2003-03-05 12:14:50 ET

Here's something that I'm dealing with:

Can someone have confidence if he/she does not believe that what he/she thinks is real?

Is this possible? Where do I build confidence? And of the confidence that I do have, from where does it stem?

Here's another bland but relevant thought I've been circulating in my brain:

What you see is what you think; what you think is what you see.

So if you combine these two ideas, which I find express how I feel, what do you come up with? If what you see is what you think, and you don't believe that what you think is real, then what?

2003-03-05 12:23:29 ET

Wow...this particular post is definetly pushing the boundries of what I can understand after being at work for 8 hours....

I suppose I do not understand the corelation between having confidence and not truly believing in what you think is real.
In fact, how can you not believe in what you think is real, or is this the abstract definition of "believe?"

2003-03-05 12:25:24 ET

Then you're shit outta luck brotha.

Heh... Really though, what do you define real as?

I definately agree that what you think is what you see... For instance, getting signals and such and reading people is definately colored by what you're thinking. Haven't you ever thought someone was being really sincere when they weren't, or thought someone was being an ass, just cuz you were having a bad day?

2003-03-05 12:38:16 ET

I suppose it'd be how you interpret objects in space, whether you have confidence that those objects are actually in space. I'm thinking that 'reality' is these objects linked together, which constructs a perspective by which future objects fit into. A method of rationalizing.

However, these 'objects' that are there are only there because, obviousely, you put them there. To me, it seems such an arbitrary process, and that's where the speculation comes into play. There are infinite objects available, and you will only come into contact with a finite amount of these objects, and from this quantity you will create reality. How can one assume 'reality' if there is so much of this 'reality' left out?

So I guess my definition of 'reality' would be an object that occupies space. But to think of space is to attribute a system that wouldn't exist unless you attribue that system, sort of like math is meaningless jargon until you apply it.

Objects in this sense should also entail concepts which forward our capability to reason, comprehend, and construe things, but once again, these things occupy no space, so my definition is flawed.

So what the fuck?

2003-03-05 12:57:14 ET

Some people think that they create their own reality.

2003-03-05 13:04:02 ET

I would recommend getting into some philosophy, if it's really bugging you.

2003-03-05 13:21:28 ET

Yeah dude. Some of what you're saying reminds me of solipsism, a belief that everything exists only in your mind, and you are creating everything. But that's just silly :P Cuz that means you guys don't exist.

2003-03-07 09:23:02 ET

Okay, I suppose this whole 'confidence' idea and this perception/perceiving of reality is all on a metaphysical level. I don't know why I'm trying to put it into an empirical context.

It would be nice if there was taught a sensible, abstract system for understanding metaphysics in public education. I don't know how that would even be possible given the infinite thought processes people have, not to mention religious objections everyone would throw up.

Religion in America holds the only forum for people to come in direct touch with that metaphysical aspect of life. Obviously, for the majority of popular Judeo-Christian systems, the potential for this forum is lost on religious connotation and predetermined thought-tunnels. In fact, the metaphysical aspects of GOD are not only ignored but deplored.

So I get lost, not exactly knowing how to know, ya know?

Here's some shit I jotted down a while back:

Bishop Berkely found two fundamental realities:
-Ideas=Objects of minds.

Pretty basic right there, but he also argued (paraphrased) that God is a spirit which is non-spatial, which means a universe in which God exists is indistinguihable from one where he is absent.
I like this idea.

John Locke: (para) We must be content with probability rather than certainty.

George Berkely: "To be is to be perceived"

(By the way, I don't know this shit verbatum...I got my notebook in front of me =D

2003-03-07 09:27:43 ET

No, you're totally lying: you're a nerd who memorizes quotes.

2003-03-07 09:31:51 ET

No, you're totally right...I am a nerd who memorizes quotes, just not verbatum.

2003-03-07 09:40:33 ET

Hahahahhahaha, NERD!
It is agreed, in this country, that if a man can arrange his religion so that it perfectly satisfies his conscience, it is not incumbent on him to care whether the arrangement is satisfactory to anyone else or not.~~Mark Twain

Oh wait....I'm a nerd.

2003-03-07 10:33:22 ET

The Metaphysical is outside our comprehension though, so how can people say anything meaningful about it. Anything said remains pure speculation.

  Return to De Funkt's page