M.P.: Mathematics offer a truer expression of the universe than has ever been found, and the computer you are typing on is as good proof as any that it works.
Me: Mathematics expresses a framework. It is a tool, and is used as such, but it is a framework and does not dictate anything and everything. It can't explain everything, and it only expresses one aspect of life in the universe.
C.K.: Indeed, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
M.P.: Math doesn't dictate the universe, the universe dictates mathematics. Math is the language of the universe and everything inside the universe so far as we can tell, can be expressed mathematically.The reason why spiritual things can't be expressed mathematically is that it is a construct of human imagination and fear. Nothing more, nothing less.
C.K.: Language & music are also constructs, or realizations, of human imagination, & music can be expressed & uunderstood mathematically, although we don't usually do that while we are being moved by it. Mathematics is a very useful, & beautiful, tool, a facet of understanding. As with all tools, however sophisticated, it does however have its limits.
M.P.: I would hesitate to equate language and music with spirituality. Sure, they are both our constructs, but they are also concrete things that are tangible and relatable to physical world as well as having a deep seated emotional place in our minds. I would sooner equate spirituality with love. Love seems like such a mystical, unknowable special thing, yet when you think about it, love is just the tool that evolution used to pair bond us when we hit the tipping point in our past where monogamy became evolutionarily favourable over polygamy.
The same goes for spirituality. Our brains are incredibly powerful, yet very fallible machines. If you've ever read a book about optical illusions you may know what I'm talking about. Pages seemingly becoming 3D is not a trick of light, but our brains failing to recognize what it's looking at. compound this with lack of knowledge about what one is looking at and the human tendancy to make arguments from ignorance (eg: "I see a weird object in the sky. I don't know what it is. Therefore, it must be aliens."). Put all these together and you have an explanation for all sorts of weird spiritual practices prevalent in humanity without having to resort to metaphysics.
Me: The dry evolutionary worldview, once again, is an effective tool for the sake of explanation and reasoning. Evolution itself was and is much more of a complicated and beautiful process than all the books in the world could explain, and science is a way of explaining and connecting things. It has nowhere near found certainty, and nothing in existence can be boiled down to a theory of knowledge that can define existence itself. It can only give us an outline. Knowledge has limits, and existence, to me, is objective AND subjective, not one or the other. Although the original reasons for why we do certain things can be traced back in evolution, the reasons for why we do them now are completely new ones, and steeped in the greater evolution and progression of our intelligences and beauty, as well as creativity. Our reasons now are no longer primitive, but spiritual with our understanding as to why we do them, and with the realization that we have a large amount of choice in the matter.
I'm not talking about religious spirituality, nor am I implying there are things like a heaven and hell we must abide to. Spirituality is the act of living every moment to it's fullest and being happy about it, as opposed to standing back and observing everything, which also has it's time and place, and can be carried out spiritually as well. Passivity versus passion.
Another thing to recognize and obtain is wisdom. As a human being, I recognize that in all honesty, I cannot know everything, and may very well know nothing. "Doubt is not a comfortable feeling, but certainty is absurd."
M.P.: Our universe is ordered, and we know that it's laws have been at least relatively consistent since the big bang by charting the movements of celestial bodies. If the universe is ordered, then we can use its own laws and mechanisms to describe how it is ordered. This is the basis of mathematics. Mathematics only work because of the way the universe works. Math is a language dictated by the universe.
Me: Math is a language that speaks, once again, a framework. It doesn't know all the words.Think about it. Yes, math can calculate the movement of celestial bodies, but recently scientists and mathematicians realized a majority of there mathematics formulas- which told them that most of the celestial bodies they were observing should, logically, eventually move out of orbit, realized there was something large missing, as these planets did NOT move out of their orbits as predicted. In order to reconcile these formulas with observation and make them even have a semblance of sense, they had to add a variable to the mix- the 'fudge factor' known as Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, or whatever you want to call it. No one has any idea what Dark Matter is, could, would, or should be; it's simply been arbitrarily added to the equations because it's the only way to make said formulas and equations make sense in light of observation which has countered all scientific logic. Turns out.. whatever Dark Matter or Dark Energy is, it makes up 90% of the cosmos.That's a lot to sweep under the rug, and then decide the Universe is inherently ordered and now makes sense. All science and mathematics do are recognize patterns on our level of perspective. I mean.. also consider quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Both are, in essence, paradoxes in the scientific and mathematic worlds. The only patterns that have been noted are patterns of consistently breaking patterns and being unpredictable, or predictable only to a certain degree. The Universe is not inherently anything, as far as anyone can see, and anyone, whether they are religious or scientific, are fooling themselves if they decide otherwise.
Despite ambitions and, perhaps, illusions to the contrary, the message that science brings is that what we know is so vastly outstripped by what we don't know.
M.P.: The fact that we don't know what dark matter or energy is does not mean that the universe is unordered. It just means that there is a phenomena out there that we don't know about yet. What you say about quantum mechanics is downright untrue. Quantum physics behaves in a way completely outside the realm of human comprehension, but it can still be modeled mathematically which is why we are able to use it. Nobody can understand the true nature of an electron intuitively, but through the use of rigorous testing and a great deal of mathematics we can describe its properties and behavior even if it doesn't make intuitive sense to the physicist.
As for the uncertainty principal and the way it means that we can't accurately find the momentum and position of a particle at a certain scale, that is not a failing of mathematics or our abilities of perception, it is a reflection of the nature of the particle. It acts as a particle but also as a wave like nothing we are familiar with and so there isn't any actual information at that certain range. The momentum and position of the particle in question is actually a probability distribution as opposed to a newtonian absolute.
I also agree that even with a billion years, we'll never understand everything in the cosmos, but that won't be because it can't be theorized, only that it takes so much data and so much precision to describe sonething like a protein mathematically that it isn't worth our time to do it when there are other ways of getting the information using the principals of physics and chemistry applied in certain ways. That is how specialized sciences like chemistry and biology came into being and why they still exist. But these thugs still can be described physically.
Me: Math attempts to express, just like language does, things that are inherently intangible, but understandable in the abstract sense they are framed in via mathematics. If something is not intuitively understood, it is not really understood or understandable. It can only be expressed as an abstract, which math does incredibly well, but not as accurately or as realistically as intuition could were such things as quantum physics and the entirety of the Universe actually able to be experienced. Sadly, as human beings, all we are able to do is experience from our level of perspective on planet Earth. Beyond all of this, whether we are looking into what makes us and the Earth, or what is in the vastness of the cosmos, we are only curious and deductive spectators. We can and will not ever understand everything.
I mean.. think about it. What's going to give you a better understanding of my house? My description of it to you? Sure, it could be quite accurate and detailed, but you wouldn't really understand until you experienced my house for yourself.. as in, touched it, saw it, and explored it.
We cannot do that on the quantum level, nor can we do that on a cosmological level.
In all of these cases, we only taste the truth. No matter how in-depth or comprehensive we get.
Negative capability is a proper way to humble our scientific, philosophical, and psychological arrogance.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
On the Unalterable Truth to 'Happiness' or 'Suffering.'
It seems that we are constantly fighting a battle.
It is, in many regards, an imaginary battle inside of our brains, and perhaps it proves the AdBusters slogan that "World War III will be fought inside our minds."
As a species, we are going through a stage of great transition, in which spiritual certainties have been tossed out of the mainstream and into obscurity, and replaced by both scientifically-driven uncertainty, or scientifically motivated pushes for some sort of objective certainty.
In many circles, it seems to have been established that 'happiness' resides outside of the scientific truths, and resides only in what staunch scientists would consider to be the naive minds of the spiritually certain.
This is epitomized in Voltaire's quote: "Happiness is an illusion; only suffering is real."
Now, the strange thing is, Voltaire himself did not seem like a generally unhappy person. Although it is undeniable that he went through plenty of trials during his lifetime (as all human beings naturally do), he lived a full and exciting life with many critics and many fans, and just as many enemies and allies.
One thing to note in reading quotations of any sort is that truth is spoken in every single one of them, the above quotation included.
However, this is a hypocrisy as there are plenty of other quotations that support happiness as an unalterable truth, and others that tell us it is alright to commit homicide, genocide, or (God forbid) even infanticide. There is more power in any and all words that are given the extra merit of quotation marks followed by a dash and the italicized name of the individual who spoke them, which is undoubtedly added to if the individual has been dead for years, decades, centuries, or millenia and therefore has been cemented as having spoken a truth that appeals to an objective reality.
Wisdom, in all cases, supersedes intellectual ability and one must have both in order to be a true and honest intellectual. One of the many honest truths in life is that there is no single and objective honest truth regarding anything at all. Even your very existence is infinitely questionable. Our current struggle for happiness and our seeming inabilities to obtain said happiness arises most prominently from within ourselves as opposed to external societal pressures (although said pressures are a contributor), and can be found in our lust to pursue it. Voltaire is correct when he says 'happiness' is an illusion in the sense that we seem to lust for it as we lust for so many other feelings and things within our lives, and hence, feel the need to pursue it, expending all of our time, energy, and resources on things that may have satisfied us for a moment, but always leave us disillusioned in the long-run when we consider that it was a nice kick while it lasted, but only while it lasted. Hence, we continue to 'pursue' happiness as if it's something that can and should be caught, as Benjamin Franklin suggested. It is essentially these predetermined expectations remaining eternally unfulfilled that lead to our endless sufferings, whether it is something as complicated as existential suffering, or as simple as unrequited love or a lack of general satisfaction. 'Suffering,' to, is just as much an illusion as the expected happiness outlined above, and is only reached when someone gives up on their long-term goal of 'one day becoming happy,' and instead decides to live exclusively in the present; or, not so much 'live' in the present as 'die' in the present. The human mind, one must realize, is a delusion generator, even in the minds of the giants upon whose shoulders we stand (ironically, probably more often in their minds as opposed to others as they have both a vast conscious and unconscious ability of thought which can find the time and energy to prove and justify just about anything quite convincingly and credibly).
The truth is that both 'happiness' and 'suffering' are nothing but ideas. Words used to define and categorize intrinsically intangible aspects of our experiences, placing them in a box of thought and selling them as this, that, or the other thing. 'Happiness' and 'suffering' are both blanket terms which can, should, and are used in an attempt to describe or define many different things; from physical pleasure to physical pain, psychological contentedness to psychological discontent, satisfaction to frustration, and so on and so forth, all of which are, in themselves, a micromanaged attempt to define and categorize intangible experiences. It is when one realizes that most of their 'happiness' or 'suffering' arises from a tug of war between conceptual ideas both claiming, at different capacities, to be an objective truth, and which can create deep inner turmoil for those who make an attempt to buy into one or the other, or see one or the other as potentially being the one and only objective truth, that one can take a step back from everything. Once that step back has been taken, the individual will notice that each and every quote, claim, religion, scientific theory, and individual outlook speaks a truth. But not an inalienable, all-enveloping truth. Just a truth in a universe that does not even recognize truth, as truth is nothing but an idea as well, and is simply one of the many words we use in an attempt to define the intangible.
Does that make it any less honest?
Of course not. Have faith in yourself and in others, and have faith in the universe as well. Beyond these 3 aspects of life, have faith in anything you wish to have faith in.
"The only thing that we know is that we know nothing, and that is the highest flight of human wisdom." -Aristotle.
And wisdom seems to be something that the world today lacks quite abundantly.
It is, in many regards, an imaginary battle inside of our brains, and perhaps it proves the AdBusters slogan that "World War III will be fought inside our minds."
As a species, we are going through a stage of great transition, in which spiritual certainties have been tossed out of the mainstream and into obscurity, and replaced by both scientifically-driven uncertainty, or scientifically motivated pushes for some sort of objective certainty.
In many circles, it seems to have been established that 'happiness' resides outside of the scientific truths, and resides only in what staunch scientists would consider to be the naive minds of the spiritually certain.
This is epitomized in Voltaire's quote: "Happiness is an illusion; only suffering is real."
Now, the strange thing is, Voltaire himself did not seem like a generally unhappy person. Although it is undeniable that he went through plenty of trials during his lifetime (as all human beings naturally do), he lived a full and exciting life with many critics and many fans, and just as many enemies and allies.
One thing to note in reading quotations of any sort is that truth is spoken in every single one of them, the above quotation included.
However, this is a hypocrisy as there are plenty of other quotations that support happiness as an unalterable truth, and others that tell us it is alright to commit homicide, genocide, or (God forbid) even infanticide. There is more power in any and all words that are given the extra merit of quotation marks followed by a dash and the italicized name of the individual who spoke them, which is undoubtedly added to if the individual has been dead for years, decades, centuries, or millenia and therefore has been cemented as having spoken a truth that appeals to an objective reality.
Wisdom, in all cases, supersedes intellectual ability and one must have both in order to be a true and honest intellectual. One of the many honest truths in life is that there is no single and objective honest truth regarding anything at all. Even your very existence is infinitely questionable. Our current struggle for happiness and our seeming inabilities to obtain said happiness arises most prominently from within ourselves as opposed to external societal pressures (although said pressures are a contributor), and can be found in our lust to pursue it. Voltaire is correct when he says 'happiness' is an illusion in the sense that we seem to lust for it as we lust for so many other feelings and things within our lives, and hence, feel the need to pursue it, expending all of our time, energy, and resources on things that may have satisfied us for a moment, but always leave us disillusioned in the long-run when we consider that it was a nice kick while it lasted, but only while it lasted. Hence, we continue to 'pursue' happiness as if it's something that can and should be caught, as Benjamin Franklin suggested. It is essentially these predetermined expectations remaining eternally unfulfilled that lead to our endless sufferings, whether it is something as complicated as existential suffering, or as simple as unrequited love or a lack of general satisfaction. 'Suffering,' to, is just as much an illusion as the expected happiness outlined above, and is only reached when someone gives up on their long-term goal of 'one day becoming happy,' and instead decides to live exclusively in the present; or, not so much 'live' in the present as 'die' in the present. The human mind, one must realize, is a delusion generator, even in the minds of the giants upon whose shoulders we stand (ironically, probably more often in their minds as opposed to others as they have both a vast conscious and unconscious ability of thought which can find the time and energy to prove and justify just about anything quite convincingly and credibly).
The truth is that both 'happiness' and 'suffering' are nothing but ideas. Words used to define and categorize intrinsically intangible aspects of our experiences, placing them in a box of thought and selling them as this, that, or the other thing. 'Happiness' and 'suffering' are both blanket terms which can, should, and are used in an attempt to describe or define many different things; from physical pleasure to physical pain, psychological contentedness to psychological discontent, satisfaction to frustration, and so on and so forth, all of which are, in themselves, a micromanaged attempt to define and categorize intangible experiences. It is when one realizes that most of their 'happiness' or 'suffering' arises from a tug of war between conceptual ideas both claiming, at different capacities, to be an objective truth, and which can create deep inner turmoil for those who make an attempt to buy into one or the other, or see one or the other as potentially being the one and only objective truth, that one can take a step back from everything. Once that step back has been taken, the individual will notice that each and every quote, claim, religion, scientific theory, and individual outlook speaks a truth. But not an inalienable, all-enveloping truth. Just a truth in a universe that does not even recognize truth, as truth is nothing but an idea as well, and is simply one of the many words we use in an attempt to define the intangible.
Does that make it any less honest?
Of course not. Have faith in yourself and in others, and have faith in the universe as well. Beyond these 3 aspects of life, have faith in anything you wish to have faith in.
"The only thing that we know is that we know nothing, and that is the highest flight of human wisdom." -Aristotle.
And wisdom seems to be something that the world today lacks quite abundantly.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Kyran Paterson-King and the Gamuffs of Adventure in the Great Big City.
I suppose that's what you could call it.
I've been looking around for a job- quite desperately, at this point.
I've finally decided to apply for what I suppose you could label as 'less than desirable' work. I won't mention directly what places these are, for fear of corporate spying in which they will deny me a position as soon as they see I have titled them as 'less desirable.' (Is that dictatorial? I think it is. Fuck you, I can say whatever I want about your company, even if I work for it. No! Wait, wait, wait... Especially if I work for it).
Anyways, aside from the desperate job hunt, which seems to be taking a toll on me, life has been quite good. Definitely an adventure. I suppose trying to separate 'the rest' of it from the stress of the job hunt is near impossible, as it's now permeated every other aspect of my life (for example: it's not uncommon to find me up at 1 in the morning sending out an endless stream of online applications to a large amount of places I probably had no idea existed until I decided to try and work for them, whilst browsing StumbleUpon in a separate tab).
I can't say life is bad, but it's not as good as it could be, or.. rather.. not as good as it needs to be if I want to make enough money to satisfy my goals and ambitions.
It is, in many ways, an endless adventure when you live in the big city, but the ability to take a break from said adventure is always available by simply taking a day to yourself at home in order to let it all process appropriately. It's also an interesting time to be in any major city with the whole Occupy Wall Street movement struggling to make itself a fact of modern life in the modern mind. However, the movement as a whole is having trouble maintaining its very existence, and although the issue has yet to turn violent here in Vancouver, it seems near inevitable that something of some sort of physical significance is going to occur should the strictly established set of city bylaws continue to be broken. What a petty pretext bylaws are.
I've also been playing a fair amount of the new hit video game, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. And I'm not going to lie, it is most certainly one of the greatest games I have ever played; all the way up there with games like Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto IV, Battlefield 3, and the previous two Elder Scrolls video games. I've also been doing a fair amount of reading, having recently read and finished Stephen Chbosky's book The Perks of Being a Wallflower which, I'm going to admit, is up there with some of the greats of literature in my mind. At the very least, it's up there with some of the greats of 20th century literature. I've also started a 'Books to Read' list, and began reading Jack Kerouac's On the Road and the somewhat 'too New Age for me' book titled The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield. So far, it is interesting, and although the writing is a little over simplified by my standards, Redfield has some interesting things to say (although I object to his adapting of his spiritual and philosophical ideas into the guise of an ancient Peruvian prophecy in the tradition of provocative adventures like Indiana Jones and the like).
Anyways, stay up-to-date with me and my blog, as I'm considering some ideas for brand-new short stories that have yet to be fully put-down on paper, even as drafts.
I'm going to play some Skyrim for the moment, however, and then possibly venture into the city with the friend of mine who I'm living with to see what adventures we may discover in the great and beautiful maze of Downtown Vancouver.
Peace out, blue planet.
I've been looking around for a job- quite desperately, at this point.
I've finally decided to apply for what I suppose you could label as 'less than desirable' work. I won't mention directly what places these are, for fear of corporate spying in which they will deny me a position as soon as they see I have titled them as 'less desirable.' (Is that dictatorial? I think it is. Fuck you, I can say whatever I want about your company, even if I work for it. No! Wait, wait, wait... Especially if I work for it).
Anyways, aside from the desperate job hunt, which seems to be taking a toll on me, life has been quite good. Definitely an adventure. I suppose trying to separate 'the rest' of it from the stress of the job hunt is near impossible, as it's now permeated every other aspect of my life (for example: it's not uncommon to find me up at 1 in the morning sending out an endless stream of online applications to a large amount of places I probably had no idea existed until I decided to try and work for them, whilst browsing StumbleUpon in a separate tab).
I can't say life is bad, but it's not as good as it could be, or.. rather.. not as good as it needs to be if I want to make enough money to satisfy my goals and ambitions.
It is, in many ways, an endless adventure when you live in the big city, but the ability to take a break from said adventure is always available by simply taking a day to yourself at home in order to let it all process appropriately. It's also an interesting time to be in any major city with the whole Occupy Wall Street movement struggling to make itself a fact of modern life in the modern mind. However, the movement as a whole is having trouble maintaining its very existence, and although the issue has yet to turn violent here in Vancouver, it seems near inevitable that something of some sort of physical significance is going to occur should the strictly established set of city bylaws continue to be broken. What a petty pretext bylaws are.
I've also been playing a fair amount of the new hit video game, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. And I'm not going to lie, it is most certainly one of the greatest games I have ever played; all the way up there with games like Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto IV, Battlefield 3, and the previous two Elder Scrolls video games. I've also been doing a fair amount of reading, having recently read and finished Stephen Chbosky's book The Perks of Being a Wallflower which, I'm going to admit, is up there with some of the greats of literature in my mind. At the very least, it's up there with some of the greats of 20th century literature. I've also started a 'Books to Read' list, and began reading Jack Kerouac's On the Road and the somewhat 'too New Age for me' book titled The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield. So far, it is interesting, and although the writing is a little over simplified by my standards, Redfield has some interesting things to say (although I object to his adapting of his spiritual and philosophical ideas into the guise of an ancient Peruvian prophecy in the tradition of provocative adventures like Indiana Jones and the like).
Anyways, stay up-to-date with me and my blog, as I'm considering some ideas for brand-new short stories that have yet to be fully put-down on paper, even as drafts.
I'm going to play some Skyrim for the moment, however, and then possibly venture into the city with the friend of mine who I'm living with to see what adventures we may discover in the great and beautiful maze of Downtown Vancouver.
Peace out, blue planet.
Friday, November 11, 2011
When you finally reach an answer, all you succeed in doing is waking-up a new question.
Philosophical despair is a complicated problem... but should uncertainty, or its opposite, strict certainty, even lead to philosophical despair? And in the end, it seems much of my philosophical despairs boil down to some sort of non-acceptance and fear of ceasing to consciously exist; and I can't tell whether my indulging in the ideas that advocate I do NOT cease to consciously exist are simply my denying some sort of inalienable truth in search of some sort of comfort and permanent certainty, or if I am truly delving into the possibility that there is some sort of conscious existence after death. I'm starting to wonder if my inquisitive nature was worth the constant personal uplifts, overthrows, and inner emotional turmoil or not. If I cannot find pure certainty or pure uncertainty, how do I properly build a foundation of acceptance?
And the problem is manifold, as there are 'inalienable and unalterable truths' imposed on us by the scientific worldview which, in my mind, tend to degrade the experience of life and tear away all that made it so beautifully mysterious and enjoyable. Is there truly no such thing as the 'super' natural? Or is the resistance to the idea of the 'super' natural simply some overly regimented status-quo based scientific community resisting the possibility of intrinsic uncertainty in the universe due to their personal drives for a sense of certainty? And why is it that, despite my realization that science is simply the human observation of patterns in natural phenomena and the mass-labeling of anything and everything (eg. 'chemicals,' 'psychoanalysis,' 'biology,' 'psychology') for the sake of categorization, that I am still frightened by what I perceive to be 'degrading' scientific hypotheses that seem to suck what I suppose one could call the 'magic' out of life? And what does it mean to say I am strictly a 'physical' construct? And what does it mean when I feel the drive to believe that I am more? Is it not possible that being a 'physical construct' is simply yet another arrogant label as dictated by the scientific worldview and the scientific method? Isn't a 'method' nothing more than a direction of approach, as opposed to the direction of approach?
These are, quite literally, some of the questions that keep me up at night or, on occasion, make me prefer sleeping over being awake when I'm somewhat forced to suffer through them. It's rarely that I exclusively 'suffer' through them, however, as there are times when I am simply in a state of complete and willing ecstasy and awe at the above questions and questions of a similar nature, and other times when the awe remains, but the ecstasy is replaced by a feeling of despair and suffering which arises from my (at least seeming) inability to simply switch off the philosophical inquiries. At other times, however, the suffering and despair occasionally arises from my perceptions that I am obligated to take science at face-value when all I have learned about the world, and science especially, tell me that one of the last things I should be taking at face-value is science, the scientific method, or the scientific worldview (as even science itself begs to be challenged).
Due to the current state of affairs in my mind, there may very well be many posts of this nature on the way; so if you found this to be anything but boring, I encourage you to keep up-to-date with me and my blog.
And the problem is manifold, as there are 'inalienable and unalterable truths' imposed on us by the scientific worldview which, in my mind, tend to degrade the experience of life and tear away all that made it so beautifully mysterious and enjoyable. Is there truly no such thing as the 'super' natural? Or is the resistance to the idea of the 'super' natural simply some overly regimented status-quo based scientific community resisting the possibility of intrinsic uncertainty in the universe due to their personal drives for a sense of certainty? And why is it that, despite my realization that science is simply the human observation of patterns in natural phenomena and the mass-labeling of anything and everything (eg. 'chemicals,' 'psychoanalysis,' 'biology,' 'psychology') for the sake of categorization, that I am still frightened by what I perceive to be 'degrading' scientific hypotheses that seem to suck what I suppose one could call the 'magic' out of life? And what does it mean to say I am strictly a 'physical' construct? And what does it mean when I feel the drive to believe that I am more? Is it not possible that being a 'physical construct' is simply yet another arrogant label as dictated by the scientific worldview and the scientific method? Isn't a 'method' nothing more than a direction of approach, as opposed to the direction of approach?
These are, quite literally, some of the questions that keep me up at night or, on occasion, make me prefer sleeping over being awake when I'm somewhat forced to suffer through them. It's rarely that I exclusively 'suffer' through them, however, as there are times when I am simply in a state of complete and willing ecstasy and awe at the above questions and questions of a similar nature, and other times when the awe remains, but the ecstasy is replaced by a feeling of despair and suffering which arises from my (at least seeming) inability to simply switch off the philosophical inquiries. At other times, however, the suffering and despair occasionally arises from my perceptions that I am obligated to take science at face-value when all I have learned about the world, and science especially, tell me that one of the last things I should be taking at face-value is science, the scientific method, or the scientific worldview (as even science itself begs to be challenged).
Due to the current state of affairs in my mind, there may very well be many posts of this nature on the way; so if you found this to be anything but boring, I encourage you to keep up-to-date with me and my blog.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
The Seemingly Imminent Eviction of the OWS Movement from Canada
If you take note of Canadian economy magazines, the end of the Occupy Wall Street movement... at least in the country north of Wall Street itself... seems quite imminent.
I, personally, have some first hand experience as both a spectator as well as a somewhat passive and external contributor to the movement myself; both through my moral support, and my limited involvement with the crowds at Occupy Vancouver, towards which I have drawn a mixed verdict.
I agree, in almost all regards, to the act of occupying in the first place. It is a blatant disregard for the rigid technicalities which have been developed to what is defined as 'public' or 'private' space, as well as a blatant disregard for the now finely-tuned tastes and preferences of those regimented by the preferred luxuries offered by corporate appeasement of the individuals personal tastes designed, first and foremost, in the name of making a profit.
It is an amorphous movement, which reflects a global sentiment, of people trying to rewind the clock on capitalism and the economy as to make both significantly less influential in our lives, and more minimalistic and subsidiary as so both are simply a means to an end, as opposed to the means and an end.
In this day and age, people seem to be spending their lives seeking little more than economic gain on their end of the stick. They forget that, although the economy is a societal requirement and luxury which certainly has consequence, it should be the tool used to lift the individual, as well as the collective, above the realm of 'simply surviving,' and into the realm of truly being able to experience life to its fullest in any and every manner conceivably imaginable. In this sense, the economy should not be an all-pervasive force which attempts to drag you into its maze, forcing you to want more and more of the unnecessary luxuries it seems to offer you in infinite supply, but, as I stated before, nothing more than a means to an end. The means being your contribution to society through occasional labor, artistic endeavor, or the offerings/ production of goods and services, and the end, which is attempting to be satisfied, being the living of life to its fullest once a minimal contribution is made that allows the individual and/or collective to be able to survive in affordable satisfaction.
Many now rooted in capitalistic mindsets would argue that, to them, 'living life to its fullest' implies a constant striving for greater material and monetary wealth. This mindset would not exist without the diluting of the human psyche to the point that this appears to become an almost instinctive drive.
To me, individually, 'living life to its fullest' implies the freedom of expression (not being limited in what I say anywhere at any time for fear of upsetting hierarchical superiors), the freedom of time (say, working for 2 or 3 days a week and making enough to survive comfortably for said week and do as I see fit, whether that means travelling, spending time with loved ones, indulging in artistic and creative endeavors, or, in a somewhat contradictory decision, deciding to put in extra time at work after my amount required for comfortable survival has been met, in order to save for some large future endeavor, or some high-expense luxury such as a new computer, TV, book collection, sound-system, etc.)
So, it is in this sense that I do indeed agree with the general act of occupying in order to say 'hey, sorry to disturb you, but we're here and we would like to remind you that there is something seriously wrong with the world we're living in.' Looking at this strictly through the filter of the system we are living in, however... Canadians, for the most part, have little to complain about.
During my time at Occupy Vancouver, the only legitimate qualms seemed to be those relating to First Nations people, while the rest were simply terribly-worded symbolic gestures, steeped in a load of fringe conspiracy theories and New Age astrological bullshit, beckoning towards the more humanistic aspects in man which have been repressed as a result of the superficially developed capitalistic 'instinct.'
Remove your filters, and look at the world were living in as it is; superficial, destructive, and in need of massive changes in all aspects of society. You can justify anything using an economic argument, but using such an argument only suppresses the humanistic and environmental realities.
I think it's just about time to save the world.
I, personally, have some first hand experience as both a spectator as well as a somewhat passive and external contributor to the movement myself; both through my moral support, and my limited involvement with the crowds at Occupy Vancouver, towards which I have drawn a mixed verdict.
I agree, in almost all regards, to the act of occupying in the first place. It is a blatant disregard for the rigid technicalities which have been developed to what is defined as 'public' or 'private' space, as well as a blatant disregard for the now finely-tuned tastes and preferences of those regimented by the preferred luxuries offered by corporate appeasement of the individuals personal tastes designed, first and foremost, in the name of making a profit.
It is an amorphous movement, which reflects a global sentiment, of people trying to rewind the clock on capitalism and the economy as to make both significantly less influential in our lives, and more minimalistic and subsidiary as so both are simply a means to an end, as opposed to the means and an end.
In this day and age, people seem to be spending their lives seeking little more than economic gain on their end of the stick. They forget that, although the economy is a societal requirement and luxury which certainly has consequence, it should be the tool used to lift the individual, as well as the collective, above the realm of 'simply surviving,' and into the realm of truly being able to experience life to its fullest in any and every manner conceivably imaginable. In this sense, the economy should not be an all-pervasive force which attempts to drag you into its maze, forcing you to want more and more of the unnecessary luxuries it seems to offer you in infinite supply, but, as I stated before, nothing more than a means to an end. The means being your contribution to society through occasional labor, artistic endeavor, or the offerings/ production of goods and services, and the end, which is attempting to be satisfied, being the living of life to its fullest once a minimal contribution is made that allows the individual and/or collective to be able to survive in affordable satisfaction.
Many now rooted in capitalistic mindsets would argue that, to them, 'living life to its fullest' implies a constant striving for greater material and monetary wealth. This mindset would not exist without the diluting of the human psyche to the point that this appears to become an almost instinctive drive.
To me, individually, 'living life to its fullest' implies the freedom of expression (not being limited in what I say anywhere at any time for fear of upsetting hierarchical superiors), the freedom of time (say, working for 2 or 3 days a week and making enough to survive comfortably for said week and do as I see fit, whether that means travelling, spending time with loved ones, indulging in artistic and creative endeavors, or, in a somewhat contradictory decision, deciding to put in extra time at work after my amount required for comfortable survival has been met, in order to save for some large future endeavor, or some high-expense luxury such as a new computer, TV, book collection, sound-system, etc.)
So, it is in this sense that I do indeed agree with the general act of occupying in order to say 'hey, sorry to disturb you, but we're here and we would like to remind you that there is something seriously wrong with the world we're living in.' Looking at this strictly through the filter of the system we are living in, however... Canadians, for the most part, have little to complain about.
During my time at Occupy Vancouver, the only legitimate qualms seemed to be those relating to First Nations people, while the rest were simply terribly-worded symbolic gestures, steeped in a load of fringe conspiracy theories and New Age astrological bullshit, beckoning towards the more humanistic aspects in man which have been repressed as a result of the superficially developed capitalistic 'instinct.'
Remove your filters, and look at the world were living in as it is; superficial, destructive, and in need of massive changes in all aspects of society. You can justify anything using an economic argument, but using such an argument only suppresses the humanistic and environmental realities.
I think it's just about time to save the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Copyright
