Perceptions and Fragmentation (455 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.33 on 9 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Glass Bowl (View user info) at 2006-06-16 17:36:10 EDT
Human beings can have many types of what would be called "insight." We have fragmented our world into a series of parts, everything is categorized and can be named. We even give several long names to one thing - think of biology: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus species define living things. What is this fragmentation doing for us? Any attempt to create an integration of such categories, or to integrate our various ways of thinking/insight, would be to impose unity and any such imposed view would ultimately lead to fragmentation.
Rather, all our different ways of thinking may be considered as different ways of looking at the one reality in which we exist every day. If we think of the idea of a theory as an some phsyical object, we can have several views of this object. Yet each view gives only an appearance of some aspect of this object. The whole object is not percieved in any one of these views, but is grasped only implicitly in the single reality that is all of the views.
When we deeply understand that our universe also works in this way, then we will not fall into the habit of of seeing reality and acting as if it were constituted separately existent fragments corresponding to how it appears in our thoughts and in our imagination when we take our visual realm to be a direct description of reality, as it is.
Relativity leads us to a way of looking at the world similar to the above. From the fact that in Einstein's point of view no signal is possible that proceeds faster than the speed of light, it follows that the concept of a rigid body breaks down. Yet this contradicts the atomic theory, in which the constituents of the universe are small indivisible objects, which is possible only if each of such objects is bound rigidly to another. What is needed in the relativistic theory is to give up altogether the notion that the world is constitued of small parts, but is rather a universal flux of events and processes.
User Reviews
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-06-17 19:15:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This one was much better.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-06-17 13:32:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
When you write about things like this, it's doubly important to write clearly. I don't think you did.
Submitted by gonefiguring (user info) at 2006-06-17 13:14:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Beer Now
Be 'ere Now
Be Here Now
Be Now Here
Be Nowhere
Be Now Here
Be Here Now
Be 'ere Now
Beer Now
Do you see?
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-06-17 13:06:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Ok, I'm confused, +1 for confusing me!
Submitted by CoachMagirk27 (user info) at 2006-06-17 00:32:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2006-06-16 17:49:16 (#)
Ranking: 2
close, we each have the capacity to define reality
What is real? If you define reality by the ability to touch something, see it, taste it, or hear it, then nothing is real. that leaves the question
What is reality?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fuck the both of you
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-06-16 23:36:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hippy.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-16 22:39:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
WHOA MAN THAT'S FUCKIN DEEP
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-06-16 17:49:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
dude, after reading this post, I think you've been SMOKIN' from a glass bowl
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2006-06-16 17:49:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
close, we each have the capacity to define reality
What is real? If you define reality by the ability to touch something, see it, taste it, or hear it, then nothing is real. that leaves the question
What is reality?