Why?

Pretty sure that's why.

If wishes were fishes...

I really wish I didn't have to sleep. Think of all the things I could get done in those 6-whatever hours! Man. Tonight I was thinking..."I have 5 hours to sleep before a big day tomorrow. Can I get in some Kierkegaard before bed?"

Hahahahahahaha....no way...I'll get sick so fast it'll blow your mind without sleep. Still, I waste a lot of time during the day and I don't think about that as a waste...weird, eh? How do I transfer my post-midnight energy for doing things to the middle of the day? Say 2 PM?

Wait...

I'm Jane?

Jobicus Stupidus

Urgh... Me Tarzan, you Jane. Me work, work, work... and ... uh... no use head much besides breaking cocunut! Haha! Me no get to thinky-thinky about skies, whales, and big powerful flying guys, as me work, work, work... Job make me dumb.

God and Religious Experience: Misrepresentation Allowed?

Mormons like myself may have to consider a broader understanding of religious experience. Consider: if God revealed the doctrine of heaven and hell, even in its Book of Mormon form, and then revealed the degrees of glory concept, is it possible that God could misrepresent reality to teach certain principles? In this case, to teach people that we are responsible for our actions and they will influence our state in the next life. However, if this is the case... is it therefore possible that God has "misrepresented" or "reduced" reality to several different religions and faiths to teach incomplete principles? Could many mystics religious experience be from God/Gods? Just curious. Some could say no, and claim heaven and hell was just some theological idea prophets came up with to justify how God could be righteous and reward the good and punish the wicked. Others may say heaven and hell was always understood to be spirit prison and paradise (I beg to differ). Nevertheless, this pushes us to consider the broader spectrum of God's communications with man. Furthermore, it may be true that certain doctrines are yet "misrepresented" to teach principles. Thoughts?

The World of Objects (Macrocosm) and the World of Symbols (Microcosm)

Eric, you might remember those silly drawings I made during philosophy of food where I would draw two worlds with a window pane in between them. The first world represented external reality, the window the senses, and the second world the internal reality. Initially I thought the senses could affect and shape both realities: and that there is a constant relationship between the two of them. For instance, the senses' communications to an entity about the nature of reality could encourage an entity to act a certain way, and use its sensory utilities (say touch) to influence reality by say, breaking the branch off a tree. Sorry if that was convoluted. I've adjusted some of these thoughts. First, I think I have neglected largely the will, which interprets the sensory data and with it builds the internal reality. This internal reality largely consists of symbols, a sort of terrain that is largely more flexible than the external reality. What I mean by symbols as that we group items from the World of Objects into categorical entities. For instance, if you ask someone to draw you a tree, most of the time they'll draw you a long, straight trunk with a green puff on top (resembling Ronald McDonald's hair). No tree honestly looks like that, but they've equated or reduced all trees into this symbol. They can't really think back into their mind of a tree to draw. You may experience this while driving on a road trip and you may have seen some grassy hills. Now, you can't probably remember this hill, but you've grouped it together with what you equate to be the typical "grassy hill." I think generally we take snapshots of the external reality and translate it in easier to digest symbols. But then there are those things that are more important to us, that we "pay attention to," and they are more unique both at the present or in our memory. These may be because of an imperative issue, say a cannonball whizzing towards my head and my need to truly concentrate, or a personal choice to use one's senses to not reduce the external object down to a symbol because one appreciates it or wishes to understand it enough. I think this may be why some memories are very fuzzy and others more vivid. Interestingly, I think some are less reduced than others--human faces, especially those of one's race that one is familiar with. Blacks and Asians look the same to me more than other Whites. You may notice this especially on how easily you can recall the faces of actors in movies you saw when you were six years old. Now this conglomerate of more concrete and symbolic engage our mind... but what influences the mind more? And with dreams, most dream theorists reduce dreams down to symbols, when if what is concrete exists in the mind and also if the concrete is more important, isn't this a huge mistake? Anyone, probably a confusing post but something to think about. I'll have to edit this and think about it more later.

Merrily we roll along...

Why is it that people are so fixated on answers? I've talked to several people lately who will retreat into absurdity rather than admit that they simply don't know the answers to any of their questions. What is it about people that instills such a morbid fear of ignorance? Why can't we say "Gee, I haven't got the foggiest idea and yet I'll keep exploring in order to learn more". I don't know if it a social thing or more primordial to the human condition but people are absolute cowards in the face of the unknown. Someone was complaining about how if we accept certain propositions it leaves us without a base to stand on. What's the big deal with that? If we really are riding about on an uncertain universe shouldn't we learn to stand on our own?