Run Away Run Away

You cannot argue with someone who believes nothing is what it seems, and yet believes that to be the truth.

The idea is… nothing is black and white (i.e. things are dynamic based one’s perception). The train of thought is self destructive because the belief has to be true in order to believe it.

Some people want to deny all “order”. Without “order” however; One cannot even come to a conclusion. “There are no constants,” the same person will argue, without ever considering the multitude of constants required to complete their own thought. Another one is: All things are one, connected, or just energy. This is fine, but the “thought”, or the “knowledge” cannot negate that things are. The do exist regardless of how you say they exist, and no philosophy or mysticism can deny this without denying it’s own value, worth, or existence.

In my opinion, this nothingness, void, or enlightened view is itself void of any worth. It is also my opinion that this train of thought is destructive in nature because it allows a perceived view to be attached to any “thing” that does exist. For example a fetus becomes a soulless creature because a “holy man” who can see the souls of men says it does not have a soul. In fact it is a type of life that is the same life that later exists independently from the mother. I used to be a fetus, and so did you and your children. All examples might not be grim, but all examples would deny some part of reality, and once again in my opinion denying what is, is ignorant.

People can have valid arguments over what is true, and what is not. I have not met a single person who knew all truths; however, it is futile to argue over truth, or existence. In order to blot out truth and existence one must deny everything. The mental hurdle it takes to do this may be considered an achievement, but it is only an achievement of the mind, and only leads to a different “perception”.

You cannot deny what is because you do not know it to be. Existence is not dependent upon knowledge. Perception is dependent upon knowledge and changes based upon accumulated knowledge. For example if this article were printed on a piece of paper that was held in your hand, then something is in your hand, and there are markings on that something. If you can read those markings bring more meaning to the paper, and your perception changes because you have the knowledge to read. Therefore some knowledge may change your perception. You may see a thing different than someone else, but this whole perception started with perceiving a thing that existed, and that perception changed with knowledge. At no point in time, nor is it possible to for any of this to happen in reverse. For example, words were on the paper and had a potential to unlock more meaning if understood. Being able to read however; did not make the words what they were.

The point is, if existence were somehow dependent upon mankind, thinking, observation, perception, knowledge, or any other cognitive ability, then without thinking beings the thought would be that nothing is. This type of thought puts man and Earth at the center of importance for all things. With our accumulated knowledge we know this is not the case. We are merely specs in an area our minds cannot comprehend.