It seems that things come around in the end. That sometimes Karma exists and that there are certain patterns of benevolence that seem to work in conjuction with, but seperate from the closed world of physics. I think their may be a pattern, but that labelling it Karma, or assuming things happen for a reason (reason's not necessarily physical), though this may work for some, does not work for me. I think there's a hair to be split here.
I do see that there are patterns that can be noticed, but I think looking at them as good or bad is a constricting view. These patterns are better noticed as things. If this attitude is takin towards them, a sort of neutral understanding and acknowledgement, then goals and understandings can be reached easier. However, I think one of the most important patterns to understand is that goals are an illusion. We look at them as an ending, a sort of unit of measurement. But really they are just a moment that comes and passes, that we talk about a lot. Things continue always. So maybe the goal should be to enjoy the path that we are on, and let it take us where we need to be. Take joy in the processes of existence. If some turn does not go the way we expected, instead of becoming furious, roll with it, enjoy it. We give ourselves a lot of expectations, but in the end they are just illusions. Sort of like when you root for your favorite sports team. You get into it, and want something to happen, you yell and you cheer, you get excited you get sad, you feel like your fandom will help the team win, when in fact, you are quite irrelavent. This is very much what expectations are like. Time, people, things, keep moving, the control you have over it is minimal if any.
Clearly the influence of my current toaist reading is coming out right now, however I think those texts are full of wisdom. They are so mysterious and contradictory and yet, they hit home so well. The hardest part however, is the truth of it is not something that can be put into words. You can talk and talk and talk about it all day, but the only true knowledge and understanding of taoism is through practice and experience. This is why most of it comes out in such contradictory terms, because it is not based on logic, but merely is trying to describe noticed truths.
In the end the point is, to take events as what htey are and think about how you can give them purpose in your life, instead of letting them decide things for you. And in a typical taoist fashion: the more you try to control the events, the more they decide for you, the more you just let them be and roll with them, the more you control them. Just something to ponder...
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Just had my mind blown
This entry is a complete reaction to something I just read. I haven't cooled down yet, I'm running on all cylinders. So if it's a little intense, or scatterbrained, or bizarre I apologize. Bare with me, my head just exploded and I'd like to express how that happened.
So I picked up "The Conscious Mind" by David Chalmers after months of not reading it because I was stuck, or not in the mood or whatever excuse, I haven't really read anything in a while to be honest. Nothing real sit down, more like just short poems and things or chapters from the Tao Te Ching. Little did I know I was on the verge of stumbling upon an insane hypothesis.
The premise of the book is that consciousness (the qualities of experiencing things, the idea that experience does happen) is a very real thing. That it is in fact the one thing we can be most sure about in our lives, because it is the most immediate. Very Descartes, yes I know.
Anyway, the chapter I was reading he was discussing the problem that consciousness may be epiphenomenal. In other words, it is effected by the physical world but is in fact irrelevant to the real world itself. So Chalmers was explaining several ways that consciousness could be more than just a strange occurrence tacked onto the real world.
The argument he found most compelling was this: physics describes every thing in terms of it's extrinsic qualities. For example mass exists only in relation to energy and other mass. Distinctions between different types of elements are made purely in their relation to other elements, and how energy effects it. So what if there is an intrinsic quality to mass? What if that intrinsic quality is the proto-type for conscious experience and mass and energy and they are all related by that primordial beginning quality.
If you think about there's really no explanation or knowledge of what mass is. I mean, it does seem impossible that there would be all these relationships between things without any actual things to have relationships to, right?
Well it's certainly a thought, there is a lot that could be discussed on this. I just needed to get this out, and sit and think about it for a little while before I go back to reading more, or something else or thinking about something else. Just needed a bit of stewing time. It certainly fascinates the hell out of me.
So I picked up "The Conscious Mind" by David Chalmers after months of not reading it because I was stuck, or not in the mood or whatever excuse, I haven't really read anything in a while to be honest. Nothing real sit down, more like just short poems and things or chapters from the Tao Te Ching. Little did I know I was on the verge of stumbling upon an insane hypothesis.
The premise of the book is that consciousness (the qualities of experiencing things, the idea that experience does happen) is a very real thing. That it is in fact the one thing we can be most sure about in our lives, because it is the most immediate. Very Descartes, yes I know.
Anyway, the chapter I was reading he was discussing the problem that consciousness may be epiphenomenal. In other words, it is effected by the physical world but is in fact irrelevant to the real world itself. So Chalmers was explaining several ways that consciousness could be more than just a strange occurrence tacked onto the real world.
The argument he found most compelling was this: physics describes every thing in terms of it's extrinsic qualities. For example mass exists only in relation to energy and other mass. Distinctions between different types of elements are made purely in their relation to other elements, and how energy effects it. So what if there is an intrinsic quality to mass? What if that intrinsic quality is the proto-type for conscious experience and mass and energy and they are all related by that primordial beginning quality.
If you think about there's really no explanation or knowledge of what mass is. I mean, it does seem impossible that there would be all these relationships between things without any actual things to have relationships to, right?
Well it's certainly a thought, there is a lot that could be discussed on this. I just needed to get this out, and sit and think about it for a little while before I go back to reading more, or something else or thinking about something else. Just needed a bit of stewing time. It certainly fascinates the hell out of me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)