*Pardon the Part III questions being out of order. Their associated numbers were not meant to be ordinal, just as they appeared on a list. It is natural that the answers may come out of order and some sooner than others. It would be too easy to solve life's problems if fate were to have itself enacted in any order we call "reasonable."
19) Essence is the quality which determines the character of something. Existence is the state of being real, present, or living. Does the state of being real go before the quality which determines the character of something? No. First, a quality can be established as a precedent or standard. After existence the cast of essence is filled, the blueprint embodied. Secondly, a quality does not have to be real to have a profoundly real impact on something. Much like the perceived meaning discussed earlier. Thirdly, must one exist before they possess a certain quality? One must certainly exist before they can embody or portray a characteristic. However, they do not need to exist to possess the potential for a characteristic. This is where the term theoretical is relevant. Numbers in theoretical astrophysics have no practical application and for all intensive purposes are not real, yet they are embodied by the figures that represent them. They possess a definitive characteristics without actually existing, just like a character in a fairy tale who lives an inspirational story. A defined quality is a priori to an object's existence. Just as the laws of thermodynamics were in affect long before they had a name, qualities of character exist before their occupying subject of existence is brought to fruition.
20) The role of faith in my life can best be described as questionable. A person's faith can be a great tool in helping them attribute meaning to their life and motivation for morality. The problems I have run into are that faith without conviction leads only to despair and that I do not believe in abiding to moral standards because you are told to do so or you fear the repercussions if you do not abide. God should not be blackmailing humanity into morality. Yet, the faith I once so firmly believe in has proven (so far) to be shadows dancing on the wall of Plato's cave. I have peered into the light but lack the courage to leave the cave all together. Yet, once I have seen the light (or at least a reflected portion) I can never look at the shadows, its mimes, or their viewers the same again.
21) Kant says you do as you are while Nietzsche says you are as you do. A faith not acted upon points towards a yielding uncertainty and unwillingness to commit. In a Kantian view if you do not enact your faith, you do not have it. You do as you are, you have not acted, therefore you have no faith. For Nietzsche, this only means that you are hesitant to commit, not that your faith is altogether dead. In all honesty I never thought I would use Nietzsche to support a Christian context and Kant against it. I believe that faith without works is not dead. What is the purpose or function of faith if it is something that must be proven through actions? Actions are such a trivial thing. The quality we are discussing is richness of faith. Actions, in all their quantifiable characteristic glory, are not nearly sensitive or accurate enough to measure one's faith.
22) The role of doubt in my life can be best described as persistent and relentless. It is unavoidable and it is (along with desire) the constant. This is the source of despair in our lives. We desire what we can not have, peace of mind. But we can, however, have contention, acceptance, and perseverance. If you have managed to evade all doubt in your life then you are truly a shameful creature who should be pitied. Even martyrs, saints, and preachers have doubt; hence the premise of faith. This, of course, leads us back to Descartes again; doubting everything including doubt itself. But that is beside the point. Doubt can be just as motivating as faith in all its inverses. For example: One could be motivated to act morally because they doubt the validity of atheism. Doubt, similar to pain, should not always be considered in such a negative light as it is provoking and motivational. The bottom line is that no matter what you believe you will, sooner or later, come to doubt it. Doubt is a part of life. Camus said that the only real philosophical question left for modern man was suicide. Camus died half a century ago and I must insist on an adjustment. The only philosophical question for the modern man is "in light of all you have learned, suffered, believed, and doubted, you are still alive, now what are you going to do about it?" You will agonize over despair, you will let down the ones you love, you will have your heart broken, you will be hated for no reason at all, coveted, betrayed, lied to, and taken advantage of; yet if you're reading this then you are still alive, and the choice is yours. What happens next? Do you doubt it?
23) No, revelation does not beget conversion. Revelation is the ultimate handicap in the cosmic game of salvation based belief. Unless a revelation is entirely omniscient and is constantly recurring (that is eternally active and occurring) it is outdated as soon as the awakening has occurred and the revelation has ended. Is conversion even that important to quest after? It is a matter of belief, you do or do not, there is no trying to believe. Eternal and everlasting, omniscient revelations such as the ones we desire do not exist for they would rob humanity of what it is that makes human life human; not freedom alone, but freedom exemplified by authenticity. This is so because we no longer have to act or believe anything on our own because it has all been provided through revelation. We have been bought by fate and bid away as slaves to destiny. If the circumstances (as described) are such that revelation does beget conversion, then our conversion is not authentic and our believe orchestrated. We are the musing puppets pulled by string to "faith." I should believe, or hope, that if God does punish as rumored then he should punish those with a pretentious righteousness more harshly than the honest and noble pagan who laments the ignorant with a hedged piety.
18) It does not matter. I do not know nor can I know. I can choose to believe whatever I like. But the cause of wanting to know one's greater purpose is either to fulfill or reject it. Both are impossible. My greater purpose can not be known because we are, or at least I am, constantly evolving and adapting my practices and perceptions, my agonies and ecstasies, my affections and my afflictions. Does a greater purpose not include our maximum potential and take into consideration our emotional evolution in its entirety? Perhaps it does. When someone posthumously finds out for certain, please, let me know. Thus, if we can not know our greater purpose we are either acting as if it does not exist or out of ignorance.
24) Soul. Decide for yourself. Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians since the dawn of time have tried to define the soul and give a universally quantifiable explanation of it. To my knowledge none have succeeded. Note the 12 different entries on the linked page. There is not even any general mention of religion among any of them. (Note: there are apx 34,000 Christian groups alone and Christianity is only one of apx 270 "Large Religious Groups" in the world). As suggested earlier, decide for yourself what the Soul is. perhaps God will correct us or we will find out after our death... or maybe not. In summary it matters little, if at all. We are people, we are human, we have proven to be so hateful, egotistical, and vengeful yet we have such a potential to be loving, compassionate, and forgiving. Decide, and do something about it.
25) I do not know. many people of many religions believe many different things and I care not to list or discuss them all (not here anyway). There is only one way to know for certain, and that is to die and return to tell us. It is important to notice the disconnect hinted at in the last few questions between knowing and believing (particularly the posthumous puns concerning the afterlife, the soul, and salvation). Alas, I do not know what I believe in (in terms of faith). I know that we all die and there is no guarantee of anything after death, much less anything we can actively do to effect the cosmos after dying. The point here is to do, during your life, what you are prepared to live with for eternity because you may well have to and you may not get a second chance.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Existential Therapy Answers Pt 2 (Questions 14 - 17)
14) What is lost if I believe in (the Christian) God and he does exist? Worldly(corporeal, material, human) gratification and pleasure are lost. What is gained? Salvation from eternal damnation, heaven, paradise, relief from sin (cleansing of the spirit), reward for morality, satisfaction (climax of life has been reached and sustained), validation (for behavior while alive), and verification (of beliefs) are gained.
15) What is lost if I believe in God and he does not exist? Worldly pleasure is lost. What is gained? Perceived morality, satisfaction of helping others, a loving life and despairing death.
16) What is lost if I do not believe in God and he does exist? My soul and my salvation from damnation are lost. What is gained? Damnation to eternal hell, correction and punishment for misdeeds and disbelief, and worldly freedom are gained.
17) What is lost if I do not believe in God and he does not exist? There is a potential to loose happiness, satisfaction, and reason for morality. What is gained. Perceived freedom is gained.
*The keystone and underlying question here is what is to be valued more? Is it personal freedom and worldly pleasures (whatever that may include) or is it eternal salvation by a celestial being? Clearly there is the most at stake when asking questions of whether or not God exists. If he does not exist, then the questions are a matter or ethics, poise, and rationality. However, when God is involved there is a threatening of punishment beyond our comprehension. Everything listed in theses answers is dependent upon the virtues one holds at the time of answering the questions. I know this is a very wishy-washy answer, but the fact of the matter is that an atheist is not going to be concerned with his eternal salvation regardless of whether God does or does not exist. It is equally irrelevant to prod at a strict theist the same way because they will hold to their beliefs relentlessly as well. I do not ask that anyone believe me or take me (or these questions) as any guide of how to live life. These are my answers generated from my beliefs via simple words in complex sentences. I believe that I ought to be honest. I can not say that you or EVERYone should be honest with themselves, but I believe that I should. What this honesty means is that I must weigh the questions personally and subjectively not democratically and rationally; emotionally and not objectively. What is most precious to be gained and most vital to be lost?
Above is a chart of how I have ranked the things that are at stake in the questions of this section. It is important to know that I developed the "key" for the rating scale AFTER I had ranked the losses and gains. The key is as follows: 1 - Very Important, 2 - Important, 3 - Somewhat Important, 4 - Negligible. What can be taken from this chart? Compare the rankings 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4. We see that the 4s are very true and that is because losing being eternally damned is (by way of double negatives) a good thing and moral satisfaction is often superficial, pretentious, and overzealous. The 3s are accurate but may contradict. The 2s are also accurate but may contradict. But what is particularly important are the 1s. They are very true as salvation is a terrible thing to loose and freedom is a precious waste if it is not gained. It is also important to note that worldly pleasure is not automatically a "sin of the flesh" but rather all things that make us human and make this world manageable and barely enjoyable. Freedom is king, I do not fear damnation if I can say with absolute conviction that I have lived my life authentically with sincerity, honesty, compassion, a hint of bitterness, sympathy, gratitude, and embraced all that I love, all that I hate, all that scorns me, all that loves me, everything I am, and everything I have failed to be.
15) What is lost if I believe in God and he does not exist? Worldly pleasure is lost. What is gained? Perceived morality, satisfaction of helping others, a loving life and despairing death.
16) What is lost if I do not believe in God and he does exist? My soul and my salvation from damnation are lost. What is gained? Damnation to eternal hell, correction and punishment for misdeeds and disbelief, and worldly freedom are gained.
17) What is lost if I do not believe in God and he does not exist? There is a potential to loose happiness, satisfaction, and reason for morality. What is gained. Perceived freedom is gained.
*The keystone and underlying question here is what is to be valued more? Is it personal freedom and worldly pleasures (whatever that may include) or is it eternal salvation by a celestial being? Clearly there is the most at stake when asking questions of whether or not God exists. If he does not exist, then the questions are a matter or ethics, poise, and rationality. However, when God is involved there is a threatening of punishment beyond our comprehension. Everything listed in theses answers is dependent upon the virtues one holds at the time of answering the questions. I know this is a very wishy-washy answer, but the fact of the matter is that an atheist is not going to be concerned with his eternal salvation regardless of whether God does or does not exist. It is equally irrelevant to prod at a strict theist the same way because they will hold to their beliefs relentlessly as well. I do not ask that anyone believe me or take me (or these questions) as any guide of how to live life. These are my answers generated from my beliefs via simple words in complex sentences. I believe that I ought to be honest. I can not say that you or EVERYone should be honest with themselves, but I believe that I should. What this honesty means is that I must weigh the questions personally and subjectively not democratically and rationally; emotionally and not objectively. What is most precious to be gained and most vital to be lost?
| (Question) Gain (Rank) | (Question) Loss (Rank) |
| (14) Salvation (2) | (14) Damnation (4) |
| (15) Moral Satisfaction (4) | (15) Worldly Pleasure (2) |
| (16) Worldly Pleasure (3) | (16) Salvation (1) |
| (17) Freedom (1) | (17) Moral Incentive (3) |
Above is a chart of how I have ranked the things that are at stake in the questions of this section. It is important to know that I developed the "key" for the rating scale AFTER I had ranked the losses and gains. The key is as follows: 1 - Very Important, 2 - Important, 3 - Somewhat Important, 4 - Negligible. What can be taken from this chart? Compare the rankings 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4. We see that the 4s are very true and that is because losing being eternally damned is (by way of double negatives) a good thing and moral satisfaction is often superficial, pretentious, and overzealous. The 3s are accurate but may contradict. The 2s are also accurate but may contradict. But what is particularly important are the 1s. They are very true as salvation is a terrible thing to loose and freedom is a precious waste if it is not gained. It is also important to note that worldly pleasure is not automatically a "sin of the flesh" but rather all things that make us human and make this world manageable and barely enjoyable. Freedom is king, I do not fear damnation if I can say with absolute conviction that I have lived my life authentically with sincerity, honesty, compassion, a hint of bitterness, sympathy, gratitude, and embraced all that I love, all that I hate, all that scorns me, all that loves me, everything I am, and everything I have failed to be.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Existential Therapy Answers Pt 1 (Questions 1 - 13)
1) Yes, there is such a thing as value. However, it may only be perceivable at best. In spite of this it is almost certainly always available no matter how subjective or un-quantifiable.
2) There may be meaning in the universe or universal meaning among us, or maybe not. It does not matter so much whether there is or is not, but rather if we believe there is or is not and how we act accordingly.
3) No, we can not know for certain what our (individually, as a human race, or unified cosmology) meaning is. We may believe that it is certainly something, but that is different complex all together. Since we can not know (in the sense of proving) our universal meaning the search for any meaning becomes a recurring quest that concludes, if anywhere, only at death; and maybe not even then. The search for meaning promotes life as an attempt to solve such a question requires one to live a lifetime, or several, to make even the slightest progress. A select few throughout history have done so, but only according to their own cannon.
4) Yes, individuals can create meaning. Whether such a thing is "real" or "true" or "correct" is irrelevant. This is because as long as a meaning is perceived it occupies some part of our psyche and therefore exists. Descartes anyone? I think therefore I exist. Furthermore, a perceived object is inevitably acted up or reacted to as if it were "real." Thus perceived meaning begets actions and emotions which are undeniably authentic and "real."
5) Generally speaking, meaning is not essential. This question is dependent upon what it is essential for. Meaning is not essential from a biological standpoint. Purpose, however, is. Biological things must serve a purpose or else they become extinct. To what meaning is that purpose is the much more devilish question. For example: If I am a grocery bagger at the local supermarket, then my purpose is to put purchased groceries in to the bags. This is my "biological" purpose as far as the environment and function of the supermarket is concerned. However, is there any meaning behind the actions confined in and defined by my purpose? That is up to you to decide. The initial question is also dependent upon who is asking it. From a Christian standpoint meaning is very essential because it entails God. As for my personal opinion; a psychologically perceived sense of meaning (while beneficial) is not essential as many people have lived and died and continue to live and die without it.
6) This is a double edged sword where I venture into the absurd. If you are of the belief that your meaning must incorporate something, then above all else it should incorporate authenticity. That is that you "practice what you preach", you are everything you love, you embrace all that you hate, you own everything you are and are not, you are what you do, and you do as you are. You live with unyielding conviction. This must come above all else even for Christians who will insist that meaning must incorporate God and the abidance of his command. Half-hearted loyalty is disbelief and unauthentic faith is hypocrisy.
7) Extrinsic meaning (defined as not essential or coming from the outside) is always possible to be obtained. A non-essential meaning can be manufactured by the person seeking it. Its practicality or reality or even logic may be shaky at best, but alas it evokes a very real response. This synthetic extrinsic meaning, no mater how superficial it may seem to the outsider, is quite verifiable in the eyes of the beholder. The nihilist may say that such a manufactured meaning voids any hope of authentic living. To which my response is that all things authentic must be validated. The extrinsic meaning one creates for themselves validates itself by definition because it is the seed and the stem of its own reasoning and to itself is logical. Of course no one can or will fully comprehend the valor, the vigilance, the importance, the beauty, or necessity of such a process if they do not ask these questions of themselves.
Belief in intrinsic meaning (defined as belonging to basic nature of someone; essential; inwardly) is possible depending upon one's religious polarity. However, the intrinsic meaning must be established a priori to the (any) extrinsic meaning. If the intrinsic is derived from the extrinsic then it is actually extrinsic by default. For the non-religious, intrinsic meaning is also possible under the same pretense as before; being a priori to any extrinsic meaning. Intrinsic meaning is possible but it is impossible for us to know for certain what it is. Any attempted explanations are a posteriori to the initial issue and can only be considered extrinsic.
8) The pursuit of meaning, intrinsic and extrinsic, is possible. Though the pursuit of intrinsic meaning is likely to be in vain, pursuit of extrinsic meaning is not only possible but potentially (if not probably) attainable.
9) It is important to note that while the pursuit of intrinsic meaning will only lead nowhere, the pursuit itself does have meaning. A person's quest for an unobtainable goal and the manner in which they conduct themselves while doing so speaks volumes of their character. They may be characterized as pretentious, overzealous, naieve, ignorant, or in denial - or perhaps just as fitting - determined, dedicated, loyal, faithful, and ambitious. The pursuit of extrinsic meaning does also have meaning. A quest for such meaning may be an endeavor spanning an entire lifetime; what an ironic waste of a beautiful mind and opportunity if nothing "meaningful" has occurred or been retained prior to life's expiration.
10) Yes, constructed meaning is possible. All constructed meanings, however, are limited to being extrinsic. Intrinsic meanings are not constructed so much as they have always been in existence. Much like the laws of physics; they are merely discovered or brought to our attention, but never begotten by us.
11) There is no solution to one's desire to seek meaning. The mere solution to a desire for meaning is simple, chronicle some ridiculous fever dream and convince yourself to believe in it, heart and soul. I'm afraid the affects of this would be even more short lived than anything substantial. The desire itself is relentless. If one finally can live their life honestly and authentically and with complete conviction in the meaning they have discovered, it is the meaning of the present and only a temporary fix. Do not agonize just yet for the present is all that is guaranteed and you have done all that you can. Nonetheless if despair is the suspense in the theatrical drama of life then the meaning of the present is neither the beginning or end, nor the climax. It is none of them, yet occurring at all of them. This desire for meaning is never ending. Just as the lover loves the beloved long after the beloved has left this world, despair and agony will taint the beautiful lies serenity paints on our heart and our search begins as if from the beginning but only adding another chapter.
12) Suicide - It is the evasion of life's agony not its solution. Life is something to be lived, that is, constantly progressing and acting, never acted. It seems very contradictory to search for meaning in one's life and to sincerely believe that that meaning is to end your life. What meaning have you found if you take away your ability to relinquish uncertainty? Self-induced death is a fleeing from the passion that life should be embraced with no matter how optimistic, pessimistic, religious, or meaningless it may be. If you say that the pain is too great to go on, then you are sadly mistaken and I pity you. Have you learned nothing? If you cannot find meaning in your life, perhaps your suffering will assit you. Some things are possible only through the pain. Suicide is not the ultimate freedom, rather it is the ultimate rejection of freedom. How are you to know how the story ends if you tear out the pages and close the book forever?
Religion - Religion can certainly assist in the search for meaning, especially extrinsic. Intrinsic religious meaning may exist but our belief in them is purely extrinsic. Religion is a limited resource as it often leads (as philosophy does) to more questions than answers. There is no prayer, passage, or preacher that can bestow an everlasting quencher to our thirst for answers. If you find enough conviction in your beliefs to detest the previous statement, then you would be best to pray your life and actions have been justified, hope (for all you think you're worth) that your beliefs are correct, and be prepared to have to live with yourself for the rest of eternity. Of course, I don't suppose it would hurt any of us to do those three things anyway.
Revolt - This is the proffered method of Albert Camus. However, I believe that while the conscious revolt against the meaninglessness of the world is a fantastic approach to finding a passionate reason to continue living, it is not a one-time fix. It must be pro-actively and constantly applied, adapted, and re-applied. (See comments on The Meaning of the Present). I believe that Camus was well aware of this. He was constantly trying to convince journalists that his ideas were not set in stone and that they were continuously and constantly evolving.
13) The solution to one's desire to seek meaning is clearly to find meaning. However, the desire is very persistent, it is constant, and it is insatiable. It is the tide that licks the shore yet leaves us empty just as we thought our dry and meaningless life had been moistened enough to wash away uncertainty. Alas, we have been abandoned by the cure we anxiously committed ourselves to to save us from alienation and anguish, but will soon be bored and begin the crisis all over again.
2) There may be meaning in the universe or universal meaning among us, or maybe not. It does not matter so much whether there is or is not, but rather if we believe there is or is not and how we act accordingly.
3) No, we can not know for certain what our (individually, as a human race, or unified cosmology) meaning is. We may believe that it is certainly something, but that is different complex all together. Since we can not know (in the sense of proving) our universal meaning the search for any meaning becomes a recurring quest that concludes, if anywhere, only at death; and maybe not even then. The search for meaning promotes life as an attempt to solve such a question requires one to live a lifetime, or several, to make even the slightest progress. A select few throughout history have done so, but only according to their own cannon.
4) Yes, individuals can create meaning. Whether such a thing is "real" or "true" or "correct" is irrelevant. This is because as long as a meaning is perceived it occupies some part of our psyche and therefore exists. Descartes anyone? I think therefore I exist. Furthermore, a perceived object is inevitably acted up or reacted to as if it were "real." Thus perceived meaning begets actions and emotions which are undeniably authentic and "real."
5) Generally speaking, meaning is not essential. This question is dependent upon what it is essential for. Meaning is not essential from a biological standpoint. Purpose, however, is. Biological things must serve a purpose or else they become extinct. To what meaning is that purpose is the much more devilish question. For example: If I am a grocery bagger at the local supermarket, then my purpose is to put purchased groceries in to the bags. This is my "biological" purpose as far as the environment and function of the supermarket is concerned. However, is there any meaning behind the actions confined in and defined by my purpose? That is up to you to decide. The initial question is also dependent upon who is asking it. From a Christian standpoint meaning is very essential because it entails God. As for my personal opinion; a psychologically perceived sense of meaning (while beneficial) is not essential as many people have lived and died and continue to live and die without it.
6) This is a double edged sword where I venture into the absurd. If you are of the belief that your meaning must incorporate something, then above all else it should incorporate authenticity. That is that you "practice what you preach", you are everything you love, you embrace all that you hate, you own everything you are and are not, you are what you do, and you do as you are. You live with unyielding conviction. This must come above all else even for Christians who will insist that meaning must incorporate God and the abidance of his command. Half-hearted loyalty is disbelief and unauthentic faith is hypocrisy.
7) Extrinsic meaning (defined as not essential or coming from the outside) is always possible to be obtained. A non-essential meaning can be manufactured by the person seeking it. Its practicality or reality or even logic may be shaky at best, but alas it evokes a very real response. This synthetic extrinsic meaning, no mater how superficial it may seem to the outsider, is quite verifiable in the eyes of the beholder. The nihilist may say that such a manufactured meaning voids any hope of authentic living. To which my response is that all things authentic must be validated. The extrinsic meaning one creates for themselves validates itself by definition because it is the seed and the stem of its own reasoning and to itself is logical. Of course no one can or will fully comprehend the valor, the vigilance, the importance, the beauty, or necessity of such a process if they do not ask these questions of themselves.
Belief in intrinsic meaning (defined as belonging to basic nature of someone; essential; inwardly) is possible depending upon one's religious polarity. However, the intrinsic meaning must be established a priori to the (any) extrinsic meaning. If the intrinsic is derived from the extrinsic then it is actually extrinsic by default. For the non-religious, intrinsic meaning is also possible under the same pretense as before; being a priori to any extrinsic meaning. Intrinsic meaning is possible but it is impossible for us to know for certain what it is. Any attempted explanations are a posteriori to the initial issue and can only be considered extrinsic.
8) The pursuit of meaning, intrinsic and extrinsic, is possible. Though the pursuit of intrinsic meaning is likely to be in vain, pursuit of extrinsic meaning is not only possible but potentially (if not probably) attainable.
9) It is important to note that while the pursuit of intrinsic meaning will only lead nowhere, the pursuit itself does have meaning. A person's quest for an unobtainable goal and the manner in which they conduct themselves while doing so speaks volumes of their character. They may be characterized as pretentious, overzealous, naieve, ignorant, or in denial - or perhaps just as fitting - determined, dedicated, loyal, faithful, and ambitious. The pursuit of extrinsic meaning does also have meaning. A quest for such meaning may be an endeavor spanning an entire lifetime; what an ironic waste of a beautiful mind and opportunity if nothing "meaningful" has occurred or been retained prior to life's expiration.
10) Yes, constructed meaning is possible. All constructed meanings, however, are limited to being extrinsic. Intrinsic meanings are not constructed so much as they have always been in existence. Much like the laws of physics; they are merely discovered or brought to our attention, but never begotten by us.
11) There is no solution to one's desire to seek meaning. The mere solution to a desire for meaning is simple, chronicle some ridiculous fever dream and convince yourself to believe in it, heart and soul. I'm afraid the affects of this would be even more short lived than anything substantial. The desire itself is relentless. If one finally can live their life honestly and authentically and with complete conviction in the meaning they have discovered, it is the meaning of the present and only a temporary fix. Do not agonize just yet for the present is all that is guaranteed and you have done all that you can. Nonetheless if despair is the suspense in the theatrical drama of life then the meaning of the present is neither the beginning or end, nor the climax. It is none of them, yet occurring at all of them. This desire for meaning is never ending. Just as the lover loves the beloved long after the beloved has left this world, despair and agony will taint the beautiful lies serenity paints on our heart and our search begins as if from the beginning but only adding another chapter.
12) Suicide - It is the evasion of life's agony not its solution. Life is something to be lived, that is, constantly progressing and acting, never acted. It seems very contradictory to search for meaning in one's life and to sincerely believe that that meaning is to end your life. What meaning have you found if you take away your ability to relinquish uncertainty? Self-induced death is a fleeing from the passion that life should be embraced with no matter how optimistic, pessimistic, religious, or meaningless it may be. If you say that the pain is too great to go on, then you are sadly mistaken and I pity you. Have you learned nothing? If you cannot find meaning in your life, perhaps your suffering will assit you. Some things are possible only through the pain. Suicide is not the ultimate freedom, rather it is the ultimate rejection of freedom. How are you to know how the story ends if you tear out the pages and close the book forever?
Religion - Religion can certainly assist in the search for meaning, especially extrinsic. Intrinsic religious meaning may exist but our belief in them is purely extrinsic. Religion is a limited resource as it often leads (as philosophy does) to more questions than answers. There is no prayer, passage, or preacher that can bestow an everlasting quencher to our thirst for answers. If you find enough conviction in your beliefs to detest the previous statement, then you would be best to pray your life and actions have been justified, hope (for all you think you're worth) that your beliefs are correct, and be prepared to have to live with yourself for the rest of eternity. Of course, I don't suppose it would hurt any of us to do those three things anyway.
Revolt - This is the proffered method of Albert Camus. However, I believe that while the conscious revolt against the meaninglessness of the world is a fantastic approach to finding a passionate reason to continue living, it is not a one-time fix. It must be pro-actively and constantly applied, adapted, and re-applied. (See comments on The Meaning of the Present). I believe that Camus was well aware of this. He was constantly trying to convince journalists that his ideas were not set in stone and that they were continuously and constantly evolving.
13) The solution to one's desire to seek meaning is clearly to find meaning. However, the desire is very persistent, it is constant, and it is insatiable. It is the tide that licks the shore yet leaves us empty just as we thought our dry and meaningless life had been moistened enough to wash away uncertainty. Alas, we have been abandoned by the cure we anxiously committed ourselves to to save us from alienation and anguish, but will soon be bored and begin the crisis all over again.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
25 Question Crash Course in Existentialism
*One should note that this is not in any way my rendition of an "Existentialism 101" type of article. Rather, it is my own personal queue of questions that I would like to answer for myself. Perhaps it may also be useful for others to do so as well. I believe this is more or less refereed to as Existential Therapy. While such therapy is often conducted between a licensed therapist and their patient, I believe that such questions are beneficial even in journaling/blogging.*
Part I - Wikipedia (to whom I do not often give much credit or recommend using as a reference) used similar questions to the following to compare atheistic existentialism, theistic existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism. You can look up how each school of thought would answer the questions, but for authenticity's sake I will not. (13)
1) Is there such a thing as meaning or value?
2) Is there meaning in the universe (either intrinsic or from God)?
3) Can we know what this meaning is? If so, how?
4) Can individuals create meaning in life for themselves?
5) If it can be created, is it essential?
6) If it can be created, must it incorporate anything?
7) Is it possible to obtain intrinsic or extrinsic meaning?
8) If it is possible, is the pursuit of intrinsic or extrinsic meaning possible?
9) Does the pursuit have meaning?
10) Is a constructed meaning possible?
11) Is there a solution to one's desire to seek meaning?
12) If there is a solution, is it suicide, religion, or acceptance and revolt?
13) If there is a solution and it is none of the above, what is it?
Part II - This is a type of Hedonistic Calculus used to depict the paradox between religious beliefs and their reprecutions. (4)
14) What is lost/gained if you do believe in the Christian God and he does exist?
15) What is lost/gained if you do believe in the Christian God and he does not exist?
16) What is lost/gained if you do not believe in the Christian God and he does exist?
17) What is lost/gained if you do not believe in the Christian God and he does not exist?
Part III - A quick glance at Wikipedia (begrudgingly again) leads to an article on Christian Existentialism which posits similar questions to these. (8)
18) For what larger purpose do I exist?
19) Does existence precede essence?
20) What is the role of faith in my life?
21) Is faith without works dead?
22) What is the role of doubt in my life?
23) Does revelation beget conversion?
24) What is the soul?
25) What happens to my soul upon death?
*That is some serious heavy thinking that will undoubtedly make my head hurt and possibly drive me half insane by the time I am finished answering them. Nonetheless, the next several blog posts will contain my personal/opinionated answers to these questions, as well as (eventually) a summary of what this project has taught me... mostly about myself
**When reading my answers, it will be helpful to keep this post open in separate tab to reference back to
Part I - Wikipedia (to whom I do not often give much credit or recommend using as a reference) used similar questions to the following to compare atheistic existentialism, theistic existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism. You can look up how each school of thought would answer the questions, but for authenticity's sake I will not. (13)
1) Is there such a thing as meaning or value?
2) Is there meaning in the universe (either intrinsic or from God)?
3) Can we know what this meaning is? If so, how?
4) Can individuals create meaning in life for themselves?
5) If it can be created, is it essential?
6) If it can be created, must it incorporate anything?
7) Is it possible to obtain intrinsic or extrinsic meaning?
8) If it is possible, is the pursuit of intrinsic or extrinsic meaning possible?
9) Does the pursuit have meaning?
10) Is a constructed meaning possible?
11) Is there a solution to one's desire to seek meaning?
12) If there is a solution, is it suicide, religion, or acceptance and revolt?
13) If there is a solution and it is none of the above, what is it?
Part II - This is a type of Hedonistic Calculus used to depict the paradox between religious beliefs and their reprecutions. (4)
14) What is lost/gained if you do believe in the Christian God and he does exist?
15) What is lost/gained if you do believe in the Christian God and he does not exist?
16) What is lost/gained if you do not believe in the Christian God and he does exist?
17) What is lost/gained if you do not believe in the Christian God and he does not exist?
Part III - A quick glance at Wikipedia (begrudgingly again) leads to an article on Christian Existentialism which posits similar questions to these. (8)
18) For what larger purpose do I exist?
19) Does existence precede essence?
20) What is the role of faith in my life?
21) Is faith without works dead?
22) What is the role of doubt in my life?
23) Does revelation beget conversion?
24) What is the soul?
25) What happens to my soul upon death?
*That is some serious heavy thinking that will undoubtedly make my head hurt and possibly drive me half insane by the time I am finished answering them. Nonetheless, the next several blog posts will contain my personal/opinionated answers to these questions, as well as (eventually) a summary of what this project has taught me... mostly about myself
**When reading my answers, it will be helpful to keep this post open in separate tab to reference back to
Hawking Project
A few previous posts were concerning the recently released novel of renowned physicist Stephen Hawking. There is still a lot of interesting material that I would like to discuss, as well as eventually get around to reading and reviewing The Grand Design. However, the more I looked into reviews (that I had read after the book's release) it was not as much of a Science vs. Religion debate that I had hoped for for investigation's sake. From what I can tell, the possibility of creation is still left out there by Hawking and the books is merely his "proof" that another possibility is in fact more probable. It did not take much looking to find that Hawking's material for this premiss is still hightly "controversial" or more or less just unproven. That is to say that there is a lot of work left to be done and a lot of holes in the theory left to be filled.
Thus my endvor enquiring quantum physics has reached an indefinite hiatus, that is until the subject and my current study interests once again overlap.
Thus my endvor enquiring quantum physics has reached an indefinite hiatus, that is until the subject and my current study interests once again overlap.
Monday, September 6, 2010
God, Physics, and Philosophy
I came across this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking) article a few days ago via a friend's Facebook status update. My initial thought was that it was not that interesting and actualy rather "dumb." However, it is needless to say that I later went back to read the article and two emotions came over me. I was, at the same time, very intrigued by the concept (of God not being necessary for the creation of the universe(s), and that the creation of our universe was an unavoidable outcome of the laws of pysics) and annoyed to the point where I wanted to dig through countless research in an attempt to propose a rebuttal. As the book has not been released yet, and my "research" only numbering a few hours this blog post arose as a pre-reading analysis of The Grand Design. I have no intention of purchasing the book, so I will have to wait until a local library has it on the shelves before the post-reading part two of this blog is posted. However, if my interest in this topic lasts it may very well turn into my next 25-page paper; or (as physics, especially at this level, is far outside my usual academic topics) it may be as concise as two lengthy blog posts.
I) When I first came across the article I thought the name Stephen Hawking sounded familiar but couldn't recall where I had heard the name before. Nedless to say that I had absolutely no idea who Leonard Mlodinow (the book's co-author) was. A biography of Prof. Hawking can be found here (http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/about-stephen). The Grand Design is set for release tomorrow, September 7th, 2010 in the United States and September 9th in the U.K.
II) There are, to my knowledge, three philosophical proofs for the existence of God. On a side note it is irrelevant here to begin a debate over whether the term "God" specifically refers to the Christian God or some other almighty diety. For the general purposes of this post and its content "God" is referring to God the Creator. The previously mentioned arguments are "the first cause", "order from nature", and the "ontological" argument. The theory that God is a first cause was instituted to stop the progression or rather regression of an infinite regress. That is to say that in physicis it is (or was prior to Hawking) thought that matter is neither lost or gained and thus everything must come from something. The trouble then is that the cycle never has a starting point. God is sometimes instituted as the first cause and the cause of all further actions. I do not recall the philosopher who first instituted this idea at the time of this post. The second theory, that of order from nature, is that nature is such a complex thing and yet so precisely ordered that only God could have made it so. Again, I do not recal the exact person who deduced this theory. The third argument has gone trough a bit of a progression from Descartes to Anselm to Aquinas, and that is the ontological argument. Anselm believed God to be the sum of all the greatest goods while Descartes held that you could not think something out of existence and if you thought and clearly percieved the definition of God, then God did exist. Interesting enough, all of these arguments come along with a myriad of loopholes, controversy, and shortcomings... in other words, they all fail.
III) I recally hearing in a philosophy lecture a while back that a man named William Dembski (http://www.discovery.org/p/32) had calculated the mathatmatical odds of impossibility. That is, the event that is so improbable that mathematicians have deemed it literally impossible. To my memory Dembski's number was 1 x 10 (to the 23rd). I could not find any convenient sources to back up this information other than my own memory at the time of this post. Howver, I did find a great wealth of controversy surrounding Dembski on both the intelligent design and mathematician sides of the argument. Which leads me to my next person of interest.
IV) My research on Dembski lead me to Roger Penrose (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Penrose.html) and this (http://faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html) article. The article references The Emporers New Mind by Penrose and Michael Denton's article in The New York: The Free Press titled "Nature's Destiny." The article puts into leman's terms what Penrose has calculated to be the probability of a universe being created that can produce and sustain human life. Those odds are 1 out of 1 x 10( to the 10th to the 123rd). That number is a bit unimaginable so allow me to assist. One trillion is one million squared, one septillion is one trillion squared, one quindecillion is one ceptillion square, one untrigintillion is one ceptillion squared or a 1 with 96 zeroes following it. The next largest number is one duotrigintillion which has 100 zeroes. A googol is 1 followed by ten duotrigintillion zeroes. A googolplex is 1 followed by a googol zeroes. Penrose's number is 1 followed by a googolplex + 23 zeroes. To save a lot of headache let me quote the article and say, "Even if we were to write an 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed." The article also states that "in practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10 (to the 50th) means "zero probability." Penrose's number is more than a trillioni trillion trillion times less than that." In short, even if multiple universes exist (containing billions of galaxies inside them and billions of solar systems inside each galaxy) the odds are VERY slim for any of them supporting human life. Interstingly enough Penrose is a close friend of Hawkings. For a list of "Names of Large Numbers" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers .
V) I have read from various press releases containing exerpts from the book that the authors start by talking about the Ancient Greeks and how the posited Gods and stories to explain the world around them. I believe that there are a few interesting paradoxes here. The first being that the ancient greeks saw a world around them and establised their religion a posteriori to their beliefs of the natural world, in contrast I find that many Western and/or Christian thinkers have begun their quest for knowledge with the a priori notion that God already exists or with their belief system already in place. The result being that one gets their Gods from the natural world and the other gets the natural world from their God. The next paradox I see is that with the advancement and acceleration of technological advances (in medicine, science, industry, etc.) things that once seemed very "supernatural" have a very taken for granted "common sense" or "well-duh" expected knowledge about them. Medicince is a fantastic example of this.
VI) In the debate of multiple universes two options came to mind on how this would happen. I believe (from my limited reading of astrophysics) that the theoretical idea is that black holes (which are known to exist in varying sizes) comume all matter around them including light, the posess mass, and grow. The theoretical inverse is a white hole in which nothing can enter. The bridge between the two is the (again) theoretical wormhole which creates a seam-like protal through time and space. A universe destroyed by blackholes and born through white holes. The options I see here are either that there is one initial universe which spawns a second, from the second a third, and so on. This reverts to the philosophical notion of a first cause, which universe was begotten and not made and who begot it? The second option is that there is one "mother" universe which spawns many universes from it, the same questions are valid here, who created that which creates or begets what is begotten and not made?
VII) It is assumed that the physics of our world hold true in others, and that they will in other solar systems, and galaxies and even universes. Or is it? One article in the LA Times (http://latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-stephen-hawking-20100905,0,2573263.story ) says that one of the aurthors' primary questions concerns this matter. The issue being that "one set of scientific laws might be appropriate to oune universe, or even galazy, while not quite fitting another. Even laws we have taken for granted, like those relating to the speed of light, might be at odds in different realms of a near-infinite set of universes." The article says that the authors are concerned with three primary questions, "If nature is governed by laws... what is the nature of those laws? Are there exceptions to the laws (miracles)? Is there only one set of possible laws?" My primary question here is who created, wrote, or placed such laws in effect? It is one thing to learn to play the piano and then memorize the notes to a symphony by Mozart, it is quite another to be the half-mad-half-genius musician who composed the piece "out of thin air."
VIII) What is the impact of this on religion? I believe that it is very little actually. Hawking's book seems to treat the symptoms of creationism rather than conqur it at its roots. For example, if our universe was indeed created out of another then the question only shifts from, "who created this universe?" to "who created that universe?" That is more on the techincal side of things. I believe that the practical side is even less influential and far more circumstantial. I do not recall Kierkegaard's writings off the top of my head, but I found this website helpful (http://wutsamada.com/modern/kierkegaard.htm). In short Kierkegaard says that somethings is not faith if it can be proven and that is because it has to be believed in. This is particularly true for Christians. The site cites Kierkegaard as saying that "a religions belif's truth depends on the subject's relation to it rather than on its relation to its object" and "it's true if it's believed passionately, unconditionally, absolutely, without inner reservation or doubt" and finally "it's not what it says (whether it's accurate) but how it's held ... that makes (a belief) true." This book may assist in answering the fundemental question "where did we come from?" or "how did we get here?", but it gives no insight as to WHY are we here, WHERE are we going, HOW am I supposed to live, WHY am I supposed to live that way? All of these are attempted to be answered by various religious systems, not by science.
IX) There are many technical terms found in the previous and following links, so a dicitonary or specifically a physics dictionary will be quite handy. The sources I counsoulted but have not cited thus far are as follows.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302118.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.univers/index.html?hpt=c1
I) When I first came across the article I thought the name Stephen Hawking sounded familiar but couldn't recall where I had heard the name before. Nedless to say that I had absolutely no idea who Leonard Mlodinow (the book's co-author) was. A biography of Prof. Hawking can be found here (http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/about-stephen). The Grand Design is set for release tomorrow, September 7th, 2010 in the United States and September 9th in the U.K.
II) There are, to my knowledge, three philosophical proofs for the existence of God. On a side note it is irrelevant here to begin a debate over whether the term "God" specifically refers to the Christian God or some other almighty diety. For the general purposes of this post and its content "God" is referring to God the Creator. The previously mentioned arguments are "the first cause", "order from nature", and the "ontological" argument. The theory that God is a first cause was instituted to stop the progression or rather regression of an infinite regress. That is to say that in physicis it is (or was prior to Hawking) thought that matter is neither lost or gained and thus everything must come from something. The trouble then is that the cycle never has a starting point. God is sometimes instituted as the first cause and the cause of all further actions. I do not recall the philosopher who first instituted this idea at the time of this post. The second theory, that of order from nature, is that nature is such a complex thing and yet so precisely ordered that only God could have made it so. Again, I do not recal the exact person who deduced this theory. The third argument has gone trough a bit of a progression from Descartes to Anselm to Aquinas, and that is the ontological argument. Anselm believed God to be the sum of all the greatest goods while Descartes held that you could not think something out of existence and if you thought and clearly percieved the definition of God, then God did exist. Interesting enough, all of these arguments come along with a myriad of loopholes, controversy, and shortcomings... in other words, they all fail.
III) I recally hearing in a philosophy lecture a while back that a man named William Dembski (http://www.discovery.org/p/32) had calculated the mathatmatical odds of impossibility. That is, the event that is so improbable that mathematicians have deemed it literally impossible. To my memory Dembski's number was 1 x 10 (to the 23rd). I could not find any convenient sources to back up this information other than my own memory at the time of this post. Howver, I did find a great wealth of controversy surrounding Dembski on both the intelligent design and mathematician sides of the argument. Which leads me to my next person of interest.
IV) My research on Dembski lead me to Roger Penrose (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Penrose.html) and this (http://faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html) article. The article references The Emporers New Mind by Penrose and Michael Denton's article in The New York: The Free Press titled "Nature's Destiny." The article puts into leman's terms what Penrose has calculated to be the probability of a universe being created that can produce and sustain human life. Those odds are 1 out of 1 x 10( to the 10th to the 123rd). That number is a bit unimaginable so allow me to assist. One trillion is one million squared, one septillion is one trillion squared, one quindecillion is one ceptillion square, one untrigintillion is one ceptillion squared or a 1 with 96 zeroes following it. The next largest number is one duotrigintillion which has 100 zeroes. A googol is 1 followed by ten duotrigintillion zeroes. A googolplex is 1 followed by a googol zeroes. Penrose's number is 1 followed by a googolplex + 23 zeroes. To save a lot of headache let me quote the article and say, "Even if we were to write an 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed." The article also states that "in practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10 (to the 50th) means "zero probability." Penrose's number is more than a trillioni trillion trillion times less than that." In short, even if multiple universes exist (containing billions of galaxies inside them and billions of solar systems inside each galaxy) the odds are VERY slim for any of them supporting human life. Interstingly enough Penrose is a close friend of Hawkings. For a list of "Names of Large Numbers" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers .
V) I have read from various press releases containing exerpts from the book that the authors start by talking about the Ancient Greeks and how the posited Gods and stories to explain the world around them. I believe that there are a few interesting paradoxes here. The first being that the ancient greeks saw a world around them and establised their religion a posteriori to their beliefs of the natural world, in contrast I find that many Western and/or Christian thinkers have begun their quest for knowledge with the a priori notion that God already exists or with their belief system already in place. The result being that one gets their Gods from the natural world and the other gets the natural world from their God. The next paradox I see is that with the advancement and acceleration of technological advances (in medicine, science, industry, etc.) things that once seemed very "supernatural" have a very taken for granted "common sense" or "well-duh" expected knowledge about them. Medicince is a fantastic example of this.
VI) In the debate of multiple universes two options came to mind on how this would happen. I believe (from my limited reading of astrophysics) that the theoretical idea is that black holes (which are known to exist in varying sizes) comume all matter around them including light, the posess mass, and grow. The theoretical inverse is a white hole in which nothing can enter. The bridge between the two is the (again) theoretical wormhole which creates a seam-like protal through time and space. A universe destroyed by blackholes and born through white holes. The options I see here are either that there is one initial universe which spawns a second, from the second a third, and so on. This reverts to the philosophical notion of a first cause, which universe was begotten and not made and who begot it? The second option is that there is one "mother" universe which spawns many universes from it, the same questions are valid here, who created that which creates or begets what is begotten and not made?
VII) It is assumed that the physics of our world hold true in others, and that they will in other solar systems, and galaxies and even universes. Or is it? One article in the LA Times (http://latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-stephen-hawking-20100905,0,2573263.story ) says that one of the aurthors' primary questions concerns this matter. The issue being that "one set of scientific laws might be appropriate to oune universe, or even galazy, while not quite fitting another. Even laws we have taken for granted, like those relating to the speed of light, might be at odds in different realms of a near-infinite set of universes." The article says that the authors are concerned with three primary questions, "If nature is governed by laws... what is the nature of those laws? Are there exceptions to the laws (miracles)? Is there only one set of possible laws?" My primary question here is who created, wrote, or placed such laws in effect? It is one thing to learn to play the piano and then memorize the notes to a symphony by Mozart, it is quite another to be the half-mad-half-genius musician who composed the piece "out of thin air."
VIII) What is the impact of this on religion? I believe that it is very little actually. Hawking's book seems to treat the symptoms of creationism rather than conqur it at its roots. For example, if our universe was indeed created out of another then the question only shifts from, "who created this universe?" to "who created that universe?" That is more on the techincal side of things. I believe that the practical side is even less influential and far more circumstantial. I do not recall Kierkegaard's writings off the top of my head, but I found this website helpful (http://wutsamada.com/modern/kierkegaard.htm). In short Kierkegaard says that somethings is not faith if it can be proven and that is because it has to be believed in. This is particularly true for Christians. The site cites Kierkegaard as saying that "a religions belif's truth depends on the subject's relation to it rather than on its relation to its object" and "it's true if it's believed passionately, unconditionally, absolutely, without inner reservation or doubt" and finally "it's not what it says (whether it's accurate) but how it's held ... that makes (a belief) true." This book may assist in answering the fundemental question "where did we come from?" or "how did we get here?", but it gives no insight as to WHY are we here, WHERE are we going, HOW am I supposed to live, WHY am I supposed to live that way? All of these are attempted to be answered by various religious systems, not by science.
IX) There are many technical terms found in the previous and following links, so a dicitonary or specifically a physics dictionary will be quite handy. The sources I counsoulted but have not cited thus far are as follows.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302118.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.univers/index.html?hpt=c1
Thursday, September 2, 2010
A Shot of Bourbon
Life's like a shot of bourbon.
It's short and sour
And after long enough
It's sure to kick your ass,
But somehow we find a way to enjoy it
It burns all the way to the end
Leaves you with a bitter grimmace,
But there's a moment to be held,
To be cherished,
Just before the sigh of relief
When you finish.
Knock back a few too many,
And get knocked down a few too many times.
Just when you're flying high
You feel the gravel in your guts
Because you're empty, like that bottle, inside.
Your head hangs heavy
Atop smoke filled lungs.
Wait for the sun to rise before you hang it up.
Chased below the label,
You'd undo it all if you were able.
Turned upside down to pull the last drop,
Drink it up and dedicate the good stuff.
Like a hollow play, puppets play and glasses clang.
It won't last too long.
It's bittersweet and cumbersome.
However burned and gray, broken and beaten up
We'll still pour another one.
A slow burn and a subtle hurt;
For better or worse, we've enjoyed it.
It's short and sour
And after long enough
It's sure to kick your ass,
But somehow we find a way to enjoy it
It burns all the way to the end
Leaves you with a bitter grimmace,
But there's a moment to be held,
To be cherished,
Just before the sigh of relief
When you finish.
Knock back a few too many,
And get knocked down a few too many times.
Just when you're flying high
You feel the gravel in your guts
Because you're empty, like that bottle, inside.
Your head hangs heavy
Atop smoke filled lungs.
Wait for the sun to rise before you hang it up.
Chased below the label,
You'd undo it all if you were able.
Turned upside down to pull the last drop,
Drink it up and dedicate the good stuff.
Like a hollow play, puppets play and glasses clang.
It won't last too long.
It's bittersweet and cumbersome.
However burned and gray, broken and beaten up
We'll still pour another one.
A slow burn and a subtle hurt;
For better or worse, we've enjoyed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)