A collaboration of symbols

[himynameispaul]

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltqk0ggouT1r2fkbpo1_400.jpg

I'm a thinker, like a lot of you guys and I also dig symbols. I love the idea behind the theosophical society emblem. It's got a bunch of meaningful symbols compiled into one with a moto underneath "There is no religion higher than truth". They're on the ball and got something right. Personally, my mind is like soup with these symbols. I stir them around and around. Imagine the symbols as the good stuff - noodles and veges and meat (if you're into that kinda thing). All that stuff is held up and contained within the broth, or world... moreso collective unconscious actually. The symbols all really have some deep connection. A lot of them have the same meaning and work together - like they all taste good together within the soup - if you get it right. With this idea, I put together something, and once I took a step back and looked at it, I recognized it's power.

What I want to hear from you guys is your thoughts on my creation. Does it resonante with you? Do all the pieces fit? Does it speak to you? Does it have meaning for you? Does it carry with it a power that inherently makes sense to you? Does the soup taste good to you?

Please, speak your mind.

 

[himynameispaul]

Can you at least spare me an honest opinion, whether negative or positive, if you take the time to look at it.

 

[panic in paradise]

honestly

i think its perfect.
how many symbols have you gathered?

this is a Key to the Occult Sciences, there are several versions i just had this, handy..! it is Astrologically referential, but, seems like what you might have in mind...it is a perfect idea...

 

[Jabberwocky]

i believe that symbols derive their power from the meaning we impart to them. they by themselves hold nothing. we can swap one symbol for another, and as long as everyone recognises that symbol has the same meaning, it will have the same power. they are place holders. i cuold read the most profound truth in an ancient language and it would make no difference to me, because i couldn't understand it.

i don't think there is any inherent relation between a concept and one visual representation of it.

so, honestly, your symbol means nothing to me. but that doesn't make it meaningless, it means we do not have the same shared language. to me your question realtes to the general questions about normativity of meaning- for us to get any meaning from others we need a shared language and no matter how hard we try, we can never verify for sure that we do have exactly the same meaning for the same symbols (see kripke vs wittgenstein, plus, quus for the intro to the debate).

if you don't mind me asking, what does your symbol symbolise? i would feel better able to answer your question if i knew which concepts you are referring to. i see yin and yang, obvious, fractals- i.e. self reference?- joining cirlces and arrows have many possible meanings. or am i just totally missing the point?

 

[panic in paradise]

... haha sorry, i feel like a bit of an ass.
i didnt see your link, reading this even when originally posted!

i think that is, as i said above, perfect.


to me it show the rise from the sacro - through the trials of each "chakra", and then the big Gong of our ego through a vies of a neophyte, then psychic, into the air through the lotus, pneumatic ever expansive.





edit:
and looking closer, the 7 pointed star, which with an individual creates and eight, or the seven cosmic rays, being obtained on earth from with in.

--
then, there are 13 steps here, all divided, into halfs like hours, 13 being that bad bad number of guessing about your luck...and fate. 13 x 2 = 26 + 7 rays equals 33, after 32, 32 is the finding of the death of yoU, it is also just warm enough to melt all the frozen thoughts and emotions, pangs of pain we keep cold in us.,

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

i believe that symbols derive their power from the meaning we impart to them. they by themselves hold nothing.

but there is a reason why we do impart them with one meaning instead of another one
and sure that meaning can get lost in translation but there is a underlying syntax that is built upon, something we can all share as human, for instant if i draw a vagina and a penis most human will recognize those symbols and they will hold something, they will hold meaning, but if i translate those penis and vagina symbol into something else like this : ♂ ♀ then its gonna get lost in translation to some because they haven't learn what those symbols means

language started with visuals, visual sings, then we were painting the caves and incrusting design to our pottery, then we got more precise with hieroglyph and then we turned to phonetics and created alphabets
so the modern english word snake wont mean shit to someone who cant read or doesnt speak english, but if you go back to symbolizing the snake by drawing a representation of a snake then most culture, most human on earth will apply a similar meaning to it, and that goes back to our unconscious self where we connect with our instinct, back when we were in africa our genetic make up included some kind of fear of snake for the sake of survival, and thats what we are playing with when it comes to symbolism, we play with that underlying syntax of emotional response that some symbols will bring forth in relation to who we are as individuals inside that species, inside that ecosystem, inside the phenomenon of life

so as you say "symbols derive their power from the meaning we impart to them."
but it does so just as much as : the meaning we impart to them is derived from the power it impart on us

its more of a symbiosis that a one way ticket
the software is built upon the hardware
the hardware has its own language that the software is based upon
we didnt create language more than it created us
the same way that we didnt create human beings or dna or the underlying principle behind the universe
we may place meaning unto stuff but its coming from somewhere, we dont make it up out of nothing, it aint a clean sheet, there is already pattern involve that will make you turn left instead of right in some instant, thats why most fast food will use brown yellow and red to advertise themself because those colors makes you wanna eat, and its in part because if you are always expose to the ring of a bell when you eat steak youll end up finding the sound of a bell salivating but its no only your own personal evolution here, because your own evolution is standing on billions of years of evolution, and when it comes to..well idk since when but the human body is affect by some color a certain way and some of them are more likely prone to make you wanna eat, and some logo will make you want to buy stuff more than other, some way of saying things will make you vote for someone, some way of building a church will trigger you into believing....its all built upon a already built language that the advertiser are always trying to tap into because people will respond to symbolism even if they have no idea whats going on, so saying that "they by themselves hold nothing" is imo wrong

 

[Jerry Atrick]

I agree with parts of both of your arguments.

i believe that symbols derive their power from the meaning we impart to them. they by themselves hold nothing. we can swap one symbol for another, and as long as everyone recognises that symbol has the same meaning, it will have the same power.

its more of a symbiosis that a one way ticket
...we didnt create language more than it created us
the same way that we didnt create human beings or dna or the underlying principle behind the universe

I tend to side with chinup with the "meaning we impart to them" statement. But I also agree with ninja about the "more of a symbiosis than a one way ticket" statement. I think the word we're looking for here is context. The meaning of a symbol isn't inherent in the symbol itself but in the context. This is why the same symbol can mean different things depending on the context. An American flag means one thing when it is flying in front of someone's house and another thing when it is draped over a serviceman's coffin and yet another thing when it is being burned at a protest. But it is still an American flag, a symbol. Pick a symbol and it will have different meanings in different contexts.

Ninja, I disagree with the whole "we didn't create language more than it created us" concept. Sorry, but I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Of course we didn't create human beings, DNA, or the universe. But humans did create language; it's one of the things that separates us from our ape ancestors. You said it yourself: language started with visual pictures and slowly evolved into hieroglyphs and we eventually created phonetics and alphabets. Now once language was created there was no going back and many linguists believe that language does in fact shape thought. There used to be a mod over here who was a linguistics expert, I wish he would chime and and set us all straight.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I think the word we're looking for here is context. The meaning of a symbol isn't inherent in the symbol itself but in the context. This is why the same symbol can mean different things depending on the context. An American flag means one thing when it is flying in front of someone's house and another thing when it is draped over a serviceman's coffin and yet another thing when it is being burned at a protest. But it is still an American flag, a symbol. Pick a symbol and it will have different meanings in different contexts.

I definitely agree, symbols derive meaning from context.

ninja whilst i don't agree that language created us i think there is some evidence that the way different languages evolved has some effect on our thought patterns- can't remember where i read that. i speak one other language and find some things easier to express in it than others so it wouldn't surprise me. as you noted, there are some clear evolutionary reasons for some symbols, but i don't think this applies to all. the colours of food is a safety mechanism to avoid moulds and poinsons. higher level abstractions like the male and female signs you mentioned strike me as arbitrary and easily chaneable, and these are the symbols which derive their meaning from ourselves and their contexts.

and sure that meaning can get lost in translation but there is a underlying syntax that is built upon

the idea of underlying syntax is like chmosky's universal grammars, if they ever find one it will certainly be interesting, but syntax is more about ordering/rules for combination, symbols are placeholders, relating to semantics. but i get what you mean in that some things that we all encounter in the world become shared throughout all people as symbols, and it enables us to communicate on the basis of shared experience.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

what i mean by the creating us part is that if for instance you built a computer code, you cant simply put some 10100101 at random, it needs to be organize a certain way to work, there is some pattern to respects, and for us its some laws of physiques or some laws of biology or some mathematical laws...for things to work a certain way, we did not create that part, that part is what created us, so those code someone might create on a computer are following a pastern or a underlying syntax that is behind the reason why the person creating the code exist and its the reason why the code he is creating can actually lead to a result

im not simply saying that we create a abstraction of reality in our head and that the language we use influence how we perceive that world, im saying there would be no world and no head if it wasnt for that language the universe is "speaking"
and that our language is following the pattern that is underneath it
so the software that we are creating is base on the hardware that created us
but its the same language, well it aint, but its a evolution, its a extension of our own evolution, if im going with the idea of memes then those memes are simply following genetics but they are on a more subtle level, they are on a software level instead of a hardware level but they follow the same natural selection vs mutation process that genes go trough, or the same underlying principle

so what we create whatever that may be is creating us too
if im trying to be less abstract ill say we create babies, we copy-duplicate genetic codes and if we fuck up the process we end up with a defectuous baby, tho that might turn out to be a evolutionary advantage if natural selection decide to wipe of everyone
so we create babies as much as its creating us because if we would stop creating babies the species would end
we create art, science, religion, we create culture, its all a language that we create but its creating who we are, its creating our identity, but on a deeper level, whats behind that is what created life on earth, we create out of evolution and evolution creates out of us
its what i was trying to symbolize with the term symbiosis
we gain from it and it gains from us, because we are one,we are the universe and the universe is us
we create symbolism because symbolism creates us
we define meaning because meaning defines us
we interact with the world because the world is interacting with us
we project our reflection (our inner self, our mind) on a mirror because the mirror is reflecting our image, we self reflect
we self reflect by projecting ourself out of ourself and observing ourself from that outside perspective, so that reflection is something that we create but its something that creates a us within us

hopefully im making some kind of sense, obviously we all use different symbols to understand the world, so its hard to share meaning when things gets lots in translation, we all see the world differently because we all have different experience, but there is a underlying similarities between all our subjective experiences so we can create shared understanding of each other though a objective agreement of what is
this is where context (as jerry pointed out) becomes everything

 

[himynameispaul]

its more of a symbiosis that a one way ticket
the software is built upon the hardware
the hardware has its own language that the software is based upon
we didnt create language more than it created us
the same way that we didnt create human beings or dna or the underlying principle behind the universe
we may place meaning unto stuff but its coming from somewhere, we dont make it up out of nothing, it aint a clean sheet, there is already pattern involve that will make you turn left instead of right in some instant, thats why most fast food will use brown yellow and red to advertise themself because those colors makes you wanna eat, and its in part because if you are always expose to the ring of a bell when you eat steak youll end up finding the sound of a bell salivating but its no only your own personal evolution here, because your own evolution is standing on billions of years of evolution, and when it comes to..well idk since when but the human body is affect by some color a certain way and some of them are more likely prone to make you wanna eat, and some logo will make you want to buy stuff more than other, some way of saying things will make you vote for someone, some way of building a church will trigger you into believing....its all built upon a already built language that the advertiser are always trying to tap into because people will respond to symbolism even if they have no idea whats going on, so saying that "they by themselves hold nothing" is imo wrong

Yah totally. I see symbols as universal. They exist within our psyche and we built upon them through the ages, because I really see symbols as all being the same. They're emblems of true enlightenment. Not like in the age of enlightenment, but actual ego death.

But to go back to your quote - I know salivating upon some stimulus is a more direct result of conditioning. You could most definitely argue that symbols have been conditioned into our psyche, but that's an idea that recquires a bit of digging.



So, since someone asked about what it is I put in there, i'll give you my reasoning. The center of it all is the cross, which I use to represent Jesus, one of the most recognized and influential figures that has ever existed. He taught how to die. The seven sins and the commandments were what I believe to be all rules towards achieving death, to be born again, to be saved from the power of satan, the ego. So of course, it's important and almost demands to be put in the center.

At the bottom of the cross is basically my virtuous principle for achieving a holistic self - the triforce. Ability to not misuse or abuse inherent human power. Courage to act. Wisdom to discern. AND Love/Compassion to forgo hate in the middle. To become adept in all of these within this earthly realm, that's the goal. From the bottom of the cross, on the pedestal comes the kundalini which travels up the cross, activating each central chakra point and alleviating the body mind spirit and soul of all negativity. Once the snakes unravel completely, they spiral out. I see spirals and ourborous as analagous symbols, but I decided to use the spiral since it draws you in, and spirals are hypnotic - they have the ability to put you into a trance, which relates to the subconscious mind. The middle point isn't the end, however, but becomes the beginning as soon as you reach it. This concept is then put in perspective with yinyang - duality, the prevailing problem with humanity. But yinyang is different, for it represents a cohesion and coming together of good and evil, for they are merely two sides of the same coin. This I see as the motif behind chaos, the real power behind the universe. I see our primordial origins within the void or the abyss - a place where everything just exists and knows nothing else. It's infinity, and I believe our subconscious mind is a model of this and connects us to it all. The idea One is all. All is one. is extremely important here. After realizing yinyang, the chaos in your mind is put to rest and you connect, with everything. North south east west up down and everything in between. The compose rose with black arrows is the symbol for chaos magic. To unite with everything and come to peace with everything (the peace signs in there too). That's the ultimate goal I recognize, and cannot be accomplished without first dying.

Interestingly, I was motivated to create this upon learning about chaos magic, but in the symbol it's the final piece.

 

[Jabberwocky]

ninja i'm too tired/drunk right now to properly reply but first thoughts are: if ours are like a computer code, that definitely makes our choice of symbols not clever. choices of codes are generally pragmatic. ok maybe there are unique shortest machine codes, which may in some sense be special, but our chosen codes are nothing like machine code. our languages are multiplicitous and they have no idea why are dna code is the way it is, because it could have been other ways. we can actually fuck up a lot of dna coding before having a defective baby- its part of the inbuilt error correction.

in the first place, i primarily view things as they are devoid of any attached symbolism. ideas such as all being one, one being all, cannot, to me, be expressed simply in a single symbol, both concepts, one and all, plus unification, are required. and once you have to start combining them, they seem to lose any additional power that they might have over normal words (which, from my perspective are just symbools anyway...)

paul, sorry to be really thick here, but if all symbols are the same, how do different symbols mean different things? and how does one differentiate between those which symbolise the 'true enlightenment' and those that symbolise the traditional enlightenment?

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

so you dont see a underlying principle behind it all ?
for me reality is like a fractal where if you turn left or right or if you zoom in or out youll recognize similar pattern that all comes from the same self duplicating equation
so that to me mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, the human psyche, culture, art, computer codes... all share a common ancestor, a common denominator, a common structure, a common principle, a organizing principle
i see reality as chaos expressing itself, on one side its deconstructing at random and on the other its constructing, organizing, assembling..out of randomness, it happens simply because there is a possibility for it, and thats where we are, and it could all disassemble itself in a instant but atm its still assembling itself in ever more complex expression of itself
for me symbols do have inherent meaning on a unconscious level underneath their learned meaning on a conscious level, to me animals are able to survive by following instinct which is a ability to recognize some basic symbols, like if they want to survive they need to know the difference between a vagina and a rock...they need to recognize a predator from a pray, be it with smell or sight or whatever else but its all about recognizing something in relation of whats inside their head, there is stuff inside them that they need to be able to recognize outside of them, there is behavioral imprints that we read from to survive, or at least thats how i see it, we dont make it up as we go, we follow what was already there, the more evolve we get the less we need to follow whatever is inside of us to survive, the more it becomes about learn behavior and the longer the babies stays with the parents, so insects can be on their own moments after being born while monkeys can stay with their parents for years, and when it comes to us in the western world we can have kids around 12 and usually leave home around 18 which would be total nonsense for insects, but for us its all about learned behavior but it doesnt mean we have lost all connection to intrinsic meaning

im not sure how you see things but if you say that "symbols derive meaning from context" wouldnt you say that the first context we are confronted with is the human body ?
and dont we all have one of those with the same inherent mechanism where for instance we cry when we need milk ?

im not sure how you explain the emergence of human language some 30? thousand years ago if symbols hold no inherent value
or why we are still creating symbols like the op is doing
we are drawn to making sense but why would that be if there is no inherent meaning to it ?
like im saying for me its like a symbiosis so i understand how we can create at random but ive got a hard time not seeing it as giving meaning to us as much as it does to itself
its like that mirror analogy, if you see your reflection and then you say its you, you are creating your reflection just as much as the mirror is reflecting you, you both are reflecting no ?

anyway

 

[himynameispaul]

ninja i'm too tired/drunk right now to properly reply but first thoughts are: if ours are like a computer code, that definitely makes our choice of symbols not clever. choices of codes are generally pragmatic. ok maybe there are unique shortest machine codes, which may in some sense be special, but our chosen codes are nothing like machine code. our languages are multiplicitous and they have no idea why are dna code is the way it is, because it could have been other ways. we can actually fuck up a lot of dna coding before having a defective baby- its part of the inbuilt error correction.

in the first place, i primarily view things as they are devoid of any attached symbolism. ideas such as all being one, one being all, cannot, to me, be expressed simply in a single symbol, both concepts, one and all, plus unification, are required. and once you have to start combining them, they seem to lose any additional power that they might have over normal words (which, from my perspective are just symbools anyway...)

paul, sorry to be really thick here, but if all symbols are the same, how do different symbols mean different things? and how does one differentiate between those which symbolise the 'true enlightenment' and those that symbolise the traditional enlightenment?

I appreciate your thickness.
That's a a different mindset, but your reasons I can't agree with. They're not just symbols, though, and that's what your missing. Its not that "one has to start combining them" but more like "to fully express the meaning of something, one most connect the dots". To find meaning you search for it, and I used these symbols as tools to amplify their power because they work well together - they're unique dots that can connect to realize a bigger picture.

Yah, all symbols really dont mean the same exact thing - but theyre interconnected. I wasn't clear in what I meant when saying that. They all have some higher truth to express, I believe, when some are put together. Pieces of the puzzle, ya know.

traditional enlightenment is reason and logic. true enlightenment is ego death. i can't explain the meaning to you, for you figure that out yourself

Also, you can question me endlessly but that doesn't mean you'll understand me. I hope you do though.

 

[Jabberwocky]

i see reality as chaos expressing itself, on one side its deconstructing at random and on the other its constructing, organizing, assembling..out of randomness, it happens simply because there is a possibility for it, and thats where we are, and it could all disassemble itself in a instant but atm its still assembling itself in ever more complex expression of itself
....
im not sure how you explain the emergence of human language some 30? thousand years ago if symbols hold no inherent value
or why we are still creating symbols like the op is doing
we are drawn to making sense but why would that be if there is no inherent meaning to it ?
like im saying for me its like a symbiosis so i understand how we can create at random but ive got a hard time not seeing it as giving meaning to us as much as it does to itself
its like that mirror analogy, if you see your reflection and then you say its you, you are creating your reflection just as much as the mirror is reflecting you, you both are reflecting no ?

this is the crux of where we differ- i see reality as the evolution of the laws of physics. everything is subsumed by that. rather than on an equal par. i strongly suspect the reason for this is in our philophical backgrounds- yours is clearly (Hegelian onwards?) dialectic whereas mine is analytic.

i'm not sure how you explain that languages are so different, and there are so many of them, if symbols have some inherent value. i think how we generate concepts and how we generate language are getting confused here, we need inherent meaning for concepts and as we develop concepts we will develop symbols. but i view those symbols as by products of the concepts, not fundamental to them. i don't know how we gain concepts but i suspect its in a similar way to animals, so we shouldn't need all this higher level baggage, i.e. visual symbolism, to do so, otherwise animals would too.

paul- i suspect i will never agree with you, i think i do understand you (sorry, i was slightly taking the piss when i asked how symbols symbolise different things if they're all the same...). i am content not to endow my surroundings with more baggage than is needed, it makes comprehension and deductions about the physical world more difficult, so i am less prone to see symbolism in everything. i see a lot of confusion of syntax and semantics in here and think in so doing you're borrowing a lot that you don't logically have access to (if you want the entire strength of your original point), but these would be objections raised from the traditional enlightenment so i think they're unlikely to hold much weight in here.

 

[himynameispaul]

paul- i suspect i will never agree with you, i think i do understand you (sorry, i was slightly taking the piss when i asked how symbols symbolise different things if they're all the same...). i am content not to endow my surroundings with more baggage than is needed, it makes comprehension and deductions about the physical world more difficult, so i am less prone to see symbolism in everything. i see a lot of confusion of syntax and semantics in here and think in so doing you're borrowing a lot that you don't logically have access to (if you want the entire strength of your original point), but these would be objections raised from the traditional enlightenment so i think they're unlikely to hold much weight in here.

You call it baggage, as if it's a problem. I see it as a wondrous way to live life that can keep one in a constant state of bliss if practiced truthfully. You believe that there isn't more than meets the eye. I'm not about making points or being logical, its more about findings and experience. It's merely the other of the side of the coin. It's hard for us to see eye to eye, but I believe we're both on common ground in the sense that we both care, we just have different methods.

Riddle me this. Is it mere coincidence that a spider's web and the structure of a diamond lattice, when viewed from a certain perspective, take on the same shape? Can logic explain that? Of course not, because to draw such a connection is illogical. They are two completely different things with nothing relatable... except their shape. It's all a matter of ignorance to what can't be explained from each perspective. That's our crux.

There's so much we don't understand in this day and age. Why? Because we've relied only upon logic as our method. I'm not saying logic is bad. I'm grateful. I just think there's more... much more than you're ready to admit.

 

[Jabberwocky]

You call it baggage, as if it's a problem. I see it as a wondrous way to live life that can keep one in a constant state of bliss if practiced truthfully. You believe that there isn't more than meets the eye.

...

There's so much we don't understand in this day and age. Why? Because we've relied only upon logic as our method. I'm not saying logic is bad. I'm grateful. I just think there's more... much more than you're ready to admit.

i was taught to minimise ontologies, though knowing we've done so is often difficult. everything else we include requires more explaining, complicates matters, and hence means we're less able to comprehend them. i am more satisfied with an idealised but comprehensible, at least to myself, view of things, and try to be aware of where and how i make idealisations. i do see that there is more than meets the eye, but in a totally different way to you. and yes we do have common ground in caring, and that is important.

logic can't explain why we perceive certain things to be similar, but i find what it can explain just as wonderous. this doesn't mean i don't think there can be more, but i don't understand the way you're investigating this moreness, which is why i am dubious about the conclusions you've reached. i am also unsure as to whether our mode of communication, which is so geared towards the everyday perspective of the world, would be suitable for sharing other types of knowledge, which could be the basis of my problem.

i'd like to make an important point- we have not relied only on logic in our method. inductive reasoning, assuming that the future looks like the past, is key and is not logically justified, it is hard to philosophically justify. and there is so much we do understand, due to these tools. its hardly fair to blame them for us not understanding everything, when in the time since we've developed them we've increased life expectancy, cracked the genetic code, turned global communication into a casual past time etc, and i wouldn't claim they even can explain everything.

 

[himynameispaul]

i was taught to minimise ontologies, though knowing we've done so is often difficult. everything else we include requires more explaining, complicates matters, and hence means we're less able to comprehend them. i am more satisfied with an idealised but comprehensible, at least to myself, view of things, and try to be aware of where and how i make idealisations. i do see that there is more than meets the eye, but in a totally different way to you. and yes we do have common ground in caring, and that is important.

logic can't explain why we perceive certain things to be similar, but i find what it can explain just as wonderous. this doesn't mean i don't think there can be more, but i don't understand the way you're investigating this moreness, which is why i am dubious about the conclusions you've reached. i am also unsure as to whether our mode of communication, which is so geared towards the everyday perspective of the world, would be suitable for sharing other types of knowledge, which could be the basis of my problem.

i'd like to make an important point- we have not relied only on logic in our method. inductive reasoning, assuming that the future looks like the past, is key and is not logically justified, it is hard to philosophically justify. and there is so much we do understand, due to these tools. its hardly fair to blame them for us not understanding everything, when in the time since we've developed them we've increased life expectancy, cracked the genetic code, turned global communication into a casual past time etc, and i wouldn't claim they even can explain everything.

Yah I'm a science major and I'm taught to be logical too, but it just doesn't resonate with me anymore (if it ever did) and so metaphysics has become my focal point. I'm glad we were at least able to reach some understanding of one another. These ideas we have are totally antagonistic. You just have to have respect for what you don't understand (within this context at least).

 

[panic in paradise]

^its hard, Mr NewMan, Paul.

how can someone just see something like, Jacobs Ladder.
what is the saying?
"im not gonna be able to sleep for a week! im on fucking fire!"

 

[Jabberwocky]

Yah I'm a science major and I'm taught to be logical too, but it just doesn't resonate with me anymore (if it ever did) and so metaphysics has become my focal point. I'm glad we were at least able to reach some understanding of one another. These ideas we have are totally antagonistic. You just have to have respect for what you don't understand (within this context at least).

its funny you should say that. were they to actually employ philosophers, i would be a metaphysician, but i'd be working from the perspective that states everything must go. (when i said i was taught to minimise ontologies, i meant in philosophy, they weren't even touched on in my science/maths studies).

do you mind me asking if there's anyone whose work you've particularly focused on as you've come to look more into metaphysics? your ideas are totally different to anythign i've evr seen and i'd probably find them easier to follow in historical context. some reading would probably quickly address the most obvious objections so make it easier to respect your position.

 

[panic in paradise]

Hindus mark a relation in the similarities between a cracked piece of rice, and a certain Nebula, i have been digging for info and a picture i have seen before but have had no luck - and have spent a couple of hours total...


"he is my Self with in the heart, smaller then a grain of rice or a barley-corn, or a mustard seed, or a grain of millet; this is my Self with in my Heart, greater then the earth, greater then the atmosphere, greater then the sky, greater then all these things."

Chandogya Upanishad III xiv 4
_______________________
it really takes one bit of fascination at a time, until most everything becomes allegorical, then upon the re-scent of "reality", you see the premise of our surroundings origin - and how the oldest stories known and told, are the same ones being used to entertain, guide, and manipulate us through advertising, religion, art, media etc...

how could these people thousands of years ago, possible been able to explain our own 'electro magnetic fields' AKA Prana and Chakras, Astronomy, Anatomy and much more, with out any sort of equipment or reference?

it is amazing, we here in the West are so unaccepting that we only reconfirm/reinvent these old teachings later, and give these discoveries watered-down useless meanings/definitions; that were/are only for our own betterment.

mainstream USA anyway religion, science, physical health care, psychology and psychiatry, our food, is missing half of what it needs. these things are skrewed.