Human Minds

[Bio]

I hear constantly that human's can't grasp the concept of infinity, and I realize it's true. Think about it in either religious or scientific.
For the scientists: If earth was created by surplus materials from the creation of the sun, the what created those, and then what created whatever created that? And so on and so forth. My mind actually comes to a big white blank of the universe. It's even hard to describe now. Like life, if you think about it, same thing. What makes something live? Something can have all the organs and everything, but there's that something that makes it alive. This science can't explain, so I suppose someone could be 'logically' religious.(not that I am, I am actually very religious) But then this disproves that and everyone gets in a big arguement. I realize this thread is confusing, but I am also, and I'd like to hear your theories of this. If you have any, anyway. It's very aggrivating to think about.

[Baron Samedi]

Eh? In regards to what makes a human or other such creature 'alive' I do not believe there are many, or perhaps any who can prove it. Here at least. What I am saying is, how do you know that scientists don't know what makes a creature alive? You don't know what they know. My guess is that they could make a living human. Just have a fake womb, insert the cells, pump blood through it etc. (ask Drix. he's pre-med) and after nine months, if all conditions are replicated... Voila!! Presumably...

I don't know. Intelligent design is quite possible, but so is evolution. Likely that we'll never find out the truth of either. or both.

[Dagger]

I don't believe that we have the technology to "make" a living human.... not yet, at least.

One big debate in the scientific community is whether or not viruses can be considered living things. They aren't made up of cells, and they can't replicate on their own--but they [i]do[/i] replicate and evolve.

~Dagger~

[Bio]

Yea, but how can you tell exactly how alive it is? I mean... Its incredibly hard to explain. Umm.... Like an android. If it is programmed to be able to be like a living thing, then to what extent is it living? It wouldn't be. Ok, that's a bad example... I mean if this human you describe was to be born, then how could you tell how... it was like... to what extent was it alive? I mean, it could be like an andriod. No soul. I guess you can't really look at this any other way than a religious perspective. It's just all so confusing. That's why I put up this post.

[Baron Samedi]

OK. But unless there is some sort of Being, than being born in an artificial womb that completely replicates womb conditions would not matter. IF there are no such things as souls, then there is no reason for it to be an 'android' as you put it. How do you know? You can look at it from a scientific perspective, just from one that we don't know how it works. When babies are born, all they have is their survival instincts. Then as they are raised, they are shown new things, and learn from their surroundings. Which eventually gives them personalities. That is how I would figure it to be anyway.

[Krademon]

Ho ho here's a good one.
I just read a new scientist magazine article on infinity. Very interesting stuff.
On the effect of human mind, infinity is ONLY human. People think what's bevond the clouds, beyond space. Animals don't need or do thinks so abstractly and therefore don't think about infinity. And also infinity was also created for mathamatical purposes, not just for headaches.
Here's one....
A theory about how the anchients used to do curves was thought to be using an sided object they could then use the sides as guidelinges to draw a circle (ignoring the fact that they probably used two pegs and a bit of rope). For instance a square on the inside of a circle gives you 4 points to workl off. Not too precise though. Now add a side and change it into a pentagon. Ahh..much more circular. Add another. Now by looking at this process we can see that the more sides we add to an object where each pint that the sides meet is at the same radius the shape will become smoother and more circular (works best with the shade inside the circle not outside). So if we keep adding sides we will eventually reach a point where the shade is indestinguishable from a circle. And if we keep adding sides -> infinity then we get a circle. Now a cirl only has one side you say? Well yes. If you keep adding things (for instance 1\2 + 1\4 + 1\8 ....and so on even untill + 1\1024 then the sum you get will eventually be with this number 1023/1024. But even if you go on forever the result is 1. Exactly 1). So using this logic we can say that is the sides of a shape heep increasing we will eventualy reach infinite sides..or 1 side. So there, a circle really does have 1 sode because it has an infinite number of sides :P
Now that was kinda put together from an article in New Scientist (27 september 2003) and the fact that I'm studying calculus in my Math class.
And did you ever notice that the big questions in math are always answered yes and no? Does a circle have 1 side? Yes (1 side) and no (Infinite sides).
If you got seriously confused by that don't worry.
It is impossible for the human mind to comprehend infinity we just give it a value that works and don't try too hard to go beyond that.

[Mitch]

[size=1] I think that the most beautiful thing of the human mind is its abstract thinking.

Watch as I use abstract thinking to justify why human minds can somewhat grasp the concept of infinity.

We are surrounded by finite things all our lives. Food is finite. Clothes are finite. Money is finite; our lives are finite; the president is finite; the sun is finite; the earth is finite; the brain is finite, and so on and so forth.

The way our society itself is molded is by these finite chains. Due to the fact we don't live infinitely, we live life as a momentary thing, rather than a long-term thing. Due to this, it is very hard to even grasp the thought of infinity. Seeing that so many things die, it's hard to believe that something could go on forever and ever and never end.

Now we can think that something goes on forever, and tell ourselves, but we can't understand why, because to us, everything dies and ends at some point, even infinity has to have an end.

Try and imagine what infinity looks like. Even try to take apart some of these varying statistics--such as there are about 6 [i]billion[/i] people on this Earth. You just can't do that, you can only take in the number, 6,000,000,000, and say, "Woah, that's a lot," and that is all. You can't really see an image of it in your head. You just know that it's a lot, for sure.

Yet if we think of one, you can see one of something easily enough. And if you think of two, that's easy enough too. Ten isn't too hard for me to imagine...but it's when you get to over that that I just can't see that much.

Now think even deeper. All numbers are is a way to know how much of something there is. All they are is slashes and dashes and circles and scribbles. That's all they are: you are the one that gives them meaning. Infinity could be the same thing if you want to look at it that way. Since it's so hard to grasp, I don't try to understand how long infinity is, rather I see it as one thing: infinity; it means something that goes on forever, something that never ends, something that has a beginning but no end. What's so hard to fathom about that?

It's when you try to look past the definition, and give it an image in your mind that it just doesn't work well. So I do think, in an abstract manner, that humans [i]can[/i] grasp the concept of infinity.

Really, we don't even know of anything that [i]is[/i] infinite for certain; we know that one day the sun will become a white dwarf, and dissipate (I believe it goes through different stages, according to the way it goes, such as a red giant, then a white dwarf, or maybe it's the other way around, who knows); we know that stars are born and die, just as our sun I mentioned; we know that the earth is not going to last forever, that one day, perchance, it will be hit by a meteor, or maybe mankind itself will destroy it, or other venues; we know that every animal or insect dies on this planet; we know that chemicals are consumed and made, enzymes used and made, energy used and made and drained. Everything we know as humans and learn about dies or leaves or uses or abuses in some way.

People sit here and ask, "What's the point of life?" and I say there isn't one. If there is, then it's to die. To be finite. To have an ending. To cease to exist as the beginning had ushered you to exist.

Hm. I'm blabbering.

Let's talk about babies, shall we?

Our society eats babies. We should really just place "We Eat Babies" all over lol. It'd be so cool, really.

We do, though. When babies are born it's something like a blank canvas to draw on that's only a thin, bony frame of what's to come.

Our minds work mainly from memories and from learning things and keeping them. By doing this, we are able to take other things, using our memories, and use what we know to figure out what we don't know.

Just take language as a great example. A definition of a word is the use of other words you already know to give a new word meaning. This is pretty well how our brains work.

Of course, we forget things over time, but that's for useless things we don't need. Otherwise, we take in things from our surroundings, learn the proclivities of our parents, and take everything in as we are babies and use that to become.

Mm. Ah well. That is enough blabbering from me for now lol. My friend says I don't need to write an essay...[/size]

[Krademon]

Well yeah sure we know what infinity is, and how it works. But we can't actually imagine infinity because our minds just cant understand such a concept. Our perception of ideads is directly affected by what we have experianced. Out knowledge of two or red or hot is given by experiance. Because we cannot experiance infinity we cant actually understand it. Just the concept of it.
And as for what infinity looks like? Well it dosent. You cant see infinity cause it don't go anywhere, it dosent stop so you cant see it. Look at a picture of space, or a black peice of cloth in a dark room. That's about as close to seeing infinity as you can get nowdays (the future maybe but probabaly not in out lifetime).

[Guest Emancipist]

[quote] guess you can't really look at this any other way than a religious perspective. It's just all so confusing.[/quote]

you're just taking the easy way out. because you cant discover the scientific solution, you turn to religion. dont get me wrong i believe in god. but that isn't the point now.

[James]

[color=#707875]Well, Arch...science can explain life and so on. People who say that it can't are simply don't know their science.

In any case...the whole thing about limitations of the human mind is interesting. This reminds me of The Matrix in many ways. What is real to you is not necessarily real to me/how do we know that our lives are "real"/what constitutes a living thing/etc.

When you talk about androids...once again, this reminds me of The Matrix, particularly The Second Renaissance. Mankind treated the machines like slaves...and when B166ER murdered his "master", he did so because he was trying to avoid deactivation -- or, death.

So really, what is the moral of that story? What could man have done to avoid the ultimately catastrophic war between man and machine?

Man could have recognized that the machine is his own creation...and that he has given birth to a new life. The machine has thoughts, it has consciousness, it has feelings and perceptions. It's a "mind", an individual, a thinking and feeling being. It's alive, even though it is physically made up of different materials to humans.

And so, it should be treated with the same respect as other living things.

This is also like Bicentennial Man, if you've seen that movie. The main character's entire quest is to become recognized as a human being. It's very interesting to me...because it deals with prejudice and the way we perceive life itself.[/color]

[craig8429]

I can agree with part. if the big bang did happen something had to make the material's for that. (I stated this in the wiccan thread some time ago also)

but the whole idea of we don't know what makes the human body work, if you look we actually do. if we didn't know how something works we wouldn't be able to go in the body and repair it.

[Ares]

Yeah, it is hard to grasp the idea of infinity. We weren't given large enough minds to figure certain things out I believe, it's for our own protection. Some scientist's would create self-conscious robots if they could, and then robots would try to conquer the planet. It's scary, what we don't know. Oh well, just don't waste time worrying about it I say.

[Zephyr]

Hmm. I suppose that the real question here is not "Can we grasp the concept of infinity," and more of "Why would we need to?"

Humans have a finite life span, so worrying about infinity is pointless. Everything about a human, good or bad, has evolved in certain ways for a reason. Since our only real purpose seems to be creating and providing for the next generation we do not need to worry about where they will go in the distant future.

As for thinking of the past, humans only do that because what once was is the only way we can prove our own existance to ourselves.



(Wow. Either I just had a major epiphany, or I have become good at typing total BS.)

[AutoKill]

[quote]Originally posted by Mitch,

We are surrounded by finite things all our lives. Food is finite. Clothes are finite. Money is finite; our lives are finite; the president is finite; the sun is finite; the earth is finite; the brain is finite, and so on and so forth.[/quote]

I really hope you don?t think this. Or i misunderstood what you were trying to say.
Infinity is a concept that refers mostly to math. Like the square turning into a circle thing. Trying to bridge the gap from math to the real would with infinity is not possible to my thinking. It is said in the Big Bang theory that the explosion sent partials and matter ever were. Like a drop of water in a pond. And this ripples never stop, and they are only getting faster. I usually don?t challenge this theory because i think we will not solve it with or current technology.
I have lessened to audio recording of mathematician about infinity. And a person talked about how One is just as close to infinity as Goggle is to infinity. (i think a goggle is like 100 to the 100 power.) In math terms infinity is a horizontal 8. And trying to incorporate infinity into the real world would prove to be fruitless.
Also in the material world this applies. Their cant possibly be infinity particles. Earth is only limited by the number of atoms that are on the earth. But or earth is so freaking cool in the fact that it can recycle itself.

[Bio]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by craig8429 [/i]
[B]but the whole idea of we don't know what makes the human body work, if you look we actually do. if we didn't know how something works we wouldn't be able to go in the body and repair it. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not talking about the way organ's work. It's incredibly obvious. Do you think I live under a rock? I mean what makes it live? Like I said, all organs could be connected, they could use machines to make the heart still beat, and the lungs still expand and contract, but it would be just a functioning body. Kind of like a coma, except the brain wouldn't be active. I guess that's what I'm saying.

[Krademon]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Emancipist [/i]
[B]you're just taking the easy way out. because you cant discover the scientific solution, you turn to religion. dont get me wrong i believe in god. but that isn't the point now. [/B][/QUOTE]

First I'm not religious and am actually using it as an example of ways that people used to constrain the concept of infinity in ye old days.
What I'm trying to say is that it is actually impossible so far (perhaps we will get a nifty person one day) for us to actually visualise infinity. And that science has come up with a way to use infinity in mathamatics and physics without actually having to write it out (because you cant).

[Charles]

Eh, to some extent "alive" is a subjective word just like "freedom" or "good" or "bad." That is, if you're not speaking in purely scientific terms. Technically, you can't show me "alive." We all have our own ideas as to what constitutes alive. Some people are doomed by their own philosophy to the extent where they would have you believe nothing is truly alive. Ever heard of the old adage that says if you give a philosopher a drink of water in the desert they will die of thirst trying to decide whether the water is real or not?

So, I try not to complicate things by associating mass criteria with what it takes to be alive. If a being is capable of reproducing in some way to preserve its species, it's alive at [i]some[/i] level. Of course, I'd like to couple physical sensation and independent thought with a definition of "alive" but that's almost humanizing the definition to a certain extent.

I agree with the idea that humans can't exactly grasp the concept of infinite space. It's very difficult for me to think of the universe as forever expanding or an afterlife where one lives for an eternity. If you [i]really[/i] think about it, can you imagine living forever?

And Autokill, Mitch was just saying that there's little permanence in mortal life. Nothing is endless, forever or without its limitations. That's the general idea behind what you qouted, I'd say.

[Brasil]

Mitch is correct.

Abstract thought is the most important aspect of the human existence.

For those of you that don?t live in abstract thought, you will never fully understand what abstract thought is. Abstract thought is?for lack of a better phrase, ?thinking outside the box.?

Abstractists live in a world totally unlike your own. We look at things from a totally different perspective; our minds work in a totally fractured way. Er, our minds work in a way that looks totally fractured to you. We understand it completely.

The way I see it, is that until you fully realize WHERE and HOW those confused looks are coming from?what their origin is?you will always be rooted in basic thought. When someone you know talks for hours upon hours about things you never thought of before, when that person speaks in a way you can?t quite comprehend, presenting ideas and ideals that you have never heard before, you are talking to an Abstractist.

[QUOTE]?Who are we? We are you. We are Marxist Pythonians. A small band of Rebels fighting against the Imperial Empire. We defy by questioning. We are Marxist Pythonians. We secede from the Union to form our own glorious yet tragically flawed Cinnaminsonia. We are Marxist Pythonians. We declare war on the Delranian Republic just for the hell of it.?[/QUOTE]

That is Abstractism.

But do not confuse Abstractism with self-imposed social removal, and do not accuse Abstractists of being aligned with poseur social rejects; we?re not. Abstractists and Marxist Pythonians fully understand who they are, how they think, where they are going, who we are talking to, what we are talking about, how our minds work, how to control our minds. Not to sound pompous or disrespectful (as that is not encouraged among Abstractists and Marxist Pythonians), but Abstractists and Marxist Pythonians are hyper-advanced thinkers. I go as far as to say, Abstractists and Marxist Pythonians are the evolution of the human mind.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]Mitch is correct.

Abstract thought is the most important aspect of the human existence.

For those of you that don?t live in abstract thought, you will never fully understand what abstract thought is. Abstract thought is?for lack of a better phrase, ?thinking outside the box.?

Abstractists live in a world totally unlike your own. We look at things from a totally different perspective; our minds work in a totally fractured way. Er, our minds work in a way that looks totally fractured to you. We understand it completely.

The way I see it, is that until you fully realize WHERE and HOW those confused looks are coming from?what their origin is?you will always be rooted in basic thought. When someone you know talks for hours upon hours about things you never thought of before, when that person speaks in a way you can?t quite comprehend, presenting ideas and ideals that you have never heard before, you are talking to an Abstractist.



That is Abstractism.

But do not confuse Abstractism with self-imposed social removal, and do not accuse Abstractists of being aligned with poseur social rejects; we?re not. Abstractists and Marxist Pythonians fully understand who they are, how they think, where they are going, who we are talking to, what we are talking about, how our minds work, how to control our minds. Not to sound pompous or disrespectful (as that is not encouraged among Abstractists and Marxist Pythonians), but Abstractists and Marxist Pythonians are hyper-advanced thinkers. I go as far as to say, Abstractists and Marxist Pythonians are the evolution of the human mind. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] Well said, well said.

Abstract thought, to me, is the way things shall progress further in their manners. Just look at governments today--communism, democracy, others of the sort--they were all embelished by people, who, during their times, were seen as radical, and who, during their times, thought radically and abstractly. This may be a horrid example...but it serves its purpose.

Many people don't seem to like abstract thought, yet it's the main thing in a writer's principle in my opinion. It's something that tells a good story.

Poetry itself is almost completly abstract thoughts strung together, yarned into strings and fragments which form a whole.

Charles has said I am a post modernist. It's a nice name. It basically shows what I am--I think ahead, outside of the box. I dig into things as deep as I can, I become a reaper and shredder of everything I own in my head. Rather than just accepting things and ploying my faith to them, I let them fester in my mind, fragment into other thoughts which lead to other thoughts which lead to even more thoughts.

I'm a parabola. I try to see the deepest, most hitting roots of something and apply it to everything I know.

Most people don't quite understand this...but I know exactly what I'm doing when I think things out so fine and finite and give them their own identities.

I sound so much like a hopeless romantic lol. I suppose that's what most poets/abstractees are. They live in the lonliness of deceptively understanding something to its full.[/size]

[Brasil]

[quote]Well said, well said. [/quote]

Thanks. I?ve lived in Abstractism and Marxist Pythonianism long enough that I can talk about it ad nauseum. Heh.

[quote]Abstract thought, to me, is the way things shall progress further in their manners. Just look at governments today--communism, democracy, others of the sort--they were all embelished by people, who, during their times, were seen as radical, and who, during their times, thought radically and abstractly. This may be a horrid example...but it serves its purpose.[/quote]

Listen to that, folks. Your country is based on someone?s or some group?s abstract thinking. The USA wouldn?t be here today if it weren?t for some radicalist Abstractist thinkers like Jefferson and Franklin. Britain wouldn?t be what you know if social reformists like Shakespeare and the constantly changing Royalty hadn?t voiced their opinions. The following example is a despicable one, but Germany would not be in the familiar state of today had Hitler (undeniably the most radical thinker of all) failed in rising to power. Russia would most certainly not have had such political reform had Karl Marx not opened his mouth. To survive, the world DEPENDS on abstract thought, thus depending on Abstractists and Marxist Pythonians. Something to think about before you judge Abstractists.

EDIT: And it was a very astute, relative, and intelligent example, Mitch.

[quote]Many people don't seem to like abstract thought, yet it's the main thing in a writer's principle in my opinion. It's something that tells a good story.[/quote]

In this sense, Abstractism becomes a creative force. To be successful at a creative profession, one must continually invent new and fantastic ideas, re-invent themes and literary styles. Creativity relies on Abstractism. How many cookie-cutter movies are truly enjoyable? And then compare those cookie-cutter movies to films like Adaptation. Charlie Kaufman IS the Abstractist?s screenwriter, and kicks the **** out of a lot of big-name Hollywood blockbusters. Or look at Quentin Tarantino. (KILL BILL?THIS FRIDAY :D) He is Abstractist in nature, in creative origin, and has made some of the greatest films ever made. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs?films that basically say ?**** you? to conventional, cookie-cutter, ?basic thought? cinematography and filmography.

[quote]Poetry itself is almost completly abstract thoughts strung together, yarned into strings and fragments which form a whole.[/quote]

Yep. Abstractism as creative force.

[quote]Charles has said I am a post modernist. It's a nice name. It basically shows what I am--I think ahead, outside of the box. I dig into things as deep as I can, I become a reaper and shredder of everything I own in my head. Rather than just accepting things and ploying my faith to them, I let them fester in my mind, fragment into other thoughts which lead to other thoughts which lead to even more thoughts.[/quote]

Er, well?post-modernism isn?t really being fragmented for the sake of being fragmented. It is the loss of reality due to fractured perspective and different viewpoint. Compare it to The Usual Suspects. The ?reality? we are presented with probably isn?t the ?true reality? of the story. It?s told through a character?s flashback, so due to that character?s disposition, the story we?re seeing isn?t the ?true? story of what really happened. We?re seeing it through a filter. Kurosawa?s Rashomon?prime example. A story told through multiple viewpoints doesn?t allow us to truly see what really happened.

[quote]I'm a parabola. I try to see the deepest, most hitting roots of something and apply it to everything I know.[/quote]

?No. Do or do not. There is no try.?

If you know you are hitting the deep roots of a topic, then you are not trying; you are doing. Knowledge of one?s self, mind, actions, and processes?self-awareness is a key in Abstractism and Marxist Pythonianism. Do not know that you?re trying. Know that you?re doing.

[quote]Most people don't quite understand this...but I know exactly what I'm doing when I think things out so fine and finite and give them their own identities.[/quote]

Such is personal, self-aware mind control. Becoming one over the mind leads to control yet unheard of among basic thought.

[quote]I sound so much like a hopeless romantic lol. I suppose that's what most poets/abstractees are. They live in the lonliness of deceptively understanding something to its full.[/quote]

We all were hopeless romantics at some point. My hopeless romantic side disappeared upon becoming Abstractist. I know that sounds a bit cold, but I assure everyone, it is as positive as anything can be. Unfortunately, so many will never feel what it feels like to be in total control of their mind and emotions, control to the point that an extended 2-year single-hood in college doesn?t even raise an eyebrow.

And Abstractists do not live in loneliness, per se; they think on a wavelength unique to them. Fully developed Abstractists do not feel sadness or loneliness. They simply be.

Tis sweet to know of my profession?instructor of minds. I will be an excellent professor.

[Mitch]

[size=1] People that are more abstract than anything [i]do[/i] live in lonliness on one hand, heh. They go against the usual, in a fashion, it could be said. They are often segragated. It's just like anything else--being black or white--being religionist or anti christian or against religion--it's just like this. People, in one form or another, will hate you for what you are, and in another fell swoop, love you for what you are. It's like this for anything, basically. Not to say that there [i]isn't[/i] other people out there to form a group with, but still, there's an external conflict with those that don't agree with you. In this way you are given a certain label and given a certain ideal way you act and a certain way you'll probably be treated.

People often don't like things they don't understand. Just look at Communisim during the time when the US and Russia were at its cold war; just look at how, after Sept. 11, people condemned people of the cause of it as a whole. People are stupid like this, and are going to always point fingers at whatever they can and fight whatever change they had.

Charles called me a post modernist for a story I wrote...and the overall style I had been starting to write then. It's called "567," and it was critically acclaimed as good here at the boards by those who read it...I'll find the link and edit this post, but for nowm on with our discussion, heh.

I say "trying" because not all combinations and thoughts are going to"be" the actuality of something...or a choice at something; they will merely be tried side thoughts which are fragmented aside. I guess really "self-awarness" is most definitely a good thing to have...but really, I don't have this, I'm sorry to say. I doubt myself each and every day, I analyze things I do and take in; I'm critical of everything that I feel, touch, take in, come to conclusion to, understand. I'm also very timid...often more internal than anything else, often horrid at taking some skill which I could care less to learn and beign forced to do it.

Yet, if you look at this, this is being "self aware" in some ways..instead of just jumping into someting, I take the time to master it within my own self. I am paranoid of it rather than just absorbent of it. I take from it what I want and discard what I don't.

I don't know. Even if I am more of an abstract person than anything...you still can't label what "abstractism" is. To do this is to be contradicting of the very purpose which you tell and slather. It is to not be abstract about abstract.

Anyone can be abstract to a sense that they want to be...and labeling it as being "completely self aware" is not going to work in everyone's case, and really, narrowing something down like this only makes it tougher...to actually know what you're even labeling.

So thus, I don't really consider anything certain to be "abstract," nor do I consider any certain type of habitual behavior or action as being it. Rather, I let it be loose in my mind as possible.

From what I said, I also hit with your saying that I'm not abstract because I feel "loneliness."

All humans feel emotions...and to discredit these is to not use the heart as the head. We all make some decisions based upon our emotions...and even as far as you can say, you cannot control your emotions all of the time, nor can you manipulate them like a puppeteer dancing his hands merrily on a string marionette. You can't just hide them away all the time...

And by hiding them away, you begin to feel empty, apathetical, drained, held in, [i]lonely[/i].

Eh. That's about enough for me.[/size]

[b]Edit:[/b] Here is the link to "567," please read it and comment on it if you're interested enough. I still have yet to finalize it...and any further thoughts on it I'd love to hear. [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23889]"567."[/url]

[Brasil]

[quote]People that are more abstract than anything do live in lonliness on one hand, heh. They go against the usual, in a fashion, it could be said. They are often segragated. It's just like anything else--being black or white--being religionist or anti christian or against religion--it's just like this. People, in one form or another, will hate you for what you are, and in another fell swoop, love you for what you are. It's like this for anything, basically. Not to say that there isn't other people out there to form a group with, but still, there's an external conflict with those that don't agree with you. In this way you are given a certain label and given a certain ideal way you act and a certain way you'll probably be treated.[/quote]

But do you realize how Abstractism comes into play here? How abstract thought and ?self aware? affect it? The loneliness is not a negative loneliness. Those who have achieved a sort of?abstract mastery really don?t mind being alone. I no longer fret over not having anything to do 6 nights of the week. Because I?ve become so in touch with myself, and so in touch with my mind, I?m not bothered at all by isolation.

The human mind is a very powerful tool at dealing with situations, provided you know how to use the human mind. For those that hate me, I really don?t mind. They haven?t achieved the level of control that I have, so I just keep in mind that they?re stuck in basic thought and don?t know any better. If someone detests me for what I believe, who cares? No problem for me.

[quote]People often don't like things they don't understand. Just look at Communisim during the time when the US and Russia were at its cold war; just look at how, after Sept. 11, people condemned people of the cause of it as a whole. People are stupid like this, and are going to always point fingers at whatever they can and fight whatever change they had.[/quote]

Yep. It?s called life. I?ve dealt with it through abstract mastery.

[quote]Charles called me a post modernist for a story I wrote...and the overall style I had been starting to write then. It's called "567," and it was critically acclaimed as good here at the boards by those who read it...I'll find the link and edit this post, but for nowm on with our discussion, heh.[/quote]

Yeah, aye there?s the rub. The story falls more along the lines of modernist. Modernism deals with isolation and?an almost depressive quality of writing. Not melodrama per se, but it?s a more?it?s more like Eeyore from Winnie The Pooh. Upset at the lack of humanity, upset at the lack of feeling connected to society. That?s Modernism, and ?567? is more Modernist than anything else.

[quote]I say "trying" because not all combinations and thoughts are going to"be" the actuality of something...or a choice at something; they will merely be tried side thoughts which are fragmented aside. I guess really "self-awarness" is most definitely a good thing to have...but really, I don't have this, I'm sorry to say. I doubt myself each and every day, I analyze things I do and take in; I'm critical of everything that I feel, touch, take in, come to conclusion to, understand. I'm also very timid...often more internal than anything else, often horrid at taking some skill which I could care less to learn and beign forced to do it.[/quote]

?I doubt myself each and every day, I analyze things I do and take in; I'm critical of everything that I feel, touch, take in, come to conclusion to, understand. I'm also very timid...often more internal than anything else, often horrid at taking some skill which I could care less to learn and beign forced to do it.?

Definitely Modernist. You?re concerned with yourself in a definite negative fashion, using terms like ?doubt myself each and every day,? ?often more internal than anything else.? That?s a big sign for introverted depressive concern?aka Modernism.

[quote]Yet, if you look at this, this is being "self aware" in some ways..instead of just jumping into someting, I take the time to master it within my own self. I am paranoid of it rather than just absorbent of it. I take from it what I want and discard what I don't.[/quote]

?I am paranoid of it rather than just absorbent of it. I take from it what I want and discard what I don't.?

Modernist?definitely Modernist. To fully become an Abstractist, you must have total confidence in your abilities. Upon achieving total confidence in your abilities, you will then be able, without hesitation, to jump fully into something.

[quote]I don't know. Even if I am more of an abstract person than anything...you still can't label what "abstractism" is. To do this is to be contradicting of the very purpose which you tell and slather. It is to not be abstract about abstract.

Anyone can be abstract to a sense that they want to be...and labeling it as being "completely self aware" is not going to work in everyone's case, and really, narrowing something down like this only makes it tougher...to actually know what you're even labeling.[/quote]

Let me ask you. If something is even more limited and harder to achieve, that, by definition, is abstract.

[url]http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=abstract[/url]

Number 5 is most intriguing. You would classify abstract as ?specialized,? correct? You and I are specialized thinkers here, and the rest of OB has not demonstrated the type of thinking you and I possess, so our abstract thought, just based on OB, is ?specialized.?

[url]http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/specialized[/url]

The definitions of ?specialized? most certainly comply with ?narrowing something down.?

As we narrow something down, it becomes more specialized, and thus more abstract.

[quote]So thus, I don't really consider anything certain to be "abstract," nor do I consider any certain type of habitual behavior or action as being it. Rather, I let it be loose in my mind as possible.

From what I said, I also hit with your saying that I'm not abstract because I feel "loneliness."

All humans feel emotions...and to discredit these is to not use the heart as the head. We all make some decisions based upon our emotions...and even as far as you can say, you cannot control your emotions all of the time, nor can you manipulate them like a puppeteer dancing his hands merrily on a string marionette. You can't just hide them away all the time...

And by hiding them away, you begin to feel empty, apathetical, drained, held in, lonely.[/quote]

Seems like you?ve missed the point of abstract mastery. I, an Abstractist, do not feel pressed to live by my emotions, nor to have them affect me. Sounds cold, I know, but once you achieve that level of abstract mastery, you can control your emotions with no problem at all. It?s Computational Capacity. People have seen me do it and they?re amazed every single time. I really don?t care if they?re amazed or not; I use Abstractism because I can and because I know how to capitalize off of it.

[quote]Eh. That's about enough for me.[/quote]

Good show there, Mitch. I look forward to your reply when your AOL stops being a little bastard. Lol.

Edit: Here is the link to "567," please read it and comment on it if you're interested enough. I still have yet to finalize it...and any further thoughts on it I'd love to hear. "567."

I will review fully when I get a few minutes.

[Krademon]

True about all that. Abstract thought can derive from an awareness of self and therefore and awareness of ones surroundings. So once on is aware of their surroundings they can speculate about what is beyond those confines, and the confines of self. So really human potential, chaos theories, futurists and art are all a form of abstract thought. Even mathamatics is abstract in the way that one has to find a way to solve a solution that may not be obvious at first. Thus infinity is an abstract way of thinking about the beyond, the world that exists beyond out mental or physical confines. And if you have ever really studied (or made) abstract artwork you find that each section, part and element of that peice has a train of though with it that either emulated an idea, felling or fact. For instance I made a creative peice for a creative presentation where I used red to signify anger. Though in nature red is a symbol of danger and poison using abstract though we can make red into an angry color. Probably because peoples faces flush hen they are angry and blood is red the fact is that humans make that connection to a color in many different ways even though it derives from natural instincts. Red = passion, anger, danger. And abstract thought can express this with images.

[Mitch]

[size=1] I really don't have much to say in response lol. I see something defined such as abstract shouldn't have a venued and certain definition as you seem to claim it has; as in, having complete control of your emotions, doing everything and doing it right, and so on. How is this abstract? How is being in complete control of your emotions abstract, or how is something even labeled as "abstractism." At dictionary.com there [i]is no definition for abstractism[/i]. It doesn't state these things you seem to say are "abstractism."

Abstractism, to me, isn't some state of mind, or some certain way you have to be. I haven't learned it like this...I'm guessing you took some classes or such about it, and from it have coined this term; but to me, abstractism isn't what you say.

And really, all it is is a word. A word put together by letters. That's all abstractism is. Just think about it...by defining "abstractism" you in turn aren't being abstract. You're conforming to this belief that, by the so-called principles you have learned of "abstractism," that this is how and what it is. When in reality...it isn't anything but a definition. You're living [i]by[/i] this definition.

My thoughts on what you have said or unfocused. I don't quite see what you're saying exactly. To me, being abstract is being original.

There's nothing more or less to add to that.[/size]

[Zeos]

[SIZE=1]I believe that God created everything. Yes, I am religious. I believe in God, and I believe he created all life. .. There isn't much more I can say on this topic ..[/SIZE]