17.12.12

Science Fiction and Fantasy

Science fiction and fantasy are intriguing, but more so is the reaction toward and admiration of it. Unfortunately I’m not really a big reader (at all), but I’ve been looking for books or stories of the introspective sort - science fiction that is not built upon the fantasy of what is not there but on the convoluted perception of the reality that is already there.


There are so many stories of time travel, alternate universes, stories of the dead, stories of the extraterrestrial, stories of superpowers and things of all sorts that are not believed to exist in ordinary realities. People seem to be so drawn to this - fantasy, they call it - science fiction fantasy because it seems to be to some extent scientifically possible, but nonetheless does not “exist” so to stay under ordinary circumstances, and so it exists only as “fiction”. But why? Why are they so drawn to these fictional descriptions that are built upon their concrete perception of reality and so in turn aren’t really alternate realities at all? Why it is that they become so fascinated by things that are no different than their already concrete perceptions of the universe, so different but superficially - their idea of an “extraterrestrial being”, beings, whatever of similar nature - but what they build hardly ever if at all exceeds their perception of what consists of their possible reality. Why have they not explored the infinite loop of their own “ordinary” reality from there built true psychological thrillers? (Their thrillers seem to be limited to ideas of serial killers of convoluted identity and murders, deaths, of some sort, but only superficially). 


Will someone please introduce me to any book, story, writing, fictional perception of any sort that is not just another superficial manipulation of superficial perception? I am really tired of ideas of “aliens” that are basically no different from humans and “time travel” that bares no allusion to the mystery of reality whatsoever. Where are the right places to search? Are people’s imaginations really this confined?

12.12.12

Vis Imaginativa

Science - what ever happened to the experimentation of mind and reality through first-person exploration with the power of imagination? Where is the hope in an all-objective method when reality can only be perceived subjectively?

11.12.12

Chronicles of Life and Death

Following the previous commentary on “death is the only certainty”, the following chronicles -


People fear death. Why? People die. But do they?


Yes, I understand the sadness, aloneness that is perceived from the prospect of “death” with respect to “leaving this world”, but is that really why people are so death-aversive? Is it the fear of unknown? But what about for people who have already decided what to believe in with certainty? Can they still not be quite sure? Or is it the fear of uncertainty itself? Or rather, not really a fear, but simply an uneasiness caused by uncertainty? But uncertainty isn’t all bad either, in fact it’s the best thing ever sometimes, but of course that all depends, because it is not the uncertainty itself that causes any reaction but rather the all the infinite number of unfalsifiable theories that one could create, the perception, experience, and subjective value of each of them that cause the reactions. Here are just a few, stemming from our familiar friends, life and death:


People fear death. But what they do not realize is that they assume that they are alive. Not only do they assume that they are alive, but also that everyone else around them that “looks” alive is alive, that everyone who looks alive has never died, that they themselves have never died, and that you can only die once in a single lifetime. They no nothing about death, and consequentially nothing about being alive. They know nothing about anything, including the fact that they know nothing (which is the problem). They completely unknowingly make assumptions, millions of them without ever realizing that they are assumptions. These assumptions make them feel safe and secure as if they “knew” what was going on, what went on, and what would perhaps happen, and even if they did wonder once in a long while whether they were actually “alive”, they associate “probability” with it as if they understood anything about causality, induction, or being the cat inside Schrödinger’s box. 


Well scratch all of that. This is your reality (and just one of the many many infinite infinite sets) - fascinatingly, terrifyingly, and unfalsifiably so:


1. You are not alive. You are dead. You cannot die because you are already dead. You could “die” as many times as you wanted, but you could never cease to exist. You never remember exactly what it is like to die, but every instant in time you are constantly dying and continuing to exist, in which case it would be completely meaningless to call yourself either “dead” or “alive”. No matter how much you want to or don’t want to cease to exist, you cannot because once you exist, you exist, and for all you know, was there ever a beginning? Would there ever be an end? In this universe of yours, other people die and cease to exist, in your universe, but what about you? A state that you are not in remains and can only remain in a state of uncertainty until you reach that state - but then there would remain infinite uncertainties for all the other states as well.


2. You can and do remember every single time you’ve ever died - so many so many times, but each time you still continue to exist. No one else outside of yourself will never know that you “died” except for you. The difference from the first universe is that you believe that you “remember each time what it was like to die” that is, when you ask yourself “how did I die the last time I died?” then your mind would generate an answer that the inhabitant of Universe 1 would call “just your imagination” but you, the inhabitant of Universe 2 would call “what actually happened” because you further drop the assumption that “things that randomly pop into your mind have no actual meaning and/or could not have actually happened” i.e. “what” exactly causes those “thoughts” that follow sequentially, randomly, at will or not at will?


3. All of the above in Universe 2, but now sometimes you are dead, and sometimes you are alive, you just don’t know when. You could define being dead as being in a universe perceived to be exactly the same as though you were alive, but everyone that you see in the dead universe would also be dead and experience universes of type 2. You’d never know when you were dead or when you were alive since they would be perceived to be exactly the same, and you could also never cease to exist.


4. Same as Universe 3, except when you ask yourself whether you are “dead”, you can decide to believe that the answer did not pop out randomly (or it did) but whatever you happen to believe in that moment (whether or not by “choice”) is what would be your state of being dead or alive.


(Now, the question of whether you would continue to be “alive” or “dead” in the additional universes of other people generated while you “died” of course remains uncertain and has, for all purposes, nothing to do with the state of yourself in your own universe. But that’s already assuming 1) that universes of different people exist completely separately as infinite sets freely generated and destroyed and 2) other people’s universes even exist at all. In other words, if you want to go about experiencing “dying” infinite times just because you happen to believe you won’t cease to exist, you still need to take into account the uncertainties associated with those possibly existing universes of other people if you care about the emotional impact of your “death” on others - well, unless you are able to invariably believe that they don’t and will never exist.)


As you can see, with each addition level of abstraction, a.k.a. killing of concrete assumptions, the prospect of asking additional questions and answering of unfalsifiable possibilities becomes increasingly ”meaningless”, since the bottom line would simply be that the state of anything could at most be completely dependent on “what you happened to believe in the moment”. So I suppose most people, even if they were in the habit of questioning everything, would stick to believing the assumptions that “made the most sense”. But for me? How could I possibly have the slightest clue what that meant if my only infinite set of uncertainly experienced subjective universes were my own? Or are they?

10.12.12

Uncertainty is the Only Certainty (Death is NOT)

image


I saw a picture of this flying public artwork thing by Sebastian Errazuriz, and it intrigued me a little - it seemed to carry a lot of conceptual significance. (I’ve been questioning the significance and interpretation of conceptual art and design more and more ever since the time I approached that fashion designer guy to tell him how intrigued I was by his geometrically complex constructions, only to awkwardly find that he had no idea what hyperbolic geometry was and that his inspiration came purely from what he thought to be visually interesting, but this is different.) This flying all-caps sentence was extremely interesting to me not for the content itself, but the extent of further inquisition it raises - “death is the only certainty” - is it really now?


What I mean is not that there could be other certainties in life, but seriously, how could anyone ever assert that “death” is a certainty if no living person has any idea what death even is? I’ve come to realize that whenever anyone speaks any sentence, my mind immediately asks a million why’s and why not’s so quickly that it escapes my conscious awareness, but the most important ones pop out to my attention. This one especially. “Death is the only certainty” - forget the “in life” part, that makes it even more incredibly nonsensical, but sometimes I simply do not understand how people could completely overlook so, so many questions out there, making billions of assumptions every nanosecond of their lives without ever.. wondering - it’s absolutely incredible.


I have no idea how people, especially philosophers and other people doomed with a bunch of “knowledge”, just go around making these statements, statements of all different kinds, all consisting of words and concepts, concepts that they have absolutely no understanding that they have no understanding of, as if they had the slightest clue what they were actually talking about - this is just bizarre. But forget whether the people will ever have any hope of understanding. What I’m interested in is the curiosity of the statement and why/how it could possibly seem like a “true” statement to anyone.


“Death is the only certainty.” Rule #1: If you’re making a statement of any sort that you believe to have any relevance to anything at all, you have to understand what the words mean. Rule #2: Words about fundamental things have little meaning if any at all simply because by nature you have no idea what anything means, especially not if you want to put it in words. (Well, of course these rules have no meaning either, but the point is that I am frequently really bothered by the seemingly extreme ignorance of educated grown-up people, and I would like to point them out just in case.) So anyways, “death” - what in the world is “death”? Forget death, you want to say that it’s the state of ceasing to be alive? Well what in the world is “being alive”? What is the state of being “alive”? What does it mean to say that I am “alive” if I have no idea what it means to be “dead”?


Now, there is a very big difference between what it means to “be dead” versus the action of “dying”. The flying sentence seems to be talking about the latter. So we as “living” people have plenty of knowledge of what it means to die, perhaps physically, perhaps spiritually perhaps both, but not only do we know nothing about what happens after the act of dying, but there is in fact *no* possible way of knowing unless you are already in the state of being “dead”, and I mean exactly that. There are a series of infinite issues concerned with the state of “being dead” that basically reduce to 1) the act of other people dying outside of yourself has absolutely nothing to do with what it means to either “die” or “be dead” yourself 2) the act of “dying” as far as the word seems to be concerned, is the transition from being “alive” to being “dead”, but how on earth can we possibly begin to understand what it means to “die” if we have no idea what “alive” and “dead” are, i.e. 3) “I am alive” is an assumption - how in the world would I know if I’m “alive” if I have no idea what it means to be “dead”, in other words it’s just as meaningful to say “I’m dead” as it is to say “I’m alive”.


If you think about it, it could get as complicated, confusing, nonsensical, and completely meaningless as you want, but really all this is really doing is just creating another infinite set of unfalsifiable models of existence/reality/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. That’s the fun in these sentences that concern the fundamental nature of reality (which is really completely meaningless because it is all meaningful and vice versa). 


So start from the sentence “death is the only certainty in life” - bull shit!!! (But the most meaningful bull shit ever because it is completely meaningless, obviously, which is a good thing.) Everybody is going to die - false - but not true either, just unknown, uncertain, and completely meaningless. People “die” (or seem to anyways) outside of yourself, but just like anything else, that’s go absolutely nothing to do with dying with respect to myself. And now let me just create a few more fascinatingly magnificently terrifying and amazing theories of “life” - I could write a mansion full of books on this - novels, fiction, but not really, or not at all. Actually I’ll just write another post devoted to that.


Point being, “death is the only certainty in life” - what in the universe!?!?

"Death is the Only Uncertainty in Life"