# What am I existing in?



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

What is the fabric of this reality? It has many fractal strata akin to a Bach fugue. Reality itself is a fugue. I exist within an illusive material crafted by our makers. It is omnipresent and facilitates the matter in this reality. It is their canvas like paper is to an artist. This reality is their piece of art. A grand structure of great engineering and deceiving to our senses. I cannot feel this canvas in which I and everything exists. You can only arbitrary measure it. What is size in this reality. It has no meaning. I am within a fractal construct that exists outside of our knowledge and comprehension. Fractal but also malleable and changeable and very fluid. Add strata to a Bach fugue so that you hear nothing. Then sequentially remove a strata so that a solid rectangle becomes a bar code on this reality. You begin to hear music please able to your senses no doubt. Remove too many or too little of these strata and the music becomes fuzzy. You tune into a radio station the same way.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Oh, you're a pseudo-intillectual too? How cute.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Oh, you're a pseudo-intillectual too? How cute.


You do not understand nor see what is in front of you. The canvas of the designers. It cannot be explained using logic. It is outside of this reality and no laws apply to it. Your laws of physics and mathematics are purely one of many pedagogy that could have arisen over the time of human consciousness. Many others exist, infinite in fact. That is why we are unable to perceive the tapestry of design. Go ahead with your 'logical' laws and you will uncover nothing. To see the canvas of our designers you should rid yourself of mathematics which is merely incidental to our consciousness.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Vivaldi said:


> You do not understand nor see what is in front of you. The canvas of the designers. It cannot be explained using logic. It is outside of this reality and no laws apply to it. Your laws of physics and mathematics are purely one of many pedagogy that could have arisen over the time of human consciousness. Many others exist, infinite in fact. That is why we are unable to perceive the tapestry of design. We are using processes that are divergent.


I'm not questioning the illusory nature of existence as individual expressions. I'm questioning your integrity.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> I'm not questioning the illusory nature of existence as individual expressions. I'm questioning your integrity.


This form of mathematics/logic is a by product of our particular consciousness. If another consciousness existed then would another type of mathematics exist? You trust too much in logic in a reality that is actually illogical. Mathematics does not exist outside of our consciousness.

Take yourself outside of your consciousness; free from the constraints of logic and the answers will be found I trust.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

What does this even mean?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Define "I." There is no fundamental, separate "self" to exist _in_ anything. We are all just collections of atoms.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

Kopachris said:


> Define "I." There is no fundamental, separate "self" to exist _in_ anything. We are all just collections of atoms.


I think, therefore I am - Descartes

My understanding of this is bleak but do I really need to understand anything at all? Have we really learnt anything from our development in say, mathematics? The knowledge we acquire only adds to knowledge that our conciousness is able to interpret. This is not useful at all but allows us to 'progress' in this particular manifestation of society. Intelligence is not defined outside of our consciousness. To try and decode reality using our consciousness is impossible for what is our consciousness if nothing but one of many possible designs of consciousness? This is counter productive thinking and goes against everything 'intellectual' but maybe we need to regress in our thinking before me progress and find illusive solutions to 'questions'.

Because my understanding of philosophy is very insular and small I cannot write anything that you 'intellectuals' would deem meaningful. Should I advance my understanding in this .. But what is understanding? We have to take ourselves outside of knowledge. I can feel something inside my consciousness. A key to fit a lock I cannot open. I am discounting centuries of learned principles as meaningless. I do not know. All I know is that I like listening to Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No 5 many times over because it has some profound meaning.

Maybe I would be happy if I did not learn anything and sat inside a dark room. Learning is a distraction from what is REALLY happening.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vivaldi said:


> This form of mathematics/logic is a by product of our particular consciousness. If another consciousness existed then would another type of mathematics exist? You trust too much in logic in a reality that is actually illogical. Mathematics does not exist outside of our consciousness.
> 
> Take yourself outside of your consciousness; free from the constraints of logic and the answers will be found I trust.


At some immediate level at least, reality is logical. That's what our experience is telling us. Mathematics is just a refined way of using logic. That's why it works so well for describing reality.
In your reasonings, you have a lot of assumed metaphysical assumptions. You are assuming all human beings have consciousness of the same type, and that there may be other types. What if there's only one type?. Also, what if every human consciousness is unique?. In any case, other consciousness are not going to develop any math if reality is not logical.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Vivaldi said:


> I think, therefore I am - Descartes


And now I bow out of the thread before it becomes messy.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I think yet another thread move may be called for.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Vivaldi said:


> I think, therefore I am - Descartes
> 
> My understanding of this is bleak but do I really need to understand anything at all? Have we really learnt anything from our development in say, mathematics? The knowledge we acquire only adds to knowledge that our conciousness is able to interpret. This is not useful at all but allows us to 'progress' in this particular manifestation of society. Intelligence is not defined outside of our consciousness. To try and decode reality using our consciousness is impossible for what is our consciousness if nothing but one of many possible designs of consciousness? This is counter productive thinking and goes against everything 'intellectual' but maybe we need to regress in our thinking before me progress and find illusive solutions to 'questions'.
> 
> ...


There's actually something to this. All knowledge and the search for knowledge is simply a play on the screen of consciousness. Everything perceivable, including the subtlety of thoughts/emotions and even the sense of being the thinker and doer, is being watched by the absolute observer. YOU. Even the sense of being a person is perceived by something that's not a person.

That Descartes quote is ridiculous though. Thinking is witnessed by you. It is not the conclusion of you.

Alright, I'm done playing... For now.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Oh, you're a pseudo-intillectual too? How cute.


What does pseudo-intellectual even mean? I've never really understood it as (i'd assume) an insult. You are either intelligent or you are not, you may be wrong on the things you are intelligent about but that doesn't make the intelligence faked.

Oh I really liked that you cleverly spelled intellectual incorrectly, it really adds to the satire. This is satire right?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vivaldi said:


> ...
> Take yourself outside of your consciousness; free from the constraints of logic and the answers will be found I trust.


That's reading a bit like "let the force be with you" from Star Wars, especially this* bit where Luke destroys the Death Star without the aid of his machines. I'm not kidding. I suppose there is those moments in life when you kind of go solo, and at those times freedom is better than what you're calling "the constraints of logic." Call it what you will - gut feeling, intuition, creativity, lateral thinking, thinking outside the square, whatever. But I'll stop there, I'm not philosopher (pseudo or otherwise!).

*Unsure if I've done that link correctly, but the bit I have in mind starts around the 10 minute mark.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Sorry, but quite a lot of that is impossible to parse.

The rest sounds like some moderately interesting metaphysics (if you like that sort of thing) but I can assure you that most of it is ground that has been well trodden-down by better philosophers, notably Kant. Good for you if that tickles your fancy, but you won't learn much by treating us to essays on it, because this isn't a philosophy forum. If you like to chat about such things you might have better luck at such a forum. I suggest you look for one populated by actual academic philosophers, preferably of the analytic school. Such people will a) suggest some good books for you to read, and b) value clarity of expression much more highly than florid prose.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I think yet another thread move may be called for.


but it's already in the community forum, so where does it go now? lol unless it was originally in the classical forum but another moderator moved it.

I might as well give a fair warning to Vivaldi: please post non-classical/personal topics in the community forum, unless you are able to direct this conversation into classical subject, which I think is not possible anymore.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

quack said:


> What does pseudo-intellectual even mean? I've never really understood it as (i'd assume) an insult. You are either intelligent or you are not, you may be wrong on the things you are intelligent about but that doesn't make the intelligence faked.
> 
> Oh I really liked that you cleverly spelled intellectual incorrectly, it really adds to the satire. This is satire right?


It was a slapstick jaba-waba-kala-wala-bing-bang.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Vivaldi said:


> You do not understand nor see what is in front of you. The canvas of the designers. It cannot be explained using logic. It is outside of this reality and no laws apply to it. Your laws of physics and mathematics are purely one of many pedagogy that could have arisen over the time of human consciousness. Many others exist, infinite in fact. That is why we are unable to perceive the tapestry of design. Go ahead with your 'logical' laws and you will uncover nothing. To see the canvas of our designers you should rid yourself of mathematics which is merely incidental to our consciousness.


I disagree, but I'd rather do something productive like my geometry homework than explain something like this.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> but it's already in the community forum, so where does it go now? lol unless it was originally in the classical forum but another moderator moved it.
> 
> I might as well give a fair warning to Vivaldi: please post non-classical/personal topics in the community forum, unless you are able to direct this conversation into classical subject, which I think is not possible anymore.


From the community forum to the *blog.*


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

The OP seems to suffer from acute postmodernitis. He may enjoy some of these essays on the subject:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

brianvds said:


> The OP seems to suffer from acute postmodernitis.


What, just because of Descrartes, noumena and phenomena, and fractals? Strictly amateur stuff; no mention of Lacan or Derrida, not once did the words 'dialectic' or 'epistomology' appear, and it was far too readable.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

ahammel said:


> What, just because of Descrartes, noumena and phenomena, and fractals? Strictly amateur stuff; no mention of Lacan or Derrida, not once did the words 'dialectic' or 'epistomology' appear, and it was far too readable.


Well, Lacan mentioned topology in his writings quite a lot... but he apparently used the wrong definition of compact set... I guess that the fractal reality is not far behind that.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Why is there air?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

GGluek said:


> Why is there air?


To blow up basketballs with.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> That's reading a bit like "let the force be with you" from Star Wars, especially this* bit where Luke destroys the Death Star without the aid of his machines.


I'll put my faith in accurate targeting and adequate megatonnage, thank you!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I'll put my faith in accurate targeting and adequate megatonnage, thank you!


"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

--Han Solo


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

GGluek said:


> Why is there air?


As long as there is a G string, there will be an air on it.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> Oh, you're a pseudo-intillectual too? How cute.


I detect major-league TTH...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tth


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Vivaldi said:


> What is the fabric of this reality? It has many fractal strata akin to a Bach fugue. Reality itself is a fugue. I exist within an illusive material crafted by our makers. It is omnipresent and facilitates the matter in this reality. It is their canvas like paper is to an artist. This reality is their piece of art. A grand structure of great engineering and deceiving to our senses. I cannot feel this canvas in which I and everything exists. You can only arbitrary measure it. What is size in this reality. It has no meaning. I am within a fractal construct that exists outside of our knowledge and comprehension. Fractal but also malleable and changeable and very fluid. Add strata to a Bach fugue so that you hear nothing. Then sequentially remove a strata so that a solid rectangle becomes a bar code on this reality. You begin to hear music please able to your senses no doubt. Remove too many or too little of these strata and the music becomes fuzzy. You tune into a radio station the same way.


You, sir are a genius


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

brianvds said:


> As long as there is a G string, there will be an air on it.


Most intellectually/realistically accurate post on this thread.... :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The door is a jar.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Not so sure, there is no spoon.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

you're existing in a cloud of ganja.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

quack said:


> What does pseudo-intellectual even mean? I've never really understood it as (i'd assume) an insult. You are either intelligent or you are not, you may be wrong on the things you are intelligent about but that doesn't make the intelligence faked.


but intelligent and intillectual ain't the same thing, eh? you can be either without the other or both or neither


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

quack said:


> What does pseudo-intellectual even mean? I've never really understood it as (i'd assume) an insult. You are either intelligent or you are not, you may be wrong on the things you are intelligent about but that doesn't make the intelligence faked.


Pseudo-intellectual doesn't mean being wrong. It is much worse than that: it means you are not even wrong. That is to say, a pseudo-intellectual statement is a statement that appears impressive and complicated on the surface, usually because it is full of clever-looking jargon, but that is actually either meaningless or, upon closer examination, turns out to be true but trivial.

The postmodernist essay generator software that I referred to in another post generates beautiful if rather extreme examples of pseudo-intellectualism at its worst. Our friend Vivaldi is giving the software a run for its money, mind you. 

The postmodernist philosophers themselves are quite notorious for it. It may be instructive to read up on the Sokal incident in this regard.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

Bugger all down here on earth. 

May the sfork be with you.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Maybe the "simplest" answer to your quandary is that--in the final analysis--you really only exist in your own imagination. :scold:


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Some interesting thoughts from the OP here. I really liked how your questions have an original and independent flavour to them - they are questions which naturally arise out of a deep and concentrated observation of reality - but I would like to say that these thoughts are coming to you for a reason. It could be that you are meant to understand the secrets of manifestation at a level which is invisible to most people - for example, most of the people commenting here. I feel that your mind moves at a very quick pace, cutting right down to the most reduced questions - some would say they are silly questions, but that's because their mind is still caught up in the Maya (illusion). To look beneath the Maya requires a breakdown of common knowledge and logic, to look at the workings of your own mind with a clean, critical eye - unless you remove the usual train of thoughts from your mind, these thoughts will never come to you. So I believe you are going down a path which is unique, which is going to lead you to a place where the grand questions will be answered - or may be they will be unanswered, but still they will offer you with a journey - as all experience is a journey. Every single experience is a journey - small or big, manifest or ideal.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

> The postmodernist essay generator software
> 
> 
> > Hilarious, does this really exist ? Going to google it right away.
> ...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Pseudo-intellectual doesn't mean being wrong. It is much worse than that: it means you are not even wrong. That is to say, a pseudo-intellectual statement is a statement that appears impressive and complicated on the surface, usually because it is full of clever-looking jargon, but that is actually either meaningless or, upon closer examination, turns out to be true but trivial.
> 
> The postmodernist essay generator software that I referred to in another post generates beautiful if rather extreme examples of pseudo-intellectualism at its worst. Our friend Vivaldi is giving the software a run for its money, mind you.
> 
> The postmodernist philosophers themselves are quite notorious for it. It may be instructive to read up on the Sokal incident in this regard.


Try this one too: http://davidsd.org/2010/03/the-snarxiv/
The particle physics version.
We have a motto: if your work seems too simple... add a fiber bundle to it!.
(of course the situation is quite different to postmodernism, but it's nevertheless still very funny)


----------

