In an attempt to justify myself as a person and finding more meaning than identity in any number of intoxicating substances (!), I have decided to apply myself to philosophy and to expound upon it to the extent my intelligence and imagination allows. To this end, I hope to post regular items which I intend will be the produce of my regular contemplation and experience of life, noting that ‘experience of life’ is common to us all. (thankfully)
It often occurs to me that I have a sense of well-being and happiness. Not so much now, as I apparently suffer from various definable medical conditions, described, noted and explained by learned medical men.
But. when I see neatly parked cars in a sunny street sitting quietly and attentively in a suburban street, I am given to tranquil reassuring thoughts. I would suggest here that my senses, that I rely on for the closest thing to certainty in this life are deceiving me. This is completely rational.
If I observe lots of old parked cars, sitting quietly, intact, on a suburban street, I would instinctively conclude that road accidents, where cars (and people) are damaged and misshapen do not happen, or if I reject this as logically impossible, then at least unlikely to happen.
If, however, I look down a busy city road in central Athens, with dented vehicles and swerving, weaving traffic, I am more than likely to conclude that accidents are an ordinary part of everyday driving experience.
In one scenario, I am left with a feeling of calm and well-being, where I would rationally undertake to drive as a result as a conclusion and the other where, if I were to consider learning to drive, I would have to go against my better instinct and judgement.
More to follow…..
So, we can conclude form this that I am both relying on my senses to make a decision. I am somehow giving my senses the credit of being objective whilst at the same time reaching the wrong or inaccurate result because of this reliance. I have been deceived. What do I do in a situation like this?
Can I extrapolate that just because in one example my senses are misleading me, that in other examples this is also the case. The question I would ask, is what do we really know? If I wanted to find out how likely a motor accident would be, and by extension, how likely I would be to crash, then I would have to do a thorough survey of all driving conditions or look logically at a set of statistics. The thorough visual survey is unrealistic and relies on my own consistency as a driver. A statistician could tell me – you have a one in a hundred chance of being involved in an accident but this seems at best unsatisfactory. In short, we can know very little accurately about the world based on our senses. Some people say we can only ‘know’ for the time of the sensation until a contradictory sensation comes along…..
When I get on the train, and assuming I have eaten and slept well and I am not suffering from any malady such as a sore head or upset stomach, I board the train and quite naturally start thinking about my destination. Most often, I imagine it in glowing terms with the prospect of exciting outcomes, new vistas and vital conversations with friendly strangers who lead me to interesting discoveries! – special for me, on that day. In fact, I am deluded.
Speaking factually, it cannot be the case that every destination holds this special potential and I can only conclude that I am projecting an image or form of an idea I have of my destination for the best possible outcome. This means I am deceived by my senses to the extent that I center my feelings of optimism and positivity in the direction of my self, where I am going that day will be the special place, the place of intrigue, truth and discovery. Looked at from another perspective, it is ‘just another day’ for the vast majority of the inhabitants.
I would conclude in short terms that our morality must be based on the self or projected from the self.
When people look to their surroundings and they are objectively bad or sub standard, most assume that this is actually the norm. It is up to the minority to insist on objective beauty and high standards in all walks of life in order to prevent things from moving towards what is regarded as the norm, then accepted, then ignored.
So, I was thinking. Battering my walking pole down on the ground, time after time. The ground is hard. It provides a shield, the appearance of a solid mass. From what I know, the earth´s core is molten, liquid; so it is in fact a shield to what is beneath. It is only a barrier, I reasoned, to the extent that we are unable to permeate it. If my aim is to perfect the tools that allow me to shatter the layer beneath my feet, then perhaps I will be successful. We have always been gouging at the ground, ploughing, more recently mining.
But what it amounts to I reflected, is really the distance between things. The space between gas molecules in the air is such that I can progress through without the appearance of any resistance whatsoever. So if this were applied to solids, and we could find a way of seperating out the particles. This would be the solution to movement…I suppose heat is the way this is done most elementally.
Perhaps, in complete space, we could move freely at speeds approaching the magical, unobtainable speed of light.
Anyway, it all seems to be about how far apart things are. In terms of energy. Perhaps we are working, using energy to draw things together or to move them apart. This is the great part of our work on the planet,
The triangle shaped diagram is my conception of the political structure of society, as close as I can get to what actually goes on. One important feature is the absolute weight of the intractable sovereign threat at the top. Absolute freedom is exercised in the gaps between parties under the guises of ‘privacy’ and ‘the market economy’.