| A Carapace of Thought [+ favourites]
Today I have subconsciously, but not unwillingly, enveloped myself in a series of questions that I do not believe are on the whole tangible to the outreaches and diameter of the human mind. I am an agnostic: –noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. And what I ask of all of you followers of the set path of someone else's idea is a question that is a loop in itself, literally, and utterly undeterminable by anyone. If there is a god, (a creator of things, and all things that are tangible with these things) the creator of the universe, then who created this creator? How can anyone state as if it were a general truth (another word relative to the person) that a certain person(s)/thing(s) created any of this so called 'existence'? And from there I loop back to my statement that I am an agnostic. If you were able to obtain this 'truth', then definitively you would be a god. I believe religion was once a basis for the path of life, just as there are signs to warn those who venture down long paths and flights of stairs in a skyscraper. Another question: What is the point of reaching the bottom of this scyscraper that is life, with the bottom being death (or a greater truth) if one can simply just run full charge through the window and reach the bottom in virtually no time without consequence? Thus, almost every Modernized religion or every religion that takes a definite claim towards what is thought as 'truth' is corrupt. Yes, many religions provide a path, so to speak, to guide people through hardships, and give people a non-tangible object to grasp with the limbs of their minds, but why complicate and exaggerate and overuse these ideas and once pure ideas? One who strives to be perfect must realize that to be perfect is relative to one's own cause. One who strives to achieve a higher state of mind must realize that a higher state of mind is only a different way of thinking, and different ranks of thought are in themselves overlapping. One who strives to be original must realize that there is no concept that exists that is truly 'original', that everything that has ever been thought of, whether it be thought of from man or any other being, is only a [i]discovery, a pre-existing mass of matter that was formulated and rearranged through some breakthrough or phenomenal vision. To obtain originality is to be able to conjure mass and matter from nothing, as rediculous a thought as magic. Thus, in ourselves we are how others perceive us and how we perceive everything and nothing that we may do; thoughts are a mere weight upon the ever-so destructive mentalities and physicalities. -And yes, I do realize that some of my views are highly hypocritical, but it is impossible to avoid such errors. Please read this through clearly before you respond (if you do respond), or at least incorporate this into just one moment of your daily thought or thoughtlessness.
"How nice - To say nothing, yet still get full credit for being alive."
|