Philosophical Rambling

The following was originally intended to be an email, but towards the end of it, I realized that it would probably just overwhelm them, as was mostly intended for self-edification. so I decided to put all this rambling together as a th3g1vr.com post, since most of the stuff here is, like it or not, for my own self-edification too anyway…

It’s rambling for the most part, but here’s some good news for the (likely non-existent) subscribers to my blog: this post is a sneak peek of at least 5 posts which, although I can’t guarantee I’ll post by today (assuming I do have subscribers, they would know how inconsistent my posting time-frame tends to be), but I will definite post at some point, and without a doubt within the month.

Note: At the time of writing this post, I am a bit confused regarding the relationship of subjectivity to objectivity. So keep in mind, when I use the words, although I am referring to the philosophical usage, I have applied my own meaning to it, and that meaning is destined for a harsh evolution, so take that particular part of this post “with a grain of salt”.

I believe that how we perceive other people- their thoughts, actions, words, persona, etc.- and how we perceive the thoughts, actions, words, persona, etc. of God– or for that matter, of anything that we perceive, or potentially can perceive as sentient, or even anything we perceive in general, are not how those things actually are, but ourselves reflected off of those things.

now that was pretty much me trying too hard to fit a lot of information into one sentence. so let me break it down:

In the simplest of words, I believe that it’s impossible to know the objective reality of anything or anyone. But that really is beside the point- because the point is Why it is impossible: that is (in my view) because what we perceive to be objective reality (although perception is [in my view] always subjective– how we perceive things [the nature of our own perception, as determined by ourselves] is always objective– this is in fact why I believe subjectivity and objectivity to be self-cancelling paradoxes)

–perhaps I could better explain this with an analogy: Why is the sky blue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_sky_radiation

it’s pretty much because most of the light scattered (reflected back) in the atmosphere has a short wavelength (450-495 nm)

Color	Wavelength
violet	380–450 nm
blue	450–495 nm
green	495–570 nm
yellow	570–590 nm
orange	590–620 nm
red	620–750 nm

during sunrise and sunset, and certain phenomena, other colors are shown, not because the wavelength ratios change, but because

light has the travel farther than short (i.e. blue) wavelengths can reach. interestingly enough, this would imply that such phenomena as aurora borealis would require an extremely high amount of balance between the different wavelengths, which makes it nothing short of amazing!

also of interest (on this topic) is how similar plants are in regards to light: while plants are usually greenish in color (due to the green pigment generated by chlorophyll) in the fall many plants change into a variety of colors– the reason for this is because the chlorophyll “runs out”, essentially making plants “naked”– but I can’t help but see the similarity, in that things being “stretched too far” results in the skewing of our perception.

I consider this concept one of my universal principles, meaning that has a theoretically infinite amount of potential applications:
to make such an application to our own perception of things- or more importantly, of sentient, or perceptively sentient beings:

In the same way that while we perceive the sky as being blue, it only appears that way because that most of the light reflected is within the blue wavelength of the spectrum– everything we perceive, regardless of whether our perceptions and reality coincide–

these perceptions are not reality, but reality reflected back to us. that is, our perceptions of things is the product of how we react when reality and us come into contact.

although it’s impossible to know what reality is, it is possible to know a great deal about ourselves- thus, we potentially have control of at least half of objective reality, and possibly more than that, depending on the actual nature of reality (i.e. if reality is largely intuitive, and it is possible to have psychic abilities (which in my opinion include witchcraft, psychic, meditation, hypnosis, prophesy, general intuition, etc; I will explain this in detail in future posts, which ideally I will write today).

thus, if as person is depressed, objective reality, and thus the only reality that we can be aware of, will change– I have occasionally be so depressed that the colors of Willow Glen change so much that it is completely unrecognizable– I have also been so disillusioned that I could not even recognize myself. I didn’t understand the latter until now, and- knowing now the nature of these things, I’m sure that other people have had similar experiences.

so what then, is subjective reality? when I ask that question, I’m clearly not asking for a textbook answer, although that might shed light of an actual answer. In the past, I have said “knowledge is power”, and written about it in several posts, but over time, knowledge has come to mean such that this might no longer be accurate. see, if knowledge is what I write, than it is power, but not for those who read it, but for I who writes it. that is because, although those who read it might know it, they do not understand it, and so that knowledge is useless. thus, what I write is not for others benefit as much as for my own. To apply the Epistles of the New Testament (although I’m paraphrasing) unless there is an interpreter, praying in tongues is not for the benefit of the church, but for self edification. (the original verses are 1 Corinthians 14:1-19)

thus, when I write, although it is my desire that others might benefit from it, ultimately it is for self-edification. ideally, all of such self-edification will be limited to blogging, that I might reserve my more emotional yearnings for those that might be important to me, and I to them.

But in regards to subjective reality, I’ve finally come to an answer: subjective reality exists, but its existence is, in the same way of tongues or my own blogging, only for our own benefit. To understand this, I appealed to the basics of mathematics, or the very least, algebra. Mathematics, and algebra in particular (I don’t know much of the nature of the higher levels of mathematics, but I imagine that calculus is even more abstract.)

so in other words, subjective reality is an abstract existence, an illusionary construct we created (or, like language, became intuitively aware of) in order to understand objective reality. If it is the latter (intuitive awareness of) as I believe it to be, would that not imply that subjective reality exists? it depends on whether existence requires perception (i.e. if a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?) but I think it also depends on if you agree with the controversial opinions first asserted (historically speaking) *I can’t remember who, and can’t find who it was right now*– “nonexistence is a particular”– that is, “non-existence” exists.

but what is the nature of non-existence, if it “exists”? I think that, like variables are in mathematics, “non-existence” exists only as an abstract object, and thus only “subjectively”, so that we might understand “existence” I think it is in this way that everything exists and its opposite, if only abstractly. What reality actually is- that’s besides the point– if God wanted us to know it, or if it was something we should know, we would. there is definitely a reason for why we perceive things the way we do, and for me that reason is because such a perception fulfills God’s will for us.

but getting back to the point (for the umpteenth time– and surprisingly umpteenth turns out to be a word) perhaps it would be better to concentrate not on objective reality, but on objective perceptions of other people:

our perceptions of other people, regardless of whether they coincide with actual reality, are reflections of ourselves, and the product of our contact with others. that premise in mind:

who other people are, at least as far as objective reality is concerned, are essentially who we are, not who they are. Or more accurately, they are a representation of part of who we are- that part being the one that exists only at the moment of a particular moment of contact, and only when in contact with each certain variable (environmental factor). Because there are theoretically infinite factors, and theoretically infinite moments, that means that what we call “the identity” is an illusion, presumably supported by intuition- that is, because God has given us that “knowledge” so that we might have an identity.

I am of the opinion that God does not have a logical identity (something that is infinite cannot logically have an identity, because- being all that is, there would be no standard by which to establish ones identity; although we have certain certain standards of God- these are not who God is, but who we perceive him to be– furthermore, most of those standards are the inevitable natural result of God’s status as the creator (i.e. because he is the creator, he decided what is true, what is right, and what is wrong– etc., so it’s impossible for him to lie on sin, because he’s the one that established those standards in the first place- even if he were to lie or sin, it would not be lying or sin, because the moment he did it, his doing it would render it true and righteous, because he’s the one who judges those things in the first place.)

If that is the case, it’s likely that God created us so that he might work through us, thus having an identity. so indirectly we are God, in that we are God’s identity. Of course, such a role is in par with someone that has temporarily assumed a role (i.e. acting Commander in chief) in that we are easily replaceable– but this does help me to understand why God, and infinite (and thus presumably perfect) being, would create us. After all, at least from our perspective, something is not created unless there is a need to create it, meaning that God needs us. I can’t easily accept religious perspectives on the nature of God point-blank, partly because I have a great concern for the nature of God. it’s my own ego yes, but that also helps me understand who I am, because I am after all made in God’s image, and thus am a reflection of God.

ps. “made in God’s image”– brings up the visual of a person looking in a mirror so they know what they look like– I can’t help but think that those verses support my thoughts above.

but if, in the same way, our perceptions of others are a small part of a reflection of who we are (in the same way as we each reflect a small part of who God is), then knowledge of oneself can only accurately be obtained by understanding (or in my case, analyzing) the nature of each such connection, and the nature of the reaction, as well as the source of each such connection– and not only of those between other people and ourselves, but also of all environmental factors, including nature, society, culture, and even animals and inanimate objects. that is, to understand ourselves, we must not only study who we are as an isolated variable, but also who we are as determined by our connections, reactions, of the causes of such connections with all aspects of reality that can potentially be deemed relevant.

note that the identity, and in particular God’s lack of, is only measurable in the way explained above logically–which has inevitable limitations due to the lack of logical comprehension of God– that is, God is for the most part illogical..from my perspective, he is primarily intuitively known. if that is the case, then God may intuitively have an identity, but because intuitive knowledge comes from God, our knowledge of God is limited to what he tells us. but what we do know intuitively is what God intends for us to know, to fulfill his purpose for us. thus, because I know that most of what I write is largely intuitive, the fact that it conflicts with traditionally-held Christian beliefs, tells me not that I am misled, but that God’s purpose for me requires such differences….after all, it is not for us to judge whether or not a person’s beliefs are right– we can only guide others according to what we believe, and trust in God to lead us according to his purposes.

The Importance of Relativity

The most important lesson I have ever learned:

One word, Relativity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity )

But for others to fully grasp the crucial and important implications of that word, I will elaborate.

This theory, contributed to by several philosophers and scientists (the most notable being Einstein and Galileo), is actually very simple, and easy to grasp.

To put it simply, relativity is simply realizing the fact that how you see things is limited to your perspective. The amount of applications for this are infinite, and can play an important role in answering the many questions about life. I will list the many applications I have found:

1. The most radical application, is the fact that the entire world may be in fact entirely different than it seems to be, and our not knowing it is only the product of our limited perspective. I think that it is very probable that this is true, except most likely not to that extent. For example, Many animals see in black and white, and some see better than others- which means that if we were to evolve further, eventually we would come to see things very differently. In addition, assuming aliens exist (which I believe them to) they would see things differently than we do.

2. It helps explain the radical differences in behavior, decisions, emotions, and personal standards of human beings. For example, It is not an evil person’s fault they are evil, since who would be evil if they knew a better way. If a person were to stay evil for the rest of their life, it is only because they didn’t know any better. In many cases, they learn early in life to do evil, and their behavior causes good people to stay away. In the unlikely event(s) that a good person bestows goodwill upon an evildoer, the evildoer does not accept it, since they have learned to be distrustful. Thus, in most cases, evil people are doomed to be evil, and nothing can change that.

3. Regarding the definition of evil, relativity has helped me to understand that morality can’t be truly defined, since it is simply a collection of opinions, those opinions vary from country to country, culture to culture, and in many cases even person to person.

4. Applying relativity to emotions greatly encourages an emotional calmness. For example, if a person says something hurtful and degrading, or commits an action that is hurtful, normally anyone would become either angry, depressed, or both. But if you were to put things into perspective (for example, it doesn’t matter what they think, or things could be worse, or it’s in the past, or they only acted that way because they don’t know any better, or getting angry about such things is what they want, etc,etc,etc.) At this point you would realize that you are in total control, since you have assessed the many possibilities and come to several likely conclusion. Having control over the circumstances brings a great peace of mind, which nullifies the potential emotional instability involved. In addition, each time you thwart the negative emotions, the peace becomes greater, since you self-empower yourself by being able to control your emotions.

5. Understanding relativity allows you to assess your personality, skills, and life-experiences with infinite depth, since you have the realization that your life is the product of your experiences. It also allows you to move forward to correct your weaknesses, since you life experiences allowed you to have both your weaknesses and strengths. Most people fail to realize they can improve on their weaknesses, assuming “it’s part of who I am”. that is a correct assumption, but although it is, who we are is the product of our experiences, and although we gained ourselves over years of living, if we were to improve who we are over years more, we may gain improvement in the weak areas as well.

6. To apply relativity to personal tastes, regarding the question, “how could they enjoy such awful entertainment?” This falls under the same idea of “why are evil people evil” The reason why they enjoy those things is because they learned to through their experiences. The same applies to all interests, food included.

7. I’d say one of the most important applications of relativity is the fact that at least for entertainment, the level of technology has no bearing on the level of fun experienced. If we were to look through history, black and white tv was just as entertaining as the internet and video games are today. The same holds true with the radio, and before that books. The reason why is that the amount of fun experienced is in direct ratio to the stimulation of the brain. If the stimulation is higher, for the moment the excitement will be greater, but eventually, although the excitement remains, the amount of fun is the same as it was with less exciting entertainment, since the brain adapts and adjusts to the new environment. The bad part of this is, that the lower forms of technology that were entertaining before are not as fun, since our brain has been exposed to more exciting activities. If we were to lose our technology, we would have to deal with the lack of entertainment, but eventually we would adapt as our level of brain activity adjusts.

This concept can be applied not just to entertainment, but also to just about everything else. For example, If a rich person lost their riches, they would eventually adjust and enjoy their new life, although probably not as well as before. But note- eventually a rich person’s life may become just as empty as that of a poor person’s, since as their brain adjusts, their life becomes no more than ordinary, since for them, it is. The same applies to a dumb person vs a smart person, beautiful vs ugly, the list goes on. Since this holds true, I would conclude by saying that a person’s life is not determined by what they have, but how much they accept what they have. Because everyone has a different perspective, How well they live life is determined solely by how well they perceive themselves to be living it.

To apply this to relationships, if a person loves another, and they are separated, their love will be greater than it was ever before, because of the excitement caused by their separation. The same can be applied to people, animals, and objects. Yes, even objects. for example, if a person loses something, then finds it several years later, after they had lost interest in that which formally gave it significance, they would still experience the same excitement, simply because prior to that moment they had not known of it’s whereabouts.

In summary, it is important to understand the importance of relativity and its applications to daily life, since by the words stated above you can see it has a vital impact on it.