Skip to content

The Multiplicity

In my psychology class of Human Potential we cover various topics on how the individual progresses, I cannot explain or tell anything that goes on in the class because we treat is as a confidential session where anyone can say whatever they want without the outside world knowing. But I can write about various topics from our book, which I will do here.

My professor was speaking about how we find our identity, how we initially start as me, “Me wants this or that,” kind of stuff, then as that individual progresses through various factors they gain the concept of myself, which I am finding difficulty finding an example, “All by myself,” and so on. It is when that individual refers to their self as I, “I can do this, or I am here.” This is when the I finds their self. The myself is when they start to realize their self as a different entity apart from the other selves. The me is when they find out they are something, and that something is me. Yeah yeah foggy.

Ok, where is my point? Now there is yet another stage that I believe is never mentioned. In this we only see the singularity event. The next development I would have to believe would be the multiplicity, which also has multiple steps. I had initially had one step but my professor brought up a possible step before mine. The first step is the joining of me, myself, and I, and realizing that all of these are the individual. The second step is even more dramatic, the true multiplicity. When the I realizes that they are no longer I, they are we. All around them are other I’s other Mes, other Myselves. And they realize that their actions, their thoughts, all things about them, it not only affects their I, but the We. All things I do indirectly or directly affects the We and the things the We does indirectly or directly affects I.

I see it in such a way of enlightenment of the individual. Such as the Unity of the Multiplicity exists in Hindu religions, it can also be applied to humanistic thought. True many will say, but don’t we already know this? And I must say no. I am not even sure if I know this, and I am typing this up right now. If you need reference to what I mean by this look elsewhere in my writings where I talk about objectivity.

Advertisements

Trying Isn’t So Bad After All.

I know everyone has heard the comment of, “I don’t want you to try, I want you to actually do it!” Now this comes from the idea that trying is only wanting to do something but never achieving it and some idiot thought they were clever by coming up with this oh so long ago.

That person is oh so wrong! Trying is a great thing because it consists of a working progress through a transitional phase from not knowing to knowing. Trying consists of doing while working to the greater goal, the end product of what they want is no where near as great as the things you will learn while making your way there. In this phase is where most all inner workings come out and we find ourselves great, we find where we need to work on and so forth.

I firmly believe the journey is always more important than actually getting to the end. So much can be learned through a journey. I will use a reference from a book, The Hobbit. In this story Bilbo Baggins our protagonist works his way from some little fury guy in a hole, to a hero he never knew he was inside. He initially started off to gain some treasures, but in the end those didn’t mean anything to him because the journey meant so much more. I will not go into anymore detail because I know some people have never read it and I feel that it is a great book.

Trying is just what I wrote in the above paragraph, the journey.

Why True Objectivity Eludes Us.

As I thought about it, I must conclude that true objectivity is impossible. It doesn’t even exist. True I can come up with objective results to certain things, but I will talk about that later down the line. Now, how is it that objectivity is impossible to achieve?

It is quite simple, yet this may look like chaos as I try to explain, but I am going to try.

As humans we are subjective creatures regardless of our brains preference of logic or ethics (Socionics reference). Any biological creature would have to follow under the same preference guide lines, at least to my understanding. Even if one human strives for complete objectivity, and hinders all forms of bias, they inherently will be using a bias of function within their own conscious mind. Now what does this mean? Your brain works in certain patterns as we know, we are conditioned via various encounters through out our lives and all this structures us to see things in a certain type of light. Now even with this so called complete objective look upon something, we are only as objective as our structured subjectivity will allow us to be.

Now as I mentioned before, it is quite possible to achieve the result of objectivity, but the process of doing so is within subjective ranges. My limited knowledge lets me find one example, I am sure there are others, but when a double blind experiment is performed it can and usually will produce objective results for the reasons I am sure anyone would know, but because I am writing this I may as well go into detail as of why this is so. During these type of experiments both the tester(s) and patient(s) neither know if they are performing a control or the actual experiment. So their subjectivity is completely take out of the equation here, at least where the results are concerned.

Even though true objectivity inevitably becomes unreachable for our minds, it does not mean we should not strive for it. For I find that even if it is unachievable, it is very valuable to find our inner truths, something I could probably talk about another time.

What Brings Life?

The following is not of anything special. I claim this not to be truth of any kind because I am only theorizing with my limited knowledge. I am sure some of the things I say could be disproved with evidence so do not take any of this as factual.

It is commonly seen that life has had struggled hard to exist, that it has had the entire universe trying to snuff it out of existence. On the other hand people think everything had to be in favor of life for it to have come into existence at all. They try to equate these facts as either meaning there is a creator or isn’t. But both are wrong. Oh so very wrong.

The thing is this; life exists because of what it is. It is nothing special in and of itself. It came from these elements that it was found in. In our random chance of chemicals it existed. It is not like it was thrown in it, it came from it. It was a disease, a parasite, a tumor. Ever growing. Ever taking over nonliving material. It was a scourge. Yet it was none of these because it came from this, it was always there, it always had the potential.

Scientists cannot recreate this event because it was random, the chances so low we probably do not have the numbers known to use. It just took a right combination of things to ionic-ly or nuclear-ly (or other types of chemical bonding) fuse together. Or any other means. When they bonded to the right things, they became like viruses. All it took was for it to happen once, then the repetition would start, it replicated, scourged the planet, the non-living robotic like material just took over everything because everything was like it.

It is very unlikely that this could have only happened once. Many scientists try to say viruses are not living. But there are some who believe they fit under life circumstances. Think of it, what if life on earth has started twice? But since we are here (our type of life), this new type, the one that tries to come about, these viruses whom have such a rudimentary form of biology, they are trying to exist like we once did but can’t thrive in such a way.

For what else could these viruses be? It is not logical to think that a non-living biotic thing would evolve enough to learn to survive. It has to be living no?

Which means all that life needs to start is a mixture of chemicals, a variety of them.

Venus is like a primordial soup like Earth once was but scientists figure it doesn’t have many active chemicals like Earth did (I think I saw this on the History Channel on an episode called The Universe, but I am not sure.) Life does not have to exist like ours. There is no reason to figure it must be like ours. Science fiction writers have known this for a long time, but they had no theoretical proof, no evidence. And because of the vast possibilities of life, there is very little chance that life of any other kind would have a chance to communicate with us or have the ability to live with us.

If we did colonize other worlds, they would have to be uninhabited with nothing on it, barren, ready to be terraformed. Like our world does viruses, other worlds with life would destroy us like a disease. There doesn’t even have to be inhabitants like ourselves, terraforming would not be possible at all if it has vegetation that is not like our own. If it is too different it will kill us, we could try to force it out of certain areas but the atmosphere would be too different. The grounds composition would be too different.

Life is not special, it exists because the non-living things existed that are made of the same exact stuff. So we never fought against anything. As a group we were inevitably going to survive, the individual did not matter in life, if something failed to survive it did not need to live, it would only replicate more failed forms that could not use the materials it was formed in.

Nothing was for us because nothing was against us.

It seems so obvious to me now but apparently it was a revolutionary idea in my head at the moment I thought it. Again I am probably wrong in my assessment, but here is an idea.

What is Wisdom?

[Well I had just typed this post up and when I clicked the “Publish” button the normal things happened and it just didn’t publish what I wrote and I lost everything. I will now try to recreate what I had previously thought]

I have come to the conclusion that the conventional views on wisdom are completely incorrect. Commonly the statement of, “with age comes wisdom,” is seen as truth. I could not disagree more with that.
The corrected version of that statement would be as follows, “with age comes experience.” I cannot stress enough the idea that wisdom is not synonymous with experience even though most people like to think such. I know many would argue with me and I have done a “define: wisdom” on Google myself and have come up with definitions relating to the common view that it is very much like experience, but I must disagree with this. Yet again another fallacy with language.
So what is wisdom? It is a couple things, that when deduced to its base holds simplicity. I will quote myself in a conversation with a friend. “Wisdom comes from asking questions and trying to answer them. In truth I have not met many wise men.” More importantly we must ask, “What are the questions?”
Now back to the origin of the wisdom idea. With age comes wisdom. This idea that is sought after here is little more than utilitarian intelligence. So we could either rewrite the statement as I had above or as such, “With age comes experience and utilitarian intelligence.”
I must admit some of the wisest people I have met were children. They ask the questions, they open our eyes to possibilities. This does not mean that all of them are wise, some or most care little to nothing about gaining the answers to life, they are settled with waiting for someone to tell them what they need, they do not actively seek it themselves. But there is a catch here. We loose our wisdom. We find we have all the answers so the questions becomes little more than nothing in our minds, we don’t ask them anymore. We begin our downward spiral to being very unwise. But in truth we have no answers at all and we never realize it.
I really dislike using fictional characters but my original thought on this found a decent example of wisdom. The wisest character I can think of would have to be Forrest Gump. With all prejudice left behind you will realize he is a very wise man. He claims to have no answers. Because of his limited intelligence he always has to have others to explain simple concepts to him and he is always open to learn. He is a wide eyed little kid viewing the world for the first time and does not really understand what he is seeing, but he badly wants to know. He sees no generalizations between people, he looks at them all as new with open eyes. Because of this he is always open to the possibility of gaining truth.
Yes I know not all disabled people of this state would be wise, just like children. But he is characteristically a wise person. But for those who open their eyes and find themselves in wonderland, they become Alice as they search for all the questions and the answers to them.
To end this in a similar way as I started. One who seems to have all the answers has no hope of ever gaining wisdom or ever being wise. In a way wisdom can be seen as our measure of being taught. If we have all the answers there would be no room to place all the things we could possibly be taught, it would be like trying to add more water to a glass full of liquid already.

A Continued Thought on Ideas.

To follow up on my last post that I had to cut short, I was coming to a point to discuss what an idea is. Now this is tricky. I have many of them, and I can’t really nail down what it means to have an idea. What is this thing that we call ideas? Yes I know someone has come up with a subjective answer and placed it somewhere in some dictionary and that is what we use to understand the word, but really what is it?
That is what I want to think about. It gets me into a pattern like thinking about thinking does. But more so, it is about what thinking produces. When we think, things are always producing ideas, just thoughts of anything. But really an idea is nothing at all. We see this or that and we think, now wouldn’t that be nice? So when we think like this, are we coming upon an idea or a thought of another word?
Now I know I have not concluded anything and I am sure I won’t be able to, but I will continue with this in a different direction any ways. An idea is sort of like our opinions, they have potential to be correct, just as much as they have potential to be wrong or any other thing. Potential is a great way to describe it I would like to think. The potential thoughts, in various means do they come to us forming coherent patterns of expressions within us. Now I am sure that means nothing but I like the wording of it for now so I will leave it as thus.

What is an Idea?

I do realize my last post could be taken as negative, but in truth I do not mean to be. I stated my current ideas at the time, which could be up for change at any time depending on certain information and facts. To make it known, I have no contempt towards any religious or political organization. Everything I believe have the same possibilities to an extent. Each has the same potential of the same evils, as a form of nihilist I find it hard to really define any type of idea, good and evil will always be up for change and I am sure it is historically known that this is true.

Now why am I speaking this here at all? I am not apologizing for my ideas, the opposite really. They are mine, I do not ask anyone to believe me or to even be affected. I am sure I have more to write but I must venture off to class.