The First Principles of Reality: An Argument for the Existence of a Simply Existent Universe

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
The First Principles of Reality: An Argument for the Existence of a Simply Existent Universe

beyond ideals
of the relevance
of classification,

(and practical applications
these methods produce)

we seem to be lost

in the search
for definitive
and absolute

truth

(dissecting everything accordingly,
in to objects, with base properties,
and understandings ultimately
proportional to our own abilities
in developing mental capacities)

we seem to overlook

the universe
simply exists

(completely independent of,
and able to maintain without,
complex perceptual conceptions-

fundamentally void of such,
except for in us, the creatures
obsessed with our own views

as to the reality of things).


[Note: Of course, this is half jest... but parts of it I plan to expound upon once I gain a more complete understanding as to what I'm actually dealing with. Could take me years to form a proper thesis, one with legitimate claims as to the opposition of schooling or indoctrination on false-reality and anything non-utilitarian in nature.]
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
As for the holes in this theory, they need explored, both arguing for and against in the same thesis! My primary argument in that 'all of our explanations of various observable, and unobservable, phenomenon, in a sense, choke out, or complicate, the reality of a 'simply existing universe.'

I'm directly attacking the information age, and basically saying it lacks a foundation... one that aught to be more prevalent... in that we're complicating things beyond a reasonable limit, and only making a mess of meaning, by ignoring the first principle of a 'simply existent universe'... i profess that there is no more basic truth upon which to build upon, but, I fear, it's so simple and intuitive that it's basically overlooked, discounted as nonsense, or considered irrelevant, and the vast majority of people are going to grow up without this basic, foundational principle in their vocabulary!

That was a reiteration of course, but these are topics I've discussed at length with my mom, which have helped us both grow and mature... as well as take steps towards healing, having gotten the brunt end of the deal in participating in the search for truth in the complex ecosystem of human thought and meaning, which seemingly is either uninformed in the first place, or neglects this principle.
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Forgive the saltiness. But I would drink a cup of hemlock tea over this, especially if a lot of good would come from my openness on such matters, as well as my willingness to take a leap of faith, believe I'll be heard, and help bring about change so that our kids don't grow up making the same mistakes and continue to confuse the heck out of themselves and each other. :angelic:
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
Umm?
I'm wondering?
You're reservation on your ideals?
Granted this was posted in Creative Writing.

I'm wondering a few things?
If this a basis of you own beliefs? (of which I feel you should experess and embrace fully)
Or
Is this the basis of a story idea you wish to tell (again, which I enbrace fully).

There are some points worth discussion and since Alien Soup is a discussion Forum, I'm guessing you are offering up those points for discussion.
The First Principles of Reality:
The first discussion is in the concept of reality.
The way I see it, reality just is, it requires no acknowledgement or justification.
It is reality whether everyone sees it or nobody sees it.
So, basically, the ONLY principle of reality is: it is.
It requires absolutely no justification, proof or verification.
Simply Existent Universe
Believe it or not, the Universe exists whether we contemplate its existence or not.
The entire Universe and everything within it, you, me, and the dirt under our feet is part of the Universe.
Many people have the DELUSION that we are separate from the Universe but I assure you we are all part of the Universe.
To imagine oneself as something other than the Universe is a FANTASY.
If that is what you need to find inner peace, go for it.
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
First, I'd like to thank you for offering up your views, concerns, etc. But, also your argument is very well put!

Next, I'd just like to say, concerning the first post, and in response to some of your questions, that these are my views, and I consider it a creative process, but I'm using research to back that, like you said about reality: 'it is.'

Thanks for your input, and it's nice to see someone with similar ideas, even if varying in parts.

Here's some of what I'm considering, not only for my own future, but what I plan on including in my thesis...

-------------------------------------------------

I'm currently looking into going to college for philosophy... I'll work on this theory for the next few years, but I really want to write a master thesis one day concerning this matter of 'a simply existent universe' and the implications involved, as well as potential ways this could and should effect different fields of knowledge and reasoning.

I plan to study with a goal of simply observing the current state of things, while thinking how and why we should break way... but I'm going to take my studies seriously.

But I'll guarantee there are plenty of fresh new ideas that current philosophy is missing, or failing to grasp completely.

----------------------------------------------

On a more serious note, I'm going to take a good look at neo-Aristotelian literature, in coming to grips with a practical way of classification from a more natural, classically, basically logically-human perspective, while keeping in mind the fallacies of people in general growing up, and functioning, in a society raised by people, who have been hardwired through experiential and or evolutionary means to think and function in it's own way, and on it's own terms.

-------------------------------------------------

I kind of have an opinion of how to at least go about forming a proper hypothesis in regards to this fallacy...

This is just a train of thought, and things can always change... In fact, I'm sure they will.

Conceptual and Emotional Implications of Experience and Reaction and Interaction

I’m considering the reaction/interaction with one's self, mentally and emotionally, of individuals to stimuli (or the experiencing of or involvement in events) in the development/management of thought and emotion, as well as physical wellbeing… It’s certain that different encounters at different times will lead to different results (I need a better understanding of that). At one time an individual will be less affected, while at another time more so, possibly in known but also unknown ways, as well as will act differently at different times, in both how they think and feel, and how they face such situations in that moment based on these. While the degree of being affected (and perhaps adaptment, or change) in large part, may be dependent on the susceptibility, or even chance, of willfully and or unwillfully being affected, as well as to development in what a change in habit, thought, behaviour, etc. means or entails to an individual, primarily for survivability or the pay off in minimizing pain/increasing pleasure, as well that of subconscious activity in the underlying processes involved in helping run the organism.

(I really need someone more skilled than I at discerning the truth of the matter to shoot the above full of holes)

All in all, I’d like to keep an eye out in research in these fields as to see what the proper concepts of a ‘simply existent universe’ means for various people at different stages of their life, and what benefits can come of proper instruction in coming to terms with ‘existence’ in such a conceptual atmosphere. But, and this is only a hypothesis, I believe that people can only benefit from a proper understanding of ‘a simply existent universe,’ and clearing the illusion that reality is complicated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tom

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
First, I am not a 'scholar', just a disabled truck mechanic.
My 'views' are merely observations and ideas from the 58 years of my life.
While some of it is referenced from random studies and inputs I have no actual references to give that would allow you a direct research query.
That being said, consider this:

Stomping Grounds
A tiger hunts in a range. It's range is limited by its means.
It's range may migrate as its food sources change but it only has a limited range.
It doesn't use conveyance to increase its hunting range.
It's reality of life is limited to itself.
Humans use conveyance to increase their range.
Horses, trains, cars, boats, airplanes and even rockets to outer space.
Their reality of life is a far greater range than the tiger.

Migration
A long time ago humans migrated.
Migration patterns of different species have been studied for decades.
There is a question of migration motivation (why migrate) that humans apply to other species based on our observations and documentations.
What I would like to know is if a bird thinks about its Winter home in the South while it is in the North for the Summer?
When it comes time to head South for the Winter, does it have a destination in mind?
We do when we relocate.

When a wildebeest migrates, does it know at the start of its journey that it will cross the Nile full of crocodiles? Is the Nile plunge a complete surprise each year?

Simplistic Reality
The simplest reality is that of an object.
The object exists.
When my truck needs fuel it doesn't move itself to go find fuel.
When it is broken, it doesn't mend itself or complain.
It remains simply in a state of existence.

When an organism needs fuel, it goes looking for fuel.
Its existence is life.
For it to have life it needs certain things for that life to continue.
Its existence is dependent on obtaining those things.
Without them, it no longer lives.
At that point, it becomes an object.
It no longer seeks out its sustenance.

Rational Thought
An object has no rational thought.
(True AI is not here yet)
It does not contemplate, evaluate or motivate.

Living organisms all have a certain degree of rational thought.
They evaluate and motivate themselves in an effort to maintain their lives.
Every organism alive does this to a certain degree, even plants and bacteria.
In a certain way, it is simplistic reality to attempt to preserve its life.

Humans contemplate.
We are baseline organisms first and foremost but we tend to make the process of life complicated because we rationalize and contemplate reality.
We assign value to occurrences and objects where no value is needed and change our patterns of actions to include those values while we attempt to survive.
A raccoon will eat a two week old sandwich found in the dirt.
To the raccoon, it is food.
A human will not eat, even when hungry, anything it cannot justify in its value system.
To 'live' a human requires its values to be fulfilled.
An organism needs its requirements to be fulfilled.

The ladder of rational thought ranges from the most simplistic organism to the most complicated.
Along that ladder, organisms add to their basic life parameters values to which they assign as quality of life.
As rational thought increases 'life' becomes more complicated.

The Plateau of Complex Reality
On this planet, we (humans) consider ourselves the most rational complex lifeforms at this point in time.
We consider ourselves the baseline for intelligent life.
We have mastered the ability to obtain the basic elements of life.
Since we are not as 'occupied' with the quest for sustenance our minds wander and we start trying to figure out the 'why' of reality.
The more we figure out, the more complicated it all gets.
However, the raccoon understands reality in a simplistic way.
Not complicated at all.

Having time to complicate our reality we start to attempt to change it so it fits into the little boxes we say it has to fit into.
When we can get reality to do what we want, we feel justified but reality has a habit of just being reality no matter how big the box is.
When reality doesn't work the way we imagined it, we get upset.
Thing is, reality doesn't exist because we say it does.
It just exists.

Well, I'm just offering up some points for pondering.
Hopefully, it may inspire your mind to think someplace it didn't before.
If not, okay, no worries.

You might try using Google Scholar to find papers and articles on subjects for more research.
Most of the articles provide names that you might try emailing.
Some might respond but if you don't try, you will never know.

School for Champions is not so much a source as it is a place to gather ideas.
There is a feedback blog where you can pose questions on multiple subjects.

Human Knowledge.net is a rather old website that allows you to read up on a multitude of subjects .
What is the meaning of life?
What are the limits of intelligence? Of logic?


 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
First, I want to thank you for your efforts in explaining some of the finer points of specific instances in which certain aspects of this discussion should find very pertinent. Secondly, I'd like to thank you for doing so in a creative fashion.
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Firstly, I take all discussions up to the point highly pertinent and creative... This seems like a very good forum to discuss such matters as coming to grips with 'reality.'

But, I'm dealing with other creative types, who tend to disrupt the creative process, ironically... Here's my passionate response when trying to overcome opposition... just take it as mostly jest, while trying to state my views:

Anyways, just food for thought, which I honestly don't see exactly where this is going... I'm just using it in spite... but it's still a good discussion to have, I think.

I’m going to get bizarre for a minute and use the idea of trope to argue that reality has 'indefinableness' or rather 'simple existantness' and 'is what it is' which is not shared or reflected in our vocabulary the way it ought to be, as our language should contain, or point to, the reality of a simple existence in that which it ultimately tries to discuss, views on the universe, while instead it acts more as if everything it's invented were literal truths. What I’m getting at is, our definitions completely lack, or don't mirror, objective reality. Ex. if we look up the term 'object' you will not get any implication whatsoever that an object is not only a concept, or abstraction, separate, or different than, what the 'idea of an object' really is, ‘invented explanations of a region of the universe,’ which by definition, 'exists without definition,' where, instead, someone has 'personally assigned meaning to it' whereas it just 'is what it is, beyond definition, and we like to assign our own meanings to things' but we'll also not get any hint that 'objects' are basically defined through 'folk psychology' that can’t let anything slip its grasp, and that we uphold its definition in order to fit in and work with the rest of a busted system!

[note: having said this side of the argument, highlighting fallacies of human thought, I'd like to ignore this post for the most part, and instead highlight more what you said, Tom.]
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
First, I am not a 'scholar', just a disabled truck mechanic.
My 'views' are merely observations and ideas from the 58 years of my life.
While some of it is referenced from random studies and inputs I have no actual references to give that would allow you a direct research query.
That being said, consider this:

Stomping Grounds
A tiger hunts in a range. It's range is limited by its means.
It's range may migrate as its food sources change but it only has a limited range.
It doesn't use conveyance to increase its hunting range.
It's reality of life is limited to itself.
Humans use conveyance to increase their range.
Horses, trains, cars, boats, airplanes and even rockets to outer space.
Their reality of life is a far greater range than the tiger.

Migration
A long time ago humans migrated.
Migration patterns of different species have been studied for decades.
There is a question of migration motivation (why migrate) that humans apply to other species based on our observations and documentations.
What I would like to know is if a bird thinks about its Winter home in the South while it is in the North for the Summer?
When it comes time to head South for the Winter, does it have a destination in mind?
We do when we relocate.

When a wildebeest migrates, does it know at the start of its journey that it will cross the Nile full of crocodiles? Is the Nile plunge a complete surprise each year?

Simplistic Reality
The simplest reality is that of an object.
The object exists.
When my truck needs fuel it doesn't move itself to go find fuel.
When it is broken, it doesn't mend itself or complain.
It remains simply in a state of existence.

When an organism needs fuel, it goes looking for fuel.
Its existence is life.
For it to have life it needs certain things for that life to continue.
Its existence is dependent on obtaining those things.
Without them, it no longer lives.
At that point, it becomes an object.
It no longer seeks out its sustenance.

Rational Thought
An object has no rational thought.
(True AI is not here yet)
It does not contemplate, evaluate or motivate.

Living organisms all have a certain degree of rational thought.
They evaluate and motivate themselves in an effort to maintain their lives.
Every organism alive does this to a certain degree, even plants and bacteria.
In a certain way, it is simplistic reality to attempt to preserve its life.

Humans contemplate.
We are baseline organisms first and foremost but we tend to make the process of life complicated because we rationalize and contemplate reality.
We assign value to occurrences and objects where no value is needed and change our patterns of actions to include those values while we attempt to survive.
A raccoon will eat a two week old sandwich found in the dirt.
To the raccoon, it is food.
A human will not eat, even when hungry, anything it cannot justify in its value system.
To 'live' a human requires its values to be fulfilled.
An organism needs its requirements to be fulfilled.

The ladder of rational thought ranges from the most simplistic organism to the most complicated.
Along that ladder, organisms add to their basic life parameters values to which they assign as quality of life.
As rational thought increases 'life' becomes more complicated.

The Plateau of Complex Reality
On this planet, we (humans) consider ourselves the most rational complex lifeforms at this point in time.
We consider ourselves the baseline for intelligent life.
We have mastered the ability to obtain the basic elements of life.
Since we are not as 'occupied' with the quest for sustenance our minds wander and we start trying to figure out the 'why' of reality.
The more we figure out, the more complicated it all gets.
However, the raccoon understands reality in a simplistic way.
Not complicated at all.

Having time to complicate our reality we start to attempt to change it so it fits into the little boxes we say it has to fit into.
When we can get reality to do what we want, we feel justified but reality has a habit of just being reality no matter how big the box is.
When reality doesn't work the way we imagined it, we get upset.
Thing is, reality doesn't exist because we say it does.
It just exists.

Well, I'm just offering up some points for pondering.
Hopefully, it may inspire your mind to think someplace it didn't before.
If not, okay, no worries.

You might try using Google Scholar to find papers and articles on subjects for more research.
Most of the articles provide names that you might try emailing.
Some might respond but if you don't try, you will never know.

School for Champions is not so much a source as it is a place to gather ideas.
There is a feedback blog where you can pose questions on multiple subjects.

Human Knowledge.net is a rather old website that allows you to read up on a multitude of subjects .
What is the meaning of life?
What are the limits of intelligence? Of logic?
I find all of this very interesting... thanks! :)
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
I'd like to ignore this post for the most part
Why?

Humans (Sentinent Sapiens) invent the 'world' in which we live.
We are a social species. Social indicates a need for unity.
We create the associations to stimuli and assign meaning and nomenclature so we can be united as a social creature. These associations are the foundation of our social existence.
To be social, find unity, we need to understand our shared reality in the same way.
It gives us commonality.

Tarzan, the wild boy raised by apes, was also a social animal.
He adopted a social bond with the apes and shared their commonalities.
To other humans, his behavior was wild and he had trouble adapting to the social standards of humans.
But, being a social animal, he was able to make the change of commonality so he could find unity with the other humans.

Possible research you might find pertinent could be case studies of infantile isolation behavioral traits and the resultant changes to the persona after the subject is introduced to a social group.
Blind to sighted case studies.
Imagine if you never saw anything. Your reality would be only what you smell, feel and hear.
Then you have surgery and suddenly you can see.
Your reality changes as you take in the visual properties of the world around you.
I don't think the technology is available yet to raise a human from birth to adulthood in complete isolation.
Completely cut off from all social stimuli.
It would be interesting to see how that human formed its understanding of reality.

One thing is certain, the Universe is big...really big.
The only life we actually know exists is on this one planet.
Everything we experience is happening on this planet with this Moon, this star in this part of the galaxy.
We like to think we are unique but we don't have enough information to make that claim.
We might be the common baseline reality of the Universe but there is absolutely no way to know.

On a different note:
I like to ponder that other species only see the simple reality of existence and it is human's rational thought and intelligence that clouds our ability to see it. We tend to over-think it.

An object is only an object.
When we assign meaning to something that needs no meaning we are causing our own delusion.
We tend to share our delusions with other people.
We teach them how to embrace their delusions.
I call it the Diamonds, Gold and Glitter Delusion.
We assign value to objects that are actually just simple reality.
Our social delusion makes those objects more than they are.

Human social delusion starts as soon as a child can understand.
It is so ingrained into our thought processes we don't recognize they are delusions.
If we experience reality that is in opposition to our delusions, we fight or flight.
We would rather live in the comfort of our cherished delusions than face cold dispassionate reality.
We don't like it when things do not turn out to be what we expect them to be.

These are my opinions/observations.
I am not singling anyone out, nor condemning anyone's lifestyle.
Its provided as pondering points only.
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Like it very much, Tom! I need to read it more than once or twice, but...

The 'creative' types, some of them, are revolting for being disturbed, I think. xD

Therefore, my explanation as to my own stupidity:

One goal is to posit that the universe simply exists, and humans have simply figured out 'ingenious' ways to monkey around with its makeup, like kids in the backyard playing in the mud making mud pies... and that there's a lot of cleanup to be done when they come back into the house, where there's a simple existence that defies excessively elaborate thought, language, and 'folk psychology.'

Perhaps it will make people too uncomfortable to admit I'm right, and learn a new language where observation supersedes definition, being closer to an un-muddled perspective. (pardon the pun)


[note: I must be ahead of my times, because I still haven't proved to them that there's sufficient grounds for me to separate from the herd... in theory at least. :devil:]
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
I think I found a skeptic of my views that I can actually debate with, who agrees to disagree in the name of progress. :)

Anyways, here's a bit of what I said (sorry for being un-scientific, and only presenting part of the discussion, but I want to keep these brief moments for the theory):

--------------------------------------

I personally believe that we should continue to make progress in our current state, enjoy what we've created, but be OPEN AND HONEST about the fact we've made up all of our beliefs, religious and scientific.

----------------------------------------

I'm just saying we need to be OPEN AND HONEST about the fact that logic and reasoning and thought, etc. are all human inventions in order to try to understand what's really just 'a simply existent universe` at the end of the day.

----------------------------------------

I see such phenomenon (math proofs) as yet more 'properties' we've assigned to 'objects', this time 'maths' and 'numbers' ...properties which are still only invented meanings.

----------------------------------------

So we've made a great measuring stick?

----------------------------------------

Like I said, I'm just getting the first principle of a simply existent universe out of the way by arguing for its absolute validity, however uncomfortable it is to deal with. Trust me, I have times it makes me uncomfortable trying to grasp it as well.

----------------------------------------

But I can't wait to get into science and classification and math!

----------------------------------------

Forgive my upbringing, blame Rene Descartes, but this 'first principle of reality' is enough for me to be convinced to throw everything out the window.
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
An Excerpt:

I don't mean to be argumentative, as if your thoughts don't matter...

I'm positing that math and shapes don't exist, but are a way of looking at things, and that it's quite the convoluted means of describing reality, because beyond human thought things truly lack definition. [And, my argument is, if things lack definition, and act naturally on their own, how can there possibly be a formulaic system in place to put two and two together, thus providing, and acting according to, intelligent ways of computation?] So, I state is no math system, no numbers, but rather simply existent material that behaves in a predictable manner, which gives the illusion of math. Like I said, math is little more than a measuring stick, in my opinion, to speak in understandable terms. As for shapes, there are no atoms, no spheres called planets, or masses of excited energy called stars. Instead, I'm positing that we're dealing with a simply existent universe, which we've come to comprehend or grasp in means of objects, shapes, etc. and if there were things, they'd simply be aggregates of subatomic particles, or who knows what, that take up a places in space and time, only appearing as if being objects, and likely behaving in predictable ways, in which math may be able to predict, giving the illusion of the existence of these things. But that doesn't mean we're not using invented ideas, or forms of measurement to describe such phenomenon.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
Something else for pondering...

All mass is made of energy.
This is demonstrated by the atomic bomb.

Consider that the simplest reality of the Universe is energy.
What we recognize as mass, is actually condensed energy.
Reality is made of areas of energy in different concentrations but to get to its simplest form, results in energy.
Energy's simplest form is unknown.
There is no specific measure of energy that results in a 1+2 rationality.
There is either energy or there is not.

We measure energy against known forces but there is no way to isolate what constitutes as the individual piece of energy.
Temperature is mass vibration or movement of particles.
Movement is also energy so if there is movement there is temperature and if there is temperature there is energy.
True Absolute Zero is the cessation of all movement.
In other words, it is frozen.
At tAZ energy cannot be measured, we don't know if it is dissipated or enters into a "hibernation" state?
This is because there is no means to detect it.
Our detection methods require heat. Light is heat, resulting from movement.
The bright something is, the hotter = more movement.

The simplest universal existence, in my opinion, is energy.
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Yeah, but consider my gameplan! :D

After getting the relevancy of reality out of the way, i hope to dedicate my studies to neo-Aristotelian literature, a human perspective, and I plan to help reestablish a focus on nature and what it means to coexist with our surrounding, and helping in fields based more in practical applications of environmental benefit… and hopefully sway some of the scientific community to get realistic about their man-hours… all while minoring in engineering, and actually working in the field to help these ends.
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
a squirrel makes do

no great architect himself,
a squirrel makes do,
and makes his home
in a hollow in the trunk
of his favorite oak tree-
feverishly determined
to pack it full of nuts,
he makes his forages;
but luckily for him
that source of infinite happiness
happens to come
from that same tree,
and he doesn’t
have to go very far at all
to get the good stuff.

_______________________


I told you it was a convoluted argument I was making, but after attempting to level the playing field, calling all knowledge janky, I'd like to argue for the viability of human ability to 'think' and go counter to my arguments by supporting 'epistemic realism' and 'receptivism'... why would I do such a crazy thing? Two words, 'for the power of logic and reasoning'
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
I want to be a neo-Aristotelian... in case you were wondering... the above explains my craziness. ;)
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
That's a lot to take in, but some of that is my very own views... but the idea of the model I'm working with is finding ways to be inclusive of math, an abstract model, while using a logic and reasoning model of my own... the hang up with me is when a Platonist tells me math is the best or most 'perfect mode of knowing' when it goes against my more 'situational' based models.

No, I firmly believe in many situations human artistic abstractions can outshine mathematics abstractions in the search for truth. Math can lock you into a view and you will miss a solution until the numbers line up.
 

psychlops

Ensign
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
I leveled my ideas as well, just to show everything is mind stuff... but now that that's out there, I'm backing the ability of humans to solve problems in a more natural way... look up 'epistemic realsim' and 'receptivism', because that's the stance, we as humans tend to naturally think in these ways. The idea is to merge these faculties with science, without losing them as highly legitimate tools.

And I'm saying we learn logic in more ways than through numbers.

Math is great. But reality itself isn't numbers. That's why I believe in art... unless we're looking for brushstrokes instead of subject matter.

My idea is we have a more balanced perspective, where we wed the idea of brushstrokes with subject matter, to understand the true genius of the piece.

Lol, math will only help me in my search.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
LOL, so yer hung up on math. so?
I know lots of people hung up on math that can't deal with the reality they face everyday?
Where's the quandary?

Anyone that exists in this world knows there are things math can't explain.
That fact is proof that math is merely an understanding of certain things.
While math DOES provide a basis of understanding, notable and respected, there are things in the Universe in which math fails.
LOVE is one example.

Yet, we all feel love and we are part of the Universe.
So the Universe feels love and love is part of the Universe, get it?
If we imagine something, the Universe is imagining it.
Its not something separate.
Because, we are not separate from the Universe.

While math can explain certain aspects of the existence in which we exist, it fails miserably to explain all the aspects in which we exist.
Don't get too hung up on math.
Its only part of the equation, the reality in which we exist.
Think of it as part of the equation.
Important, yes, just as our love is important.
A piece of the reality but not the whole thing.

People have a habit of grouping.
They try to group reality in the 'math' or the 'love' but fail to consider it might be more than that, much more.
Perhaps there is as many sides to reality as there are known understandings of math or love divisions combined?
Perhaps, we have barely started to grasp the actual reality in which we exist?
I mean what, we are barely 2 million years into a Universe that has existed for 13.7 billion years or more?
That makes me laugh. LOL
 
Top Bottom