I have been having with myself.
There is, despite evidence to the contrary, a method to what I have been posting. It is both existential and chaotic and it is not. Until this point, I have not made an entry of my own on this blog with the exception of comments about the contents of a post or a question about some entry's gist. That is until today....
Though I had not intended to write an entry of my own at this point, because of some things happening in my life, the following is a dialogue I have been having with myself and I find a need to include it in this blog.
I had a major breakthrough on my way home from work about my "almost, probable, certain future." I feel like I'm "stuck" at work because of "external circumstances," eg not having the connections that others have, the plethora of a club of administrators who take care of each other first, or being too qualified compared to others, when, actually, I am making it my "almost, probable, certain future" based on the past. I'm not believing that anything is possible because the past is in front of me not behind me. There should not be an almost, probable, certain future; there are only endless possibilities because nothing exists in the future except things I create. The past has already been created and exists no more.
No matter how many times I tell this to myself [and it has been for years and years] it is difficult to always keep it in perspective.
I do not believe that anything exists. Anything. Existence is predicated on language. Everything must be distinguished by language. Language is what makes anything exist because I name it as such, yet I still can't prove that anything exists.
We have a set of common distinctions about objects. We call a chair a chair because of the language we use to describe it or, rather, what language we decided to use to describe its existence.
It is a task teaching kids how to read because language itself is a creation. A creation that is actually foreign to the functioning of the brain processes. No one has ever been able to explain how we learn to read. There are many theories that explain the various steps but none that explain how. Yet, we are driven to learn how to read - and write.
The artist George Seurat is attributed with a phrase: "A blank canvas. So many possibilities." Endless possibilities not based on an "almost, probable, certain future" but on nothing that previously existed on the blank canvas. What is interesting is that Seurat's art was known as pointilism, a blending of dots that are so close together that they give depth, color, perspective and emotion. In addition, there is a scientific and mathematical basis to this form of art since it deals with an optical mixture based on light. This explanation, of course, is based on the distinctions we make based on language that is a creation itself and may not exist.
So, if "nothing exists," or the antithesis that is an "almost, probable, certain future" does not exist, we have to understand that we have the possibility of creating anything and everything from nothing.
so many possibilities...
About Me
- mike/
- You stop learning when you die... So, I went into Education as a career. I love working with kids. They are refreshing and real... until they get to sixth grade, then all hell breaks loose.... now I'm enjoying the fruits of my work - I think...
2 comments:
"...REALITY, WHICH BECAUSE OF THE TRANSITORY NATURE OF ITS EXISTENCE IS ILLUSONARY TO BEGIN WITH."
Exactly what I said - Nothing exists!
Even if I create the language of "reality," I still cannot prove that "anything" exists. I can't even prove that "nothing" exists. It is only because of the created language concoerning the concept that I have a possible inkling that there is a "nothing" or a "anything."
As I said in the post, a chair is a chair because I say it is a chair. WE have a common understanding of what a chair is because somewhere along the way WE agreed to call the object a chair that meets the criteria for a chair that we agreed on. However, I still cannot prove that there is such a thing as a chair in anything else but language. Does my saying what a chair is or us agreeing what a chair is make the chair a reality?
No. Even this conversation is not proof that the conversation about a chair's existence prove that anything exists. If nothing exists, then it may, just MAY, be possible to create something from nothing.
Mike
I see that you have posted the Special Definitions from Nothingness Theory in which existence is defined as: The set of circumstances in which it is possible for humans to maintain sentient consciousness of self and time.
From the Nothingness Theory point of view, this means that the existence of a chair or anything else is proven by your awareness of it. The great mystery here is awareness itself. The miraculous fact of the universal congruence of consciousness and the emergence of language in all humans would seem to be the unproven territory.
The fact that I experience a chair as you do so that we can easily communicate the idea of "chair" to each other and every human alive is proof of the chair's (and everything else's) existence.
Improvable and unfathomable is the full nature and very existence of human sentient consciousness - the universal awareness of the chair for all humans.
Further: It seems unlikely that language is the ultimate proof or creative point for existence because it predates humans, and probably predates organic life.
This is supported by the discovery that all infants spontaneously emit phonemes using the same syntax no matter where in the world they are, and acquire that location's speech by eliminating the ones that don't get a positive response from the parents.
Thus, spoken language appears to be an emergent property of human development and not a human creation.
I deeply appreciate you posting the special definitions from Nothingness Theory, and I hope this clarifies the Nothingness Theory take of the existence of existence.
Corey Kaup
Post a Comment