Entries in Deeper Well (9)


I Didn't Realize How Disenfranchised Women Felt Until Wonder Woman Came Out

I feel compelled to start this off with admiration for the movie so that I may avoid some of the slings and arrows--read as misogynist declarations--but let's be honest, no matter what I type with a title like that, people will come into this with whatever they want regardless of the content. That said, the title really sums it up for me. The biggest regret I have however is the fact that I couldn't muster the enthusiasm to put this out sooner. Probably could be said for any number of ideas that I've let fall by the wayside but let's deal with that bridge yada yada crossing it yada yada.

Wonder Woman smashed records. Critics lauded it as a refreshing change in this age of super hero movies. Some people calling it revolutionary and others taking it further saying it was a greater than any super hero film of the last few years. Or so I wanted to exploit but as of my research currently, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that those sentiments have since largely been drowned out by reason. I suppose I did just end up sitting on this for entirely too long but at this point I'd still much rather get the thoughts out and into the ether than to just abandon even more content. So, as I was going to lean into, I watch super hero movies. Wonder Woman wasn't a bad film. It wasn't perfect though. No super hero movie is. But before I dive further, let me exclaim, the goal of this isn't to tear it down. Plain and simple, I'm just going over the effects I've come to witness after the inception of the first female super hero to grace the silver screen. At least in terms of proper super hero as opposed to your Alice's (Resident evil), Ultraviolet's, ...scratch it let me just say as opposed to the characters Milla Jovovich or Charlize Theoron have taken up. I'm oversimplifying for comedy sake so bear with me. The point is, super powered women aren't a new concept. Not even on the silver screen.

But what makes Wonder Woman stand out? Outside of the fact the Warner Brothers/DC have been putting out less than stellar showings in terms of live actions adaptations to their comic book properties or the fact that Wonder Woman is the first top tier female super hero from a comic book to have a solo movie? (Elecktra and Catwoman are negligible for numerous reasons) Simple. This movie made bank. Rightfully so, it was a good movie. But was it a great movie? Was it unique and different? Honestly, no. If it wasn't Wonder Woman and was just some other dude with super powers would it have done as well? Of course not. But that's the litmus test. Let's not kid ourselves into believing otherwise. So if something so dependent on a thing as the sex of the lead made such waves, yada yada, we're back at the title of this piece.

The movie had a simple story. The ending [SPOILERS] amounted to an old fashioned big bad fight with the main character all of a sudden unlocking some hidden power unbeknownst to them to go OP and save the day. [/END SPOILERS] Where's the innovation? Where's the revolutionary? What kind of world do we live in where the dialogue seems to gloss over something so blatant? This current era of "political correctness" apparently. I use quotations because it's a joke. So much of this political climate as of now is a joke. Not the ha ha variety I assure you though. Just, the kind that makes one really see what it really means to have privilege in this day and age, or on the flip side, what it truly means to be less than.

The loudest outcries of hate, so long as they fit the agenda are gaslit while rationale is snuffed out. Am I denying the dark things that transpire in this world? Hell no. But it is laughable to see so many giving praise for such minute victories. U.S. citizens talking about taking down the patriarchy in this county as if such a thing exists here. But that just brings up the question of "why" more than anything else. The numbers don't lie. People went out in droves to see Wonder Woman. It was lauded as masterpiece by many even though it's plot and conclusion were about as straightforward as it gets. So why? Why do the most privileged people feel so disenfranchised? Why is the narrative so focused on women being treated poorly when the truth is that everyone is treated like trash? That's what I find myself trying to figure out. That's what I find is the real question in this whole mess of a year, decade, lifetime. Why, after all this time, are people still so egotistical?

Do I fall into that? Sure, of course. I'm promoting my ideals above others so I'm just as guilty. What incentive is there to listen then, right? None. There never was one and never will be one. This blog is not for that purpose. This place is for the curious. For them I say welcome. For those who enjoy puzzles and noticing subtleties. Again, welcome. But I digress. I've done some traveling; lived in other countries for some time and would like to say I've garnered at least a bit of a broader view of what this world has to offer. It's honestly with that knowledge that I find myself here trying to push out this piece. I love my country. I've fought for my country. I've sacrificed for my country. But America, Mr. Uncle Sam even, why do you your loudest outcriers feel so downtrodden? Why are so many women blanketed by feelings of weakness and oppression in this country? Why are so many men virtue signaling because of it? This really would've had much more of an impact prior to the #metoo movement but again, lethargy got the best of me. Either way, Are we just weaker? Are we as a nation just that frail? Disjointed even? Was the last time we all came together the last terror attack? The last World War? And if it were does that mean it takes something like that to get the people to snap out of this boo hoo me mindset and into the lift your fellow human beings up mentality? For the love of all that's good and holy doesn't anyone else out here see how Watchmen-esque things are starting to skew? Is it really going to take a Dr. Manhattan/Alien invasion for us all to get on the same page and stop blaming this or that? Do human being really need an adversary just to realize everyone's the same? Hasn't the same science that leaders pervert to make weapons already established that unifier long ago?

Atoms for anyone who's not quite with the rest of us yet. Just this whole world baffles me at times with how simple things appear to become so complicated. Tower of Babel really does seem to lean credence with all the lunacy of this era. All so connected but so short-sided all the same. Why are so few willing to expand beyond these immaturities that limit the development of the species? I may never know, but I suppose it's better for me. Keeps me stocked with plenty to write about. Anyway, thanks for reading. Hard to type that without laughing to myself. Till next we meet again.

Comment and be heard.


The Real Cause of the World's Collapse

It's a pretty bold statement I know but just hear me out for a bit before complete dismissal. Call it hyperbole if you like but it has never been more apparent to me than right at this moment in history. All this talk of external circumstances causing the destruction of mankind when in fact the greatest threat is ourselves. And no I don't mean in the sense of countries going to war with one another due to poorly worded tweets. The divide is so apparent it's suffocating. All these groups are gathering but seem to be missing the point. Don't get me wrong, it is very much an "us" versus "them" scenario. But it's not POC, LGBT+, national origin, gender spectrum, vegan, atheist, etc. versus "adversary x" more than the concept divide. We're all fighting the same war but the outspoken cries of the most self-centered have and continue to drown out and obscure not only what's at stake but what really deserves our energy and consideration.

The age gap at some point became so common that people stopped considering it the threat that it truly is. Technology armed it and now decisions are being made that will not only affect but END generations. Unfortunately after the baby boomer and millennial came the victim generation. Everyone's special and unique and different and diverse and a victim but isolation and that fine sprinkle of impatience have created those that purposefully blind and deafen themselves to anything beyond their 25m targets. Everyone is so scared of their personal bubble being popped that they don't realize it has long since stopped being empathy they're feeling. The longing for unity which should've brought us all together has turned on us. Now with the very technology that made the universe smaller new segregations have developed. New factions. New platforms to stand upon and new weapons for which to wield.

Humans have come to the point of development where archaic institutions can no longer represent the the masses. The old ways aren't reasonable anymore but the ones making their living off that power would never relinquish such. That'd be ludicrous. It's the very foundation of ideals that's the problem. The system's broken and too many don't get that. Elders were respected because they were considered the wisest. They had power because they had more experience than those their junior but in an age of information when everyone has access to the full range of the world's knowledge we can't possibly be held to standards so outdated. But then we are. We're held, shackled into beliefs and understandings that no longer apply. We're held by laws and restricted by ways of old and placated by battles for trinkets. Women's rights? Trans rights? Representation for POC? All of that is a pittance to what's really at stake. The next stage of human development. The evolution of thought. The future lies in the hands of the generation to end generations. The transcendent generation.

At this point I'm sure it sounds plain crazy but we've yet to turn the corner. I'll ground this a bit first, so bear with me. The concepts I'm discussing here have more to do with the developed world of course. But "more" isn't to be used synonymously with "only." The wars for human rights are still happening just as they were centuries ago when the first continents fought each other for freedoms for their people. Differences in culture, religion, physical appearance, and the list goes on, still reside as reason for conflict. It's a sad truth but one that pales into comparison at the consent the masses give for stunting the future. Adversity breeds character. Turmoil breeds strength. But the future doesn't require the same as it had as such merely enforces the stagnation. The barrier is right before us. The key to go further is the birth of the next generation. The one which breaks through the limitation of assimilating knowledge and the time required for it to become experience. An aberrant is what is necessary. Everything else is mere distraction. No one will be able to move forward until the individual surpasses the system. All the tools necessary are already available. All that awaits, to take the first step.

This World needs to collapse. All these manmade constructs serve no other purpose than to impose a reality of limitation which will only continue to stunt and poison any chance for evolution. For freedom. The adepts will shepherd the new world. We just need to stop getting in the way.


Throwback Thursday #5: Old Philosophy


Source via Xanga:  Xsuit

Sunday, October 26, 2003

Morribb Tyler Lehrer is the name of a beggar…the endless streams of philosophy mean nothing to the uninformed idealists. “What is the point of saying something senseless to someone who would try and make sense of it?” The meaning of life is meaningless, an endless inquiry that revolves around unimportant details. “What’s the point of knowing your reason for life if you don’t even know your reason for death?” Time doesn’t in actuality exist…one moment to another is just that as point a to point b are just paths of dreamers looking to have control over that which cannot be controlled. “Are you the shepherd or are you the shepherded?” Endless streams of philosophy will continue to exist as long as ignorance runs rampant. “Are you happy because you don’t know sadness or because you do?” The influences of the world only exist because we are led to believe we are weak. “If you are strong why don’t you succeed?” When common fundamentals are excused you are left with extremes. Common sense does not exist because nothing is common. Rationality is a reaction to fear while innovation is a reaction to the lack of. “Are names used?” The five senses combine to make the sixth sense. Good and evil don’t feed off of each other because they both don’t exist. There is no such thing as an end to chaos as there is no such thing as an end to peace. The balance of right and wrong is nonexistent, but only a fabrication of the same who choose to ignore their own ability to fail. Love and pain aren’t related but are flaws of living creatures. The same flaws that allow life to continue, through death life persists. “But if life begets death and death begets life then which isn’t real?” Words are as powerful as the user of them. The sixth sense is very sharp and hard to manipulate, but only to those who are confused by simple questions. All questions are simple because they are merely answers to fears. If you look hard enough you will find that there is nothing to see, but if you choose to be enlightened you’ll realize a single path does exist and stand above any other. Humans are batteries in what is supposedly taught to be life, expiration dates and all. The strong give up because they are aware of their ignorance but the weak give up because they are unaware of theirs.

5:51 PM - 8 views - 32 eprops - 23 comments - email it


Throwback Thursdays #2: Tell One

Source via Facebook Notes
by Morribb Tyler Lehrer on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 11:39pm

Tell me something. Would you love if you knew that it would only end sooner or later in heartbreak? Would you care for the solitude less if you knew that for a instance, no matter how brief, it would be absolved? The world in bleak colors doesn't seem to do anyone any real justice. Sadness, depression, grief. They seem like such cold words no? So tell me something. Is there a better way...


First of the Four


Yeah, sometimes I like to make up words. (i.e. shugina, ...fek can't think of any others, just read previous posts and I'm sure you'll find some) Psychology and philosophy are the components of this concoction in case you were curious. While it incorporates the two though I would like to make it clear that it isn't a new idea but perhaps that by branding it under my terms I'll be able to further usher in this new era of innovation First Order stands for. Too much?

So what is the term all about and what does it cost me? Honestly the closest I could relate to it would be under the views of "first philosophy" as described by the philosopher Al-Kindi. Yes, it's a link because quite frankly I don't expect too many to search for him if it involves manually entering his name into a search engine and sifting through reputable sources for a snippet of something that'll probably be easily acertained through the convenience of context clues. Can you tell how far this post will be off the rails yet?

So, the study of wisdom isn't terribly new. One might very well classify it as philosophy itself. Though the term comes from the literal amalgam of "love" and "wisdom" as opposed to study--read orign of word. What mighty effect might such simple conventional connotations have upon the deliverance of such an epiphany you may inquire? (Alright, by this point I'm about ready to put a bullet in my head for having such unreasonable diarrhea of the keyboard)

Wisdom is more than knowledge. Wisdom can be seen as a sharp blade, perhaps even a katana. Honed for and immense amount of time, perfected, reformed, and eventually through unmistakably harsh labors, brought to fruition. Knowledge and experience, a sum that can and tends to far eclipse its parts. So then what of the study of it? Pscholosphy by definition then has to surpass the conventional compound and produce something far superior. Psycholosphy is the next step. Nothing as perverse as a synthetic wisdom but by all definitions a term that very well encompasses it.

Deconstruction of situation into the psychological elements at work then having their philosophical expression/progressions explored to an end that can produce an effect not dissimilar to clairvoyance. See, not simply the study of wisdom but its implications, deviations, derivatives, etc.. A way of thinking that can produce innovation--read innovators.

Active wisdom.


Hearing:  That Power by Childish Gambino


Nothing Seems To Kill Me

War." ...WAR! What is it good for? Aboslutely..." if you say nothing I'll pop you one. That's the general thought that comes to mind when I hear that ever popular phrase being uttered. There are so many people in my country that are so quick to fall in to the craze of war being EVIL and how we should all just give PEACE a chance. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for peace and I've heard all the rationale in the world including but not limited to the big one about life without it would make peace so much less...meaningful.

The next you hear that song being sung or the strings of anti war being pulled on the basis that such scrimmages don't accomplish anything, I'd like to implore you to think about the Civil War, American Revolution, the World Wars, and any other wars that have been fought to preserve the rights of the oppressed. There is more to the world than many would like to ever admit. There is meaning in spades in what ever may occur in our history. Try to remember that is all I ask.


Listening to:  I Hate Christmas in LA by Ethan Newberry


Old Farts

Hate. Hate is a strong word. That statement however is based on perspective. Some people have professed the insignificance of words as they can only be given power by one's willingness to let them affect their person. But with that rationale, isn't the only way to alleviate such an issue be by calling for mankind to reach the next plateau of consciousness? To reach an emotional level of development that would allow all to shake the connotations, associations, and simply sheer baggage of grammar. The fabled ideal world where logic reigns supreme regardless of the sacrifices of individuality. For some 'strange' reason I don't see that happening any time soon.

The focus is North America, specifically The U.S. of A. Back as a teen, the desire to strike out and be unique was laughable. Laughable because everyone essentially wanted to be uniquely one thing of a set number of things. The formation of cliques developed from that. Those that wanted to be the smartest, the best at sports, the best artist, and even those who wanted to be uniquely, 'unique.' The push for acceptance while rebuking anyone who couldn't 'deal' was enormous. But 'then' and 'now' are eons apart. After the events of 9/11 a new age of censorship began in the U.S.. Whether it was by the government or just self-imposed out of fear, things had started changing. Hate began to take on a new form. One, more deceptive than ever before. Not for terrorism, or some faceless evil, but for free thought.

A war has been brewing against free thought for a long time. It's nothing new. When two people with differing beliefs meet, they tend to collide at some point or other. The collision is actually the good thing. Grabbing ankle only leads to deep seated anger towards the object of one's discontent. The collision can birth something new, something better, a sense of true acceptance as opposed to the tolerance that's being pushed forward. So where does this new breed of hate come in? The fight for speech. Rights are one thing. But the attacks on people's feelings is something else entirely.

People being held accountable for their remarks isn't anything new. Condemning people in hopes for that ideal utopian global community which accommodates every individual's ideals, beliefs, cultures, and even opinions is ridiculous. For one, short of a purely logical emotionally stagnated world, it's not feasibly possible. And, for two, that world already existed. It was called the internet. HOWEVER, bringing real world jurisdictions and 'law' into it have perverted it into a shell of the potential it once was. One of the few refugees for one to really express themselves has been slowly decaying into a corporate gloryhole. So where can one be themselves without sinking into the luxurious existence of a recluse?

I know a black man. I specifically state him as a 'black' man because he does not identify with the term 'African-American.' He holds no animosity towards it but from his perspective he doesn't understand how it applies to him. He is a natural born citizen of the U.S.A. birthed from parents also born and raised in the U.S.. Now after years of association with that man I've come to comprehend quite a bit about the nature of individuality. But were I to voice such understandings in an open forum I would find myself open to attack on the basis of being politically incorrect. Just as this post is open to the same attacks the level of security granted by anonymity makes continuing possible. Needless to say, life has changed.

Life is generally defined as being alive, living, not dead. But what kind of existence can one have when they pass through mute, weary of the newest growing obsession of being 'politically correct' in a world where people of differing ethnicities will show pride or aggression toward a word? Where people of differing sexualities can emote rage or even use casually, terms that generally refer negatively to those of their sexual preference? The uprising of people who share a common desire to be treated fairly is a righteous happening but, where is the line?

When the 'enlightened' jump on the bandwagon and start verbally assaulting anyone with a conflicting viewpoint, how can such a just cause not turn to the very thing it was started for? Therein lies a future. Obsessions with accommodation instead of acceptance. Tolerance instead of true resolution. Perhaps my generation has finally just gotten to the point where we start becoming our parents/grandparents, using terminology commonplace to an era that we're the only ones still living in.

Sh*t, never saw it coming.


Listening to:  Why Can't We Be Friends


Seeing Double Standing

The world we live in today is a very different world than the one we as humans existed in twenty and even ten years ago. Some things have changed for the better and through certain perspectives, some, yet for the worse. The shocking truth being that there are many different worlds in our world and unfortunately such a concept is hard to comprehend unless one were to leave their "safe places" and move to broaden if not enlighten themselves.

As an American citizen I've found through my life that discrimination is as rampant as it could ever be. Have I seen as violent amounts of racial discrimination as could be seen as early as fifteen years ago? No. Though have I seen emotional turmoil that could rival such experiences? Of course! I went to high school after all. Needless to say, though the times have changed, the only thing that's really changed with the "game", are the players. The game of course being the musical chairs-esque game of charades where we try to find "common" ground by forcing someone to "sit out" while an ideal "picture" is formed by the removal of certain "players". Players of course that represent certain ideals and beliefs. All in effort to gather that next clue towards a perceived perfect world that for all intents and purposes is as far from attainable as it has ever been.

Is it an extreme prediction stating that the world could end for global peace is acquired? Of course! Although would such an accusation be so far from the minds of the people if it were made with the alteration of the time of such an apocalypse? That is to say, would it be so hard to imagine an Armageddon that would take place after global "peace" is achieved? Perhaps not, but such just as all else is subjective. Perspectives exist on so many different levels and can change in so many different ways. Really, any particular outcome could be practical.

Speaking of practical or even just logical. We move into the state of the current world. As an American I'm aware of many of the liberties and freedoms I have. But that isn't to say I wear my coke-bottled colored lens with pride shunning the turning of my head. I'm willing to become aware of the other worlds that co-exist with mine. But I'm far from willing to dictate that a whole world - read culture- is inferior or just plan wrong in comparison to my own. In fact, as news spreads of some of the cultural differences spread through the internet, such influxes in knowledge usually only make me more aware of how much I can be thankful for. There are a lot of terrible things that happen outside my world but it is far from accurate to declare that such atrocities never take place within my own or to do worse and accuse another world for sparking such extravagant exercises in perceived depravity. And there in I believe lies an issue that could very well led to the end of this world of worlds.

The world can end in so many ways. The most troubling to many would be through a global conflict. Now the nature of many struggles and wars through history have seemingly spawned from the desire to impose upon someone else the personal views of another. That being said, leaps in bound may have been made to promote equality amongst the different ethnicities but lobbying for cultural changes to be forced upon a nation can't be the next logical "right" step. Telling the world that we are "all one race. a human race" but then to in essence gang up upon a culture to tell them that they are wrong and then to go to such lengths as to pushing economic sanctions in effort to alter their culture in ways the one, as an outsider, sees fit seems to mark the next stage in development of discrimination. Which brings us to CEDAW. I realize that by mentioning the organization I've killed off a percentage of the few readers who've reached this point already. But this must be completed. And so it shall.

I've never thought of myself as a true sexist. In fact through my life I've never actually had much true experience with sexism. Out of the myriad of employment opportunities I've taken, I've never once found myself to make MORE money than any of my female co-workers. I've never found myself to be treated BETTER than any of my female co-workers. And I've never found to hold resentment towards a co-worker of the opposite sex for reasons outside of them having screwed me over (i.e. dumping extra work on me or not doing their required workload leading to everyone else having to pick up the slack). I would like to point out that there were many co-workers of the same sex who've done the same but just that for the sake of this particular section, the focus is on the differences I've observed between different sexes. All that aside, that brings me to the understanding that CEDAW has taken up the goal of proving that fictional female characters should have the same rights as non fictional females.  Now I am in no way purporting that discriminations or assaults against women aren't significant but merely voicing my fear of where such action will lead to. Censorship of entertainment media of course would be first. Comic books, cartoons, video games, The less perceived abundant forms. Then movies eventually since the audience is so enormous. And of course down to books and eventually the internet as a whole for all the content that fits into the broad charter of ending discrimination in all forms against women. All forms including fictional. Censorship of fiction to regulate fact.

It begins with the guise of censorship of fiction to regulate fact but then how does that affect us as individuals? Isn't this the same as the old proverb of speaking, seeing, or hearing evil. If you cover your ears, eyes, and mouth, then there's no evil? Does making "discrimination" against women inexcusable to all but the most savvy enthusiasts make the "discrimination" less rampant. Does it lead to such actions becoming infallible nonexistent? If history tells us anything with slavery, prohibition, book burning, illegalities of low-risk narcotics, and ect, such actions only tend to make such active endeavors more extravagant and desired. SO where are we going if not towards a point where censorship becomes so rampant that police states and rebellions start to knock. If statistics have shown us anything, it's that regions with the highest level of censorship tend to have the highest amounts of crimes of immoral nature. It should be of note that Japan is the target (read first) of this crusade for the rights of fictional women. So where does it end?

Endings. I used to believe in the stigma of double standards until just recently.  I'd even wrote about possibilities of such but now in retrospect I realize I was merely foolish. The obvious answer was of course the best. There is no double standard. It's about perspective. It's a cliche, women wondering why men who sleep around are considered "cool" while women who sleep around are considered "sluts". But who ever asks why women who sleep around are supposed to be considered okay and men who sleep around are supposed to be considered bad? As a man I don't believe a guy who sleeps around in a "G". I may jokingly make such a remark but I'd never look at a guy who did such a thing as awesome just as I don't consider a girl who sleeps around a slut. But I'd be damned if I were to state I believed her to be a saint. It's about perspective. Out of all the guys I know the general consensus has been a sense of wonder at why it matters at all. Whereas just about every girl I've known has seemingly focused on said semantics. And such is the way of things.

The only truth on the male perspective that I can gleam is that such titles are irrelevant unless they pertain specifically to the one pondering them.  Unless a man is being declared a "slut" there is little interest or concern with such a term. Of course there are the circumstances when a personal acquaintance, family or close friend is dealing with such a label and significance is found but that is to be expected since there does seem to be a correlation between appreciating friendships with friends that have similar or equal standing. It's always about perspective is what it comes down to.

Perspective is what separates us all. And it is the grouping of mass perspectives that can make such a plethora of worlds within one. So attack a collected perspective in the name of a righteousness that's only found consensus in your collective is quite a dangerous road. Be it the escalation or rather the evolution of discrimination, one thing is clear. Unity and subjugation have never been so synonymous.


Convos over Porn

So I posted up a pic (pornographic) on a shared space (online) for a friend of mine and here is the madness that ensued: (edited to help coherentness)

DERRICK ROSE wrote: all dat yellow makes me feel weird. Maybe I'm a Green Lantern

Mar. 26

MORRIBB TYLER LEHRER wrote: ...yeah… you don't have the qualifications to be a Green Lantern.

Mar. 26

DR: yeah, I’m not fictional

Mar. 27

MtL: Matter of perspective really.

Mar. 27

DR: oh fuck up with your tripped out head games shit. You’re real, I'm real, Obama's real, and so on and so forth. I ain't sum trick u can bamboozle bro! I wnet 2 collage!

Mar. 27

MtL: What determines what or who is real? If not actions. And what actions separate us from imagination and bring us to be factual beings? Just because you think you're real doesn't mean you are. There have been countless books/stories/pieces about characters who thought they were real. Example, the Matrix. Neo thought he was real. He thought his world was real. Turns out, things weren't as they appeared. His world was fabrication and so were the majority of his interactions. So the question is posed back to actions. If he never left the Matrix would he have been real? If he never experienced life; living and dying in that pod, would he truly have existed?

Now same question for you. Are you absolutely positive that you are real? That any of this is real? Not just based on faith but on concrete evidence? Can you prove your existence?

Mar. 27

DR: I'm not about to get into Nietzsche and Existentialism, and I’m aware of all the ‘I’M REAL’ fiction out there but honestly, yes, we're real. How do we prove it? ‘Cogito ergo sum’,. I think therefore I am. Fictional things can't think. They can only do. At least that's what I remember from PHY class.

Mar. 29

MtL: But cells don't think. Therefore then are cells real? If we are made up of cells then how can we be real? Our thought processes are mere artifact. Excess that is a product of the millions of cells that have converged upon one another to make a living system of living systems. Of course though how can they be living if what the systems are composed of don't think right? As you know as well as I do, cells just do.

Mar. 30

DR: I think Descartes was talking more about the consciousness. If you're doubting you exist that means something has to be thinking about not existing which means that thing exists. I believe that's what he meant.

I think you're arguing that our thoughts are only biologic responses. I remember an article "What is it like to be a bat" that argued that we know how a bat sees but we don't what it's like to see like a bat which means there's a consciousness that exists in a creature beyond that of pure biology. If that's the case then I think these people were discussing the mind is real. If you're talking about the body not being real because the parts that make up its sum only communicate through signals and do not possess an actual consciousness, then maybe it's possible that it serves as a "vehicle" for the consciousness in this level of "reality or not reality". IIRC I remember providing the example of the tv, cable box and cable signal. They work together to give you an image of something. If you sever the cable line no image, but if there's no image does that mean the cable signal doesn't exist? Something like that, my argument had some more substance but that was my main point. He gave me a B though. Asshole.

What? I’m off topic. There's a difference between existing and living. You said cells don't think which means a living system cannot be considered living. But science dictates that something living has to go about certain biologic processes and have the elements CHON in its composition. Something dead still exists even though it's not living. Cells don't think but even today scientists' don't know everything about the communication which causes them to do what they do. How do we not know there's not a consciousness that's influencing these things the same way the tv is not reliant on the signal?

tl;dr I don't know bro

Mar. 31

MtL: Thoughts ARE only biological responses. As far as tv's and cable signals versus the brain and body, that point is sorely moot since televisions don't think therefore they, by Descartes, don't exist. Now they do know how cells work. The brain system however, not so much. But single celled organisms have been quite well documented. Documented to the point where its been stated they work as would a computer. Each cell has a set of instructions and follow along a set of rules. You know this. So there is no thinking, just doing, as far as existing and living. Being what you've just stated then clearly there's a difference. So the assumption becomes living without existing or existing without living. By Descartes' words, the body does not exist. The mind however does. Since the bi-product of the conjoining systems is thought right? That being said the query of what thought or rather thinking is comes into question. If involuntary thought as a result of a biological response does occur then can it truly be considered thinking?

If not, then obviously, we don't exist. If so, then we still don't exist but merely our thoughts do. Like a river, thought exists, which means perception exists. So then back to the original question, how can anyone prove they exist? It is very possible that all of this is just a perception. A delusion even. That there is one mind that accounts for it all. Like as you said with the t.v. and signal. If there is no picture then does the signal not exist? Only in this case, if thought can’t perceive it than can it exist?

Apr. 1

DR: How can you determine that thoughts are only biological responses? If you have someone who is handicapped and can’t communicate due to brain trauma, how do you know there thoughts exist but have no way to be presented to the rest of us? Similar to the tv and the cable or a tree falling in the woods alone. Just cause I cut the cable and the tv isn’t showing an image doesn’t mean the signal isn’t transmitting. Consciousness can work in a similar manner possibly; at least this is what some people talk about when discussing dualism. The mind/body problem. Descartes lived in a time where science and microbiology weren’t as developed as they were now but as someone who debated that God existed I doubt he was under the assumption that thoughts = biology. Stating that thoughts=biology is affirming the notion that the tangible world is the only thing that exists hence no metaphysical world. It’s clear that he believed in higher forces and believed in abstract things like the soul.

They do not know everything about eukaryotic cells. Single celled organisms are prokaryotes and are not what compose things like animals, people, plants, etc. Another reason why consciousness is a problem.

For something to be a delusion, then there has to be something to be deluded. If this something is being deluded to think of all the things in this universe that means it’s existing outside of our concept of reality meaning its situation is different from ours. If determining what is “real” depends on said situation than that means one here cannot judge if this world is indeed “fake or real” since you can only see things from this side.

Apr. 1

MtL: Therein lies the river of consciousness. Every thought of ever thing that thinks flowing together, separated solely by tangibility. Then again there's the 'what' you spoke of in your last paragraph that I addressed briefly earlier. But I'll get to that later.

To say that the belief that thoughts are biological responses connotes denying a higher power is far from evident. In the past it was dictated that science and religion couldn't mix but the incongruities that continue to be found and formed only point to some amalgam of the two. A lot of the old arguments aren't valid anymore because so much has changed due to perceptions and translations and what we are told are facts. Truth be told there constantly is a flux of information being found that either disproves a level of science or proves a level of divinity. And because of this balance both (thoughts as biological and divine creations) can co-exist.

Granted. So, lets dive even further into the gene pool. What makes up cells? And do those things that make up cells think? Yes, I'm talking about atoms.

It's funny that you've come to the conclusion I've been at so entirely. I was never implying that WE were fictional/not real but rather that the possibility exists that YOU aren't real. That this could all be some delusion of mine. Or just some delusion of yours. Or something else entirely. Think for a minute about the prospect that there isn’t a tangible world. That we all exist as one in the metaphysical plane and that this is merely a recreation of that same plane given shape, sound, and color. Not to even impose on you some sort of "Big O-esc" experience with androids living out a program in a fake city apart of a fake country apart of a fake world. But just that these or rather those gaps in our own dimensional space identified through string theory are in essence, the river. Co-consciousness of millions that create all that happens and exists or will ever exist.

So yeah as I stated in "Old Philosophy" the meaning of life is meaningless. And it is such because there is no way a single mind could perceive it as it is the co-consciousness of the world that has spawned such meaning. Now as far as why I use a river as the medium is because I now ask you to think even bigger at the meaning of a co-consciousness amongst billions of existences. And what that "consciousness" could really be.

And just to make note as what you stated is true. One can't know if their world is fake or true since they can only grasp one side which is why it becomes a matter of perspective since there are just too many possibilities.

Apr. 2

DR: Thoughts = biology is popular notion amongst physicalism philosophy. Again from what I remember from philosophy classes these people believed that there was nothing beyond what is experienced in life. That the mind is a result of chemicals and signals.

Do atoms think? No I don't think so but who knows with all that quantum physics crap. Also if you're saying old/past arguments don't matter anymore, should the whole criteria of thinking means you're real even matter since Descartes said that?

I don't understand this co-consciousness. Are you saying there's a pool of conscious minds that think up the world as we know it?

Yes I think one of the biggest most acceptable answers to this whole question is that it's too big to answer and thus it does not matter, is impossible to answer, or something else.

Apr. 2

MtL: So wait are you just mentioning that to mention that or is their some relevance to something else?

Technically no. Everything matters. Even things that are disproven or left for dead matter in the grand scheme. But primarily it's all important because it leads to development/progress.

What I'm saying is what if that's what the Lord is. The collective consciousness of all existence existing in tandem with one another yet remaining separate? And that yes, it is the combining of that existence's experience that fabricates the physical plane. Just a thought.

Schweet. Then care to explore the previous section I just wrote?

Apr. 3

DR: You said "To say that the belief that thoughts are biological responses connotes denying a higher power is far from evident." and I'm saying that the popular belief amongst physicalism philosophers suggests otherwise. They believe that because everything is biological that means no God, no soul, etc. And have their own reasoning as to why. The article I mentioned before by Nagel. To be a bat was in response to a popular physicalism philosopher to go suggest consciousness goes higher than the pure biological. If you have some sort of reasoning to support what you said then fine.

It maybe important to you but it's a matter of perspective. The same thing you were chirping about earlier. There's a reason why philosophy isn't mandated like math and science. Most of society does not feel the same way about it as they do other topics because it doesn't help them with everyday life. To determine what's important in the grand scheme of things is also hard to pinpoint. We don't even know what the grand scheme is. Also In the grand scheme of what? The universe? Let us not be so bold to presume that our species' existence is vital to whatever. If we were all wiped out, life would continue to exist. And keep in mind this is something that's been and being debated by older, smarter guys then us and they still don't agree. Not to be a party pooper but I think it'll be quite hard for two dudes to come up with a final answer about what is real in comments box for a picture of a yellow bitch with her pussy out. In the end though I think to some it does not matter in the slightest.

It is quite possible that the Lord is some sort of collective consciousness of all the living things of the universe. It's a theory that's had some play in fiction though it’s usually referred to as a mass of souls but honestly I think it's a similar idea.


Wait which previous section I thought I touched on everything?

Apr. 3

MtL: Ah I see what you mean now. But as far as reasoning to support what I've been saying I don't think it's necessary since they're two sides of the coin and I don't think we need to go into a creationism vs. evolution type argument since I'd imagine I know where you stand.

You're looking at intelligence in terms of relativity to schooling/education but there's more to it than that. Occam's razor shows us that sometimes, knowing more only impedes the development of the truth. As far as things not mattering, is that just a throwaway sentence? I mean stating that fact doesn't really amount to anything in regard to this. Not that it isn't true but that it's true about anything and everything in all aspects of life that there will be someone or even masses of people that could care less.

The section about collective consciousness being the Lord. That being said what are your thoughts then on it since you've seen the idea, in essence, presented before?

Apr. 4

MtL: Oh and yeah maybe the great answers to the universe won't be answered here but at least this exists if nothing else but as proof that we're not just a bunch of sick perverts.

Apr. 4

DR: I understand where people who say it doesn't matter come from. They see the question itself as a sort of unanswerable question kinda like a paradox (but not really) they realize that whatever the answer is they will never be able to find it and/or if they do what will change about their life? So they forget about it.

It's a possibility. I've thought about it too. A mass of consciousness and all that. I mean there's not really much more I can say about that.

Dude, we could be curing cancer, saving puppies, and drinking tea with Jesus and we'd STILL be sick perverts

Apr. 6

MtL: You say you understand that perspective but then do you also BELIEVE it yourself?

Why is that all you "can" say about that? What's preventing you from diving further?

And I'm appalled by the accusation. But no seriously, I'm not trying to imply that the gravity in which this conversation has taken completely absolves us from perverse excursions. This development is far from some sort of pardon for crimes of the perverse nature, past or present. It more stands as a pivotal example of how sexual gratification isn't solely what makes up our psychological skill sets.

Apr. 8

DR: Depends on my mood. But just because we understand something doesn't mean we have to believe it (contrary to what **** is always saying).

Because there's nothing else I have to add. You presented the idea and I said oh yeah I've heard of that, kinda, and thought about that myself. The end.

Uh yeah I didn't need an online version of armchair philosophy to prove that busting a nut wasn't the only thing going on in my brain and if you were talking about yourself and/or people in general I didn't know there was an epidemic of nymphos and failed Sexaholic Anonymous members! Fucking CNN doesn't talk about anything but Obama!

Apr. 8

MtL: I think you have that backwards. As 'Fatass' seems to be of the school of reasoning that if you don't understand it, you don't have to believe it. i.e. homosexuality.

That's pretty anticlimactic.

It's not for you or me. But for the records. An account of the set of values and substance beyond mere perversion for the masses were this ever to be stumbled upon by the uninitiated.

Apr. 9

DR: ‘Fatass’ is stupid.

Whatever, it is what it is. Not everything has to be some big epic shit fest

Yeah ok keep telling yourself that. Last time I checked all of this was just for shits and giggles. If you wanna give it some depth, go ahead. I mean, why not, people write scholarly essays on the inner thinkings of Sesame street characters.

Apr. 16