Profile picture of mook

mook 20

(25) Active 5 years, 5 months ago
  • Posted on (UTC-4)



  • 2013-01-10 @ 19:00:20

    then move my arm from where you are sitting. your point has no practical value. I understand what you’re saying but metaphysically being of the same universe doesn’t mean we are all entirely the universe. It doesn’t make sense. and a collective unconscious still would have a neural underpinning, not a universal will.

    How to Read The Signs of the Universe

  • 2013-01-10 @ 16:38:42

    I think this is a lot closer to the truth. We are sort of at the feet of our subconscious when it comes to generating thoughts, retrieving memory, thinking critically and creatively, executing bodily functions. Isn’t it the case for so many that you can’t exactly remember a word or a name and suddenly it appears in your conscious mind? This must be due to our subconscious machinations…so to extend that to say that our subconscious can “communicate” with us in the form of abstract prediction and suggestion seems definitely possible.

    How to Read The Signs of the Universe

  • 2013-01-10 @ 16:29:26

    Idk man…seems more like you’re cherry picking to support some spiritual belief that you have. It’s not the “universe” as an agent, god or chance…its the causal interrelationships between things that give rise to everything and each other. And to not believe in gravity does not dispel its hold in our universe. Your point is well taken, that self belief dictates a large amount of our behavior and ability in this life…but we are at the mercy of so much that we have no control over.

    How to Read The Signs of the Universe

  • 2013-01-10 @ 16:24:11

    but it certainly isn’t. this article and people who support this view point seem to believe in this mystical, holistic consciousness in the universe, which there is absolutely no evidence for. I understand your point that we are a part of the universe and that communication between us is necessarily the “universe” communicating with itself, but this isn’t to say that there is some other external factor, something resembling fate, that tries to communicate with us, because that would appear to be what you’re saying by agreeing with this article. Its almost just lazy language use

    How to Read The Signs of the Universe

  • 2013-01-10 @ 16:16:18

    ah the old “i’m more open minded than you are” angle ;) this article is heavily rhetorical and avoids mentioning knowledge we have about these kind of phenomena, most notably confirmation bias.

    How to Read The Signs of the Universe

  • 2013-01-10 @ 10:46:32

    I think you could refocus on the quality of the content you post and allow people to post. does anyone rational really believe that the “universe” can communicate with them? otherwise you’re just pushing slightly modified versions of the same idea: do what you want, don’t worry about it, and have fun while you’re at it. Which is awesome…but I’d bet you could repackage it a little better

    How to Read The Signs of the Universe

  • 2012-07-27 @ 07:45:36

    So you’re more focused on our ability to create a narrative for ourselves and view that narrative as positive and constructive. I think that is probably a better attitude to don day by day…but overall it still doesn’t touch what schopenhauer was discussing. Those moments of struggle and disappointment or tension and release..are present in everyone’s lives at all times. You suggest that people positively (re)contextualize these events into their narratives..which more likely than not would lead to a struggle/disappointment cycle of its own.

    Thanks for the article! Got me thinking

    Schopenhauer’s Big Mistake: The Pleasure of Ephemeral Satisfaction