01 August 2009


We have made great advances at discovering what stimulates and gratifies, but yet haven't accepted that an electrode planted in our hypothalamus is the purest, most direct technology to achieve this means. Perhaps we cling to an ideal that we are somehow more than biochemistry, more than our material selves, and that by submitting to the complete gratification of the electrode, we would accept that we are nothing more than stimulus's response.

Ecstacy is probably boring. It's limbo. Where's the balance? Where's the Art? You don't get biodiversity without extinction.

I used to try to imagine if there was no Universe. I imagined just white. But that's something, and it's being observed. It's really boring, but it's not Nothing, and I'm there to be bored with it.

Why does anything exist? I think there should be a reason for it, and it's possible that any reason is the real reason, because it's a reason, and therefore it exists, and it's not Nothing. I don't think oblivion is understandable -- I guess it's the absence of being understandable, the absence of being anything. I don't get it. It's un-gettable, though by nature -- which it doesn't have. It shouldn't have anything, not even a label "it".

Maybe if you ponder it too much, you pop out of existance.

That would be kind of cool, except I wouldn't be able to experience coolness.

That's where I don't get atheism: by my definition (I am God and God is everything), if there's no God, there's nothing, because I don't exist -- I AM (not). If there's no me, there's nothing. If I really believed there was nothing, I wouldn't be around to believe it. The best I can do is believe I don't believe in God. Any God I would want to believe in would make things behave the way I think they should, and I shouldn't have to doubt what should be obvious -- which is kind of funny, because I am obvious, perhaps the only really obvious thing ("I think therefore I am"), and yet I observe things that don't seem to be a part of me, so assume I don't have control; I assume someone or something else might have control. It's all about control.

If I could control everything, then I would know I was God. Yet, I'd be bored because everything did what I expected it to, and what would be the point of All Creation? I'd be All Creation all at once, and I'd always do what I did. Maybe that's what happens when time stops.

I think the only way to experience omniscience is to experience everything, and that means experiencing not knowing.


gustavolk-swagen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gustavolk-swagen said...

Did a grammatical error on first comment: I like your argument, and I have to agree. Though I call myself an "Atheist," that doesn't define who I am or what I really believe. It simply means that I don't believe in God. Since proof of such a thing (in either direction) is scientifically improbable to the point of being impossible, practically speaking.

I agree with Agnostics (note capital 'A') who say "We don't know." As far as being God and God being everything, that makes sense to me, from what I've read, but perhaps that is equivalent to saying the Universe is God, which is kind of how I see it (minus any supernatural forces or phenomena).

Peter McCombs said...

I've really been thinking a lot about oblivion and... uh oh... --pop!-- ...

Dave, you should read Spinoza.

Gustavolk-swagen, although scientific proof of God is vanishingly improbable, it turns out that empirical knowledge arises only from one small aspect of human experience. Beyond the objective, there are other ways of sensing and knowing things.

Thus, I agree with the faithful who say, "We don't know... but we believe." And believing helps me to see what is possible.