"Wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein"
-Friedrich Nietzsche-
If you stare long into the abyss, the abyss will also stare into you.
_____________________________
The longer you stare into this image, the more zombies will appear. Try it. It's true.
Or is it? Do we see shadowy figures or do we see zombies -- particularly the kind of Zombies invented by Hollywood and the Walking Dead comic books? The kind that doesn't exist. The power of suggestion is slippery and can be as hard to perceive clearly as those blurry phenomena we find things of our own making in -- of our own imaginations, prejudices and fears.
So when we have those little epiphanies, those spiritual moments that hint at unseen noumena; how genuine is our perception and how much of what we're prompted by our culture and experience to see appears to our eyes? Krishna, Christ or Chuckwu look back at us, whispering like Enki from behind the wall.
In fact no matter how you blow the image up, you can't say from what you see that they are zombies any more than you can know just what zombies look like outside of fictional representations. We see the same phenomenon when we see the face of God in the window, the face of Jesus in a rust stain or pattern of mildew on old wallpaper. We have no idea what those people looked like, but we swear to it, it was Mary and she was a virgin and wore a shawl. It's the power of suggestion and our culture is at heart an encyclopedia of suggestion and meme.
How much do we bring to what we see? Two crossed lines will mean something different to a Hindu than to a Christian. That applies to what we see in others' faces, to what we taste when we're told what we're tasting, whether it's true or not. One person in a room gets sick. how many others feel bad and how soon? How much better will that wine taste when the "expert" raves over it? How fast will that placebo cure your headache? Often faster than the Aspirin.
Eating breakfast, I stare into the granite counter top. A thousand faces stare back.
According to the Tao, there is no knowing of the darkness. Where spontaneity is the only light.
ReplyDelete道不道 as the old boy said or words to that effect. Clever chap, 不对？
ReplyDeleteJedes Wort ist ein Vorurteil, every word a prejudice and the Tao is not the Tao.
Counted, weighed, unworthy - a flood is coming! said Enki to Ziusudra, whispering through the wall .Indeed it is and shall be so.
Think about the emotional context of that statement, the (spoken) Tao is not the Tao. It can only be felt (with an open mind)?
ReplyDeleteSuch Taoist and Phenomenological philosophical theories are the basis for my take on the existence of truth and Truth. Perhaps LaoTze would say you cannot reference the outer Truth correctly in speech, with only the inner truth at your a disposal....and vice versa?
ReplyDeleteMr. Fogg, would certainly believe that of me. But that's why I don't try, Mr. Fogg. It's either spontaneous light. Or I just don't say it.
ReplyDeleteYour "take" on the existence of truth of any spelling is as misty and meaningless and as desperately defensive as any blurry photograph. What you don't try is honesty. Is that because it would reveal too much? Fear not, your condescending arrogance doesn't need any light, inner or outer or flashlight up your butt. 親親我的屁股 as Laozi would have said if he'd had to deal with you.
ReplyDelete"same phenomenon when we see the face of God in the window, the face of Jesus in a rust stain ".....whoa...I had something like that happen to me....see, I was gonna have a shot of tequila, but I accidently spilt it, and gees-H-octane, there on the bar appeared the image of Hunter Thompson! Well, I sprinkled it with salt and licked it up !!! Hand me that lemon, willya?
ReplyDeleteYou gotta ask yourself What Would Thompson do? You made the righteous choice dude.
ReplyDeleteRight, Mr. Fogg doesn't believe in truth or Truth. But Lao Tze would have agreed with me. Why? Because the concept of truth (and Truth) is the exception to the darkness rule. How? The darkness rule applies to the static and the defined. Truth (infinite Truth) and truth (infinitesimal truth) are dynamic and undefined.....unless and until they are not.
ReplyDeletegees.....James David......see....I believe in Truth, too....and, dig this....you are deliberately being obtuse...and Lao would have sent you away....as will I.
ReplyDeleteand that is the truth.
Wow James David, your truth, or Truth; whatever in hell it may be, is known only to you. And, perhaps other Obtuse ones like yourself.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's all a mistake. I don't think Laozi has a picture of Daffy Duck on the cover. Laozi - Looney tunes, sounds similar 'cause true is false and false is true or sometimes the other way around, speculation is evidence and science is about speculation and I guess if I don't agree, I'm just stupid.
ReplyDeleteBut beyond that, this is a guy in ill health lecturing me on how to live my life. But if true is false, I guess it makes some kind of sense.
Seriously though, JD needs his own kind of truth in order to convince us that lack of evidence proves a theorem, that because "science begins with speculation" science uses speculation to prove a hypothesis. If it feels good to believe, it must be true. His assertions are simply wrong and he lies and makes shit up and flings insults when you contradict him.
ReplyDeleteI'm just waiting for Elmer Fudd to show up and tell us That's all folks!
The first scientific findings, of course, are based on the first speculations that are tested using the scientific method or simply the result of observable accidents. Take the example of Madame Curie. A simple accident of placing a photographic plate near a radium dialed watch gave an unexpected result. She then tested that result and came up with findings. She needed the speculative imagination to read into the behavior of the photographic plate to develop a hypothesis. Then she tested that hypothesis. I have not stated that a lack of evidence proves a theorem, as you so judiciously and incorrectly state. I have stated that a lack of evidence doesn't disprove it.....which is what scientific curiosity and scientific skepticism are all about.....they are two sides to the same coin.
DeleteThere's a very funny attribution: "we all like those who seek the truth; but beware those who find it." If one believes in true faith. Doesn't it have to start with there being at least one true thing in the first place? Otherwise, that faith is obviously misplaced. And faith in argumentation isn't faith in anything real if the first premise is incorrect...I.e. not true.....so, either one has faith or does not believe it exists....if the first, then in order for that faith to be real, it has to be true....as a science guy, I have true faith.....faith in whatever is true or True...and that we can find out what is true and True....and to not 'beware' of it....or its changing face as our view becomes broader and our knowledge deeper.
Delete"I have stated that a lack of evidence doesn't disprove it."
DeleteAlso Sprach Zarathustra? Olympic proclamations require an orchestral background and we don't have the budget for that.
Actually, the overused quote from Voltaire lacks attribution. It may be the result of the
Cascade Effect and it's also been attributed to others. I like the Andre Gide version best:
Croyez ceux qui cherchent la vérité, doutez de ceux qui la trouvent. . ."
Most risible that you offer it because It's warning us against believing assertions of truth without evidence -
Pretending this is a definition of science is insulting. Science is a method of testing assertions not a system of convoluted language, silly spelling tricks or Chinese philosophy.
Give up on the gluten thing, OK? Your statement above is irrelevant and doesn't apply to my assertion that all credible studies indicate no problems with gluten for non-celiac disease sufferers. Lack of contradictory evidence for that strengthens the argument rather than making it nugatory. Again. you're trying to refute an assertion that wasn't made by substituting something irrelevant.
The non scientific motivation for scientific method is a separate matter unless we decide that Columbus really did discover a way to India because he intended to and might have if he'd gone the other direction..
Please stop this idiocy "science guy" Using faith in two different senses in the same argument is equivocation just like your illicit use of the dubious quote. it's not an honest argument. Science is not based on the kind of faith that makes conclusions from non-testable assertions. You lose. Go away.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
ReplyDeleteNietzsche: “Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road gazes also across to you.”
Albert Einstein: “Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.”
Werner Heisenberg: “We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was on, but it was moving very fast.”
Jacques Derrida: “Any number of contending discourses may be discovered within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be discerned, because structuralism is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!”
Thomas de Torquemada: “Give me ten minutes with the chicken and I'll find out.”
Laozi: The road crossed is not the True road
DeleteDonald Trump: Because he was delivering drugs
Ernest Hemingway: Because the sun was rising, the wind was fresh and it was a fine day to die.
Richard Feynman: Actually the chicken went in all possible directions but only the one across the
road didn't cancel out.
Bill O'Reilly: Because Obama promised free handouts to chickens
Jesuits teachings: Because it wanted to.
DeleteGeronimo: "Because this is a good day to die."
ReplyDeleteOctopus: "Because this is a good day to make jokes about chickens crossing the road."
Taoist and Phenomenological philosophical theories are the basis for my take on the existence of roads and Roads, Chickens and chickens. . Perhaps Colonel Sanders would say you cannot reference the outer Road correctly in speech, with only the inner road at your disposal....and vice versa? As Baotzi would say, with my head up my ass, I need all the inner light I can get.
Deletepersonaly..I don't understand all this chicken-shit....now....ducks are funnier.
DeleteA man in a movie theater notices what looks like a duck sitting next to him.
"Are you a duck?" asked the man, surprised.
"Yes."
"What are you doing at the movies?"
The duck replied, "Well, I liked the book."
See....Ducks are the new chickens. Just ask Donald Ducktrumpkin.....
Somehow I tend to think more of turkeys, but i don't know any turkey jokes.
DeleteWhy did the turkey cross the road?
Deletewait for it..........
It was the chicken’s day off.
I give up
DeleteQ: What's Miley Cyrus having on Thanksgiving?
ReplyDeleteA: Roasted twerky !
I really give up.
ReplyDeleteWell, I was about to tell you the one about a peach, but giving up is just pitiful.
ReplyDeleteSo why didn't the pickle cross the road?
ReplyDeleteHe didn't want to become road dill.
Now I really really give up!
I never mess with cucumbers because they always leave me in a pickle.
ReplyDeleteLast week, a strawberry got fresh with me and left me in a jam.
too much! ain't no day quite like Punday.....
ReplyDeleteToday I learned the difference between broccoli and snot. Small children don't eat broccoli.
ReplyDeletelaughing....all the way to the refrigerator....gonna make this hour really happy. perhaps the next two hours or so as well. Here's to you...Sir Squid
DeleteNow you can enjoy gluten free versions of famous art
ReplyDeleteAs Bob Dylan said, you have to: "grow it on the moon and eat it raw" She's pouring milk though and we all know how very dangerous that is, or at least to hipsters.
ReplyDeleteAn item on the news yesterday about all the ads telling you not to eat bananas lest some terrible thing happen to you. If you believe that you are bananas and apparently a real study shows that they might offer benefits to diabetes sufferers by working against heart damage.
Anyway, an apple a day reminds me of the Alar hoax.