meditation KISS MY ASS
So my prof is a jackass and won't let me say what i think, because i'm too "OUT THERE" well then, here it is. HERE is what i think. it tis called:
MEDITATION KISS MY (muthafuckin) ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If there is an idea of a table, which we have, how can it be causal if when we see one table we think of all tables? When I see one table, the idea of every other table I have ever seen is drawn to recollection; but that is not all that I recall. I also think of the idea of a table that I have been taught.
In infancy, I was shown a flashcard with a picture of a generic table; I was taught to associate a certain idea with objects that meet a certain criteria. Not only that, but I was also told to understand that idea to be represented by the specific word, “table,” rather than “jump” or “chair.” A table is a table because I have been told to name a thing that meets certain criteria to be as such.
So then, what would this imply? Perhaps that the only causal relationship is between the object (body) and the idea we already have. So, then, what would be the original cause of the idea? Only your environment, or society, could be the cause.
But how does society give us this idea? First, we are told it over and over again throughout childhood. Then, throughout life, we use this idea of a table; we apply it to things (bodies) that we see. Our physical sensations from the temporal world require an intellectual understanding. Hence, we apply our idea of table, as it has been taught to us, and define certain objects in the temporal realm as such.
However, we do not begin from our original state or our first learned idea every time that we apply it. Instead, it is as if our ideas are a brick wall; each time we apply the idea we have been given it changes our original idea, the wall has begun to be built. So, as an adult, when I define something as a table I think first of the most recent table I have seen and then every object I have defined as such going back to the first time I did so and the first time I was taught to define something meeting the specific criteria of being defined as such. This implies that my environment has taught me, through the original inception but more so through my own experience of using that original idea, to define something as “table.” (Each time I define a table as such I do not need to apply the specific word, but only the idea of such.)
Being that there is no one specific cause of defining something as a table, the causal relationship of seeing something and saying (or thinking) “Oh, that’s a table!” is not as simple as “see and know,” instead, the cause is our own personal (hermeneutic) history rather than that of the body which we define.
Yet another cause of this theory is that there can never be one idea that is had twice, because every time you have a single idea you are adding another brick to the wall, and hence the wall changes. So when you come back to the wall with another brick, even if the brick is the same, the wall never will be. There can never even be a brick, which is the same, because the process of getting it would be changed by your pervious experiences. No brick, even in the physical realm, can exist twice; bricks can be very similar but never the same.
Also, you can never return to an earlier thought or idea and have it remain the same, because you bring with you the brick wall as it is, and return to inspect one of the bricks that is a part of it. You do not see the brick as you first did, when placing it on the wall, but you still see the brick. Hence, memory gives you a new perception of an old experience (or sensory perception, the idea being the experience)
This leads me to the issue of multiple ideas affecting each other. My idea of a table, as it changes, or as the brick wall grows, affects all other walls that reside in the larger building, which is my mind. The idea of a table comes from society, and a table never stands completely alone, hence my idea of a table affects all other ideas. There is a table in a room, so my idea of that table affects my idea of the room, and hence affects my idea of all rooms. This is an infinite cycle, so that any single experience or idea affects all of your ideas and therefore future experiences. So, each “table” brick wall is really just another brick in the larger brick wall of yourself (regardless of what “yourself” really is).
In terms of the causal relationship, then, the cause of any given experience affects every other experience you have ever and will ever have.
MEDITATION KISS MY (muthafuckin) ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If there is an idea of a table, which we have, how can it be causal if when we see one table we think of all tables? When I see one table, the idea of every other table I have ever seen is drawn to recollection; but that is not all that I recall. I also think of the idea of a table that I have been taught.
In infancy, I was shown a flashcard with a picture of a generic table; I was taught to associate a certain idea with objects that meet a certain criteria. Not only that, but I was also told to understand that idea to be represented by the specific word, “table,” rather than “jump” or “chair.” A table is a table because I have been told to name a thing that meets certain criteria to be as such.
So then, what would this imply? Perhaps that the only causal relationship is between the object (body) and the idea we already have. So, then, what would be the original cause of the idea? Only your environment, or society, could be the cause.
But how does society give us this idea? First, we are told it over and over again throughout childhood. Then, throughout life, we use this idea of a table; we apply it to things (bodies) that we see. Our physical sensations from the temporal world require an intellectual understanding. Hence, we apply our idea of table, as it has been taught to us, and define certain objects in the temporal realm as such.
However, we do not begin from our original state or our first learned idea every time that we apply it. Instead, it is as if our ideas are a brick wall; each time we apply the idea we have been given it changes our original idea, the wall has begun to be built. So, as an adult, when I define something as a table I think first of the most recent table I have seen and then every object I have defined as such going back to the first time I did so and the first time I was taught to define something meeting the specific criteria of being defined as such. This implies that my environment has taught me, through the original inception but more so through my own experience of using that original idea, to define something as “table.” (Each time I define a table as such I do not need to apply the specific word, but only the idea of such.)
Being that there is no one specific cause of defining something as a table, the causal relationship of seeing something and saying (or thinking) “Oh, that’s a table!” is not as simple as “see and know,” instead, the cause is our own personal (hermeneutic) history rather than that of the body which we define.
Yet another cause of this theory is that there can never be one idea that is had twice, because every time you have a single idea you are adding another brick to the wall, and hence the wall changes. So when you come back to the wall with another brick, even if the brick is the same, the wall never will be. There can never even be a brick, which is the same, because the process of getting it would be changed by your pervious experiences. No brick, even in the physical realm, can exist twice; bricks can be very similar but never the same.
Also, you can never return to an earlier thought or idea and have it remain the same, because you bring with you the brick wall as it is, and return to inspect one of the bricks that is a part of it. You do not see the brick as you first did, when placing it on the wall, but you still see the brick. Hence, memory gives you a new perception of an old experience (or sensory perception, the idea being the experience)
This leads me to the issue of multiple ideas affecting each other. My idea of a table, as it changes, or as the brick wall grows, affects all other walls that reside in the larger building, which is my mind. The idea of a table comes from society, and a table never stands completely alone, hence my idea of a table affects all other ideas. There is a table in a room, so my idea of that table affects my idea of the room, and hence affects my idea of all rooms. This is an infinite cycle, so that any single experience or idea affects all of your ideas and therefore future experiences. So, each “table” brick wall is really just another brick in the larger brick wall of yourself (regardless of what “yourself” really is).
In terms of the causal relationship, then, the cause of any given experience affects every other experience you have ever and will ever have.