It's weird, when you've been awake for a long time, past that "auto-pilot" period, everything starts to feel fake. Everything feels synthetic here...well, almost everything. It's almost like just because everything else feels like a lie my thoughts (which I know are the only undeniable truth, thanks Descartes) feel potent, organic, and saturated with knowledge. Maybe that's just me. I walk through life most days without a single audible thought going through my head. When I say audible I don't mean out loud, I mean a thought in my head that I can hear. There's no inner monologue, unless I try to either have an inner monologue or try not to. Generally I have a quiet mind. It's not because I'm dense or slow, actually I'm not really sure why it is...this is all I really know. One thing I like about this is the absence of all the noise that so many people seem to deal with. If I want to have a thought I fucking have it man, no screwing around. It's there, and my attention is on it. I think that's why I love philosophy. I love asking questions with infinite answers; I love asking questions with no answers. (Sometimes those are the same question). It's frustrating and exciting. I've been doing this for as far back as I can remember. I honestly remember sitting in a car seat in the backseat of my mom's car looking out the window deep in thought. I'm talking deep. Just watching the tall light posts float by. They seemed so tall back then. Racing over overpasses, billboards whizzing by, some 90's alternative band (probably Collective Soul or something like that) playing on the radio. The thoughts are obscure and hard to remember, but they were heavy, ya know, those cliche philosophy questions: "Why am I here?" "Where did I come from?" "What am I?". That's why I feel so drawn to philosophy. I get so lost in it, and for a few moments only my thoughts exist. I love it.
This is my last blog entry for my honors philosophy class. I will probably keep up with my blog after this, but honestly, knowing me, I might not. This being my final entry I want to reflect on the class, because it was such a joy. The great thing about the honors program is the fact that the classes are small, personal, and discussion based. This class basically locked a bunch of completely different people up in a room for a few hours per week and let there minds run the with topics given (within the bounded discourse defined by our fearless leader of course). It is seriously like no experience I have ever had. I have lost more sleep over this class than any other class I have taken, spent more time reading, actually did homework for once in my life, why? Because I wanted to dammit!
My professor calls us her "mighty minds". I remember the first few classes I left with my head spinning. My once quiet mind was flowing and flooded with new thoughts, I started buying books, Aristotle's Metaphysics, The Republic of Plato, The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant, Tao Te Ching. And here's the amazing thing: I have actually applied what I learned to my life.
I have intelligent discussions with friends outside class over a cup of coffee or in between jam sessions. Big discussions on God, the universe, fate, ethics, karma, music, reality. Why? Because this class opened up my mind and made me question everything. Literally. Descartes posed the idea that the only thing unquestionable is our actual minds! That was one of our first reading assignments and I'm still hung up on that!
I must admit, at times I feel the discussions in class turned more towards arguments, sometimes heated, sometimes judgmental, and often times I thought these arguments were trivial. I thought people lost sight of the big picture. So many ideas were flowing at once, bouncing off each other in that small room, but eventually making it onto the whiteboard (as long as Professor McKinney could keep up). Honestly though, I realize now that's what it's all about. We're young. We won't really get a chance like this again. How many people get to sit in a room and just discuss things, interesting and constantly relevant things, for a few hours a week? After this we'll just graduate, hopefully get a job, have families, and just sit and reflect while driving through rush hour traffic on the thoughts that are still flowing through our heads from a class discussion that happened years ago.
Aristotle, Plato, Mill, Kant, and Descartes would all be stoked about this class. Not because people are still talking about their crazy ramblings, but because we are making new points, reflecting on our own thoughts. Aristotle and Plato would love this because it's a quest for enlightenment. We're searching for the good in the world. We're striving to broaden our subjective views and get out of the cave. Mill would find joy in this because as an individual we find happiness through this discussion. We're posing new ideas with their roots in helping the whole, giving the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people. If this blog entry gets read by 5, 10, 15 people, and they reflect on the ideas, and find joy then we did something right. Kant would just be down with the fact that we're searching for answers, questioning the way things are done, and looking at the big picture many times, for philosophy truly is universal. Descartes would just be excited that all this thought is surging around, that these minds are humming, although he might just question it all and blame it on some malevolent demon.
All I can say now is thank you, sincerely. Thank you for reading. Thank you for thinking. Thank you for being.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Lies
I'm not going to talk about the ethical conundrum that comes from lying, yes it's problematic. That's obvious. What I'm more interested in is the interesting notion that the capacity to lie shows a higher intelligence level.
Fear, guilt, and loneliness are all associated with lying. But what is lying really? It's pretty damn clever. To be able to deceive someone, whether successfully or not, proves a lot about someones intellectual capacity. This is not to argue that lying is good, right, or fair by any means. I don't want to open that can of worms because some jerk is just going to come along and say "well what if you had to lie to save your friend? What's moral then?". Honestly if I was confronted with such a situation I would probably lie, knowing its immoral, and accept. People get so caught up in the is it moral/ethical question and forget the big picture: what would you actually do, and does it really matter that it's immoral? But I digress...
To lie one must not only have a realization of those around them, but also a realization of the self. Beyond that to feel guilt one must have some concept of other being's feelings, rules/norms, and right and wrong. Without these three concepts guilt would be empty and nonexistent. However guilt is more often the product of lying, rather than the root of the lie, so it therefore may be a test for an even higher level of comprehension, learning, and intelligence.
However, I must recognize the fact that many lies are simply rooted in self preservation and betterment. Even here intelligence must be present because to attempt to manipulate and deceive one must have some understanding of their surroundings and their current state. A child may lie to their babysitter to get an extra cookie. A hopeful job-seeker may "fluff" a resume to get the job.
To cover all of my bases I must also entertain the idea of those who lie just for the hell of it, whether the root is in some psychological condition or they're just an asshole, lying is still a true test of some kind of higher thought.
The concept of lying seems so simple, but in actuality it requires not only the understanding that there are other beings around us, but also that those beings can be deceived for our own gain.
This finding brings me to an important point: humans lie, but we aren't the only beings capable of such higher thinking. Koko the gorilla constantly blows my mind. A friend of mine did a class presentation on her, and it really broke down some barriers I put up as a human, because it's kind of alarming. Gorillas are not only huge and strong, but they're also incredibly intelligent. For those of you reading who aren't familiar with Koko's story, she is a gorilla that was taught sign language, can comprehend the language, and communicate pretty freely. This opens so many doors philosophically, ethically, and scientifically. Not only can Koko communicate with us, but she also lies. That's right, a gorilla, a savage beast in most people's eyes, tried to deceive us. That should knock us down a few pegs, we aren't so high and mighty anymore, because a mere animal has the ability to try and manipulate us after mastering our language.
Koko broke a steel sink, and when confronted by her handlers she signed "cat did it", referring to her pet kitten. Not only did Koko try and take advantage of her human handlers but she also recognized the fact that she did wrong by breaking the sink, for if she hadn't come to this realization why would she have blamed the obviously innocent kitten. Sure this lie may seem childish, but it is shocking to think of an animal having the intelligence of a 5 or 6 year old human blaming the crayon marks on the wall on their dog (That was me, just ask my mom, she loves telling that story).
What does this mean? Koko clearly has the same if not greater mental capacity of a human child, so doesn't she deserve the same respect we give a child? The same protection? The same opportunities? I'm not proposing we enroll gorillas into elementary school (although that would be SO COOL), I'm merely suggesting everything we assume about animals may just be because of a communication gap.
I move now to an animal more domesticated; the dog. Can a dog lie? This would be hard to determine because communication with a dog is difficult if not impossible right now. What about guilt; Can a dog feel guilt? I previously stated that guilt may show intelligence because it shows an understanding of other being's feelings as well as right and wrong, but can a dog feel guilt?
I have a dog. I have come home to shredded toilet paper on the floor, maybe a turd or two on the carpet, and as soon as I see Sookie (my dog) her tail goes between her legs, her head drops to the floor, and she retreats. It seems like she feels guilty because she knows she did something she wasn't supposed to. HERE'S THE PROBLEM HOWEVER: how can we determine the difference between guilt and fear without a reliable form of communication? Sookie knows that if she poops inside she'll get yelled at and tossed outside. She doesn't enjoy this. So maybe her sudden retreat is merely a sign of fear because she has been conditioned to learn that if she goes inside she gets in trouble. This does not show guilt (although it does show an adaptive thought process).
Question what you know about animals. Question your assumption that we are superior, that we deserve any respect from them. I get it; we have thumbs, we have computers, cell phones, tv, school, and so on, but when stripped down to our basic thoughts we may not be that different. It would be interesting to see how gorillas truly communicate with each other, because clearly they are capable of not only language, but understanding other beings well enough to try and manipulate them, and really when you look at it we're just a bunch of gorillas wearing clothes lying to each other through cell phones, the news, and reality tv. I hate reality tv.
Fear, guilt, and loneliness are all associated with lying. But what is lying really? It's pretty damn clever. To be able to deceive someone, whether successfully or not, proves a lot about someones intellectual capacity. This is not to argue that lying is good, right, or fair by any means. I don't want to open that can of worms because some jerk is just going to come along and say "well what if you had to lie to save your friend? What's moral then?". Honestly if I was confronted with such a situation I would probably lie, knowing its immoral, and accept. People get so caught up in the is it moral/ethical question and forget the big picture: what would you actually do, and does it really matter that it's immoral? But I digress...
To lie one must not only have a realization of those around them, but also a realization of the self. Beyond that to feel guilt one must have some concept of other being's feelings, rules/norms, and right and wrong. Without these three concepts guilt would be empty and nonexistent. However guilt is more often the product of lying, rather than the root of the lie, so it therefore may be a test for an even higher level of comprehension, learning, and intelligence.
However, I must recognize the fact that many lies are simply rooted in self preservation and betterment. Even here intelligence must be present because to attempt to manipulate and deceive one must have some understanding of their surroundings and their current state. A child may lie to their babysitter to get an extra cookie. A hopeful job-seeker may "fluff" a resume to get the job.
To cover all of my bases I must also entertain the idea of those who lie just for the hell of it, whether the root is in some psychological condition or they're just an asshole, lying is still a true test of some kind of higher thought.
The concept of lying seems so simple, but in actuality it requires not only the understanding that there are other beings around us, but also that those beings can be deceived for our own gain.
This finding brings me to an important point: humans lie, but we aren't the only beings capable of such higher thinking. Koko the gorilla constantly blows my mind. A friend of mine did a class presentation on her, and it really broke down some barriers I put up as a human, because it's kind of alarming. Gorillas are not only huge and strong, but they're also incredibly intelligent. For those of you reading who aren't familiar with Koko's story, she is a gorilla that was taught sign language, can comprehend the language, and communicate pretty freely. This opens so many doors philosophically, ethically, and scientifically. Not only can Koko communicate with us, but she also lies. That's right, a gorilla, a savage beast in most people's eyes, tried to deceive us. That should knock us down a few pegs, we aren't so high and mighty anymore, because a mere animal has the ability to try and manipulate us after mastering our language.
Koko broke a steel sink, and when confronted by her handlers she signed "cat did it", referring to her pet kitten. Not only did Koko try and take advantage of her human handlers but she also recognized the fact that she did wrong by breaking the sink, for if she hadn't come to this realization why would she have blamed the obviously innocent kitten. Sure this lie may seem childish, but it is shocking to think of an animal having the intelligence of a 5 or 6 year old human blaming the crayon marks on the wall on their dog (That was me, just ask my mom, she loves telling that story).
What does this mean? Koko clearly has the same if not greater mental capacity of a human child, so doesn't she deserve the same respect we give a child? The same protection? The same opportunities? I'm not proposing we enroll gorillas into elementary school (although that would be SO COOL), I'm merely suggesting everything we assume about animals may just be because of a communication gap.
I move now to an animal more domesticated; the dog. Can a dog lie? This would be hard to determine because communication with a dog is difficult if not impossible right now. What about guilt; Can a dog feel guilt? I previously stated that guilt may show intelligence because it shows an understanding of other being's feelings as well as right and wrong, but can a dog feel guilt?
I have a dog. I have come home to shredded toilet paper on the floor, maybe a turd or two on the carpet, and as soon as I see Sookie (my dog) her tail goes between her legs, her head drops to the floor, and she retreats. It seems like she feels guilty because she knows she did something she wasn't supposed to. HERE'S THE PROBLEM HOWEVER: how can we determine the difference between guilt and fear without a reliable form of communication? Sookie knows that if she poops inside she'll get yelled at and tossed outside. She doesn't enjoy this. So maybe her sudden retreat is merely a sign of fear because she has been conditioned to learn that if she goes inside she gets in trouble. This does not show guilt (although it does show an adaptive thought process).
Question what you know about animals. Question your assumption that we are superior, that we deserve any respect from them. I get it; we have thumbs, we have computers, cell phones, tv, school, and so on, but when stripped down to our basic thoughts we may not be that different. It would be interesting to see how gorillas truly communicate with each other, because clearly they are capable of not only language, but understanding other beings well enough to try and manipulate them, and really when you look at it we're just a bunch of gorillas wearing clothes lying to each other through cell phones, the news, and reality tv. I hate reality tv.
Wake up!
I recently did a presentation on the life and teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, a Hindu saint that reached liberation at the young age of 16 and spent the rest of his life reflecting on his self discovery and teaching non-dualism to those who came to him with questions. It's really hard to sum up his life and teachings in a simple sentence like that, and doesn't do him justice, but I want to keep this somewhat concise and focused. In this entry I will strive to define non-dualism better than I did in my in-class presentation.
First of all, I realize not everyone reading this is in my class, so I'll give you some background. When I say he reached liberation I mean as a young boy Ramana Maharshi found self realization, discovering that while there is something beyond the physical body there is no separation between selves. Simply put everyone and everything is one. This is a fundamental belief in the Hindu philosophy. How does a 16 year old boy come to such a profound realization? One day Ramana was overwhelmed with the feeling that he was going to die. Rather than calling out for help he laid down and acted out his death, stopped his breathing, held himself stiff to imitate rigor mortis and mediated. Here are his remarks when asked about what is called his awakening:
"'Well then,' I said to myself, 'this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burn and reduced to ashes. But with the death of the body, am I dead? Is the body I? It is silent and inert, but I feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of I within me, apart from it. So I am the Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the spirit transcending it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit.' All this was not dull thought; it flashed through me vividly as living truths which I perceived directly almost without thought process. I was something real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with the body was centered on that I."
From that moment on he spent his life in temples meditating and teaching those who came to him with questions. That's pretty much a condensed version of my presentation from class, however in this entry I'm going to try and hone in on Non-dualism.
The trouble with understanding non-dualism is we are so used to thinking from the ego. This doesn't necessarily mean we are all self centered and egotistical, but in the society we live in most of what we do is either directly or indirectly driven by self gain or preservation. We think in terms of 'I' and 'Me'. Simply put we are subjective beings. I'm different than you. She's different that him. Non-dualism argues that although we perceive things subjectively we are all the same part of the whole. We are all one. Again, this is really hard to conceptualize in the world we live in. This is America man, we're worried about bringing home the bacon, making a profit, owning the newest fanciest ipod. I have always stood by the idea that in the end the money we make is just green paper, and the stuff we own is just stuff, and that if you let it, it will define you and own you. "The things you own end up owning you". Thanks for that Fight Club. But unfortunately we still live in a society where this is a reality. That's why it's so hard to believe and understand this concept; we live in constant competition with one another.
It's easier to understand Non-dualism if I relate it to something that may be more familiar to us...well...sort of. I remember sitting in my high school English class while my teacher tried to explain what a synecdoche was. Not only is it hard to spell, but it's a weird concept. It boils down to the part representing the whole. For example the phrase "A set of wheels" when referring to a car. This isn't exactly what Non-dualism means, but it's close, and it helps bridge that gap. The main difference is the fact that labeling something as "the part" of the whole, whether it represents the whole or not, creates separation. If something is a part it can't be the same as that other part. Non-dualism tries to teach us that we are more than parts, we are one. The self is eternal because the self is everything. That's why Ramana didn't fear death. Even in the days before the death of his body he showed no fear. He simply told his followers that they shouldn't be sad, for he wasn't going anywhere. Where could he go?
Yes, I realize this realization may seem trivial in our society. I'm not expecting anyone to burn their cash and live in a loin cloth. Ramana Maharshi didn't expect that either. However after learning all of this I couldn't help but have a different mindset in almost everything I did. This doesn't mean I believe all of this, I mean, that's why I'm a philosophy major, I'm constantly searching for the truth. But the mere possibility that we are all one changes things for me. There's a lot more than just the concept of Non-dualism, and if you want more just pick up the Bhagavad Gita. This entry was simply here to better define Non-dualism.
First of all, I realize not everyone reading this is in my class, so I'll give you some background. When I say he reached liberation I mean as a young boy Ramana Maharshi found self realization, discovering that while there is something beyond the physical body there is no separation between selves. Simply put everyone and everything is one. This is a fundamental belief in the Hindu philosophy. How does a 16 year old boy come to such a profound realization? One day Ramana was overwhelmed with the feeling that he was going to die. Rather than calling out for help he laid down and acted out his death, stopped his breathing, held himself stiff to imitate rigor mortis and mediated. Here are his remarks when asked about what is called his awakening:
"'Well then,' I said to myself, 'this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burn and reduced to ashes. But with the death of the body, am I dead? Is the body I? It is silent and inert, but I feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of I within me, apart from it. So I am the Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the spirit transcending it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit.' All this was not dull thought; it flashed through me vividly as living truths which I perceived directly almost without thought process. I was something real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with the body was centered on that I."
From that moment on he spent his life in temples meditating and teaching those who came to him with questions. That's pretty much a condensed version of my presentation from class, however in this entry I'm going to try and hone in on Non-dualism.
The trouble with understanding non-dualism is we are so used to thinking from the ego. This doesn't necessarily mean we are all self centered and egotistical, but in the society we live in most of what we do is either directly or indirectly driven by self gain or preservation. We think in terms of 'I' and 'Me'. Simply put we are subjective beings. I'm different than you. She's different that him. Non-dualism argues that although we perceive things subjectively we are all the same part of the whole. We are all one. Again, this is really hard to conceptualize in the world we live in. This is America man, we're worried about bringing home the bacon, making a profit, owning the newest fanciest ipod. I have always stood by the idea that in the end the money we make is just green paper, and the stuff we own is just stuff, and that if you let it, it will define you and own you. "The things you own end up owning you". Thanks for that Fight Club. But unfortunately we still live in a society where this is a reality. That's why it's so hard to believe and understand this concept; we live in constant competition with one another.
It's easier to understand Non-dualism if I relate it to something that may be more familiar to us...well...sort of. I remember sitting in my high school English class while my teacher tried to explain what a synecdoche was. Not only is it hard to spell, but it's a weird concept. It boils down to the part representing the whole. For example the phrase "A set of wheels" when referring to a car. This isn't exactly what Non-dualism means, but it's close, and it helps bridge that gap. The main difference is the fact that labeling something as "the part" of the whole, whether it represents the whole or not, creates separation. If something is a part it can't be the same as that other part. Non-dualism tries to teach us that we are more than parts, we are one. The self is eternal because the self is everything. That's why Ramana didn't fear death. Even in the days before the death of his body he showed no fear. He simply told his followers that they shouldn't be sad, for he wasn't going anywhere. Where could he go?
Yes, I realize this realization may seem trivial in our society. I'm not expecting anyone to burn their cash and live in a loin cloth. Ramana Maharshi didn't expect that either. However after learning all of this I couldn't help but have a different mindset in almost everything I did. This doesn't mean I believe all of this, I mean, that's why I'm a philosophy major, I'm constantly searching for the truth. But the mere possibility that we are all one changes things for me. There's a lot more than just the concept of Non-dualism, and if you want more just pick up the Bhagavad Gita. This entry was simply here to better define Non-dualism.
Transhumanism
My philosophy professor told us all to go research Transhumanism, figure out what it is, and define 3 main themes in this philosophy. This is going to be a short entry (mostly because I have 3 more to do tonight) for the main themes can be found simply by looking at the definition.
According to Max More, author of The Modern Philosophy of Transhumanism, Transhumanism can be defined as a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life- promoting principles and values.
To define this in my own words I would have to say it's the idea that we must develop science and technology and use them towards our betterment.
Here are the 3 main themes in my eyes:
1. Humans have limitations in their current state.
2. The development of science and technology are our main tools in overcoming human limitations.
3. The acceleration and growth of intelligent life will take us beyond merely being human as we know it today.
According to Max More, author of The Modern Philosophy of Transhumanism, Transhumanism can be defined as a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life- promoting principles and values.
To define this in my own words I would have to say it's the idea that we must develop science and technology and use them towards our betterment.
Here are the 3 main themes in my eyes:
1. Humans have limitations in their current state.
2. The development of science and technology are our main tools in overcoming human limitations.
3. The acceleration and growth of intelligent life will take us beyond merely being human as we know it today.
Highlights of Thich Nhat Hanh's 14 precepts
I read the 14 Precepts of Engaged Buddhism for a class assignment and my professor asked the class to identify two aspects of the reading: The precept most personally valuable and the precept that would be the most difficult to follow.
For those of you who haven't read them and might be interested here they are:
For those of you who haven't read them and might be interested here they are:
1
Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.
2
Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.
3
Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.
4
Do not avoid suffering or close your eyes before suffering. Do not lose awareness of the existence of suffering in the life of the world. Find ways to be with those who are suffering, including personal contact, visits, images and sounds. By such means, awaken yourself and others to the reality of suffering in the world.
5
Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need.
6
Do not maintain anger or hatred. Learn to penetrate and transform them when they are still seeds in your consciousness. As soon as they arise, turn your attention to your breath in order to see and understand the nature of your hatred.
7
Do not lose yourself in dispersion and in your surroundings. Practice mindful breathing to come back to what is happening in the present moment. Be in touch with what is wondrous, refreshing, and healing both inside and around you. Plant seeds of joy, peace, and understanding in yourself in order to facilitate the work of transformation in the depths of your consciousness.
8
Do not utter words that can create discord and cause the community to break. Make every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.
9
Do not say untruthful things for the sake of personal interest or to impress people. Do not utter words that cause division and hatred. Do not spread news that you do not know to be certain. Do not criticize or condemn things of which you are not sure. Always speak truthfully and constructively. Have the courage to speak out about situations of injustice, even when doing so may threaten your own safety.
10
Do not use the Buddhist community for personal gain or profit, or transform your community into a political party. A religious community, however, should take a clear stand against oppression and injustice and should strive to change the situation without engaging in partisan conflicts.
11
Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans and nature. Do not invest in companies that deprive others of their chance to live. Select a vocation that helps realise your ideal of compassion.
12
Do not kill. Do not let others kill. Find whatever means possible to protect life and prevent war.
13
Possess nothing that should belong to others. Respect the property of others, but prevent others from profiting from human suffering or the suffering of other species on Earth.
14
Do not mistreat your body. Learn to handle it with respect. Do not look on your body as only an instrument. Preserve vital energies (sexual, breath, spirit) for the realisation of the Way. (For brothers and sisters who are not monks and nuns:) Sexual expression should not take place without love and commitment. In sexual relations, be aware of future suffering that may be caused. To preserve the happiness of others, respect the rights and commitments of others. Be fully aware of the responsibility of bringing new lives into the world. Meditate on the world into which you are bringing new beings.
Personally the most valuable precept is the second one, the one that has to do with gaining new knowledge and realizing that the knowledge we already posses may not be concrete. Without truly accepting this precept it would be difficult to really live by any of the 14 precepts. It helps us learn new things, helps us accept that the things we already know may change, and allows us to grow and adapt. It involves the search for knowledge with the mindset that knowledge is infinite and ever-changing.
As far as the most difficult to follow I would have to say precept 12. Just kidding, that would be kind of ridiculous. Honestly though, precept 10 the one that involves personal gain seems to be the most difficult. On the surface it seems straight forward; don't exploit Buddhism for personal profit. Sounds easy, but in the world we live in, and with the way we think, it's hard to find an action that doesn't have some roots in personal gain. It's not necessarily selfish, it seems to be rooted in self preservation. I do realize that the tenth precept takes a stand against oppression and political exploitation, but the very first part concerning personal gain is more complex that it seems on the surface.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
I'm thinking about something I can't understand because I can't understand that I'm thinking about it.
I can't understand that I'm thinking about things that I can't understand that I'm thinking about.
These statements came from a friend of mine after watching that video. After I watched it I was pretty much silent for several minutes. The general consensus after the video was how problematic it is that the only way to describe the dimensions "above" our own is to bring them down to terms we in this dimension can perceive. Sure it's the only way for us to understand these dimensions, how can we perceive something that doesn't exist in the only three dimensions we've ever known. That aspect of the video was incredibly successful. However, we can't truly grasp the concept for a tenth dimension, nor can we prove that dimension, while still existing in, or rather perceiving this realm that we currently know (for if these upper dimensions to indeed exist we surely exist in them).
A problem that I personally had with the video was the fact that all of the dimensions described were assumed to be all there was. Again, I remind you of my previous posts where I explored the idea of the self/soul existing in a real beyond the one our physical bodies reside and our minds perceive. This video doesn't even take this into account. Could that be considered an eleventh dimension? If so, this dimension would be completely different from the other ten. Ugh. This whole entry is hypothetical babble with no answers and no end in sight.
I'm not sleeping tonight. I probably have time to, but there's something interesting about being completely exhausted. Call it a sick experiment, but the feeling of true exhaustion is so organic and so raw that it excites me. I realize this is completely unrelated to the previous paragraphs and the video posted, I just feel it needed to be said.
It's mind blowing. I think of it in these terms: I exist, here I exist now, but in this hypothetical tenth dimension I exist all at once in every different way possible. Is the possibility that I never existed at all found in this dimension? Surely. But what really is the point in all of this? These dimensions don't really seem to be realms of any kind that we can understand. It's more of a what if game; The ultimate what if game.
It seems in watching the video I got sucked in and found it thought provoking and mind blowing. Now that I've sat down and chewed on it a while I realize it's all very trivial. I don't care about what ifs. Why? Because all I know for sure is that I exist. I exist here, I exist now. There's no sense in wondering all of the possible outcomes. It doesn't actually make them true. All this model really showed was all the possible outcomes of possible starting points, and in my eyes, sure it seems amazing that we could seem so small in the grand scheme of things, but all I know is my self as the way I am.
Happiness is a warm gun...
I have read works from many philosophers but I should let everyone know that I've really only touched the surface of these works. I'm currently reading Plato's Republic, Kant's critique of Pure Reason, Aristotle's Metaphysics, and a number of thought provoking novels such as Ishmael; however I pick them up every once in a while. These works tend to be so potent that my mind has to be ready for them and can only digest so much at a time. It's kind of sad really...I can only get through about a page of Kant at a time, but I seem to be getting better.
Here's something interesting though: John Stuart Mill, as well as numerous other philosophers, see happiness as the intrinsic good. I find that incredibly problematic...most of the time it seems like their arguments simply state "Search for happiness but don't this, don't that..." and so on. I realize I'm asking a lot of these guys, but I expect the best. An intrinsic good should go without clarification and guidelines; it is pure. To say otherwise is to say that our very nature is filled with holes, this could be the case, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I firmly believe that the very nature of our self is perfect and goes without rules. But what is it?
It must be something simpler than happiness...but that seems to complicate things and muddy the water. Happiness seems to be rooted in this physical realm (most of the time), and if what we're searching for is the true intrinsic good, the very nature of our self, and based on my previous arguments of duality, our nature is of something else entirely; our true nature is rooted in the self. Happiness can come from something as simple as a hug or a new bike (I got a bike today, happiness is an understatement). This is not to say that happiness can't come from something much greater however. In racking my brain (which is problematic in itself, for my mind is molded by the physical realm, but it's really my only tool here) for the true "good" I'm coming to find that discovering our true nature may very well yield happiness. This is great. I still haven't decided what this omnipresent good is, but I'll get there...hopefully.
What if...and stay with me now, I am just now beginning to ponder this myself...what if our intrinsic good has no rules? What if our mere nature is free? To realize true joy one would discover the true self, and in turn free the nature of that self. It seems we put too many constraints on ourselves. To even try and define our nature shackles it to our realm, our words. The true nature of ourselves could simply be to free our true nature from the constraints of the worry, the anxiety, and even the pleasure brought to us through the mind and body. If this is the case then this blog entry is over. I have found the answer: stop searching and be. Unfortunately for me I can't just quit here, although I do love being stumped by this.
It seems the mind, body, and soul are in harmony in these sorts of exercises. The mind is at work, but not distracting. It is used as a tool for finding the true essence of the soul. The body acts as a vessel to relay the findings of the mind to the world. The soul is this ever-present source of wonder and freedom. It's so raw. It's so raw in fact, that it might be the only thing that isn't synthetic. The nature is what I'm after. I have not found the answer. I don't think I will for some time. It could be that the nature of the self is to remain unscathed by our rudimentary language or our rigid constraints. If the soul itself resides in a realm that can only be described as beyond the one we currently perceive, how then can we begin to try and understand the nature of it.
Here's something interesting though: John Stuart Mill, as well as numerous other philosophers, see happiness as the intrinsic good. I find that incredibly problematic...most of the time it seems like their arguments simply state "Search for happiness but don't this, don't that..." and so on. I realize I'm asking a lot of these guys, but I expect the best. An intrinsic good should go without clarification and guidelines; it is pure. To say otherwise is to say that our very nature is filled with holes, this could be the case, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I firmly believe that the very nature of our self is perfect and goes without rules. But what is it?
It must be something simpler than happiness...but that seems to complicate things and muddy the water. Happiness seems to be rooted in this physical realm (most of the time), and if what we're searching for is the true intrinsic good, the very nature of our self, and based on my previous arguments of duality, our nature is of something else entirely; our true nature is rooted in the self. Happiness can come from something as simple as a hug or a new bike (I got a bike today, happiness is an understatement). This is not to say that happiness can't come from something much greater however. In racking my brain (which is problematic in itself, for my mind is molded by the physical realm, but it's really my only tool here) for the true "good" I'm coming to find that discovering our true nature may very well yield happiness. This is great. I still haven't decided what this omnipresent good is, but I'll get there...hopefully.
What if...and stay with me now, I am just now beginning to ponder this myself...what if our intrinsic good has no rules? What if our mere nature is free? To realize true joy one would discover the true self, and in turn free the nature of that self. It seems we put too many constraints on ourselves. To even try and define our nature shackles it to our realm, our words. The true nature of ourselves could simply be to free our true nature from the constraints of the worry, the anxiety, and even the pleasure brought to us through the mind and body. If this is the case then this blog entry is over. I have found the answer: stop searching and be. Unfortunately for me I can't just quit here, although I do love being stumped by this.
It seems the mind, body, and soul are in harmony in these sorts of exercises. The mind is at work, but not distracting. It is used as a tool for finding the true essence of the soul. The body acts as a vessel to relay the findings of the mind to the world. The soul is this ever-present source of wonder and freedom. It's so raw. It's so raw in fact, that it might be the only thing that isn't synthetic. The nature is what I'm after. I have not found the answer. I don't think I will for some time. It could be that the nature of the self is to remain unscathed by our rudimentary language or our rigid constraints. If the soul itself resides in a realm that can only be described as beyond the one we currently perceive, how then can we begin to try and understand the nature of it.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Duality
I realize I have been neglecting my blog for the past weeks, but hopefully the next couple of entries will do this page some justice. For some reason I can't actually sit down and write unless the sun has been down for several hours, I have caffeine coursing through my veins, and music blaring in my headphones (tonight's tunes happen to be Mumford and Sons).
I'm going off my previous entries, so you may want to read them before this one if you haven't already. One more thing before diving into this: I'm pretty skeptical of lots of things, I'm not attempting set anything in stone. None of this is concrete. I'm constantly exploring. These entries serve to organize my musings and reflect on the readings and teachings I encounter.
A couple of weeks ago I stayed up till around 4am talking about a number of things with a friend of mine, it's a bummer I didn't record the conversation because at the time it was eye opening but now its foggy, I'm going to attempt to dust off the cob webs.
In my previous entry I explored Descartes' idea that there is a separation between the body and the mind/soul. Assuming my exploration was sound one thing we can be certain of in this world is that we exist, not necessarily physically, for this could merely be an illusion, dream, or a shadow, but beyond this realm. To Descartes the true essence seemed to be the mind, but that's problematic.
The mind is our friend in exploration of ourselves, but in the end it is also a crutch for it is rooted in the physical realm. Anxiety, whether agitated by external agencies originates in the mind. When we start to question our actions, just as I question every sentence typed into this entry, anxiety grows. I sit alone. Only the pressure of time is present at the moment, and yet I feel anxious. My thoughts are loud and disorganized. Why? Unfortunately it seems my mind takes a purely subjective stance at the moment. In fact the mind is purely subjective in its rawest state. We learn from our experiences, and surroundings, perceived by our senses. Descartes stated that our senses distract us from the truth and can be deceptive. How then can we trust the mind? It's so easily molded by what we come across in our lives. The only thing truly proved by Descartes' arguments is not that the mind exists, but that the self exists. There is a separation from the body and the self. This body is a shell. It's an object. I am more than my body.
In an effort to quiet the mind as thoughts arise we can ask our mind a question: To whom has this thought arisen? Naturally we answer to me. However, a follow up question is necessary: Who am I? One of the most powerful questions a philosopher can ask if you think about it.
I stray from this initial point of duality (the separation between body and self) to talk about how society and the world we live in has shaped our perceptions.
Who am I? Well...I'm Taylor Lee Wallace. But this isn't true, not purely at least. My name means nothing at all. It does not define me, it's merely something my parents decided to call me. However in the world we live in it defines us to the people we meet. My driver's license says Taylor Lee Wallace, Male, 5' 8", Brown Hair. That doesn't describe me. It's merely a simple way for the cop that just pulled me over for speeding identifies me. It doesn't come close to defining me.
Who am I? I'm a guitar player, I'm a poet, I'm an artist. Nope...that doesn't cut it, and I'll tell you why. The things I do in my life don't truly define me. Don't agree with me? Well was I any less myself when I was born than I am now? Of course not. But I wasn't a guitar player, a poet, or an artist then. These are fairly recent decisions I have made. Who knows, in a few months, years, decades I may decide that I find happiness not in my art, but in spelunking. The mind is fickle. Does that mean I'm less of myself than I was before? More? No. I'm myself from the minute I'm born to the minute I die, whether I'm an artist, business man, bank robber, or a mental patient. These merely answer what I do, not who I am.
I could keep finding faulty answers to this question, but its pointless. I'm not ready for the answer. I can't seem to fathom it. I don't quit, but I accept that I am myself, whatever that is. I know that it's more than my body, more than my name, more than my talents. These are merely vessels through which the self is expressed and explores.
"Existence or Consciousness is the only reality. Consciousness plus waking we call waking. Consciousness plus sleep we call sleep. Consciousness plus dream, we call dream. Consciousness is the screen on which all the pictures come and go. The screen is real, the pictures are mere shadows on it."
-Ramana Maharshi
When staying up pondering with my pal we attempted to explore the teachings of Ramana. I was new to his teachings, as I am now...however echoes of Plato's allegory of The Cave bounce around my head after reading this. The reason I ask myself who I am in an effort to silence my troubling thoughts is to remind myself that I am myself. I exist. That's pretty much it. Where can I go from there? The answer is here.
I'm going off my previous entries, so you may want to read them before this one if you haven't already. One more thing before diving into this: I'm pretty skeptical of lots of things, I'm not attempting set anything in stone. None of this is concrete. I'm constantly exploring. These entries serve to organize my musings and reflect on the readings and teachings I encounter.
A couple of weeks ago I stayed up till around 4am talking about a number of things with a friend of mine, it's a bummer I didn't record the conversation because at the time it was eye opening but now its foggy, I'm going to attempt to dust off the cob webs.
In my previous entry I explored Descartes' idea that there is a separation between the body and the mind/soul. Assuming my exploration was sound one thing we can be certain of in this world is that we exist, not necessarily physically, for this could merely be an illusion, dream, or a shadow, but beyond this realm. To Descartes the true essence seemed to be the mind, but that's problematic.
The mind is our friend in exploration of ourselves, but in the end it is also a crutch for it is rooted in the physical realm. Anxiety, whether agitated by external agencies originates in the mind. When we start to question our actions, just as I question every sentence typed into this entry, anxiety grows. I sit alone. Only the pressure of time is present at the moment, and yet I feel anxious. My thoughts are loud and disorganized. Why? Unfortunately it seems my mind takes a purely subjective stance at the moment. In fact the mind is purely subjective in its rawest state. We learn from our experiences, and surroundings, perceived by our senses. Descartes stated that our senses distract us from the truth and can be deceptive. How then can we trust the mind? It's so easily molded by what we come across in our lives. The only thing truly proved by Descartes' arguments is not that the mind exists, but that the self exists. There is a separation from the body and the self. This body is a shell. It's an object. I am more than my body.
In an effort to quiet the mind as thoughts arise we can ask our mind a question: To whom has this thought arisen? Naturally we answer to me. However, a follow up question is necessary: Who am I? One of the most powerful questions a philosopher can ask if you think about it.
I stray from this initial point of duality (the separation between body and self) to talk about how society and the world we live in has shaped our perceptions.
Who am I? Well...I'm Taylor Lee Wallace. But this isn't true, not purely at least. My name means nothing at all. It does not define me, it's merely something my parents decided to call me. However in the world we live in it defines us to the people we meet. My driver's license says Taylor Lee Wallace, Male, 5' 8", Brown Hair. That doesn't describe me. It's merely a simple way for the cop that just pulled me over for speeding identifies me. It doesn't come close to defining me.
Who am I? I'm a guitar player, I'm a poet, I'm an artist. Nope...that doesn't cut it, and I'll tell you why. The things I do in my life don't truly define me. Don't agree with me? Well was I any less myself when I was born than I am now? Of course not. But I wasn't a guitar player, a poet, or an artist then. These are fairly recent decisions I have made. Who knows, in a few months, years, decades I may decide that I find happiness not in my art, but in spelunking. The mind is fickle. Does that mean I'm less of myself than I was before? More? No. I'm myself from the minute I'm born to the minute I die, whether I'm an artist, business man, bank robber, or a mental patient. These merely answer what I do, not who I am.
I could keep finding faulty answers to this question, but its pointless. I'm not ready for the answer. I can't seem to fathom it. I don't quit, but I accept that I am myself, whatever that is. I know that it's more than my body, more than my name, more than my talents. These are merely vessels through which the self is expressed and explores.
"Existence or Consciousness is the only reality. Consciousness plus waking we call waking. Consciousness plus sleep we call sleep. Consciousness plus dream, we call dream. Consciousness is the screen on which all the pictures come and go. The screen is real, the pictures are mere shadows on it."
-Ramana Maharshi
When staying up pondering with my pal we attempted to explore the teachings of Ramana. I was new to his teachings, as I am now...however echoes of Plato's allegory of The Cave bounce around my head after reading this. The reason I ask myself who I am in an effort to silence my troubling thoughts is to remind myself that I am myself. I exist. That's pretty much it. Where can I go from there? The answer is here.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Got Soul?
It's 2:41...it's been a long week, but I can't sleep yet. After reading The first two meditations of Descartes I've been perplexed with the concept of a soul. So, I'll hunker down in the laundry room with some apple jacks and we'll see if I can get to the bottom of this. If not the bottom, somewhere. As long as I don't go in circles and some conclusion materializes I can call this blog post a success.
First of all, I have to state a grievance I have with Descartes concerning Meditations I and II. Aside from being terribly hard to follow, he makes a few contradictions. The most problematic for me is the many assumptions he makes concerning his religious background. This is not to bash his faith, in fact I admire it. This guy searches for answers through logic, yet he stays true to his roots. Bravo. However, listen to this:
" I was convinced of the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure in the sciences" (Descartes, Med. I).
How can he build himself a new foundation in building a tower to the sun of knowledge mentioned centuries earlier in Plato's Republic if he constantly refers back to the assumptions implanted in his head by religious teachings?
For now, I'm not going to dwell on that. First and foremost this blog entry is to explore the notion of a soul. In our class discussion we came to the conclusion (however vague and ambiguous that conclusion may be) that the soul is not of this world. It is beyond the physical realm. Here's the trouble...I honestly don't know how we reached this assumption, and assumptions are something I would like to avoid all together. I called Descartes out for making assumptions, and I'm no hypocrite. So why isn't a soul a physical thing, or a thing at all? Dammit...Houston we have a problem: how do I know I have a soul?
Descartes "proves" that the soul...or mind (that's just his word for it) exists by first posing the idea that nothing physical exists. This is an undeniable possibility. Sure we could get into that Inception or Matrix mumbo jumbo, or I could just site a real life example from my own experiences. As a child I had chronic night-terrors, the psychological reasoning behind why I had these episodes is irrelevant and just another boring sob story, so I'll stray from that. However, these night-terrors felt like reality, just as sitting in front of this computer listening to the hum of the washing-machines feels like a present reality. Reality check: according to Descartes himself what I consider "reality" may be in question. In his Meditations, or from what I read of them (there's a ton, and they're all designed like a logic labyrinth), Descartes basically convinces himself that he could very well be dreaming; his physical body might not actually exist, or at least not as he perceived it during his writing. By this point I'm thinking get on with it already man, I get it, there's no obvious or easy way to prove or disprove that all of what I am currently doing (physically) is or isn't a dream. Blah, blah, yawn, snore.
Now Descartes may have a very round about way of making a point, but he is one smart son of a bitch. He makes the assertion that because he is doubting the existence of the physical realm he must exist, for how can something that doesn't exist doubt anything. Nothing does not doubt, nothing does not exist. So, to doubt=to exist. This existence is the existence of a "soul" or "mind". Why? Because if we doubt our physical bodies but believe we exist because of this doubt, what is our existence comprised of? The answer is beyond our realm of conception, so to understand it better, to label it, to sort of bound some of this wild discourse we call it the soul. Okay, it took long enough to justify the belief of our existence through the form of a soul...but what is it I'm actually blogging about here? I've lost sight in this thick fog of doubt.
Somehow Descartes, the guy that bases his existence on doubt, is still a believer in The Almighty. I can just see Professor McKinney clasping her hands together and establishing this point as "interesting" or "intriguing". Makes sense anyways, because I was certainly baffled, bewildered even, when I reached this conclusion.
I'm about to tread some dangerous waters here, walk a slippery slope, if you know what I mean. Know where I'm going with this? Give you a hint: Namaste. You've probably seen the movie Avatar (James Cameron's, not the last air bender), right? Remember how the big blue hippies monkey things say "I see you" to each other as a sign of respect and compassion? Yeah, that's essentially what Namaste means. Really when you say "Namaste" to someone you are acknowledging that the God in you recognizes the God in them. I'd love to connect this to the previously mentioned rough sketch of a soul. Wouldn't it be great to greet people by saying "Hi, my soul recognizes your soul". What a great ice-breaker...but can the connection be made? We'll see, I'm (obviously) spit balling here.
The Slippery Slope:
For the record, I am not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, I am merely attempting to make a connection between the existence of our souls to the concept of The Almighty. We know have souls because we doubt our physical existence. This also suggests that these souls are beyond the physical realm, because for all we know the physical realm is an illusion. Therefore we must accept the existence of a realm beyond the one we can perceive. Good, I think I'm on the right track here. Now, I don't really want to get into where our souls came from, who/what created them, and why...I'm already on a slippery slope, that would just lube the cliff I'm climbing. I feel I'm at an impasse. Shit.
Okay, it's 4:03am...I have come to the conclusions (with the help of Descartes doubt) that I exist beyond this physical realm in the form of a soul, whatever that may be. Also I must accept that there is a realm beyond the physical, the one in which my soul resides. This realm may be related to the concept of Namaste and The Almighty, but that is way too much to tackle a few hours from day break.
I know I have a soul; successful blog post.
Namaste,
T
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Plato called it "Good", I call it Love.
My brain is literally still buzzing from today's discussion in class today. Our reading assignment was Plato's allegory of the cave, from The Republic, which seemed straight forward enough at first glance.To very briefly summarize, Plato paints a scene of prisoners chained to a cave wall. A fire casts shadows of everything in the cave against the ground and the walls, and these shadows are all the prisoners can see, and have seen. To the prisoners the shadows in this cave are their reality. They don't see a person, they see a shadow of a person. Likewise, they don't see their own reflection, they see their shadow. But to them, this is reality.
Plato then suggests that one of the prisoners is released from the cave into the world. He would be blind from the light of the sun, but will slowly gain normal vision and see this new reality he has been brought to. The last thing he is able to perceive is the sun; the very thing that gives him the light to perceive his surroundings, creates seasons, grows trees, etc.
Here's a direct quote from Francis Cornford's translation of The Republic:
"In the world of knowledge, the last thing to be perceived and only with great difficulty is the essential Form of Goodness...this is the cause of whatever is right and good" (The Republic, 231).
So...Plato is suggesting that in our current state of mind we cannot fully realize that "essential Form of Goodness". He doesn't even define it, which at first seemed problematic to me. Here I am thinking: this guy pulls the rug out from under us, tells us we're living in some lower state of consciousness, but doesn't bother defining the goal of this journey towards enlightenment (what the hell is enlightenment anyways?) The concept seemed ridiculous to me. I was blinded by the light of this "Goodness".
In class Professor McKinney told everyone to draw her chair "exactly as they saw it". This was to literally illustrate our subjective nature in our current state. I saw the chair differently that the girl sitting across the room saw it, therefore our pictures looked different (also, my picture looked like crap, I'm a poet, not a painter). I started getting excited, sitting there in class, because I felt one step ahead. As soon as the word subjective is mentioned my mind starts swimming with terms like cultural relativism, and perspective. I quickly wrote in my notebook: If everything is subjective/relative what is true?
Objectivity.
That's why Plato didn't define "Goodness". He couldn't define it in such a way that is comprehensible by those of us still dwelling in the cave! If it's the last thing realized in a quest for enlightenment how could anyone expect him to tell us what it was. It's beyond this realm. We see things from our point of view, based on where we are, how we were raised, the mood we're in, our experiences. Right now we are subjective beings. I see what I see, not what you see. I'm getting ahead of myself, I haven't properly defined objectivity, merely implied its definition. For something to be objective it must be independent of our reality. This changes everything. Professor McKinney suggests that once this "Goodness" is achieved we realize true happiness. Sure I buy that. The word Nirvana is ringing through my head. Some of my classmates struggle with this idea. They say things like: "How can that make me happy?" "Happiness to me is different than happiness to someone else". They have a point, although it's shallow. The kind of happiness they are talking about is personal, subjective, opinionated. The happiness achieved through enlightenment is universal, timeless, and most importantly objective. It relates to Nirvana, Heaven, Good Karma, all that spiritual whatnot (I'm not getting into that specifically right now, maybe in a later post).
Here's something that's been stuck in my head since 12:15 today. Love. I'm not talking about corny one liners in romantic comedies, be my valentine baby, shallow pop songs, none of that. I'm talking Love with a capital 'L'. That kind of objective Love can relate to the quest for enlightenment Plato was talking about. In fact, I think it's what pushes us towards that "Goodness" he spoke about back in the day. Don't believe me? Listen to this:
There's nothing you can do that can't be done,
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung,
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be,
It's easy.
All you need is Love.
I don't know how much John and Paul studied Plato, but they hit the nail on the head. This song is about the Love that drives us to enlightenment. Universal, objective, timeless Love. Sure, it might be a little vague, it's hard to describe something so vast in a blog...or at all for that matter. Some would say this song is about "fate", that everything is predetermined for us, but I disagree. To me, the song tells us that if we cut the crap, cut the subjectivity, and act out of Love we're doing things right, and we're on our path out of the cave.
If I had this mindset earlier when asked to draw the chair I may have piped up and said I couldn't, not because of my lackluster art skills, but because how can I capture the true essence of that chair in a simple drawing? How could the drawing even compare to the chair? It's 1 dimensional. The drawing of the chair would be more like the drawing of the chair's shadow, and that's how I know I'm still in the cave.
Until my next mind altering epiphany,
T
Monday, January 24, 2011
First entry
Well...I have a blog now. Not really sure what that means, but I do know that this will just contribute to my chronic insomnia. I created this blog for my Philosophy class at Txstate (we're supposed to blog or philosophical thoughts on stuff from class) but I think it's going to turn into more that that.
It's ten till three, and I have class in the morning, but this is my first blog entry so I better do it right...whatever that means.
I wrote a song tonight, which isn't that exciting if you're a musician, but this song was slightly different. Basically every song I've ever written is a love song, that's pretty much to be expected from me, and I always loved songs with girls' names in them. "Martha My Dear", "Maggie May", "Lola" (that's not really a girl, but you get it right?). Anyways...they seem more personal, ya know? I never really accomplished that until tonight. To get to the point, my girlfriend's name is Jacqui, which is a great name, and I had every reason in the world to dedicate the majority of a song to her name, so I'm not really sure why it took so damn long. I was working on an unfinished piece, and all of the sudden it clicked: HER MIDDLE NAME RHYMES WITH HER FIRST NAME. It was so obvious. Jacqui Marie. That's a hit worthy title (not that the marketability of the song was on my mind...I record my music in a dorm basement for crying out loud).
Jacqui
Jacqui Marie
I give my heart, all of my soul
To thee.
So the song sounds pretty killer, and she likes what I've showed her, so maybe if I can figure out how to post it on here I'll do that one of these days.
Until then, here's my Facebook music site.
Peace and Love,
T
It's ten till three, and I have class in the morning, but this is my first blog entry so I better do it right...whatever that means.
I wrote a song tonight, which isn't that exciting if you're a musician, but this song was slightly different. Basically every song I've ever written is a love song, that's pretty much to be expected from me, and I always loved songs with girls' names in them. "Martha My Dear", "Maggie May", "Lola" (that's not really a girl, but you get it right?). Anyways...they seem more personal, ya know? I never really accomplished that until tonight. To get to the point, my girlfriend's name is Jacqui, which is a great name, and I had every reason in the world to dedicate the majority of a song to her name, so I'm not really sure why it took so damn long. I was working on an unfinished piece, and all of the sudden it clicked: HER MIDDLE NAME RHYMES WITH HER FIRST NAME. It was so obvious. Jacqui Marie. That's a hit worthy title (not that the marketability of the song was on my mind...I record my music in a dorm basement for crying out loud).
Jacqui
Jacqui Marie
I give my heart, all of my soul
To thee.
So the song sounds pretty killer, and she likes what I've showed her, so maybe if I can figure out how to post it on here I'll do that one of these days.
Until then, here's my Facebook music site.
Peace and Love,
T
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
