Sunday, March 14, 2010

First Draft/Brainstorming of One of Many Philosophies Concocted by a Disturbed Young Delinquent

This is just totally written of the top of my head, and has not been looked into detail, i will inevitably extend this to be a lot less precarious then what it may first appear to be as you read it now.

I believe the idea is quite concrete, but can be manipulated to specific perspectives. I may also change my mind over time, so do not use that as a valid argument against me. Also, do not use my own words against me, cause that does not submit a valid anti-thesis in my eyes. Moreover, do not use my ideas and twist them. This will inevitably happen, but please try see the full meaning of what i am writing. I will also do my best to explain things to my utmost ability in the posts that i post and also in latter posts.

Here goes:

Life is lived in retrospect. In such a way that it is like walking in a forward velocity, backwards. It is quite ironically hippocritical in a logical sense. We look at the past to determine the future. Our thoughts are just dogmatisms created by the analysis of past events. We do not live in the now, this is impossible, but rather we like in the past striving for the future. This is inevitable.

In succession, if thoughts make up who we are and the only attianment or proof of thoughts comes from 'a priori' or simply prior events, then the logical sum is that the past is the only true evidence of 'Self'. And, if 'Self' can - in logical order of study - be our concious, and therefore our concious the only way for us to know that we are living (something i will go into detail, hopefully, in latter posts. The whole idea of Descartes' 'I think, Therefore I am'), Then without the past we would be mentally dead. In the fatalistic meaning of the phrase.

Hope this stirs some minds.
- Boki


  1. perhaps though..

    the concept of time is a human 'invention' employed to make sense of the absurd nature of the universe; we do as humans, have a relentless tendancy to measure everything in our material life - be it something as direct as 'financial worth' or something as obscure as 'time' and 'space'.

    with this in mind, what is to say such concepts as 'past' and 'future' even exist? could 'past', 'present' and 'future' not just be one in the same, and simply categorised in such a a way, as a result of human habit, to distinguish one thing (physical or not) from another? In other words: who's to say there is a 'priori' at all?

    dustin hoffman explains (do watch! funny film):

    ...perhaps my adverse feelings for Descartes and his underwhelming (in my opinion) Meditations on the nature of the self have clouded my comprehension of the central concept of your piece. Although, i should note, my intention is not to attack your exploration of this idea but to approach it with the intention of inciting further thought on the matter (as one would in a socratic discussion).

    Nonetheless, good read! nice to see the odd (literate thoughtful) blog-post musing, legitimately, on metaphysics rather than on which on-trend shoe to purchase or which 'IT girl' is blowing ones simple mind.

    i certainly think, if you are a 'disturbed young delinquent' you should be dedicating your energy to Nietzschian philosophy rather than drabby Descartes (just sayin'!) ...i'd be interested to see what you make of the many, many profound and intense ideas of his.

  2. wednesday addams,

    Its going to make me a while to reply to all of this, so im going to dissect what you wrote and reply to it in sections.

    I've seen that clip, film, and have actually just finished reading a few journals on the idea of time. Myself, i have believed that time does not exist, but i think im more so applying it in our social context and box. As it is obvious that our past exists through memory. Even if it is not real. But then again, what is real? If you believe in solipsism, then nothing is. If you're a Constructivist, then SOME things are. And if you're an empiricist then only those that are significantly tested and admit to be significantly true (99.5% hypothetically correct) ARE real. So in that sense, i have thought of it from that percpective, and thanks for posting that. This was just another view from a different social context then that of the idea that 'time does not exist'.

    In terms of Descartes, i did not use his ideology because i like him, or because he has any validation in my piece, in actual fact i think he is totally outdated and a bit of stupid cunt. It was just an easy example to use for those not as familiar as yourself with so many different philosophical concepts. So his mention should not be seen as evidence or in anycase a support for my above argument. Just a mere example, my dear.

    I am also, super-fucking-glad you enjoyed reading that. I thought it would be totally cumbersome for people. I like Nietzsche, even though he is a hell of a hard read most of the time, especially beyond good and evil. I will hopefully at a latter time progress with this aforementioned piece above, and something on Nietzsche aswell.

    It was a great comment to get! thanks a lot. hope you keep following me. :D

  3. NADIA! oh, you must be kicking arse in thailand. Why the fuck haven't you got facebook anymore. Would be good to chat. I tried adding your blog to my 'list of blogs and still dont know how to do it. I need your help. X

  4. bok choy...... do you have skype love? x

  5. I don't. I should. But why haven't you got facebook you fucker!

    have you got a new number, send that through or something.

    P.S. i finally found a really good tailor in melbourne, one for suits, one for shirts. It has taken me the last 2 years to find them. Thought you're the only one who'd appriciate that as much as me. hah!

  6. I gathered as much with regard to the use of Descartes in illustrating the point. Understandable.

    "what is real?" good question. ha. i don't think we could ever possibly get to the bottom of epistemology - while maintaining sanity that is (see: Nietzsche embracing horses/spiraling into madness).

    i have always had a liking for the concept of solipsism as dangerous a path that is. Sylvia plath managed to make it pretty attractive in this poem:

    Although, i'm naturally attached to existentialism/absurdism, myself, so everything at base is ridiculous and superfluous. concrete beliefs, in my opinion, are too rigid to develop the 'thinker'. but ill be quiet on all that..

    p.s. re: Nietzsche, i agree. Im reading 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' atm and it is a brainfuck to say the very least. one day.. one day..

  7. Amazing news about the tailor... yes indeed, I do appreciate that! Meanwhile, in Bangkok we found this whole area set in the middle of this huge market in Pratunam where there are shops after shops with ladies sitting in them sewing drag queen gear... pretty much my idea of a dream haha. We've gotten the most amazing shit this last month. How was London?! eee need to hear about it. I'm back in like just over 2 months.

    No number, phone broke first few days I got here... Bottle of water leaked in my bag :( No facebook for now until I get real desperate! Still have msn? xo

  8. i don't have msn at all. it got a bit intense for me. i think you should give way to your prejudice and jump the fuck back on facebook. hah!

    that actually does sound amazing; in regards to the drag gear thing.

    ummmmmm, two months too long.