Adonis Diaries

Archive for January 21st, 2010

“I want to be carried away by my emotions”; (Jan. 25, 2010)

If we compare the two statements: “I want to be carried away by my emotions” with the  implicit restrictions on ethical factors of  “how carried away” and “how far” and the second statement “I like not to be carried away by my emotions” the difference is fundamentally existential with philosophical dimensions. Pragmatically, the two statements are logically the same but differ emotionally and philosophically on how to exist.

The first statement may extend the understanding that “Okay, I know that I have limitations and, more often than not, I am obeying out of nature’s laws necessities.  But I understand that I have capabilities and potentials to defying nature’s necessities now and then.  I am willing to be finally defeated by necessities, but at least, my spirit soared for brief moments during eternity.  I want to finally die and be over this hellish eternal system”

The second statement explicitly includes ethics in the equation and may propose the understanding that “I don’t care for brief moments of eternity or the liberation of my spirit.  I want to be on the victor side; I want to ally with the universe as one entity. Nature and I are one system. My limitations are recaptured by the universal capacity to overcome death.”  There is an undertone of resurrection into other element forms of nature: we are interchangeable parts at different periods of eternity.

If I say “I love to be carried away in my emotions” without any implicit ethical restrictions (I doubt normal people can) then the logical outcome means “I don’t want to stay part of this nature’s system.  I want to be released and be annihilated in due time.”  The question remains “why do I care to be a normal person in this brief life if at the end we are all equal in death?”

An excellent way to select our ethics is by choosing the appropriate perspective.

I may consider that I am moving and living while nature is static or moving at a uniform speed, or that I am moving at a uniform speed and nature is doing the actual moving (acceleration/deceleration).  The two perspectives logically adhere to nature’s law of necessity but differ in the emotional weight. The first perspective is defiance and the second is alliance or membership to nature’s system.

In any event, the “world of ideas” is our brain perception of the “real world”.

That we are not equipped to be convinced of the structure of the real world and how it functions “as is” without impressions be filtered (processed by the brain) is a big headache to logical rational minds.  We can either state that “the real world does not think and it has no corresponding notions of time and space” or admit that “there are correspondence between how mankind thinks and how the real world behaves”.  Either statement carries heavy consequences ethically.

What if humankind disappears? Would nature care if humankind is gotten rid with?  Logically, we should admit that all living creatures have their “world of ideas”.  If we are enamored with logic then, what is the main barrier that prevent us to accept that living creatures have their perceived world?

Saying that “facts” deny other species this right is non receivable: facts are what we define, design in experiments, and perceive; the notion of fact is not independent of the real world behaviors and definitions.

There was no dissociation between knowledge and ethics in ancient philosophical structure; it is the current dissociation that’s bringing humankind to savage annihilation of its species.

How have you been “existing”? (Jan. 25, 2010)

            The main philosophy of the last century was called “Existentialism” that Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) disseminated after WWII with the cooperation of Simone de Beauvoir who published “The second sex”.  What differentiated Sartre’s existentialism from Kierkegaard, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and Heidegger is that Christianity is no longer a crutch to lean on for processing the concept to its final outcome.

            In that philosophy, man and woman have no innate “nature” to fall back on.  They just have to create themselves, their “natures” (their “essence”).  The feeling of alienation is that mankind was created without his will and yet, he is condemned to be free for taking responsibility of his actions knowing that there are no eternal values or norms for guidance and directions.  The individual has to create his set of values and his nature from actions among choices, even default choices.

            That Sartre’s existentialism allied to Marxist movement (Sartre never accepted to be a member of a political party) is part of this century struggle for enjoying the freedom that we never asked for; but “man is condemned to be free” in taking responsibility of his actions simply because he is created to be conscious of his existence and his death: mankind is not “in itself” but “for itself” and an individual relies on his existence to be whatever he might otherwise be “his nature”.

            For example, Stephen Hawkins, this crippled astrophysicist, grabbed the question of his interest (nature) “How the universe was created”.  That Hawkins offered the Big bang theory is irrelevant to the universe or to everyday man is important philosophically.  What is most important is that Hawkins must have enjoyed “the meaning of his life”.  The Big Bang proposition may be accompanied by all kinds of mathematical formulas it does not make it more believable than a childish storytelling in Bibles that are so funny to kids.  For example, why just one Big Bang? Is it because God must be one and only one?  Anyway, how many of us seriously engaged on his journey for discovering the meaning of his life existence?

            Current nuclear physicists are fundamentally pre-Socratic in their quest for the elemental matters; they want to be able to offer a satisfactory explanation of “what is matter?” This problem is thus a vital part of their “life’s philosophy”, the “essence” or an answer to the question “what is my nature”?

            Existentialism was the source of modern style in writings called the “absurd”.  For example, when you show the lack of coherence or meaning in life, then the reader or audience is forced to cultivate his “own meaning” of the story.

            Things have changed.  The world can be felt as reduced to a Town Square; instant audio-visual communications around the world is discouraging people to move out and investigate “his universe”.  The Renaissance man had to travel on horses for long distances to educate his curiosity and talents.

            Arne Naess disseminated the eco-philosophy which stated that western paradigm line of thinking is taking the wrong direction for a sustainable earth: Man is not in the upper chain of evolution and he has no right to destroy the other living creatures for his perceived universe.

            The new wave of occultism, New Age, alternative lifestyle, mysticism, spiritualism, healing, astrology, clairvoyance, and telepathy are consequences of collecting mass “coincidental” happenings among the billion of people and which are relayed instantly on the Internet.  These coincidences can be explained rationally, especially if we believe in the power of the subconscious for erratic behaviors.

            The worst part is that millions are still brandishing old Books or Bibles claiming every word for “truth”; as if we are in the Dark Ages.  Sciences and technologies have done serious empirical attempts to answering most of the dialectical problems in philosophy such as how the universe was started, how knowledge developed and progressed.  What is outside the realm of sciences is in the domain of faith which should not be confounded with religious philosophical belief systems.

            The “meaning of life” is not a solution: it is the trip, the journey to answering a single definite bothering question, a question that interest you mostly among hundreds of other pretty much non answerable questions.  This trip means working toward a resolution to the question “What is my nature?”  It is hard work, relentless, and tricky journey but nothing has meaning if we don’t feel the obstacles and hardships.

I want a listener; (Jan. 24, 2010)

            I want a listener as candid as a child,

            As good hearted as an idiot,

            With the voice of an owl,

            A voice that carries far and clear,

            A voice with no secret to whisper,

            And a voice that has no shame

Loudly  stating  its opinions.

            In heaven, who I am should be irrelevant.

            On earth, what I am should be very relevant. 

            What counts is the listener:

            Is anyone listening to me?

            Is anyone reading my ideas?

            Life! Damn, what a miracle of perfection.

            Am I worth that grace?

I know dog Misha is.




January 2010

Blog Stats

  • 1,519,149 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: