Semantics

For a while now, I’ve had an almost unhealthy interest in semantics– specifically, the relationship between words, and the application of those relationships to reality- or more accurately, reality. But the semantics that I’m particularly interested in are not so much subjective as objective. In other words, although I am interested in the etymological value of words and linguistics in general, as well as the contextual value of words, these interest are actually motivated by a more specific interest: Myself.

Perhaps that might have caused some confusion, considering how out-of-place such an assertion might seem– in part because (although I did not realize it until I finished writing the above paragraph), It’s extremely difficult to sum up things like this in just a few sentences. So here’s some background, as to clarify the above vagueness:

There was a point where I thought that “the dream was ending”– that is, my journey for logically-deduced knowledge, and by extension the active updating of th3g1vr.com, would no longer be a priority. There was even a point where I seriously considering abandoning all that I knew in favor of a more secure, idealistic future. It was after that point (which was about 1 1/2 years ago) that I began to put a great deal of thought into what exactly I had come this far for- what was the whole purpose behind this journey.

At some point to that end, I began trying to wrap up what I’d written thus far, collecting what I had written, and putting together my remaining thoughts, and I was eventually to edit them into a publishable form, so that I might turn it into a book. This resolve is reflected in my post Preface. But in “Preface” is also something relevant to this post: Over time, I realized that my posts were inconsistent, and many times even contradictory. When I asked myself as to “Why?” this was the case, I recalled how the Bible, the “inspired word of God”, was also of a similar quality, having so many passages that appeared to contradict, and of an inconsistent nature- as if it was asking to be attacked.

It was then that I realized what it was that my writing and that of the Bible had in common: Semantics. That is, these imperfections only exist when taken out of context. The Bible is after all called “The Living Word of God” for a good reason: The contents of it extend beyond an ordinary understanding– to understand the Bible completely is beyond human ability. Like my own words, the words of the Bible has a significance that becomes greater, deeper, and more complex as the author(s) use them more, and as each new author builds on the contributions of past writings. For example, the writings of Jesus and Paul make extensive use of scriptures in the Old Testament, so if it is even possible to understand their writings, we’d have to first have a complete understanding of their thoughts each time they wrote, and also of those in the old testament upon which their writing built; such a feat would be nothing short of psychic.

After all, as is demonstrated in my church youth group (and many times to my complete surprise) — the same words, and specifically the same Biblical passages, can mean something entirely different to everyone. Especially considering the philosophical nature of the Bible (and of course of my own writing) this makes it impossible to truly understand the Bible, even if one is “psychic”. “But what is impossible with man is possible with God”– that is why we must rely on the Holy Spirit, requesting God’s wisdom when reading it.

To apply this to my own words: I’ve found that over time, words that I’ve used, even if they originally were  based on the accuracy demonstrated in dictionaries and/or encyclopedias– I’ve incorporated words into my own thoughts, utilizing the relationships between various words (particularly those of a conceptual nature) to develop a deeper understanding of the nature of things– and over time, many of these words evolved in meaning, becoming more complex and specific, and sometimes more broad– and some of which becoming even “religious”.

As a result, certain words mean a great deal to me, because in my mind they represent several months of dedication. I don’t know if many other people have words they treasure this much like I do– to such an end that they might become defensive, irritated, over even greatly disturbed– as I sometimes inadvertently do, but I think that this shows just how much meaning “inspired word” can take on.

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.

Intuition

“Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Genesis 3:22)

Since I was a young child, and even now, the first impression that I got from this verse, is that by eating from the tree, man had acquired all knowledge- effectively becoming omniscient. But this does not appear to be the case, as we do not know everything, and if we did, life would seem rather pointless.

But what if we did know everything, but were only not aware of that knowledge? It is my belief (and this is one that the Bible appears to support, and several times throughout it) that God hides knowledge from himself, so that he may first be able to appreciate himself (which from my understanding of things would otherwise not be possible), and second so that he might develop his relationship with us naturally (which otherwise would not be possible because God would already know our destination before we are born, as well as everything else about us- such a relationship would have no merit to it)

If we are made in God’s image, and we have knowledge of all things, then we would likely hide that knowledge from ourselves for the same reasons. Not only that, but our physical, imperfect, and mortal selves would not able to hold all of the knowledge in the universe- at least not uncompressed.

That’s right, uncompressed. There is no known limit to how much it’s possible to compress information, and I think that there isn’t one. From my experience with archivers, however, the extent to which we can compress data is limited by the system resources, in particular those of the memory (RAM) and the processor (CPU). We already know that some of our memories are easier to retrieve than others for this very reason- it takes more brainpower to extract memories that were made years ago, and ones of things that are less important to us. Everyone can relate to the experience of suddenly remembering things that happened a long time ago, and sometimes for no immediately apparent reason.

But what I noticed in particular about the nature of memory extraction, is that there almost always is a good reason for why we remember anything. Education is in fact build around this framework- it’s always easier to recall memories if there is some object or concept in the present (right now) to serve as a catalyst to recall these memories. That’s also a proven means of amnesia recovery.

I believe that we are effectively omniscient, but the unfathomably vast majority of knowledge is locked away in our brain. To unlock all of the knowledge of the universe, supposing that is the case, would be impossible because anyone would die long before we even scratched the surface, even if we were to develop a means of extraction in the first place.

That is where Intuition comes in. Be it physical knowledge (instinct, etc.), emotional knowledge, spiritual knowledge (i.e. psychics) logical knowledge– intuition is how we access those infinite depths of knowledge, without “knowing” it. I like to think of it is the human version of Direct Memory Access (DMA). Well then again, comparing intuition to DMA would do it an injustice- it’s completely out of its league.

That is, we “intuitively” access whatever knowledge we want, on an as needed basis. But using intuition requires a catalyst- that is, there has to be a direct reason to access that knowledge- I think that we have a natural safeguard in place, to prevent “biting off more than we can chew”. This is a milestone post, as I’ve been thinking about this for a while. One of the first posts that I wrote about this is here, and these thoughts were also reflected in the first chapter of Essence of The Soul.

It’s very interesting thinking of it like this– I keep getting visuals of the replicators feeding on Daniel’s knowledge of the Ancients and Stargate SG-1. Pretty much, we are (objectively) one Soul, but are subjectively separate individuals. As the Soul attains more knowledge, we evolve and reproduce to better accomodate that knowledge. Just as replicators might access their knowledge through a link, we subconsciously access what knowledge that we [truly] need, using intuition.

True Independence

I have a theory, which began developing in this post, that humans and souls have a symbiotic relationship, and that evolution is the manifestation of spiritual progress, although since I wrote that post my thought has “evolved” significantly, to the point that such a theory is almost obsolete. But it still is important, in that is represented the beginning of a fruitful pursuit of spiritual, rational, and intuitive knowledge, as well a greater focus on what has since become the topic I am most obsessed with- motivation.

After watching NGE (for the second time), I began developing another theory regarding the soul: The soul is both one and infinite; thus the objective and subjective perspectives are equally true. Who I am is not limited to myself, but to everything else in existence, and vice versa. Thus, we are all both perfect and imperfect, strong and weak, dependent and independent. This being the case, can “true independence” exist, given these assumptions?

Ironically, the answer is both “yes” and “no”. From a subjective perspective, independence is inherently impossible, and dependence is a necessity. From and objective perspective, it’s the opposite- because objectivity requires independence, it cannot be dependent.

This view does certainly imply that objectively, we are God; so, as to not blaspheme the most high, I must note that “true independence” is achieved not through action, but through thought.

One universally accepted Christian belief: Christians are not bound by the law, and so do not follow it out of obligation or fear. Rather, having the desire to serve the Lord, which comes from the Holy Spirit which is in us, we do what is right naturally- thus, it’s not that the law was wrong, it’s that it’s no longer necessary. (The law exists not for those who follow it, but those who would break it).

In the same way, by having a perspective of true independence, and passion to match it, our actions will naturally be truly independence, because our actions are the product of our beliefs and passions thereof.

So what then is this perspective? I’m new to this, so take what I’m about to say “with a grain of salt”, although, for now, I hold the following to be true: How we view others, and how others view us- these perspectives are not others’, but our own. When we think we know certain things about others, that is not their knowledge, but our own. Everyone views the same people differently– so does that mean that there are many different people in one? Perhaps, but- that being too complicated of a theory, I’d rather like to think that the person is the same, and they are viewed differently because that knowledge is only true to those that perceive, and not of the ‘object’ of perception.

In other words, we only know each other subjectively, and such knowledge is objectively false or incomplete. We may not even know ourselves objectively.

Although this question is irrelevant to this post, I want to put it out there, should anyone wish to answer, along with telling how they reached their conclusion: Is objective knowledge impossible?

In either case, following the above assumptions: Even if there are separate individuals from myself, and they communicate their own thoughts to me, by understanding, receiving, and applying their thoughts, they become my own, because, though they might know what they wanted to convey, I only know what I understood. In other words, knowledge is objective, but understanding is subjective. I’ll explain the implications (and importance) of this in later posts.

But from such a perspective, I have realized one new thing: if the relationship between knowledge and understanding is trivial semantics, then knowledge and understanding are one and the same: knowledge is “objective truth” (that which is perceived) whereas understanding is “subjective truth” (perception itself)

One of the ideals of Buddhism is the importance of “casting away all worldly desires” as these cause suffering. For the most part I agree with such a philosophy, but now I can reap from this another insight: “casting away all worldly desires” might be another way of saying “discard all subjective thought”. Assuming that such a thing is possible, doing so would inevitably result in attaining objective truth– the equivalent of being enlightened. Interesting!