What you can understand with the human brain would be very limited. One thinks that humans discovered the laws in the material realm. But the knowledge still must be only of a very limited and the shallowest part of the reality.
I suspect that the true mechanisms of the material realm is, reasonably, quite beyond the farthest reach of description in today's physics. If we had some fuller description of mechanisms of the material realm, we might possibly know how the unseen worlds of quality and, as from the regard to some fundamental requirements or base for the reality to be as it is, of some essential substances might be involved in the observable part of the material realm.
In mysticism secret rules in the relations of things of the world are sought and discussed. But if there be such rules, the true working of them must be utterly beyond human understanding and calculation. We don't know what true "numbers" are ascribed to things we see in the world we can see and understand. I metaphorically used the word "numbers," but they are, in fact, of the kind beyond our understanding and imagination.
- 前ページ
- 次ページ
Is it that I'm running a blog? Or is it that I'm keeping a sort of notebook here?
I can ask it another way: currently, which do I need essentially, a blog or a notebook?
A blog can be a digital notebook rather than a medium. That is, it's that it's primarily in the purpose of writing down personal things, anyway. I can think that for some people, writing is a nature. There might also be such a need in me, but probably that wouldn't constitute the whole of why I write.
Is uploading a post to a blog necessarily a kind of publication? The word publication implies responsibility. The responsibility idea requires you to be careful enough about what to write. But the idea could more or less have a side effect of blocking the outflow of writing.
Probably the answer for now is that you can have multiple media online depending on the purpose and you can exploit multiple different ways of writing depending on the purpose.
There is a view that if one did no actual sin, it is not because he was a good man but because he was only lucky.
The logical consequence of such view is the view that if one finally avoids rolling critically into the darkest sinkhole of nature, it is not because he is good. However, it must not be by sheer chance, either.
You know the human body is mortal. Mortal means something in this world must become a physical cause of death when one dies. So, if the fear is eventually the fear of death, you can ask, "Can it be a direct cause of any physical destruction?" If the answer is "the possibility is zero" with full conviction, do you still hold any reasonable base to fear it at the physical level?
The specter is illusory. It has no function. It merely contains natural record of the past. Information must be there as it is, because this world is the world of causality.
The illusion can never threaten you physically. Your fear of it is very irrational, you know. It has no living function in it. The pieces of the specter have only one destination for it to go to: extinction.
And think! Even if you were able to erase the name of the fear from this world, the past itself can't be changed at all. The past must remain intact. That's causality.
So you fear something harmless but something with location in the spatio-temporal map. And this location does not matter, indeed, because it has no physical power.
Therefore, the question is: why do you fear? – And what do you actually fear?
My understanding of physics:
What is physics? It does not deal with the question what is the real substance. What physics does is about seeking whether there might be ways to succinctly and universally organize experimental data, ways to describe data as a system with a set of certain (few) rules. Physics is by nature only pragmatic and tentative for ever. Physics is not about the reality but is to fabricate, try out, modify, correct, and disucss a theory. This kind of theory is about whether it can work or not. Concepts in physics such as mass, force, charge, etc. are all for the sake of convenience in understanding and in description, and therefore to a certain extent arbitrary in terms of applicability of other mathematical ways of description. Whether such seemingly "basic" things be ontologically real is not a question of physics. Under the assumption that the quantitative order (or laws) found in nature is universal, physics offers predictions from a set of data.
...
Then what is mathematics? Let's call it for now a logically determined abstract structure. This structure is in a certain and rigid shape in that it's normally under the principle of contradiction.
But we as humans cannot get a full, perfect, direct insight of such a structure the similar way we directly perceive an optical vision, for example. So we need the help of manipulation of symbols, and the help of general statements (theorems). Our use and handling of mathematics is done largely by a kind of conventions. When we make calculations and manipulate equations, we are just following what we learned as general rules (saying "I know this was proven before," "I would be always able to confirm the validity of any given part of the structure if I just try it"). For the sake of our limitations in ability, we cannot but be a kind of practicalists in the relation of mathematics. We are never really certain if the process of calculation or proof might be wrong until we encounter contradiction. In caluculation, we are just applying rules we've learned; we don't repeat the whole pertinent set of proofs from axioms. In mathematics, we humans don't have the intuitive grasp of the entirety of the system we are dealing with. (There in the world might be exceptional geniuses who can, though I hardly believe so. We are, at least generally, not allowed to have such a level of intuitive grasp of mathematical systems.)
Mathematics is, at any rate, that there exists, or can exist, such an abstract structure. There is such a realm to be thus understood. And we utilize the rigidity of the structure. We apply the structure to the tangible world of the phenomenal, on the assumption that things have, or can have, the same structure as mathematics. For instance, we rely on arithmetics when we use money.
The stance may be somewhat similar to that in programming: "If there are no errors, it will work neat. Let's go on to see it." Or "We can't take the fully clear view of it, but we know we can use it while there is no report of error."
Probably you, in this world, were to see not only beautiful things but also loathsome things. Such is this world. But you have sought eidola in this world; you have sought anything you could make an eidolon of in this world. The Desmoterion is the cage of Schein.
It seems you love something in this world and hate something in this world, though both must be just Scheine. Or on the whole, diese Welt ist ein Schein, you could see the world this way.
It must be that at the end, you must leave all to the all which is not you. But if so, why not now do so? – You can meditate on such an idea which is sometimes raised.
You have read the mention to the eikon notion. It might be that the real values in the entities the ontological class of which you think you belong to, such as, to put very simply, good, or such as what you may recognize when you see things such as a marvelous view of a dawn, or what you might have an insight of when you see some great actions demonstrated by someone, etc., are values of what's in the place of the origin in the relation in consideration, too. The worldview which places its base solely on the notion of system which lacks zoe would say that at the fundamental level what always dimly and indirectly express the color and brightness of them to the human eyes share the true nature which is pure at the real source, is arbitrary.
Why do we feel shame? What is shame? When is it that you may feel shame? Shame seems to be to feel that you're weak and imperfect and you want to hide the fact. From an evolutionary-biological viewpoint, it is understandable. To expose your weak point to others would not be good for your survival. But that's not the whole of the story about shame. The necessary part of this psychology is you, or your ego. It is you who are weak and imperfect; you recognize this and therefore you can feel shame. It means you think you are more than you think you are. But this implies will to power, in Nietzschean terms. Probably it would also imply something grave from another point of view. But how? You are denying your essential imperfection as a human creature as such. But this imperfection is an essential condition of being to such creatures. Therefore, it wouldn't be shame in itself. Then, what mindset is the cause of the feeling of shame in front of anyone seeming superior to you?
This specificity, probably because of the causality as to why to be. Therefore it's probably a specificity for this cause which, in the form, is to be seen in the light of the meaning which shows itself in the fact of temporality. That which is merely a utensil... So when you incline yourself towards affirmation of this thing seriously in your mind, this act is not to make you and your surroundings bright and colorful against what is thought to be their true nature, but to see and sorely feel how lacking of light they were and are, because the act is about meditating upon realis lux which must be essentially separate from whatever is tenebricus.
Perseverance. Perseverance. Perseverance. Now here came hours for perseverance. That's a virtue when doing things proven clearly right. Fortify the power source of mind by doing it. Be careful of your mouth.
Addicted ... I think I have to begin by admitting that I am most likely caffeine addicted. I am now writing this with a can of energy drink on the table. In sanity of my mind I'm conscious that I'm quite weary of intake of caffeine of such level as 40 mg per 100 ml.
It's almost beyond suspicion that too much caffeine must have already created a bad effect on my bodily functions. And it's really beyond suspicion that one can live without energy drinks and there is a clear reaction of my body when I have the large amount of caffeine plus arginine. My drinking pattern exhibits that of an addict. Why do I not choose another soda next to an energy drink displayed on the shelf or a vending machine, when they both are so much sugary? It's because of caffeine, I strongly suspect.
My self-diagnostic feeling is that it's my body that commands me to take the highly caffeinated. I must lay for myself a way for overcoming it. The first step is the realization of the state in which I am now: most likely an addict.
I feel a bit "hyper" with a large amount of caffeine but this artificial galvanization is ... (sipping the drink) ... the start of the allurement. The next step is ... observation. Where does my body reject sipping the drink more? Half a can? Two-thirds of a can, perhaps?
At some point my body would tell me that no more caffeine should be taken at a time. Then throw it away (at this point the weight of the monetary loss for the part thrown away is less than health benefit) and switch to diluted tea, for example. – Probably the willpower necessary for quitting it at once is not so easy to exert. So by regulation I could start.