If one were to analyze the process of human thought, one would find one rather striking discrepancy in this very process. This discrepancy is not some inherent flaw in the human mind. On the contrary, this discrepancy is often considered a gift to all of human kind. This discrepancy, dear reader, is emotion. Emotions at all times bear some influence in everything we do. Thus, one cannot help but logically deduce the undoubtedly large effect influence has on the process of thought. If the process of thought is subjected to emotional influence, then one cannot help but question the whole definition of rational thought in itself! That sheds some rather suspicious light on the whole realm of rationality as well.
If something as sacrosanct as the very act of thinking could be influenced by the realm of human emotion, it only means that this process of rational thinking is diluted or compromised to a certain extent. Could emotions be a hindrance to the synchronized, harmonic and indeed efficient functioning of the human mind?
It seems hard to believe that the two most sacred faculties of human existence could cross paths in a manner such as this. Indeed we hold these two faculties critical to our existence and our identities as well. One also needs to consider the converse which follows logically from the interference of emotions in matters of rational thought – The interference of rational thought in matters of emotion.
How could these two realms co-exist if such interference actually does occur? The answer to this question seems to lie in the understanding of the mode of functioning of these very faculties.
Consider rational thought first.
The basic “function” of rational thought is to formulate streams of facts or ideas and present them as logical means of expression or to analyze existing ideas and search them for logical convictions. If that is the general function of rational thought as performed by the human mind, then one could easily apply this function to everyday life.
Rational thought by its very nature is deemed to possess the unscathed quality of impartiality. This quality of impartiality, however, could be deemed a touch “too” impartial at times. This again raises questions when one tries and considers the very meaning of the words “too impartial”. This form of thought, viz. rational thought, is solely endowed with an aim to find or apply logic. This logic, be it in the form of mathematics or just plain reason, usually only conforms to one ideal. This ideal is one which puts logic above everything else. This ideal is one that makes logic the foremost pedestal of sorts which can only be governed by itself. Thus it deems everything else worth contemplating only if it conforms to the very core set of beliefs that logic provides for. In simpler words, rational thought maintains the following credo whose modified version is much flaunted in cartoon shows – “Logic, or bust”!
Now consider the realm of emotion as an independent entity which is deemed with its own identity and process. One could also try and narrowly define the “function” of emotion. As I did with rational thought, I shall now take the liberty to provide this definition of function myself.
In my opinion, the “function” of emotion is to “enhance” a human being’s experience of existence by providing a new dimension to one’s way of life. This dimension is that of “feeling”.
If that small (but in my belief rather accurate) definition could in fact be the plausible “function” of emotion, then I believe one wouldn’t find it hard to relate to this definition.
Of emotions, it could perhaps be said that they add the “human” element to all of us human beings. While this might sound rather ridiculous, I suppose one could understand this statement by considering what a human being would be without emotion. This human being would, in other words, be one whose life is governed solely by rational thought.
To such a human being, nothing would appeal greater than logic. No joys would come out of anything which didn’t seem to suit some particular logically sound purpose at some point in time as deemed important by the logically dominant brain. To such a human, there would be no such state as that of happiness as he/she would be incapable of feeling anything. A human such as this would find life run by only two main pillars of action – Necessity and action to fulfill that necessity. This necessity wouldn’t be one of satisfaction or self contentment. Indeed, there would be no such thing as self contentment. To put it simply, it would be an organism which believed in the supremacy of the “live to give life” ideology. Such a human being would find no purpose greater than the sustaining of one’s life for as long as possible through nutritional and other needs. It would also find a logically sound purpose in ensuring the continuity of the human race. Beyond this, however, it would find no need to apply its thought to.
Now, consider the logical (no partiality intended) opposite of the human being considered above. This would be the human being governed solely by emotion. This by itself sounds ridiculous as a lack of rationality only guarantees destruction. In order to go beyond this rather general dismissal of our poor second human, let us ignore this fact for the time being. Such a human being would be walking the proverbial emotional tightrope for all of his/her life. A human being such as this one would only find satisfaction in the pursuit of “happiness”. These definitions of “happiness” would obviously vary from individual to individual owing solely to the inconstancy of emotion. As a result, such a state of existence would be more impulsive than calculating as a result of which one could possibly sacrifice long-term well being for short term satisfaction. A very deadly mistake indeed, don’t you think?
Now consider us humans as we are today. We obviously don’t fall into either category of humans as the ones I’ve discussed above (well most of us, at least!). If your mind’s working towards a conclusion of your own, you should beat the same conclusion I have drawn. The interference I speak of isn’t even interference if one actually puts some thought into it. If an organism is doomed without either one of these faculties, then it only is logical to assume they don’t hinder the other’s functioning. If you truly do analyze the nature of our very own mode of existence today, then you would find that rational thought at certain instances is better left “interfered” with. In a similar way, emotional thought is at some times better left “interfered” with by rational thought.
Such a state of co-existence is essential to the progress of the human race as a whole. In fact, it is this state of emotional and rational harmony that has been responsible for all of our developments in every conceivable field. If one was ruled by rationality alone, one would not find it necessary to maintain, let us say, a system of education if indeed the “live to give life” ideal was subscribed to. The emotional dimension enables the mind to yearn for something better for the individual as well as the collective whole. Similarly, if man were ruled solely by emotion, even if he did indeed recognize an educational system as a method of self improvement, he would still lack the rational insight to bring about the existence of such a system.
Such is the way of the human mind that two completely antagonistic realms find their means of co-existence for the betterment of the human race. One could never doubt the power of thought and one could never suppress the necessity of emotion. Thus, the so-called battle between rationality and emotion isn’t really a battle at all.
By,
Nikhil Menon
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
On The Past and Causality
It only seems all too poetic sometimes - This thing we casually refer to as life. What is rather remarkable, is how an action which was dealt a hand that deemed it nearly insignificant, could one day acquire a form of sheer power to drastically effect one's life at another point in time. Cruelly unfair, I'd like to think. Cruel, because it seems like one could be subject to 'persecution' for something which wouldn't normally be noticed in passing. Cruel, because it requires one that is living to truly conceive every possible outcome in all its various permutations and combinations before performing an action. Cruel, because it ruins the relevance of all that is temporarily insignificant. Cruel, because it makes the word temporary redundant in its own right.
How relevant is the past anyway? What is the point of what has already come to pass? Do those events, or those actions whose sole purpose was condoned by the simplicity and the spontaneity of a single moment truly earn a right to have some bearing in later times? Like I've said before, I believe it is cruel that they do.
After giving some thought to this whole concept, I believe I see only one logical path to define our mode of thought. When it comes to our actions, we perform each one with our own present scenarios in mind. We deem the action to be performed as 'beneficial' to our current needs, or if not 'beneficial', we maintain only our most immediate situation in mind. However, by virtue of being human we do, consciously or subconsciously , bear something else in mind. By our own innate tendency to want something better, we are only too human to avoid glancing at the action's implications on another sacred section of time - The Future.
I suppose I've answered my own question on the relevance of the past through my last sentence. By committing an action with a view to it having some bearing on the future, then I believe the past does automatically get endowed with the ability to drastically, or in some small way effect later times. It has only just dawned on me. Come to think of it, I change my view on this whole concept. It isn't cruel at all. It is merely a verification of the principle of Causality. Our actions don't innately and spontaneously possess the power to come back and haunt us one day... We give it that power.
Causality - The belief that everything happens due to a reason; The belief that everything exists due to something; The belief that something necessarily presupposes everything. More importantly, this is the belief which warrants the existence and exactness of reason itself. Personally I believe Causality is as fundamental and as logically justified as our need to breathe. It is that which exists so that the existence of everything else is deemed to have a presupposing reason. Causality, is that which exists as a product of reason itself, and promotes the faculty of thought to the highest degree.
One false belief, however, is that the principle of Causality necessarily warrants the confirmation of the hypothesis widely popular as the concept of 'Destiny' or 'Fate'. I believe this concept is a misguided interpretation of the principle of Causality.
Defenders of the 'Destiny' hypothesis who are familiar with Causality and its provisions seem to subscribe to a modified version of Causality's credo. Causality states -
"Everything happens due to a reason."
These fine crusaders of the 'Destiny' hypothesis subscribe to the following (false) summarization of Causality -
"Everything happens FOR a reason."
This, to me seems more like a poor understanding on their parts, rather than an attempt at chicanery or manipulation.
If you find my idea a little obscure, then let me point out to you the difference between the two summarizations and the drastic alteration in meaning when the word 'for' is used instead of 'due to'.
The first statement, which for the sake of casual reference and analysis I shall name True statement 'A', conveys a meaning which deems everything's existence as a result of something else. 'Everything' here, must not be restricted to material objects but also emotions, actions,etc. It merely highlights the logical conclusion that for an action, there necessarily must exist an originating cause. Hence, the name 'Causality'. Perhaps my using the word 'merely' is understating the importance of this ideology. Causality has far-reaching effects in the realm of human belief and intellectual thinking. Indeed, the principle of Causality, when clearly understood, provides an alternative route for rational thought processes. It also provides a completely different outlook on life. Thus, True Statement 'A', in all its simplicity possesses phenomenal meaning. It eliminates the need for the word 'coincidence'. It replaces that word with 'consequence'.
Now consider the second statement which I shall (again for the sake of analysis) name Altered Statement 'B'. Although it differs (literally) only to the extent of a single word, its meaning and thus, its implications drastically differ from those conveyed by True Statement 'A'. Where True Statement 'A' highlights the action as a result of a specific cause, Altered Statement 'B' aims to present the action AS a probable cause itself. It modifies the core value of Causality by presenting a view that an action was MEANT to happen as a part of some 'grand scheme of things'. This 'grand scheme' forms the core value of the 'Destiny' hypothesis. It provides for the possibility that whatever has taken place, could not have happened any other way. This then sheds light on the act of choice. It presents the act of choice as an illusion only meant to serve the immediate conscious senses. Thus, Altered Statement 'B' negates the existence of choice itself!
A world without choice sounds rather difficult to perceive don't you think? Well it most certainly is. In order to envision such a world, one would have to believe that everything from when a nation goes to war, to why you rest your head on your right hand instead of your left at your desk has already been decided. You would have to believe that everything in the world is in accordance with some divine script written by some unseen hand. Even if one were to try and deliberately defy one's 'Destiny' and continually change one's decision on a subject, even then the missionary of Destiny would argue that your final decision has already been made and irrespective of one's choice, that decision was in fact preconceived. Personally, I find that rather amusing.
Causality and its far reaching effects are manifested in our lives everyday. It is in the nature of the way we go about things. In short, Causality is the one force one cannot avoid. It underscores the importance of reason and the importance of the faculty of thought. Everything must have a reason. Even if that reason is not apparent at the moment, it does not provide any 'divine' implications. The reason always exists. After all, reason presupposes existence and existence to us, is sacrosanct.
How relevant is the past anyway? What is the point of what has already come to pass? Do those events, or those actions whose sole purpose was condoned by the simplicity and the spontaneity of a single moment truly earn a right to have some bearing in later times? Like I've said before, I believe it is cruel that they do.
After giving some thought to this whole concept, I believe I see only one logical path to define our mode of thought. When it comes to our actions, we perform each one with our own present scenarios in mind. We deem the action to be performed as 'beneficial' to our current needs, or if not 'beneficial', we maintain only our most immediate situation in mind. However, by virtue of being human we do, consciously or subconsciously , bear something else in mind. By our own innate tendency to want something better, we are only too human to avoid glancing at the action's implications on another sacred section of time - The Future.
I suppose I've answered my own question on the relevance of the past through my last sentence. By committing an action with a view to it having some bearing on the future, then I believe the past does automatically get endowed with the ability to drastically, or in some small way effect later times. It has only just dawned on me. Come to think of it, I change my view on this whole concept. It isn't cruel at all. It is merely a verification of the principle of Causality. Our actions don't innately and spontaneously possess the power to come back and haunt us one day... We give it that power.
Causality - The belief that everything happens due to a reason; The belief that everything exists due to something; The belief that something necessarily presupposes everything. More importantly, this is the belief which warrants the existence and exactness of reason itself. Personally I believe Causality is as fundamental and as logically justified as our need to breathe. It is that which exists so that the existence of everything else is deemed to have a presupposing reason. Causality, is that which exists as a product of reason itself, and promotes the faculty of thought to the highest degree.
One false belief, however, is that the principle of Causality necessarily warrants the confirmation of the hypothesis widely popular as the concept of 'Destiny' or 'Fate'. I believe this concept is a misguided interpretation of the principle of Causality.
Defenders of the 'Destiny' hypothesis who are familiar with Causality and its provisions seem to subscribe to a modified version of Causality's credo. Causality states -
"Everything happens due to a reason."
These fine crusaders of the 'Destiny' hypothesis subscribe to the following (false) summarization of Causality -
"Everything happens FOR a reason."
This, to me seems more like a poor understanding on their parts, rather than an attempt at chicanery or manipulation.
If you find my idea a little obscure, then let me point out to you the difference between the two summarizations and the drastic alteration in meaning when the word 'for' is used instead of 'due to'.
The first statement, which for the sake of casual reference and analysis I shall name True statement 'A', conveys a meaning which deems everything's existence as a result of something else. 'Everything' here, must not be restricted to material objects but also emotions, actions,etc. It merely highlights the logical conclusion that for an action, there necessarily must exist an originating cause. Hence, the name 'Causality'. Perhaps my using the word 'merely' is understating the importance of this ideology. Causality has far-reaching effects in the realm of human belief and intellectual thinking. Indeed, the principle of Causality, when clearly understood, provides an alternative route for rational thought processes. It also provides a completely different outlook on life. Thus, True Statement 'A', in all its simplicity possesses phenomenal meaning. It eliminates the need for the word 'coincidence'. It replaces that word with 'consequence'.
Now consider the second statement which I shall (again for the sake of analysis) name Altered Statement 'B'. Although it differs (literally) only to the extent of a single word, its meaning and thus, its implications drastically differ from those conveyed by True Statement 'A'. Where True Statement 'A' highlights the action as a result of a specific cause, Altered Statement 'B' aims to present the action AS a probable cause itself. It modifies the core value of Causality by presenting a view that an action was MEANT to happen as a part of some 'grand scheme of things'. This 'grand scheme' forms the core value of the 'Destiny' hypothesis. It provides for the possibility that whatever has taken place, could not have happened any other way. This then sheds light on the act of choice. It presents the act of choice as an illusion only meant to serve the immediate conscious senses. Thus, Altered Statement 'B' negates the existence of choice itself!
A world without choice sounds rather difficult to perceive don't you think? Well it most certainly is. In order to envision such a world, one would have to believe that everything from when a nation goes to war, to why you rest your head on your right hand instead of your left at your desk has already been decided. You would have to believe that everything in the world is in accordance with some divine script written by some unseen hand. Even if one were to try and deliberately defy one's 'Destiny' and continually change one's decision on a subject, even then the missionary of Destiny would argue that your final decision has already been made and irrespective of one's choice, that decision was in fact preconceived. Personally, I find that rather amusing.
Causality and its far reaching effects are manifested in our lives everyday. It is in the nature of the way we go about things. In short, Causality is the one force one cannot avoid. It underscores the importance of reason and the importance of the faculty of thought. Everything must have a reason. Even if that reason is not apparent at the moment, it does not provide any 'divine' implications. The reason always exists. After all, reason presupposes existence and existence to us, is sacrosanct.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Priorities, Priorities...
It certainly has been a while since I last posted so that probably explains why the momentum of traffic on this blog is dying down. Due to the rather hectic nature of the course I'm currently doing, I might not find too much time to come on the net, let alone post new ppieces of writing on my blog. Hopefully an arrangement of some sort could be carried out and I might be able to put up new posts directly or indirectly through people I know. Thanks for visiting,
Nikhil
Nikhil
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Our Captor: Morality (Also on Ephilosopher)
Morality today is a concept or rather a code which many of us take for face value. It seems to me that each of us is brought up in an environment which embraces this Moral code with open arms and without any questions whatsoever. It is this moral code, which unknown to us, is destroying the very core behind our existence. Some say our purpose to exist is to think, and while that is a debate in its own right, one cannot argue against the fact that it is our ability to think and contemplate on the world around us that separates us from any other living organism. To put it simply, it is the faculty of thought and reason combined that makes us what we are - human.
This moral code, which is nothing but the product of another human mind, seems to be the single set of rules which plays God with the way we are deemed to conduct ourselves. We do not seem to realize however, that it is this moral code which contrary to our belief and a complete antithesis to the reason for its creation, is doing nothing but enslaving the human mind to needless servitude. By blindly accepting a code which defines the core values of what we call life, have we not conceded that the human mind is incapable of thinking for itself any more? Is it that hard to believe that as our individual selves we, as humans need not conform to some set of rules given the status of divine commandments?
I ask you: Why is it that this moral code that allegedly looks after the best interest of the human race as a whole, teach us that it is wrong to fulfill our own desires and next to divine to go out of our way to make sure others' desires are fulfilled? Why does it teach us that indulgence is a sin and that happiness is something which cannot be experienced without "selfless" service? Time is the great equalizer and life is its medium of choice. Then why is it today, that it is the haves who must give to the have nots for the sole reason that they haven't tried hard enough?
The human mind, in all its glory is capable of accomplishing unimaginable things. How then can we so casually give up its power? In the end, everything that is "moral" can be decided by a basic choice left to the human mind: Yes or no. True or false. Right or wrong. Is it so inconceivable to imagine we are capable of making such choices ourselves? Is it not moral to seek one's own happiness? Is it not moral to fulfill one's own desires? Is it not moral to put yourself before everyone else?
There is a line between self-interest and selfishness. Morality as we know it today renders that line irrelevant by putting everyone else before the individual. It teaches us that the desires of the self must precede the greater good of man. Such a method of thought and reason cannot be practically ideal for a world as diverse as ours. Have we gone too far down the road to realize the fundamental error in our way of life which degrades the happiness of the individual? I sincerely hope not. Perhaps this moral degeneracy that finds itself more prevalent these days is a sign of things to come. It is a sign that the individual is finding a voice in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps, it isn't moral degeneracy at all. It is probably just the result of a rebellion against a system that condemns the desires of the self. It is a direct result of the error in our judgment. It is a result of the human mind's suppression. Perhaps one day, the human mind will reassert it's superiority over dogma. Perhaps one day, the only morality one needs to adhere to, is the response to the human mind's basic choice: Yes or no. True or false. Right or wrong.
This moral code, which is nothing but the product of another human mind, seems to be the single set of rules which plays God with the way we are deemed to conduct ourselves. We do not seem to realize however, that it is this moral code which contrary to our belief and a complete antithesis to the reason for its creation, is doing nothing but enslaving the human mind to needless servitude. By blindly accepting a code which defines the core values of what we call life, have we not conceded that the human mind is incapable of thinking for itself any more? Is it that hard to believe that as our individual selves we, as humans need not conform to some set of rules given the status of divine commandments?
I ask you: Why is it that this moral code that allegedly looks after the best interest of the human race as a whole, teach us that it is wrong to fulfill our own desires and next to divine to go out of our way to make sure others' desires are fulfilled? Why does it teach us that indulgence is a sin and that happiness is something which cannot be experienced without "selfless" service? Time is the great equalizer and life is its medium of choice. Then why is it today, that it is the haves who must give to the have nots for the sole reason that they haven't tried hard enough?
The human mind, in all its glory is capable of accomplishing unimaginable things. How then can we so casually give up its power? In the end, everything that is "moral" can be decided by a basic choice left to the human mind: Yes or no. True or false. Right or wrong. Is it so inconceivable to imagine we are capable of making such choices ourselves? Is it not moral to seek one's own happiness? Is it not moral to fulfill one's own desires? Is it not moral to put yourself before everyone else?
There is a line between self-interest and selfishness. Morality as we know it today renders that line irrelevant by putting everyone else before the individual. It teaches us that the desires of the self must precede the greater good of man. Such a method of thought and reason cannot be practically ideal for a world as diverse as ours. Have we gone too far down the road to realize the fundamental error in our way of life which degrades the happiness of the individual? I sincerely hope not. Perhaps this moral degeneracy that finds itself more prevalent these days is a sign of things to come. It is a sign that the individual is finding a voice in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps, it isn't moral degeneracy at all. It is probably just the result of a rebellion against a system that condemns the desires of the self. It is a direct result of the error in our judgment. It is a result of the human mind's suppression. Perhaps one day, the human mind will reassert it's superiority over dogma. Perhaps one day, the only morality one needs to adhere to, is the response to the human mind's basic choice: Yes or no. True or false. Right or wrong.
Friday, August 05, 2005
On God.. (View my post on Ephilosopher by clicking here)
It seems that the concept of a God is something that mankind has invented more out of necessity than anything else. It seems to me that 'God' is just something we have invented to provide some form of 'valid' explanation to those things we cannot explain. Fear is probably another reason why man has invented this concept of there being an all pervading, omnipotent creator. Since the dawn of man, there has been an innate fear of the elements of nature. As a result of this, the primitive man worshipped what he saw around him in order to avoid incurring nature's wrath. This is probably the origin of the concept of a God. After all, fear is probably the one thing we deem synonymous with necessity.
Friday, July 29, 2005
On Thoughts
It's impossible to ascertain completely and exactly, the reason behind my typing a sentence such as this one. When it comes to a question of why I think, I can find no substantially satisfying answer. When I look at the world around me, hundreds of thoughts, each innately predisposed to stir in me an emotion, surge through my mind. One of these thoughts, posed a rather intriguing question. Why or how does a thought come about in the first place? Well, biologically, a thought is a mere electrical pulse in the brain which originates due to... well that's my point. That sentence could never be completed adequately. When it comes to thought, it seems to me that more thinking merely emphasises our inadequacy in explaining the one phenomenon which is arguably responsible for each and everything we see around us.
How does something so seemingly simple as a thought, evade an answer in the vast facets of knowledge we seem to possess? How exactly does something entirely physical/electrical/chemical as an electrical "spark" of sorts come about in the first place, to reshape the very world around us? Well I suppose the question is more rhetoric than anything else. Perhaps it is born out of necessity. Most things, today and in the yester-years, were born out of necessity. That, however, raises the question of what exactly determines this necessity. It appears to me that the further one delves into a question such as this, the more lost he (or she..) would be in this incredible tapestry of mystery.
Perhaps we are all, by virtue of being living organisms, always in search of stability in many shapes and forms. Perhaps the entire evolutionary process was a mere search for a higher state of stability. Today, at this stage of evolution, one of the tools of the species to attain this higher level of stability is thought. Perhaps in one way or the other, every decision we make, every thought we think of, in its own unique way contributes to an overall state of stability which may or may not be entirely apparent. Perhaps the only reason we do the things we do, is to find a stable environment in which to thrive. This perhaps gives due credit to the saying "everything happens for the good of things", but it also raises the question of how something so spontaneous as a thought could influence the stability of the species as a whole. A thought, by virtue of its own potent form has changed the very way lived from the stone age, to the world we see around us now. Isn't everything we see a direct result of someone's thinking? It could be said that arguably, we are today, a lot more stable as a whole than we were some time ago.
But what then, would explain our seemingly pandemic state of moral degeneracy? Is a total break-down of all moral values also in some way, an aid to a higher state of existence? Or is it "nature's" way of giving up on us? I seem to have a brick wall at the moment. There are too many things to contemplate and look over before I attempt to even write on something of this magnitude, but I'm not one who's too much a fan of preparation when it comes to matters of the mind and mattes of the world. Spontaneity I believe is the one element which could most efficiently and truthfully express one's views. Spontaneity is what makes most things possible. After all, thoughts are spontaneous processes in the brain, and look how far they've gotten us..
How does something so seemingly simple as a thought, evade an answer in the vast facets of knowledge we seem to possess? How exactly does something entirely physical/electrical/chemical as an electrical "spark" of sorts come about in the first place, to reshape the very world around us? Well I suppose the question is more rhetoric than anything else. Perhaps it is born out of necessity. Most things, today and in the yester-years, were born out of necessity. That, however, raises the question of what exactly determines this necessity. It appears to me that the further one delves into a question such as this, the more lost he (or she..) would be in this incredible tapestry of mystery.
Perhaps we are all, by virtue of being living organisms, always in search of stability in many shapes and forms. Perhaps the entire evolutionary process was a mere search for a higher state of stability. Today, at this stage of evolution, one of the tools of the species to attain this higher level of stability is thought. Perhaps in one way or the other, every decision we make, every thought we think of, in its own unique way contributes to an overall state of stability which may or may not be entirely apparent. Perhaps the only reason we do the things we do, is to find a stable environment in which to thrive. This perhaps gives due credit to the saying "everything happens for the good of things", but it also raises the question of how something so spontaneous as a thought could influence the stability of the species as a whole. A thought, by virtue of its own potent form has changed the very way lived from the stone age, to the world we see around us now. Isn't everything we see a direct result of someone's thinking? It could be said that arguably, we are today, a lot more stable as a whole than we were some time ago.
But what then, would explain our seemingly pandemic state of moral degeneracy? Is a total break-down of all moral values also in some way, an aid to a higher state of existence? Or is it "nature's" way of giving up on us? I seem to have a brick wall at the moment. There are too many things to contemplate and look over before I attempt to even write on something of this magnitude, but I'm not one who's too much a fan of preparation when it comes to matters of the mind and mattes of the world. Spontaneity I believe is the one element which could most efficiently and truthfully express one's views. Spontaneity is what makes most things possible. After all, thoughts are spontaneous processes in the brain, and look how far they've gotten us..
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Breaking the Code
Sense, forms the very basis of our outlook on life. Then again, can you truly believe in the principal of ‘sense’ as we currently know it? Isn’t it possible that ‘sense’ or in this case, our ability to define and categorize something as being a rational, logical and coherent entity, be clouded by the human mind's innate predisposition to FEEL? Basically, reality is as subjective as perception (see Perception - another post of mine a little earlier).
One of the things we don not seem to realize, is that sense, and sensibility for that matter, are things we have defined ourselves. Yet, we do not seem to realize that what one human mind can create, another human mind can better, or evolve. What one mind can define, another can REDEFINE. Why is it then, that the entire "general public" seems to have a similar ideology when it comes to matters of sense and sensibility? (Two VRY different terms with their own numerous connotations, and yet, each one of them is applicable in this context). Maybe you've chosen not to even think of a reason behind this just as easily as you've discussed this bit of writing as "non-sensical"!
I, for once (!!), happen top know the answer to the question I've posed above. As scattered and divided as we may be on most issues, there seems to be a certain value of unity amongst us. We are all uniform in our conformity to some grand universal code. A code, which like anything else, a human mind has created. A code, which we have accepted blindly and have chosen not to question. A code, more than welcomed with open arms. What is this 'code' I'm referring to? This code, is that of morality. This code, is that which lays down the rules behind everything that can possibly be designated as rational, logical or "something which makes sense". In fact, this code, which I reiterate - WE DID NOT come up with ourselves, has defined the very concept of rationalism and logic.
Why have we blindly accepted a "code of conduct" and a set of "ground rules to define all that we can or cannot perceive as sensical" without question? Why is it that its roots go so deep as to penetrate the very nature of education we are given as children? Some say it is because this Code I speak of, is meant to be the best way for mankind to go about life. I ask you though.. How could we deem the existing one, as the 'best' set of principles to run our lives by, if we have no real benchmark to define the word "best"?
Has our mental strength completely given way? Have we lost our will to think? Would we plod through each day, epitomizing the drones who adhere to a single code of living, JUST because someone, somewhere, at some time came up with the idea that this was indeed a better way of living?
We seemed to have lost the ability to think and contemplate, when it comes to our own lives. It is a pity, that we do not match the zeal that we show to find knowledge on the things around us, on the efforts to understand what we should live by. Have we, as a race, conceded to the fact that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves anymore? Do we not even care to make the simplest of efforts to interpret the existing principles in our own way? Sadly, I think there will soon come a day when it is known - The human mind has consumed itself.
One of the things we don not seem to realize, is that sense, and sensibility for that matter, are things we have defined ourselves. Yet, we do not seem to realize that what one human mind can create, another human mind can better, or evolve. What one mind can define, another can REDEFINE. Why is it then, that the entire "general public" seems to have a similar ideology when it comes to matters of sense and sensibility? (Two VRY different terms with their own numerous connotations, and yet, each one of them is applicable in this context). Maybe you've chosen not to even think of a reason behind this just as easily as you've discussed this bit of writing as "non-sensical"!
I, for once (!!), happen top know the answer to the question I've posed above. As scattered and divided as we may be on most issues, there seems to be a certain value of unity amongst us. We are all uniform in our conformity to some grand universal code. A code, which like anything else, a human mind has created. A code, which we have accepted blindly and have chosen not to question. A code, more than welcomed with open arms. What is this 'code' I'm referring to? This code, is that of morality. This code, is that which lays down the rules behind everything that can possibly be designated as rational, logical or "something which makes sense". In fact, this code, which I reiterate - WE DID NOT come up with ourselves, has defined the very concept of rationalism and logic.
Why have we blindly accepted a "code of conduct" and a set of "ground rules to define all that we can or cannot perceive as sensical" without question? Why is it that its roots go so deep as to penetrate the very nature of education we are given as children? Some say it is because this Code I speak of, is meant to be the best way for mankind to go about life. I ask you though.. How could we deem the existing one, as the 'best' set of principles to run our lives by, if we have no real benchmark to define the word "best"?
Has our mental strength completely given way? Have we lost our will to think? Would we plod through each day, epitomizing the drones who adhere to a single code of living, JUST because someone, somewhere, at some time came up with the idea that this was indeed a better way of living?
We seemed to have lost the ability to think and contemplate, when it comes to our own lives. It is a pity, that we do not match the zeal that we show to find knowledge on the things around us, on the efforts to understand what we should live by. Have we, as a race, conceded to the fact that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves anymore? Do we not even care to make the simplest of efforts to interpret the existing principles in our own way? Sadly, I think there will soon come a day when it is known - The human mind has consumed itself.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Flock Philosophy
We never could tolerate disorder or randomness in any form. As a species and as a kind, our dogged need to be able to explain everything we see around us seems to only grow stronger. We seek to find meaning, purpose and reason in everything because to us, what we know, is what we command. A simple illustration of this intolerance towards randomness can be given. Stars, are visible in the night sky as intriguing, randomly scattered celestial bodies with nor real order as is apparent, to govern their position. Yet, we seemed to find the need to find patterns or constellations among them where none is really necessary. Try telling that to an astronomer and he or she would immediately point out things like 'The Big Dipper' to prove you wrong. In actuality, you would only be proven right.
This is perhaps the reason why our lives are drafted into patterns of definite order. The reason being our need to create an illusion of control. To establish a "pseudo-command" over what we do with our lives.
One might ask me what exactly this apttern is. It is in front of all of us. Looking at a generalisation of the majority, all of us follow one, standard path. We are born, we are educated, we pursue careers, find a suitable mate (I'd say "get married" but that concept seems to get more and more redundant in these days) and procreate before eventually dying. By making such a pattern for our lives, we are, as I have mentioned before, embracing the illusion that we know exactly what to do with our lives and we are in complete control as we set about doing what we think we should. In actuality, we have no real control. We have no single, recognizable purpose to progress toward.
Consider this:
If the entire world were to be populated by nothing but sheep (and of course their source of food!) it would be a rather interesting state of affairs. Undoubtedly, these sheep would wander aimlessly and individually. Sooner or later, they would form their little groups until eventually they find themselves wandering aimlessly TOGETHER. Unsure of who is actually following whom.
Isn't that what we are today? We have created an entire purpose of existence which serves no purpose save the satisfaction of our deceived minds. We have assigned our own meaning to that which is apparently meaningless. We wake up each day trying to 'live' a life which we all hold so dear, without really knowing what 'living' does, or should mean. We pursue our endless search for knowledge of that around us without truly understanding what's inside us. An apt saying seems to suit a description of our state of affairs.. For as we reach out to touch the stars above, we forget the flowers at our feet.
This is perhaps the reason why our lives are drafted into patterns of definite order. The reason being our need to create an illusion of control. To establish a "pseudo-command" over what we do with our lives.
One might ask me what exactly this apttern is. It is in front of all of us. Looking at a generalisation of the majority, all of us follow one, standard path. We are born, we are educated, we pursue careers, find a suitable mate (I'd say "get married" but that concept seems to get more and more redundant in these days) and procreate before eventually dying. By making such a pattern for our lives, we are, as I have mentioned before, embracing the illusion that we know exactly what to do with our lives and we are in complete control as we set about doing what we think we should. In actuality, we have no real control. We have no single, recognizable purpose to progress toward.
Consider this:
If the entire world were to be populated by nothing but sheep (and of course their source of food!) it would be a rather interesting state of affairs. Undoubtedly, these sheep would wander aimlessly and individually. Sooner or later, they would form their little groups until eventually they find themselves wandering aimlessly TOGETHER. Unsure of who is actually following whom.
Isn't that what we are today? We have created an entire purpose of existence which serves no purpose save the satisfaction of our deceived minds. We have assigned our own meaning to that which is apparently meaningless. We wake up each day trying to 'live' a life which we all hold so dear, without really knowing what 'living' does, or should mean. We pursue our endless search for knowledge of that around us without truly understanding what's inside us. An apt saying seems to suit a description of our state of affairs.. For as we reach out to touch the stars above, we forget the flowers at our feet.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
The origin of Reason and thought
Reason is something we all swear by everyday. It forms the core of our beliefs, and the anchor of our faith. Nothing of any significance in our lives can deem itself free from all reason. A reason, is by virtue, a cause or an event which tends to influence another. How then, can a reason come about without there being a predecessing necessity to bring about the reason in question? Almost a chicken and the egg situation, except that we now know the chicken, did in fact, come before the egg after it evolved from a dinosaur. When it comes to reason, however, one can always go further and further to find one pre-condition after another that led to it's existence. It is a seemingly boundless chain of events interlinked in one way or another.
This, brings about the question of there being a singularity. A singularity which, to put it simply, makes sense to us all and exists by itself, without there being any "reasons" for it to exist. Whether this makes sense or not, every reason you can think of, however simple or complex should follow a series of preconditions or "pre-reasons" to account for their own existence. This trail of bread crumbs should logically have an end. The only end that I can conceptualize, is that of a singularity which is all pervading and omnipotent. What is this singularity I speak of? Well if I knew, I wouldn't be writing/typing all of this.
It seems increasingly pointless to try and find some sort of logical sense for everything I see around me. The deeper I go into my search for some definite pattern, the more I realize there isn't one. Everything that exists, exists because of some event that has been pivotal to determining it's existence. Shouldn't then, this singularity technically be the one bit (I call it a bit even though it is practically the most important thing we could know) which explains everything? The one thing which gives rise to everything else? Could you possibly imagine the entire origin of the universe, then entire realm of knowledge that we have all captured in every possible language, all encompassed by what is possibly a single sentence? This sentence, of course would have to exclude itself from every known language in order to exist.
Maybe I've been looking at it wrongly. Maybe I should look beyond sentences and mere words. In order to truly be the origin of all that we see around us, this singularity has to exist in a form which we can never comprehend. A form we are never meant to attain, or visualize. A form that is locked away from our ability to think. I may not be making sense, but these words, when I read them, would make sense to me.
The possibility of there being one single body of existence which gave birth to, and in fact, governs all we see around us is nothing short of the concept of there being a god, but God is just a word... and Mere words cannot possibly account for all that we see around us.
This, brings about the question of there being a singularity. A singularity which, to put it simply, makes sense to us all and exists by itself, without there being any "reasons" for it to exist. Whether this makes sense or not, every reason you can think of, however simple or complex should follow a series of preconditions or "pre-reasons" to account for their own existence. This trail of bread crumbs should logically have an end. The only end that I can conceptualize, is that of a singularity which is all pervading and omnipotent. What is this singularity I speak of? Well if I knew, I wouldn't be writing/typing all of this.
It seems increasingly pointless to try and find some sort of logical sense for everything I see around me. The deeper I go into my search for some definite pattern, the more I realize there isn't one. Everything that exists, exists because of some event that has been pivotal to determining it's existence. Shouldn't then, this singularity technically be the one bit (I call it a bit even though it is practically the most important thing we could know) which explains everything? The one thing which gives rise to everything else? Could you possibly imagine the entire origin of the universe, then entire realm of knowledge that we have all captured in every possible language, all encompassed by what is possibly a single sentence? This sentence, of course would have to exclude itself from every known language in order to exist.
Maybe I've been looking at it wrongly. Maybe I should look beyond sentences and mere words. In order to truly be the origin of all that we see around us, this singularity has to exist in a form which we can never comprehend. A form we are never meant to attain, or visualize. A form that is locked away from our ability to think. I may not be making sense, but these words, when I read them, would make sense to me.
The possibility of there being one single body of existence which gave birth to, and in fact, governs all we see around us is nothing short of the concept of there being a god, but God is just a word... and Mere words cannot possibly account for all that we see around us.
New Hit counter
I just got the code for a new hit counter so it's down there. It's new so the amount of hits indicated is probably lesser than the number of actual ones! Later..
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Uncertainty and The Absolute
Nothing seems to be certain in this world I see around me. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is subject to change without notice. Quoting lyrics by Incubus which I've modified to suit my purpose, "Temporaryism has become the Jesus of our age". Sad, but very true. In fact, I might be tempted to go out and say that the only thing certain about the world we live in, is uncertainty. That, however, invites far too many contradictions.
Anything, and everything could be viewed from at least two very different points of view. Hence, the scope for change ergo, uncertainty. Heisenberg could have probably been a philosopher when he proposed his very popular uncertainty theory. He states that nothing can be measured in perfect exactness because everything is in a constant state of change. How far from the truth is that? It's dead on. If you ask me, there is no such thing as being absolute. Then again, my very statement negates its meaning. It's quite amazing if you think about it in detail. One of those things that my mind loves poking around, is this concept of the absolute.
What is something that's absolute? When is something absolute? Well there could be some rather simple answers to that question. One could try "If something is confirmed by undeniable fact, it is absolute." But then, one would have to question the "undeniable fact" concerned in the matter. Is it truly undeniable? Nothing, is undeniable. Nothing, is irrefutable. Nothing, can claim itself to be free from the possibility of change, or deviation from belief. Not even these words of mine which flow now as a part of some random thoughts flowing through my head. In fact, I haven't stopped typing since I got started on this one so, if there are any contradicting parts to this, point them out because thanks to the "edit post" function, this post is CERTAINLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE! ;)
Anything, and everything could be viewed from at least two very different points of view. Hence, the scope for change ergo, uncertainty. Heisenberg could have probably been a philosopher when he proposed his very popular uncertainty theory. He states that nothing can be measured in perfect exactness because everything is in a constant state of change. How far from the truth is that? It's dead on. If you ask me, there is no such thing as being absolute. Then again, my very statement negates its meaning. It's quite amazing if you think about it in detail. One of those things that my mind loves poking around, is this concept of the absolute.
What is something that's absolute? When is something absolute? Well there could be some rather simple answers to that question. One could try "If something is confirmed by undeniable fact, it is absolute." But then, one would have to question the "undeniable fact" concerned in the matter. Is it truly undeniable? Nothing, is undeniable. Nothing, is irrefutable. Nothing, can claim itself to be free from the possibility of change, or deviation from belief. Not even these words of mine which flow now as a part of some random thoughts flowing through my head. In fact, I haven't stopped typing since I got started on this one so, if there are any contradicting parts to this, point them out because thanks to the "edit post" function, this post is CERTAINLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE! ;)
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Perception
Perception is everything that we base our lives on. Perception, is the one thing which we could never abandon, for it is as much a part of our nature, as we are a part of this world around us. Our boundless ability to perceive seems to possess the potency to shape the very core of our beliefs. It is the power to perceive and analyse which surpasses most others, in importance.
Perception, however, cannot be confused with, to put it simply, sight. What we see need not be what we perceive. After all, sight is merely a reaction to a physical stimulus in the form of light, but perception, is only partially based on the physical. It is also affected by our state of mind, our likes, dislikes and maybe even our hopes and aspirations. More often than not, we tend to perceive what we want to. Or to put it simply, we see what we want to see. We choose to be oblivious to the naked truth in front of us, and embrace a belief which suggests otherwise.
This tendency, to embrace what isn't so, is not a deliberate ploy we intend to implement so that we may live our lives to the fullest. No. I attribute this to something common. Something we all share. Namely, human nature. We do lie to ourselves, by this power to perceive what isn't so, but we choose not to accept the fact that we lie. We instead, choose to embrace a fool's paradise of sorts.
The power of perception knows no bounds. After reading a comment online here, I came across the "Lone cow" theory (which admittedly, I wasn't aware of, by the way). It poses a rather interesting question - "Would a single cow, isolated from the rest of the universe in a field still exist even though there would be no one to perceive its existence?" Interesting isn't it?
I do think that the question, by itself is redundant because the act of posing the question acknowledges the cow's existence!
Then again, one would shrug off my argument and go into the deeper recesses that the question throws open. It all depends on perception. I believe that the man (or woman - I tend to distance myself from even remotely sexist terms) who could successfully unify his Perception, with his vision, would be the symbol of human perfection. Then again... his perfection would have to be acknowledged by everyone else, if he were to be truly perfect in every sense of the word. That can only mean we would have to distance our perception from the feelings of envy we might feel towards him, to acknowledge his perfection. Effectively, it's only the perfect who could recognize the perfect!
Perception, however, cannot be confused with, to put it simply, sight. What we see need not be what we perceive. After all, sight is merely a reaction to a physical stimulus in the form of light, but perception, is only partially based on the physical. It is also affected by our state of mind, our likes, dislikes and maybe even our hopes and aspirations. More often than not, we tend to perceive what we want to. Or to put it simply, we see what we want to see. We choose to be oblivious to the naked truth in front of us, and embrace a belief which suggests otherwise.
This tendency, to embrace what isn't so, is not a deliberate ploy we intend to implement so that we may live our lives to the fullest. No. I attribute this to something common. Something we all share. Namely, human nature. We do lie to ourselves, by this power to perceive what isn't so, but we choose not to accept the fact that we lie. We instead, choose to embrace a fool's paradise of sorts.
The power of perception knows no bounds. After reading a comment online here, I came across the "Lone cow" theory (which admittedly, I wasn't aware of, by the way). It poses a rather interesting question - "Would a single cow, isolated from the rest of the universe in a field still exist even though there would be no one to perceive its existence?" Interesting isn't it?
I do think that the question, by itself is redundant because the act of posing the question acknowledges the cow's existence!
Then again, one would shrug off my argument and go into the deeper recesses that the question throws open. It all depends on perception. I believe that the man (or woman - I tend to distance myself from even remotely sexist terms) who could successfully unify his Perception, with his vision, would be the symbol of human perfection. Then again... his perfection would have to be acknowledged by everyone else, if he were to be truly perfect in every sense of the word. That can only mean we would have to distance our perception from the feelings of envy we might feel towards him, to acknowledge his perfection. Effectively, it's only the perfect who could recognize the perfect!
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Destiny?
It's amazing how we, as humans, find or invent these little concepts to cling on to in times of need. We hinge all our faith on a particular principle or concept so that we could attribute our situations to it, and resign to it. Nothing represents this more than the concept of Destiny or Fate. I'm a sceptic in every sense of the word, although I'm leaning towards the side of a non-believer.
How many times have we heard the phrase "God works in mysterious ways.."? Plenty, if you were me. In actuality, I don't even belive in the concept of there being a god, but that's a different issue altogether. My point is, that many of us, subscribe to the theory that there is some Grand master plan that has been laid out to dictate every decision we make. This, is the concept of Destiny.
Doesn't this theory imply that no decision we make, is actually a decision WE make? How could you make a choice when there wouldn't actually be a choice? By the existence of such a universal master-plan, wouldn't the very concept of choice be redundant? Every decision would have already been taken, whether you're aware of it or not. Effectively, we're merely cogs in a constantly turning wheel that's headed in only one direction that we have no clue about. Difficult to believe is this not?
Look at it this way. I'm typing this out right now. Ask me why, and I'd say that it's because I feel like it. But who am I? The logical answer to this question is Nikhil Menon. But then again, who is Nikhil Menon? Who controls his thoughts? Why he does himself, doesn't he? Maybe, maybe not. When you look at it, all thoughts originate as an electrical impulse in the brain. What causes it to arise? What prompts the very essence of a thought inside me? Is it some grand scheme of things merely playing it's role in organising my thoughts? Doesn't make any sense does it?
Well I'm in one of those moods, and I'm now working on a little theory of my own, along these lines. A bit over my head, but I'm working on something to do with the way we live. Ignore this rant if it's nothing more than gibberish arranged in paragraphs. Criticise it through comments if you'd like, but I'm still going to work on it... I think I'm finally on to something worthwhile.
How many times have we heard the phrase "God works in mysterious ways.."? Plenty, if you were me. In actuality, I don't even belive in the concept of there being a god, but that's a different issue altogether. My point is, that many of us, subscribe to the theory that there is some Grand master plan that has been laid out to dictate every decision we make. This, is the concept of Destiny.
Doesn't this theory imply that no decision we make, is actually a decision WE make? How could you make a choice when there wouldn't actually be a choice? By the existence of such a universal master-plan, wouldn't the very concept of choice be redundant? Every decision would have already been taken, whether you're aware of it or not. Effectively, we're merely cogs in a constantly turning wheel that's headed in only one direction that we have no clue about. Difficult to believe is this not?
Look at it this way. I'm typing this out right now. Ask me why, and I'd say that it's because I feel like it. But who am I? The logical answer to this question is Nikhil Menon. But then again, who is Nikhil Menon? Who controls his thoughts? Why he does himself, doesn't he? Maybe, maybe not. When you look at it, all thoughts originate as an electrical impulse in the brain. What causes it to arise? What prompts the very essence of a thought inside me? Is it some grand scheme of things merely playing it's role in organising my thoughts? Doesn't make any sense does it?
Well I'm in one of those moods, and I'm now working on a little theory of my own, along these lines. A bit over my head, but I'm working on something to do with the way we live. Ignore this rant if it's nothing more than gibberish arranged in paragraphs. Criticise it through comments if you'd like, but I'm still going to work on it... I think I'm finally on to something worthwhile.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Don't believe the truth?
I was just doing the usual bit of downloading music when I saw that the name of the latest album by OASIS was called 'Don't believe the truth'. It really got me thinking. Maybe this is more than just the name of an album (which totally rocks by the way). I mean what is the truth? Apart from just cold plain fact, the "truth" is something which I think we choose to accept only when it suits us best. This is probably not true (funny, how I use the word "true") in many cases, but I think it applies to more people than those who might accept this.
When the fact of the matter is that the truth could get us into some undesirable position, we often resort to lies. Lies, in my view, are mere distortions of the truth or "temporary truths" in their own right. If what we see is what we believe, then a lie is merely an illusion which eventually breaks down to reveal cold, hard reality. When you actually think about it, the difference between the truth and a lie is more irrelevant. The truth, or more appropriately, half truths can be used to drastically alter the image of a fact in discussion. A lie, needless to say, is used to portray a certain truthful instance which possibly never happened.
This is one of my quotes - "A lie, is just the truth in a new light. Believe in either, and you believe in both" ...... Mind you, it is GENUINELY MINE and if you intend to use these wise words (hehe I'm giving myself too much credit here), please do give me due credit for it!
This is probably one of my posts which makes no sense at all. Then again, what is sense? How would you define a coherent stream of thoughts which tend to apply to a ceratin logical reasoning? ;) Think about it, and while you're at it, follow suit and 'Don't believe the truth'!!
When the fact of the matter is that the truth could get us into some undesirable position, we often resort to lies. Lies, in my view, are mere distortions of the truth or "temporary truths" in their own right. If what we see is what we believe, then a lie is merely an illusion which eventually breaks down to reveal cold, hard reality. When you actually think about it, the difference between the truth and a lie is more irrelevant. The truth, or more appropriately, half truths can be used to drastically alter the image of a fact in discussion. A lie, needless to say, is used to portray a certain truthful instance which possibly never happened.
This is one of my quotes - "A lie, is just the truth in a new light. Believe in either, and you believe in both" ...... Mind you, it is GENUINELY MINE and if you intend to use these wise words (hehe I'm giving myself too much credit here), please do give me due credit for it!
This is probably one of my posts which makes no sense at all. Then again, what is sense? How would you define a coherent stream of thoughts which tend to apply to a ceratin logical reasoning? ;) Think about it, and while you're at it, follow suit and 'Don't believe the truth'!!
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Of life and death
It isn't often that I find myself in one of these contemplative moods so I'm going to make the most of it. I basically found myself thinking about what it would be like to be standing on the ledge of the highest floor of the highest building there'd be... about to end my life. Not saying I'm suicidal, I just found the whole concept intriguing in a scientifically and philosophically curious sense. These are my thoughts on it:
"I'm not entirely sure as to why I'm here, at this moment, but somehow I know I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm in that sort of position where I'm powerful, proud, in control and yet helpless and humble at the same time. Come to think of it, maybe I'm here for exactly that reason - To feel what I feel now. To experience the fragility of life first hand. To surrender to the most inherent whim - Instinct.
"It wasn't instinct that got me here. It was a feeling of helpless necessity. It isn't instinct that's keeping me here, either. It's something almost surreal, that exists only in this moment I find myself in. To be surrounded by the things that I know I can leave behind in a heart beat, is an undeniable truth. The simplest way to put it would be that what I feel now, is a RUSH.
"I'll admit that it wasn't the rush that brought me here. It is, however, the rush that's keeping me here. The rush, that's preventing me from carrying out what I came here to do. That very rush, which initiates thoughts of uncertainty which didn't arise before. This is truly an intoxicating moment - Millions of thoughts and processes play out in my mind, harmoniously and yet, with a certain rhythmic randomness. It must be true the, what they say. You feel most alive, when you're about to die."
That's pretty much it. I'm not sure why I ended up thinking along those lines, but I'm kind of glad I did. I thrive on thinking about situations by putting myself in others' shoes. In this case, it was the shoes of someone suicidal. I assure you again, that this is NOT a reflection of my feelings at the moment. It's just something I felt like doing. After all, it's little things like this, which inherently possess the capacity to influence us most.
"I'm not entirely sure as to why I'm here, at this moment, but somehow I know I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm in that sort of position where I'm powerful, proud, in control and yet helpless and humble at the same time. Come to think of it, maybe I'm here for exactly that reason - To feel what I feel now. To experience the fragility of life first hand. To surrender to the most inherent whim - Instinct.
"It wasn't instinct that got me here. It was a feeling of helpless necessity. It isn't instinct that's keeping me here, either. It's something almost surreal, that exists only in this moment I find myself in. To be surrounded by the things that I know I can leave behind in a heart beat, is an undeniable truth. The simplest way to put it would be that what I feel now, is a RUSH.
"I'll admit that it wasn't the rush that brought me here. It is, however, the rush that's keeping me here. The rush, that's preventing me from carrying out what I came here to do. That very rush, which initiates thoughts of uncertainty which didn't arise before. This is truly an intoxicating moment - Millions of thoughts and processes play out in my mind, harmoniously and yet, with a certain rhythmic randomness. It must be true the, what they say. You feel most alive, when you're about to die."
That's pretty much it. I'm not sure why I ended up thinking along those lines, but I'm kind of glad I did. I thrive on thinking about situations by putting myself in others' shoes. In this case, it was the shoes of someone suicidal. I assure you again, that this is NOT a reflection of my feelings at the moment. It's just something I felt like doing. After all, it's little things like this, which inherently possess the capacity to influence us most.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Epiphany...
It's amazing how sometimes, when you least expect it, one of the little things happen whih change your entire perspective on life. It's at moments like this that I realize that the little things in life, are in fact, what make up the larger things in life. How a simple thing such as getting up at some unearthly hour of the night to get a glass of water could be one of the many events that act in an almost conspiratorial manner to further some greater cause. This isn't just ranting here, it's experience.
Each day passes by, almost identically without much variation. In fact, we seem to be slaves to a certain routine. Just when this routine seems to become everything to us, something or the other happens to drive the proverbial stick in the wheel, drastically changing everything we seem to fall back on. It's events like these which, when analysed, seem to culminate as a result of seemingly pointless decisions we may or may or may not have made. It's quite amazing. The only possible outcome in this sudden change in our lives, is more than just a change of perspective or thought. It's a change in who we are. A change in who we become. A change in how we do things. A change in how we deal with life as a whole. These moments are revelations. The little things in life, turn out to be the not-so little things in life. In fact, it is these, seemingly meaningless events which acquire a divine form of revelation personified. Truly epitomising an epiphany.
Each day passes by, almost identically without much variation. In fact, we seem to be slaves to a certain routine. Just when this routine seems to become everything to us, something or the other happens to drive the proverbial stick in the wheel, drastically changing everything we seem to fall back on. It's events like these which, when analysed, seem to culminate as a result of seemingly pointless decisions we may or may or may not have made. It's quite amazing. The only possible outcome in this sudden change in our lives, is more than just a change of perspective or thought. It's a change in who we are. A change in who we become. A change in how we do things. A change in how we deal with life as a whole. These moments are revelations. The little things in life, turn out to be the not-so little things in life. In fact, it is these, seemingly meaningless events which acquire a divine form of revelation personified. Truly epitomising an epiphany.
The Purpose of Purpose
This might sound like some highly philosophical piece, but it's just a few incoherent thoughts strung together by some weird logic that some would get and some wouldn't. That, is one of the beauties of the world. But what is the world, really? I eman all we ever do is go about doing what we can with our time by doing what we think we should do, which is really what someone else has done at some point in time, solely due to the fact that none of us really knows why we're here. It's pretty amazing when you think about it. We're here, living and breathing and doing everything else, but we have no general direction we're all headed to. The only possible common end, is of course, death. But why go through all the trouble of LIVING when you're going to end up dead anyway? I'm not sure anyone can answer that. If they could, then there'd be no point to actually living a life. We surely weren't put here to pursue a career or die homeless or whatever. But maybe we're just looking for a pattern in a world of random simplicity. Maybe it is that simple. Maybe we're just here to eat, breathe, drink and die. No strings attached.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)