The story kind of reminds me of Adam in the Garden of Eden before Eve came to be. Of course, many would say that there were no random interactions of forces and matter - that caused the snowman - God willed him/molded him into creation.
I was out walking in the snow one day and saw what actually seemed to be this whitish/grayish wolf jus relaxing on the ground up ahead. It was sculpted so well, almost perfectly to me, by the will of the wind and cold and snow. One might think they got together to design it. lol It was beautiful. Was that part of nature to you?
I suppose in a sense nature could have created the snowman willfully if you think in terms of natural law - nature and the elements creating or designing according to how it was designated to come to be. It depends of what someone’s definition of willful is.
Not fair, but it is what it is.
[/quote]
Why is it not fair? The Ferrari guy willed himself to be the best driver he could be, better than the Mini driver and so he made it happen… even though it still might not have happened. Left to chance, anything can happen…but the stars were just in his favor. lol But really they were not. It just seems so.
One can say that the Universe came together to make it happen - isn’t that a wondrous thought - but like you said - it is what it is - or was what it was going to be as determined by the Ferrari guy’s actions beforehand but even then who could know the outcome until the outcome. (too much coffee).
TAB, Kropotkin here… I am glad you are fine… I too have bailed on this place
as being too toxic… I mostly write over at Philosophy now… my days are spent
on the details of retirement… as I am 64, I still have a couple of years left, but
who knows, maybe I’ll win the lottery and then off to the promised land…
One thing will note is that philosophy itself looks a whole lot different at
our age then it did at 24 or even 34…the idea of death has moved from not
being even noticed to being definitely on the radar… and that movement
has impacted my philosophy in ways I am still working out…
and another little thing that has happened as I have grown older is that much
of the hustle and bustle of being young has stopped… I don’t go out and
I rarely see movies and I am in bed by 9:00 no matter what…I am old…
and all the implications of that… I see the world vastly different by
being old… and one of the things about being old is that I have taken
less and less interest in the goings on of the world…or to say it another way,
I have taken to the bird’s eye view of the world… not on the ground like
I used to…where all actions everywhere would rock my world…
I have gain that advantage of perspective… and that is about the only
thing of value in growing old…
P.s. Why does the snowman distinguish himself from the nature around him? Is he supernatural? Or is he subnatural? How would he know if he is super or sub unless he knows what nature is? So why does he distinguish himself from nature? Maybe only part of nature makes him supernatural and the other part makes him subnatural, and the part he is that is the same as nature makes him natural?
P.p.s. Aren’t supernatural and subnatural breaks from reality unless there is more to reality than the nature that has no super/sub aspects to it?
Also, the Ferrari had innate power, but the driver was initially an asshole… what did they do at the red light… switch vehicles? I think there must be more to the story.
There you are. Now I remember you. Only kidding. I so remember you.
Do not ever change…well…change we must, right? Or perhaps we do not change…just wait somewhere deep within down there to be revealed to ourselves and others. We are already there.
Nope. However much I wish dryads were real, never spoken with Nature with a capital N. I’ve been overawed by nature, scared by nature and confounded by nature, bitten by nature and almost drowned in nature but that’s as far as it’s gone.
One with Nature. Hmm. That’s a toughie. Physically sure, meat-me is all natural. I wanna kinda wanna say abstract thought is a teeny bit unnatural, but I think I’d be kidding myself. So “I dunno” is my answer to that.
I think it’s worth bearing in mind that the recognisable wolf shape was something in your head, that mapped onto the snow. Sounds dumb, but imagine an alien comes down to earth (officially now they do apparantly) and has a similar experience. It looks out at a particular heap, and says “wow, that’s the spitting image of a Greebo from Xeep.” You however, just see a bunch of snow. You can point out your wolf, but the alien wouldn’t recognise it.
It’s nice, it’s beautiful, but it’s just snow and wind. If the whole field was miraculously covered in snow wolves, then okay, I might suspect intelligent design.
The point was that even though the learned skills of the individual drivers were equal, the simple fact the horsepower of the Ferrari was double or triple that of the Mini meant the Ferrari would always win, well 99% of the time.
It has been a long time. I feel you on the whole getting advanced in age thing. I’m hitting 55 this year and yeah, with age comes change. Mentally I feel on top of my game, more well adjusted than I’ve ever been, but physically, the cracks are beginning to show.
I do yoga every day to help with general bendiness, and walk or cycle to keep the blood pumping. So I’m in decent shape for an old dude.
We’ll have to compare notes later, I’m too tired right now.
One thing in mind, is that there is a pressing analogy between the orange mini and the preposterous Ferrari on one hand; and the snowman and the iceman (comets) , on the other.
Now for that analogy to hold , a need for some thing other than is required.
That is, either consistent of either or, not.
Can the snowman be more or less natural, if the ice is formed into a crystalline form, not unlike artists make sculptures of, can the same be said of a simple snowman with carrot nose and what nots for eyes?
Who would belong in the Ferrari? Of course the outrageous symbol, the sign that says I don’t care what anyone thinks about the race, because it is understood that genes will always trump memes, as memes leave in an not quite expressed shadow world and they love disguises such as really how many elephants can you and how to fit into a mini?
The genious of the genie is that it can and does trump the highest forms of self fulfillment, of desire’s charm, the miracle of magic, and Vic’s versa, all being very conflated and confusing.
The middle place is a safe haven, as it is rarelely other then a day see, there is this thing that comprises most any attachabilitt, remembered or not, and if not simulation for infinite duration s assures it’s overwhelming preponderance.
Even a loosely held absurdist will take any sign and work it
Sorry, for trying to vote , in or out part or not, when the super and su0ra( sun) marginal question has not been disposed of, it would be an infinitely regressive paradox, even if taking a stab at it,
Those hidden unknowns would tend to prejudice any accountability: or, business as usual.
Sure, feelings about it may get closer than seeing a calculated preception about it, and all sort of know by now that eschatology is as immaterial now as ever,
To make more sense one would be hard pressed to be a sound absurd, or, be an idiot to decide ilbetween a evaluating savant or an autistic traits without finding some underlying motif or apprehension below that attentive vote.
These are credibly based justifications for holding to these sub par assumptions.
But of course as you know by now I vote for belonging
For some yes for others’ it does not appear so, and this is a big unsolvable for most.
Under that series of reduced into points literally, belies the paradox, of paradoxes, of all paradoxes, in fact, that is , the sign sealed that needs to be delivered.
The magic and the miracle, the totem and the taboo.
Here again it’s calculable :3X2X1 or 6, and 7 is ahead by a huge difference that is answerable when the 7 th veil is uncovered, perhaps Salome came close to the answers, for really there are two; and the Third is yet to be realized.
I dunno, all points from the niebelungen, , it’s back to dramatic for it’s own flair, or? Kierkegaard was right in the au(r)fistic re presentation. But, as with the platitude , oreordinately so expressed, “Art for Art’s sake, that merely exasperates those trying to diminish the implicit danger lurking there.
So some have learned from history, others are condemned.
It’s unsolvable for most because the ones who learned have merely enhanced their angst, , not for selfish reasons, but weary of muting the difference between the familiar and the familial, without due or undo reliance .
An interesting juxtaposition. Sometimes we want to hold onto the familiar, and sometimes we are tired of the familiar and want something new. Sometimes we never want something so new that it drives us mad. Sometimes that is the very thing that draws us away from the familiar and makes the familiar drive us mad. And sometimes we’re so afraid that the new that drives us mad will become familiar. And sometimes we’ve had so much new mad we’re not afraid at all anymore and nothing drives us mad, and we think there can’t possibly be anything new to drive us mad.
But we feel very far from sane.
And it drives us mad trying to remember what it was like… if we were ever there.
Now I remember you. Only kidding. I so remember you.
