Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘perspective

“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.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

November 2021
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Blog Stats

  • 1,484,890 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 816 other followers

%d bloggers like this: