“I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them.” (Pablo Picasso, 1959)
This statement by Pablo Picasso is telling. The object is no longer what matters. It is the way we think and can think of them that matters. And it is not longer necessary to be faithful to the “outer” object, but rather important to be faithful to “inner” one that does what it does – namely create art, or more generally, abstraction. After all, our human self is nothing but part of the creation of the world. So we should celebrate that by being faithful to who we are.
I know of no other existence other than this one. We may speak of souls and spirits but we may only speak of them from this existence, and none other. Whether souls or spirits exist or not is really not the point. What we should be noting is that the possible existence of or as souls and spirits has no direct bearing on this existence other than through that kind of thought and discourse.
I don’t like the to in to be or to with any other infinitive for that matter. It entails movement when the infinitive indicates anything but movement or change. I am or it is are to indicate a state that in reality does not exist.
Being is to indicate a state over time. So this is closer to what is true of the reality.
Becoming is what is what we always do. But that too is an illusion. Becoming is what we perceive when the reality “sees” none. Becoming is therefore a value.
When we play tennis not only we are interacting with the reality, we are assuming that the reality will behave in a certain way. I doubt I will get very far by just contemplating the nature of the ball, the court surface, or the springiness of the string gut. But rather by interacting with the reality, I prove my understanding of it.
Knowing the limitation of my movement, my opponent’s, the way the ball behaves against the racket strings and court surface, the way the ball travels through the air with spin, I try to defeat my opponent. My performance is proof of this understanding.
In some ways Donald Trump’s actions are also proof of his understanding of the world. He uses it to “deceive” not only others but himself as well. I do not mean he is a bad person, but that is doing what we as humans do best – to achieve the most with what we have. So know ing what to do as a human, a cat, a religion is really proof. To me, this is a kind of (my kind of) objectivity.
In OOO all object are said to be on equal footing. The question though is whether it is equally 0 or equally 1.
I tend to think it is without value whatsoever except for a value produced by systematic difference between them. This difference, and therefore value, exists only when observations are made.
It therefore means if there is no observer there is no value in the situation.
So, what exactly is an observer is now the question.
I rather like Schopenhauer for the one thing he said about will and representation. Will being is our volitions and being an object that we can know. Schopenhauer believed Kant missed the point when he said that we can never know the things-in-themselves. Schopenhauer believed so because what Kant had seemed to forget is that we are also objects within the reality. Thus we can know us as the thing-in-itself.
I kind of agree but also feel we do not truly know ourselves. The example I can give is when we fall ill. If we are fully aware of the health of our body this would not have happened. In other words, we are not fully aware of the condition of this body-will. It is as unknown as the object-representations. The body-will is in reality just another representation in the Kantian sense.
At every turn, then, we have only representations. But also, we have will in the form of the nature of our being, to believe that will is possible. Our characteristic is to believe we can reach will or perfection. That is what we should embrace, not lofty unreachable ideals as though they are separate and not part of, or else greater than us, worthy to be aimed at.
Our being has the characteristic of data creation with-in and with-out the mind. We create concepts at every turn. We replace the real things with its concepts. We also mistake concepts for the real things.
Plato was one of the first to create the idea of ideal forms that all else is based upon. Real cats are but shadows of the ideal cat, where the ideal cat is the model for the cats of the world. But Plato did not have the benefit of current understanding. Cats did not always exist. It would be safe to say cats did not exist two billion years ago. Did the ideal form already exist then without a single cat to be in existence? What is the point of having the ideal form of cats if there were none to be?
The more likely answer would be that our ideal form of cats comes from our experience and observation of cats by way of blending all that is considered ideal of a cat, rather than something like an ideal form existing before we start.
This is like the present state of Apple’s App Store. It is far from ideal but we keep bits we like here and there and remove other bits that don’t seem to work. Call it “tweaking”, “evolution” or some other term you like. Ideal forms are not there. Only the concept of ideal forms exist. We must not mistake the concept for the real thing or for the verbal form of it.