Forced Entry

No, this is not about porn or trespassing properties (calm down fellow gutter rats).
This is me feeling like a lazy ass for not writing more frequently, yet again.

When I first wake up, I have a lot on my mind. Things like how science enables us to discover what our physical bodies are comprised of, yet no science has discovered what our consciousness is comprised of.

A posse of presenters argued that the lack of a complete theory by neuroscientists regarding how neural activity translates into conscious experiences (such as redness) means that a physicalist approach is inadequate or wrong.

Michael Shermer, What Happens to Consciousness When We Die

I guess I have a penchant for philosophical musings but I actually don’t care that much about other philosophers. In that way I would be considered somewhere near solipsism but also with respect to dialectics.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Dialectic:

Fichtean/Hegelian dialectics is based upon four concepts:

  1. Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time.
  2. Everything is composed of contradictions (opposing forces).
  3. Gradual changes lead to crises, turning points when one force overcomes its opponent force (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
  4. Change is helical (periodic without returning to the same position), not circular (negation of the negation).

The concept of dialectic (as a unity of opposites) existed in the philosophy of Heraclitus of Ephesus, who proposed that everything is in constant change, as a result of inner strife and opposition.

I am not gonna pretend like I know what I’m talking about because my philosophical/rhetorical knowledge is limited to my undergraduate education. And do I remember things beyond the overall, big-picture themes and a few names? Hell no. I’m only citing things because, contradictory enough, I respect other people’s opinions and expressions since their diction and explanations of things far exceed my own capabilities, especially in areas that I lack expertise.

Opinions are dangerous because it’s also a dividing, no, divergent agent (internal rhymes make for great times). The stronger your feelings are about a subject, the more divisive the result is. Of course, there is the factor of execution. If you present a well-written, evidence-based opinion on why you hate chocolate, people are probably going to hear you out more than you shouting out how much you hate chocolate in a real, in-the-moment conversation. There was a rhetorician that said something on opinions and the separation they cause, but I do not remember his name (I performed a vague google search and nothing came up).

The moral of this story is that I wrote something today and that I have thoughts and opinions.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s