Philosophize This...
By DuQwiLo

In an Instant Message:

Solisius: Hello! I am asleep now. Get to bed yourself! =) I'll get back to you
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 same applies.
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 perception.

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.