Philosophy: Questions concerning our existence…

This is intended as a simple philosophical dissection of some questions concerning our existence and I wish not to during the course of this text cause anyone offense or give the impression that this is anything other than a text conducive (hopefully) to evolving ideas..

I was playing around with some ideas on this subject and it is really difficult to analyse and alter my own ideas so that they don’t appear foolish or worse in the eyes of other readers – I consider this a brave and possibly controversial submission.  I can only cry “mercy” and take pity on me as a mere purveyor of information, or if nothing else, the writer of interesting text.

Our natural attributes

Interestingly/paradoxically; questions can answer questions ie; the fact that we ask certain questions answers some of our questions..  It can’t be argued against, that facts we have at our disposal include our very own questions – surely these themselves are as natural as we are?  Anything natural is meant to be… so these questions are meant to be asked.  We must have been given the power of independent thought for a reason. If these questions are unnatural, then they are are so as perceived by us (ie; we may not fully understand ourselves – which, in itself would be a natural attribute!) or they have been induced by external influence.

Naturally, I find the idea of being permanently tethered by the physical laws of this universe both repugnant and counterintuitive.  Decay and disorder are unattractive for us as ultimate end results, and to posit that we have no choice in the matter concerning them is a gross contradiction when considering mankind’s attributes (eg. self-awareness, capacity to question self existence, imagination and our regard of beauty, to name but a few examples).  It is highly unlikely that the order implied by the very existence of humanity came purely out of chaos.  It is logical that the answer to our question of why we are here should be an outcome to compliment mankind’s traits.  After all, do we not consider everything else the result of cause and effect?  As far as we are aware, our traits (and their potential) are unparalleled by any other known being.

There should be a reciprocate outcome, a product of our existence ie; a purpose.  Our position in this seemingly chaotic universe is, upon closer research/consideration, highly organized.  This high degree of organizational complexity is such that it cannot possibly be considered a random by-product.

Question of eternity

People can’t seem to shake the idea of eternity or infinite regression (which still implies eternity).  It is a common belief that there had to be something before the last perceived primordial entity or that the entity always existed.  Each notion is (when contemplated), considered ludicrous/impossible.  Whether this is God (implying an eternal entity) or the origin of a ‘Big Bang’ (implying infinite regression) it appears to be beyond the realms of what is perceived possible.  A possible answer to this problem could be that something perfect existed that was self contained by the very fact that it was ‘complete’ (in a state of perfection).  Due to this completeness, the concept of time would not exist, because in a state of perfection it would require no development and thus no events (as we would equate, using light) would pass.  Being perfect would also mean that no prior creation would be required: perfection requires no creation – perfect.. IS!  Also, I don’t think that a perfect entity could have a prior creator of equal quality, because that would imply that the creator was imperfect – if it is perfect, then why replicate?  An intelligence would be required for the entity to break this state of completeness/perfection (implying intension or a goal in mind), thus sparking the beginnings of the universe through a process of creation including the time continuum.  In the beginning, perfection rather than nothing could always have existed.  We may have been looking at this backwards – it is preposterous to think that in the beginning there could be ultimately nothing or conversely, that there was always a recursive creation process.  Far more likely, it would be that in the beginning there was everything and still is but to a degree, in a state of imperfection (ie; the apparent chaos of our world) – as we see it.  To develop that further; the degree of perceived imperfection, having been initiated by the perfect entity is in fact, really perfect in it’s imperfection – because if the entity were perfect, it wouldn’t generate absolute imperfection would it?

If this perfect entity were God.. then what good would good be without those to experience the good in good?

This, of course begs the question: Why would perfection require change?  I think based on our endowed attributes, we can never answer this question, but mustn’t give up trying as this is natural and thus intended.  I believe that these attributes of ours are intended to be used but are conducive to less obvious byproducts.

Surely the epic idea that man has developed of his own survival, based on his perceived impending demise did not come about for nothing?

Long-winded, loose ideas

This internal process could be analogous to a rubber-band, where if you stretch one end, the other end gives, and vice versa ie; a situation of give and take.  To elaborate: The apparent imperfection can only be seen as perfection if we can see the big picture and look at the current situation (the imperfect process) as like the reciprocal of a sum (a part of the big picture), requiring the other figure(s) (laws) to be included to make the sum (perfection) complete – this implies that we would have to be part of that entity.  In this situation, treating these as parts of the whole we could see how while we, as a part of the whole, having the factor/sensation of time, are a changing process abstracted from the all-encompassing whole from which the beginning could be seen from the end – as time would be irrelevant.

I know this is long-winded but what I am saying is this: we only know enough from our point of existence to find that the more we know, the less we know, and we see things as imperfect – not enough to make a complete picture whereby we could say that everything is understandable.

I guess another way of describing it is like the PCB’s (printed circuit boards) of a computer system (which could be the entity), could be seen as a perfect complete set of possible paths that are unchanging or static, based on principles of an purpose (ideal).  You have an interface between that and the dynamic processes involved in software (parts of the whole) allowing for the flexibility of change within the device, the application/purpose of the device doesn’t change, but the input/output commands used to arrive at the outcome of the intended application/purpose do.

Then again, maybe..

Excerpt quote from a standup gig by the late legendary comedian Bill Hicks: “..we are all one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is a only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves..


2 Responses to “Philosophy: Questions concerning our existence…”

  1. […] Philosophy: Questions connected with the existence… « Essential Software […]

  2. idea de negocio…

    Totalmente acertado. Además, todo se basa en el concepto de las cosas, en la idea. Es fundamental que se analicen bien los pros y los contras antes de pasar a la acción. Pero una vez tomada la decisión, el método de ejecución de la idea es tan imp…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: