In an Instant Message:
I am asleep now. Get to bed yourself! =) I'll get back to
at a more godly hour. ;)
Duqwilo : Hours are a
man made concept...therefore all hours are ungodly. On
the same token, if god is also a man made concept...then the
However if God exists outside the concept of man and man is
a creation of god
and in turn all that man creates...then all hours are godly.
Either way by either route of logic...no one hour is godlier
or ungodly than another. Unless one assumes subjectively (with
respect and selfish manipulative regard, to his perception of
reality) That an hour is either.
So do you pursue truth? Do you simply assume? Or is it (the
phrase "...a more godly hour." In the IM message I received,
on attempt to converse) just some trivial impotent clichés
tossed out by a reactionary impulse recorded and played back,
from socio-linguistic transference and as such is virtually
devoid of conscious analytical thought?
Of course it's also possible that I'm over analyzing, locked
in probing existential combat with an unknowable answer and
thusly am caught in a static cycle of uncertainty. It's kind
of an active stasis, while not searching at all is an inactive
one. Either way I'm sitting here typing to myself and have not
received an answer to my questions...that is not from you anyway
What I have accomplished because of my efforts is a stirring
of my own thoughts on why I continue to question reality and
perception of it. In doing so it has become a physical entity
I can manipulate
(a re-readable text file). Analyzation of these contemplations
have helped me to see another option I had not yet considered.
This option is considering the possibility that being in a
state of stasis (not pursuing an answer) and being in a state
of constant action (pursuing an unknowable answer) are both
unproductive functions. However if an answer in conceived, then
it must be a possibility, because conception is a product of
If an answer is conceived and it is out of perception, (perception
being the sum total of personal subjective experience), isn't
all concept based on that which can be perceived? If a thing
cannot be perceived (something that does not exist) than it
cannot be conceived because it is "Not there to you" and could
not influence you. But if a thing is perceivable it must be
conceivable and therefore understood.
One cannot think of that which does not exist. Try it...go
ahead. If you answered me then you used words which are symbols
associated with perceptions of that which can be perceived.
If all that can be conceived is perceivable, then all that one
can conceive is perceivable. What I can think I can understand.
So I can understand the universe because I can conceive the
understanding of it.