We set aims, clarify our will, for justifying a decision makings we refer data so much. At those moments, toward clear truth we set it as a value. And we can’t set off those easily because we’ve already set before as a value. Then therefore we call it a value. But at one meaning value is the thing which we get to think that anything are fit for values and try to seek after actions, thoughts, sayings, decisions which can contact with values and solidify our way to live or attitude fit for any values we’ve found out. Namely a narration saying that being anything is valuable for you, then it’s important to hold its stance to realize its ideal is welcome for us trying to do something. But we are apt to be bound only to words like that. Namely principle with words can control our will. At this moment we can be out from freedom in our destiny. It’s very troublesome. Because we can say that it’s a truth of us usually deciding anything with words in so many cases. Then if we express decision without words, it would be valued as instinctive judgment by anyone. But we know that we set so heavy value to words or language actions as humanity, study for human in foundation and regard it as extremely heavy. Namely we forget an angle that language itself is also a animalistic action. Namely if we think it with an angle as communication desire, nothing is instinctive but language. But despite of that, because it’s so bigger instinctive thing, then we must justify it as sophisticated matter, we transform it as supreme intelligence or reason as beautifying, it’s essence of philosophical history at a part.
Namely what desire is so bigger and attitudes fit for ourselves for each ones to live as inner instruction for ourselves are nothing we’ve set for obeying our inner desire at present juncture reality. And also standards selves motivated from subjective inner desire get to be one of strong bind for actions toward our future.
It’s truth that we are annoyed in wall of nothing itself every single days of our lives.
Dr. Takeshi Yoro called it wall of fool. Or Max Weber called it type of ideology. Then inversely we should abandon any trials to break down its wall and should take advantage it. Namely we should plan to make wall itself rescue us. In another words toward standard itself as wall of nothing we call it saying I cannot do anything now, then please observe our sequel from now on as we face the God.
Then we shouldn’t deny its attitudes fit for anything we set as aim, and ways to live for ourselves, and take advantage it to know powerlessness not to reach the aim point. And we should revise and reset a standard fit for real present juncture lower than ideally set standard.
To welcome wall of nothing existing anywhere around us, we shouldn’t find out a method to tide over a wall and just cling to it and walk eternally to anywhere in our idea. If we do so, it’s possible to find out a juncture to proceed to wall of nothing. It’s a set value to find out another value for the time being. Namely define wall of nothing like next. Wall of nothing is expedience to make our consciousness to evade wall and make its direction to another angle.
2011年4月27日水曜日
2011年4月10日日曜日
Chapter29 Value named the God Part2
Namely for escaping the cool and unkind real which can only be explained so, but at least we can help each self only with logical escape, then we can see that the god as concept exists as value. Then it’s almost like a realistic existent concept but really value concept, namely only knowing that anybody else in the world cannot be myself, essentially anybody else can help me is real solitude, and for breaking through its solitude, we pursuing logically and despite of it but with that we’re apt to imagine that anybody else can understand self distress or make myself tide over its trouble, the concept the God has raison d’etre, after all it’s merely value concept not realistic, existent concept.
At he matter of fact except Hitoshi Nagai, Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger also said in My world vision (chapter 5).
But this question by Schrödinger or Hitoshi Nagai produces anther it.It’s cognitive closure theory by Colin McGinn. Namely the God created space itself, time itself, anything in the world. But He ( or she) cannot be each minds space and time hold. It shows in that I draw pictures but I cannot be mind of each master pieces as logical neccesaty. But its logic has a jump. It’s a quest of the possibility to exist of soul separating the body and possibility to exist of soul of material.
Buddhism or any religions have quested the state of soul after death, of course we coudn’t prove it even with any religions. But its impossibility to spin a clear answer shows that we cannot conclude the world after death mustn’t exist,
as David Chalmers said, question whether thermstat also has a mind or not also cannot be proved, its question can be spun. It makes us revise McGinn’s question that science couldn’t have proved anything about character of space or nothing.
Surely if the God created any created matters or things as Picasso created any masterpieces as several thousands numbers in the state of radiation from one point, even the God cannot be each minds of any created. Then numberless deities in Japan would have a persuasion. Namely it’s with Chalmers’ question that any materials exist in the world may have a mind. Then its idea produces the possibility that even after disappearing of body, soul may have been eternal.
But it’s so interesting that the God has a double meaning for us in difference of our emotions for example the state difference of what the God should be in time we’re disappointed in losing of self confidence as object to cling to and in the time we have steady self confidence but not forgetting self control not to be arrogant as object to intentionally prevent or reasonable adoring symbol. Namely the God to cling to is thankful and respectful even if it holds tiny power. But at the time of being self confident thanks to the divine gift is inversely the matter to evoke that even the God is weak and not omniscient, not absolute as detachment, it’s a kindness to the God, and awareness to the crevasse exists in completeness, it is equal to the sympathy to the God self. At this moment we hold in out minds arrogance in respect or kindness to other persons which we’re not apt to be aware as type of unconsciousness
Namely if its thankful emotion is in mentality children have, it’s okay, but if it is in a respectful emotion which adult persons usually have, rather the Aporia we’re apt to make it being hidden deep in mind
Namely the God isn’t realistic existent concept, but really value concept, namely it’s a barometer toward our humility in mind to self, we can say so.
At he matter of fact except Hitoshi Nagai, Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger also said in My world vision (chapter 5).
But this question by Schrödinger or Hitoshi Nagai produces anther it.It’s cognitive closure theory by Colin McGinn. Namely the God created space itself, time itself, anything in the world. But He ( or she) cannot be each minds space and time hold. It shows in that I draw pictures but I cannot be mind of each master pieces as logical neccesaty. But its logic has a jump. It’s a quest of the possibility to exist of soul separating the body and possibility to exist of soul of material.
Buddhism or any religions have quested the state of soul after death, of course we coudn’t prove it even with any religions. But its impossibility to spin a clear answer shows that we cannot conclude the world after death mustn’t exist,
as David Chalmers said, question whether thermstat also has a mind or not also cannot be proved, its question can be spun. It makes us revise McGinn’s question that science couldn’t have proved anything about character of space or nothing.
Surely if the God created any created matters or things as Picasso created any masterpieces as several thousands numbers in the state of radiation from one point, even the God cannot be each minds of any created. Then numberless deities in Japan would have a persuasion. Namely it’s with Chalmers’ question that any materials exist in the world may have a mind. Then its idea produces the possibility that even after disappearing of body, soul may have been eternal.
But it’s so interesting that the God has a double meaning for us in difference of our emotions for example the state difference of what the God should be in time we’re disappointed in losing of self confidence as object to cling to and in the time we have steady self confidence but not forgetting self control not to be arrogant as object to intentionally prevent or reasonable adoring symbol. Namely the God to cling to is thankful and respectful even if it holds tiny power. But at the time of being self confident thanks to the divine gift is inversely the matter to evoke that even the God is weak and not omniscient, not absolute as detachment, it’s a kindness to the God, and awareness to the crevasse exists in completeness, it is equal to the sympathy to the God self. At this moment we hold in out minds arrogance in respect or kindness to other persons which we’re not apt to be aware as type of unconsciousness
Namely if its thankful emotion is in mentality children have, it’s okay, but if it is in a respectful emotion which adult persons usually have, rather the Aporia we’re apt to make it being hidden deep in mind
Namely the God isn’t realistic existent concept, but really value concept, namely it’s a barometer toward our humility in mind to self, we can say so.
2011年4月7日木曜日
Chapter29 Value named the God Part1
Philosopher, Hitoshi Nagai thinks that if the God creates everything, it cannot be a mind of created things. But originally somebody in human-beings in maze of distress said the God, after all he or she was aware of that anybody else cannot delete his or her it, or cannot live in him or her, and in front of the severe real, imagine its entity and create it catching a straw. Then probably the detachment that we hold nothing to break through a distress created the God as concept, we can be aware that it couldn’t have been.
But even it cannot lead an answer that Hitoshi Nagai holds, at least toward the question that why is it me as living in particular age, area, if the God creates everything as the trigger to be understood, it cannot be a mind as each every created, if it’s right, the definition of omniscience claims the contradiction, after all the God is illusion we concocted with, for knowing it, I know a reason to be as me writing this as fifty years old at 7th January, 2009. Namely coz the impossibility not to tell why anyone but me cannot me in logical standard inversely created the God catching a straw, we couldn’t be rescued by it as no entity in real. Then necessarily catching a straw as the God as no entity in real is also free in mind, if it is contradictory mind intention, but if we reduce an anxiety with its illusion, it would be absolutely free( I’m not that type), at the matter of fact any pains, emotions, distresses aren’t rescued, in its real solitude, for knowing that rescuing power is only self responsibility( a mind state of self), the God doesn’t exist, if it exists, even it cannot be in mind of created, for knowing only it, in world me is only self living in particular this age accidentally given by the God, I cannot help but thinking so. Of course it gets to be a tautological quest, originally the God doesn’t exist. Then for only knowing the cool real, the God in world creates a real that me living in particular age, area in particular body, it would be truth, after all infinite recession of quests appears in front of me. It should be Nature, not the God. Despite of the good idea, I cannot be persuaded completely. Namely world itself is only me as the entity to tell world is world. Just because of it, it gets to be reason as particular me is only self. Namely for knowing only that it’s nothing but me as the entity can be self, probably we can be aware that it’s nothing in the world but me as body, consciousness (I is only self) which makes us know( for not inviting the infinite recession of quest, it’s not the God’s will).
But even it cannot lead an answer that Hitoshi Nagai holds, at least toward the question that why is it me as living in particular age, area, if the God creates everything as the trigger to be understood, it cannot be a mind as each every created, if it’s right, the definition of omniscience claims the contradiction, after all the God is illusion we concocted with, for knowing it, I know a reason to be as me writing this as fifty years old at 7th January, 2009. Namely coz the impossibility not to tell why anyone but me cannot me in logical standard inversely created the God catching a straw, we couldn’t be rescued by it as no entity in real. Then necessarily catching a straw as the God as no entity in real is also free in mind, if it is contradictory mind intention, but if we reduce an anxiety with its illusion, it would be absolutely free( I’m not that type), at the matter of fact any pains, emotions, distresses aren’t rescued, in its real solitude, for knowing that rescuing power is only self responsibility( a mind state of self), the God doesn’t exist, if it exists, even it cannot be in mind of created, for knowing only it, in world me is only self living in particular this age accidentally given by the God, I cannot help but thinking so. Of course it gets to be a tautological quest, originally the God doesn’t exist. Then for only knowing the cool real, the God in world creates a real that me living in particular age, area in particular body, it would be truth, after all infinite recession of quests appears in front of me. It should be Nature, not the God. Despite of the good idea, I cannot be persuaded completely. Namely world itself is only me as the entity to tell world is world. Just because of it, it gets to be reason as particular me is only self. Namely for knowing only that it’s nothing but me as the entity can be self, probably we can be aware that it’s nothing in the world but me as body, consciousness (I is only self) which makes us know( for not inviting the infinite recession of quest, it’s not the God’s will).
登録:
コメント (Atom)
