"Any trace of positive value judgment is a bad sign for a mind whose goal is to be objective."
Finals are this week so you better believe I am going to be very distracted on here.
There is a very subtle difference between entertaining a person and inspiring them, it comes down to the values of what is being communicated. On one hand we have the goal of entertaining the person, this means to entice them; to show them pleasures and thrills reserved for the story books. When we want to entertain a person we have to show them the extremes to the point of absurdity, this will make them laugh, because it is something that violates their expectations and if it is powerful enough to be so capable of relation the person will laugh like they are a part of the piece and a part of their entertainers mind. This is my mnemonic method, and you can take it as you will. Arguing with my method is like arguing with recipe instructions, you can cook the pasta however you want, just don't make me eat it.
Another part of entertaining rather than inspiring is the art of appealing to the want for security, appreciation, and luxury. If we show these people somebody similar to them experiencing the wants of their mind in an imaginary realm, it is almost too easy to get them washed into the whirlpool of disillusionment. This is entertainment as a whole, an illusion of participation. This is why when the craft is done poorly one can feel very cheated, people do not want to be taken for fools or at least, they do not want to know about it. However there is the desire to be good at a craft as well, because we are conditioned since we are children to believe that if we do a certain craft phenomenally well we will become praised and loved. When the entertainer is applying his deception of participation it must be done in such a way that the viewer feels they are not only witnessing a phenomenal feat of the entertainers skill but also that their mind is being enriched while it is being engrossed. This stupefaction mixed with adoration garnishes respect for the creator and the illusion that the one being entertained walked away with more than he/she paid for. This is the cause for so much anthropomorphism in every doctrine of science, fiction, and philosophy. When we are told analogies for particles we are told that they behave like we do with attractions and repulsions to certain particles/ and laws they cannot disobey. I would like to pose a theory that if this anthropomorphism holds true and the world is much more subjective than we think, certain combinations of laws and particles can allow unheard of behavior much like the integration of human ideas.
The truth however is that the universe is both objective and subjective and there is never a clear cut distinction between when, how, or why it behaves this way. On one hand we have the different intrinsic qualities of matter yet they all seem to have a unified elementary composition, at least until they are fired through particle accelerators and then even more elementary particles pop up. From an objective standpoint this is a travesty, there must be a unified theory that shows deep down everything is all the same and the different vibrations that are pumped out by the different force charges create different ingredients to be utilized like a metaphorical flavor factory. Wouldn't this be ideal, but at the same time completely not. For a better understanding of what I am going to get at we must first look at these two definitions:
Ideal:
Standard:
1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
2. an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.
3. a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.
Now this may seem like “attack of the itallics” but I want to show what I see in the word ideal, it is the giant irony of language. It is a word with an ideal definition and thus fits the definition of circular reasoning, which essentially is not capable of having a definition without faulty logic. Because circular reasoning (first premise) is a use of reason that depends upon drawing a conclusion that is equivalent to the first premise (second premise). ^My first premise above: Circular reasoning, is equivalent to a use of reason which depends on my second premise above^ which is the definition of circular reasoning and thus is the equivalent to circular reasoning. And in the end circular reasoning is the equivalent of circular reasoning. * Cue applause *
What is the existence of anti bodies without the existence of the virus? Life is resisting itself so it can grow and change, death is the result and freedom is another way of saying death. Eternal sustenance is an ambition that requires the payment of freedom and indulgence. Unfortunately natural selection has already made that decision for us, we can't stop from dying on our wild ride of life and we need a savior that is also a martyr. Jesus is the food we consume, combust, and destroy, the liquid water that streams our cellular processes and preserves our embryos. God is the love that brings the zygotes of sex cells together but he is also the Satan that burns Jesus, his only son, in the name of life. These figureheads are only analogies for who we are and we project them upon something so large we will never understand it because of this, it is subjectivity at its strongest. Intelligent design was born out of science and it was fathered by religion. These giant end all theories of everything do more than emotionally sate our tongues so as to feed our souls, they motivate us and drive us. Humanity has stumbled on intelligence and found no motivation behind it, Intelligence is objectivity itself and without a viewing subject containing a little subjectivity to apply to this knowledge it is a seed without water. Nothing new will happen to reason without that chaotic element. What point am I finally getting at? None. Now might you ask the difference between entertaining and inspiring I can only say one thing; entertaining is stealing that wealth of energy in the universe to put into the subject leaving them awestruck and stupefied, inspiring is simply showing the subject they have always had this potential. I like to be the surfer between these waves of human behavior, first resisting the wave to ride it's potential and then falling in to be swept up it's rolling axis.
No comments:
Post a Comment