My Beliefs in a Nutshell

[Godslayer Jillian]

I just thought some of you might find it interesting, or at the least amusing, to understand my viewpoint of reality.

It's somehow long, but I think some of you will like to read it.
Although it's not an essay, or any traditional form of writing, and nothing else than an explanation, it was thanks to arts - mainly literature, ergo the placing of the thread in this section - that gave me this "understanding" of existence.
Among the works that gave me small epiphanies that formed my "philosophy" are:
-Paul Gaugin's painting Whence Come We? What Are We? Whither Do We Go?
-Voltaire's quote "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."
-Karl Marx's view on social conflict.
-Nietzsche's little famous statement (God is dead...)
-Jack Vance's The Dying Earth (Cugel's nihilism; the necessity for a dead civilization to create a God; the absurdity of Gilfig...)
-Dan Simmons' works, particularly the Hyperion Saga.
-Robert Anton Wilson's radical ideologies that nothing is real.
-Kierkegaard.

I exalt Kierkegaard above all the others if I am indeed giving credit to the right person. I'm almost positive Kierkegaard was the one to come up with the equation below, for I couldn't have come up with such a genial theory on my own.

To me:
Existence encompasses two realities: The upper floor and the lower floor. The lower floor is the area of Reason, which leads to pessimism; the upper floor is the area of Non-Reason, which leads to optimism.

Non-Reason= Optimism
Reason= Pessimism

The reality of reason is the reality dictated by inanimate objects; the reality in which we have no voice, in which objects are because they are, and we only try to understand it (light acts as both waves and particles, gravity bends space-time, work is a transfer of energy...)
The reality of Non-Reason is the one we create in optimist hopes; the realities we create in our heads, not to explain the world, but to give a meaning to it.
The upper-floor reality is just as real as the lower-floor of Reason. The thing is that the barrier among these two realities are impermeable. Non-Reason has no place in the area of Reason and viceversa, but the one is just as real as the other.

Virtually all people live in only one of these floors. Those who live in the lower floor are what we call rationalists, scientists, nihilists, and pessimists, as Reason without any kind of faith renders Life as meaningless, leading to Pessimism.
Those who live in the upper floor are what we call mystics, zealots, schizophrenics, and idealists, as Optimism without any kind of logic leads to a dead-end that has nothing to do with the physical world, leading to Non-Reason.

The only way to really embrace existence (not reality, but existence) is by knowing these two realities.
The problem with pessimists is that they stay in the meaningless reality with no hopes in the upper-floor.
The problem with optimists is that they stay in the illogic reality, fearing to look at the lower story.
To embrace existence, one has to understand that the upper floor is absolutely unreasonable and devoid of material logic. (something that pessimists have already accomplished)
The next step is to clasp the fact that reality is not the same as existence, and there's an optimistic reality which we must all reach. (something that optimists have already accomplished)
To live thoroughly, one must live his life in the upper-story without forgetting the meaningless, yet equally real, lower floor of Reason.

The lower floor of Reason is very easy to understand. There's nothing subjective to it, and can be quite knowable with enough amount of research. The thing is that we have still not learned everything about the reality of Reason, and people are afraid to look into Pessimism.

The upper floor is just as simple, although there are more debates on it. The optimist reality is created in each person's mind. It's our responsibility to create the upper-floor reality on our own accord by our own accord.
People debate which reality is the correct one, but reality is reality; and reality can change. Just as light can change velocity, but it changes other universe constants to remain as an absolute; so can reality in one's mind change without stopping being true.

Not all people create their own Non-Reason realities though. Karl Marx was almost right, but Anton Wilson hit the bullseye. Karl Marx said that the ideals of the persons in power become the ideals of the people, but this is only half-right. The truth is that the reality of the persons in power becomes the reality of the people. This is an example of how reality can change without stopping to be real.

All in all, the lower-floor reality of Reason leads only to Pessimism, but it's weak from human's side to ignore it; while the upper-floor reality of Non-Reason leads to Optimism, and it's weak not to look for it. The creation of the Non-Reasonable reality becomes a matter of Entity.
My personal creation of the upper story reality is made by Beauty, not by what is True.



It all sounds highly religious, as everything a man believes does when trying to explain it to the core. I hope some people will find it amusing to see into my thinking process.

[disorder]

...Maybe this will make a little more sence to me in a few years time, when I'm old and wise. I'll have to save it to my computer. Anyway, Jilli, what I did manage to get out of that was actually pretty interesting, and I can forsee myself laying in bed at night pondering your theory.

Outstanding job. 10 points.

[Nocturalis]

It doesn't really sound religious at all to me.

In fact, it makes perfect sense. It is a very refreshing and interesting interpretation. I certainly live in the lower floor however, because of my skepticism. I know it could be different however. It does explain why I am rather pessimistic, but happy when I'm being absurd or indulging in bizarre thoughts like in my poetry. In a sense this is how I do create my upper floor too. Poetry or design doesn't really need rationality to be fulfilling and meaningful.

Wise. I have contemplated comparable theories but never beworded it so thoroughly. It's not really all that complicated. Just a theoretical division. I allways say whatever gives one greater joy and fullfilment is the best way to live for that person. But not everyone is wise enough to see what path that is.

Hmm. Thanks, you've stirred up some thought in me. Interesting read indeed.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

I would say i live in both floors at the same time. to me they are co-existent, intertwined, an inseperable part of each other, and yet it doesn't negate the logic in the lower floor, or the faith in the upper. they are part of the same great whole.

To further your analogy, the only part of your equation that seems missing to me is how the two interact, what mathematical process governs their interaction, but perhaps that is the individual's own change, and not a constant thing. if you take it as division, or a fraction however, as it is depicted, somehow i can't help thinking that if you put the equals sign at the end, the answer on the other side, after taking into account every bit of existent reality their is,and imputing it to its' proper "floor", would be somehow both equal to 1, and infinity.

an infinite whole.

maybe that is why the universe works, why it functions. who knows.

if you make either the top or the bottom, and make it 0, then your answer is 0. nothingness. one floor cannot exist without the other.

if either one is "unequal" to the other, things would be unbalanced, and not function, sort of spiral out into something else, not a world, or a universe but something.....off kilter, that wouldn't stay alive....missing something. I don't have a word for what i mean. but at the same time maybe it is a sort of fluctuating imbalance that keeps things moving, keeps things alive. a flucuating between the two, but where the answer is still that infinite whole.

thank you for sharing your ideas, Jillian. I suppose you have read my statements in the other thread.

I enjoy reading the things you come up with. they make me think. it is good to see someone else who wants to know, who strives for that knowledge. despite my faith, including it, there is a part of me that desires a greater understanding that i "know" exists. it almost seems like i can grasp it at times, like it is just on the tip of my brain, but my mind lacks the tools to interpret it properly. that's why faith has to be part of the euqation for me. it isn't something i can see all of, but i can sometimes feel it, if that makes any sense.

[HumanePain]

Godslayer, you are wise lightyears beyond your chronological age. It took me a long time to understand what you have just articulated. But I must say that some very smart people do live in both floors as emraldlonewolf does.

Einstein referred to God many times in his search for truth in the bottom floor, as did many others. Interesting in that physicists who know more about truth in the bottom floor more than anyone else seem to accept that there is a great order at work in the design of the universe. (This is not an oblique opinion contrary to evolution, I accept the fact that evolution is a real process that contributed to our origin.)

Please continue to share your refined thoughts with us; a mind that keeps it's thoughts to itself is like silver that stays in the mine. It only gleams when it comes out into the light of day.

[HumanePain]

Haha, just realized the way I worded it makes it sound like it took me a long time to read what you wrote, and then understand it.

I intended to say that it took me many years of living life to understand what you already know at a young age, which is what you just wrote.

:p

[honeythorn]

Very interesting. I would like to hope that I live in both floors at once. I dream and idealise constantly, but at the same time I am also quite logical. If a problem needs solving, or a question requires an answer, I will try to come up with the most logical solution I am able to.

My brother ( who is an absolute trekkie) once said that I reminded him of a vulcan ( yeah right) when I explained that what people see and fear as darkness is (to me anyway), only a lack of, or diferent form of light.

But as I say, I can only hope that I occupy both floors at once.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Well, on this belief, the way to live in both floors is to accept that the world is meaningless, and that your metaphysical beliefs are an invention of your mind to give meaning to your life.
You must know that you're dreaming, not living, in the upper floor.
This is why I romanticize dreams so much in my writings.
When you realize your beliefs are non-existing and have no value in the lower-floor, then you can understand why they are just as real, but in a different plane of reality that never crosses paths with the other.

Most people that hear of my theory live in the upper floor solely, but argue that they live in both floors because they can think logically.
There's a difference between living on both realities and being influenced by the one you don't live in.

[Gretchen Mädelnick]

the way to live in both floors is to accept that the world is meaningless, and that your metaphysical beliefs are an invention of your mind to give meaning to your life.
You must know that you're dreaming, not living, in the upper floor.

I think we share almost the same insights. I posted earlier in here

I wonder how important this all is. In the end, whatever there might be "out there", it will be creation of you own mind. This has consequences.

The difference is that I believe that any belief is a creation of your mind.

[honeythorn]

There's a difference between living on both realities and being influenced by the one you don't live in.

Ah, now I understand a little better. I think perhaps you may be right. It is true that I dream a lot more than I rationalise and think logically. But I do know that my dreams only come from my own mind. Most of my dreams cannot and will not happen. Those few with possibility will require a force of will and personal strength that I do not have right now. So I purposley set out to live them out in my mind and daydreams to stave off the inevitable pessimism that comes with knowing they have little chance of being realised.

This is probably because my daily life is very very mundane ( I work in a factory and am probably doomed to do so for many years!!!!!) and I need to dream and drift away whilst making my boxes, otherwise I would go absolutley fucking insane. Luckily I am allowed an mp3 player, so listening to music helps me to dream even more, to create situations,scenarios and social occurances that would otherwise never ever happen.

But at the same time I DO know that I am dreaming. As soon as I walk through those doors I set my mind to dream and visualise. I know that I only do it to pass the time and while away the boredom.To give my day some sort of useful purpose other than my physical job of boring boxmaking.

It's a delibarate escapism I suppose.

I hope that made some kind of sense, I have difficulty when it comes to expressing my thoughts.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

There's a difference between living on both realities and being influenced by the one you don't live in.

Ah, I see now. Yes, this is what I do. I navigate life in the bottom floor (make a living, roll with the punches, pay my bills), but navigate it using the upper floor as my guiding star. It is an ideal that I superimpose on the bottom floor, and try to either make reality conform to the ideal (sometimes successful), or fool myself with rosy colored glasses and rationalize that parts of the bottom floor fit the upper (sadly, this is the more common case, but it helps me to accept life).

[emeraldlonewoulf]

Hello. I started to post a couple days ago, but couldn't find the words to say what i wanted to. I've had some time to consider your reply in regards to people who say they live in both floors, because, at first, it has much merit.

But where is discovery, even logical, scientifically sound discovery without imagination? True science most definitely lives in the lower floor, whereas imagination obvoiusly lives in the upper one. They aren't the only tenants in either case, but they most definitely reside on different sides of the line.

Now, where would science be if no one ever asked "what if?" and imagined what could be? Taking into consideration available data and coming to a conclusion is all well and good, a very logical, programmed computer can do that. But it cannot see what could happen when the data governing certain processes doesn't exist yet. Someone has to come up with a process to gather that data, and conceive of some impact it might have. The computer cannot imagine anything, and thus cannot "conceive" of anything outside its experience. It cannot take into consideration the things of which it has no knowledge. There is no way for it to progress beyond its designed capability.
Logical process could perhaps explain everything, if there were some guarantee that all pertinent information could be taken into account. But there is too much unknown, and inconceiveable, without imagination.
Imagination, or that forward thinking, that while useful and necessary to the success of advancing, evolving logical processes certainly doesn't live next to it.

on the other hand, you have to use a bit of logic in the things pertaining to the upper floor for them to have any bearing on the world around you. You have to have inspiration for imagination, you must have awareness and perception, some stepping stone from which to spring, to be able to imagine new things.

The two areas have to work hand in hand. This is not to say people do not have a preponderance of their talent or perception based in one or the other. you might have one person based almost entirely in logic, and another based almost entirely in imagination. And then there are a great many people who either have not the capacity or the desire to use the talents or abilities associated with either.

To me, both areas are necessary, and the way they interact within a human being to me is an amazing thing. To me, it is the people who do not use either, or who insist on existing solely in one or the other, who are the closest to being already dead.



Anyone who has the curiosity to explore, or the ability to receive inspiration in order to form new ideas (even new to them) has some part in the upper floor. It doesn't mean they cannot be intensely logical and analytical, even scientific about what they have learned or are learning from it. Many things have been proven true, or brought into existence, whose beginnings were only imagined.

Conversely, someone can analytically observe and disect the world around them, logically follow that to a conclusion, and use that to create, to take it as inspiration, to produce some concept or work of art .

Basically, what i am saying is that these two areas have to work together in order for things to progress, or grow, to evolve. I'm not saying that imagination must be at work for a lizards tail to grow longer through subsequent generations. But i am saying that given how the two processes feed one off the other within the human mind, leading to growth, is it really such a stretch to think that it might be imagination behind the ability, or design (results) of a creature to change? Yes, that is speculation, it is imagination, without a lot to back it up other than what has been seen and an idea. but things that have been proven have started with less.


Another thing to consider in how you arrive at results is the types of perception we have. Some people see or hear better than others. Some see or hear not at all. But that doesn't negate the fact that others can see and hear very well. Perhaps there are abilities, in which people sense data, that you do not personally possess, or with a method you have not chosen to develop. That doesn't negate their ability to use these things. Perhaps these difficulties are hard to define, in much the same way it is hard to define sight to a blind person, or sound to the deaf. Similarities can be drawn, but they don't really describe the sense properly, or the data or stimuli received through them.


I apologize for the length of the post to whomever it may irritate. In beginning I could not find the proper words, and I'm not entirely sure I have, but now it seems I've found many, and I don't think I could have conveyed the meaning with much fewer.

[knightmare]

Faith in scientific concepts and faith in the metaphysical are different. Scientists seek ways to explain observed facts, like since objects fall, there must be a force called gravity. Some scientific concepts can be directly unobservable, but they can be imagined or predicted by other effects or scientific observances. So scientists' hypotheses are limited by universal laws and effects.
Faith in the metaphysical is not bounded by any laws since the metaphysical can not be observed in the first place, so imagination is practically unlimited. Just look at the immense variety of religions.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

My above post has to do with the role of imagination in logical processes that yield new, quantifiable, provable results. And/or conceiving of these results without having already obtained concrete data.

It also has to do with how logical, analytical data observation and conclusions drawn from it can lead to imaginative, creative "upper floor" endeavors.

The latter part of it has to do with observations that could be perceived by other people in other ways, different from your own.

And also a slight hint of some of my own ideas, inspired by what i have discovered, one way or another, that i believe to be true, but that are by no means proven.

The difference between metaphysical and scientific thought PROCESS need not exist, it just depends on what evidence you are aware of and what you choose to accept (or see as logical, or feel, depending).

Faith is belief in something not proven, whether it applies to metaphysical or scientific things.

These are just musings of my own, thoughts brought to mind from what Jillian proposes and has shared. By no means do i expect anyone else to believe exactly the same thing I do, you have had different experiences, and thus have a different basis from which to draw your conclusions. That is why there are so many different thoughts and ideas in the world. That's why science progresses, and why people follow so many belief systems, and/or religions (I do not see religion and faith as the same thing. they are different entities, although they can affect one another within an individual. They are not synonymous, despite the intense effort of many organized religions to consider them so.) It is a testament to the ever growing, changing variety of the world, that we have the ability to do this.


To quote the exchange between Bethany and the thirteenth apostle from the movie "Dogma" -

Rufus: "He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, but especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it."

Bethany: "Having beliefs isn't good?"

Rufus: "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."

End quote

In general, i think that is a good philosophy. or at least something worth thinking about.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by emeraldlonewoulf

True science most definitely lives in the lower floor, whereas imagination obvoiusly lives in the upper one. They aren't the only tenants in either case, but they most definitely reside on different sides of the line.

It would all be a question of semantics.
My favorite definition of imagination is Webster's:
Imagination- The act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality.
In this definition, something is not created ex nihilo, as is the essence of the upper floor, but only thought of by other means beyond simple perception.
Imagination is acceptable in both floors. All abstract concepts are present in both realities; but have different definitions, if only slightly.
An example of this is Love:
In my world of Reason, Love is the maximum feeling a person can experience towards any other existing thing. It doesn't matter how cold or corny you are, Love is the stongest feeling you can feel. In this case, Love would be relative.
In my world or Non-Reason, Love is my God. Love is so powerful, that even the biblical God is submissive to it.

To justify again the equation, we must not equate imagination with the upper-floor, as imagination is neither irrational nor optimist in every case. It can be rational and negative, which means not that it's a unit existing in both floors, but that there are two kinds of imaginations, each in its respective place.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

I suppose you are right in saying it is all a question of semantics. Words are the best thing we have to try to communicate abstract ideas. To me imagination is a process that can be inflenced by reason, sometimes heavily, which explains its presence downstairs occasionally. but it isn't a tenant there because the process isn't a reason based thing. conversely, reasonable logic can be very useful in and applied to things pertaining to the other floor.

I don't think there are two separate kinds of imagination any more than there are two kinds of logic, or two kinds of reason. Any of these processes may be used innapropriately, as in regards something that it "shouldn't" but that is determined solely within the individual, although those results once presented to others are then accepted or rejected by them. If you say there are two kinds of logic, or reason, or imagination, you are defining how they are used by the subject they are applied to, not by the process taking place. That is just my opinion.

I suppose the problem here is that for someone who uses elements of both, and who sees them as intertwined, it is perhaps hard to see justification in aligning things in order to support a different perspective.


It's not as if the original analogy, or explanation presented here were mine anyway, my above postings have just been an attempt to look at what goes on inside the human mind described in those terms.


If your system helps you to get a better grasp on the meat of the world, its' meaning or lack thereof, some understanding, I wish you the best in your endeavor. Just do not close your eyes once the definition or explanation has run its course for you, allow yourself to grow beyond the confines of its description when it can no longer explain or classify something. And not that i think you are the type that will, but make sure to recognize it should it happen.

Sometimes i think the greatest tragedy of mankind is that we cling to what is established long past its' due. The Christian based religion (as opposed to faith) is obviously a wonderful, abounding example of this. The catholic refusal of Copernicus and Galileo, and Darwin, come to mind the quickest. This does nothing to negate the fact that a people's faith in a real entity has results in their life, and to those who have experienced it it is just as much real as something you can see, or an object you can touch. It is just sensed in a different, difficult to explain way. Because it is sensed in a different way, perhaps does relegate it to the upper floor for you, but recognize that it is there for you because you have not sensed it, not because others have merely imagined something. To someone who has experienced something like this, it is just as concrete, it is raw data imput, reasonable, and makes sense when reason is applied to it. For you, it perhaps seems non-sensical, because you see no basis for it. This explanation isn't all that good, but it is the closest i can come.

My point before was that both parts, or floors, are necessary within a human being. You cannot live solely in one or the other without taking an occasional trip through the other. It makes you dead inside. That is just my opinion. Anyone else is completely entitled to theirs. Besides, ideas, beliefs can change, in my case too. I believed many things before that i no longer do, and have come to believe things that I at one time thought were completely illogical, based in fantasy, or just plain idiotic. I didn't have all the imput i do now. I still don't have it all, no one does.

I guess maybe I look at reason and imagination as processes that can be applied to things both positive and negative, true or false. How these different elements interact within a human being are determined by how that person sees or interprets what they see, and what they processes they choose to use or use through force of habit. Which, when you stand back and think about it, doesn't really fit the equation at all. But like i said before, that is just my opinion.

Ideas evolve.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by emeraldlonewoulf

I don't think there are two separate kinds of imagination any more than there are two kinds of logic, or two kinds of reason.

Heh, that's basically the main premise of my belief in the two realities.
Each reality has its definition of a word. All abstracts are found in both realities and don't seem to differ at all in the suface, but the deeper you get into it, the greater the difference you see.

Example:
A simple, logical explanation to make an apple pie from scratch is to get all the ingredients first and follow a recipe. (or something like that, I suck at cooking)
Going deeper into the reasoning, let's use someone from the upper floor; to make an apple pie from scratch, he might say, first you must have been created from scratch by another power.
Or to make an apple pie from scratch, Carl Sagan would say, you must first create the universe.
The deeper one gets into one's definitions of an abstract, it's more obvious if one lives in Reason or Non-Reason.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

Aah, so we reach the meat of the matter. For you, the processes are different depending on the type of input they are applied to, or which data you are willing to trust as accurate from someone else.

For me, the processes do not differ in regards to what they are applied, it is the processes that tend toward one direction or the other but are intertwined in their use to come up with a conclusion, and what determines whether a certain train of thought belongs above or below is the type of data and the ratio of reason to imagination. This ratio describes toward which floor a certain thought process leans, sometimes drastically.

Now I think have a better understanding of where our viewpoints differ.

I guess from here it is a case of agreeing to disagree.