On Curiosity

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

On Curiosity

Postby rununder » Sun May 05, 2013 9:06 pm

Philosophy begins with curiosity.

A son is born, and grows, and quickly rebels from his mother's arms. He is curious about the world, life, existence, the universe. But his mother pulls him back to her safe bosom. She feeds him through her breasts. And she feels exalted in this love. She, his mother, doesn't ever want to let him go. But he fights, struggles, and pulls away harshly. The youngest boy, beyond infancy, wants to flee, find freedom, inside the great unknown.

Where the mother fails to leash her child, by a figurative umbilical cord, the father does not fail. Because to escape the mother's grasp is one thing, and the first barrier to obtaining knowledge. There is another barrier. A young child rarely escapes his father's gaze. Beyond the grasp of the mother, is the father's gaze. Christians call this their God, the eternal watcher. The infant does not see Him, his father, but He is there one or two steps behind. And as the young son crawls, stands, and flees toward the city street, or the stark cliff's dropoff point, the father will pull his son back just before real dangers.

Boys and sons are characterized by this balance, between the mother's grasp and the father's gaze. If a child escapes both of these, then he or she is truly "free", so we are led to believe. But, what is "freedom" except danger, and the threat of death? What is the chance of survival for the infant son, beyond the safety of his parents' protection and security?

Beyond protection and security, you are free alright--free to die. There is death out there, real danger, real fear. In today's society, this fear has become defined by "terrorism". We are made to believe, or forced to believe, that other men are the deadly killers and threats to society as a whole. This is an internal, social and cultural fear. This is a fear within society, and therefore, within the home. This is domestic abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, wife abuse. This is a drunk violence, bad parenting.

It's not an external fear. It's not pulling your infant son back from the city street with zooming cars. it's not pulling your child away from a steep fall along the cliff edge. It's a humane or inhumane fear, a fear of others, a fear of others, a fear of your own family, a fear of humanity, of humanity. It's a different type of fear.


That doesn't change philosophy, though. And it doesn't change curiosity. Each age comes and goes, and philosophers are born into different cycles of the seasons, different cycles of civilizations, cultures, and societies. The challenge of one generation is, usually, not the challenge of its predecessor or successor.

Let's stay focused on curiosity, itself. What is this drive and compulsion, to know? Why does it manifest within the philosophical soul, most of all? Scientists are curious, yes, but they stumble on the "believing there is possible answers". The scientist takes a step away from curiosity by hypothesizing and conducting experiments. The scientist is the first step toward religion. He believes, perhaps falsely or truthfully, "things can become known about the universe". He takes this presumption and begins. And the religious, form the conclusions.

Religion is the exact opposite of philosophy, finding answers everywhere and absolving questions. There is no question in religious fundamentalism, only answers. No curiosity, only certainty. These are the pathological disputes.

Everybody is born with an infinitely unique brain. Not even identical twins have the same brain in their heads, at maturity. Nobody has the same brain. Every brain is unique. None are equal. None are the same. None are similar, all completely and infinitely different. The universe, reality, everything, changes from one human brain to the next.

And the philosopher brain, the philosopher soul, is most characterized by this brain pathology, a unique type of brain, that is obsessive compulsive, and consumed by the emotion and psychology of "Curiosity". That is its driving factor, its core element. Without this, there is no philosophy, no questioning, no doubting.

Therefore, all philosophers must begin here, at curiosity, and unknowning, and infancy rebelling from the mother's arms and fleeing far and fast from the father's gaze. The men who escape successfully, enter the void, a universe beyond human knowledge, or far, far worse, or better, and beyond what humanity can ever know. Beyond imagination, a universe full of pure forms, pure objects, pure thoughts, pure essence. Beyond both known and unknown. There, is the freedom, stepping out into the frontiers. It's more than self discovery, and understanding human nature, but also understanding the nature of all existence, and the universe.

The greatest element of humanity, claimed by the philosopher, is philosophy. The first man, and it will be a man, to step on Mars, fly outside of the solar system, to reach other stars and planets, will necessarily, be that philosopher. That is the highest type of man.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: On Curiosity

Postby Orbie » Sun May 05, 2013 9:36 pm

Great blog! But it may be more than curiosity. It definitely is a burning need. To get away from mom. To cut the umbilical chord. Your analogy is perfect. The ideal type philosophical baby needs to know. And what for? Not only is this obsessive need to know, is to overcome the incessant gaze of his father. Like everyman. He seeks to get around having to avoid his gaze, which his father will spot in a second. He needs to gaze back, and to force his father to look away. He wants to overpower his father. So what does his father do when he sees this? He throws him out of paradise. But then, like all parents, his father feels no guilt for what he has done, but feels pity for his son.

The father has to sacrifice his own son to alleviate his guilt, so he foreshadows with Jacob and Abraham. He makes it clear, that sacrifice is a real thing.
In addition, the father makes clear, that if a man is to avoid the terrible sacrifice of others, he has to sacrifice himself first. By self sacrifice, god thinks, he will avoid having to face to other's sacrifice, and hence take god's guilt out of the cycle of creation.

God sacrifices his own son, so as to alleviate his own self doubt. After that man, his son, is free, free of his father's gaze. And the father too, is free from self doubt and guilt.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: On Curiosity

Postby rununder » Sun May 05, 2013 9:47 pm

Thanks, obe!
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: On Curiosity

Postby rununder » Mon May 06, 2013 4:56 pm

obe wrote:Great blog! But it may be more than curiosity. It definitely is a burning need. To get away from mom. To cut the umbilical chord. Your analogy is perfect. The ideal type philosophical baby needs to know. And what for? Not only is this obsessive need to know, is to overcome the incessant gaze of his father. Like everyman. He seeks to get around having to avoid his gaze, which his father will spot in a second. He needs to gaze back, and to force his father to look away. He wants to overpower his father. So what does his father do when he sees this? He throws him out of paradise. But then, like all parents, his father feels no guilt for what he has done, but feels pity for his son.

The father has to sacrifice his own son to alleviate his guilt, so he foreshadows with Jacob and Abraham. He makes it clear, that sacrifice is a real thing.
In addition, the father makes clear, that if a man is to avoid the terrible sacrifice of others, he has to sacrifice himself first. By self sacrifice, god thinks, he will avoid having to face to other's sacrifice, and hence take god's guilt out of the cycle of creation.

God sacrifices his own son, so as to alleviate his own self doubt. After that man, his son, is free, free of his father's gaze. And the father too, is free from self doubt and guilt.

Boy, Man, Elder.
Son, Father, Grandfather.

By the nature of philosophical curiosity, the life of an individual man, from infant to ending, will inevitably become consumed by the search for knowledge of all things. The infant is no less curious about the universe, than the child, than the adolescent, than the teenager, than the young man, than the old man. The philosopher is both blessed and cursed at once, in this regard. His pathology is specialized, and, dedicated. The philosopher is not so much a problem-solver as the philosopher is a problem-maker. By formulating a question, the philosopher doubts, and thusly creates a new people or revisits an ancient problem.

The main difference between the philosopher child, and other children, is the philosopher is both privileged and obligated, by duty in every way, to question about the world when other children stop. Other children, other young boys and girls, are given finality. "Because God says so." The teacher, or parent, simply doesn't want to hear the endless barrage of questions. Most parents will shut his or her son up. "Shut up, I don't want to hear it." Teachers will likeless quell the "problem child" using shame tactics and guilt. "What, you don't know the answer already, you stupid child?" Many infants and children are instructed and educated that they are stupid. Their curiosity is crushed, and then quickly replaced, with obedience by mockery.

The parent mocks and humiliates his or her own child. A teacher, even in Kindergarten does the same. Most teachers do this. Most teachers, and parents, simply don't care about knowledge or wisdom, at least not in any comparable way to the philosopher child.

Here is the source of it all. A parent, or teacher, or professor, himself does not know all the answers to all the questions. So when a teacher or authority figure cannot answer, sufficiently or necessarily, the questions of the philosopher child, then these authorities tend to compensate for this ignorant "stupidity" by accusing the child what he, the teacher, himself is guilty of. The ignorant teacher, lacking sufficient knowledge and wisdom about the All Nature of the universe, retaliates to the philosopher child's questions with shaming. "Shut up child, you're stupid! You don't know that?! How could you not know that?! The answer is too obvious!"

Other children also join in, with the teacher or authority figure, to shame, humiliate, degrade, and embarrass the philosopher child. At the height of this shaming, it becomes the entire school, the entire community, the entire town, the entire civilization, against one. How can one person, one man, the "Philosopher" be so god damned stupid and ignorant???

But, it's obviously not the case. We all, probably, see this by now. It is not the ignorance of the philosopher child that is the "real problem". It is the ignorance of society, civilization, and humanity itself. And it is the challenge, the existence of the philosopher child that ultimately must face, confront, and challenge this, to go against "humanity". People act as though the whole brunt of humanity, all 7 billion combined, is some infinite and unlimited entity, like God. All 7 billion people, working together for a common purpose, cannot be stopped, right?

Wrong.

The finitude and limit of one man, is no different than the finitude and limit of all men together. The "curiosity" is all the same essentially. The philosopher child is merely the one, particular human being, with the fullest extent of this pathology. Obsessive compulsive disorder, obsession, consumed by need, driven, to know, to become wise, to become all knowing and knowledgeable to the extent of human possibility. This is the philosopher child, and his fullest potential.

Again I reiterate my goal. My goal, with this piece, is to begin a compilation of human knowledge, to pass on to this philosopher child. Maybe he does not exist now. Maybe he has not existed since the 1500s. Maybe he will not be born again until the 2500s. Maybe he is too sparse and rare, a soul, as to communicate with directly and face to face. Maybe we will never chance or happen to cross His path. But if He does not exist now, then He will exist within existence. It is not merely a theoretical and hypothetical approach to curiosity, philosophy, pathology, childhood, and infancy. It is an actual occurrence, which seems to occur from society to society, time to time. And these philosopher children, produce the greatest works of mankind. We inherit this knowledge, properly called, wisdom. But it is not just knowledge.

It is as True a knowledge can exist, within humanity. It is the height of what humanity can ever know. The philosopher child pushes and broadens this frontier.


Obe inspired me to extend the circumstance. The philosopher child, as a son, will become a father, and grandfather. Is a child no less curious than himself as a man, and as an elder approaching death and decay? No, the philosopher child is not curious about life and existence only as a child. His curiosity breaks the ceiling, and persists for a whole lifetime. The philosopher child is curious and "ignorant" as a man, and as an elder. This is why Socrates was the "Wisest because I know nothing". It is a tempered balance between understanding human limitation, by the imagination.

What can ever be known, except what can be first imagined? I believe, the philosopher child can step out even further than imagination, into the realm of pure forms, space, and time. After all, it was this evolution that made our geometry possible from the beginning.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: On Curiosity

Postby rununder » Mon May 06, 2013 5:08 pm

It is my duty, and I believe your duty as well, to pour all of your philosophical abilities and capabilities, into educating this philosopher child when He comes into existence, when He is born.

How can we, all humanity, assist in His upbringing? How can we raise Him higher, and higher?

My project is compelled by a specific reason. I have suffered, and been held down, and many of tried to humiliate me. I want this philosopher child to have none of the obstacles that I have, and face none of my failures. I want to aid Him, because I had no aid in my childhood. I had no guidance, no mentorship, no challenge. Nobody ever 'taught' me. Nobody ever truly 'educated' or instructed, me. So, at least, I want this for somebody else.

If I could never have this philosophical education in my life, then at least, I ought to provide what I can to what I had lacked from the beginning. We can guide that philosopher child, and take out all the barriers which we currently have today.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: On Curiosity

Postby finishedman » Mon May 06, 2013 8:08 pm

... the philosopher child is not curious about life and existence only as a child.


You mentioned here the word ‘life.’ Life could be thought of as a way of living, how to live or simply the period during which you continue to function. Some consider human existence or activity to be in correlation with or a result of mental activity or mentation. Others see all that as an impediment to living simply and peacefully.

Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the oppression of custom. There are no philosophical answers ... only questions and no one can answer the questions for you.

The basic questions concerning the universe or ourselves (or reality, if that's what you call it, and, we may add, questions about the meaning of life) are the self. And these questions try to maintain themselves as the self. And, moreover, they do not allow for any complete answer, for the answer would put an end to the questioner. In fact, the same thought process which created the original separation between the thinker and the world would endlessly keep asking further questions about whatever answer is given.
finishedman
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:32 am

Re: On Curiosity

Postby Dan~ » Mon May 06, 2013 8:21 pm

Curiosity is alright. There is the thrist for knowledge. But in some deceptive souls, there is a will to twist and avoid "truth". Also it is true that fundamentalist abrahamic religion is like anti-philosophy. It's basically arrogance, which thinks itself humble, or mistakes the arrogance as a zeal for truth. Truth itself does not want or need fundamentalists. It doesn't need zeal or servitude. But "God" in fundy religion wants you to obsess over him and obey him totally.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10531
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: On Curiosity

Postby rununder » Wed May 08, 2013 9:10 pm

finishedman,

Ultimately, questions, and especially philosophical questions, are some of the finest types of self expression. A question immediately demonstrates what one can doubt. Philosophers are seen as self doubters in a negative way, but self critique brings men to self realization and higher self consciousness. You cannot know what you are, except for those questions that you yourself cannot answer in any imaginable way.

What are the limits to imagination? It is a question like this, that may best express any possible Self.

Dan~ wrote:Curiosity is alright. There is the thrist for knowledge. But in some deceptive souls, there is a will to twist and avoid "truth". Also it is true that fundamentalist abrahamic religion is like anti-philosophy. It's basically arrogance, which thinks itself humble, or mistakes the arrogance as a zeal for truth. Truth itself does not want or need fundamentalists. It doesn't need zeal or servitude. But "God" in fundy religion wants you to obsess over him and obey him totally.

Great point, and I agree.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: On Curiosity

Postby rununder » Thu May 09, 2013 9:52 am

On Curiosity part II.

As with all cognitive faculties, the brain arises from and originates within its genetic code. A brain is formed from conception, to birth, to infancy, to adulthood. When two people mate, their sexual choice affects their genetic result. Genes produce brains, therefore pathology. There is a direct link between gene and meme. The gene forms and shapes the brain.

Therefore, some people are born with distinct cognitive traits. Nobody has the same mind. Mind is brain. Brain is mind. Nobody has the same pathological drives. Obsessive compulsive disorder does not affect everybody, and of those it affects, does not affect this group equally. All have different levels of obsession, compulsion, and cognition. No two brains are alike, not perfectly, not even identical twins. Because two brains withhold separate perspectives and vantage points. One identical twin does not perceive the world from the same space and time as the other twin. This is physical impossibility.

No two people can stand in the same spot, in the same perspective, at the same moment. No matter how much the moment seems the same, it is not. It is removed by time. Time creates distance in every perspective. Time divides all. Time makes all things unique, infinitely different, infinitely separated, infinitely divided, infinitely unequal, infinitely distinct. There is no copying, no sharing, no similarity, no sameness. No identity.

Read carefully: no identity.


With every passing nanosecond, your brain changes its internal structure. Energy, electricity, is flowing in different locations. No symmetry within your mind is ever the same. No two thoughts are the same. No two emotions are the same. The entire universe is moving both inside, and outside, of your body. Inside and outside of your brain. There is no such thing as stillness, as stationary existence, as permanence, as absolution, as singularity.

Because no pattern is ever repeated twice. Everything is absolutely different.

Due to time.


Therefore, no two curiosities are the same. The philosopher has the highest level of human curiosity in his brain, the highest type, the highest potential. The philosopher is defined by this curiosity, this need to know, this drive to seek wisdom. It maybe universal throughout humanity. All infants and children may be curious, as a general rule. But the degree of which the philosopher exceeds the norm, defines him, the philosopher child and ultimately sets him apart from all other humans. It is an insatiable and obsessive compulsion, an ultimate need to know.

And this need to know is dangerous. Because if you peek behind everything, if you dig too deep, then you uncover certain "truths" which everybody presumes are hidden by society, by your friends and family. All the dark things, the skeletons in the closet. Because, the skeleton is the frame of your body, which supports and encloses your mind. The brain has an immediate connection to bone marrow, the innerblood of your body and system. This is where your genes rest, dormant, protected by a hard shell.

This is the safest place within your body.


Within your bones exists the house of your soul.

The philosopher child, eventually, will grow and become unsatisfied with all the answers given to him by humanity, taken from humanity, and taken from all things. Curiosity must break open these bones, and peer inside the genetic code, inside the brain, inside the self. The philosophical degree of curiosity sees through all things, beyond everything. This is what the philosopher child is made to do. No secret is secure, or safe, from his curiosity. There are no secrets. There is no unknowable knowledge.

Because, eventually, there is no knowledge worth having, holding onto, and remembering. There is no knowledge worth remembering by the philosopher child. Because all knowledge is already known. Not all of it is shared, but all of it is known. The philosopher child eventually must turn away from human knowledge, and begin to look outside of society, outside your self, outside of humanity, outside of earth. There is nothing on earth worth knowing. There is nothing on earth, not already unmolested and penetrated by the mind of the philosopher child.

There is no secret evil enough to maintain interest. There is no uncomfortable darkness. There is no fear in what is known.

There is no fear in what is knowable, what can become known in time. All fears can become confronted, and overcome, by confronting death. Not even death is worthy of philosophical curiosity. There is something greater than death, to fear.

And that is what is worth knowing, to begin with. Truth? Love? God? Are any of these concepts, terms, ideas, worth knowing? Worth having? Imagine if you could have them all. Imagine if you could grasp all of human knowledge in your hands. Is it worthwhile? Will this somehow sate the philosopher child? Is it enough? It cannot be enough.

Because the bounds of this curiosity know no sufficiency. There is no sufficiency for the philosopher child, philosophy, and the philosophical pathology. There is never enough sufficiency to accept any possible, potential, or even probable answer. Answers are something that the philosopher child never has, lest he reject his mind, and become merely a child. Not a philosopher child, but just a normal, average, child. That is the difference of sufficiency.

There are necessary truths.
There are sufficient truths.

The philosopher child will never know, nor accept, the latter. Philosophy and sufficiency cannot mix. There is never enough.

Because even after all human knowledge is obtained, grasped, and wielded with prejudice, the conclusion is to create a new question.

To begin a new mystery, to define a new problem, and to create a new unknown. That is what truly separates this philosopher child from the others.


Not the creator of solutions, but the creator of all the problems of the world, which will never become solved.

All problems are created from the beginning.

All questions ever posed from the philosopher child, now and forever, are immediate reflections of imagination.

To question, is to imagine, what spontaneously must and necessarily exist as an idea.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: On Curiosity

Postby rununder » Sat May 11, 2013 7:21 pm

On Curiosity part III.

Curiosity is rooted within a soil. Curiosity springs up and forth from a seed of ignorance. Ignorance is the seed of curiosity. Curiosity only occurs, because your mind lacks knowledge. You need knowledge. You want knowledge. Thus, your curiosity begins to grow. Ignorance is the seed. But, information is the soil.

Immediately, upon birth, the human infant is bombarded by sensual information. Every human being is input with sensory data. You see things. You hear things. You touch things. You taste things. You smell things. You perceive, apprehend, and comprehend the world. You attempt to know. And infants do this by exploration. The infant wants to explore the world, to put objects into his or her mouth, to feel how things taste. Babies will put anything within reach, into their mouths.

This impulse is derived from breastfeeding. The infant receives his or her essence of comfort from the mother's breast. The mother's breasts provides warmth and milk, food, nutrients. So infants, all people, the beginning of human life, is attracted to the female breasts. The second most comfortable feeling, is being held tightly within the mother's arms. A hug produces this feeling of safety. So these are the primary and secondary sources of all human comfort.

These concepts are the beginning of safety, but not curiosity. The baby's instincts immediately turns to outside the world. This occurs when the baby grows and grows, and begins exceeding the mother's care in term of development. The baby has been fed, comforted, and cared for. So the baby grows, and its senses develop. The baby's body grows.


By the time the baby starts crawling, he or she is already attempting to "pull away" from the mother's arms, the hug. A baby attempts to escape the mother's care. Because instinct compels all human infants, to explore. A doting mother is over-protective. A doting mother will always pull the baby back, not allow the baby to explore.

In the United States, we have entered a single mother society, a bastard nation. There are no fathers. Fathers encourage babies to explore. This was talked about in Curiosity, part II. There is the mother's arms, which prevent exploration and freedom. But then, there is the father's gaze. While a baby may crawl and crawl away from the mother, the baby rarely escapes the father's gaze. The father is the secondary "invisible" source of security and protection.

While the baby may, from time to time, crawl away when mother isn't watching--the father is the secondary source of protection. The father backs up the mother's failings. The father swoops in, and protects his baby, when he or she has escaped mother's arms. The father protects the baby from "real danger", real harm. Potentially fatal harm, falling off a cliff, drowning in the pool in the backyard. Recently there was a news article about babies crawling off inside the house, into the backyard, and falling into the family pool, and drowning. A service was being offered, to teach babies to swim, and float, from a very early age, to prevent these deaths. This service is quite innovative.

But, it is the father who provides "real security" to his children.

However, we must also extrapolate this model to our nation, society, and culture. We have become a fatherless nation, a nation which abhors men and rejects fatherhood. Fathers are unwanted, due to feminism. Women "don't need men". Many men don't even want men. So this also affects the analogy. If a father is not around, absent, then what about the "father's gaze"? The father's gaze is absent. This is what is truly meant by the popular phrase "God is dead". It means, the father's gaze is absent. There is no protective watcher. There is no protection for our society as a whole.

There is nobody stopping the baby from crawling away from the mother, and drowning in the backyard pool.

This analogy persists throughout all aspects of our society. There is no protection--for our banks, for our politicians, for our national spending, for our armies overseas, for the future in general. There is no protection, no father, no fatherhood. Paternity has become a bad word. Maleness has a negative connotation, today, in postmodernity. The father is rejected from a Nanny State society. Males are unwanted, this eventually reflects this idea of curiosity, knowledge, ignorance, innocence, and upbringing.

How can future generations of men, and the eventual "Philosopher Child", cope or respond to this lack of fatherhood? Where is the secondary protection? Where is the watchful invisible eye of God? Where is the father's arm, to backup the mother's arm?

There is none, now. Maybe there never will be again. And maybe people will enjoy this lack of security.


This does not apply to all. Some families, a rarer and rarer set, maintain paternalism, and keep a father within the household. The role is still useful for some, and maybe even necessary.

With respect to Curiosity part IIII, I plan to write about the paternal generation, son, father, and grandfather. It is through this relationship, I believe, that Curiosity is truly inherited. It is through the paternalism of wisdom. It is wisdom that really "Protects" the infant, as the secondary source. The primary, first source, is womanhood, motherhood, and the mother's breasts and hugs. This is the first state of security and comfort. Turning away from this, there are "external fears" and the "external world and objective universe". Objectivity, and the internal-external divide, like the subject-object dualism, is the essence of paternal wisdom.

When we talk about objectivity, or "the external world", what is meant is what is protected by the Grandfather's wisdom. The grandfather is the ultimate source of wisdom. Because his gaze has the furthest range, to protect his children, and his grandchildren. A grandfather represents the higher and highest source of protection, stewardship, and guardianship.

The grandfather is the Guardian role of society, culture, and the whole nation. In the United States as I mentioned, there are less and less fathers. We have more bastards and bastard children. But even rarer than the father is the Grandfather. Because we have so few of these, our nation will lack more and more, wisdom. The united states lacks wisdom. And so we lack security. This is demonstrated by the rise of terrorism and the liberal police state.

The liberal fascist police state is a reflection of our Nanny State, and the dominance of maternalism over paternalism.

I'll tell you about a personal anecdote to relay my point better.

I watch this young, single mother I know. She dotes over her young son. The son tries to run and run and run away. He wants to get away from his mother. But the mother keeps pulling him back again and again and again. She's too over-protective. She doesn't allow her son to go out, and explore. She doesn't teach him. She doesn't understand how to "let go". I believe that this is a maternal deficiency, not in a negative or bad way. I don't mean this as an insult. But I believe, if the father were around more, and took an active role in his own child's upbringing, that the child could learn how to--learn. Learn how to explore, learn how to utilize this Curiosity, and learn how to know about the world.

Without the father role present, this seems to regress more. Eventually our next generation or two, in America, will not know how to fear the world. This will lead to increase stupidity all around. We will see increases of terrorism, police state, political oppression, second class citizenry. We will lose our freedoms, and what makes America proud, great, and strong.

This is due to the trend of our society. I don't foresee this trend changing, or that it can become "improved" necessarily. Rather, it is mostly a reflection of the age and era we are in.

To conclude, the curiosity theme, and the philosopher child theme, I want to bring these topics together. The philosopher child will need a grandfather, and a "Greatest Father". The philosopher child will require a God. Because this is how to enhance curiosity to its fullest potential and capability. I believe, or I know, that the philospoher child can ascend to the highest heights and capabilities of human existence, by fully educating him, true and real education, not "edumucation". I mean an honest education, from father to son. Not impersonal, rote learning and memorization.

But a learning by love bounds, and family bonds. Only a father can truly instruct a son about how to rise to his greatest height and potential. For the philosopher child, I hope that this work at least aids to his eventual upbringing. I hope that this will become the proper instruction, for him, to achieve the highest level of human knowledge, and therefore, human existence. The philosopher child ought to succeed all men, at all things.

However, there will be many obstacles, and we'll discuss those obstacles one by one, later.

I'll mention one really quickly. Other people, teachers, professors, adults, tell children "You're stupid, pathetic! You'll never amount to anything in life, you worthless piece of shit! You're garbage!" They tell this to children. They convince children of their impotency and lowly nature. This is perhaps the worst crime. And it occurs all the time, in families, in public school, in colleges and universities.

"If you disagree with me, then you're stupid, inferior, and impotent." This is the general theme of our "edumucation" system. It needs to end, right now. This, I believe, is the number one obstacle for the philosopher child.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: On Curiosity

Postby rununder » Tue May 14, 2013 8:39 pm

On Curiosity part IIII.

Object
Subject
Self

There are three primary categorical divisions by which humans seek out knowledge through these mediums of information. There is external, objective knowledge. There is external, subjective knowledge. And there is internal, objective and subjective knowledge.

The philosopher child will aim the height of human curiosity against all areas, one by one.

Infant
Childhood
Adolescence
Adulthood
Elder

These are the stages of pathological development. Inevitably, the aim of human curiosity begins with objects, then subjects, then selves. The infant is concerned with few things. An infant focuses on food, breastmilk, tasting things by putting them in the mouth, warmth, dumping waste, and a stable, sterile environment. The infantile stage is focused on growth. During this stage, human development is mostly physical, not mental, not spiritual, not cognitive, nothing else. It is only when the infant develops into childhood, obtaining the ability to listen and speak, to crawl and walk, that exploration and curiosity can begin.

From childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood, a sense of self is administered to all people. Parents give their children names, "John, Jim, Jane, Jessie". This naming begins to add a sense of subjectivity to human becomings. Humans are not just inanimate objects. Humans are subjects, not objects. This assumption is passed over and presumed as given. Names are the proof of this. Names are proof of subjectivity, by the Proper Noun. During childhood, children develop this sense of subjectivity. During this administration of subjectivity, children are socialized. Humans are social, subjects. This is demonstrated by schooling or church. Children begin indoctrination rituals. This indoctrination mostly occurs through a shared, common language. If language is unshared, then subjects are divided by societies. Societies are divided by language, by this form of subjective socialization.

This is properly called indoctrination and education, socialization. Without this indoctrination, society dissipates and dissolves into individuality.

Individuality and society are two different directions of subjectivity. There are individualistic subjects and socialistic subjects. Subjectivity is dualistic. A subject is either defined as "different than" other subjects, individuality. Or a subject is defined as "same as" other subjects, socialism. A socialist society, like the US, stresses sameness, similarity, equality, and justice for all. America no longer highly values individuality, division, difference, and separation. Socialism has taken a strong hold and grip of America's indoctrination, education, and socializing methods. All are equal. Therefore, the children of America are beginning to inherit a socialistic notion of subjectivity, while individualistic subjectivity is denied and shamed. Individualism has become shameful, and devalued.


External objects and subjects are apprehended by children. Children are curious about objects, the world. Children are curious about subjects, other people. It is not until later development, in adolescence and adulthood, that a "sense of self" is fully developed and realized by people. Adulthood is the stage at which a person fully accepts, grasps, or at least comes to term with personage and sense of self. Adults are presumed to have "selves". An adult is him or herself. This is a predominant assumption all across the board. With this sense of self, comes consciousness, responsibility, morality, and ethics. Adults have values. Adults express values. Adults attempt to impose values onto all things, objects, subjects, and even the sense of self. The self is the final stage of human curiosity. Because there are no more primary categorical divisions, except perhaps a subject-object dualism of the self.

Is "I" an object? Is "I" a subject? Is your ego, your identity, your sense of self, yourself, an object or a subject, neither, or both? It is this area of curiosity that becomes, perhaps, the height of philosophical achievement and accomplishment. Because, what does it mean to question this sense of self, or at most, change the self? Can you change thy self? Can you manipulate your own value, identity, and ego? Can you control thy self? Can you change I? Can I change I?

Here are some examples to refer to the categorical divisions:

Objective curiosity, "What is an automobile?" "How many eggs are in a dozen?"
Subjective curiosity, "Does she like me?" "Is that guy angry, I can't tell?"
Self curiosity, "What does I want to do today?" "What should I wear?" "Will you look at me?"
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users