Listen, Rachel Bishop, are emptiness and love actually the same thing? I’m asking seriously. Since your philosophical stance seems coherent enough, I’ll start a thread to prove it. Or maybe you can prove me wrong. Everything you say boils down to everything being one and love being everything. That's fine, but can you actually go deeper than that?
It isn't about what I can do; it's about what you can do. And if you don't even know how to answer your own questions... there's no point expecting others to provide answers and then being dissatisfied when they don't.
What emptiness, Bradley Fisher? What emptiness are we even talking about? You're mixing apples and oranges, probably because you took one too many hits to the head. If you ask me, everything is just emptiness... but what if that isn't enough for you? Who gets the blame? Me, because I "can't go further"? Good grief... Bradley Fisher... stop confusing your own desires with what other people are capable of.
It's clear you aren't happy with my way of being, but I can't help you there. I'm not here to satisfy you, you know what I mean? Figure it out yourself.
So, you'll open a thread to prove my philosophy is useless?
If you truly have nothing better to do with your life and this is enough to keep you occupied... be my guest.👍
Harold James9 said:It’s curious how a falsehood, repeated enough times, eventually settles into being accepted as truth.🙄
What turns into hatred isn't love; it's possessiveness masquerading as affection.
Love and hate are too distant to ever truly meet, let alone become one another.😎
Rachel Bishop, what's your take on this?😉
🙂 🙂 🙂
I suppose I agree...😉
On this earthly plane (ha...), love and hate are essentially the same thing. That's why they can morph into one another—it's proof of their shared nature. Nothing truly "different" could undergo such a transformation. It is simply the same substance with a different polarity. Love that isn't about ownership or control, but focuses solely on the happiness of the other... that is a completely different beast, even if everything stems from the same singular source.😉
Simone said:Giving up on banging your head against a wall starts with getting older. At least, that’s my experience. 🙂
It doesn't apply to seeking out new experiences. Curiosity hasn't left me yet. 😁
It isn't about hitting a wall... it's about trying to push through one. No one is immune to that, regardless of age. We conjure up certain "solutions" and pursue them relentlessly until we fail, eventually realizing we need a different path entirely. That cycle is the root of most human misery—from heartbreak and failed marriages to business collapses and general life struggles. 😉
Is it time to walk away once every option has been exhausted? When all strength is spent? Once motivation and desire vanish after a thousand failed attempts...
How does one decide whether to persist or let go?
Is there any point in fighting a battle already lost? Why bother?
Or should everything just be released...
How do you recognize the limit where you must stop, leave it all behind, and simply surrender?
If we give up, what comes next...?🙂 🙂 😕
Well... after a thousand failures... hitting a brick wall... perhaps it is time to quit... and look for a door... or even just a window.😉
Roger Morris3 said:What about those who strain the healthcare system their entire lives because they were born sick? Euthanasia? And what of those who drain the community without ever giving anything back—not even if they aren't sick? Just elite parasites, political looters, and frauds? If we've already decided death is the answer for the infirm because they burden the state, shouldn't we find something even worse for them? I'm out of ideas...😁
You're a dark one, Roger Morris3... 😉 Should we just leave them to God?
jedrenjak said:What has this so-called "spirituality" become?😕 I’d call it mere spiritism!😢
Karuna claims we are all equal, that there is no distinction, and that all religions should be viewed as one. I don't see the logic. We aren't all equal, nor are we all the same. We differ in ability, appearance, talent, gender, faith, tradition, culture, mindset, and so on. Yet, isn't it precisely those differences that enrich us? The New Testament suggests we are all equal only in Jesus Christ. Naturally, for those who believe in him. 🙂
Yes... we certainly (thankfully) are not (all) equal... but we are one Different people can never truly be "equal"... and their diversity is exactly what bears witness to an unimaginable oneness expressed through endless variations. It is that incomprehensible "magnitude" that pierces us and brings us "to our knees." Diversity is "proof" of infinite creative power; it points the mind toward the necessity of accepting all these differences as a single, unified "whole."
"Equality" and "oneness" are not the same thing... and it would be a tragic, pitiful, and utterly powerless—dead and barren—reality if everyone were equal. If we imagine a world of perfectly equal people, we quickly realize its total futility and lack of meaning.
In that sense, one must also view wasted lives and futile sacrifices made for any "holy" cause aimed at achieving some kind of "oneness"... because whatever that cause may be, it remains the greatest crime against Truth.😁
Let's see what this famous esoteric stuff actually claims... in short.
Fundamental teaching esoteric philosophy – Ianthe H. Hoakins
The Basic Law
Esoteric philosophy argues that behind all the various phenomena of the experiential world lies one single Reality—the source and cause of everything that ever was, is, or will be. A significant representative of the Vedic tradition, Adi Shankara, puts it quite simply: no matter what shape you mold clay into, the reality of the object remains clay; its name and form are merely fleeting appearances. All things are the same way, because they emerged from ONE supreme source, being in their true nature that very same supreme essence. From the highest to the lowest, from the greatest to the smallest, these are just countless manifestations of the one universe, hidden behind names and shapes. This teaching regarding fundamental Unity is a defining characteristic of natural philosophy systems. Consequently, any doctrine based on duality... has no place in natural philosophy. ............ Four core thoughts
a) THE FUNDAMENTAL UNITY OF ALL-BITAK b) DEAD MATTER DOES NOT EXIST c) MAN IS A MICROCOSM d) As above, so below; as outside, so inside; as great, so small. There is only ONE LIFE and ONE LAW, and the One who acts within them is ONE. Nothing is internal, nothing is external, nothing is large, nothing is small, nothing is high, and nothing is low in the divine order of the world.
a) The fundamental unity of all-encompassing being ...which means existence is ONE THING, not a collection of interconnected things. At the foundation, there is only ONE BITAK. That BITAK has two aspects: one positive and one negative. The positive aspect is SPIRIT or CONSCIOUSNESS; the negative is SUBSTANCE or matter, the object of consciousness. That Bitak is Absolute in its manifestation. Since it is absolute, nothing exists outside of it. It is the ALL-BITAK. It is indivisible; otherwise, it wouldn't be absolute. If it were possible to separate one part from Him, the remainder could no longer be absolute, because a question of comparison would arise between Him and the separated part... and comparison is incompatible with any notion of the Absolute. Clearly, that fundamental ONE BITAK, or absolute Bitak, must be the reality of every other existing form.
b) Dead matter does not exist... Every single atom is alive. It couldn't be any other way, because every atom is fundamentally the Absolute Bitak.
c) Man is a MICROCOSM... which is why all the celestial hierarchies exist within him. But in reality, neither microcosm nor macrocosm exists—only ONE BITAK. The large and the small only appear as such when observed by a limited consciousness.
d) The fourth and final core thought... expressed in the great Hermetic axiom... unifies the previous points into a synthesis... as is the external, so is the internal; as is the great, so is the small; as above, so below; there is only ONE LIFE AND ONE LAW, and the One who acts within them is ONE.
Goodnight and sleep well... Then there are the VEDAS as God's revelation...
RIGVEDIC UPANISHADS Aitareya Upanishad
.....
How could one discern the one who perceives all this? That is the atman (self): Neither this nor that... because the self cannot be perceived or described by anyone or anything, due to the non-duality of everything within the self... ...and what else could be said here?
...... Bashkal Mantra Upanishad ... 23. I am the light, I am justice, the liberation, the born, the parent, and all that will be born. I am you, I am I, and you are truly you. "I am"—know thyself! Do not doubt!—"justified."
swiftcobra15 said:You clearly put in the effort, but you might have found a more unbiased author elsewhere. This Joe (is he somehow Jesus' stepfather?😕 ) posits God right at the start and then tries to "prove" Him; it’s strikingly similar to our own AGY. Given the massive gaps in his reasoning (or your transcription), the conclusion simply doesn't hold water.
I'll stick to these three points:
1. It is a contentious question, naturally, how we should conceive of and name Him. If we use the word God, we aren't even in the realm of philosophy (as an intellectual pursuit) anymore; we've stepped into theology, dogma, and other ecclesiastical delights.😁 So: The Absolute, The One, The All, The Totality, The Infinite—whatever else fits an intellectual inquiry is fine. God is not! "God" is a religious term and has no place in philosophy.
2. Why would the absolute (rational) unknowability of God be considered an absurdity? It is quite simply the truth. We can only know the Whole (The Absolute, The One = The All) by merging with it—by losing our individuality and separation.
3. Religion "says" something different, not "more." Besides, which religion? It isn't defined anywhere, and it always (using that favorite clerical tactic of implying things under the radar😁) assumes Christianity is the "most perfect" and essentially the only true religion. Here, the author suffers from a pathological Eurocentrism ("Christianity") and doesn't even attempt to pretend to be unbiased. What does, for example, Buddhism say about God?😕 "A religious person will recognize it." 😕 Which person? Which religion? What philosophical background?
This is a meaningless claim—the rambling of someone who has given up on reasoning.😉
1. Doesn't matter. 2. That is a perfectly absurd truth. 3. Which person... which religion... which God?
Any person, any religion, any God... every God is fine... provided they aren't exclusive.😉 (I truly loathe the... ugh... god of exclusivity.)
As for me, the essence lies in this....
Philosophy is nothing more than human reason applied to explaining the world: doing so without regard for anything, without setting boundaries, using whatever strength is available to us.
But even without imposing arbitrary limits, philosophy (reason) has its own inherent boundary that it cannot cross. Any further choice is merely arbitrary... and I think the matter is quite clear... no God and no religion should have an advantage in philosophy, since religion itself is no longer a matter of reason... and if it is, then it is calculated and false... And the fact that the concept of God is used in philosophy (even if inappropriately) shouldn't cause such fury... it is what it is, and most people use the same term while implying God knows what all else...
though we know that... well...
naming stands in opposition to truth.😉
In my view, the progression of understanding follows this sequence...
...where science reaches its limit, philosophy begins; where philosophy ends, religion starts; and where religion concludes, knowledge commences...
There it is. A quick thought before I get back to making dinner... sounds delicious.🙂
Some philosophers simply won't go that far. Naturally, religion says more about God than philosophy does. From that, they argue, it doesn't follow that the object of a philosophical study of God would ever contradict the God of religion. Such a contradiction is impossible to prove. Anything we can say philosophically about God will be accepted by a religious person. But that person knows more about God than even the greatest metaphysician. The conflict isn't in the subject matter, but in the person's attitude. The philosopher views God merely as a rational explanation for the world. To him, God is necessary not for prayer, but to defend his own rationalism.😛To know Him is nothing more than a blunt acknowledgment of the explainability of being; if we are to speak of faith here, the only thing presupposed is faith in reason. There is no room to discuss love for God at all. When Spinoza spoke of an intellectual love of God, he was referring strictly to cognition. Yet, this attitude leads the philosopher—much like in the question of humanity—to a boundary beyond which there is only darkness. His God becomes so vague, so burdened by problems, that the philosopher begins to wonder—as Plato once did—if there might exist a realm beyond philosophy itself. In that moment, if he is a believer, he may find answers to many agonizing questions within religion. His concept of God isn't distorted by it; rather, it becomes fuller, more alive. But philosophy can only lead the thinking man to a threshold he cannot cross by his own strength under one condition: that it remains true to itself. In this, as in all things, philosophy proves to be a creator of life and a fertile ground only when it is driven by a genuine desire to understand and a steadfast commitment to reason. Philosophy is nothing more than human reason applied to explaining the world: doing so without reservation, without setting limits, and using every ounce of power available to us.
old timer😉
stormywolf2....I expect a thank you and a deep bow for such immense effort spent transcribing, all in the name and at the expense of love.... 🙂
The greatest minds in American philosophy have been locked in this struggle forever. Between the nonsense of anthropomorphism—which reduces God to just another creature—and the equally absurd idea that God is utterly unknowable, most major thinkers have always tried to find a middle ground. A magnificent illustration of this tension can be found, for instance, in the third volume of Jaspers's "Philosophy"…….. So, there’s the first hurdle. The second lies in how God relates to the world. If He is truly infinite, it initially seems like nothing else could possibly exist alongside Him. In that scenario, we’re looking at monism or (if you attribute consciousness to God) pantheism. The world would then simply be God, or at least one manifestation of His being. But that leads to the ridiculous notion that the very foundation of existence is made of finite parts, that He undergoes change, or that He is composed of limited things—all pure nonsense. A similar problem arises regarding God's relationship to the world within a dynamic order. Becoming is a single Being; it exists here, and ultimately, it must be grounded in, and even defined by, God. Applied to human will, this suggests that everything we do or desire was predetermined by God from the start, leaving no room for free will. In both instances, the answer might lie in considering God's transcendence and His action. God isn't some entity sitting alongside objects in this world, nor is He, as some shallow writer once put it, like a horse pulling a carriage next to a man. Neither His being nor His action exists beside the created order, but above it—it is a different kind of being and a different kind of action altogether. And now, the religious question. Can the philosopher's God—the infinite, Necessary, all-grounding Being-being—be the same God as the loving Father and Redeemer of Christians who believe they converse with Him in prayer? The God of religion differs from the metaphysical foundation of the world by one decisive stroke: He is holy. What "holy" actually means is something no one can define precisely. Just as no one can pin down exactly what "color" or "pain" is. Yet, the holy is present in human consciousness, in the experience of the one praying. It stands firmly before the eyes of the spirit. Does this holiness coincide with the infinity of the world's Foundation? Is there any bridge at all between what we grasp through reason in philosophy and the object of devotion and hope, the principle of love preached by religion? Philosophers remain divided on this. No serious thinker today denies that the holy is primal—that it cannot be reduced to anything else, representing a set of entirely unique values and attitudes.
Sartre is perhaps the most brilliant and piercingly sharp atheist we have ever encountered in philosophy; therefore, it is worth sketching his doctrine briefly. He understood—more deeply than most—the sheer contingency and insufficiency of everything we find in this world. Everything, he argues, lacks any inherent justification. It simply doesn't *have* to be, yet here it is. You can explain an abstract triangle or a mathematical formula through other means, but those things don't actually exist in the physical sense. But the existence of actual things—this tree root, for instance—cannot be explained away so easily. This real being in the world could only be accounted for by Bog. However, Sartre refuses to acknowledge any Bog—he views such a concept as a contradiction—and thus logically concludes that every being, especially man, is absurd and meaningless. Sartre was uniquely able to articulate the dilemma: one must choose between Bog and absurdity. And so, he chooses the absurd. If I may offer a brief aside: anyone who recognizes this Srtreov line of thought cannot be labeled merely as a "existentialist." Sartre is a high-level metaphysician. Even when he is wrong, he errs at a level most others haven't even approached. Still, many philosophers recoil from admitting the world is meaningless. They ask: if everything real is senseless, what is the point of philosophizing? Is there any philosophical explanation or justification left? If that is the case, then a philosopher might as well accept the existence of Bog—despite the terrifying difficulties it brings—rather than concede to the absurdity of Sartre. Why these difficulties? A believer, or a child with simple faith, faces no struggle in thinking of Bog with love. That is trust; it is a clear thought, regardless of how great or exalted Bog may seem. But the philosopher occupies a different position. To him, Bog is not an object of affection or celebration, but an object of intellect. The philosopher attempts—must attempt—to understand Bog. Herein lies the primary difficulty: the realization that Bog must be entirely and utterly different from everything else. He must be real, yet in a certain sense, He must possess the qualities of the ideal. By His very nature, He is necessary as an ideal being—therefore, eternal, timeless, and spaceless—yet He is also individual in a specific sense. He is more individual than anything else, completely self-contained, and vital in a way we cannot even conceive. Logically, we must attribute to Him all those qualities we consider the greatest virtues of being—spirituality, personality, and so on. Yet, simultaneously, it is impossible to speak of Him in a way where our words carry the same meaning they hold in relation to created things. Even when we say Bog exists, that "exists" must signify something entirely different than it does for us. Thus, philosophy falls into a trap. We either claim that Bog is just like other beings, only infinitely higher in every respect—which is clearly false—or we must assert that we can know nothing about Him. The first is obviously wrong; Bog cannot be like other beings. But the second is equally flawed: because if we know absolutely nothing about something, we cannot even assert its existence. If we claim that something *is*, we have already attributed a characteristic to it. Logic teaches us that a mere empty 'x' cannot be confirmed as existing.
Whitehead argues that we can identify constant existence within our world. Everything that exists is in a state of becoming. For instance, a green apple becomes yellow. According to his view, there must be some driving force behind this process of becoming. He calls this "creativity." Yet, creativity alone isn't enough. Even if we assume the world possesses an inherent drive toward the new, that doesn't explain why this novelty takes the specific form it does. One could argue that certain laws dictate why an apple turns red or yellow instead of blue. But that just postpones the question. Why, among an infinite number of possible natural laws, do these specific ones exist? Why does the evolution of the world follow this particular path rather than any other? The common response—one often heard—is that we simply cannot answer that. Whitehead flatly rejects such a stance. He contends that the philosopher exists specifically to provide rational understanding and explanation. By its very nature, a philosopher must assume that explanations exist and that reason governs the world. This is the fundamental premise of science; the only difference between philosophy and individual sciences is that philosophy applies rationalism without limits, reaching far beyond what suffices for specialized fields. Philosophy, Whitehead claims, has both the right and the obligation to always ask: Why? This leads to the affirmation that God—an infinite power above the world that determines its specific course—must exist. He refers to this as the "principle of concretization," the foundation for why things are as they are and not otherwise. Then comes the next logical step... Why does the world exist at all, and why this specific world instead of another? Within the world itself, there is no reason for this. It would only ground itself if it were absolute, but then the Absolute would also have to exist. In any case, we are forced to accept something of that nature. To avoid such a conclusion, there is only one possibility: one must claim that something irrational exists in the world. To put it elegantly, that means something entirely absurd and meaningless. Truly, everyone who denies the validity of the aforementioned proof is, in various ways, an irrationalist. This includes positivists, certain idealists, and finally, the philosopher made famous by his atheism, Sartre.
Intuitionists suggest that God—the Absolute—is somehow directly given. We encounter Him through experience. One must admit such philosophers are rare, or perhaps they simply rarely admit to holding such a thesis. It might even apply to those aforementioned Marxist philosophers—after all, they never actually provided proof of infinite and eternal matter. Thus, it is assumed they possess direct experience of it. The famous French philosopher Bergson didn't claim to have such an experience personally, nor that it was accessible to other philosophers, yet he taught that it holds true for the mystic, using that very idea to construct his proof for the existence of God. These remain exceptions. Among pure intuitionists, we must distinguish thinkers who, like Max Scheler or Karl Jaspers, affirm a certain apprehension of God. However, they held that man experiences God not within himself, but through a similar being. For Jaspers, human existence is what relates to itself and, by extension, to Transcendence—to God. He thus apprehends the Infinite—if one may put it that way—not directly, but indirectly, within himself, within his own struggle. I suspect Jaspers would protest if this were called a "proof," and the same applies to Scheler. Perhaps it could be described as an insight into finite being that is of such a nature as to allow one to grasp the Infinite. In that case, there might not be such a vast difference—contrary to first impressions—between that view and the position of the explicit rationalists. But there are two types of rationalists. Some among them—for instance, St. Anselm of Canterbury, Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel, and many others—believe that God's existence can be proven a priori, without any relation to the experience of finite being, essentially through pure thought. Just as the characteristics of a triangle can be derived from its definition, independent of whether triangles actually exist in the world, so too could God's existence be proven. However, both Thomas Aquinas and Kant refuted that proof with such success that it is rarely defended today. In opposition to this, many philosophers accept various proofs for the existence of God based on experience. I will present them as I found them in the work of Whitehead, a major 20th-century theorist of God. It seems to me that what he says, in essence, could be approved by other thinkers in this group.
Why doesn't stormywolf2 write? Science, philosophy, and religion all fail to provide an answer, and they never will. It all boils down to one thing... money. There's always enough of it floating around somewhere. But what exactly do philosophers do if they aren't tackling those kinds of heavy questions? What is the actual purpose of philosophy, and what has it actually achieved—or failed to achieve?
I finally got an AC unit installed. Now my apartment is cool enough to host penguins without any trouble. To celebrate, I’ll offer you a brief orientation course on Western philosophical thought and its long, grueling struggle with God.
so...
Joseph M. bochenski – Introduction to Philosophical Thought
………. Absolutely.
….In this final reflection of our series, we arrive at the problem of the Absolute. This is what philosophers traditionally called the Infinite... because for a philosopher, God... isn't found at the starting line like He is for a believer. If a philosopher ever reaches Him, it is only after a long trek through the realm of finite, worldly beings. A particular difficulty here is that there are two paths to God:😛 the path of religion and the path of philosophy. A human being is a unity; you can't easily split the believer from the thinker. Therefore, there is always a risk that faith will bleed into philosophical reasoning, leading us to hold certain things as intellectually proven when, in fact, the mind—philosophy itself—cannot achieve them. First, history has taught us one thing: no great thinker has ever truly questioned God's existence. It might sound strange given the sheer number of so-called atheists out there. But if you look closer, you realize the great philosophical debates were never aimed at the existence of an Absolute, or an Infinite. Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Thomas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Whiteheadian, if we dare compare lesser spirits to those giants, all asserted that such a thing exists. Even the official party philosophers of communism, while vehemently denying the Christian God, simultaneously argued that the universe was infinite, eternal, boundless, and absolute. The question isn't whether God exists, but rather: is He a Person, a Spirit? It seems odd, but that is the reality. Perhaps there are a few outliers who deny the Absolute, but they are a negligible minority. The stubborn question is not whether God exists, but how we are meant to conceive of Him. Of course, the question of God's existence is legitimate. No authority—not even the collective weight of every philosopher combined—can serve as a sufficient reason for any philosophical claim. We have the right, and indeed the duty, to ask what reasons compel us to accept God's existence. In this regard, we can divide philosophers into two groups based on their methods for proving God's persistence. I’ll call the first "intuitionists" and the second "conjecturists"—though neither term is quite adequate.
crimsonjackal8 said:stormywolf2, I’m not sure how accurate that second sentence actually is. To me, it’s the crux of this entire thread.
It feels like a pseudo-problem. Everything is spirit, everything is matter—but what are the actual implications of such claims? What do they signify? One should probably clarify that first before attempting to analyze the consequences of such views.
As for myself, I have no stance on the matter. When I attempt to contemplate these profound questions, the ground starts to slip away. I find myself drifting into intuition and murky impressions... which I find quite unpleasant. 🙄
How capable is our mind, truly, of judging this?
Look... The most vital thing to grasp regarding this whole matter of matter versus spirit is this... That division exists nowhere except in our own heads.
There is no matter and spirit, there is no matter or spirit; there is only
one undivided reality.
We could call it anything, but we must recognize it is singular and indivisible. This topic ties deeply into perception and interpretation. Because our entire worldview—this material-spiritual split—rests upon them. It’s just a division of reality into spirit and/or matter.
Your lack of a stance is understandable, even justified. That sensation of losing solid ground when thinking about this... it’s quite real. The truth is, that "solid ground" doesn't exist at all. But until we learn to stand on "nothing," we need to hold onto it. Regardless... a time comes when we must let go. It is better to learn how to stand without support while we still can.
What are the implications of these claims, and what do they actually mean? They mean an incredibly simple solution... and incredible freedom. That’s what they mean. 😉
hollowviper72 said:First, technology equals power. It’s an old story, from flint tools to today’s silicon chips; tech exists to amplify human capability. If you have a MacBook, you outpace the person who doesn't. In a society built like a massive machine, you need machines just to function within it. Even more cynical? Having a faster processor provides a subconscious sense of superiority over those with outdated hardware.
Second, gadgets are status symbols. People have always used possessions to signal their rank in the social hierarchy. It’s pathetic, really. Now, it’s all about the latest iPhone or having a Tesla parked in the driveway. We pretend these things make us better or more capable. It’s nonsense, but society accepts the lie, so the cycle continues.
Third, technology offers comfort. Humans have always traded freedom for convenience. Most people will gladly surrender a slice of their autonomy if it means life gets slightly easier. But there's a catch: the more stuff you own, the more that stuff owns you. Eventually, objects become the yardstick for a life well-lived, and people end up enslaved by their own belongings. Materialism is the new religion. And we’re already building the cathedrals.
👍 To have or to be... the question remains. As it always has.😉
hollowviper72 said:Hmm... stop feeding the mind? How exactly does one do that? Pulling some sort of mental stunt? 🙂 I’d argue the solution lies in our consciousness. If it functions like a prison, then sure—inmates can escape, but can a prison itself escape its own walls? That’s the crux. Freedom is an internal state. It all comes down to a choice. No restrictive diet required...
How? I won't claim it's easy. But it's worth it. Only then do you realize there is nothing else but infinite freedom...😉
Arthur Taylor5 said:Sushi? Everyone knows the dish, but no...! Not that...! Am I thinking of food? Or mental sustenance? Does our mind feed us, or are we merely biological machines used by the mind to sustain itself? Are we whole beings, or just a collection of parts masquerading as a unit? Did I even write a coherent sentence there, or...? Questions upon questions. Is it true that "for every question, there is an answer," and are those answers simply what feeds the intellect? If so, then our minds are feasting on raw fish—which most people can't stand, and even those who do might not realize how toxic that diet is for their psyche. I suspect if we feed our minds this way, the questions they start asking will eventually turn us into nothing more than instruments for their own curiosity. Do I even grasp what I’ve written here, or is my mind simply operating through me, allowing this raw slaughter of thought onto the page? Is this kind of naive scribbling the beginning of understanding how the brain works? And does self-awareness actually lead to self-destruction—to what psychiatrists would call madness? Do you actually like people obsessed with the human psyche? What do they find in studying something so sophisticated and beautiful, yet simultaneously so repulsive and slimy as the human mind? Do they think they'll achieve some higher state of being, or are they just trying to convince themselves that we aren't any different from a common rat—or perhaps a peacock? Can my mind truly comprehend itself, or perceive others, the way Freud did? Did Freud study others by looking inward, much like mad scientists test their inventions on themselves? This leads to the inevitable Jekyll and Hyde scenario where the truth of our nature is revealed, though we stubbornly hide it to maintain our delusions. Is it possible to be purely good? Does the Hyde within emerge only under specific pressures, or does he develop alongside Jekyll until he suddenly seizes control? Is Hyde our true essence, while Jekyll is merely the mask we use to fight him? Are we prisoners of our own minds and the society we inhabit, trapped like in The Matrix, or are the mind and society fundamentally incompatible? I doubt it. And finally, do we eat this raw fish by choice, or are we systematically fed it because there is nothing else left in the drought? Why should it end? Why shouldn't this continue until "the one" is born—someone who understands how to find better sustenance? To anyone who thinks I'm crazy: please, donate some healthy food. Maybe if I fix my diet, I'll stop overanalyzing my own existence.
We are captives of our own minds, held under its thumb regardless of what we feed it. In that sense, the only way out is... starvation. Well, that's easy to say. Put it on a strict diet, move to fasting, and see if it ever lets you out of its prison. As for what lies in freedom... well, that has nothing to do with hot dogs or bourbon.😉