I need to go to bed

[wolven7]

Tool - [(-) Ion]--- Before I go to bed, I want to you think about the following proposition, really and completely. You ready?

Tool - [Third Eye]--- All of reality is an intersubjective, relational parallax matrix.

Because what I think that means is that everything is built of the interactions between the subjective experiences and reportages of everything else, that everything gauges itself and its surroundings from the base position of itself, that that very relationship is then used asan orienting principle to manuver and develop, in relation to everything else, and that every. Single. Thing on the inside of this n-dimensional Dyson Hypersphere we call a multiverse is a variable factor in creating this "hologram" what we think of as "reality."

As the pieces interact they leave traces and trajectories of what they are and where they've been and what they've encountered along the way, they bounce, and they rebound, in an orderly fashion. But sometimes, in the really small and really large places, Things Just Happen. Randomness and determination and choice as the line noise between the one and the zero.

I'm trying to explain something, here. Before I have to go to bed. I'm trying to show you that the only objective reality is the infinte interlacing subjective. That nothing is lost, and everything is gained, when you see things, this way. That morning comes too soon for things to not be understood, a little bit, late at night. I don't want to drive anyone away, or piss someone off, or step on anyone's toes with this but I need you to for the love of fuck stop misunderstanding me and dragging things down to nowhere productive.

Place yourself in a field of stars, expanding, contracting, traveling, moving, moving swirling. You Are Too. To recognise this, to seek to direct and control it, to actively orient yourself to chaos, making order, and to subjugate your petty dualities to something much more nuanced? Sounds a bit pretentious, doesn't it? Like somebody thinks they know better than you. Like maybe it's all just late-night ramblings and gibberish.

Trust me. I'm a Philosopher.

Comments

[mrvi.livejournal.com]

I don't trust Philosophers. I am one. We're fundamentally tricksy.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Deep down in our very darkened souls, yes.

[ryan-valentine.livejournal.com]

I haven't examined the links just yet, I have been up to my eyeballs in Spinoza lately though. Your thing here reminds me of Liebniz. Is it based on a concept of complete subjectivity? I have ... problems ... with an outlook based in total subjectivity.

[ryan-valentine.livejournal.com]

*READS*

Pretty cool stuff man, seems like a total rip-off of the Mahayana concept of co-dependent origination, definitely a bit of Liebniz and his Monadology in there as well.

I didn't even realize there was such a thing as 'post-rationalism' .. for seem reason that just reads as 'irrational' to me. I have read Laycocks bit on how the buddhist conception of codependent origination can be used to resolve the metaphysical problems inherent in Sartre, they utilize a similar model as the one your advocating here. I can never quite get all the way to total subjectivity though, and it seems as though that is an important contingent of this particular outlook, the notion of complete subjectivity as a root of human awareness bugs me, but maybe this bypasses the aspects of it that bug me the most?

The whole 'interlacing' bit of semantic tap-dancing, do you mean to imply that the universe is not in fact (as far as human awareness is concerned) a completely subjective experience? That inter-subjectivity by its very nature implies an economy of belief? By which I mean, since we are each limited by human nature to perceive the universe in fundamentally the same ways the commonality inherent in human existence implies an objective reality. That it is from this that such things as language or the common human experience arises? Is it that our attempts to use an impossible language (cuz in this model language itself borders on the supernatural) to describe what everyone has already experienced and is intimately aware of on a personal level, create the illusion of a totally subjective reality/universe/cuddly-chutulu?

Please refrain from talking to me like I require an education. Interesting thoughts.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Don't ever assume that you know what I'm thinking.

Also don't assume that I don't find Will and subsequently Consciousness as inherent constituents and consequences of the universe, meaning that every atom, quark, wave-particle duality and molecular structure has an impact on the intersubjective matrix.

Please refrain from talking to me like I require an education.

Listen, you came HERE. To. My. Space. And you have done nothing but make really fucking rude assumptions and presumptions, since. I'm willing to have all kinds of conversations about all kinds of things, but, honestly? You're annoying the shit out of me with your disrespect, right now, and i'm kind of tired of dealing with it.

I don't know if you're intending to be a bit of an asshole, because you think it's Socratic, or something else, or if you genuinely just don't know you're doing it, and at the moment, I don't care. I'm done having a conversation with you, until you can respect the space of someone who isn't you.

Good day, sir.

[ryan-valentine.livejournal.com]

I apologize AGAIN sensitive sir, I assumed with such admonishments as 'subjugate your petty dualities' and 'trust me I'm a philosopher' that you were looking for a bit of ribaldry. I am not being a bit of an asshole cuz I think its Socratic, I am not even sure what you mean by that, it just so happens that I AM a bit of an asshole. :P

How could I possibly assume to know what you are thinking? You live in a completely subjective universe where knowing something like that is impossible. My first issue with this perspective, is that language itself, a good fuck and the penetration of a zen koan or a good poem take on super-natural qualities because the individual has in that moment leapt the subjective divide and actually touched another in some way. What argument do you present that doesn't either negate these realities or ascribe to them an other-worldly quality? (It could be argued [see Chomsky] that a mind conceived in a universe which functions in the manner you describe above could not create a mnemonic structure like language because it would have no common touchstone of shared experience.)

It is interesting that you tell me not to assume that you think Consciousness is inherent in everything because I quite resolutely had thought that very thing. How can you NOT believe that with your model, or perhaps more to the point, if everything within the universe is subjective how can you assert anything which is meaningful about the state or qualities of anything (including atoms etc.) which shares an entirely subjective position within it alongside you or as a component of your being?

Is it not a more reasonable perspective to state that everything in the universe is relative to everything else but still enjoys its own objective existence? That it is not the nature of the universe, but the nature of our continuous dialogue with Nature (in Spinoza's sense of the word,) which is subjective.

....

[... AND YOU SMELL OF ELDER-BERRIES!!!!]

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That it is not the nature of the universe, but the nature of our continuous dialogue with Nature (in Spinoza's sense of the word,) which is subjective.

Now that's an interesting proposition. I'll have to think about that, a bit, but it seems like you're actually agreeing with what I'm saying, here.

Each thing that exists is a Thing that Exists, but i believe that it's all continually created and reinforced through the subjective perspectives of Itself and Everything Else. Hence objective subjectivity and subjective objectivity.

It seems more a semantic difference, than anything else.

[ryan-valentine.livejournal.com]

I am actually agreeing with quite a bit that you are proposing, my perspective is heavily informed by Zen and the Mahayana traditions. The divergence from the mystic resolution of this problem revolves around is that in the Mahayana tradition, Origination (philosophy read; BEING) is objective. The arising and subsequent decay of being-mind-consciousness-whatever is an objective aspect of the reality we share. We are and are-not. Not just me, we. That being said, the doctrine of Mahayana also dictates that origination is codependent, that we all come into being spontaneously together every moment of every day (which is exactly how your envisioning it here). That everything about how I arise is then relative to everything else and this can only be described in subjective terms.

I feel as though this theory grasps hold of the 'codependent' part and illustrates it compellingly, but then falls short of the 'origination' part. The objective nature of Origination/Thing that Exists informs our dialogue, our language, our perceptions and this information creates meaningful limitations which allow the Original Mind/Thing that Exists to express itself and find meaning in another's expression. The divergence is then that I believe that I can share in an objective knowledge with you or anything else I have a relative relationship to.

"Each thing that exists is a Thing that Exists, but i believe that it's all continually created and reinforced through the subjective perspectives of Itself and Everything Else." - In a very real sense, so do I. Are you familiar with the buddhist concept of the Attachments and the manner in which the 'clothe' the Original Being in a material form?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Fairly familiar, though no expert.

The place I differ most, from these perspectives is I believe that the objective origination was/is a function of the subjective realisation of Selfness, by the universe/creation/existence/whatever. A closed loop or bubble of Something out of Nothing, bootstrapping itself into being. And hence all objectivity is predicated on that one moment of realisation and awareness which is, at once, subject and ultimate/primordial object.

[ryan-valentine.livejournal.com]

I like that .. I think. It seems like, as VI would say, we are dangerously close to anthropomorphizing the universe but that bothers VI more than it bothers me. This seems entropic, feels is probably more accurate, like it has no place to go but then maybe it shouldn't. We are and then we are-not. Does this have death as its obvious bookend, does it require it? Does it penetrate the life-death cycle and reveal a hidden mechanic?

Try to illustrate this mechanic for me, the one your talking about here. Give me something for my imagination to turn around.

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

... and why not anthropomorphize the universe? There's nothing to say that any given entity does not have consciousness. Entity being... well, anything, really. Anything for which we have a word, and things for which we don't yet have words, and... well, everything.

Of course, I'm not sure it's a useful concept to apply a grouping to "me, Steve's tattoos, and all the bikes in Florida", but it's out there in case someone wants to come up with a word for it.