Philosophical Thought of The Day

[AcTivE]

Perception is a box.

Care to enlighten us?

[AcTivE]

Perception, at least my definition of, is a viewpoint or understanding--of something.

After reading that question, I perceive that you do not understand what my statement means. You are at the perception of questioning. At this moment I am currently at the perception of "trying to understand how to bring someone in this box, that is not". In order to do that, I have to step outside the idea, and see it from a different point of view (or larger/different box, since I like boxes).

You only understand something, if you are within the "box" of the perception (I'm using box, because a box has clearly defined perimeters).

For example, my mouse Trosper (thank you Pliedes), lives in a little shoe sized box. I went home a few weeks ago and brought him with me. My brother used to have some pet rats, and we have this huge multi-level cage. So I put them in there while I was at home. I could tell that he loved it, he could run around, climb all over everything...he had so much space to move.

I felt somewhat bad for Trosper when I had to put him back in his little home. When I did it seemed to me he was freaking out. He would run all around it, looking nervous as hell.

Why did he do this? Well I think it's because he liked the bigger cage more, as it gave him more freedom. He didn't understand this freedom, until I let him have it. He then changed "perspectives" or boxes as I like to call it.

Now that he is in the new frame of perspective, he is able to say "big is better than little", where as before, it just "was".

understand, or no?

[Pliedes]

Good analogy.

PToTD
Men have become the tools of their tools.
-Henry David Thoreau

[ May 22, 2005, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Pliedes ]

Great Active!

If I understand you correctly (oh the irony), then I have been pondering a similar issue for quite some time now.

We begin with what I think of as "The Problem of Language." I believe that some have a more advanced understanding of things (whether they be states of affiars, ethics, knowledge, etc.) than others, and one's understanding becomes better as you "expand your conciousness," to wider and wider "rings" or "levels."

So what, exactly is the problem with this? It is well understood that some people know more than others, and have an understanding better than others. The problem is the same problem that plagues the above paragraph. To the lay man, it comes off as cliche at best.

Because no matter how much understanding we possess, our language severely constricts transmission of wisdom. Perhaps a great paradox, but you can only get insight out of a philisophical quandary, if you yourself allready possess some of this understanding.

This is why philosophers live by themselves. They are frustrated with the world, and give up trying to enlighten the lay man, rather they enjoy the company of themself, or perhaps other philosophers.

This is also why philosophers are "laughed off" by the general public. Because their words are the same as the lay man. Indeed, the truth is often quite the simplest, and to the ordinary person this cheapens the view of knowledge. "Philosophy is just a bunch of vague bullshit," you might here from the ordinary man. He does not know the true value, and self-satisfaction of the continual pursuit of wisdom; and perhaps he may never know it.

Because of the problem of language.

It is my theory that the translation of wisdom to communication is exponentially related. To clarify:

One who places little value on knowledge and wisdom, who possesses a very thin understanding of the world may say something. A man who is wise will say something only slightly better, because language is so incredibly constrictive. I believe that some posses wisdom much greater than us, our job is to seek them out, and learn from them, as best we can.

[AcTivE]

I'm glad you replied with some discussion, I had some things I wanted to say...but didn't want to clutter up a thread just starting that is supposed to be "Of the Day" (don't want to go too far off topic, to where it isn't anymore).

But, because it is relevant, I will.

Everyone please stay on topic and don't go too far with stuff unless it specifically relates to a "Philosophical Thought of the Day". If you would like to continue a discussion that goes for more than a few posts, consider starting another thread such as "A discussion on Perspective", and link it. I will do so w/this if it goes much further, as I was thinking about doing it anyways. Thanks!

Alright to start off:

I agree language can be very limiting--but that is awesome. I do not believe humans are currently in a position where transfering understanding any other way would be a positive thing. For example, I was thinking about...(just a concept, just go w/me on this) if you could touch someone and transfer the complete understanding of something.

Consciousness, at least imho, has not advanced enough to where this would ultimately be a positive thing. I think it's a "good" thing when something bad happens to someone, and it ultimately results in a change only because their experiences have told them to do so. As soon as you could transfer understanding, you are getting rid of the individuality of that path. Language is beautiful because nothing has meaning unless you decide to find meaning in it, for yourself.

Now, you said...

We begin with what I think of as "The Problem of Language." I believe that some have a more advanced understanding of things (whether they be states of affiars, ethics, knowledge, etc.) than others, and one's understanding becomes better as you "expand your conciousness," to wider and wider "rings" or "levels."

To me it is not "better" in the sense most people think of better. Maybe you meant this, maybe you didn't, again a problem of language.

Being at a higher level of counciousness to me is not "better", it is just different. Saying something is "good", something is "bad", something is "worse", or something is "better"--is saying (at least in my mind) that it in itself holds value.

That last sentence took me a bit to think out, and it still probably doesn't make sense. Trying to convey what I mean ( ...). Hmm...one understanding compared to another, is not "better" or "worse", because you can not place value on it--unless their is a means to judge it's value. Right now, I kind of just want to say, yea, it is better...but I just can't think of what to say. I guess basically I don't think judgement should be made saying "x" perspective is better than "y" perspective, because it is not. I guess instead of "better", I would have used "greater" or "larger".

But anyways, I think perspective is a great great thing. I also think that thinking of perspective as a "box" (or whatever term makes sense in your head), is a very good thing. I think it allows yourself to understand that you will always be limited ...in your understanding. Once this becomes real to you, it helps out a lot with coping w/angry pissed off people, or really just any ideas in general that you just don't understand a "why" for.

Perspective also allows you to have compassion for someone. You can "understand" what they are going through, without actually going through it yourself again. I feel sorry for egotistical people, who in my opinion, have their priorities screwed up...but I understand why they do. I can see why people do the things they do, and this, to me at least...brings quite a bit of comfort and helps me from taking offense to things.

I also think a realization of what perspective is (personally, at my current level of understanding, I think it is God becoming situation--while forgetting that he is God) is what is going to make it possible for a "heaven" to exist.

[edit: More to say..]

I think it's stupid for philosophers to "give up". People may ridicule ideas that have great Truth to it, but the reason they are doing so is because they themselves do not understand why/how/what "Truth" is in it. While at that specific point in time, they may not be--at least it is an idea that is placed in their head. People that are at a higher level of consciousness often times (I think, I dunno, haven't read a whole lot of stuff) say something...and it's short, simple, and has no apparent "real life" value to someone who does not see where the philosopher/author is coming from. However, more than likely events in the person's life is going to end up leading them to a point where they consider things beyond face value (and stop being egotistical/materialistic), it is then that all of a sudden these "Truths" that they have been told, start to become...well true.

[ May 22, 2005, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: AcTivE ]

Originally posted by AcTivE:
it is then that all of a sudden these "Truths" that they have been told, start to become...well true.

Yes! There is more than knowing something, there is understanding it, and truely understanding it at different levels.

You "know" a bit of knowledge, then later in life you discover a new truth, only to find that this new truth is expressed in words exactly as it was expressed before you knew this truth. Before you knew the words, now you know the truth.

The problem is those who do not understand and genuinely belive in this process. It's a strange thought, but while people acknowledge the process exists, they are merely giving lip service, because they are not genuinly interested and do not have a deep understanding.

[AcTivE]

I just thought of an awesome example (or it is to me at least...).

Basically my "perspective" on what (human) consciousnes is, is an awareness of present and past memories. I think I just thought of how can explain why I said higher consciousness isn't better...If you were to say "this state of mind is a better", then you are living off an innate judgement from memory. Do you see why? Any "action" that you make in the present with a judgement of anything...is sort of sneaking in past experiences. ..(Basically I think that is sort of Buddhist perspective explained out... how I've come to understand it.)

For awhile I understood the word "action" to meaning something I decided to do. But...once you "decide" to do something, you are becoming everything that you can conciously understand at that very instance, and then making a judgement based on the value of what memories are telling you. I also think past memories are remembered as "what it was like to be at that moment, not considering any future events past that instance". So when you "recall" a memory, you are in a way going back to that moment before any events after it existed. I like thinking about the brain this way, because it let's me really understand how I am making judgements subconsciously, and then am just becoming "conscious" to what my subconscious judgement tells me. (which is directly determined by what you have placed your consciousness, or focus--on). I think "Enlightenment" is basically the moment you can consciously experience just that you are conscious. The way I think the brain, .. and memories are setup (or at least the way I understand how I work..), it is very easy just to fall into what your body and mind are telling you. It is for this reason I think people can be so passionate about things. When somebody says something shitty to them--it really pisses them off. I mean what the fuck?

You have memories that you are being completely re-actional to, because why would you be any other way, it is what makes sense. I think people that seek out a deeper truth, or consciousness, whatever...put themselves in a position to where the consciousness is no longer in a re-actional state. Instead it's turned towards wondering it's own existence, instead of finding identity in the body and mind. Then all of a sudden, some truths start to make sense...

I remember when I was littler, and learned some history, I used to think "how could these people live back then without being completely bored out of their minds!?!". Like a lot, seriously.

I'm sure I use to watch a lot of TV when I was littler...then basically got into computers pretty hardcore around 5th, then a couple years later, the internet. Programming and video games really got me thinking analytical alot. Some quick concepts from programming..variables, like, X="this value", and if you need to do something, call that up, make decision. That decision = Z, so do Y.

Then I got interested in business, basically because that is just the manipulation of other people's actions for profit.

But basically that is what has gotten me to the point of perceiving people's reactions as a complete reaction of what they think as best at that instance.

So you can't really have any idea what something really means, even if somebody tells you thats the way it is, until you experience it. You can try to think about what it means, but then you are just trying to understand it from what the judgement of your subconscious says to do--which is just the brains reaction to everything that has happened to you, and how it made you feel.

I think because of this human consciousness is progressively moving towards an existence where we basically are materialistly satisfied with everything.

Basically human existence has had to do shit to survive, now that that is taken care of, it's focused on making stuff better. Naturally things progress in what appears to be a wonderful manner.

I personally don't think it's a good direction to be headed...at least for future generations growing up. Think about it...right now people can watch an easy 3-4hrs tv a day no problem. 100 years ago you had to walk 35 miles to get some water, then you had to pick some wheat to eat bread.

Pretty soon are maybe already...people will always be entertained. There is always something to do that is pleasing or fun, so of course you are going to do it. Having strong mind/body memories that keep the consciousness absorbed basically keeps people from making any effort to do anything in search of something that isn't blatantly showed to them through a 3D movie.
[edit: grammar, additions]

[ May 22, 2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: AcTivE ]

[bloodyfart]

take this to the pseudo intellectual forum

[MAGICLIT]

Obviously he doesn't perceive what you gentlemen are saying.

EDIT: i before e except after c

[ May 23, 2005, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: MAGICLIT ]

What is left over if I subtract the fact that my arm goes up from the fact that I raise my arm?

[AcTivE]

Exactly! I really like that...

Were you looking for an answer to that, or making a point (that is how I took it..)?

Really really good song that i like which i think conveys what life is (if you let it be..):

the Flaming Lips - Ego Tripping At the Gates of Hell

[ May 24, 2005, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: AcTivE ]

[Repugnant Abomination]

Wow, you're fucking brilliant man. Here's some more ground breaking news: Water is a liquid, girls have boobs and magic Clit is a whore.

[MAGICLIT]

what a dumbass, everybody knows that you retard, its old news, geez, you really need to lose your virginity.

[Repugnant Abomination]

It appears somebody has sand in their vagina. We should operate before that sand turns to glass.

Originally posted by AcTivE:
Exactly! I really like that...

Were you looking for an answer to that, or making a point (that is how I took it..)?

I took an entire class which started with just that question. "The Philosophy of Action." The quotation was from Wittgenstein

[Pliedes]

Originally posted by DJ FC:
I took an entire class which started with just that question. "The Philosophy of Action."

How'd you like that, by the way? I had two friends in it who I'd help with their papers, and they both hated it (one is a philosophy major).

It was a great class taught by a terrible prof, I found a way to enjoy it.

Who were your friends? There were maybe 20 or so in the class. (About 10 came to class)

[ May 26, 2005, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: DJ FC ]

[MAGICLIT]

"In his errors a man is true to type. Observe the errors and you will know the man."

- Confucius (551-479 BC), The Analects

[St. Anky]

I think therefore I am.

[MAGICLIT]

I bitch therefore i am.

"Is your wisdom such as not to realize that your country is to be honored more than your mother, your father and all your ancestors, that it is more to be revered and more sacred, and that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it, yield to it and placate its anger more than your father's? You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey. To do so is right, and must not give way or retreat or leave one's post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one's city and country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice. It is impious to bring violence to bear against your mother or father, it is much more so to use it against your country."

- Socrates (Posing as the Laws of Athens) in Plato's "Crito"

Edit: How about one from the East.

"When everyone knows beauty as beautiful, there is already ugliness;
When everyone knows good as goodness, there is already evil.
'To be,' and 'not to be,' arise mutually;
Difficult and easy are mutually realized;
Long and short are mutually contrasted;
High and low are mutually posited;...
Before and after are in mutual sequence."

- Lao-tzu

[ May 31, 2005, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: DJ FC ]

[MAGICLIT]

Damn FC, your so deep I can't even come up for air.

[St. Anky]

yeah, deep decrepit shit

Incentives Matter

Incentives Matter

<font size="4"><u>Incentives Matter!</font></u>