"We can blame the supposed lack of an original object upon the process of having a meaningful interpretation. For there is no rule which says that the object's causes must have meaning. And, although the human mind is capable of ascribing causes to an object, it is not always capable of ascribing meaningful causation. The same is not true of interpretation. And that is why original objects are seen to be meaningless. Yet, if they were meaningful, we would believe in them, only we would likely hold them to be contingent upon some process of critique. But the process of critique is really a way of involving ourselves in the process of finding meaning, e.g. from the sources of things in causal and acausal laws. If the original object seems meaningless, since it may arise from meaningless causes, this says nothing against the reality of the original object".
"We find causation meaningless, so objects are real! Of course! Even if they participate with our minds, that doesn't mean that the objects or the mind have to be absolute! Nor does it guarantee that we don't have a mind. To prove a mind does not require proving a complete mind, for according to relativity, any kind of mind is, in some way, a mind. Therefore, whatever has an opinion that it is a mind, is in some way, officially, a mind. For any sort of mind is capable of meaningful translation, even if the perspective that translates is not the original mind. The mind itself is a kind of object, even if there is no standard to objectify it. The absence of standards is never reason enough to prove that something is without reality.".
"Basically, there's some variable that's killing me. Am I dying of democracy? Do immortals ask this question? Should I know everything?"
More Quotes by Nathan Coppedge at Poemhunter: http://www.poemhunter.com/nathan-coppedge/quotations/
No comments:
Post a Comment