(Untitled)

May 28, 2009 02:30

Tell me something.

What is relative sanity? If the sane man is surrounded by an insane world, yet that insanity is the norm by the standards that surround him, then what weight does his sanity have?

Also, if anyone knows the game of chess and wishes to play, come find me.

Leave a comment

velvetassistant May 29 2009, 01:20:24 UTC
Once a pair of Buddhist monks stared up at the branches and leaves swaying in a constant, heavy wind. They were having a philosophical discussion.

"The tree is moving," was the stance of one monk, while the other monk insisted that, "the wind is moving," and while these two monks went back and forth, their master came upon them and struck them both with a single swipe of bamboo, declaring, "Your minds are moving!"

Reply

the_worlds_sins May 29 2009, 04:10:15 UTC
Ha…

Yes, I suppose that is applicable, isn't it.

Reply

velvetassistant May 29 2009, 05:52:46 UTC
The moral of the story is that everything is relative and it is our own mind that assigns meaning and names, which only cloud the true form, meaning and significance of things. Rather than contemplate the weight of your sanity, accept it for what it is and put your mind to more enlightened thought processes.

Reply

the_worlds_sins May 29 2009, 06:13:51 UTC
I wasn't aware that they employed philosophy professors here in the Netherworld.

Reply

velvetassistant May 29 2009, 06:19:43 UTC
Oh no, I am not a professor. Philosophical debate is simply one of my many interests. You could say that I am less like a traditional teacher and more akin to the great philosophical minds of ancient Greece: I enjoy to have meaningful conversation!

Reply

the_worlds_sins June 8 2009, 04:12:04 UTC
Conversation has its merits. Of course the factor of relativity you mentioned earlier can detract from its overall usefulness. Words themselves are relative, left up to our own, often personal interpretations. Though that interpretation is heavily influenced by our upbringing and surroundings.

Reply

velvetassistant June 8 2009, 19:37:35 UTC
But spoken and written word are the only means of conveying a large number of things. Many things can be learned by no other way. Though misinterpretation is present, the alternative of ignorance is worse. What's more, sometimes wondrous things can become of misinterpretation.

Reply

the_worlds_sins June 8 2009, 20:50:06 UTC
Hardly the only way. Surely our ancient ancestors, who at least initially had no spoken or written language, were able to communicate in some way.

Regardless, words only have meaning because we human being assigned them that meaning.

Reply

velvetassistant June 8 2009, 20:57:16 UTC
I said the only way to convey a 'large' number of things, not all things, nor most things.

Reply

the_worlds_sins June 8 2009, 21:03:50 UTC
If early human culture could still function without them, then the point is moot. Everything must have been conveyed without words.

Reply

velvetassistant June 8 2009, 21:14:32 UTC
Please explain conservation of energy without the use of words.

Reply

the_worlds_sins June 8 2009, 22:39:23 UTC
While it's not my area of expertise, I would assume our ancestors--with no words at their disposal--would have most likely lead their "discussions" by example. If we assume that, conservation of energy could have been "discussed" when one such ancestor decided to take a rest in the shade while there was nothing vital to do, thus conserving energy. If the idea was good, it would catch on among the others. No words were passed, but the idea was expressed.

Reply

velvetassistant June 8 2009, 22:40:59 UTC
Now express 'intangible concept.'

Reply

the_worlds_sins June 8 2009, 22:56:22 UTC
I doubt something as abstract as an intangible concept made it into the thought process of such people. Naturally, because they had no need for it, thus it may as well not have existed at all to them. That said, there are examples of ancient art and etchings that still baffle those trained to interpret them, and of course the idea of God had to come from somewhere.

Reply

velvetassistant June 8 2009, 23:07:28 UTC
I will not allow you to cheat any longer. This is about expressing without words.

Reply

the_worlds_sins June 8 2009, 23:18:28 UTC
Cheating how? I was acculturated to communicate using words, and lack the ability to communicate effectively without them. That said, whether I, personally, am capable of communicating without words has little do with whether it can be achieved or not. Your scope is far too narrow. I may not be capable of running one-hundred yards in under ten seconds, but there exist others who can. Further, taking an even broader look, our world functions using words associated with ideas, but we are just one case. It's not difficult to image a world where, say, body language is used entirely to communicate.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up