@gautam: But (a la Pratchett) if we're not around to hear it for all eternity, then, logically speaking, does it actually echo in eternity? :P
@rhapper: But are they illusions? If they were, then it would be calling for a reassignment of priorities in life. But of what use are dreams that cannot come true?! And yes, I seem to mutilate your bloggername much. :)
@verun: Maybe all we care about eternity is that it (defined however) should live on after our death; some measure of permanence in a temporary existence.
@Gautam: ur first line btw is straight out of Gladiator (the opening battle, what he says to his Equites) :D But how true is it... @Rhapsody-writer: completely agree with you on the matter of illusions, however would like to point out that happiness and bliss are illusions ofa a different kind- eternity is a retrospective concept in a way (and is hence an illusion), permanence cannot exist anyway (depreciation affects everything, from atrophy of the body, to corrosion of metals, to depreciation of assets, to erosion of rock and stone). On the other hand, happiness and bliss are relative concepts at times(and hence illusory), and mostly of course nothing more than releases of endorphins in our brains, but they can be real, unlike the other two, at least for a brief while.
@Parivrajak: you honestly think too much... firstly as gautam has said, the echoes are not for us, theyre for the rest of the world, so that history remembers us (please do not construe history in a jenkins way, PLEASE) secondly, dreams are nothing but illusions, so the question of them coming true is a little pointless. I think we must make a delineation between dreams and ambitions- rhapper was talking abt the dreams of another kind, not the ambition type. thirdly, just because things are illusory, doesnt mean we ahv to change our priorities- thats the primary problem with existentialists- yes things like happiness can be illusions, but that does not make them less real, because we feel them. the existentialists and spiritualists make the mistake of saying that just coz something is an illusion, it loses importance which is stupid becoz the things they believe is more important is even more illusory
@Gautam (again): reminds one of tale of Beren and Luthien, both in a literal sense of the first half, and of course the immortality of their tale wrt to the second part (u know y i brought in Beren and Luthien :D)
Traveller, Priorities themselves may be termed as illusions, in that they are relative, transient and even misplaced. So basically we have illusions about illusions - some lead us through torment, some through pleasure. Are torment and pleasure illusions? (obviously your next question). My answer would be Yes. They are what could be called concrete illusions. Because at some level they are experienced by the temporal self. But since this self holds no hope of permanence it is an illusion. Just as Darth Renatus stated.
You ask, what use of dreams that can't come true. Then let me ask you, is not truth an illusion? So whether dreams come true or not holds little significance. They are mere fuels for the engine of our illusory mind (and body). And unlike Sir Darth believes, I dont delineate between dreams and ambitions. Ambition is merely a state we wish to achieve. All states are maya. And as Freud said all that we dream about are our ambitions.
So then go ahead and mutilate my name all you like. Is it not just illusion?
...
Q. It is said that in another 50 years the ocean will swallow most islands of the world. What do you feel about this? A. I dont live on an island.
@all, because my thoughts are all jumbled up now: It seems as though the conclusion is that everything is illusion, from dream to ambition to eternity to permanence to emotion.
I'm not playing around with words here, but if what is real is truly an illusion (wrt happiness felt that existentialists and spiritualists deride the importance of), then what is real? Is our definition of real accepting of the fact that it is ephemeral and therefore real, or should not reality be permanent?
My learning of reality has always been concurrent with the idea of permanence, but then if that were the case, as Rhapsody-writer said, I'd be of the belief that all is Maya, without knowing the Sat.
But if reality were to be defined by what is experienced by the senses, then real would be temporary.
Which still brings me to this: If all of it real and temporary, then what is permanent? Our deeds will be erased some day anyway when the destructive Big Bang happens, or when books and photographs are eaten away, and monoliths and metals weathered away. Is our conception of eternity limited as well? And if it is, then why call it eternity? On that thread, the story of Beren and Luthien will live on only as long as men exist.
@sakhdevthebold: Why is there that secretive Beren-Luthien comment? Manners, Sakhdev! On public fora, explain the hidden intent behind your words. Now. :D
Wow. My head hurts with all this talk about permanence and illusion :)
I think that ultimately all these words like permanence, reality, illusion are all just that - words. Delve too deep and you'll find that there's nothing underneath them - no underlying answer.
P.s. Secrets of Tolkien will not be revealed to you, Harry Potter lover!
@The Jew: learn to live in the moment, thats all that is important- what u feel, what u experience, however temporal or transient it may be, is real, is tangible, and that is what we shud live for. stop trying to find something more- there is no permanence for humans beyond human civilisation unless there is intelligent life out there that can comprehend our beliefs and principles, so why bother abt anything more than what humankind remembers, Big Bang or no Big Bang? As for other questions of permanence, ki farak painda (punjabi for wat difference does it make)? U are here, u are corporeally permanent till u die (discounting biological atrophy ofc) and as for ur nature, evolution and change are the only constants, so whats the big issue? And yes, what is real is temporary, but how does that make it any less real? as i said, change is the only constant of life and makes things real as a result.
And the Beren-Luthien comment is perfectly applicable to the circumstances, but that does not mean i hav to explain y i put it there. Maybe sometime later, Jew, if u decide to see the light and abandon ur infidel faith.
@rhapps: Maybe, yes. I'm okay with ephemeral, I think. But instinct makes it difficult for me to call that real. And I'd be post-modernist and say there are as many meanings as there are people, but that is not to say that is a bad thing at all. After all, we're all unique. :)
@verun: Look who's being post-mordernist! :P
@sakhdevthebold: Living in the moment is brilliant, infidel (said the Achmed-way. :P), but tell me, if all you want to do is live in the moment, then why the desire to be remembered in history? (re: Beren-Luthien - Oh la! Temme, I say. I deserve to know.)
What's with this elitist bias against post-modernism eh? It's acually a decent concept - everything is relative, so why should anybody give a ****? :-)
(Don't know if that's what post-modernism actually says, but hey that's my post-modernist perspective on post-modernism.)
@verun: I have no bias against post-modernism myself; I suspect I am one, unwittingly. :)
Post-modernism might be something to do with what Carr calls the cynical view in his chapter on Progress; infinite interpretations, and none is superior to the other.
@ Beren - yeah, that quote was one of the things that kept me going through these horrendous exams.
Dad actually has a very interesting slant on all this. He tells me about the second law of thermodynamics, that everything in nature tends towards entropy and chaos - and how it is the task of humankind, by creating beauty and order, to lead the doomed fight against that. And so if, in life, we've done our bit to reverse that inexorable flow by just the slightest bit, we've done our job here on earth. :-)
@The Jew: I personally have no great desire to live on in history, however, it would be great fuel for my ego to achieve something in life that people will remember- that however is not the most fundamental thing in life for me. And anyway, I'm not planning to do something just for getting my name in history, but if my living my life the way i want to, can achieve something, very good. In addition, if ever the chance comes for me to leave a mark y doing something, im willing to do so, but i dont quite understand y that shud be a contradiction to living life in the moment- remember the one and only truly meaningful element of Carr: progress is retrospective, as is that mark on history...
@gautam: That IS intriguing stuff. But I'd still have questions about it; me being me. :)
@theinfidel: See, I'm being the devil's advocate here. I think I understand what you mean, because I have a similar understanding, but I still think that there are certain things we're afraid of. I don't know about you, but I am afraid of death (not just mine), and I think that reflects a desire for permanence of a certain kind. PS - Explain your idea about progress; I don't understand its relevance in this context.
18 comments:
Yet what we do in life echoes in eternity.
:-)
Eternity, permanence, happiness and bliss- the four revered illusions, that afford peace in the darkness and silence.
But then what is life without illusions? Are they not illusions that through persistence transform into dreams?
But can we fathom eternity? I don't think the author (is it Longfellow??) could, nor can any of us.
But yes, we can speculate.
@gautam:
But (a la Pratchett) if we're not around to hear it for all eternity, then, logically speaking, does it actually echo in eternity? :P
@rhapper:
But are they illusions? If they were, then it would be calling for a reassignment of priorities in life.
But of what use are dreams that cannot come true?!
And yes, I seem to mutilate your bloggername much. :)
@verun:
Maybe all we care about eternity is that it (defined however) should live on after our death; some measure of permanence in a temporary existence.
Not us. Others.
"Yet meet we shall, and part, and meet again/
Where dead men meet, on lips of living men."
Interestingly, that's a quotation at the beginning of Seervai's book. :-)
@Gautam: ur first line btw is straight out of Gladiator (the opening battle, what he says to his Equites) :D But how true is it...
@Rhapsody-writer: completely agree with you on the matter of illusions, however would like to point out that happiness and bliss are illusions ofa a different kind- eternity is a retrospective concept in a way (and is hence an illusion), permanence cannot exist anyway (depreciation affects everything, from atrophy of the body, to corrosion of metals, to depreciation of assets, to erosion of rock and stone). On the other hand, happiness and bliss are relative concepts at times(and hence illusory), and mostly of course nothing more than releases of endorphins in our brains, but they can be real, unlike the other two, at least for a brief while.
@Parivrajak: you honestly think too much... firstly as gautam has said, the echoes are not for us, theyre for the rest of the world, so that history remembers us (please do not construe history in a jenkins way, PLEASE) secondly, dreams are nothing but illusions, so the question of them coming true is a little pointless. I think we must make a delineation between dreams and ambitions- rhapper was talking abt the dreams of another kind, not the ambition type. thirdly, just because things are illusory, doesnt mean we ahv to change our priorities- thats the primary problem with existentialists- yes things like happiness can be illusions, but that does not make them less real, because we feel them. the existentialists and spiritualists make the mistake of saying that just coz something is an illusion, it loses importance which is stupid becoz the things they believe is more important is even more illusory
@Gautam (again): reminds one of tale of Beren and Luthien, both in a literal sense of the first half, and of course the immortality of their tale wrt to the second part (u know y i brought in Beren and Luthien :D)
Traveller,
Priorities themselves may be termed as illusions, in that they are relative, transient and even misplaced. So basically we have illusions about illusions - some lead us through torment, some through pleasure. Are torment and pleasure illusions? (obviously your next question). My answer would be Yes. They are what could be called concrete illusions. Because at some level they are experienced by the temporal self. But since this self holds no hope of permanence it is an illusion.
Just as Darth Renatus stated.
You ask, what use of dreams that can't come true. Then let me ask you, is not truth an illusion? So whether dreams come true or not holds little significance. They are mere fuels for the engine of our illusory mind (and body). And unlike Sir Darth believes, I dont delineate between dreams and ambitions. Ambition is merely a state we wish to achieve. All states are maya. And as Freud said all that we dream about are our ambitions.
So then go ahead and mutilate my name all you like. Is it not just illusion?
...
Q. It is said that in another 50 years the ocean will swallow most islands of the world. What do you feel about this?
A. I dont live on an island.
That is illusion for you.
@all, because my thoughts are all jumbled up now:
It seems as though the conclusion is that everything is illusion, from dream to ambition to eternity to permanence to emotion.
I'm not playing around with words here, but if what is real is truly an illusion (wrt happiness felt that existentialists and spiritualists deride the importance of), then what is real?
Is our definition of real accepting of the fact that it is ephemeral and therefore real, or should not reality be permanent?
My learning of reality has always been concurrent with the idea of permanence, but then if that were the case, as Rhapsody-writer said, I'd be of the belief that all is Maya, without knowing the Sat.
But if reality were to be defined by what is experienced by the senses, then real would be temporary.
Which still brings me to this:
If all of it real and temporary, then what is permanent? Our deeds will be erased some day anyway when the destructive Big Bang happens, or when books and photographs are eaten away, and monoliths and metals weathered away. Is our conception of eternity limited as well? And if it is, then why call it eternity?
On that thread, the story of Beren and Luthien will live on only as long as men exist.
@sakhdevthebold:
Why is there that secretive Beren-Luthien comment?
Manners, Sakhdev! On public fora, explain the hidden intent behind your words. Now. :D
Traveller,
In a bid to undo the maze maybe we could shift focus to the one true word that surfaced in the discussions - ephemeral.
Ephemeros - Greek for "things that last one day"
Ephemeral - tweak the last four letters - we have what we are serching for "real"
So then, Have you anything that has lasted for a day? That is real.
Perhaps stretching it too far - That alone is real :)
Wow. My head hurts with all this talk about permanence and illusion :)
I think that ultimately all these words like permanence, reality, illusion are all just that - words.
Delve too deep and you'll find that there's nothing underneath them - no underlying answer.
P.s. Secrets of Tolkien will not be revealed to you, Harry Potter lover!
@varun: at last someone with some sense!!!
@The Jew: learn to live in the moment, thats all that is important- what u feel, what u experience, however temporal or transient it may be, is real, is tangible, and that is what we shud live for. stop trying to find something more- there is no permanence for humans beyond human civilisation unless there is intelligent life out there that can comprehend our beliefs and principles, so why bother abt anything more than what humankind remembers, Big Bang or no Big Bang? As for other questions of permanence, ki farak painda (punjabi for wat difference does it make)? U are here, u are corporeally permanent till u die (discounting biological atrophy ofc) and as for ur nature, evolution and change are the only constants, so whats the big issue? And yes, what is real is temporary, but how does that make it any less real? as i said, change is the only constant of life and makes things real as a result.
And the Beren-Luthien comment is perfectly applicable to the circumstances, but that does not mean i hav to explain y i put it there. Maybe sometime later, Jew, if u decide to see the light and abandon ur infidel faith.
Wisdom is not in words;
Wisdom is the meaning within words
-- Kahlil Gibran
@rhapps:
Maybe, yes. I'm okay with ephemeral, I think. But instinct makes it difficult for me to call that real.
And I'd be post-modernist and say there are as many meanings as there are people, but that is not to say that is a bad thing at all. After all, we're all unique. :)
@verun:
Look who's being post-mordernist! :P
@sakhdevthebold:
Living in the moment is brilliant, infidel (said the Achmed-way. :P), but tell me, if all you want to do is live in the moment, then why the desire to be remembered in history?
(re: Beren-Luthien - Oh la! Temme, I say. I deserve to know.)
@ Infidel/Achmed/Parivrajak
What's with this elitist bias against post-modernism eh? It's acually a decent concept - everything is relative, so why should anybody give a ****? :-)
(Don't know if that's what post-modernism actually says, but hey that's my post-modernist perspective on post-modernism.)
@verun:
I have no bias against post-modernism myself; I suspect I am one, unwittingly. :)
Post-modernism might be something to do with what Carr calls the cynical view in his chapter on Progress; infinite interpretations, and none is superior to the other.
@ Beren - yeah, that quote was one of the things that kept me going through these horrendous exams.
Dad actually has a very interesting slant on all this. He tells me about the second law of thermodynamics, that everything in nature tends towards entropy and chaos - and how it is the task of humankind, by creating beauty and order, to lead the doomed fight against that. And so if, in life, we've done our bit to reverse that inexorable flow by just the slightest bit, we've done our job here on earth. :-)
@Gautam, stunning stuff, extremely meaningful
@The Jew: I personally have no great desire to live on in history, however, it would be great fuel for my ego to achieve something in life that people will remember- that however is not the most fundamental thing in life for me. And anyway, I'm not planning to do something just for getting my name in history, but if my living my life the way i want to, can achieve something, very good. In addition, if ever the chance comes for me to leave a mark y doing something, im willing to do so, but i dont quite understand y that shud be a contradiction to living life in the moment- remember the one and only truly meaningful element of Carr: progress is retrospective, as is that mark on history...
@gautam:
That IS intriguing stuff. But I'd still have questions about it; me being me. :)
@theinfidel:
See, I'm being the devil's advocate here. I think I understand what you mean, because I have a similar understanding, but I still think that there are certain things we're afraid of. I don't know about you, but I am afraid of death (not just mine), and I think that reflects a desire for permanence of a certain kind.
PS - Explain your idea about progress; I don't understand its relevance in this context.
Post a Comment