At the point that your enigmatic and inspiring intellect manages to defy all, and “will” itself, to deny itself of its very own nature, please, disseminate the information as to how this has been achieved.
In the interim, my weak and abject self will be resolved to being swept to and fro by the torrents created from an inescapable process, over which, in my less than efficacious activities and decidedly pronounced deficiencies, “I” am forced to be subjugated.
Wither dost thou lead, O’ messiah of exponential promise?
The exploration leads to a precipice over a void…Schopenhauer became stuck there, as do the Buddhists.
But one cannot fault that old, incredibly honest, and vitriolic curmudgeon.
His commentary was not only precise, perspicuous and cutting, but inspiring in its practicality and mendacity.
I still admire his directness and unforgiving clarity.
But, by force of Will, one turns back towards the place one starts the journey from, seeking to rediscover it, or die trying.
To return to the beginning, where ignorance reigned, and understand it.
Enter Nietzsche: not as an antidote - for what antidote is there to truth? - but as a “What now?”.
And where does he draw these elixirs of rejuvenation and rebirth (renaissance) but from the old and forgotten past; from that pool of western dominance, youthful exuberance and vitality - from Hellas.
Perspectivism doesn’t mean that there is no ‘reality’ but only that it is inaccessible to man, who is forced to live within suppositions and metaphors, we call ‘truth’.
Also ‘reality’ is an ongoing, constantly shifting inter-relationship and interaction - a process.
Therefore it can never be “known” because knowing means abstracting, simplifying and ordering.
Therein rests the absurdity.
What a self-defeating idea you have there.
Are you a nihilist?
I never realized you hated life so much.
If what you say is…ahem…true…then everything you say, even your opposition, is not truth.
So what the fuck are we doing here or what are you doing here?
Who can?
Did you not follow my reasoning concerning absolutes and ideals?
Ideals are never reached; they represent metaphorical destinations - directions.
Every step is preceded by the willing of stepping…even when it has become so natural and automatic that it seems like you are not willing it at all.
He didn’t?
And how do you know how he lived or didn’t live?
Hearsay again, like your Bruce Lee bullshit?
You know for a nihilist you sure admire the wasting of time towards meaningless pursuits, like breaking bricks with your testicles or making change quickly.
Will is this “fragile ego” expressing itself - willing.
You know, like your fragile ego finding clever little ways to escape reality by denying it.
It doesn’t change “nature of operation”?
What the hell does that mean?
You mean the path-of-least resistance.
And yet the will, sometimes, wills a path less taken.
Let me guess, you are one of those that admires the doer more than the thinker.
If so, maybe you should consider the possibility that by knowing the knower is raised above the doing.
it’s like when someone understands the symbolism of dance (s)he is more reluctant to enter into it.
For example by knowing the macho-driven, displaying and exaggerated communal hysterics of Martial Arts, where youthful imbeciles place themselves in controlled danger to make-up for the absence of real danger in their everyday life - an absence that does not validate their self-worth and masculine ideals - or who enter relatively controlled environments to risk some partial physical damage, so as to appear fearless or who go through carefully choreographed staged events to insinuate an ideal that has no relation to the actual, then one enters it with some reservations, if at all.
You know the bullshit I’m talking about:
Like how movies portray a clean, artful, dance-like fighting reality, with multiple face-blows, roundhouse kicks and beautiful acrobatics, when all real fights eventually deteriorate to hair pulling, biting and sweaty bodies, fatigued and bloodied grappling in the dirt in a tangle, if they do not end quickly with a lucky, or not so lucky, blow to the nose.
You know, like how war is glorified and made into some magical adventure, full of honor and courage, when anyone who has been in a war talks about how it’s really long periods of boredom and fatigue interrupted by moments of chaotic horror and confused fear.
You know, like how young boys are force-fed masculine ideals, cleansed of any reality, like the smell of rotting flesh or the feeling of sore, blistered feet, or the sound of screeching, and who subsequently grow up fantasizing about war in a Hollywood phantasmagoria.
You know, all the marketing products young, naive western men eat-up like popcorn in movie theaters - like porn movies, let’s say - so as to deal with how mundane their lives are and how emasculated and with no sense of identity and dignity and a sense of discipline they have been made to feel.
Let’s take porno.
You know how young men gobble all that stuff up, making them expect more than they eventually get, from the act itself, and then they are left feeling cheated or like they could not live up to the on-screen exaggeration and over-inflated… ahem… pseudo-reality of pop culture sexual intercourse.
You know how that works.
You know how eventually a farce, a lie, when it is propagated and shared and made into a common myth, becomes ‘reality’ by default, because all the participants are playing along as if their pop-cultural fantasies and bought imaginings were actually fact, because they all share in the fantasy and they all have a piece of their ego invested in its validity.
Like how they then, wanting that excitement and inflated reality, begin acting out their fantasies.
You know, like gangster movies, where the reality is made out to be more exotic and spectacular and exciting than it really is and all the youths, wanting to be just like those idealized pop-idols, begin acting and talking in that way, until in the shared cultural identity they all begin playing along as if the fantasy were actual, making it actual. So much so that real gangsters, wanting to think of themselves in that romantic, movie-fantasy, idealized way, begin acting in exactly that way; making reality imitate art.
Are you now, the ‘knower of facts’; the fact that there is no fact?
Is using the “uninterested” argument your new method of avoiding tight spots?
Except for you, of course, who else lived or lives what he speaks/spoke and how do you know?
Ah, the record, yes.
This ‘just sitting’ is a very Buddhist thing to do.
why get involved in a world you think so little of and place no importance upon?
you, living up to your ideals, say that you are a slave to the chemicals in your brain that make you participate, even though you see how meaningless and empty it all is; he, on the other hand, not living up to his opinions, managed to not participate…according to the testimonials and your uncertain certainty.
I’m guessing ad hom is the other avoidance mechanism you’ve adopted.
Really?
So, you disagree, to put it directly, with ‘certain’ perspectives which you accuse of subjectivity, while others you find more objective?
Isn’t this why we are all here, to test a hypothesis and discover which one is more and which less subjective?
Just calling a point of view subjective doesn’t deal with it.
Maybe you can provide an example of a more objective version of reality, so we can witness clarity at work.
It’s a trick I learned in the orient from an old Zen master.
As opposed to which non-subjective interpretation?
Are you now reduced to simply calling an opinion subjective or false, without providing argument and then running, like a little girl, behind the ad hom when it comes time to prove your own opinion’s objectivity?
Unlike you Satyr, my claims are not personal authority, it is those whose job it is to collect and disseminate relevant data.
Strange behavior you have drifted into. From your feminisation thread, you are acting like the very “retard” you objectify there, yet you expect that I should somehow honor your ad homs, and attempt to justify that which you cannot dispel.
What is known is known by many through collected information, and the subjectivity becomes apparent when it doesn’t match what has been found to be actual. That you cannot accept that, is your own issue.
movement is based on the energy within the thing and the interactions amoung things.
and has nothing to do with time at all.
take time out and your still left with a three dimensional movement within space.
you may not be able to define its position , but the thing does not care whether you can define its position or not , it just moves based on its Nature and the Nature of the other things it comes in contact with.
My point is that there is no ‘thing’. Movement in that sense is merely a convention, it doesn’t refer to a real state, intrinsically speaking. That is to say, when looked for (through an analysis), neither moving nor a mover can be discerned.
Science doesnt look at the whole picture only section by section so that by the time it reaches the next section the previous theory or fact must be adjusted or completely changed, and as for the physics question, it should be able to be explained on any physical dimension
Time is a construct describing change in the particular model we are using to explain our reality.
Depending on the model we use, time either exists or does not. Here are a few different forms: most commonly defined as a scalar value, or an arrow(entropy). We perceive this as the change in location of a single point or object(x, y, z). Or if necessary, could be used in a model with a 2 dimensional plane(x, y) or a single dimensional line(x). In a static model, we basically take a picture of a single moment in time, and drop time from the equation.
In different models, we may combine time with space, as in general relativity, to produce a more accurate way of measuring units of time based on the location of x,y,z, and that point’s relative mass to its surrounding matter and their gravitational effects on that point. This creates, mathematically, a bent space-time because we are using the speed of light as our constant for time.
We don’t perceive the bends, because we use light as our means of perception, but an object moving through space time will slow down as it is affected gravitationally by objects of masses with higher densities. We will perceive it slowing down, although it is actually moving at the same speed in space-time, just following a longer curved path.
So in a sense, general relativity, replaces our “time ruler” with the speed of light rather than using the “3 dimensional ruler” change per distance.
In effect, all aspects of time are real, just dependent on the model you are using to describe reality. We tend to get a little more accurate, each step we take.
We can have some more fun with this when we move to quantum time, or when we attempt to combine the quantum and general relativity theories.