I have seemed to hit some sort of dead end again- thrice this year, on the same topic of goodness.
Its really fusturating. There are a thousand things I really want to put down- but somehow when they all come down together they all just don't sound right. There are at least 3 essays to write about politics, but when I reached the third paragraph I just felt like I had alread repeated myself for the third time. The idea of 'love' for the past 4 posts was very haphazardly brought across. Not that I can't string sentences together coherently, but I believe that I have reached a stage where the laws of truth do no apply properly anymore.
Everything goes back to the same bloody line- the meaning of everything is goodness. Yet I still cant put a finger to try to even describe the essence of goodness in a paragraph. After all, you cant describe an intent using process steps, can't you? It's quite impossible to use mathematical methods to describe what the answer: say a number 3. The only thing you could do is probably prove that all methamatical methods lead to the answer 3. This process of induction was applied throughout Project RN (T2), it sounds stupid, it keeps repeating itself- but what else can be done?
This is probably why people always fail trying to find the meaning of life. It cannot be bought, it cannot be learnt, and it does not appear by forcing yourself to a church group or when you undertake various roles. It can only be realized- convicted, believed, embodied. This probably explains why even the poor fisherman can live a more meaningful life than a critical philosopher. Enough of all these words- they don't go anywhere anyway. Writing an essay on how words cannot persuade is an oxymoron anyway. It's pretty much like reading books on how to read.
And on top of it all, this thing should NOT be done alone.
Lamenting on the lack of like-minded people is not going to bring anybody anywhere. So I guess I'll skip that nonsense for now. i'll throw in a couple of mindmaps here and there on this domain in the meantime, while I try to reintrospect the whole issue again from scratch. Hopefully I may post again from Yemete Land (since I'm going to bring my laptop there), don't worry- i'm still not giving up just yet.
*
On a side note, I am getting increasingly interested in the creation of the objective character. I don't mean a set character with specially tailored triats to throw into a story. Instead, I am thinking along the lines of the integrated identity. A creation that will seriously follow the laws of creation. Some people have told me that such whims are very dangerous, since I'll be in a way playing God. I don't think this argument holds- humans have always been creating things after all. Talk abbout sexual reproduction, would anyone tell you that you're playing God if you're going to have a son or daughter?
As a background whim, I had monitered some of my thoughts for the past few days. It has been really interesting how, as the theory expands, the number of factors I keep wishing to factor into this objective character multiplies exponentially. The rudimentary forms of creation of set characters from novels and stories I had been contented with back in 2008 no longer suffice in detail and freedom. I can no longer stick to a simple Kimmie who'll merely react to events of a story. Neither can I be truly content with a simple picture of her in some action, stilled, and then shaded. Higher forms of media is needed right now, at least in the form of a movie, to capture the elements of this dynamic character.
One more curious thing- As the character gets more dynamic in nature, it is as if, imperatively, that I would want that character to be free of my conceptualizations. I had spoke of this a couple to times before in the past, but it had only struck me recently, that the more we devote into the creation of an objective character, the more we want it to be free. A free identity has a state of being many many times more rich than a 'captive' character in a story. More shockingly, a free identity has so much more meaning (in life) than a character designed with a specific agenda in mind.
Huh?
Look at Harry Potter. He's pretty much character-rich, he has his own fears, own memories, own style.... but when we pluck him from his domain of magic, he becomes really awkward when he's at home washing shoes, or touring Sentosa with his girlfriend. This is because, he is not designed to be objectively free. His thoughts and feelings are only applicable when he's back in Britan doing what he does best, but beyond that, he has no purpose in this objective world. Consequently, we cannot zoom all the way out (from the fictional world to this reality itself) and say that he has much meaning to life.
But look at a real human, say- alright... Jesse. I am free to expand on my own domain, as long as my domain is within the domain of truth (i.e. I don't defy the laws of physics, I don't have methods of working that are founded on the laws of illogicality- i.e. 1+1=3, or probability i.e. I become the president of the UN tomorrow ). As a result, I can be anybody I want to be- I can be a mad engineer on the way to create the next Frankenstein Monster, or i can be the contemporary romancer in any mushy love movie. On top of either, I can actually be both, and throughout the whole process I can choose who I want to be. If any of the things I am going to become incidentally becomes a story, I can daresay that I have the potential to live infinite stories.
If I was compared to Harry Potter, I would be at least a thousand times more objectively free than he is. My state of being is infinitely more complex than his, (we can say because freedom arises from the soul), and definitely, the meaning of my life is much more (meaningful) than his meaning. (you'll rather burn an entire Harry Potter book, than burn Jesse's hand)
Precisely why natural reproduction is the ultimate form of human creation, on par with the first creation of man by God. But thats not the point, so I'll repeat my statement again:
Precisely why I would want to create an objective character, rather than another character in a story. Who'll want to go back to the cramped room after they just had got out of it?
One little problem- If I were to create such an objective character, the meaning of that character to me would be at 100 percent integrity, since i'll be owning two objective characters now, instead of one objective character (my own) and a diminished character. This phenomenon curiously resembles the stigma of cloning. Where two objective characters are created out of a single consciousness. A free identity on her own, yet still very greatly 'tied' to my identity. Now we can see there is evidently a very obvious state of union between two independent sets. In project RN (T) we call this union 'Love'.
So I can't create an objectively objective character after all. It is not advisable to go against naturalistic laws to create something that means so much to me that I have essentially cloned myself on an idealistic scale. Neither do I wish to challenge the natural form of creation (sexual reproduction) to re-produce 'images of myself' in another method on my own will. I cannot take responsibility at this point of time too. Add on the very obvious fact that it is quite impossible to do so (even it could be done with today's technology).
You're really crazy, dude. Wait up lar......
I never said I wanted that objective a character- all that was spoken above was an elaboration of my thoughts as I monitor the tendencies to an objective character. Naturally there is a tend to the objective, but there are still limits on how objective my creation can truly go. On a truly realistic scale I guess it won't go far beyond the 'award winning character of a story'- but such a little increase on this scale can make a difference in the world human imagination.
Call this madness a side project to introspect the theories of truth, goodness and beauty in one really colloquial and personal form. Of course in my deepest thoughts, there will be no need for any more expositorary articles if I can produce results to this objective character- but while everything appears obscured and elusive, those expositorary articles would have to hold for the time being.
No comments:
Post a Comment