|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| all i do now is repost irrelevant discussions i have with friends
haha. after all, life happens, it isn't recollected.
"Mathematical proof of an imaginary universe....
finally got my first golden nugget from my math/physics career. We all
know that positive numbers all have square roots...thats all fine and
dandy, but what about -1? what's the square root of -1? that answer is
"i". "i" stands for "imaginary number"; a number that does not exist,
at least not in this universe/dimension. ok now you probably learned
that back in high school. here's the trip: every number can be
perceived as a complex imaginary number. take the number 6. looks well
enough until you do this: 6 + 0i. that also means six, but its also
IMAGINARY. you can do this with any real number; and since EVERYTHING
in the universe (chemical reactions, matter, basically all the building
blocks of everything) is ruled and governed by mathematics, one can
only assume the universe is also, at least partially, imagined. so
what's this mean? shit i dunno, but its a damn trip..." -gionni
i think man is finally realizing that mathematics, though proven to be
an extremely useful tool in figuring out the world, can be quite
restricting. we fail to reduce the universe to point instance and
so we create ambiguous notations for things we dont understand.
however, i believe that through these realizations a better
understanding of harmonization is being formulated. it's the
ultimate paradox; man creates ideas and tools to make sense of nature,
but in doing so, he cripples his potential to understand according to
the "assumed" limitations of the mind*. it boils down to having
control and "assuming" the role of god. man is enfatuated with
being god, hence the need to achieve nirvana or illumate
ourselves. i dont even think it's about understanding, its more
about assimulation. once you feel the need to understand
something you distance yourself from it. we "assume" the role of
a universal anthropologist who follows the etic approach of
documentation. we observe and take notes. we critique and
rationalize. THE UNIVERSE IS NOT RATIONAL PEOPLE. IT IS
IMAGINARY. we can only make "assumptions" as to how or why that
is.
"since EVERYTHING in the universe (chemical reactions, matter,
basically all the building blocks of everything) is ruled and governed
by mathematics"
i believe the universe isn't governed by anything. it is man who
is governed by the enfatuation of limitation. that's my phrase
for mans insatiable need to know the truth. but the idea of truth
in itself is a limitation. it is a peak, an epiphany, a
resolution, and an end. and so when we devise modes of
deciphering, ie math and language, we limit our ways of thinking to the
rules of that construct because they are formulated for the sole
purpose of finding out the limited truth. don't feel the need for
resolution. if you must feel comfort, seek it in knowing that
there will never be resolution. that the ambiguity of it all will
yield the taste of bitter sweet consistency.
*the brain may have limitations but the mind does not. people sometimes confuse the subjective and objective.
| | |
| argumentation: soul vs. mind
"the filter of the mind is the filter of uncertainty."
but isn't that an ideologic paradox? is not the purpose
of a filter to weed out impurities and disolusion? i believe
that the mind is the filter of certainty; it instigates a "simple
balance" as you would say. without the mind there would be chaos
and THAT would definitly bring about uncertainty.
to me, certainty corrolates with understanding, one a synonym of the
other. when something is certain, it must be understood, and
in ORDER for something to be understood it must be certain.
acting from the heart, whether in thoughts or in words, is
fundamentally impossible with out the aid of the certain mind.
for instance, the existence of a soul cannot be verified given
the mind; it allows us to contemplate
and organize these beliefs into universal language. (i
refer to the mind as a singular entity, as one might
think. yur beliefs, though, are irrelevant, as i am using the
statement for arguments sake not for generalization. just incase you
disagree with me). however, the very notion of a soul was
introduced by the mind, damnit! (and that is irrefutable)
my theory represented symbolically:
if the mind, then the soul.
m: the mind
s: the soul
m->s
the only instance in which the validity of this argument can be
challenged would be when the exhistence of a soul is an
accepted truth and the exhistence of the mind is an accepted
fallacy. but how can that be? when the very idea of the soul was
brought about by the mind. in other words, the soul will never be true
while the mind false. as a side note, i also believe that the mind will
always be true, as it is a product of logic and reasoning. it
is the subjective brain. and so, this argument, if the mind, then
the soul, will always remain true. please, prove me wrong.
-a diagram i made putting into picture my ideas of the subjective and objective worlds.
what im trying to say is, without logic there is no heart,
but without heart, logic can still persist. i am trying to
emphasize the positivity and strength of the logical mind and how, in
this world atleast, it filters into clarity rather than
uncertainty.
and at the HEART of the matter.
if you still believe that the mind is the filter of
uncertainty, then answer me this question. what exactly can we be
certain of?
are we certain of nothing?
and if you believe that we can be certain of nothing because you
believe the mind is uncertain, is not that notion of nothing something
to be certain about?
...
what the fuck did i just say?
and what does this have to do with anything?
nothing.
im going to sleep now. | | |
| did you know?
Pranava or AUM is the universally accepted symbol of Hinduism. Literally, the word Pranava means "That by which God is effectively praised". It also means "That which is never new". Actually AUM comprises of three independent letters A, U, and M, each of which has its own meaning and significance. The letter 'A' represents the beginning (Adimatwa), 'U' represents Progress (Utkarsha) and 'M' represents limit or dissolution (Miti). Hence, the word AUM represents that power responsible for creation, development and disolution of the Universe, namely GOD himself.
"It's evil thoughts that hurt," he said,
"It's what you say and do.
It's called the karmic law.
What you send out comes back to you.
As is the seed, so is the fruit;
like cause so is effect.
And when you break the rules,
you hang a rope around your neck." | | |
| a converstation on love.
her: honestly how do you manage to get over people so easily i just want to know i am just curious.
i: i dont know how i can.
i: i just do.
i: i live for the moment.
i: and once the moment is gone i move on.
her: you know maybe its because that person was never really in love but they where just in love with the idea of being in love.
her: because honestly if you really are in love you are not going to let it get it go awy rite.
i: ahh yes, i've heard that one before...but who's to say what love really is...maybe in that moment, at that time, that person truly felt like they were in love.
i: no?
her: lol
her: yeah but they're not in love becuase in love means forever.
her: not just at that moment.
i: bleh, that's the idealistic view that ppl breathe down yur neck from childhood. i dont believe it.
her: no the love at that moment that you are describing is infatuation.
i: i believe love is much like life. it has a beginning and end. however it manifests itself in different ways.
i: so i guess in essence you are right, love is forever.
i: but i dont feel that it is forever in the context of a single relationship.
her: well then its not love because when you love that person you want to be with them forever b/ you honestly believe that they complete you.
her: that is every ones perpouse in life to find love.
her: so of course when you find it it you arenot going to let go of it.
her: But i think people just get confused and dont really know what love is and just b/ they see a pretty face or a quick fuck to go with that they think it is love.
i: yes, but that's how you may feel at that moment...when everything is nice and you feel that you know the other person and that the feelings are mutual, that you are, infact, in love...unfortunaly the human psychi is not that consistent; it fluctuates and so these feelings of love can too.
...moment of silence
i: so tell me then, how is it that you know you're in love?
her: i know when im in love.
her: i think peopel are just fickle.
i: people have their own interpretations.
her: i guess so.
with that said, acomplishing nothing, i leave you with julia for your listening enjoyment. (dont forget to right click and save the link target)
1. julia:
http://bb.1asphost.com/theeccentric/juliafinal.wav
2. sadsong:
http://bb.1asphost.com/theeccentric/sadsong.wav
3. too beautiful:
http://bb.1asphost.com/theeccentric/too%20beautiful.wav
4. i need (featuring the fabulous wendy on the keyboards):
http://bb.1asphost.com/theeccentric/ineedinstruments.wav
5. worker ants (featuring the fabulous wendy on the keyboards):
http://bb.1asphost.com/theeccentric/workerants.wav
6. twilight interlude:
http://bb.1asphost.com/theeccentric/twlightinterlude.wav
| | |
| i want to stress the paradox of simplicity. we can not acknowledge even the most minute of details without taking into consideration the most intricate. it is within this paradox that our subjective mind lays trapt. unable to be and nothing more. consider a six sided cube. each side colored, one of which is blue. now, say i ask you to focus on the blue side. simply focus. you cannot do so without first examining the other colors, weeding them out, if you will, and recognizing the blue side. we think, even when we think we're not thinking. this kind of logic persists throughout the entire fabric of life. anything that processes can not not process. anything that is can not not be. and for those of you interested in the teachings of the zen...im sorry folks, but nirvana is unattainable. nirvana is the state of nothingness and in order to attain it one must focus on nothing. however, whence focusing on nothing, are you not focusing on something?
nothing is so simple that it can be nothing. | | |
|
|
