I hope I haven't been too annoying. I just get excited about these ideas and want others to enjoy them with me. It is indeed late, so I will probably turn in. Have a good night.

ope I haven't been too annoying. I just get excited about these ideas and want others to enjoy them with — macrosoft

the feeling is mutual. i want to brush up against the borders of what i don’t understand because that’s where the growth is. thank you for all the explication. i think i need to revisit Heidegger.

There'd be no past. Nones' thinking about it. It just doesn't arise. This rock is going through changes. That rock is going through changes. They're not even in the same "world" because what's a world but a perspective? — Jonah Tobias

This point about the rock is great. Humans create time because they care. They have a perspective informed by memory and a project. They have to wait for the morning light to do certain things together. This is the original public clock. The sunrise means 'now it is time to hunt [or pick berries].' Time becomes part of our language, our shared reality. But time was already there privately in terms of private projects. So a public mechanical time comes to dominate a private sense of time. Before long we think that our private sense of meaning time is the illusion, while the clocks we invented tell the truth.

The way we interact with the past and future to me is just the way we interact with our imagination. It doesn't strike me with awe. A "future" is always imagined- A "past" is always imagined. The present is always real. So the three are not equal- Past and future all exist in the present- and the present is just flux. Reality. — Jonah Tobias

What is this present other than the future and the past and our care for them? How precise is this present? And where does this notion of a perfectly precise present come from if not from clocks? The way we take the clock as the last word on our experience despite it being our invention for practical purposes? Our ideas are close, but the 'flux' is maybe not so 'present.'

OK, now I will really go to bed. I just saw that paragraph and realized I neglected the rock issue, which is important. We don't exist as a rock exists, and yet we insist on grasping ourselves as that kind of instantaneously present object, like a rock that happens to think instantaneously present thoughts. This 'common sense' traps the metaphysical enterprise in fixed ideas experienced as necessity rather than invention.

Till next time....

the feeling is mutual. i want to brush up against the borders of what i don’t understand because that’s where the growth is. thank you for all the explication. i think i need to revisit Heidegger. — Jonah Tobias

my pleasure. it has been fun. and thanks for being openminded and tolerant of my enthusiasm

They're horrible writers like Bob Dylan is a horrible singer. — Jonah Tobias

It's like that in that the judgments are inherently subjective. I like Bob Dylan's singing a lot. I don't like Hegel and Heidegger's writing at all. You like Hegel and Heidegger's writing a lot. (I'm not sure if you really like Bob Dylan's singing or not.) In any event. These sorts of statemetns only tell us how someone feels about the thing in question. Hence why I wrote "personally I think."

There is no thing without the motion. — Jonah Tobias

That's plausible, but only if there's just as much no motion without the thing. And that makes everything not becoming, but inextricably becoming and being, where the case is that neither is primary nor prior nor preferred.

Terrapin- What you are replying to is different than what I am writing. Disagreeing is one thing but a disagreement only means something when one first sees the contours of what one is disagreeing with. If you can't see the contours its not that helpful to make arguments against it.

I am almost 100 percent sure you wouldn't be able to paraphrase my position.

I love Bob Dylan.

Peace. :)

How precise is this present? And where does this notion of a perfectly precise present come from if not from clocks? — macrosoft

A precise present is a way I wouldn't describe the only everything "present" of the flux. There's a difficulty in having to use the very words you're trying to redefine. Of trying to talk about things beyond the limits of our language using language. The mind needs past present and future to make sense- I'm arguing these don't exist outside of the mind but of course I need to use these words to talk because I am using my mind.

I'm not sure its worth chopping up more on this particular subject. The differences- the stubbornness of the disagreement will probably reflect in some other area of conversation as well. Maybe it'll be clearer then- what is at stake?

For me, my sense, my feeling when I talk about our different concepts of time- is that I feel like I am reaching for a demystifying of this time process- and you believe you are speaking of a time concept that has greater depth than what I am speaking of.

When you talk about the importance of "reclaiming your time" ;) It sounds bizarre to me that this could be accomplished through abstract talk of time unless there's a sort of white magisters wig put upon the concepts. Maybe I just don't see it and its there (probably the case). But also I think there's a wall being erected against the power of other's values and opinions using a doped up philosophy concept that sometimes urges for obscurity (as you say Heidegger's later years)- which does not seem in good faith. The philosopher doesn't want to be subject to the opinions and juddments of others. Some would say Philosophy began with this battle over who's judgments shall reign- "I will tell you what you value is base, and what I value is the true good!".

When I hear heidegger talk about time it seems to me like he's tracing out the complicated specifics and minutiae of how different things can be related to each other- almost like a joke that goes too long into the specifics. I feel like I could imitate/mock Heidegger's style and talk earnestly about the relatioinships of past present and future ad nauseum- but this detailed tracing of the tangled web of our experience to me doesn't seem to have much of a point besides feeling very smart and philosophical posturing. Here's my example-

" Sometimes the Time of our present is experienced as the living past as its understood and conditioned by a future that is already constitutive of this past-experienced-in-the-present in so far as the future proscribes certain possibiliities and impossibilities (such as mortality) and thus the lived-past in the present is torn from the socially bequeathed heritage and given new life in our own future's forge. But of course this future is itself experienced as a condition of a societal past and its only by trying to break free from all the possible influences of the past that permeate the future- through the fringe extreme example of say death- or nothing- (which as an abstraction is of course always the most difficult to really understand and be self aware of how our social conditioning past still constitutes this notion because when we say nothing-ness- its very difficult to talk about exactly what this means....) that we can get the illusion of a more personal present birthed out of the abstraction of the death or nothingness. But of course, its in the apparently most content free concepts of death or radical freedom that the greatest vagueness can breed since they are so difficult to talk about and we can project onto its empty surface our most problematic concepts."

Now maybe this uber-philosophical conceptualization is a tool box and a mine- and by tasking our mind to plunge into it we come out with diamonds of every variety- and you've come out with such diamonds and I haven't and that's why we fall on different sides of it. And surely I don't understaand what's down there since I haven't really plummeted its depths just tried sometime years ago and felt like I was entering into such a foggy morass it couldn't have been erected in good faith with the attempt at clarity.

(Yes- I know clarity can not be used as an attack on ideas which are necessarily difficult. But it can be used as an attack on ideas which could be clearer but are purposely not).


I see the "remember- we're all going to die and cease to be" part of it- and the attempt to live that feeling and the freeing up of our pressures upon ourselves that comes with it- the feeling of being free that accompanies it. And this is related to the winning back of our phenomenal experience from the "le mot et le mort de le chose"- "The word is the death of the thing" from society... i.e. society replaces our unique experience with its generic expectations. And this freedom is a kind of poetry and music yes. Its a kind of disconnection from others as well- but that can potentially lead to a greater connection by rediscovering ourselves so that we can then bring this rediscovered selves to others to more authentically connect.

I'm ok with all that- a moment in the dialectic of our life- at times we need to disconnect and rediscover our own lived experience- through poetry and music and the like. And at times I also think we need to face the music and live within our ego in society- to be held accountable for how others see us because language and appearances are the fabric of society- and though we aim for jesus like purity of experience we have to do the best with our realistic capabilities.

But where that mistifying mist rises up in philosophy... only look what ugly thoughts can hide behind these abstractions in the case of Heidegger! I think its important to speak plainly when we can.... this goes for philosophical writings in general. We say that if we speak plainly (like Nietzsche) we'll be misunderstood (like Nietzsche). But if we speak only in this tortured complex language we'll be even more misunderstood. Didn't delueze have a dichotomy of these two language- common language and more philosophical? I see them as common language is easy to relate to the rest of life and judge- but difficult to know the author's true intention because its so easy to substitute it with our own. Why philosophical language is more precise and distinct as to the author's intention- but so difficult to bring it to bear upon every day life and connect and really understand it- and this itself forms a kind of mask by separating it out from the world it must refer to.

I think both are necessary. And where someone seems so fanatical about only ever speaking in one sense or another- I suspect bad faith.

Disagreeing is one thing — Jonah Tobias

Do we disagree?

— Terrapin Station

most definitely lol

There's a difficulty in having to use the very words you're trying to redefine. — Jonah Tobias

Indeed. We can only expand the circle of meaning using what is already in there in strange ways.

I'm not sure its worth chopping up more on this particular subject. The differences- the stubbornness of the disagreement will probably reflect in some other area of conversation as well. Maybe it'll be clearer then- what is at stake? — Jonah Tobias

Probably not that much is at stake. It won't rock your world ethically if you suddenly see where I am coming from. It'll only change your mind that Heidegger was indeed saying something fresh. Existentialism as an ethic or worldview is as old as Stirner and even predates Hegel as 'The Irony' of certain artsy German intellectuals. So this isn't what is fresh about Heidegger. Indeed, we don't have to keep dwelling on it, but I will dwell on it a little longer just to reply to your post.

For me, my sense, my feeling when I talk about our different concepts of time- is that I feel like I am reaching for a demystifying of this time process- and you believe you are speaking of a time concept that has greater depth than what I am speaking of. — Jonah Tobias

Basically 'my' view (or I hope Heidegger's) is itself a demystification of clock time. But let us consider the demystification of demystification itself. It, demystification, is one more unmasking that always seeks the Real behind the Unreal. So our pursuit of depth and our pursuit of demystification aren't so separate in my view. Just as atheism can be profound (in that it opens up the mystery of a world that exists as brute fact), so does a demystification of the instantaneous open up metaphysics to a wider space. Instead of 'primordial' time being the construction of a spider web, it is the destruction of spider webs via an attack on an inconspicuous presupposition of such spiderwebs.

And surely I don't understaand what's down there since I haven't really plummeted its depths just tried sometime years ago and felt like I was entering into such a foggy morass it couldn't have been erected in good faith with the attempt at clarity. — Jonah Tobias

I relate to this. I'm just saying that sometimes (esp. in work prior to Being and Time) the dude did indeed just really come out and say it as clearly as it could be said. The situation is similar with Hegel. Scholars who have put in the time with Hegel can find 'most' of Hegel in the Phenomenology. But readers who start there are pretty quickly like WTF? They think this 'is' Hegel, though really it was Hegel still clarifying his own thoughts and writing under economic pressure. When the man had a secure economic position, he gave very clearly lectures that were extremely popular.

Similarly Heidegger's lectures became extremely popular. They were published long after B&T, so they aren't at the foreground of intros to Heidegger. Instead one gets the sense that one should leap into a dense book that crushes years of thought into a somewhat thick and heavy prose, translated in a way that suggests mysticism or bad faith on his part. Of course he also abandoned an exoteric style after the war, maybe because of some kind of guilt or human failing. Nevertheless, I'd say that his mid 20s stuff is intelligble. The only hard part is the phenomenology. Phenomena must be grasped intuitively. While this opens up the question of mysticism, it's really more like learning math. It's hard to put what learning math really 'is' down on paper in the symbols. The way the symbols work 'express' these intuitions indirectly. So being-in-the-world-with-others is aiming at a pre-theoretical 'worlding' in which explicit theories are born. Rather than being esoteric, it is too familiar , like the water we swim in. It's 'esoteric' in that one has to be reminded to 'just look ' --and don't project theory.

But where that mistifying mist rises up in philosophy... only look what ugly thoughts can hide behind these abstractions in the case of Heidegger! I think its important to speak plainly when we can.... this goes for philosophical writings in general. We say that if we speak plainly (like Nietzsche) we'll be misunderstood (like Nietzsche). But if we speak only in this tortured complex language we'll be even more misunderstood. Didn't delueze have a dichotomy of these two language- common language and more philosophical? I see them as common language is easy to relate to the rest of life and judge- but difficult to know the author's true intention because its so easy to substitute it with our own. Why philosophical language is more precise and distinct as to the author's intention- but so difficult to bring it to bear upon every day life and connect and really understand it- and this itself forms a kind of mask by separating it out from the world it must refer to. — Jonah Tobias

These are all good points. But you might be neglecting that the circle of meaning is expanded only by abusing words. Intellectual progress is the self-mutilation of common sense. More dramatically, philosophy making itself intelligible is suicide. At first this sounds like the most pretentious thing that could possibly be said. But it is only a dramatic way of defining philosophy as that which extends the realm of the intelligible. It may well be that 999 out of 1000 humans speaking in new ways are really wasting our time with their own confusion. But occasionally 1 of them really has grasped something new. Demanding that philosophy always be publicly and immediately intelligible is demanding that it not be philosophy, that it stay within the very ring of meaning it ought to stretch. If we think about paradigm shifts in physics, this becomes obvious. People like Einstein redefine time and space. They shake the entire network of meaning by shaking its fundamental meanings. With science, its predictive power overcomes any metaphysical skepticism. We can believe where we don't understand. With philospohy it's different, since meaning has an elusive, imperfectly public sharedness. Words don't always work.


*I do generally get where you are coming from and agree. I am just stubbornly presenting some thoughts that seem connected and (maybe) neglected.

Probably not that much is at stake. It won't rock your world ethically if you suddenly see where I am coming from. It'll only change your mind that Heidegger was indeed saying something fresh. — macrosoft

I definitely agree Heidegger was saying something fresh. And your comparison with Hegel is a good one too. Right- I've benefited a lot from reading the phenomenology.... and hearing other people explain it to me especially lol And yes, I do not believe we live in the time of the clock either. For me a lot of this came from discussions of being and becoming and questioning how it is that I experience time... as well as Bergson's theorem that when we say time we're really talking about space. Love me some Bergson!

It may well be that 999 out of 1000 humans speaking in new ways are really wasting our time with their own confusion. But occasionally 1 of them really has grasped something new. — macrosoft

All my talk of Being and Becoming has got to cue you in that I'm down for the difficult language of philosophical thought. In my demand that philosophy talk in common language as well- there's a deeper demand there.

Philosophy has got to lead to something!

Obviously some views could disagree. But I really think philosophy is something to be embodied and lived. It has to enter into our conversations. Its like a new eyeball. When you're describing this eyeball to someone- it may be very difficult language and very scientific. But when they've learned it they put this eyeball in their head- and now they see things differently. Once we've expanded our meaning of concepts like truth, etc- we don't need to explain them again each time. We just use them with a different sense.

Basically what I'm really getting at here is- Philosophy for what? How come? Why philosophy at all?

This isn't a fully honest question because I know my what and why. Philosophy was the forge that changed my thought and my life. I'm grateful to it.

Sometimes its punctuated equilibrium- you've got to spend a lot of time in the dirths of abstract thought for seemingly no reason but to find all the things you disagree with or else don't understand. But the reason you're down there is because- yes- you like it. But more than that- because of those punctuated moments of truth! Epiphany! And Truth changes our world- our lives.

When I look at the world around us- politics in america and the world- the "liberal elites" of the media- the ones who used to protect us from our own worst instincts- and subject us to theirs- they've been rocked by the populism of social media and the flattening of information in general. Its a more populist world of information. So we can't rely on protection anymore from those who "know better'. The democracy is a more true democracy- which means just as dumb as its people.

So philosophy- truth- all these things become more important than ever. And one thing I like about my perspective on things is that it helps breed a philosophical humility. TLDR- we're just animals bro... animal brains. We only see from our own tiny perspective. Respect and love differences, etc, etc yadadya- And at the same time- Demistify your intellectual concepts on God that think they KNOW to make room for the mystery of true spirituality.

So I come on to this forum as a- hmmm. its been 10 years lying dormant all these thoughts. And I feel like they have legs. I feel like they should go somewhere. Even if every single thought within this has been said before- its something of a new center. I've searched for it in writings and I've seen parts and pieces here and there, etc. But the big picture of it- the central thrust of it- It feels like Nietzsche to me but it doesn't sound like Nietzsche at all. It echoes Bergson, Deleuze, Rorty, so many, so many others of course. But its got its own identity.

So what to do?

I'm working on an animated series. Just writing it. Its been a long project. It is sooo difficult.

I find myself in the weird situation of thinking that I have something important to communicate and share in the world of philosophy. At this point I'm convinced that I do. Even if you disagree you can just play along with a- "supposing you did have something new to communicate..."

It's the "what now". Can I meet some professor and partner with him and have him do all the dirty work because he's chosen a career in academia anyways? Is that a kind of shortcut for me? Is that realistic.

Or should I just keep plugging away at this animated thing and try to reach a broad market.

The Acedemic world or the popular world?

What do you do with a problem like Maria?

If this was Athens I would walk into the town center and debate with Socrates I suppose....

For me a lot of this came from discussions of being and becoming and questioning how it is that I experience time... as well as Bergson's theorem that when we say time we're really talking about space. Love me some Bergson! — Jonah Tobias

I really want to get around to him, since I have the impression he speaks to this. Yes, time as space! That seems a good way to think of clock time. We use a spatial number system (the real number line) to model time without really giving it consideration or looking inward.

All my talk of Being and Becoming has got to cue you in that I'm down for the difficult language of philosophical thought. In my demand that philosophy talk in common language as well- there's a deeper demand there. — Jonah Tobias

I'm all for the simplest language possible, at least when one is trying to communicate the idea and not having fun with language for its own sake. But sometimes the philosophers didn't do a great job or don't yet know exactly what they mean but have a hunch that something is there.

Philosophy has got to lead to something! — Jonah Tobias

I can relate. But why can't it just lead to more light, more music? Just generally upward and opening? A widening spiral of meaning.

But I really think philosophy is something to be embodied and lived. It has to enter into our conversations. Its like a new eyeball. When you're describing this eyeball to someone- it may be very difficult language and very scientific. But when they've learned it they put this eyeball in their head- and now they see things differently. Once we've expanded our meaning of concepts like truth, etc- we don't need to explain them again each time. We just use them with a different sense. — Jonah Tobias

I agree. Well said. At some point the difficult and the new becomes easy and obviously shared so that there's no need for prefaces. That would be the living past, in my view. It's become subliminal, automatic, but at one time is was difficult, uncertain, conscious.

Basically what I'm really getting at here is- Philosophy for what? How come? Why philosophy at all? — Jonah Tobias

Yeah, that is the question. Some have said that man is philosophy --inasmuch he is beyond the (other) animals. An arrow flying over the horizon. A quest for the infinite or to see things whole. A quest to unveil, unveil, unveil. Revelation itself incarnate.

But more than that- because of those punctuated moments of truth! Epiphany! And Truth changes our world- our lives. — Jonah Tobias

Wow. Yeah that gets the experience. It's ecstasy. It's depth. Words that embarrass people who want philosophy to be a little science of some kind that smart people can be bored with because they know lots of little games. Being bored with philosophy is being bored with being. Bad philosophy bores, no doubt, but because bores are bleating and bleeding it.

When I look at the world around us- politics in america and the world- the "liberal elites" of the media- the ones who used to protect us from our own worst instincts- and subject us to theirs- they've been rocked by the populism of social media and the flattening of information in general. Its a more populist world of information. So we can't rely on protection anymore from those who "know better'. The democracy is a more true democracy- which means just as dumb as its people. — Jonah Tobias

That's how I see it to. All decorum is gone (well, I guess we could have a presidential sex tape to really go all the way, but I won't be watching that one. ) Public discourse is largely as rude and crude and stupid as Youtube comments. I understand conspiracy theory in terms of a fantasy that someone is actually in control. I understand why even dark theories have appeal, because I think no one is really driving (that power is not quite that concentrated) and I would be scared if I wasn't always thinking instead about ....philosophy. So I guess there's a certain kind of escapism in philosophy for me. I wouldn't use 'escapism,' but others might. I'd say I focus on aspects of reality that allow me to thank it for being around. Still reality, just not the barks and squeals of politics.

So philosophy- truth- all these things become more important than ever. And one thing I like about my perspective on things is that it helps breed a philosophical humility. TLDR- we're just animals bro... animal brains. We only see from our own tiny perspective. Respect and love differences, etc, etc yadadya- And at the same time- Demistify your intellectual concepts on God that think they KNOW to make room for the mystery of true spirituality. — Jonah Tobias

Nice. Pretty much my view too.

So I come on to this forum as a- hmmm. its been 10 years lying dormant all these thoughts. And I feel like they have legs. I feel like they should go somewhere. Even if every single thought within this has been said before- its something of a new center. I've searched for it in writings and I've seen parts and pieces here and there, etc. But the big picture of it- the central thrust of it- It feels like Nietzsche to me but it doesn't sound like Nietzsche at all. It echoes Bergson, Deleuze, Rorty, so many, so many others of course. But its got its own identity. — Jonah Tobias

To me this is a familiar situation. I think passionate and thoughtful people always end up being somewhat novel fusions of what they have been exposed to and come up with on their own. I come hear myself to develop my own philosophy, find new metaphors for old ideas, and maybe every once in a while a truly new fusion. I've though about writing it all up, but it just doesn't feel the same away from conversation. In some ways this is already the perfect medium. I would just ask for more people on this forum, 10 times as many active participants.

In ordinary life I know highly educated technical people on the one hand and musicians and artists on the other. Neither group really reads the kind of stuff that we read. That's fine. In a way it's even nice. I get to live whatever it is I think I have learned with appealing to little passwords. If I am becoming brighter and wiser, it should show in the way I interact with people without me having to drop abstractions on them. And it does flow. But it took time to mostly live in this flow. So much knowledge is pre-conceptual, like riding a bike. And then just actually liking people gets most of the job done. I guess philosophy keeps one's eye on the mystery and the beauty in even the small things that might bore the less open and curious. So it's easier to be amused, happy, and then to like others. One finds oneself in everyone, at least a little.

I find myself in the weird situation of thinking that I have something important to communicate and share in the world of philosophy. At this point I'm convinced that I do. Even if you disagree you can just play along with a- "supposing you did have something new to communicate..."

It's the "what now". Can I meet some professor and partner with him and have him do all the dirty work because he's chosen a career in academia anyways? Is that a kind of shortcut for me? Is that realistic.

Or should I just keep plugging away at this animated thing and try to reach a broad market.

The Acedemic world or the popular world?

What do you do with a problem like Maria?

If this was Athens I would walk into the town center and debate with Socrates I suppose.... — Jonah Tobias

I think it highly unlikely (though possible) that you could get someone to do the dirty work IMO. That's just my sense of human nature. An academia is a busy place.

And then the dirty work is the work itself. Better IMV to just write a book, sell it if possible or just put out a pdf.

I've thought about writing a book, but I end up having more fun just talking on forums. And here we are, published, warts and all, in the living conversation.

Mac Miller, 2009(recommend putting on replay before you begin to read)(play through once and listen thoroughly if you are yet to hear the song prior)
I guess I am more fortunate then most, because I have always known exactly how I wanted to start this. "This", being my story. I want to be clear all I've ever hoped to achieve in this life is to selflessly, empathetically, assist others in enjoying this experience. I don't want my name connected to my work in any way. I don't want money. I am nervous I am nearing my death. It is simply my tendency to expect the bad with the good. And my, have I been finding a lot of good lately. It hasn't been because of material or others. But it's like my souls awake. I feel so different then ever in my life. I've accomplished this and so much within my self. But the weird thing, all I did was begin thinking independently. I stopped looking to others for things, and instead asked my self. For the longest time, I truly couldn't understand what felt so weird about it. But have recently realised, the possibility that I really am one of few humans with this ability. Imagine, a species, coming literally from primal ancestors. That have seemingly achieved a higher sense of self, or a concious. There must be a point of transition correct? A point where evolution, natural selection, takes effect. I kinda just can't help but wonder if this is that point. I imagine, at the surface, that probably sounds pretty wacky. But see, I have personally experienced some pretty odd things in this life. Hell I wish I couldn't even explain it, simply because it tortured me for so long. I have to catch my breath so often writing all of this, it's like a vomit I've been holding in for years. It's felt so bad, hurt me for so long. Absolutely numbing to the deepest of my core. Can you imagine for a moment, empathize with me. Try to imagine exactly how you would feel, suspended in this picture i'm going to paint for you. Imagine being surrounded with others the "same" as you. Being told regularly that regular is the supposed to be. Watching everyone celebrate their regular. The depiction of the very meaning of life, to be regular! Experiencing anything new or different is bad! Just try to imagine a truly ambitious, caring, considerate, sensitive, aware child, being drown in such a life. Ya see, I trusted my family, my teachers, the ones that were supposed to look out for me. And it took so long! So much damage! For me to realize you can't trust anything, a single person says. Some damage is irreversible, and don't forget to consider that the next time you question how to treat someone. Matter of fact, just ask your self how you would like to be treated. Anyways. So this child, surviving all the abuse that was done, and still all that kid wants is to be like everyone else. He tried everyday. Put thought into every action. A kid!! Being aware of the difference that the image of my self that I depict for others, affects rather they are okay with that persons very existence. Pure, instinctual, hatred. I can't understand why I was treated the way I was for so long. But I found a light. I fought my self every day for so long! So many time, I gave up, but, I couldn't ever stop. And it actually paid off. I fought through all the pain, and focused, on that light. For the longest all I did was focus that light on others, why and how they lived, so I could be like them. I just wanted to be regular. My life was anything but. A while passes, and boy sees a bigger picture. He sees the way to help others isn't to stay the same as we have been. But to come up with his own idea of good. I can't explain what happened out of that very well honestly. I couldn't tell you if some how everyone sensed it, or my behavior just changed. But everything, has changed so much since that day. Everyone. Everything. This voice, inside my head, yenno. It's like it knows everything. It's intimidating yenno, being so different. The things I think, that I try to talk about. For the longest people seemed to react negative, almost instinctually, to my conversation. And it's like slowly, everyone just began to accept what I had to say. I was just a child. I had no way of understanding. I was alone, suspended in a sort of hell. I just focused on that light. That ability I had to look where I wanted, and truly accept what was there. I was actually abused for this behavior for so long. I began hardening my exterior, and nearly turned into the very monster I hoped to vanquish. So often, I feel as if I'm riding that fence, but I am fortunate enough to have some one to go to. To relax around and just achieve some clarity. I couldn't be here without them. It's been a long journey, but I did always hope to make a difference. I'm not afraid to say I can see the impact I've had on the way people live their lives every day. I'm not afraid to admit I've invested every bit of my being, to being that change. It all hurt so badly I had to, put everything I had, to it. What I've come to realise is I've been drowning because I'm trying to swim with all the weight on my shoulders. I guess because of all the pain it caused me, I had my self believing my thoughts weren't okay to even think. Let alone speak aloud to another person. For what, from my perspective it was a literal curse. It would defeat, what I seen as my purpose. To just help another enjoy their experience. Even if it meant to sacrifice my own experience. It would be worth it if I could just help even one person. To carry the weight of the world. I lived that way, in complete agony, falling victim to my own perspective. Until, this girl, taught me we are all responsible for our own happiness. If she heard this I'm sure she'd remember the very moment. She truly loved me more then I loved my self. I learned to implement that into my way of thinking. I realised I was choosing when to be happy or mad. And that I could choose not to let things affect me negatively. In fact, I realised, everything has it's ups and downs, things change. But it is my decision to choose how I react to it all. Who decided when bad things happen we have to be upset. Can't we be constructive in the face of upheaval. Wouldn't every human everywhere benefit from us working constructively in unison with one another?

I realised I was choosing when to be happy or mad. And that I could choose not to let things affect me negatively. In fact, I realised, everything has it's ups and downs, things change. But it is my decision to choose how I react to it all. — NotesOfAMan

Thanks for sharing. And I quoted what I also consider an important realization --that one is responsible or might as well act as if responsible for one's own mental states --excluding being expected to smile with a compound fracture, etc.

Thanks for reading friend, I do agree that is a key point in my realizations and perspective this far.

I remember too growing up in Florida and just feeling like my soul was being cramped. Extinguished. And then when I discovered philosophy and really began to live my life- yeah- I jumped into a different game- different rules- and whereas before I was always a sore fit- suddenly I could breathe. I don't think it means that we're so much better than others- just that we emphasize a side of humanity that's less respected in certain societies- and its an important side. So here's to finding ourselves and our lives and not trying to be something we're not. "Become that which though art ;)"

My pleasure. I appreciate the openness and sincerity of your post.

I started working on my animated series again tonight lol. Trying to put my philosophy into an entertaining format. I think you're right. And personally I'm not smitten with Academia. Its a good gig and all- I see that. There's lots thats great about it. But you've heard the metaphor of Odysseus tied to the masts of the ship- he could listen to the call of the sirens as long as he was tied and couldn't do anything about it. And to a Nietzschean thinker like myself- I just feel like I've got to wager my life to make a change. Academia seems far too comfortable for that. And the context of thinking directs the course of the thinking- some views can't be seen until you've taken a few steps outside. Like Hunter S Thompson says about journalism- Gonzo- You've got to meet and confront reality- try to push it a little and feel it push you back- to really understand it. Like Lacan says about Fantasies... you've got to live them out, really go through them, so you can move on with what's real and leave behind what's illusion... rather than living your life in pursuit of them. Discussion and books can teach a great deal- and of course we're all living lives- but I think to really understand philosophy you have to live it and feel the push and pull of reality. And besides- people like us- and the academics- like you say- they're only one type of person. One type. To understand reality and move beyond our own bubble a bit its probably best to try to avoid just leaping into another one. Can you communicate your philosophy to a kid from the hood?

Are you in Academia? Is Philosophy your hobby? What do you do?

So very well put friend, here is to finding our selves. I do hope I didn't accidentally put a perspective into my story, that would allow for such an idea as: me or anyone else being better then another person. I enjoy the idea of the experience you shared so much and relate so well. Finding philosophy has helped a lot in my experience

Can you communicate your philosophy to a kid from the hood? — Jonah Tobias

That is my fantasy --to write high ideas in the language of the street. I am torn though. If I am too folksy and insufficiently pretentious here for instance, then maybe I will be under-rated. So my vanity urges me to talk about as fancy as I can manage at high speed.

But I listen to some nasty rap when the mood strikes, and that is true modern poetry. Danny Brown's 'Monopoly' for instance. That is pure Nietzsche in some sense. It's a mocking assertion of superiorty and transcendence. Rap is the truth about the rest of our culture, the truth of capitalism, let's say. (Oversimplification alert!) We love and hate it. At the center of it all is a word that only some of us are allowed to say, which is fascinating. Rap tells one side and the politicians with their euphemisms tell the other. IMV one of the goals of thinking is to unite this kind of split consciousness. I am good and evil, high-minded and just a vain beast. Oh but I've said too much. Surely these things can't intimately coexist? A knowledge of profound evil and profound good? The wisdom of the serpent and the gentleness of the dove?

edited

How much does philosophy talk about Racism? That's kind of relegated into the English Department- Cultural studies I think. — Jonah Tobias

Good question. I'm not sure. And when it is talked about it is often a little fake sounding. It is pre-politicized. On reddit you can see the real thinking going on. I'm a liberal on social matters, etc., but I am not excited about certain trends, certain shrill voices on the left. The real thinking is indeed happening, but I'm guessing that high theory will have to be parasitic on outsider thought. You almost have to be anonymous to really talk about race in all of its complexity, I think. If you say 'I oppose racism' but confess that you have to fight certain racist tendencies to strive toward this ideal, I don't think it would go over well. 'I don't agree with racism, but I understand it.' Taboo things are not for understanding. Politics has a fundamental shallowness most of the time. Tribal chest-beating, the repetition of unquestionable mantras, etc. A wasteland. Does my distaste for it figure into the equation of power? Sure. One irresponsibly and selfishly tunes out.

You mention serpeant and dove. One way of looking at rap or a kid from the hood- compared to abstract philosophy and where ever we're from... is Chakras. Whether you believe in one system or whatever- just the general idea that when you listen to someone's voice- some people speak from their belly- some the top of their head. Some are more rooted- some more airy. What part of a persons self is activated and where are we still sleeping. They say Hip Hop was born when people began imitating the drums with their voice rather than the melodies. Its the rhythm. And Rhythm is the lower chakras. Are the lower chakras lower? Only if you prize the mind greater than the soul. — Jonah Tobias

All of this is great. There's the old idea that racism is about projection too. Whatever white consciousness did not want to find in itself it had to project on the other. Same with women. Those repressed aspects of consciousness must exist somewhere. They are just displaced. Boy don't cry. But then they need women who will to feel complete. Same with whiteness and rap. But we get strange scenes. I was in a hip music store once (before the digital revolution wiped it out) and everyone in there was listening to the speakers blast a word that none of them could say themselves --not even in the same joyous, affirmative tone.

edited

This Whitey needs his damn rap :) — Jonah Tobias

Ha. I cleaned up my post to play it safe. For me I go through rap phases and get temporarily burnt out.

I love Dave Chappelle (Not because he's black). His point about the metoo movement. When you reject and kick out everyone who's done wrong- it just keeps them underground and hiding. They need to be confronted and given the chance to change. — Jonah Tobias

Yeah, Dave is legit. Comedy goes right to the line. That's it's genius. Some real philosohy happens there, the deep stuff, minimally pretentious.

Violators should be confronted, but what turns me off is the hypocrisy of the mob. I don't believe the atoms of the mob are innocent themselves. Some of them are envious of fame and just take a cruel delight in self-righteousness. I'm wary of the word 'should,' because I am afraid of becoming absorbed by the energy of politics.

As far as actual general differences, that's plausible. But I think it's very hard to separate culture and self-conceptualization from that which is innate. Who are offered as childhood heroes? That seems like a big question to me. Being raised white and seeing all those white presidents, scientists, poets, etc. An endless parade of white male heroes. And many of them are indeed heroes. It becomes very easy to understand white identity as a kind of pseudo-universality. Especially with scientific heroes foremost in mind. Do we (without thinking much about it) tend to give whiteness credit for technology? We may 'know' that it wasn't the skin color that mattered, but maybe those pictures in grammar school classrooms speak louder than conceptual considerations. Recently I heard or read somewhere something like :'all white people think they are superior.' Is there a pride in whiteness that is mostly unconscious? Experienced as a kind of neutral pride in one's own self but dependent somehow on skin color? It seems plausible. If people with more pigment in their skin had by chance ended up in the same position, I think it would be the same for them.

Recently I heard or read somewhere something like :'all white people think they are superior.' Is there a pride in whiteness that is mostly unconscious? Experienced as a kind of neutral pride in one's own self but dependent somehow on skin color? It seems plausible. If people with more pigment in their skin had by chance ended up in the same position, I think it would be the same for them. — macrosoft

I really feel like this is a valid point. I believe very strongly in vibrations. That our presence, has an affect on those around us. And I hate to say this, but truly, for there to be an argument, there has to be grief on both sides. Both have to see a reason to argue. And generally speaking, it's not white people going out being racist to anyone not white. In fact most people do their very best not to acknowledge race. It is simply a curiosity. When as a child you are told things about blacks running, or asians being short. Or white people being racist. Of course you are going to begin to question the differences apparent between race. Besides that, it's not generally white people seeking things out. Its other races recognizing that there are racist people, and getting upset about it. White people just seem the be the target for all the repercussions of such things. I guess our ancestors set us up for it. But I thought not doing that whole, oh our ancestors said this, no no, our ancestors said this, was what we needed to do to avoid conflict over race again. We gotta leave it all in the past and accept there are differences between races.

Black folks tend to dance better. They tend to sing with more feeling. Not all, but many. To me, this means they're more embodied- more activated and aware of their feelings. It suggests to me they have stronger souls, and more active hearts. We melanin lacking are far more disembodied. Now advantages come with that- with less feeling we can be more controlled and disciplined easier, etc, we're less prideful, easier for us to act in our longterm interest rather than act out of passion etc. and other things too that I feel uncomfortable saying. But basically, when racists say black people are more animalistic reverse racists can just say- well white people are closer to robots. What happened to their souls? What happened to their hearts? What else is more important in life than the soul and the heart? — Jonah Tobias

I feel like this is so accurate. But I feel like it's still really deep in murky water so to speak. As you put it, "To me, this means they're more embodied- more activated and aware of their feelings". I feel as there is a lot in that line to be discovered. I believe a more passionate out look would lead to more bias generally, unless ones views and values are being held to a constructive standard of course. Until that point is achieved for the individual to begin and transition into being constructive, there would be a completely different behaviour behind a noticeably more passionate outlook. Especially having been brought up in America, not in this generation, but as African Americans actual original point of beginning to become slaves really. The fact that weight is carried on the shoulders of African Americans today. Can you imagine the staggering affect, or role, such a thing could play in a childs life? Their values, morals, would all change. Likely down to their very core, their sense of self. It would beckon the question, what's the reason for this. Why were my ancestors slaves here. Why does it seem there is racism still apparent and why am I misfortunate enough to be discriminated against. Why are there statistics about African Americans being in the hood, and all of that nature of speak. Imagine how those blows fare against the strength of his door, his concious. Put your self in those shoes. It's a very touch border, a gray area I'd say, that we explore at this moment. It's hard to close a gap that's been reinforced so severely by ignorance.

I think one of the most important things with racism, is remembering we need to aim to love everyone the same. That doesn't mean we need to try and pick and choose the correct level of love to give.. we are supposed to love all others 100% without question. The moment you have to stop and question that, and the question is seeded in race. You have found the bound of racism. The very questioning of that nature of our reality is but a cardinal sin. As it should be. Are a criminals values being passed down to their child, seen as acceptable. A racist shouldn't be either. We should fight them the same. With awareness. We need to accept there are differences not just between race but between all people. There simply are, people of all shapes, sizes, and abilities, in all races. But a race is indigenous to a region. That means their physical characteristics will generally be dependent on that area. It's evolution, it is a basic at this point. When any living organism is exposed to a specific biome for any extended period of time, changes are made to fit the surroundings.