Philosophy is a series of 'word storms'.

Language is a paradox … it empowers/facilitates communication and at the same time hinders/impedes progress towards higher consciousness.

Philosophy is a continuous ‘word storm’ … as is religion … politics … economics and so on.

People are like a school of fish … you never know what ‘word storm’ they will feed on next.

Hi pilgrim-seeker_tom.


It seems to me that language also impedes general consciousness too.

We sure are analogous to a school of fish.

When one is aware of ones surroundings one is always on the lookout for that which can benefit or disadvantage one. Always on the lookout for the help or hindrance so to speak.

Like a school of fish we tend to stay in groups that benefit or disadvantage us. Feeding off the collective consciousness sometimes we end up in these paradoxes that are invisible to the individual mind, either empowered or impeded.

Then there seems to be flat moments that are sometimes offset from puzzlement, often times caused by the very medium that we use to communicate.


encode_decode … Interesting comments.

Brings to mind the notion of centrifugal force … not sure there’s a connection though.

Fc = mv2/r, where Fc = centrifugal force, m = mass, v = speed, and r = radius.

The hypothetical centrifugal force compels conformity … the density of the mass makes separation difficult … the growth of the mass … as in growth of some “ism” … increases the force … and so on ???


more thoughts on centrifugal force …

the planet can be thought of as one big merry go round … spinning on it’s axis at 1,600 km/hr at the equator and orbiting the sun at 108,000 km/hr. When I lived in Pond Inlet Nunavut … latitude 72.7 … you could almost feel the slower spin of the planet … only about 500 km/hr … the slowest spin of any inhabited area on the planet … versus a spin of about 1,300 km/hr in Toronto

reminds me of the thoughts I posted in another OP yesterday … culture is a prison … centrifugal force may explain this thought.


Fc = mv2/r

Fc = 5.972 × 10^24 kg X 1,600 X 1,600/12,000

Maybe to you.

@ pilgrim-seeker_tom → You are making interesting points here.


You funny . . .

I think I can sense what you are saying. I like the merry go round analogy. Regarding the spinning I would have to say you are ahead of me on this. I find it fascinating that you could almost feel the slower spin of the planet - I wonder if one meditates whether one could possibly hone in on that. I believe you are right when you say that culture is a prison. I am not well versed enough in physics to be able to respond to the centrifugal force analogy/reasoning though, perhaps you could give me a simpler analogous thought to work with.

What do you think about when you finally make it to agreement on a thought that has been debated? I ask this because it relates to language being paradoxical.


Yeah you’re right!

The good news is I’m still a flock of “one” … not much of a menace eh! :smiley:

I never get there. :slight_smile:

For me, that’s the problem with human thought … there’s no such thing as “getting there” … the universe is in a state of constant flux … it’s like chasing the wind.

Ecclesiastes 2:11



It feels that way sometimes to me too. I find it fun sometimes to create word salads that sound intelligent but are ultimately unintelligible. Or are they? It would be an interesting experiment to write down gibberish and then see if one can actually find something within the word salad that might actually be a question, or proposition, or what have you.

Let me give it a try.

"To placate the most clandestine plateau of the body politic, one must gather all resources at hand more or less equally - less a dispersion of elementary resources emerge from their located position in the ontology of immersion - and drive themselves infinitely through the void of pure reason, pure intuition, and selective entropy.

To my knowledge, neither the categories of identity, singularity, or difference have ever emerged in the philosophical mind without the aid of at least some preliminary structure to support their basic tenets

The impetus set forth in this work is clear:

1.That emergent properties of matter respond in congruence with regularity
2.That narratives of cause and effect be removed from observation of these events.
3.That the formal and informal meet the necessary criteria for an organic synthesis"

^^^^ is that philosophy? Does it mimic philosophy? Can attempting to mimic philosophy be in and of itself a philosophical experiment?