Thursday, November 18, 2004

b.m. interp.

We are nothing more than the corporeal materialization of every interaction we have ever been involved in. In body, as mental giants such as Hardy, Mendel, Darwin, and Jung supposed, we are simply accurate summations and particular recipes of our kin; the current accumulation of their blood, joys and sorrows. We are minor symbols of time and represent a singular, atomic, pinnacle of our ancestry. Our mind on the other hand, while it shares many elements with our ancestral past and cannot escape this tether, is more absolutely influenced by our own lifetime’s interactions. That is to say, our mind is not predominantly influenced by an ancestrally concentric source. Our mind brings thought yet these thoughts are neither free nor willful rather they are incredibly intricate, lawful, solutions. Thoughts are a lifetime’s worth of both amalgamated and singular reflexes; the memory and influence of different people, places, incidents, which are continually joining or colliding throughout our existence. The more purposive and rational the thought seems, the more surreptitious the reflex is; a reflex of a reflex of a reflex-- almost to the point of infinity—but not quite. Every vibration has its source. Still, the vibrations and the sources are innumerable and the question of finding a core source is an inquiry I should leave to the more spiritually sound and/or intellectually hopeful.

There is something overly-humbling and somewhat sinister in suggesting that we are merely bundles of reflexes and learned traits as Skinner suggested, yet the more I think on it the more I’m convinced I become. Interpretation is colored by previous interpretations, just as the color of your love is always discolored by the hue of your previous loves. The essence of life is imitation and conglomeration. Still I suppose we might be able to change certain perceptions by actively interpreting interactions as objectively as we can-- but I presume most of us are too experienced for such Godlike feats.

One more thing, I can tell you that somehow my current ideas are propelling me away from my former atheist-tinged agnosticism and towards the recognition of there being an existing Deity or Creator or core source.

2 comments:

arfblat said...

"One more thing, I can tell you that somehow my current ideas are propelling me away from my former atheist-tinged agnosticism and towards the recognition of there being an existing Deity or Creator or core source."

Explain further...please?

RJB said...

spork, I have a hard time explaining it even to myself, let alone drawing up a rational explanation for someone else. I think it's a matter of I am simply unable to comprehend life with out creation, I never used to feel much about it, one way or the other but now it seems to me, when I think of the commonality of all livng things (specifically men) then I feel like it must have an origin. I guess if anything its more of an intuitive conclusion I draw.

But don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not Religious--that seems way to cocksure. I'd say I'm agnostic with a strong leaning towards a more purposeful God as opposed to the whole, "God is unpurposeful" agnostic slant or "there is no God" angle used by atheists.

Sorry, bad explnation but I tried.