RustyBert wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:12 pm Eodnhoj7 - You're obviously very creative and bright. (And apparently smoke alot of weed.)
Thanks for the compliment, and no I do not smoke weed. I often wonder what thoughts would come if I did? Maybe when it is legalized, and do not have to worry about losing employment over it, I will. Then again, if I am as creative and bright as you say, it may cause me to enter some other percieved dimension of reality where I will be so smart, or so stupid that I am smart, that I will be labeled as clinically insane.
But then again there are worse things than losing one's mind. At least simple things like microwaving a sandwich will become an exciting adrenaline filled adventure worthy of poems equivalent to the Iliad.
To extend upon your point about intelligence, I had some testing over the years, with one reference point being back in highschool where I received a professional intelligence exam. Back then the licensed psychologist told me, that according to the test results, I qualified at an intellectual level to a nuclear physicist. The problem occured, at the time, I did not believe (and still do not) that physics is a "sole" median to truth as many of its premises are both contradictory and paradoxical. Hence the pursuit of philosophy at both an intellectual and experiential (real practical life) level.
If it is any consolation to your point however, my head oftentimes resembles an acid trip...in these respects I seem to mastered some perpetual high without the use of drugs. Is force of will a drug in itself? That is in itself a question worth pondering. It would save one alot of money, however at the equal risk of losing one's mind...look at Neitszche. But one man's insanity is another's reason and at the end we all seek divinity or some grade of it.
It'd be nice to see you put your talents into something that matters, like writing fiction, writing for causes, etc. (and maybe you already do).
I am here, strictly to practice communication skills as the acquirement of a median point between what I observe and the observations of other people through the use of language. Philosophy, as definition, in many respects is the art of language. My work here is merely the equivalent to a practical life education as philosophy cannot be limited to academic means alone. In many respects, studying philosophy in university environments, and I can argue from personal experience, is very...how should I word it...limiting?
I probably will go on for a master's, looking at Pitt currently, but I view it in much the same manner as gearing up for a massive fight. Paradoxically if I reenter academia it will fully be with the intent to go to war to create a new vision of reality...or at least tear apart the old. In all honesting I do not believe in what they teach. In the mean time, along with the screen play, I am working some foundations for mathematics and geometry. Not in the attempt to replace the old, but rather give a differ angle as to the nature of reality. Axioms, through the product of synthesis, take on a form of modal realism in themselves, and what we understand of reality in reality is relatively small. So along with the screen play, I working on the goal of getting publish in an academic journal.
Instead of redefining what "is", I am metaphorically looking for new intellectual lands of exploration. I am germanic-slavic so it may partly be cultural memory, through genetics, I am playing out to its conclusion as many represent an arian heritage loosely associate with viking culture and religion.
With that being said, it is funny you mentioned the "fiction" portion. I am currently writing a screen play, with a retired harvard professor, along the lines of a science-fiction/spirituality/horror/action/drama/romance/philosophy category. Hopefully if all goes well we are getting a hollywood writer, who writes screen plays for actors such as De Niro, and awarded translator/writer to join us in our venture. By all accounts, as of now, it looks positive, but the future cannot be predicted let alone mastered except through the "now". Things can turn on a dime.
You've obviously mastered the language of math and science but evidently not the practice of it.
Life is a poem for the lack of beauty suffocates the sole.
Your posts remind me of the sentence "What color is love?" The words make sense grammatically, but obviously the sentence is nonsense (assuming we're not being fanciful, poetic) - love is an emotion, and emotions aren't things that have a physical color.
Is color merely physical, or is it merely the abstract and physical nature of light? If light gives illumination, much in the same manner reason does abstractly, why would love not contain its own qualia of color? What is light, through color, but the observation of definition? Why limit light and color to a mere physical mean alone, when the physical can only be interpreted through the abstract light of reason? Is love strictly an emotion, when these emotions (or passions), literally form the world around us? Look at the scientists who work on nuclear energy? Is that not an act of love being physicalized?
Certain people observe color through sound, how much more evidence do you need that everything reflects through everything? The axiom, I have observed within my study of philosophy, is not looking at what is impossible...but rather looking at what is possible and that by far defeats the impossible.
Impossibility is merely the illusion of the weak willed and weakness is the choice not to make a sacrifice.
As to the equation itself, while it may not seem practical in the standard definition as to what practical is, what is observes is a seperate angle on how to deal with both the contradiction and paradox of time itself. Most problems, at the practical level, begin with the axiomatic foundations they are built upon and in these respect the impractical actually not only forms the practical but is the boundary which forms it. In these respects, the equation (which I still admit to not liking), gives a practical edge by observing the problem from a differ angle.
Most practical problems are actually abstract problems of perception. Ideas are the building blocks of perception which forms the realities in which we live. There is a reason in ancient religions, such as Zoroastrianism, the control of one's thoughts was deemed as a moral requirement...if not dogma. Reading a little of Husserl and Heidegger, on your own time, will give further justification to this argument.
To sum up this post, I would appreciate criticism's on the actual post itself.