Saturday, February 13, 2010

I think that, for the most part, I live inside my head. What I mean is: I don't see the world as it is, I merely take cues from the world. Like improvising over some chords as opposed to playing directly from a score. Of course I don't fabricate my own facts, or believe in what cannot be proven; I trust science and I do not have faith in an unchanging dogma. I merely take what is presented to me and use it to fill in the rest. Sort of like seeing the universe as a writing prompt. I'm sure most people do this, whether they are aware of it or not.

One example I'm aware of is places. In my mind, the places I go are different than how they are in reality. There are many versions of each place: the place as it exists, the place as it exists in my mind and the place as it exists in the minds of everyone who has ever been to that place. These are all different places.

The more I visit a certain place, the more prominence it has in my mind. I have been to Chicago, so a form of Chicago exists in my mind. I go to my bathroom regularly, so my bathroom exists in my mind as a single place. Mentally, my bathroom is bigger than Chicago, since I have been to my bathroom more than I have been to Chicago. Obviously this is not true in real life, it's just that my bathroom has a more developed style and presence in my mind that Chicago does. This is applied to many things, the people I meed, the clothes I wear, even the websites I visit.

In this way I fabricate my own little world inside of my mind, in which all aspects are connected. Sometimes this world deviates from what is in the real word, but the changes are trivial enough that they do not go against science. The sciences are the lines in which I colour my world. Though it is acceptable to colour outside of the lines on occasion, it is irrational to do so if it alters the intended meaning of the work.

I obviously like my world better than the real one, though I accept that I have to face both of them.


  1. If our eyes and mind couldn't accept the existence of both worlds, less trivial our concept would be. I believe we still can incorporate the materials that such a imagination and a space can give to society, but people seem to be afraid of it. If fear is not, something must be, "whether they are aware of it or not."
    I like my world too. I like both. And what people talk about and make, to me or not to me, intrigues me when catch up by the sea side, on eye contact.

    I'm following you.

  2. Hey yo, I found this through your tumblr. Your tastes intrigue me. It is humorous to me to observe such a young duck in the world.

    Have you read any Pascal? Nietzsche? Derrida?


    We can only model the world around us, we can not know it. We are finite, we are limited, we can not comprehend the whole. The whole is made up of parts, and if we assume these parts to extend infinitely in every sense, in any sense, to be infinitely indivisible or to extend infinitely in any direction or to vary in any infinite degree, we can not comprehend any of these aspects. If also we assume every part effects another part, and there is no part that is not effected by another, and all systems inside of this system we experience are open and interacting with the systems around them; then we can not know any single part without understanding the whole, and being limited by our finiteness and incapable of understanding the whole without first understanding every single part...

    and so on and so forth. Oh how we can count the ways that Analysis and Abstraction are just to clumsy of tools of comprehension. There are some who say there is another way that humans comprehend that does not know these limits, but that is a whole other matter. One for magicians, not for philosophers.

  3. No, I haven't read anything by those philosphers. Though I do have a basic understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy. And I really like saying the name "Pascal."

    It's sort of like everyone's inside a black box, and there are five holes, or filters (Our senses.) Through each of the filters comes different information at a constant rate. How do we know that the information coming in is accurate? I guess because we crosscheck information coming in between senses. If we see something, and then we feel it, we know it exists. But could all our senses be constantly telling us the same lie?

    In the end I don't think that our senses are without bias. If they weren't we would make a lot less mistakes. Because our senses are biased, our brain interprets innacurate information. But what causes the senses to be bias? The obvious answer would be the subconcious brain.

    Ok. I have a headache (not from thinking, from surgery pain) so that's as far as I'm going to go right now.