Absurdism

[Emporion]

A random musing on absurdism that floated across my mind today:

An Absurdist is someone who looks at the evidence of everything around them and comes to the conclusion that "life more than likely, or does not, have any inherent meaning or value" but at the same time comes to the conclusion that "my life DOES have meaning and value, as well as others." This is the confliction that the absurdist must embrace. If he does not embrace this, then he leaves himself open to either becoming a nihilist and will honestly consider the option of suicide, wether physical or intellectual, to be on the table of personal options. If he does not become a nihilist and takes his lifes meaning away from the absurd and into idealistic realms, he will commit intellectual suicide by ignoring the conclusion he came to by saying "Even though I see no inherent meaning in this universe, I will escape it by believing otherwise." Nihilism and Idealism are NOT options that sit on the table of the absurd even thought the absurdist recognizes these options to be available. With that said, the absurdist is in constant conflict and acceptance with the absurd. How can someone be in conflict with, and also embrace, something? If I may be so bold, I will give you an example:

The nuclear combustion that creates a star. I have always considered combustion to be a good example of embracing something that is in conflict. The star wants to blow outwards, yet its own mass pulls it back into itself. One would imagine if the star had an intellect, that it would have an inner conflict of wanting to blow up but stay together at the same time. One would think the star, if questioned about its conflicting and embracing nature, would retort: "That is my nature. If I were to blow up, I would have commited suicide and destroyed myself. If I ceased trying to combust then I would no longer be a star and that is suicide as well. By embracing the conflict I exist."

There is no conflict, just two different views.

"life more than likely, or does not, have any inherent meaning or value" ---------more general and relating to the fact that the universe will continue to exist even after life ceases to exist.
"my life DOES have meaning and value, as well as others."---------this is an opinion based on feelings as you are an emotional object ("object" because it is more general in this context).

irrational= emotion

One view governed by raw rationality(only rationality and not 5 units of rationality and 1 unit of emotions in this example) and the other governed by raw emotion(same kind of comparison as raw rationality in this example).

Labeling me as an Nihilist and/or Idealist in response to what I said above will not work because they are labels and labels carry with them preconceived assumptions even if they are relate to other labels. you would have to express each label you use in this mathematical model as linear combinations of each other to justify a general label from the linear combinations to properly label just one person. Also, any labels is too stringent because you can add x number of label vectors to the vector end of the equation along with y number of z different units assuming x=y and z can be any number(even complex numbers if required) and come up with a new batch of labels which are dependent on the new parameters.

I still embrace Atheism as a label and that doesn't contradict the mathematical model I just constructed above.

Conclusion:
I find your random muse to be irrational and absurd in the realm of rationality. I urge you to rethink your random muse.

---

Absolute freedom? We are all free to do anything that is possible for us to do. How can it get more absolute that that?

Here is an example of the mindset of being described using math.
absolute=a constant (a), freedom=x
so Absolute freedom= ax

or more generally:
Language being used as math without using math terms.
adjectives and nouns as (a) and (x) respectively from the example above.

[Of_Tomato]

Absurdism rules. Heres a link to some texts by the russian absurdist Daniil Kharms

http://www.sevaj.dk/kharms/kharmseng.htm

Probably the coolest russian since Vladimir Krutov.

I'll quote one so you get the hang of him:

"Once there was a redheaded man without eyes and without ears. He had no hair either, so that he was a redhead was just something they said.
He could not speak, for he had no mouth. He had no nose either.
He didn't even have arms or legs. He had no stomach either, and he had no back, and he had no spine, and no intestines of any kind. He didn't have anything at all. So it is hard to understand whom we are really talking about.
So it is probably best not to talk about him any more."

[reverendjeremiah]

There is no conflict, just two different views.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflict
You say it is two different views, I agree. But the absurdist HOLDS those two different views and accepts the conflict between them.

"life more than likely, or does not, have any inherent meaning or value" ---------more general and relating to the fact that the universe will continue to exist even after life ceases to exist.

I actually realize I made a mistake in they typing of it. I meant to say "Life more than likely does not, or does not, have any inherent meaning or value". I hope that people got that as what I meant to say. Anyways, what exactly are you trying to say? Of course I think the universe will continue to exist after I am dead.. what does that have to do with wether it has inherent meaning or value? Im not sure if I am following you on this one.

"my life DOES have meaning and value, as well as others."---------this is an opinion based on feelings as you are an emotional object ("object" because it is more general in this context).

Of course I am emotional. Humans are emotional. Why should I cut that out of the mix? Why should my feelings be ignored? Why should your feelings be ignored in this matter? We arent Vulcans. We dont deny our feelings. What does logic say about the human condition? What does logic say about human emotions? Logic can ALWAYS be broke down into numbers and formulas. Can you say the same thing about human emotions? Do you not see the conflict? A being, who is prone to emotion (something that cant be broken down into numbers) in a NON-emotional cosmos (which can be broke down into numbers). Are you willing to sacrifice your mother if it meant saving a childs life? How about 5 children, 20 children, 100 children? Are you willing to sacrifice your OWN life for another? Even if you do not like the person? what if you do like the person? Will that seem more logical that you like the person as oppsed to NOT liking him? Do you see the conflict?

irrational= emotion

Yes. The rational side of me agrees with you. And for the most part I try to keep the rational part of me in control. But some decisions you make are not based on rational things. Is it rational to want sex for fun? What if it is a sex act that you disagree with? Is that rational? How do you break that down into logical numbers? Logic must work on formulas. Numbers. How do you number that? The absurdity is not inherent in just the human, nor is the absirdity just inherent in the cosmos. It is when you combine the two when the absurd condition is created. If it was just you, and only you, there would be no absurdity. If it was just the cosmos and only the cosmos, there would be no absurdity. But by the mixing of the two the absurdity happens. It is not just an emotional being in a non emotional cosmos. There is more to it than that.

One view governed by raw rationality(only rationality and not 5 units of rationality and 1 unit of emotions in this example) and the other governed by raw emotion(same kind of comparison as raw rationality in this example).

Yes, but that isnt the entire philosophy. Of course we are irrational when it comes to some of our thoughts and emotions, but the cosmos is not thinking or emotional. Strangely enough we ARE from the cosmos, and in a way you can say we ARE the cosmos (if you understand materialistic and atomic thinking...I assume that yo do.)..abstractions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
It is okay to let your emotions engulf you sometimes. It is going to happen. Materialism and absurdism are compatable and stackable.

Labeling me as an Nihilist and/or Idealist in response to what I said above will not work because they are labels and labels carry with them preconceived assumptions even if they are relate to other labels. you would have to express each label you use in this mathematical model as linear combinations of each other to justify a general label from the linear combinations to properly label just one person. Also, any labels is too stringent because you can add x number of label vectors to the vector end of the equation along with y number of z different units assuming x=y and z can be any number(even complex numbers if required) and come up with a new batch of labels which are dependent on the new parameters.

Is not labels how we tag things and concepts so that we understand them? With that said doesnt tagging things seem to be generalized? Could we have definitions with out "labeling" things? You have already labeled those variables. You labeled them x, y, z.

I still embrace Atheism as a label and that doesn't contradict the mathematical model I just constructed above.

Im fine with atheism. I dont mind the label. I have used the label many times.I dont think it does a good job describing me, but it does describe SOME of what I am. Thats okay with me in other places, but on this thread I speak exactly how I feel as this topic is specifically for me emphasising what I DO believe. Atheism is a statement about what I DONT believe.

and calling yourself an atheist? Would it not make more sense to say "I am atheist." Which means "I am without theism" instead of "I am an without theism.". Just a random question: Is fish okay for breakfast? Here in America you dont see fish on the breakfast menu, but in some parts of Europe you do. We Americans also came from Europe...what stopped us from bringing the fish breakfast menus? I suppose the colonists only had room on the boat for non fish breakfast menus.

LOL, sorry. Sometimes the muse hits me.

Conclusion:
I find your random muse to be irrational and absurd in the realm of rationality. I urge you to rethink your random muse.

irrational? I openly admit that there is more than likely a chance that we will not understand everything. I openly admit there is a conflict between a THINKING person living inside an UNTHINKING cosmos. As far as rethinking. I do that alot. That is another part of the conflict of the human condition when introduced to a NON human cosmos. If you think you can convert me, or change me. Then by all means, I am a rational person as much as I try. I will not say if I am more rational than you or not. I say please, by all means, let me hear your argument.
-----

Absurdism rules. Heres a link to some texts by the russian absurdist Daniil Kharms

http://www.sevaj.dk/kharms/kharmseng.htm

Probably the coolest russian since Vladimir Krutov.

I'll quote one so you get the hang of him:

"Once there was a redheaded man without eyes and without ears. He had no hair either, so that he was a redhead was just something they said.
He could not speak, for he had no mouth. He had no nose either.
He didn't even have arms or legs. He had no stomach either, and he had no back, and he had no spine, and no intestines of any kind. He didn't have anything at all. So it is hard to understand whom we are really talking about.
So it is probably best not to talk about him any more."

Popped that link in my favorites (absurdist) folder for future reading. I love this poetic verse. this is exactly what I am talking about. Its like dada artwork in wording. Its like "this is not a pipe" without a picture of the pipe. in fact, the word "pipe" is not a pipe.

I love it man! Thanks for the treat.

May his noodley apendage touch your heart, your mind, and you nether regions...preferably for a long period of time.

[Emporion]

---

There is no conflict, just two different views.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflict
You say it is two different views, I agree. But the absurdist HOLDS those two different views and accepts the conflict between them.

"life more than likely, or does not, have any inherent meaning or value" ---------more general and relating to the fact that the universe will continue to exist even after life ceases to exist.

I actually realize I made a mistake in they typing of it. I meant to say "Life more than likely does not, or does not, have any inherent meaning or value". I hope that people got that as what I meant to say. Anyways, what exactly are you trying to say? Of course I think the universe will continue to exist after I am dead.. what does that have to do with wether it has inherent meaning or value? Im not sure if I am following you on this one.

"my life DOES have meaning and value, as well as others."---------this is an opinion based on feelings as you are an emotional object ("object" because it is more general in this context).

Of course I am emotional. Humans are emotional. Why should I cut that out of the mix? Why should my feelings be ignored? Why should your feelings be ignored in this matter? We arent Vulcans. We dont deny our feelings. What does logic say about the human condition? What does logic say about human emotions? Logic can ALWAYS be broke down into numbers and formulas. Can you say the same thing about human emotions? Do you not see the conflict? A being, who is prone to emotion (something that cant be broken down into numbers) in a NON-emotional cosmos (which can be broke down into numbers). Are you willing to sacrifice your mother if it meant saving a childs life? How about 5 children, 20 children, 100 children? Are you willing to sacrifice your OWN life for another? Even if you do not like the person? what if you do like the person? Will that seem more logical that you like the person as oppsed to NOT liking him? Do you see the conflict?

irrational= emotion

Yes. The rational side of me agrees with you. And for the most part I try to keep the rational part of me in control. But some decisions you make are not based on rational things. Is it rational to want sex for fun? What if it is a sex act that you disagree with? Is that rational? How do you break that down into logical numbers? Logic must work on formulas. Numbers. How do you number that? The absurdity is not inherent in just the human, nor is the absirdity just inherent in the cosmos. It is when you combine the two when the absurd condition is created. If it was just you, and only you, there would be no absurdity. If it was just the cosmos and only the cosmos, there would be no absurdity. But by the mixing of the two the absurdity happens. It is not just an emotional being in a non emotional cosmos. There is more to it than that.

One view governed by raw rationality(only rationality and not 5 units of rationality and 1 unit of emotions in this example) and the other governed by raw emotion(same kind of comparison as raw rationality in this example).

Yes, but that isnt the entire philosophy. Of course we are irrational when it comes to some of our thoughts and emotions, but the cosmos is not thinking or emotional. Strangely enough we ARE from the cosmos, and in a way you can say we ARE the cosmos (if you understand materialistic and atomic thinking...I assume that yo do.)..abstractions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
It is okay to let your emotions engulf you sometimes. It is going to happen. Materialism and absurdism are compatable and stackable.

Labeling me as an Nihilist and/or Idealist in response to what I said above will not work because they are labels and labels carry with them preconceived assumptions even if they are relate to other labels. you would have to express each label you use in this mathematical model as linear combinations of each other to justify a general label from the linear combinations to properly label just one person. Also, any labels is too stringent because you can add x number of label vectors to the vector end of the equation along with y number of z different units assuming x=y and z can be any number(even complex numbers if required) and come up with a new batch of labels which are dependent on the new parameters.

Is not labels how we tag things and concepts so that we understand them? With that said doesnt tagging things seem to be generalized? Could we have definitions with out "labeling" things? You have already labeled those variables. You labeled them x, y, z.

I still embrace Atheism as a label and that doesn't contradict the mathematical model I just constructed above.

Im fine with atheism. I dont mind the label. I have used the label many times.I dont think it does a good job describing me, but it does describe SOME of what I am. Thats okay with me in other places, but on this thread I speak exactly how I feel as this topic is specifically for me emphasising what I DO believe. Atheism is a statement about what I DONT believe.

and calling yourself an atheist? Would it not make more sense to say "I am atheist." Which means "I am without theism" instead of "I am an without theism.". Just a random question: Is fish okay for breakfast? Here in America you dont see fish on the breakfast menu, but in some parts of Europe you do. We Americans also came from Europe...what stopped us from bringing the fish breakfast menus? I suppose the colonists only had room on the boat for non fish breakfast menus.

LOL, sorry. Sometimes the muse hits me.

Conclusion:
I find your random muse to be irrational and absurd in the realm of rationality. I urge you to rethink your random muse.

irrational? I openly admit that there is more than likely a chance that we will not understand everything. I openly admit there is a conflict between a THINKING person living inside an UNTHINKING cosmos. As far as rethinking. I do that alot. That is another part of the conflict of the human condition when introduced to a NON human cosmos. If you think you can convert me, or change me. Then by all means, I am a rational person as much as I try. I will not say if I am more rational than you or not. I say please, by all means, let me hear your argument.

---

This is all I have time to write today, so here you are.

I just found an error in my logic.

Here is my first reason theory:

Using emotion is okay as long as the previous reasoning chain is as the same length as the chain used to reason out the earlier decision.
series A =the first reasoning chain by reasonig with the left brain first and then the right brain
A sub 0-n=all of the actions done by series A
example:
only going to the movies for certain reasons
from B to (end of reasong chains) or arbitrarily C=when the action for the chain is different enought to move out of the a sequence
example:
not only going to the movies for certain reasons
"not" represents every series that is not series A and "certain reasons" represents all of the from B subs to (end of reasong chains) or arbitrarily C.

A reasoning chain abstractly is described as reasonig with the left brain first and then the right brain LAST.

Note: You have to accept the reasoning from the left brain first before you can go on the right brain. You have to accept the reasoning from the right brain before you can make the decision.

What do you think? How can I make it better in your opinion?

[Rhizomorph13]

You should add this picture to your argument:

[Emporion]

You should add this picture to your argument:

Not sure what you're trying to say with this.....humor in some twisted way??????
The pancake is sweet like emotions and it's on top of the rational bunny??????

The bunny's a symbol of rationality?
The bunny is cute?

Do you not like my theory for some reason?
confused

[Rhizomorph13]

---

You should add this picture to your argument:

Not sure what you're trying to say with this.....humor in some twisted way??????
The pancake is sweet like emotions and it's on top of the rational bunny??????

The bunny's a symbol of rationality?
The bunny is cute?

Do you not like my theory for some reason?
confused

---

Humor/ridicule, I think what you say makes about as much sense as placing a pancake on a bunny's head. Don't let apophenia get the better of you.

[Emporion]

---

You should add this picture to your argument:

Not sure what you're trying to say with this.....humor in some twisted way??????
The pancake is sweet like emotions and it's on top of the rational bunny??????

The bunny's a symbol of rationality?
The bunny is cute?

Do you not like my theory for some reason?
confused

---

Humor/ridicule, I think what you say makes about as much sense as placing a pancake on a bunny's head. Don't let apophenia get the better of you.

What do you not understand? Do you not understand math? Math is not just formulas and numbers. Math is logic.

I am creating a less flawed theory of how to reason than the current ones: reason and emotion or just reason or just emotion. even perfect left-brain right-brain thinkers will still let emotion mess up their decisions in the logical phase. The practical and logical applications are almost endless and people will run into less negative consequences when they use the new reasoning. Unfortunately, this is only my first rough draft.

[Rhizomorph13]

Emporion,

It is arrogant to assume that my rejection of your ideas is based on a lack of understanding. You are attempting to create a less flawed theory. To assume that you have the ability to do so before having done it is also arrogant. It is a small difference in turn of phrase, but I think it is important to note because you seem to lack the awareness that you are an imperfect being.

[Emporion]

Emporion,

It is arrogant to assume that my rejection of your ideas is based on a lack of understanding. You are attempting to create a less flawed theory. To assume that you have the ability to do so before having done it is also arrogant. It is a small difference in turn of phrase, but I think it is important to note because you seem to lack the awareness that you are an imperfect being.

Ok. I wished I had a theory that worked so I could be remembered in the history books. Hence the arrogance. Just wishful thinking. Thanks for the reality check. Now why exactly do you reject my attempt at a reasoning theory? Is it the "theory part"?