God and Order

Our world is ruled by disorder. Ask a physicist why time is perceived as flowing in a direction and they will say it is due to entropy, which merely is a scientific way of saying disorder.

The universe is increasing in disorder (entropy), thus time appears to flow in the direction of past to future. In the past, there was less entropy and, therefore, more order. In the future, there is an increasing amount of disorder.

Take this from a cognitive perspective for a second. Your past is comprised of events that happened. They feel more concrete and solidly grounded in existence, because we know (or believe ourselves to know) that these certain events did in fact occur. Now, go the opposite direction and think towards the future. The future is ruled by probability. Thinking of the future from the present is like running probability simulations of what is likely, or possible, to happen in our lives.

The real question becomes: Why was there order to begin with?

In the opening lines of the Bible, it gives rise to the notion that, before there was light, there was a great void, formless and dark. In this primordial state, we find a state of complete individualization — even all the particles are in isolation, as to have yet formed a connective bond to one another.

It is this initial bond that fulfills the verse of “‘Let there be Light'” (Genesis 1:3).

A non-Biblical analogy is the science of your brain. Think to that first neural connection forming in a burst of energy. This initial burst of life cannot be understood, nor meaningfully explained. And, even if we somehow could meaningfully describe life itself, it would encapsulate all the words that have ever used to describe life. It would be all that ever was. Regardless of the mechanism of how, the result was that your brain formed neural connections and has continued to do so throughout your life forming neural networks.

 

The Paradox of Existence

We are always being torn in two. We live within the tension between opposing forces. Life involves both the processes of living and dying happening simultaneously: Some live to die, and others die to live.

We live a paradox and we are one. We both desperately want to be free but are paralyzed by the true totality of what freedom means. We want to find love but find it terrifying once we are actually truly in love with someone whose well-being directly dictates our own. We seek truth at all cost, except when the truth is far more unbearable than the majesty of our fantasies.

We live this way because existence comes with the knowledge of knowing that we may someday not exist (or, at least, exist in an entirely different form). In the forefront of our minds, we live; but, in the background, we know that we may cease to exist someday. To some this may scare, while others don’t care; but, nonetheless, the thought is ever presently there.

Session: 3

I vacillate between apathy and emotion like the seasons flux from winter to summer. When I feel, I feel. And, when I don’t, I don’t. Neither is truly painful or inherently distressing. The times of apathy simple give my emotions a context.

When you’re feeling apathetic, you see the world for what it truly is. You don’t sugar-coat the facts of the world to make existence easier. You see things from uncaring and impassive eyes that don’t even care enough to want to distort reality into your own liking. Apathy transcends like and dislike and leaves you in a place of isness. This is a place stripped away from labels and judgments of liking, loving, hating, wanting, craving none of these aspects play a role; their values are set at zero. Instead, you just observe the characteristics of whatever it is you are gazing upon or thinking about. You do so in a neutral manner because everything in life is devoid of feeling when truly consumed by apathy.

I do not know if I believe that apathy consumes you in the same way a fire would. It’s more that the apathy is always their and in the cold winter seasons of emotion numbness, it isn’t the apathy that takes over, but the disillusioned self and worldview that leaves.

Proof of Life

Have you ever had a moment where you questioned your own life – no, I don’t mean like existentially question your life, but rather experience something that makes you question whether you’re alive or not?

If you have, then think back to that moment (or a similar one), and, if you haven’t, try and imagine.

So, you have this thought of uncertainty about whether you’re alive or dead, nothing too strange with this experience. What is strange is that we determine that we are indeed alive. You might say, “Why is this strange?” Well, it is strange because what is it that caused you to quell the idea that you are dead? What signs did you look for? What evidence did you need to verify that you were in fact not dead, but alive?

I don’t know the answer to this. My answer is simply that I know, which sounds tautological (and is), but it’s the best explanation I have.

What are your thoughts?

Standard Form

How does believing in multiple realities and multiple perspectives automatically justifies the idea that there can be no absolute as well? I feel these ideas are not in contradiction. A simple maxim for summarizing the postmodern viewpoint is that “the only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths.” However, this statement in and of itself demonstrates that an absolute truth can exist within the same system as that which believes all truths are relative. This very maxim uses the word ‘only’ which signifies that this can apply in every case, except this one. This maxim shows that at least a single absolute truth can exist within a reality ruled by no absolute truths. And a rule with one exception does not look the same as a rule with no exceptions.
If my assertion above is true, all I am really saying is that there are rules that can exist that appear paradoxical when looking through the lens of a two-value truth system (true/false). However, if when looked at through a three-value truth system (true, undetermined/unknown, false), then there exists no opposition between the fundamental assumptions put forth by modernism and postmodernism.