In an effort to understand ourselves we must know our origins. Science tells us the facts, the basics, but science itself is a complex and dynamic system. As we uncover its mysteries and unlock its heavy blast doors, newer, longer, and more labyrinthine corridors follow. Hence for one to attain a sense of mental satiety, albeit an assuaging contrivance, he must invoke his own intuition, his pure "Thought Science." As the Great Einstein himself so fruitfully did, one must dive to the unfathomable depths of his own mind, maybe even to form his own legacy, a reverberating paradigm shift, akin to the Theory of Relativity and its profundity. But of course, what is more profound than the beginning....the end....perhaps?
Many a time I wonder what good is it.... to understand the world, our existence, and not simply wade through its murky waters without ever seeing its soul, merely touching it with our calloused feet? If I simply ignore my ignorance, I will never worry over such “inanities”.... But I have come to conclude that ignoring one’s naivete and passing by a Knowledge who stares idly in wait of a mind to house it, only further agitates one’s innate drive to comprehend himself. I have also come to conclude, however, that science and philosophy are one in the same, no man will ever comprehend this world by science alone. This.... is a matter of existence. It is inescapable, inexorable, omnipresent, omniscient , there is nothing that is beyond it, it is.... existence. Anything one can ever describe, anything that can ever be thought, any thing that can only be indentified as indescribable, rendered nonexistent, any thing that is nothing- exists. It is impossible to be beyond existence. So what does this tell us, prehaps, does it give a glimpse of eternity, a taste of infinity? no. These things have no real existence but within our minds as a by- product of relativity, for relative to a point, a line segment is infinite, but for every infinity there is a line segment that it constitutes.
If I, or anyone for that matter, were to realize that we understood existence, that we finally saw “infinity” in its line segment state, its magnificence may be so overwhelming that the mind must shut down, it must destroy itself to create meaning within this meaningless existence. Yes...meaningless. Although many find it too depressingly veracious to be reality, it nonetheless is; there is no “this” without “that”, there is no “good” without “evil”, there is no “life” without “death”, there is no “I” without “not I”, there is no “veracity” without “falsehood”, nor is the converse of each statement true. No thing exists without its opposite to define it. It is the ultimate and quintessential duality law of reality, the reality of the mind. To see the line segement is to rid the mind its fundamental stratagem. All that is, all that was, and all that can be, is seen in its single pith, its “kernel” form.
To see the kernel may very well extinguish any purpose we as sentient beings could possibly have....Then again what purpose can purpose itself have....Ah! I have forgotten, such a thing is nonexistent outside the realm of surreality. Still more, surreality is only the reality that is “not mine”. Further yet, “mine” is only that which I assume as “not, not mine”. To say “this statement is false” is to say that it is false in being false, thus veracity lies in untruth, thereby being that untruth is not truly false, but in fact true...:- a paradox. To say “this statement is true”, is equally to say, it is falsely false; for falsehood to be determined, though, I must be existing in a reality, but in a reality where “this statment is true” how can I say that “this statement is false” for the word is denotes existence, moreover existence is only assumed where one observes or would observe something, and one can only observe something that is veritable/real. Ergo, in order to differentiate truth from untruth I have to observe the statement that I am trying to categorize as truth or untruth in the state of reality and surreality simultaneously-seperate...:- a paradox. In other words, I can only differentiate truth from untruth by first saying both are true in each reality, and equally false in each reality, then I must go on to say that only one ‘reality’ is real. I must say that “mine” is what I prefer as mine, after assuming both to be mine, merely to define “mine” as the relatively-preferred frame of reference...:- a paradox...a paradox, in fact, that implies truth does not exist, nor surreality, nor falsehood, thusly it implies that falsehood cannot exist within paradox.
The Paradox! Is it the quintessence? Yes....good cannot exist without evil, veracity without truth, therefore the duality of nature, the laws that define perception, the “veritables” that comprises observation, that constitute reality, purpose, causality, existence, all of them- a product of paradox.Yes...the paradox! The paradox from which all opposites are based on, the premises of duality; good-evils, veracious-fallacies, now-thens, this-thats, nonexistent-existences, cause-effects....this world is Paradox, absolutely.
Tell me my friends...what refutes Relativity with a greater irrefutability than Paradox itself?
Many a time I wonder what good is it.... to understand the world, our existence, and not simply wade through its murky waters without ever seeing its soul, merely touching it with our calloused feet? If I simply ignore my ignorance, I will never worry over such “inanities”.... But I have come to conclude that ignoring one’s naivete and passing by a Knowledge who stares idly in wait of a mind to house it, only further agitates one’s innate drive to comprehend himself. I have also come to conclude, however, that science and philosophy are one in the same, no man will ever comprehend this world by science alone. This.... is a matter of existence. It is inescapable, inexorable, omnipresent, omniscient , there is nothing that is beyond it, it is.... existence. Anything one can ever describe, anything that can ever be thought, any thing that can only be indentified as indescribable, rendered nonexistent, any thing that is nothing- exists. It is impossible to be beyond existence. So what does this tell us, prehaps, does it give a glimpse of eternity, a taste of infinity? no. These things have no real existence but within our minds as a by- product of relativity, for relative to a point, a line segment is infinite, but for every infinity there is a line segment that it constitutes.
If I, or anyone for that matter, were to realize that we understood existence, that we finally saw “infinity” in its line segment state, its magnificence may be so overwhelming that the mind must shut down, it must destroy itself to create meaning within this meaningless existence. Yes...meaningless. Although many find it too depressingly veracious to be reality, it nonetheless is; there is no “this” without “that”, there is no “good” without “evil”, there is no “life” without “death”, there is no “I” without “not I”, there is no “veracity” without “falsehood”, nor is the converse of each statement true. No thing exists without its opposite to define it. It is the ultimate and quintessential duality law of reality, the reality of the mind. To see the line segement is to rid the mind its fundamental stratagem. All that is, all that was, and all that can be, is seen in its single pith, its “kernel” form.
To see the kernel may very well extinguish any purpose we as sentient beings could possibly have....Then again what purpose can purpose itself have....Ah! I have forgotten, such a thing is nonexistent outside the realm of surreality. Still more, surreality is only the reality that is “not mine”. Further yet, “mine” is only that which I assume as “not, not mine”. To say “this statement is false” is to say that it is false in being false, thus veracity lies in untruth, thereby being that untruth is not truly false, but in fact true...:- a paradox. To say “this statement is true”, is equally to say, it is falsely false; for falsehood to be determined, though, I must be existing in a reality, but in a reality where “this statment is true” how can I say that “this statement is false” for the word is denotes existence, moreover existence is only assumed where one observes or would observe something, and one can only observe something that is veritable/real. Ergo, in order to differentiate truth from untruth I have to observe the statement that I am trying to categorize as truth or untruth in the state of reality and surreality simultaneously-seperate...:- a paradox. In other words, I can only differentiate truth from untruth by first saying both are true in each reality, and equally false in each reality, then I must go on to say that only one ‘reality’ is real. I must say that “mine” is what I prefer as mine, after assuming both to be mine, merely to define “mine” as the relatively-preferred frame of reference...:- a paradox...a paradox, in fact, that implies truth does not exist, nor surreality, nor falsehood, thusly it implies that falsehood cannot exist within paradox.
The Paradox! Is it the quintessence? Yes....good cannot exist without evil, veracity without truth, therefore the duality of nature, the laws that define perception, the “veritables” that comprises observation, that constitute reality, purpose, causality, existence, all of them- a product of paradox.Yes...the paradox! The paradox from which all opposites are based on, the premises of duality; good-evils, veracious-fallacies, now-thens, this-thats, nonexistent-existences, cause-effects....this world is Paradox, absolutely.
Tell me my friends...what refutes Relativity with a greater irrefutability than Paradox itself?
>pmt.