This is a part II to the previous post, which I felt was incomplete, but that I posted anyway because I couldn't quite figure out how to reconcile what I was really relaying.
I have been reading a lot of science-based non-fiction lately. It started by watching Cosmos which re-ignited a piece of my brain that had laid dormant for a while - scientific inquiry. I always really liked science in high school. Science AND math actually. They provide answers to problems in a tidy way that just makes you feel accomplished. I have been waaaay out of that scene for a while though, so my skills of actually completing any sort of mathematical equations would be very compromised at this point without some serious remediation.
The book I am currently reading on this subject, "You Are Here: A Portable History of the Universe," by Christopher Potter, is more of a history of science, specifically science dedicated to understanding the universe. The author was in a related field, but personally had some issues with understanding his "place in it all" and the point of what he was doing. And I think that philosophical inquiry regarding our understanding of, well, our understanding of everything, is key to actually being able to understand! Haha. Confusing. But Socrates was able to formulate this idea over 2,000 years ago too - All I know that I know nothing. We've come further into our knowing, but we still don't know anything. It's like we have gathered more puzzle pieces but we still don't know what the puzzle will look like once we snap them all together. Hell, we have like half a face and 3/4 of the border and we're still squinting at it like a damn magic eye picture, trying to figure out what the fuck we're looking at (also, for the record, I can't see ANYTHING in those magic eye pics, so I might be useless when it comes to figuring out what the universe IS or ISN'T). And I am not saying we shouldn't be collecting those puzzle pieces. We just can't get bogged down that the puzzle will solve ANY earthly concern for us in the grand scheme of things.
Potter discusses the "standard theory" of the universe and how messy it is. How it can almost be nothing in the end since it's so nebulous and seemingly disjointed. I haven't finished the book yet, but even so far throughout, he has been pointing out how little we really know. Or how un-definitive our attempts have been to make sense of the universe. We have the atom, we break it open. We have the smallest particles we think we can find, we find smaller ones. We have anti-particles, theorized particles, and a slew of unanswered questions cropping up for each question we do happen to answer. The physicists looking for a "unifying theory" are looking for "god" in numbers. And it strikes me as funny because I doubt they'd believe that to be true, but it's why someone like Sam Harris is so laughable to me. I can't take this genius of neuroscience seriously when he talks, and especially when he criticizes religion and spiritual leaders, because he's so full of shit. He's positing a new vision of god - just one that he can back up with numbers.
Math is the "universal" language, but it's not something that exists out in the wilds of nature. It's a recognizable pattern that HUMANS imposed on something that has existed without explanation since before our appearance on this planet. So what if the Fibonnaci sequence makes sense with this series of numbers? We figured that out after the fact of its existence. Nature is the ultimate existence precedes essence.
Once you stop looking for god in math and science, in spiritual realms, in others, even in yourself, that's when everything starts making sense because you realize that nothing does. The unity is the experience of living more than anything else. From person to person, those experiences aren't ever the same, and will never be- so the endless judgments we cast only makes our shared interactions painful. But we can overcome these tendencies somehow. I have a hard time knowing exactly how. I keep trying to express love and understanding, only to find myself getting stuck in the rut of a hate-fest and cycles of frustration and despair. What I keep coming back to is that ultimately, the goal is to live and not simply to avoid death, which is a scary thought because living entails risks and potentially death. But if I cozy up in my home eternally, or even just never extend myself to try and break down walls both physically and mentally between myself and others, well, then what good am I? Any suggestions are welcome.
24 January 2015
19 January 2015
Personal identifiers and control. ..
The question of why I do not like labels has been something that I have not been able to entirely resolve for a while now. When I say I am an atheist or feminist, but that I don't want to have that label attached to my being, I get weird reactions. People WANT me to pick a side, a label, an identifier. And I resist. But why? Last night, it struck me, finally, as to why. An identifier is another form of control.
A few other elements and experiences have gone into this revelation. My partner waxed poetically about knowing me for so long (22 years....) and how he never imagined being with me. The idea of "me" as a continuity, as something that could be pinned down to represent my very essence, well, that just upset "me." Because even though I have, mentally, experienced "myself" this entire time, I don't even know exactly if there IS continuity of any sort internally. There's a narrative that I can create. Or that others can, to achieve some sort of "Huntress-ness" but is that really real?
Does this mean that my "authentic" self isn't...authentic? Well, no. Because even with authenticity, I don't believe that there is a one-true-self that anyone can achieve. Authenticity refers to the experience of being human, not the experience of being human AS Huntress S. Jackson, esq. Ha! Just kiddin...but seriously, what is more true than existence precedes essence when it really comes down to bare bones? We exist. Just like animals. Just like a tree. No better, no different in the grand scheme of things. Just as mortal and expendable. Which is what drives so many humans to madness. We'd rather do anything than admit to ourselves that we're "just talking meat" -quelle horreur! We're posting pictures of our sandwiches online to foster a connection to someone, anyone who might be listening. What the....?
At the end of Joseph Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness," the narrator Marlow lies to Kurtz's fiancée, telling her his last words were about her. In truth, his last words were ambiguous...perhaps lamenting what he'd become, perhaps about what he'd miss out on, or maybe more broadly, about the disturbing depths all of us are capable of reaching. Kurtz's labels as a successful captain, a well educated and civilized man were temporary, as temporary as we all are. Kurtz's authenticity was real in either chaper of his life - only his circumstances had changed so much that he appeared to be a completely different person to those who had not been with him as he made his transformation.
Is it dangerous to label one's self? Not necessarily. Is it naive? Potentially. As circumstances in your life progress, holding on to labels can keep you from being open to change. The easiest way to think about the trouble with labels is by using an example of a nrgative one. Think about negative self talk you might engage in on a daily basis - your nose is too big, you're overweight, your freckles are ugly...blah, blah. These labels might prevent you from being confident in your abilities. Or you might avoid talking to someone that you might really like. Using your labels to control your experience of the world is an easy trap to fall into, but in the end, it's not worth the effort it takes to constantly compartmentalize everything around you, including yourself because you're also cutting off possible new worlds.
A few other elements and experiences have gone into this revelation. My partner waxed poetically about knowing me for so long (22 years....) and how he never imagined being with me. The idea of "me" as a continuity, as something that could be pinned down to represent my very essence, well, that just upset "me." Because even though I have, mentally, experienced "myself" this entire time, I don't even know exactly if there IS continuity of any sort internally. There's a narrative that I can create. Or that others can, to achieve some sort of "Huntress-ness" but is that really real?
Does this mean that my "authentic" self isn't...authentic? Well, no. Because even with authenticity, I don't believe that there is a one-true-self that anyone can achieve. Authenticity refers to the experience of being human, not the experience of being human AS Huntress S. Jackson, esq. Ha! Just kiddin...but seriously, what is more true than existence precedes essence when it really comes down to bare bones? We exist. Just like animals. Just like a tree. No better, no different in the grand scheme of things. Just as mortal and expendable. Which is what drives so many humans to madness. We'd rather do anything than admit to ourselves that we're "just talking meat" -quelle horreur! We're posting pictures of our sandwiches online to foster a connection to someone, anyone who might be listening. What the....?
At the end of Joseph Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness," the narrator Marlow lies to Kurtz's fiancée, telling her his last words were about her. In truth, his last words were ambiguous...perhaps lamenting what he'd become, perhaps about what he'd miss out on, or maybe more broadly, about the disturbing depths all of us are capable of reaching. Kurtz's labels as a successful captain, a well educated and civilized man were temporary, as temporary as we all are. Kurtz's authenticity was real in either chaper of his life - only his circumstances had changed so much that he appeared to be a completely different person to those who had not been with him as he made his transformation.
Is it dangerous to label one's self? Not necessarily. Is it naive? Potentially. As circumstances in your life progress, holding on to labels can keep you from being open to change. The easiest way to think about the trouble with labels is by using an example of a nrgative one. Think about negative self talk you might engage in on a daily basis - your nose is too big, you're overweight, your freckles are ugly...blah, blah. These labels might prevent you from being confident in your abilities. Or you might avoid talking to someone that you might really like. Using your labels to control your experience of the world is an easy trap to fall into, but in the end, it's not worth the effort it takes to constantly compartmentalize everything around you, including yourself because you're also cutting off possible new worlds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)