Being and the World
Autonomous meaning-giving vs. intersubjectivity vs. universal truth/objective reality
Since meaning only exists when I create it, on what guidelines am I to construct meaning? Whichever guidelines I choose. Upon what am I to base my choice? Upon myself and my freedom. But I see no self beyond the inexorable meaning I give myself/world outlook/project (that is I am what I think of myself, how I look at the world, what I value in my future and present) and what happens when this baseline is brought into question? How then am I to proceed either to assert meaning for myself or for the world? And if I go with an outlook for the world this must be in some way a reflection of me (or my psychology which dosen't seem to be freedom-giving at all) but will then turn, through the conclusions drawn from its' application to the world, effect my self and world outlook that in turn determines how I expierence the world. So in my choice I define myself (given proposition) but how an I to choose? I have my past, I have my psychology, I have myself as I immagine I am precieved in others' minds but still these are all outragious creations of my own mind and in the end, there is nothing in this world that I do not create. In steps the voice of the obvious that there is a world-in-itslf that may always be filtered trough my perscptions of mind and body but hold for a momnet, if you will, this world outside with all the others swimming arround in the blurrly watered-down watercolor box as you try to immagine a world that does not snap to a grid of colors and shapes or sensations or emotions as we interpret as we have learned by nature's will or language's influence, and there is something real. But this is a world without me and without a fellow human so why base any this on this reality as detached from human expierence? What good will this do me other than a comfort of something stable and fixed in the world, even if I can never expierence it (and so then how do I even know it was there and I fear I am playing games with words and Witt would have a fitt)so then a third is to rely on that intersubjectivity, that language-game which is some compromise as if meaning could be given the valitity of science if there are enough people interpreting actions to give certain meaning. I would not take this for any "real" meaning that because its taken by the many it is what is because it is still only the creation of menaing and not based on any absolute bedrock of a meaning that is universal. This may be the best option to interpret meaning in the world because it is the most practical but to take this path is still a choice for the individual and so I guess it is here I will take one step to choice and here I would say, however much I hate the statement, I am "forced to be free" and choose to take meaning cues from no baseless self or inexpierencable absolute but from the human community and the language I speak to doubtfully take as the lesser of the evils presented here to try and construct meaning. But still dosen't it seem so arbitrary? So superficial? On the one hand I love existental thought and take such a religious refuge in the idea that there is nothing in the world [for me-which is the only world I will ever know] but what I give it but then as I ask myself, "What am I to give the world? What should the menaing me? There is no should, so what is the meaning? Hello? Heather? I'm asking you, baby, what is the meaning? What's your choice today and what do you base that on if you abandon your previous base to find another? Something must come with you because you don't get rocks from air? But what if it is to be made out of ivory? You just have to wait until you get there...or walk back to try another day when the weather isn't so fine. But the fact that I embrace this liine of thought at the moment is a base in itself and so if this is what I know at this moment, this is where I will proceed from even if the cogito only tells me that there is nothing. There is, is is something in that. To have faith tha tin my actions and feelings there is some unknowable self that I must be guided by and will only see when I look back only to see again that the waters have changes and what I want is unknowable and that I am barking up the wrong tree, b-a-r-k-i-n-g and a tree at all for that matter (language! an idea! god bless the philosopher who finds or makes the next hopeful path)and so now that I admit that it is not this outlook so much as the attitude of skepticism that I base my existance on, am I doomed to undertinty or the certinty of uncertenty and god damn it will some one get us out of this dichodmous thinking! It's such a fucking annoying bit and I feel so cliche and like I am missing so much in these simplifications of eveything into forces one, two or a thousand when it seems that the infinate is that muddy watercolor box and there is more that the world can be that what we see with our eyes (language, ideas) and less than what we immagine in our universal truths.
Since meaning only exists when I create it, on what guidelines am I to construct meaning? Whichever guidelines I choose. Upon what am I to base my choice? Upon myself and my freedom. But I see no self beyond the inexorable meaning I give myself/world outlook/project (that is I am what I think of myself, how I look at the world, what I value in my future and present) and what happens when this baseline is brought into question? How then am I to proceed either to assert meaning for myself or for the world? And if I go with an outlook for the world this must be in some way a reflection of me (or my psychology which dosen't seem to be freedom-giving at all) but will then turn, through the conclusions drawn from its' application to the world, effect my self and world outlook that in turn determines how I expierence the world. So in my choice I define myself (given proposition) but how an I to choose? I have my past, I have my psychology, I have myself as I immagine I am precieved in others' minds but still these are all outragious creations of my own mind and in the end, there is nothing in this world that I do not create. In steps the voice of the obvious that there is a world-in-itslf that may always be filtered trough my perscptions of mind and body but hold for a momnet, if you will, this world outside with all the others swimming arround in the blurrly watered-down watercolor box as you try to immagine a world that does not snap to a grid of colors and shapes or sensations or emotions as we interpret as we have learned by nature's will or language's influence, and there is something real. But this is a world without me and without a fellow human so why base any this on this reality as detached from human expierence? What good will this do me other than a comfort of something stable and fixed in the world, even if I can never expierence it (and so then how do I even know it was there and I fear I am playing games with words and Witt would have a fitt)so then a third is to rely on that intersubjectivity, that language-game which is some compromise as if meaning could be given the valitity of science if there are enough people interpreting actions to give certain meaning. I would not take this for any "real" meaning that because its taken by the many it is what is because it is still only the creation of menaing and not based on any absolute bedrock of a meaning that is universal. This may be the best option to interpret meaning in the world because it is the most practical but to take this path is still a choice for the individual and so I guess it is here I will take one step to choice and here I would say, however much I hate the statement, I am "forced to be free" and choose to take meaning cues from no baseless self or inexpierencable absolute but from the human community and the language I speak to doubtfully take as the lesser of the evils presented here to try and construct meaning. But still dosen't it seem so arbitrary? So superficial? On the one hand I love existental thought and take such a religious refuge in the idea that there is nothing in the world [for me-which is the only world I will ever know] but what I give it but then as I ask myself, "What am I to give the world? What should the menaing me? There is no should, so what is the meaning? Hello? Heather? I'm asking you, baby, what is the meaning? What's your choice today and what do you base that on if you abandon your previous base to find another? Something must come with you because you don't get rocks from air? But what if it is to be made out of ivory? You just have to wait until you get there...or walk back to try another day when the weather isn't so fine. But the fact that I embrace this liine of thought at the moment is a base in itself and so if this is what I know at this moment, this is where I will proceed from even if the cogito only tells me that there is nothing. There is, is is something in that. To have faith tha tin my actions and feelings there is some unknowable self that I must be guided by and will only see when I look back only to see again that the waters have changes and what I want is unknowable and that I am barking up the wrong tree, b-a-r-k-i-n-g and a tree at all for that matter (language! an idea! god bless the philosopher who finds or makes the next hopeful path)and so now that I admit that it is not this outlook so much as the attitude of skepticism that I base my existance on, am I doomed to undertinty or the certinty of uncertenty and god damn it will some one get us out of this dichodmous thinking! It's such a fucking annoying bit and I feel so cliche and like I am missing so much in these simplifications of eveything into forces one, two or a thousand when it seems that the infinate is that muddy watercolor box and there is more that the world can be that what we see with our eyes (language, ideas) and less than what we immagine in our universal truths.