I do not suspect people will continue to believe it doesn't matter what you believe in because it will not affect their beliefs. If I did I would call myself a pessimist.
There will be people approaching death who will actively choose to ignore entire sets of notions due to the perception that even considering these notions would betray the foundations of their personal values. Most striking is that these notions, when fully considered, aid the individual in choosing efficient methodologies.
Our refusal to jettison these dysfunctional parts of self is testament to our psychological dependency on a static notion of self identity. Indeed, it is unlikely that any single preference is immune to the thought of another. This prompts me to search for a set of contexts in which a preference is unanimously accepted as optimal by every human being. One may approach the issue by differentiating preference with respect to essentiality. The categories of essential and nonessential preference hence arise naturally. These categories are overlapping sets.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Second recorded thought-stream on self
For as long as these words can be read, be they readable, mankind will have not yet found a more efficient form of communication.
Humans have assumed the responsibility of arrogance and cannot withdraw from the challenge. For as long as the probability of extinction exists, we must view it as necessity. Otherwise, we reproduce under the illusion of eternal history.
The urge to reproduce is often uncontrollable, so it is understandable if people choose to believe any set of things because other sets are less compelling.
It is you and I, we, who are compelling. Throughout life we make repeated efforts to have others do as we prefer. Those who succeed more often than not become our leaders, thereby disturbing the delicate balance of mutual complacency. The complexity of the situation escalates when considering other facts such as the ratio of leaders to followers, what set of words define each term, the cause of preferences, and plausibly, the definition of success.
It is plausible that a person feel successful given they accomplish relatively little because they generally do not accomplish much. So then is it plausible there exist a person who feels unsuccessful in spite of their many accomplishments? Surely there is a threshold for every person such that attaining status anywhere beyond that threshold guarantees they feel successful, It is also important to note the human tendency to desire success. In its most fundamental state, I find it easy to visualise success in the context of prehistoric man, and how beautifully simple the notion becomes.
When the key to survival and the key to success are no longer the same, the issue of defining success becomes relevant, but maybe the conditions under which survival becomes superfluous take priority.
We are all brought into existence (from?) without choice. Past events predetermine new life. So when does the notion of worry or anxiety emerge clearly in a person's mind? At what moment is the cause of fear unambiguous?
Is it as obvious as a newborn's wailing?
--
I have always found it interesting how for a person the trauma of a peaceful birth exceeds that of a peaceful death. Even more interesting is how for people observing these events the opposite is true.
--
People often claim to believe certain things because they do not object to the fact, do not object to the belief, and can easily explain why. It is at the latter where most people err. Most people have multiple corroborating explanations, some which may be contradictory, unnecessary, or more subtly, suggestive of how they do not have any reasoning as to why they should believe anything different. It is easier to feel something and put it into words than to put in words something that can be felt.
For people to be motivated to want to grasp the nature of their being it is necessary to put it within reach. A a general rule people will hardly go beyond words to appease their doubts, so they may return to satisfying their whims. It is all too important to emphasise the plausibility of the case where a person will not want to grasp it even if in reach. In this case an old theory naturally arises: that the nature of being cannot be grasped, and further, maybe that it has been ordained by a divine entity, also beyond our grasp, but is known to periodically remind us it exists (whenever an event that rings of the first event which caused man to conceptualise such an idea occurs).
I wonder if somehow the first man to intuit divine creation is still learning to speak. Humans keep stumbling over their words, unable to think.
Humans have assumed the responsibility of arrogance and cannot withdraw from the challenge. For as long as the probability of extinction exists, we must view it as necessity. Otherwise, we reproduce under the illusion of eternal history.
The urge to reproduce is often uncontrollable, so it is understandable if people choose to believe any set of things because other sets are less compelling.
It is you and I, we, who are compelling. Throughout life we make repeated efforts to have others do as we prefer. Those who succeed more often than not become our leaders, thereby disturbing the delicate balance of mutual complacency. The complexity of the situation escalates when considering other facts such as the ratio of leaders to followers, what set of words define each term, the cause of preferences, and plausibly, the definition of success.
It is plausible that a person feel successful given they accomplish relatively little because they generally do not accomplish much. So then is it plausible there exist a person who feels unsuccessful in spite of their many accomplishments? Surely there is a threshold for every person such that attaining status anywhere beyond that threshold guarantees they feel successful, It is also important to note the human tendency to desire success. In its most fundamental state, I find it easy to visualise success in the context of prehistoric man, and how beautifully simple the notion becomes.
When the key to survival and the key to success are no longer the same, the issue of defining success becomes relevant, but maybe the conditions under which survival becomes superfluous take priority.
We are all brought into existence (from?) without choice. Past events predetermine new life. So when does the notion of worry or anxiety emerge clearly in a person's mind? At what moment is the cause of fear unambiguous?
Is it as obvious as a newborn's wailing?
--
I have always found it interesting how for a person the trauma of a peaceful birth exceeds that of a peaceful death. Even more interesting is how for people observing these events the opposite is true.
--
People often claim to believe certain things because they do not object to the fact, do not object to the belief, and can easily explain why. It is at the latter where most people err. Most people have multiple corroborating explanations, some which may be contradictory, unnecessary, or more subtly, suggestive of how they do not have any reasoning as to why they should believe anything different. It is easier to feel something and put it into words than to put in words something that can be felt.
For people to be motivated to want to grasp the nature of their being it is necessary to put it within reach. A a general rule people will hardly go beyond words to appease their doubts, so they may return to satisfying their whims. It is all too important to emphasise the plausibility of the case where a person will not want to grasp it even if in reach. In this case an old theory naturally arises: that the nature of being cannot be grasped, and further, maybe that it has been ordained by a divine entity, also beyond our grasp, but is known to periodically remind us it exists (whenever an event that rings of the first event which caused man to conceptualise such an idea occurs).
I wonder if somehow the first man to intuit divine creation is still learning to speak. Humans keep stumbling over their words, unable to think.
First recorded thought-stream on self
If I may speak for everyone for a moment, let me assert that our current state of affairs is characterised by confusion. (The fact that I note this state exclusively suggests its weight in my general characterisation of states). To alleviate this ailment which prevails in reminding us of its existence with every human thought, first it is necessary to deem plausible the determination of the plausibility of (absolute) clarity.
I hope the reader can forgive me for using unclear or verbose language. Let this serve as an example of the recurrent manifestation of reasons to believe achieving clarity is implausible. Throughout this text the reader may find assertions which conflict with existing evidence, have little to no evidence, or which contradict previous assertions. Here I state, without ambiguity, that my purpose in writing this text is to develop the clearest explanation as to why I am writing this text, without directly addressing the question.
Needless to say, there is very little of interest to find in the completion of what seems to be an arbitrary self assignment of a time consuming task. However, I urge my readers to keep an eye out for whatever interesting ideas that emerge throughout.
--
There is absolute truth in the fact that I do not know the cause for any event, be it a tree falling in a distant forest, the Big Bang, or my own thoughts and actions. My fundamental concern with this is the recurrent necessity to identify the causes of events in one's life. The problem is vastly simplified under the assumption life is finite, necessitating that events also occur in finite time, allowing for the edification of a logical methodology by which to identify events.
Even so, the problem is unapproachable mathematically, at least without adhering to some notational convention, preconceived framework or formalism.
An objective observer could plausibly associate my concern with my inability to adopt the most efficient methodology when asked to identify a cause and the context to which it belongs. The notion of efficiency arises in the question of competence. Achieving a set of possible decisions which lead to that end in itself requires that the methodology used to arrive at the most efficient conclusion be the most efficient from the commencement of one's means. That is, the most efficient methodology must be chosen as quickly as possible from a finite set of methodologies, and must also be the first to be chosen among these. Choosing inefficient methodologies and/or choosing methodologies inefficiently is a characterisation of incompetence.
I hope the reader can forgive me for using unclear or verbose language. Let this serve as an example of the recurrent manifestation of reasons to believe achieving clarity is implausible. Throughout this text the reader may find assertions which conflict with existing evidence, have little to no evidence, or which contradict previous assertions. Here I state, without ambiguity, that my purpose in writing this text is to develop the clearest explanation as to why I am writing this text, without directly addressing the question.
Needless to say, there is very little of interest to find in the completion of what seems to be an arbitrary self assignment of a time consuming task. However, I urge my readers to keep an eye out for whatever interesting ideas that emerge throughout.
--
There is absolute truth in the fact that I do not know the cause for any event, be it a tree falling in a distant forest, the Big Bang, or my own thoughts and actions. My fundamental concern with this is the recurrent necessity to identify the causes of events in one's life. The problem is vastly simplified under the assumption life is finite, necessitating that events also occur in finite time, allowing for the edification of a logical methodology by which to identify events.
Even so, the problem is unapproachable mathematically, at least without adhering to some notational convention, preconceived framework or formalism.
An objective observer could plausibly associate my concern with my inability to adopt the most efficient methodology when asked to identify a cause and the context to which it belongs. The notion of efficiency arises in the question of competence. Achieving a set of possible decisions which lead to that end in itself requires that the methodology used to arrive at the most efficient conclusion be the most efficient from the commencement of one's means. That is, the most efficient methodology must be chosen as quickly as possible from a finite set of methodologies, and must also be the first to be chosen among these. Choosing inefficient methodologies and/or choosing methodologies inefficiently is a characterisation of incompetence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
