As you, invisible reader person, probably know already, I am a bit of a nutter.
My mind has a proclivity to question things beyond what any reasonable person would question. And last night (two nights ago, I forgot to publish this mess as it occurred), I had an insomniac attack where my brain would not shut up.
In an attempt to cleanse my self from my self, I got out of bed, and I wrote down all the nonsense ceaselessly pealing inside of my head, in the vain hope that, if it existed on my laptop, my mind would be satisfied. And so it would let me sleep.
This post then, is a stream of (un)consciousness, written at about 3am. It doesn’t make much sense, but I don’t want to edit it, as I want to keep it as raw and pure as possible, so to demonstrate exactly how my mind works when it’s not working, and being dysfunctional.
This nonsensical post is written with respect to what this blog is fundamentally about:
Weird humanisms!
Here we go.
If everything boils down to a perception, how can we define facts absolutely? Does there exist such a thing as an objective reality? If nothing is absolute, then by equation, the idea that nothing is absolute is thus not absolute, and so this leaves room for absoluteness. This in turn means that an objective reality, may or may not exist.
Following this, would it not be astute to assert that, considering the laws of nature present themselves to us in intelligible, and consistent ways, can it be said that these laws are absolute, given their consistency? Do they have to be absolute to justify their consistency? What does it mean if something is irrefutable? Is anything irrefutable?
If 1 + 1 = 2, then what does one orange plus one apple equal? Two pieces of fruits? Why can’t such a simple equation be correctly applied to such simple universal matters? What is 1? What is 0? Is 0 the same as infinity? Can infinity exist in the realm of space-time, or is it a mere conception contrived from connecting dots that don’t realistically connect? What purpose does this conception serve? What is reality other than a conception? If reality is a conception, and it is thus unique for every person, but ultimately the same for every person, which one prevails: it’s uniqueness or its sameness? Can both prevail simultaneously?
If the human consciousness is limited by its own self, how can we be so sure of what we think we know to be true? Does not that in and of itself show that reality is multi-dimensional, within this one, humanly perceived dimension? What is a dimension?
What are morals? Are they mere guidelines, dictating to us how we should live our lives? Are they relative, or univseral? If they are no more than a conception, how can they be defined universally? If they exist relatively, why should we speak of them? What point can it serve? How can a conceptual moral framework remain absolutely if concepts are existent in and of themselves only relative to other concepts?
If I worked my whole life without getting paid, can I be said to have had a productive life? What if I have gotten paid without working? What does it mean to be productive? Can I be productive by doing nothing? What does it mean to do nothing? Is not doing nothing, inherently doing something? If I am procrastinating one thing, am I not doing another?
What is nothing? Is nothing to be defined in the light that physicists have coined it? What do physicists mean when they speak of empty space? And if most matter is composed of empty space, why does anything mean anything? Does nothing mean anything?
If everything is inherently meaningless, then how can meaning be derived relatively? Is relativity a mere concept to highlight one ultimate truth? If that one ultimate truth is composed of many relative truths, then can it really be said to be one? If a concept is imbued within another concept, but the two concepts inherently disagree with each other, but make sense on their own, which truth stands?
Does truth mean anything? What is truth? How can we define truth if it is innately defined relatively? Is a relative truth defined by the extent to which it is true against other so called relative truths? What if this extent of truth measures up relatively true against one truth, though has its truth negated by another relative truth?
End crazy.
Humans-are-commonly-insomniacs. Maybe the reason we’re all collectively, generally, so angry, is because we don’t sleep properly?
Do dogs chase their tails?
Only the silly ones, I think.
I like your brain weirdo. I’m pretty sure you’re busier than me.
… and I’m a little jealous…
Thanks Kelly! I don’t know what you mean by busier, but, ergh, we can trade if you like?
hmmm, perhaps I should of said – more efficient. Yep, that’s the word.
haha, there’s nothing efficient about my brain. It’s efficient at stringing together nonsense. Keeps me busy, at least.
When he could not sleep, a friend of mine went down to the beach on a particularly clear night and he could see all the stars and asked the stars many of the questions you asked in this entry (and he also went on to tell the stars what he thought and what he wanted and what he liked and what he did not like) and then watched the stars very closely and had a direct experience of the benign indifference the universe had for his wants, his thoughts, his likes, his opinions, and his concerns, and found out n a very real way what things REALLY meant.
“It is empty and meaningless AND as Werner Erhard perceptively added, it does not mean anything that it does not mean anything, it is meaningless that it is empty and meaningless.
Too many existentialists look at the void and then mistakenly and unknowingly add meaning to empty and meaninglessness. IMO it is best to go all the way and add nothing
It doesn’t mean anything that it doesn’t mean anything, haha! I’ve never heard it phrased like that but I do like it.
It’s pretty hard not to come to that conclusion when you’ve been stargazing for a little while … or, well, thinking for a little while. Though to me, it’s the most liberating idea I’ve ever experienced. Meaninglessness is ultimately, from one light, ultimate meaning. It just means everything is as meaningful as the next thing, if you’d prefer to see it in that way. Goooooo delusion!
I wonder what type of people or traditions actually live closest to the emptiness and meaninglessness of it all, and are the most steeped in that point of view. Me, I find it a challenge to not get lost in and seduced by all the meaning I add moment to moment and all the significance that follows.I guess all that doesn’t mean anything either
If you had chosen to discuss absolute reality in a non conceptual way, we would not have spoken to eahc other today.
Funny you say that. One of the books I’m writing on atm is essentially about entertaining the idea that everything we consider to be an absolute reality, or, an objective reality, is metaphysical talk, as it lies beyond our senses, and our conception/sensation of it, and thus beyond the senses (basic premise). It’s such a fun way to talk so fervently about nothing.
Silence is an experience the mind can only conceptualize about, and run around in circles still knowing absolutely nothing. So it will call this metaphysics.
Have you read/heard of a book called, “stillness speaks?” It has an interesting take on silence. One that I particularly agree with.
I think we are on one line here. I didn’t read Eckhart Tolle’s book with this name, but I can imagine that he will build upon his other works (some of which I read and liked) in this book. There is also a website from Chris Hebard with this name.
Never heard of it, but will check it out. I love tolles stuff. But i wouldnt bother with stillness speaks, from memory didn’t offer anything new from his other stuff, more of a euphemistic guide sorta thing.