birdman
11-12-2006, 10:46 PM
So i just wrote this for class ( its actually still in the rough phase, but what ever, anyway) and am rather pleased with it. So if anyone is interested in reading, one could read this.
Title:
The Man Standing in the Snow Looked Up at the Mountain that Dwarfed his Village
Daniel Brittain
11-12-2006
Opening quote:
The story, like eternity, will be present only as long as there are words
Text:
The man standing in the snow looked up at the mountain that dwarfed his village. The sun glinted off the snow, and if it were not for the layers and layers of cloth that he wore around his face, the reflected rays would have hurt his eyes. Watching, he saw the snow dance and flip off the peak, flying merrily off to God knows where. These festivities reminded him of the cold that his clothing was fought to keep away which caused him to hurry his task. Stooping, he picked up a bundle of frozen wood, and then went back inside.
In the entrance to his hut he placed the bundle down and began to de-robe. Beginning with his face he un-wrapped his scarves, followed by the removal of his hat, jacket, shirt, boots, socks and pants. It was imperative that he removed all his clothing for due to the harsh climate of the environment one could not survive outside without clothing, and one could not survive inside (comfortably) with. Survival demanded the extreme heating of the house for otherwise it would freeze and crack in two.
Picking up the bundle of wood the man walks to the fire and after placing the stack of frozen wood by the fire to thaw, returned to his seat at his desk. The man picks up his notes:
Thinking? At last I have discovered it-thought; this alone is inseparable from me. I am, I exist – That is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking. For it could be that were I totally to cease from thinking, I should totally cease to exist. I am , then in the strictest sense only a thing that thinks;…a thing that thinks. What is that? A that that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sensory perceptions (18-19).
The man hears a noise. His wife moves in their bed that resides in their living room. He puts down his notes, turns and looks at her. She yawns, stretches, and then gets of out bed. She walks over to the sin, fills a cup with water and drinks from it until it is empty. Walking over to her husband she leans down and kisses him. Good morning. Good morning. We need more candles. I used the last one last night writing. I made a tremendous breakthrough. I discovered existence.
Thought; this alone is inseparable from me. I am, I exist – That is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking. For it could be that were
I think I know where to get some candles. What? I know the perfect place to get some candles. But…don’t you want to hear my writing. The man’s wife raises her hand and inserts her finger into her ear. She squeaks it clean. Yes, I know the perfect place to get candles. Exerting more force her finger slowly slides deeper and deeper into her canal. First the finger, then the knuckle, then the whole fist. The man falls out of his chair. He is shocked. His wife continues her exertion and her arm slides deer into her head. Yes, I know the perfect place to get candles. He feels as if a demon has gripped his soul and is slowly trying to pull him down into hell.
He scrambles on his back across the floor to get as far away from his wife as possible. he bumps into his clothing. Standing up he struggles to put them on. He sees his wife’s hand emerge from her ear on the other side of her head. Her hand is in a fist clenching two candles. Unable to scream, the man tears his door open, runs across the street and begins pounding on his neighbor’s door. It opens and he runs inside. He pulls off his scarves. Before him is his neighbor, naked as always, though faceless and without penis. His neighbor speaks: Do not run. Your have nothing to fear. For I am you. The faceless neighbor walks over to the table and picks up a mirror. He hands the mirror to the man. The man takes it and looks at himself. This morning he had had green eyes. Now, he sees that he too is faceless. He wonders for a second if he is the same faceless man as his neighbor before gurgling in angry rage. Taking the mirror he breaks it over the others head. He falls. He jumps on top of him and begins beating him with his fists. He punches again and again, each time his fist appearing with more blood. The other no longer moves. Is he dead? No, he is no longer there. Was he ever there? The man sees the shards of the mirror on the floor. He sits down next to them. Picking up the biggest shard he brings it up to his neck and slowly draws it across his throat.
+++
In the past 200 years of philosophical thought time has been reconfigured and re-conceptualized. It is not of a temporal nature, i.e. it does not move in the sense that we normally assume the past moves into the present, and the future moves into the past. Time does not move and we find this view purported even in science, i.e. relativity, where we have to conclude that the past, the present, and the future all exist and co exist at once. So that that has occurred is still occurring, and that that will occur is already occurring, and that which is now, is equally occurring with the other two. Wittgenstein writes “if we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present” (Tractatus…, 87). In short, that that is in existence exists in the present and that present exists infinitely (the present can never not exist). What is it that Descartes writes? “I am, I exist – That is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking.” The thinking in Descartes writing gains an important amount of weight then when considered with this new conception of non-temporal infinite existence. Thinking becomes analogous to present for when there is thought there is existence. Descartes “I” then exists infinitely. When it ceases to exist, the world too ceases to exist, and it cannot be said that Descartes no longer exists in the world.
Descartes writes in description of God, “by the word ‘God’ I understand a substance that is infinite, <eternal, immutable,> independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else” (31). Reading this description, how many traits of God can be listed as traits of Descartes. God is infinite. The conclusion was just reached that Descartes is infinite. God is immutable. Descartes writes that the “mind is utterly indivisible”(59) and we know that Descartes is only his “I”. Immutable means not able to be changed. Indivisible means not able to be separated into parts. Though by definition different, the concept that the two words refer to is very much the same, an inability of something to be broken into something else. So what is left to consider is whether Descartes can be independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful and which created both myself and everything else. If these descriptions can be found to be applicable to Descartes then it is applicable to call Descartes God. If Descartes is God there is then a major ontological shift in that which composes the world.
On page 33 of the Meditations I think there is one of the most critical passages in the Mediations. It is on this page that Descartes overthrows the greatest objection to God; that he himself could be God. Due to this overthrowing of himself as god Descartes establishes separate God, which is the creator for all things: both Descartes and things outside of Descartes. A separate god allows for others outside of “I”. If God were to be Descartes then the existence of things outside of Descartes would no longer be outside of Descartes. He begins:
For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect, can be thought or imagined. Yet if I derive my existence from myself, then I should neither doubt nor want, nor lack anything at all; for I should have given myself all the perfections of which I have any idea, and thus I should myself be God…Since I am a thinking thing or a substance, it would have been far more difficult of me to emrege out of nothing than merely to acquire knowledge of the many things of which I am Ignorant…And if I had dervived my existence from myself, which is a greater achievement, I should certainly not have denied myself the knoweldge in question, which is something much easier to acquire, or indeed any of the attriubtes which I percieve to be contained in the idea of God (33).
Again, we are trying to discover whether or not Descartes can be independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful and if possible if he could create both himself and everything else. Descartes feels that due to impefection and personal lack that he cannot be God. Because Descartes only has ideals of perfection that are not of the level of Godly perfection then clearly he is lacking. To lack is to be imperfect and God cannot be imperfect for nothing is more than God. So God must exist outside of Descartes and bestow his mark on Descartes through creation. Descartes than is not independent for there is God and the other things that God creates. Descartes is not supremely intelligent and supremely powerful for he lacks. And since god is the first cause because he is the creator Descartes has no need to create himself. This view is very warm. There is God, Descartes (who is a thinking thing) and things outside of Descartes (other individuals who are thinking things, plants, trees, shruberies, rain, snow, puppies and kittens, etc).
However, Descartes also writes, “I now know that my own nature is very weak and limited, whereas the nature of God is immense, incomprehensible and infinite, I also know without more ado that he is capable of countless things whose causes are beyond my knowledge” (39). We being not God, cannot comprehend the actions of God. Let us review pg. 33 then with this new criteria of not understanding. What if God denied himself knowlede? For though he can state, “I should certainly not have denied myself the knoweldge in question,” (the creation of lack being the reason why Descartes cannot be god), there is no reason why God could not deny himself knowledge. Imagine if God created a village beside a mountain and in this village he placed himself as a man who was seeking answers for existence. Though we find no reason for why God should do such a thing, we can also find no reason why God would not do such a thing.
For a third time, the principles for Descartes to be God: independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful and if possible be able to create both himself and everything else. The first principle to look at is creation. Descartes does not deny his ability to create himself, pointing out not the impossibility of the act but only the difficulty of the act. So it is possible for Descartes to create himself. If Descartes can create himself, it is then possible for him to create all matter. Because all other matter could then be created by him, it never ceases to be a part of him. So Descartes is independent. There is nothing that is not Descartes. As for supremely intelligent and supremely powerful we find that too aplicable. Since lacking Descartes is Greater God then due to the supremely powerful and supremely intelligent traits of Greater God, lacking Descartes equally has them, though, is prevented from using them. So, Descartes could be God.
If Descartes is God then there is a very cold feeling to the universe. All that exists is only Descartes and that existence lasts only as long Descartes exists.
+++
Where am I? You have arived. Looking around I find that I am in a room with many faceless individuals. In the room there are many tables, though no windows, and at every table sit two naked faceless beings. You are in God. I am in God? Yes, and in God you eat god, drink god, play god, read god. Everything is God? It doesn’t seem to be that there are that many choices then? Choice is unimportant. You eat god, drink god, play god, read god. Would you like to play god? I am not sure how to play god? Playing God is very simple. You take the pieces of god and you place the pieces of god on the board. There is no order, no rule, you just do. Ok. That is playing god. I think I understand. Of course you do, for you are god.
Title:
The Man Standing in the Snow Looked Up at the Mountain that Dwarfed his Village
Daniel Brittain
11-12-2006
Opening quote:
The story, like eternity, will be present only as long as there are words
Text:
The man standing in the snow looked up at the mountain that dwarfed his village. The sun glinted off the snow, and if it were not for the layers and layers of cloth that he wore around his face, the reflected rays would have hurt his eyes. Watching, he saw the snow dance and flip off the peak, flying merrily off to God knows where. These festivities reminded him of the cold that his clothing was fought to keep away which caused him to hurry his task. Stooping, he picked up a bundle of frozen wood, and then went back inside.
In the entrance to his hut he placed the bundle down and began to de-robe. Beginning with his face he un-wrapped his scarves, followed by the removal of his hat, jacket, shirt, boots, socks and pants. It was imperative that he removed all his clothing for due to the harsh climate of the environment one could not survive outside without clothing, and one could not survive inside (comfortably) with. Survival demanded the extreme heating of the house for otherwise it would freeze and crack in two.
Picking up the bundle of wood the man walks to the fire and after placing the stack of frozen wood by the fire to thaw, returned to his seat at his desk. The man picks up his notes:
Thinking? At last I have discovered it-thought; this alone is inseparable from me. I am, I exist – That is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking. For it could be that were I totally to cease from thinking, I should totally cease to exist. I am , then in the strictest sense only a thing that thinks;…a thing that thinks. What is that? A that that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sensory perceptions (18-19).
The man hears a noise. His wife moves in their bed that resides in their living room. He puts down his notes, turns and looks at her. She yawns, stretches, and then gets of out bed. She walks over to the sin, fills a cup with water and drinks from it until it is empty. Walking over to her husband she leans down and kisses him. Good morning. Good morning. We need more candles. I used the last one last night writing. I made a tremendous breakthrough. I discovered existence.
Thought; this alone is inseparable from me. I am, I exist – That is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking. For it could be that were
I think I know where to get some candles. What? I know the perfect place to get some candles. But…don’t you want to hear my writing. The man’s wife raises her hand and inserts her finger into her ear. She squeaks it clean. Yes, I know the perfect place to get candles. Exerting more force her finger slowly slides deeper and deeper into her canal. First the finger, then the knuckle, then the whole fist. The man falls out of his chair. He is shocked. His wife continues her exertion and her arm slides deer into her head. Yes, I know the perfect place to get candles. He feels as if a demon has gripped his soul and is slowly trying to pull him down into hell.
He scrambles on his back across the floor to get as far away from his wife as possible. he bumps into his clothing. Standing up he struggles to put them on. He sees his wife’s hand emerge from her ear on the other side of her head. Her hand is in a fist clenching two candles. Unable to scream, the man tears his door open, runs across the street and begins pounding on his neighbor’s door. It opens and he runs inside. He pulls off his scarves. Before him is his neighbor, naked as always, though faceless and without penis. His neighbor speaks: Do not run. Your have nothing to fear. For I am you. The faceless neighbor walks over to the table and picks up a mirror. He hands the mirror to the man. The man takes it and looks at himself. This morning he had had green eyes. Now, he sees that he too is faceless. He wonders for a second if he is the same faceless man as his neighbor before gurgling in angry rage. Taking the mirror he breaks it over the others head. He falls. He jumps on top of him and begins beating him with his fists. He punches again and again, each time his fist appearing with more blood. The other no longer moves. Is he dead? No, he is no longer there. Was he ever there? The man sees the shards of the mirror on the floor. He sits down next to them. Picking up the biggest shard he brings it up to his neck and slowly draws it across his throat.
+++
In the past 200 years of philosophical thought time has been reconfigured and re-conceptualized. It is not of a temporal nature, i.e. it does not move in the sense that we normally assume the past moves into the present, and the future moves into the past. Time does not move and we find this view purported even in science, i.e. relativity, where we have to conclude that the past, the present, and the future all exist and co exist at once. So that that has occurred is still occurring, and that that will occur is already occurring, and that which is now, is equally occurring with the other two. Wittgenstein writes “if we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present” (Tractatus…, 87). In short, that that is in existence exists in the present and that present exists infinitely (the present can never not exist). What is it that Descartes writes? “I am, I exist – That is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking.” The thinking in Descartes writing gains an important amount of weight then when considered with this new conception of non-temporal infinite existence. Thinking becomes analogous to present for when there is thought there is existence. Descartes “I” then exists infinitely. When it ceases to exist, the world too ceases to exist, and it cannot be said that Descartes no longer exists in the world.
Descartes writes in description of God, “by the word ‘God’ I understand a substance that is infinite, <eternal, immutable,> independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else” (31). Reading this description, how many traits of God can be listed as traits of Descartes. God is infinite. The conclusion was just reached that Descartes is infinite. God is immutable. Descartes writes that the “mind is utterly indivisible”(59) and we know that Descartes is only his “I”. Immutable means not able to be changed. Indivisible means not able to be separated into parts. Though by definition different, the concept that the two words refer to is very much the same, an inability of something to be broken into something else. So what is left to consider is whether Descartes can be independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful and which created both myself and everything else. If these descriptions can be found to be applicable to Descartes then it is applicable to call Descartes God. If Descartes is God there is then a major ontological shift in that which composes the world.
On page 33 of the Meditations I think there is one of the most critical passages in the Mediations. It is on this page that Descartes overthrows the greatest objection to God; that he himself could be God. Due to this overthrowing of himself as god Descartes establishes separate God, which is the creator for all things: both Descartes and things outside of Descartes. A separate god allows for others outside of “I”. If God were to be Descartes then the existence of things outside of Descartes would no longer be outside of Descartes. He begins:
For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect, can be thought or imagined. Yet if I derive my existence from myself, then I should neither doubt nor want, nor lack anything at all; for I should have given myself all the perfections of which I have any idea, and thus I should myself be God…Since I am a thinking thing or a substance, it would have been far more difficult of me to emrege out of nothing than merely to acquire knowledge of the many things of which I am Ignorant…And if I had dervived my existence from myself, which is a greater achievement, I should certainly not have denied myself the knoweldge in question, which is something much easier to acquire, or indeed any of the attriubtes which I percieve to be contained in the idea of God (33).
Again, we are trying to discover whether or not Descartes can be independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful and if possible if he could create both himself and everything else. Descartes feels that due to impefection and personal lack that he cannot be God. Because Descartes only has ideals of perfection that are not of the level of Godly perfection then clearly he is lacking. To lack is to be imperfect and God cannot be imperfect for nothing is more than God. So God must exist outside of Descartes and bestow his mark on Descartes through creation. Descartes than is not independent for there is God and the other things that God creates. Descartes is not supremely intelligent and supremely powerful for he lacks. And since god is the first cause because he is the creator Descartes has no need to create himself. This view is very warm. There is God, Descartes (who is a thinking thing) and things outside of Descartes (other individuals who are thinking things, plants, trees, shruberies, rain, snow, puppies and kittens, etc).
However, Descartes also writes, “I now know that my own nature is very weak and limited, whereas the nature of God is immense, incomprehensible and infinite, I also know without more ado that he is capable of countless things whose causes are beyond my knowledge” (39). We being not God, cannot comprehend the actions of God. Let us review pg. 33 then with this new criteria of not understanding. What if God denied himself knowlede? For though he can state, “I should certainly not have denied myself the knoweldge in question,” (the creation of lack being the reason why Descartes cannot be god), there is no reason why God could not deny himself knowledge. Imagine if God created a village beside a mountain and in this village he placed himself as a man who was seeking answers for existence. Though we find no reason for why God should do such a thing, we can also find no reason why God would not do such a thing.
For a third time, the principles for Descartes to be God: independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful and if possible be able to create both himself and everything else. The first principle to look at is creation. Descartes does not deny his ability to create himself, pointing out not the impossibility of the act but only the difficulty of the act. So it is possible for Descartes to create himself. If Descartes can create himself, it is then possible for him to create all matter. Because all other matter could then be created by him, it never ceases to be a part of him. So Descartes is independent. There is nothing that is not Descartes. As for supremely intelligent and supremely powerful we find that too aplicable. Since lacking Descartes is Greater God then due to the supremely powerful and supremely intelligent traits of Greater God, lacking Descartes equally has them, though, is prevented from using them. So, Descartes could be God.
If Descartes is God then there is a very cold feeling to the universe. All that exists is only Descartes and that existence lasts only as long Descartes exists.
+++
Where am I? You have arived. Looking around I find that I am in a room with many faceless individuals. In the room there are many tables, though no windows, and at every table sit two naked faceless beings. You are in God. I am in God? Yes, and in God you eat god, drink god, play god, read god. Everything is God? It doesn’t seem to be that there are that many choices then? Choice is unimportant. You eat god, drink god, play god, read god. Would you like to play god? I am not sure how to play god? Playing God is very simple. You take the pieces of god and you place the pieces of god on the board. There is no order, no rule, you just do. Ok. That is playing god. I think I understand. Of course you do, for you are god.