry.

                Despite x amount of subtleties in this post . . . I do believe it contains some meaning . . . That it has its own essence too . . . Any thoughts on this?
                  User avatar
                  encode_decode
                  Thinker
                   
                  Posts: 915
                  Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                  Location: Metaspace

                  Re: What Of Your Essence?

                  Postby encode_decode » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:38 am

                    WendyDarling

                    I am still thinking about this . . . however . . .

                    WendyDarling wrote:
                    O = Our Origin - Never Changing
                    B = Our Biological - Ever Changing
                    C = Our Conscious - Ever Changing

                    I agree with all this with one change that your consciousness has an unchanging aspect of O as well that occurs before it's placed/born in a physical body/shell so an OC, original consciousness,then the biological consciousness would be the BC, the changing aspect which comes after the O and the OC.

                    . . . I do agree with your changes - I am contemplating which part of this is the essence - whether it be O or OC or both . . .
                      User avatar
                      encode_decode
                      Thinker
                       
                      Posts: 915
                      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                      Location: Metaspace

                      Re: What Of Your Essence?

                      Postby gib » Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:03 am

                      Hey encode,

                      I'll respond later when I have some time to think through your post.
                      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

                      It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
                      Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
                      - surreptitious75

                      The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
                      - encode_decode

                      Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
                      - Rick Sanchez
                      User avatar
                      gib
                      little shitheaded Buddha
                       
                      Posts: 8414
                      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
                      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

                      Re: What Of Your Essence?

                      Postby encode_decode » Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:22 am

                        gib

                        No rush - these things take time - I think we are all having a busy week. Aside from that I would not put too much thought into it - they are only my crazy thoughts - I can be rational when the time calls for it - I just think we need to look beyond the rational at times - this could be considered my opinion . . .

                        gib wrote:Hey encode,

                        I'll respond later when I have some time to think through your post.

                        Anyhow - we are in the Sandbox here - I intend on expressing what I mean in a more understandable format.

                        I just wanted to touch on the abstract - more difficult to get at stuff - by introducing the stuff that some people feel instead of being able to easily quantify.

                        :D
                          User avatar
                          encode_decode
                          Thinker
                           
                          Posts: 915
                          Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                          Location: Metaspace

                          Re: What Of Your Essence?

                          Postby gib » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:49 pm

                          encode_decode wrote:Hi gib,

                          Sometimes I feel like calling you the gibinator - lol - only because you are so cool man . . . I also figure that you'll be back.

                          You'll have to pass that one by Wendy, she might have already used it. :lol:

                          Let me take a partial response here and make a partial response . . . when I interact with you I find myself having to contemplate often - this is a good thing.

                          gib wrote:
                          Hey encode, what does it mean to say O is less than B, which is less than C?

                          I agree that our origin never changes, but that's a specific case of: the past never changes. That shouldn't come as a surprise. Change requires time, so if we're considering something that happens at a single point in time, it can't change.

                          To say that O is less that B is to say that the Origin by itself is less than the Biological; To say that this is less than C is to say that the Origin plus the Biological is less than all three combined. Okay, so they build on top of each other. For it to have made perfect logical sense I would have had to write it a different way using other symbols that I consider a little uglier. To get what I meant straight off the bat requires a certain esoteric leap that not everybody can make the first time around. The beauty of many things in life is that they are somewhat exoteric which allows us to communicate - however there is a lot of beauty to be found in the esoteric also . . . often times there is elegance to be found in both the esoteric and exoteric.


                          Well, if I've got you right, the esoteric part would be the special mathematical notation you would use to represent: C depends on B which depends on O. I wonder what symbolism that is.

                          encode_decode wrote:Somebody please let me know if this logic is not making sense - I just want to make sure I am on a similar page if not the same page as everybody . . .

                          In which case I am so glad you asked - interaction allows for clarity.

                          gib wrote:I agree that our origin never changes, but that's a specific case of: the past never changes. That shouldn't come as a surprise. Change requires time, so if we're considering something that happens at a single point in time, it can't change


                          This is some deep stuff gib, no matter what angle you take. I have an idea that science as well as philosophy are big parts of your life - they are sometimes difficult to reconcile but most times have great synergy with each other. Your explanations are deeply alluring because they are very communicative and quite rigorous.

                          Philosophy shouldn't have to conflict with science, unless you're attached to your premises. Otherwise, philosophy is just the art of showing the links between ideas--between a set of premises and a set of conclusions; whether one decides to argue something in defense of science or against it is a matter of personal choice.

                          I could also say that change does not require time - that change requires motion. That time is often manufactured as a requirement to the analytical. We could consider each other both correct and both incorrect; this would only require choice . . . people do have some power over choice . . .

                          You mean, because time is a human abstraction and motion is not? I don't know about this. Motion isn't the only kind of change. Something can change color without moving. Music is the changing of tones, beats, pitch, etc. I would agree that our abstractions of time make time out to be an independent thing that could subsist without motion, without existing things even, and I would agree that this is not what time really is. At the end of the day, I think time and change are synonymous.

                          I think there is this other side to many people that can also be communicative yet less rigorous at times and yet it seems to lure us all at least part of the time.

                          Poetry and metaphor are fine examples of vocal and or textual information containing meaning of a more delicate nature - this allows for interpretation - it also allows for ambiguity - then again it prompts conversation - the same words can speak differently to many people . . .

                          We can not doubt the value of strict meaning . . .
                          . . . we also must place value in the less strict where meaning is to be found . . .
                          . . . it seems to me that we can not escape it . . .

                          Yes, being strict and rigorous with your words is to help the listener do as little work as possible, whereas being poetic and metaphorical forces the listener to work at deciphering meaning.

                          You have used analogies in your examples and I use analogy quite often myself . . .
                          . . . I think your analogies are better than mine though because they are more expressive . . .

                          Oh, stop! :lol:

                          I assure you that I will respond more thoroughly yet concisely in form than what I have this time around . . .

                          No pressure!

                          In the meantime I am going to contemplate further the rest of what you have written as well as the writing I have partially responded to already . . . You are welcome to and may respond to this post if you feel the want to . . . I would again value your thoughts on what I have written here and it is likely that what you would write will imaginably enhance my thoughts . . . not trying to inflate your ego here . . . just being honest . . .

                          :D

                          Thanks for the kind words.

                          My last thoughts here in this post for now - even if they are a little off track - is that poetry along with its, at times, delicate nature, also has the potential to evoke emotion much like music - I recently read a study of brain scans that showed the same area of the brain activated when exposed to music and poetry.

                          Well, I know that music and speech are analogues of each other. The latter conveys ideas whereas the former conveys emotion. Furthermore, we can understand the meaning of speech without believing it just as we can understand the emotion conveyed by music without feeling it (Listening to Barney the Purple Dinosaur always comes to mind as an example of this--"I love you, you love me, we're a happy family"--conveys happiness but invokes disgust :lol:). I guess poetry is a good example of a form of communication that invokes both.

                          Despite x amount of subtleties in this post . . . I do believe it contains some meaning . . . That it has its own essence too . . . Any thoughts on this?


                          Any thoughts on your meaning, or on your post having its own essence?

                          I think yes on both counts. Obviously, it has a mean--you meant something when you wrote it--and you might even say it had its own essence. If we can conceptual "your post," that constitutes its essence, it gives us something with which to identify it.
                          My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

                          It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
                          Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
                          - surreptitious75

                          The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
                          - encode_decode

                          Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
                          - Rick Sanchez
                          User avatar
                          gib
                          little shitheaded Buddha
                           
                          Posts: 8414
                          Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
                          Location: lost (don't try to find me)

                          Re: What Of Your Essence?

                          Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:11 am

                            WendyDarling

                            Could I please get your definition of a soul?
                            - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                            But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                            User avatar
                            encode_decode
                            Thinker
                             
                            Posts: 915
                            Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                            Location: Metaspace

                            Re: What Of Your Essence?

                            Postby WendyDarling » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:20 am

                            It is your will (its' strength, perseverance, mobility<---can't think of the word I mean for that one, kind of like water looking for a way to flow around obstacles), the emotions with which you naturally align (harmonize with, excel at), and goodness or badness in action (I may be able to come up with some better descriptor for this last one, the hero, the villian, both), it's combined into its own form of energy, life-giving, life sustaining energy.
                            I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

                            I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

                            Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
                            User avatar
                            WendyDarling
                            Heroine
                             
                            Posts: 6203
                            Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
                            Location: Hades

                            Re: What Of Your Essence?

                            Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:24 am

                            WendyDarling wrote:It is your will (its' strength, perseverance, mobility<---can't think of the word I mean for that one, kind of like water looking for a way to flow around obstacles), the emotions with which you naturally align (harmonize with, excel at), and goodness or badness in action (I may be able to come up with some better descriptor for this last one, the hero, the villian, both), it's combined into its own form of energy, life-giving, life sustaining energy.

                            Different to the spirit then?
                            - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                            But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                            User avatar
                            encode_decode
                            Thinker
                             
                            Posts: 915
                            Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                            Location: Metaspace

                            Re: What Of Your Essence?

                            Postby WendyDarling » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:28 am

                            Yes. The soul is an actual body of energy while the spirit is the remnant, the memory, of an individual that is represented in an object or moment in time.
                            I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

                            I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

                            Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
                            User avatar
                            WendyDarling
                            Heroine
                             
                            Posts: 6203
                            Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
                            Location: Hades

                            Re: What Of Your Essence?

                            Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:34 am

                              WendyDarling

                              WendyDarling wrote:Yes. The soul is an actual body of energy while the spirit is the remnant, the memory, of an individual that is represented in an object or moment in time.

                              Ah good - some people believe they are the same thing . . . I need to think about what you have written today.

                              It seems there are a few missing pieces to the puzzle that have been found.

                              :-k
                              - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                              But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                              User avatar
                              encode_decode
                              Thinker
                               
                              Posts: 915
                              Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                              Location: Metaspace

                              Re: What Of Your Essence?

                              Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:54 pm

                                WendyDarling

                                How do we keep the loonies in check?

                                WendyDarling wrote:At this point, I don't know. :-k Does this whole conundrum return to the essence of a soul?

                                Perhaps it does . . . Could I please get your definition of a soul?

                                WendyDarling wrote:It is your will (its' strength, perseverance, mobility<---can't think of the word I mean for that one, kind of like water looking for a way to flow around obstacles), the emotions with which you naturally align (harmonize with, excel at), and goodness or badness in action (I may be able to come up with some better descriptor for this last one, the hero, the villian, both), it's combined into its own form of energy, life-giving, life sustaining energy.

                                Different to the spirit then?

                                WendyDarling wrote:Yes. The soul is an actual body of energy while the spirit is the remnant, the memory, of an individual that is represented in an object or moment in time.

                                What are your thoughts?

                                WendyDarling wrote:Is a person's modus operandi established by their soul's essence?

                                Judging from your definition of soul, I would have to say yes.

                                This would mean it would be essential for a person to know what is at the level of their soul before they could go against it for the greater good. I am certain most people have no idea how to do that. It sounds like it would be difficult to go against ones essence . . . I am still learning here - just an FYI.

                                Am I wrong?
                                - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                                But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                                User avatar
                                encode_decode
                                Thinker
                                 
                                Posts: 915
                                Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                Location: Metaspace

                                Re: What Of Your Essence?

                                Postby WendyDarling » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:42 pm

                                It would come down to thoughts and actions, going against one's essence, but who would willingly go against their nature? How would they ever realize something better when it seems unnatural to them? To them , it may feel as if they are living a lie to deny their nature, they would never be convinced 100% to become different, more. That's why I claim essences are an unchanging, eternal state. If our essence changed with the season's of a lifetime or lifetimes, how would we continuously recognize ourselves. Who would I be?

                                Perhaps we, our conscious souls, are placed into human forms to find our essences, thus ourselves in thoughts and actions.
                                I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

                                I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

                                Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
                                User avatar
                                WendyDarling
                                Heroine
                                 
                                Posts: 6203
                                Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
                                Location: Hades

                                Re: What Of Your Essence?

                                Postby encode_decode » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:52 pm

                                  Hi gib

                                  Sorry about the late response. You said to me "Well, if I've got you right, the esoteric part would be the special mathematical notation you would use to represent: C depends on B which depends on O. I wonder what symbolism that is." You do have one side of the equation correct - the other side is more about an unexpressed meaning within the words - a hidden meaning if you will. There is notation that we could use but I think one would be better off inventing a special notation for it that helped to make it clearer.

                                  WendyDarling picked up on what I was meaning - I was guessing she would have before I posted - I also made the contingency for anyone who did not understand clearly what I was saying. I have discovered that one can communicate outside of rationality quite well and still understand perfectly well what the other person is saying when they are doing the same - I have also discovered that emotional communication can give more meaning to some things - in this case it was not really either of those - it was more like my username - I encoded some meaning and WendyDarling was able to decode it - I am guessing there are many other ways to get a point across too.

                                  It really is quite a lot to process since these days we tend to try and remain logical - I think we would lose quite a large part of our history if we let logic do all the talking. O, B and C do indeed build on top of each other - you are correct.

                                  gib wrote:Philosophy shouldn't have to conflict with science, unless you're attached to your premises. Otherwise, philosophy is just the art of showing the links between ideas--between a set of premises and a set of conclusions; whether one decides to argue something in defense of science or against it is a matter of personal choice.

                                  I totally agree with what you are saying here. In the case of spirituality it is a matter of personal choice. I feel that science never offered any logical conclusions on many things - I do love my science but I choose not to rely on it for my spirituality. Other people have helped me with spiritual meaning and hopefully I have helped them too.

                                  When I do my science, I make sure to apply the philosophy to it accordingly - science to me is without spirit.

                                  gib wrote:You mean, because time is a human abstraction and motion is not? I don't know about this. Motion isn't the only kind of change. Something can change color without moving. Music is the changing of tones, beats, pitch, etc. I would agree that our abstractions of time make time out to be an independent thing that could subsist without motion, without existing things even, and I would agree that this is not what time really is. At the end of the day, I think time and change are synonymous.

                                  I was only being figurative that is why I started with "I could also say that change does not require time" note the word "could". I agree with everything you have said here with the exception of one thing - strangely I find my self almost agreeing however and that is "At the end of the day, I think time and change are synonymous." and I would have to say, not exactly but close enough is good enough - you are being rational again gib.

                                  :D

                                  On being rational . . .

                                  gib wrote:Yes, being strict and rigorous with your words is to help the listener do as little work as possible, whereas being poetic and metaphorical forces the listener to work at deciphering meaning.

                                  I know gib - I am sorry if I am a little less strict and rigorous with my words than I should be - I find it difficult to express some things that I do not have tangible evidence for and yet I am still drawn to those things - someone accused me of throwing a wrench in the works - never my intention but often happens with me.

                                  gib wrote:Oh, stop! :lol:

                                  No - lol - I like to compliment somebody if they deserve it. I promise I will not go too far over the top though - and I hope you will forgive me if on the rare occasion that I may go against the grain of that promise. You were the first person here to be openly friendly to me and that I will never forget. You deserve the kind words and I appreciate you not applying too much pressure on me - sometimes I cave in a little with too much pressure - I am only human.

                                  Well, I know that music and speech are analogues of each other. The latter conveys ideas whereas the former conveys emotion. Furthermore, we can understand the meaning of speech without believing it just as we can understand the emotion conveyed by music without feeling it (Listening to Barney the Purple Dinosaur always comes to mind as an example of this--"I love you, you love me, we're a happy family"--conveys happiness but invokes disgust :lol:). I guess poetry is a good example of a form of communication that invokes both.

                                  I nearly pissed myself when I read this - I see you still have a great sense of humor - I had a good laugh. Aside from the content I find funny, I totally agree with everything you have written here. Poetry is indeed a good example of a form of communication that conveys both ideas and emotion.

                                  gib wrote:Any thoughts on your meaning, or on your post having its own essence?

                                  One or two. I think the post has its own essence locked in by time and I think that I have given it some of my own essence as anyone else would in their own posts.

                                  gib wrote:I think yes on both counts. Obviously, it has a mean--you meant something when you wrote it--and you might even say it had its own essence. If we can conceptual "your post," that constitutes its essence, it gives us something with which to identify it.

                                  What ever I meant is now lost in the sands of time . . . nah, I am not being totally serious here. I hope it meant something and I hope it has some essence - giving my post something conceptual is perhaps something I might have failed at to a degree - I am sure you will agree however that it is most certainly an encode_decode post.

                                  :lol:
                                  - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

                                  But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
                                  User avatar
                                  encode_decode
                                  Thinker
                                   
                                  Posts: 915
                                  Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                                  Location: Metaspace

                                  Re: What Of Your Essence?

                                  Postby gib » Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:57 am

                                  Hey encode,

                                  Let's see if I can brush off my memories of what we were talking about. ;)

                                  encode_decode wrote:Sorry about the late response. You said to me "Well, if I've got you right, the esoteric part would be the special mathematical notation you would use to represent: C depends on B which depends on O. I wonder what symbolism that is." You do have one side of the equation correct - the other side is more about an unexpressed meaning within the words - a hidden meaning if you will. There is notation that we could use but I think one would be better off inventing a special notation for it that helped to make it clearer.


                                  Well, I think we can get away with ordinary logician's conditional. If C depends on B and B depends on O, then we're saying: if C then B, and if B then O... which is: C --> B, and B --> O. Of course, that doesn't capture everything you might have wanted to say, does it?

                                  encode_decode wrote:WendyDarling picked up on what I was meaning - I was guessing she would have before I posted - I also made the contingency for anyone who did not understand clearly what I was saying. I have discovered that one can communicate outside of rationality quite well and still understand perfectly well what the other person is saying when they are doing the same - I have also discovered that emotional communication can give more meaning to some things - in this case it was not really either of those - it was more like my username - I encoded some meaning and WendyDarling was able to decode it - I am guessing there are many other ways to get a point across too.


                                  I think we sometimes think of the human brain too much like a computer. We design computers on purpose to be totally logical. We want them to be consistent and accurate. We don't want them to *sometimes* make mistakes or come up with their own opinions.

                                  We have to remember that our brains evolved through a process of natural selection, it wasn't designed on purpose. We get things right and we think rationally only to the extent sufficient to get us by. It's amazing how often we make leaps of logic and lucky guesses. We infer so much by instinct. For example, I'm preparing a barbecue, I ask a friend: can you go out and get burgers? I don't need to specify that I mean buy burgers from the grocery store, not kill a cow and gut the meat out of him. How is it that the brain automatically knows the right interpretation? It's just conditioned to make these leaps, and good thing because usually it gets it right. And you're right about the emotional readings in the things we say--not to mention tone and special accents that fluctuate in our speech, and inferring meaning based on context, and a whole list of other things. Sometimes this is way more efficient than having to deduce everything logically, for if the chances that we'd get it right with a bit of implicit guesswork are high enough, we could save a lot of time and mental energy that would otherwise be used to do a full logical deduction.

                                  encode_decode wrote:I totally agree with what you are saying here. In the case of spirituality it is a matter of personal choice. I feel that science never offered any logical conclusions on many things - I do love my science but I choose not to rely on it for my spirituality. Other people have helped me with spiritual meaning and hopefully I have helped them too.

                                  When I do my science, I make sure to apply the philosophy to it accordingly - science to me is without spirit.


                                  I try not to make my spirituality depend on science or conflict with science. My spirituality essentially says that the physical universe that science studies is a material representation of God's mind. This allows science to uncover anything, and I'm still able to say: well, that is a representation of something in God's mind. It doesn't matter what science discovers, or what we read in our science textbooks. I also don't speculate much on what particular experiences or thoughts (I should say "thoughts" in quotes) go on in God's mind, which means I don't put any demands on how such experiences or thoughts must be physically represented, so again, science could uncover anything.

                                  The only area of science that comes into conflict with my spirituality is quantum mechanics--having to do with non-determinism--but even there, a minor tweak to my theory fixes that.

                                  encode_decode wrote:I know gib - I am sorry if I am a little less strict and rigorous with my words than I should be...


                                  No need to apologize. I was saying that poetry and metaphor, though requiring a bit more penetrating insight to get, also delivers a bigger punch when it succeeds. Sometimes we need to be strict and rigorous when communicating, but sometimes it's worth using poetry and metaphor.

                                  encode_decode wrote:You were the first person here to be openly friendly to me...


                                  Hopefully not the last.

                                  encode_decode wrote:What ever I meant is now lost in the sands of time . . . nah, I am not being totally serious here. I hope it meant something and I hope it has some essence - giving my post something conceptual is perhaps something I might have failed at to a degree - I am sure you will agree however that it is most certainly an encode_decode post.


                                  :lol: Sure, I guess you have to decode your own posts sometimes. That happens to me a lot. I don't think a person's words ever lack meaning. Obviously, when we speak, we have something in mind which we're trying to convey. Sometimes we lose that meaning, we forget or our brains can't quite capture it as it once could, but it's very rarely the case that we intentionally decide to utter a bunch of babble.
                                  My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

                                  It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
                                  Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
                                  - surreptitious75

                                  The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
                                  - encode_decode

                                  Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
                                  - Rick Sanchez
                                  User avatar
                                  gib
                                  little shitheaded Buddha
                                   
                                  Posts: 8414
                                  Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
                                  Location: lost (don't try to find me)

                                  Re: What Of Your Essence?

                                  Postby Keleuthis » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:37 am

                                  I guess I "love to be in love," like Augustine said of himself.
                                  Keleuthis
                                   
                                  Posts: 11
                                  Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:48 am

                                  PreviousNext

                                  Return to The Sandbox



                                  Who is online

                                  Users browsing this forum: No registered users