canikickit
30th March 2003, 03:21
Many moons ago, I posted a thread by the title of "The Meaning of Life" (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=486). Here is the combination of everything I said in that thread, with some editing and additions.
Having started to read "1984", I have noticed many similarities between the concept of "doublethink" and the reasoning necessary to understand, or wrap your head around this perception. I have transcribed a few paragraphs from the book to show this. Please don't discuss the book in any detail, as I'm not quite finished it yet. After fifty pages, I had already decided it was fantastic.
Many, or any comments, criticisms, diatribes, or general discussion would be much appreciated.
I find that when one is discussing various things, such as "the meaning of life" and "where did the stars come from" and "what colour was god's hair", there comes a point after many hours of rigorous debate and discussion and much argument where you have are back at the beginning. You end up contradicting one of the core beliefs which you stated (indirectly or otherwise) to be true.
Nothing can ever be proven, the reason for this, my dear friends, is we do not possess the language or the neccessary comprehension to decipher some things.
That last statement is also true of this theory, therefore I am going to post it as it is and add to it, together with the debate of my comrades.
But saying that "nothing can ever be proven", well, that's just a case of absolutism, isn't it? Absolutely can or absolutely cannot. As opposed to relativsm, which holds that truths are subject to varying conditions,, what corresponds in one case may be entirely bollocks in another... - Suffianr
This is where the contradiction part comes in. It's like if you make the statement, "all generalisations are bad", that in itself is a generalisation.
"Nothing can be ever proven "
This is exactly because of relativism.
How can it be shown that what Hitler did was wrong? He was alive for thirty years, he made desicions, drank coffee, had breakfast, etc., etc. and he arrived at certain conclusions. Why does someone have the right to decide that that, and the result of his meditations is wrong. Why base your judgement from your own perspective? The answer is because we have no choice. Objectivity is impossible.
"We do not see the world how it is, we see it how we are."
Despite all this, I would still never say that Hitler was right. He was a madman. But when it all comes down to it....who the hell am I? Who is anyone to decide anything, all we can do is get up everyday and do what we do.
You have to take your brain out of your body.
That's why the circle is the perfect representation. It is infinite, and also representitive of the number zero. The number zero is the most powerful number. If you divide any number by zero, you get infinity, and no number can be divided into zero. I am captain zero.
Every debate, every conversation, every discussion, argument, every dialogue, is meaningless. They just go around in circles. You think and consider and reason, and then you realise you are in a different place then you started.
You will always find yourself asking the same fundamental questions which cannot be answered. Questions which are based on opinion, questions which are simply beyond the realm of human comprehension. How can one possibly attempt to understand life before there was an earth, for example? To understand that is to be insane. That is why people such as Einstein, Lee Perry and myself are slightly eccentric (varying degrees of slight).
If the debate stayed on the same topic forever, the people would be very, very boring. But the same topics would keep coming up.
Like if you talk about the existence of god, you always must ask the question, "what was before god/the big bang?" The thing is, "before" holds no relevance to humanity. Who gives a shit what happened "before"? It doesn't matter.
The circle is unbreakable. Everything is fundamentally the same subject, anyway.
The place this all originated is from long, long discussions with some of my closer friends. It only happens in a one on one situation, but there comes a stage after varying lenghts of time that you reaslise that you are talking about the same thing you were talking about before.
What I mean is; an hour and a half ago, you were discussing Palestine, then you talked about Northern Ireland, and now you are talking about whether or not you should be insulted by some passing comment someone made earlier in the pub.
Then you realise its all the same bullshit, and your asking questions like, "why does someone claim their opinion to be infallible above another's?"
It's all bullshit.
My friend was telling me that the biggest number is "quasiplex", which is a "1" with 100 zeros after it. (this is what his teacher told him). He said, what about a "1" with 101 zeros after it. Well, what about a "1" with quasiplex zeros after it?
Basically every theory, and what not, always has some flaw, some fundamental, unanswerable question which will either debunk the theory, or result in speculation and matters of opinion.
Except, of course, this theory because any criticism or questions can easily be incorperated into the reams of meaningless bullshit in my head. It all adheres to the circle.
The meaning of life is to live. Or exist, or run or walk, just to be (or not to be). The circle, is not a meaning, more of an answer, or explanation, or excuse. But it's true. Irrefutable.
Doublethink:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfullness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was neccessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to itself. That was the ultimate sublety: consciuosly to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
Having started to read "1984", I have noticed many similarities between the concept of "doublethink" and the reasoning necessary to understand, or wrap your head around this perception. I have transcribed a few paragraphs from the book to show this. Please don't discuss the book in any detail, as I'm not quite finished it yet. After fifty pages, I had already decided it was fantastic.
Many, or any comments, criticisms, diatribes, or general discussion would be much appreciated.
I find that when one is discussing various things, such as "the meaning of life" and "where did the stars come from" and "what colour was god's hair", there comes a point after many hours of rigorous debate and discussion and much argument where you have are back at the beginning. You end up contradicting one of the core beliefs which you stated (indirectly or otherwise) to be true.
Nothing can ever be proven, the reason for this, my dear friends, is we do not possess the language or the neccessary comprehension to decipher some things.
That last statement is also true of this theory, therefore I am going to post it as it is and add to it, together with the debate of my comrades.
But saying that "nothing can ever be proven", well, that's just a case of absolutism, isn't it? Absolutely can or absolutely cannot. As opposed to relativsm, which holds that truths are subject to varying conditions,, what corresponds in one case may be entirely bollocks in another... - Suffianr
This is where the contradiction part comes in. It's like if you make the statement, "all generalisations are bad", that in itself is a generalisation.
"Nothing can be ever proven "
This is exactly because of relativism.
How can it be shown that what Hitler did was wrong? He was alive for thirty years, he made desicions, drank coffee, had breakfast, etc., etc. and he arrived at certain conclusions. Why does someone have the right to decide that that, and the result of his meditations is wrong. Why base your judgement from your own perspective? The answer is because we have no choice. Objectivity is impossible.
"We do not see the world how it is, we see it how we are."
Despite all this, I would still never say that Hitler was right. He was a madman. But when it all comes down to it....who the hell am I? Who is anyone to decide anything, all we can do is get up everyday and do what we do.
You have to take your brain out of your body.
That's why the circle is the perfect representation. It is infinite, and also representitive of the number zero. The number zero is the most powerful number. If you divide any number by zero, you get infinity, and no number can be divided into zero. I am captain zero.
Every debate, every conversation, every discussion, argument, every dialogue, is meaningless. They just go around in circles. You think and consider and reason, and then you realise you are in a different place then you started.
You will always find yourself asking the same fundamental questions which cannot be answered. Questions which are based on opinion, questions which are simply beyond the realm of human comprehension. How can one possibly attempt to understand life before there was an earth, for example? To understand that is to be insane. That is why people such as Einstein, Lee Perry and myself are slightly eccentric (varying degrees of slight).
If the debate stayed on the same topic forever, the people would be very, very boring. But the same topics would keep coming up.
Like if you talk about the existence of god, you always must ask the question, "what was before god/the big bang?" The thing is, "before" holds no relevance to humanity. Who gives a shit what happened "before"? It doesn't matter.
The circle is unbreakable. Everything is fundamentally the same subject, anyway.
The place this all originated is from long, long discussions with some of my closer friends. It only happens in a one on one situation, but there comes a stage after varying lenghts of time that you reaslise that you are talking about the same thing you were talking about before.
What I mean is; an hour and a half ago, you were discussing Palestine, then you talked about Northern Ireland, and now you are talking about whether or not you should be insulted by some passing comment someone made earlier in the pub.
Then you realise its all the same bullshit, and your asking questions like, "why does someone claim their opinion to be infallible above another's?"
It's all bullshit.
My friend was telling me that the biggest number is "quasiplex", which is a "1" with 100 zeros after it. (this is what his teacher told him). He said, what about a "1" with 101 zeros after it. Well, what about a "1" with quasiplex zeros after it?
Basically every theory, and what not, always has some flaw, some fundamental, unanswerable question which will either debunk the theory, or result in speculation and matters of opinion.
Except, of course, this theory because any criticism or questions can easily be incorperated into the reams of meaningless bullshit in my head. It all adheres to the circle.
The meaning of life is to live. Or exist, or run or walk, just to be (or not to be). The circle, is not a meaning, more of an answer, or explanation, or excuse. But it's true. Irrefutable.
Doublethink:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfullness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was neccessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to itself. That was the ultimate sublety: consciuosly to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."