Inanimate objects

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Phaedrus']We think we're static beings, when in fact anyone you see at any moment is just a picture-framed passing of what they were in that moment, as they are transposed into something completely different.[/quote][COLOR=maroon]I wasn't looking at the question scientifically at all. In fact, this quote here shows exactly my point: within the smallest quantum of time, nothing is movement. It is a moment, a "picture-framed passing." He never really specified the time frame, so without a fourth dimension, yes, nothing is ever moving.

Logic for the win! ;-) [/COLOR]

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]Science is an abstraction. Math is an abstraction. Science was called "natural philosophy" at a point for a reason. Math is uber-logic. Logic and reason, while very applicable and powerful tools, should not be over-emphasized and over-used just like anything else. Eventually, mankind will find something beyond reason.

I think, perhaps, objects are in constant movement. Everything is much more dynamic than we'd like to think. Yet we believe in some safety-net of a [i]status quo[/i] of things; as if we can freeze ourselves in a cryostasis chamber of the palaces of ice of belief systems.

Well, the beast within me, a long-since frozen wooly, wild mammoth, is now loosed from the bondage. Maybe you frozen flakes of falling snow will heed me for a moment in an enticing glow of global warming, shaking and rocking this little ball of spinning possibility that's one day to be dust, and likely us with it.

Everything is constantly dying and being born, living and going, atoms are in constant movement, your cells are constantly in movement which compose your skin, planets constantly spinning, hearts thudding, stars twinkling. Standing still is moving along with something else.

We think we're static beings, when in fact anyone you see at any moment is just a picture-framed passing of what they were in that moment, as they are transposed into something completely different. You never know anyone, you just meet them, again and again, at varying moments of changed and affluxed moments of movement.

Everything is moving towards something. . .whether we want to move along with it or not. The way things currently are, we'll just be dust in the past, layered on top of things more worthy to be the future.

So are you going to stand still, grasping that doll, that so-called "inanimate object"? That nostalgiac memory of the past? You going to just stare at age-old supernovaed stars that are now twinkling as echoes of the past? Because soon enough, that's going to be mankind.

I'd rather like to propose an "inanimate objection." I object to standing still, and forgetting that mankind's greater purpose is to now evolve itself. You see, nature/ God/ WHATEVER has made us self-aware, and now we can CHOOSE our evolution. It looks like the evolution we choose is one of dependence to those in power--these fools who put on a porcelain face of breaking lies, and dominate and control the direction of our evolution.

It all starts with YOU--all of you, each and every one. If you want something willed into existence, it will be; it might not be easy, but once we decode the HARD of making something easy, the easy follows like smooth, flowing fluid water.

A human being is 90 percent water for a reason! I was watching a movie called "What the bleep do we know" recently. There was this part concerning water. Some water was brought to a zen master, who meditated upon it. This water's molecular form changed. It was brought to someone who was pissed off. This water's form changed.

If our thoughts can do that to water, imagine what our thoughts, actualized into reality, can do to ourselves!

A new system of government. . .immortality. . .a great understanding of the unknown. . .anything and everything: it's all possible, and is happening right now, this instant, to an extent.

Yet at this instant, someone is getting a bullet fired into their head and there's a large scream of yawning bullets whirring around looking for objects to hit. There's people living within a societal system that is so WASTEFUL, wherein material objects are bought, and people work long hours in order to obtain **** they don't need. This instant is a repeating moment of our greatest faults. The crusades, the holocaust, the slaughtering of Native Americans, slavery--THE LIST GOES ON--stain our history, and show how faulty and stupid and inanimate mankind is in this instant of existence.

But what if progress were actualized, so that we were getting maximum improvement towards our evolution? What if we realized we're all fundamentally human beings, aside from these borders of countries and systems of belief (religion, science, mythology, etc.)? WHAT IF? What if hatred came to kindness? What if mankind came together as one great collective, 6 billion + people, all working towards improving our existence upon this earth, and searching greater into the unknown? Are you going to call me such a dreamer? Well, I'm not the only one, and I never will be.

But, heck, stand still; go ahead, I'm not stopping you. Go ahead and move with the past. I'm going to move with the future. . .and I hope you'll join me. I'd give you a clean fork if you had a dirty one; I'd give you a hug and I'd try to bolster you into self-actualization. I would die for all of you, so that you would realize the stunning possibilities.

Standing still is like trying to still sand. There's forces all around you, and you'll just be buried underneath those grains in the desert of your own desolate creation.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Ok, honestly, i got half way and gave up. You were just spewing out bs...though, pretty bs it may be. I actually had to take a break from reading it...i did eventually finish it though.

Seriously though...what the heck did you just say? I don't even know where to begin!

I understand what you said, but i don't understand why you said it or the relevance the majority of it has to do with anything. It seems to me like you just ranted about the crap people do to each other for about half of it. Then some crap about water...and shoot man.

In all honesty, i think you just like to write down pretty words and paint pretty pictures with them...

That's too much bs to handle for me, later.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest INNERCHILD]

I like my Dragon on my desk....
It holds the truth

[Guest Phaedrus]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]I wasn't looking at the question scientifically at all. In fact, this quote here shows exactly my point: within the smallest quantum of time, nothing is movement. It is a moment, a "picture-framed passing." He never really specified the time frame, so without a fourth dimension, yes, nothing is ever moving.

Logic for the win! ;-) [/COLOR][/QUOTE]


Actually, logic for the loss.

In Leary's 8 circuit consciousness ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-Circuit_Model_of_Consciousness]wiki article[/url], [url=http://www.futurehi.net/docs/8circuit.html]another interesting article[/url]), logic is in the 3rd circuit, controlled by the left side of the brain. You're likely right-handed and left-brained. Logic is a primitive aspect of our mind, which has recently reached some kind of apex. However, the right side of the brain contains circuits of metacognition, the memory of our DNA, and even being beyond temporality, spatiality, relativity, and things of this nature. Our evolution will involve going beyond this "logic" which you love so dearly, and employing the higher aspects contained in our right hemisphere so that we can choose our evolution.

Everything is really the 0 dimension. It's all in a dot, like a drop of water falling endlessly into itself and everything. Dimensionality is just an illusion of your mind. Temporality is an illusion of your mind. Relativity is an illusion of your mind. Spatiality is an illusion of your mind.

You're a relative being, so you choose one possibility out of many, and limit the precepts of your existence.

I remember walking on rain-wettened pavement, and seeing a street light reflecting light onto the wet pavement. I tried to imagine what it would be like to see all relative possibilities for the way in which that light could fall on the pavement. And if I moved myself, I could find some of those possbilities. But what would it look like if I could see all the relative possibilities at once?

Notice that the atomists called the atom "the smallest possible piece of matter," yet the atom as we define it today is anything but. You can chop and slow down the frames of passing moments, but they are STILL moving. Just like with atoms, it's possible to endlessly fragment time and spatiality, because these things don't even really exist. However, as much as you fragment these things, there is never a point where you can stop fragmenting them, and you reach a point where it's as small as it possibly could be.

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Phaedrus']Everything is really the 0 dimension. It's all in a dot, like a drop of water falling endlessly into itself and everything. Dimensionality is just an illusion of your mind. Temporality is an illusion of your mind. Relativity is an illusion of your mind. Spatiality is an illusion of your mind.[/quote][COLOR=maroon]You're contradicting yourself here. Zero dimension means a lack of any existence or motion, meaning (once again, logic for the win) nothing is moving. If your fundamental point is that nothing exists, then I'm right again in saying an object is capable of not moving. All I see here are assumptions that only agree with my initial statement. I'm fine with your unsupported assumptions, but that doesn't help you prove me wrong...

Not only that, but you follow up the sentence with "it's all a dot," which is a three dimensional object (with an infinitesimally small depth)... This again, is a contradiction. You cannot use three dimensional concepts while at the same time denouncing their existence.

The first three dimensions are necessary for any existence, regardless of whether we percieve it or not. The fourth makes motion.[/COLOR]

[Guest Phaedrus]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]You're contradicting yourself here. Zero dimension means a lack of any existence or motion, meaning (once again, logic for the win) nothing is moving. If your fundamental point is that nothing exists, then I'm right again in saying an object is capable of not moving. All I see here are assumptions that only agree with my initial statement. I'm fine with your unsupported assumptions, but that doesn't help you prove me wrong...

Not only that, but you follow up the sentence with "it's all a dot," which is a three dimensional object (with an infinitesimally small depth)... This again, is a contradiction. You cannot use three dimensional concepts while at the same time denouncing their existence.

The first three dimensions are necessary for any existence, regardless of whether we percieve it or not. The fourth makes motion.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]


Fair enough, Aristotle.

Contradiction is an aspect of logic. I am beyond logic. Therefore, contradiction doesn't apply to me.

Thank you.

By the way, everything exists, whether you're conscious of it or not. You don't have to be conscious, AKA have dimensionality, in order for things to exist. It exists, whether you dimensionalize and relativize it or not.

I meant a dot, which is neither two-dimensional nor one-dimensional nor three-dimensional. But I'm sure you can't grasp that, so nevermind. Here, try this on for size: [url]http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/zero.html[/url]

[Dodeca]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]Contradiction is an aspect of logic. I am beyond logic. Therefore, contradiction doesn't apply to me.

Thank you[/quote]
[quote name='Phaedrus']But I'm sure you can't grasp that, so nevermind.[/quote]
[SIZE=1]
You may be 'beyond logic', but you don't seem to be beyond arrogance. That last post truly wreaked of it, I'm afraid. And... err... I'm not even going to try arguing against you, as I can't come close to making sense of the whole abstract thing. >.<

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I like rocks. I don't think you can get much more inanimate than a normal, stable rock. Why do I like them? Well... have you ever found it easier to think with a rock in your hand?

Oh, and throwing them gets rid of stress so easily. 'Tis great, and so are rocks.[/SIZE]

[Cicatrice Du Adieu]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
I meant a dot, which is neither two-dimensional nor one-dimensional nor three-dimensional. But I'm sure you can't grasp that, so nevermind. Here, try this on for size: [url]http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/zero.html[/url][/QUOTE]

If you drew a dot on a paper it would be 2 dimensional. You can measure its length an width.



"The Zero Dimension is the point, the infinitely small place holder. It exists not in space, but in time only. It is the moment between past and future, the subject, zero. It constitutes potentiality, the four space dimensions constitute actuality. The Zero Dimension is the home of Natural Numbers. The subject point, the moment, is Zero, pure Awareness. Its numbers are the natural numerals.


The nine natural numbers are the basis of quality and invariance. All numbers can be reduced to the nine: for example by addition: 365 = 14 = 5. Becoming aware therefore means deducing or abstracting to the nine fundamental criteria. In the Jewish Cabala this is the nine names of the divine, in Chinese it is the nine forms of the Tao. "

What the **** does that mean?

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=Dodeca][SIZE=1]
You may be 'beyond logic', but you don't seem to be beyond arrogance. That last post truly wreaked of it, I'm afraid.

[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I'm going to have to agree with him here. I also think most of this argument so far was a 5th dimension of BS.

Phaedrus, you remind me of Victor Frankenstein. Victor in his youth read many "science" books written by crackpot scientists. Lots of crazy crap that pretty much everybody discredited, but he believed in them. He believed so much that he eventually created the creature and lost everything. I personally think the majority of your stuff is coming from loonies. ^L^ Also, i think the way you word things is totally unnecessary and are meant more to go ooo and aaa, and not so much to think about the actual meaning behind it.

Also...how on earth can you possibly hate logic so much!? That's illogical! <_< I suppose that's just it, isn't it? You're illogical.

Eh...maybe all of this is beyond me, but if it isn't, then i'd have to say that this whole argument is ridiculous.

I mean...seeing all the posibilities at once in the pool of water on the street!? What would be the point of seeing them all at once? Why? How? Why at once? It just does not make sense.

<_< Urgh...
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Cicatrice Du Adieu]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I'm going to have to agree with him here. I also think most of this argument so far was a 5th dimension of BS.

Phaedrus, you remind me of Victor Frankenstein. Victor in his youth read many "science" books written by crackpot scientists. Lots of crazy crap that pretty much everybody discredited, but he believed in them. He believed so much that he eventually created the creature and lost everything. I personally think the majority of your stuff is coming from loonies. ^L^ Also, i think the way you word things is totally unnecessary and are meant more to go ooo and aaa, and not so much to think about the actual meaning behind it.

Also...how on earth can you possibly hate logic so much!? That's illogical! <_< I suppose that's just it, isn't it? You're illogical.

Eh...maybe all of this is beyond me, but if it isn't, then i'd have to say that this whole argument is ridiculous.

I mean...seeing all the posibilities at once in the pool of water on the street!? What would be the point of seeing them all at once? Why? How? Why at once? It just does not make sense.

<_< Urgh...
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I need help grasping this. What's going on?

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I mean...seeing all the posibilities at once in the pool of water on the street!? What would be the point of seeing them all at once? Why? How? Why at once? It just does not make sense. [/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=crimson]He's referring to the reflection of the street light into the pool of water.

The way you situate yourself or position yourself in relation to the puddle of water affects what you see. If you move yourself around the puddle of water you can view, to a limited degree, other variations of the same scene but you can never fully grasp the [b]entire situation[/b] because you are tethered to one point of view relative to the environment at hand.

You are a character in the play so you cannot see it as the audience would see it, you can only see it relative to being an actor within that environment.

His daydream involves not being forced into his one point of view of a given object/situation/otherwise. He wants to see it from every angle at once, to see all the possible views that could be seen in a given environment/moment/otherwise.[/color]

[Guest Phaedrus]

Yes, what DK said.

The Western mind is a funny thing. . .the funniest thing is how unaware people are of it: unaware of the heritage, unaware of the basic way their minds work. They're so steeped within the tradition that it's all they know. . .and when someone comes along like me, they just sit there and blink and call such a person crazy.

It all comes down to metacognition (thinking about thinking). Your mind has been programmed by your culture to think a certain way, act a certain way, and be a certain way. The question is if you're willing to reprogram your programming and realize the amazing knowledge you can gain by doing so.

The things I'm saying here make no sense to you because you're still very steeped within your tradition. That of Aristotle, Bacon, and all the long string of men whose shoulders you now BLINDLY stand upon, unaware of all the presuppositions of reality, and its nature, they made.

Even this language presupposes so much about the nature of things. I'd like to call it a "subject-object metaphysics," meaning it proposes a hefty amount of dualisms (cutting the wholesomeness of reality into two diametrically opposed "halves"), the main dualism one of the objective versus the subjective.

This language works as follows: first there is a (subject), and this (subject) perceives an [object]. The (subject) then gives the [object] qualities and actions, ie a verb. When in reality, the object the subject perceives has quality and action independent of the observed, relative ones the subject assigns.

This "subjective objectivity," found in science and many, many other areas of the Western tradition, is quite horrendous at times, due to the people who put it in practice. Because that's what this is--as much as we sit here and say we're "objective," we are anything but. Reality really all starts at the mind; at a subjective instance, and from there this reality is inferred.

Science concerns HUMAN understanding, just like religion did, just like mythology did. It's the best belief structure for understanding reality we currently have, but many are so dogmatically steeped within it that it's hard to postulate beyond the domains of "logic" and all other-such things. Because there is something beyond logic.

This science you adore so much: it is a great thing. However, you must realize it doesn't contain TRUTH. It contains THEORIES and presuppositions, that are human and therefore subjective. A scientist asks a question searching for a particular answer, and exhausts all resources in order to find this particular answer. This leads to a limited, RELATIVE, perception of any problem--which is what science has. Science concerns RELATIVE understanding, and has many pragmatic uses, which will help lead us beyond this logic and science itself. Perhaps science will still be science, but it will be fundamentally altered eventually, as we go beyond relativity and othersuch illusions, so that greater progress can be made.

It takes an ILLOGICAL leap in order to use logic. Logic is not inherent in the universe. . .it's more like organized chaos. It's sectors and areas that are organized and then left to do as they wish, in a type of chaos. It's not even inherent in human nature, and that is why it has only RECENTLY reached some kind of apex. There IS something beyond this logic the Western mind is so steeped in, and it involves accessing structures within the right hemisphere to a greater degree.

Call me crazy if you'd like. . .it doesn't matter. The future is already in motion, and if you live long enough you'll come to see I was right, at least in some way. Hopefully you inanimate objects begin careening into animation soon enough.

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]Fair enough, Aristotle.

Contradiction is an aspect of logic. I am beyond logic. Therefore, contradiction doesn't apply to me.

Thank you.

By the way, everything exists, whether you're conscious of it or not. You don't have to be conscious, AKA have dimensionality, in order for things to exist. It exists, whether you dimensionalize and relativize it or not.

I meant a dot, which is neither two-dimensional nor one-dimensional nor three-dimensional. But I'm sure you can't grasp that, so nevermind. Here, try this on for size: [url]http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/zero.html[/url][/QUOTE][COLOR=maroon]You cannot be beyond logic if you are putting words together logically, nevermind the letters themselves. Once again, you cannot use something to argue against that very thing. It's like using an act of God to disprove God.

Don't confuse abstract concepts with dimensionality (since you're probably a philosophy major, you probably heard it called "abstraction" or some BS like that. While I realize some philosophers exclusively use that term to sound all cool and unique, it's is still a type of concept). Just because you use the word "dimension" in your synonym for abstract concepts, doesn't change the fact that it's a nonexistent conception. It is not an object until it enters the spatial dimensions, since that's the fundamental definition of "object." People believe in hundreds of dimensions, parallel universes and all that jazz, but none of it defines an object as the three spatial ones do.

Which brings me back to the point I made before about objects being capable of not moving. Everything else you said... I don't see any bearing to the object in motion stuff.[/COLOR]

Two sidenotes:

1. the term "zero dimension" makes me laugh, like the philosophers realized how cool it was to have a zeroth law of thermodyanmics and wanted to copy it.

2. ink on paper still has a thickness, one that is very small, but thick all the same. A piece of paper also has a thickness/depth, but we never really consider that dimension because it's not really useful for writing, lol. Consider the thickness of a coin and then think of compressing it flatter, and you'll get a sense of how depth is never removed, only becomes negligible.

[Cicatrice Du Adieu]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]Yes, what DK said.

The Western mind is a funny thing. . .the funniest thing is how unaware people are of it: unaware of the heritage, unaware of the basic way their minds work. They're so steeped within the tradition that it's all they know. . .and when someone comes along like me, they just sit there and blink and call such a person crazy.

It all comes down to metacognition (thinking about thinking). Your mind has been programmed by your culture to think a certain way, act a certain way, and be a certain way. The question is if you're willing to reprogram your programming and realize the amazing knowledge you can gain by doing so.

The things I'm saying here make no sense to you because you're still very steeped within your tradition. That of Aristotle, Bacon, and all the long string of men whose shoulders you now BLINDLY stand upon, unaware of all the presuppositions of reality, and its nature, they made.

Even this language presupposes so much about the nature of things. I'd like to call it a "subject-object metaphysics," meaning it proposes a hefty amount of dualisms (cutting the wholesomeness of reality into two diametrically opposed "halves"), the main dualism one of the objective versus the subjective.

This language works as follows: first there is a (subject), and this (subject) perceives an [object]. The (subject) then gives the [object] qualities and actions, ie a verb. When in reality, the object the subject perceives has quality and action independent of the observed, relative ones the subject assigns.

This "subjective objectivity," found in science and many, many other areas of the Western tradition, is quite horrendous at times, due to the people who put it in practice. Because that's what this is--as much as we sit here and say we're "objective," we are anything but. Reality really all starts at the mind; at a subjective instance, and from there this reality is inferred.

Science concerns HUMAN understanding, just like religion did, just like mythology did. It's the best belief structure for understanding reality we currently have, but many are so dogmatically steeped within it that it's hard to postulate beyond the domains of "logic" and all other-such things. Because there is something beyond logic.

This science you adore so much: it is a great thing. However, you must realize it doesn't contain TRUTH. It contains THEORIES and presuppositions, that are human and therefore subjective. A scientist asks a question searching for a particular answer, and exhausts all resources in order to find this particular answer. This leads to a limited, RELATIVE, perception of any problem--which is what science has. Science concerns RELATIVE understanding, and has many pragmatic uses, which will help lead us beyond this logic and science itself. Perhaps science will still be science, but it will be fundamentally altered eventually, as we go beyond relativity and othersuch illusions, so that greater progress can be made.

It takes an ILLOGICAL leap in order to use logic. Logic is not inherent in the universe. . .it's more like organized chaos. It's sectors and areas that are organized and then left to do as they wish, in a type of chaos. It's not even inherent in human nature, and that is why it has only RECENTLY reached some kind of apex. There IS something beyond this logic the Western mind is so steeped in, and it involves accessing structures within the right hemisphere to a greater degree.

Call me crazy if you'd like. . .it doesn't matter. The future is already in motion, and if you live long enough you'll come to see I was right, at least in some way. Hopefully you inanimate objects begin careening into animation soon enough.[/QUOTE]

So to sum this post up your calling us idiots locked within the knowledge we know already and unwilling to update?You arrogant [I]SNOB!!![/I] You don't give us any credit. We may Know more than you think yet [I]you[/I] give us not one chance to prove our philosophies?

Ok and think about this. If I were locked in a box I would think your crazy and call it quits and abandon your thinking. I am currently sitting at the edge of my seat trying to learn all I can from anyone I camn to increase all I know and form my own opinions, molding a philosophie all my own.

This post hurts. It makes me feel stupid. I mean i'm already reduced to copieing papers in science because of my overactive thinking and now you tell me I can't even do that right?

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]Yes, what DK said.

The Western mind is a funny thing. . .the funniest thing is how unaware people are of it: unaware of the heritage, unaware of the basic way their minds work. They're so steeped within the tradition that it's all they know. . .and when someone comes along like me, they just sit there and blink and call such a person crazy. [/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]::blink:: You're crazy.

Joking aside, this is a fairly offensive claim. You are quite arrogant, my friend.

Also, i remember you now. You started the "Philosophy" thread a while back. ::scratch:: whatever happened to that?
[/FONT][/COLOR]


[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
It all comes down to metacognition (thinking about thinking). Your mind has been programmed by your culture to think a certain way, act a certain way, and be a certain way. The question is if you're willing to reprogram your programming and realize the amazing knowledge you can gain by doing so. [/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Hey buddy, i chose my own programming, thank you very much. And c'mon, don't take us for such fools. We know how to think on our own. I have come to the conclusion that logic is something to be valued, i don't see why you have to blame the brainwashing society on that.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
The things I'm saying here make no sense to you because you're still very steeped within your tradition. That of Aristotle, Bacon, and all the long string of men whose shoulders you now BLINDLY stand upon, unaware of all the presuppositions of reality, and its nature, they made. [/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]
Not once did i say i didn't understand...i don't think i did anyways. What i was saying was that i disagree and think most of what you say is a load of bull.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
Even this language presupposes so much about the nature of things. I'd like to call it a "subject-object metaphysics," meaning it proposes a hefty amount of dualisms (cutting the wholesomeness of reality into two diametrically opposed "halves"), the main dualism one of the objective versus the subjective.

This language works as follows: first there is a (subject), and this (subject) perceives an [object]. The (subject) then gives the [object] qualities and actions, ie a verb. When in reality, the object the subject perceives has quality and action independent of the observed, relative ones the subject assigns.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]So basically you're saying...things aren't always how they seem? That just because we say that something is doesn't make it so? What is the point of even saying that?
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
This "subjective objectivity," found in science and many, many other areas of the Western tradition, is quite horrendous at times, due to the people who put it in practice. Because that's what this is--as much as we sit here and say we're "objective," we are anything but. Reality really all starts at the mind; at a subjective instance, and from there this reality is inferred. [/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Are you saying that reality is subjective? Perhaps reality as one percieves it is subjective, but reality itself is not. And what is even the point of saying reality as we percieve is subjective? That's an unnecessary claim of ignorance.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
Science concerns HUMAN understanding, just like religion did, just like mythology did. It's the best belief structure for understanding reality we currently have, but many are so dogmatically steeped within it that it's hard to postulate beyond the domains of "logic" and all other-such things. Because there is something beyond logic.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Ok, buddy, it's about time you start giving us some of this anti-logic you keep talking about. What is there beyond logic that one day everybody will see? What's so horrible about trying to understand what we percieve? What is the point of seeking reality? Why do you hold reality in such high regards? What's wrong with the world as you percieve it?
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
This science you adore so much: it is a great thing. However, you must realize it doesn't contain TRUTH. It contains THEORIES and presuppositions, that are human and therefore subjective. A scientist asks a question searching for a particular answer, and exhausts all resources in order to find this particular answer. This leads to a limited, RELATIVE, perception of any problem--which is what science has. Science concerns RELATIVE understanding, and has many pragmatic uses, which will help lead us beyond this logic and science itself. Perhaps science will still be science, but it will be fundamentally altered eventually, as we go beyond relativity and othersuch illusions, so that greater progress can be made.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]What understanding of science do you have? Are you a philosopher or a chemist? Both perhaps? I'd like to know exactly how credible this information is.

Science contains truth in the reality that is percieved by humans. You said a while back that you don't believe in absolutes, but it seems here that you do. You imply that there is an absolute truth that is yet to discovered.

A scientist asks a question seeking the answer to that question, not a particular answer. If his experiment yields unexpected results then he will try his best to decipher these results. He is trying to understand the world about him, not manipulate the world to his understanding. I believe you don't give science enough credit... probably due to your arrogance.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
It takes an ILLOGICAL leap in order to use logic. Logic is not inherent in the universe. . .it's more like organized chaos. It's sectors and areas that are organized and then left to do as they wish, in a type of chaos. It's not even inherent in human nature, and that is why it has only RECENTLY reached some kind of apex. There IS something beyond this logic the Western mind is so steeped in, and it involves accessing structures within the right hemisphere to a greater degree. [/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Seriously, you're going to have to start backing up your claims with some evidence. You can't just make claims then not explain why you believe them.


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Phaedrus]
Call me crazy if you'd like. . .it doesn't matter. The future is already in motion, and if you live long enough you'll come to see I was right, at least in some way. Hopefully you inanimate objects begin careening into animation soon enough.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Haha, the future is already in motion, that made me laugh. How can that which has yet to come be in motion? Only the present is in motion. The future is like potential energy, motionless but with the potential to become kinetic energy.

And i am not inanimate! A bit lazy maybe....but not inanimate! XP


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DeadSeraphim]

[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Don't encourage him guys. Honestly. He thinks he's better than all of you for "thinking different", and you can't rationalize him otherwise. It doesn't work. Give up while you still have your sanity.

For the longest time I took solace in the fact that my teddy bear was a constant. All through my life, the teddy was that one inanimate object that was always there. Oddly, when I gave it to my ex (who lives overseas), and we eventually split, not having that object seemed to spur change. I'm a much different person now than I was when I actually had blue ted, and I think I prefer it. Of course, it can't all be put down to the bear being gone, but it's loss is style a definite marker of a turning point in my life.[/font][/color][/size]

[Cicatrice Du Adieu]

[QUOTE=DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Don't encourage him guys. Honestly. He thinks he's better than all of you for "thinking different", and you can't rationalize him otherwise. It doesn't work. Give up while you still have your sanity.

For the longest time I took solace in the fact that my teddy bear was a constant. All through my life, the teddy was that one inanimate object that was always there. Oddly, when I gave it to my ex (who lives overseas), and we eventually split, not having that object seemed to spur change. I'm a much different person now than I was when I actually had blue ted, and I think I prefer it. Of course, it can't all be put down to the bear being gone, but it's loss is style a definite marker of a turning point in my life.[/font][/color][/size][/QUOTE]

Wow. A teddy bear means alot more than I thought it meant. Ya' know what? I'm kind of glad that I'm not the only one who likes "childish"(as most poeple veiw it) Objects. My love for the carousel horse and music box remains. Acually my love for the Carousel horse has to do with a trip to the mall with a carousel in it, now that I think of it. It was closing and the carousel was dark and beautiful. I fell in love with it then and always seemed fond of it.

[The13thMan]

[quote name='lostvoice']Wow. A teddy bear means alot more than I thought it meant. Ya' know what? I'm kind of glad that I'm not the only one who likes "childish"(as most poeple veiw it) Objects. My love for the carousel horse and music box remains. Acually my love for the Carousel horse has to do with a trip to the mall with a carousel in it, now that I think of it. It was closing and the carousel was dark and beautiful. I fell in love with it then and always seemed fond of it.[/quote]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I personally really like childish things, and i rarely think badly upon a person for still being attached to childish things. I personally still love my blankey. Although...it's been forever since i've seen the thing, but i still recall it with fond memories. If i could find it i'd probably start using it again. It was ideal for hot summer evenings when you just wanted a little warmth over your mid section. I don't know why, but i can rarely get to sleep unless there's a blanket over me, i think it's a sort of comfort thing. I mean, i can be dead tired, but unless there's a blanket on me i can't get to sleep.

I also still love my old SNES system. ^L^


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Cicatrice Du Adieu]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I personally really like childish things, and i rarely think badly upon a person for still being attached to childish things. I personally still love my blankey. Although...it's been forever since i've seen the thing, but i still recall it with fond memories. If i could find it i'd probably start using it again. It was ideal for hot summer evenings when you just wanted a little warmth over your mid section. I don't know why, but i can rarely get to sleep unless there's a blanket over me, i think it's a sort of comfort thing. I mean, i can be dead tired, but unless there's a blanket on me i can't get to sleep.

I also still love my old SNES system. ^L^


[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I had a Blankey, too! My mother took it away and put it in a keepsake box. I was five then and started bawling when she told me it ran away. She gave me a different one but it wasn't blankey so I rejected it.

I too have trouble getting to sleep without a blanket. It makes me feel safe and secure. If I don't have one I feel too exposed, to "in the open", as if I were nude so it keeps me wide awake and too aware to sleep.