Some Exist as Parts of the Whole
Posted by Enigmni Freak at 12:25, 16 Jun 2009I hate to say this, but I do not necessarily think we all exist. I think One does exist in multifaceted nodes that think they exist but must reflect off the other nodes in order to be animated for short periods of duration... traveling from wave to wave we are truly each other. Girls or Guys we are experiencing each other as one on some higher level. It gets lonely when one realizes this. It all seems like a massive Virtual Reality. I do know, that I like and in some cases, Love my or our other parts
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Enigmni Freak's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
21 February 2009
1 day 4 hours
Do we even accept that the universe exists?
Every facet of our thoughts can just be imagination, every perception can be an error.
Philosophy is a construct within our minds. Extend it into reality, make it reality, and we make reality out of our minds. Then we can ask 'what is real?'. Real can be what we touch, what we love; or it can be nothing it all. All it reveals is what is in our minds. We can choose how real our realities are.
Ultimately though we must go to the shops and get food. Denialism and stubborn rejection of this fact is not recommended if we want to live a happy mean.
(though consider this. If i am not real you are talking to yourself and everything you would disagree with within all opposing philosophies stems from disagreement within yourself)
22 November 2004
2 weeks 13 hours
Solipsism has one really weak point.
If I was really alone, just imagining the whole universe, including all these people, why would I make it so irritating?
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
21 February 2009
1 day 4 hours
Indeed! You would have to be quite upset with yourself.
Even if the world were simply imagination there would still have to be something doing the imagining. This then creates the universe within this logic.
There is no use implying that all could be perceptions of some form, then suggesting that there is no form to have perceptions of.
If we accept the existence of perceptions then we are led to the existence of the one doing the perceiving. From here we have already supposed the existence of some kind of material, be it matter or energy, spirit or form, doing the act of interpretation. Now we are at the point of admitting existence beyond the interpreter as the interpreter is made of something. Once we are at existence beyond oneself it is not a big step to accept that others are real. Given what we are perceiving it is a reasonable step, especially, as you say, given the lack of evidence for reality being a personal fantasy.
A conclusion of taking this type of thought to its end is that if there is only you, and all of existence is in your minds eye, then perhaps you are God.
Regarding a unifying consciousness from which we all stem, and ultimately return. Either way, we are here right now. Meaning not only lies in the eye of the beholder, but reveals the beholder.
10 August 2004
6 hours 9 min
What you both write is so true - I wish I had your gift for translating thoughts into words.
Regards, Kathrinn
10 August 2004
6 hours 9 min
If some of us don't exist, why is it that we can't remove them from our own existence when they cause us grief, hurt, irritation, harm or are just plain bloody annoying? I can think of quite a few people that I would be happy to find aren't really real!
Regards, Kathrinn
21 February 2009
1 day 4 hours
To play further with this;
If God is the only thing that exists and we are simply in the mind of God, would we be able to tell?
Or, if God was to dream, would reality be the outcome?
10 August 2004
6 hours 9 min
If, perhaps, we only exist in God's dream, let's hope he doesn't wake up before we've finished all we want to accomplish! Could make things difficult. Then again, perhaps he has his alarm clock set for December 2012 and that's what all the fuss is about!
Regards, Kathrinn
12 April 2007
11 sec
My latest favorite analogy comes from this somewhat-crazy but yet brilliant speech from Grant Morrison.
He makes the analogy that, if you take your hand and dip your fingers in ink, and then press them against a white sheet of paper, you would then see 5 distinct and separate circles. So, the tridimensional object that is your hand when in contact with a bidimensional plane, would make the illusion on an observer trapped in that plane of five separate entities (your fingers) which are in reality part of a same entity (your hand).
So now extrapolate that analogy to us: tridimensional beings trapped in a tridimensional space that seem to be separate individuals. But if there was an observer outside the boundaries of the 3 dimensions, it would see us as a same entity ramificating endlessly through time.
That's why I wrote one day that we may all be fingers in the hand of God; but what pisses me off is that some fingers get to wear rings, while other fingers only work to give a bird sign ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
10 August 2004
6 hours 9 min
Was looking at a photo of the Sphinx today and noticed for the first time that it's left paw has FIVE clearly visible and equally sized toes facing forwards (couldn't see most of the other foot as some masonry got in the way).
Now why would someone carve a lion (or, as I have always thought, a dog) with FIVE toes? Sure, they both have them, but only FOUR face forwards.
Thoughts anyone?
Regards, Kathrinn - and "All Hail" to Red Pill the First (love it!)
12 April 2007
11 sec
You shall be appointed as my Prime Minister, Kathrinn :)
Hmmm, I hadn't noticed that about the Sphinx before. Maybe it was meant to give it a more Anthropomorphic representation?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
1 year 15 weeks
Were not those the result of pharaonic restoration work? I seem to remember that those were only covering what the original is underneath.
When you go there and look at the sphinx, it is pretty obvious that the first quarter or so at the base is in a much better state than the upper portion, all covered in nicely carved and adjusted blocks of rock that almost look brand new, while the upper part is clearly chiseled out of a single piece of rock, and is eroded to a great extent.
10 August 2004
6 hours 9 min
Whether the portrayal of the five forward-pointing toes is a result of restoration or otherwise, I still ask the question "Why 5 forward-pointing toes?".
If the original stonemasons or the restoration workers thought they were working on a representation of a giant cat (or a dog) surely they had actually looked at one and understood that these animals do not have 5 forward-pointing toes.
Any other thoughts, you guys, as I'm still puzzled by this.
Regards, Kathrinn
P.S. I humbly accept your offer of that position of office, Red-the-First. Are the pay and conditions good?!
1 May 2004
1 year 15 weeks
One of my cats has five toes on its forepaws.
12 April 2007
11 sec
Are the pay and conditions good?!
If J.J. Abrahams accepts my idea for a new TV series —it will be a mix between Lost and Dune, where I play the part of God Emperor of the island— then I should say it will be very good indeed :-P
PS: Polydactyly in cats is not uncommon, as Richard has pointed out. Perhaps the Egyptians had a special reveree for the feline specimens who displayed this trait?
But maybe the easiest explanation is that someone tried to give the sphynx a more human-like appearance from the head to the torso, while leaving the rest more animal-like. Whether this was a posterior restoration to the creation of the monument is something we still don't know —although I'm certainly ascribe to the idea that the proportions of the human head of the sphynx are all wrong.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
10 August 2004
6 hours 9 min
Well - there's a new word I've never heard before, so it is true that you learn something new every day! Also didn't know it was common in cats.
Thanks guys! I'll shut up about the subject now.
Regards, Kathrinn
20 March 2006
8 weeks 6 days
We are getting deeper here. Good!