The Death of Smell is in the Air

The Death of Smell is in the Air

The scent filled air enters my nostrils, but reaches not my senses for I am sick.  I am broken and cannot engage in sensory; I am left in destitute, utter misery.  A fly pesters my snout as I breathe in but not out.  I feel as though I am one fifth a dead man, for the roses have as much scent as the sand.  I am only four fifths alive, as I cannot engage in what brings bees out of the hive.  I am lost in this garden unable to be affected, for this world is invisible in lack of scent sensory.  Oh I can hear, I can see, but what good is that to me if I cannot see, with my nose.   Oh flower’s scent is in vain as it grows, fainter in my present perception, Oh how I ask for resurrection, of my nasal sight, so that I can see aromal light.  I can see, but then I cannot, for a flower is but black and white without the color of it’s scent.  Oh where oh where is my precious nose went?  On what has my aromal awareness been spent?  It is gone and it shall not be long until the end of the four that are still alive.  Smell is the first dead in my sensory made up of five. Until then I wait for resurrection into blissful recollection of what I once knew as smell.  My nose now of smell knows not.  The difference between rose and rank odor forgot.  Oh my sense of smell is none but rot.  Oh the bitter despair, my nose for no purpose but air.  I look into illness’ dulling stare, and cannot do so with a care, for sickness cares not none for me. 

Eco Nihilism

The Atheistic religion of science and the Theistic religion of the spiritual escapism both may conflict over the origin of the universe, but both are ideologically parallel in their Ecologically Nihilistic ramifications. Atheism strips the soul out of ecological science and therefore the purpose and necessity of integration with nature, for in technological progression rest the hope of man's escape from his essential dependence upon natural resources. Ecological preservation becomes nothing more than Sisyphus's absurd attempt to restore the rock of man's existential impact upon it's natural place upon the hill and in doing so trying to erase his existence using his existence in futile absurdity until he simply dies. What of the Sun? How can man replenish that resource? How can man escape the entropy that ensnares us all into absurd existence? Spiritual escapism on the other hand justifies it's ecological destruction in the name of a Deity. One that created something in order that it might be destroyed. In this the ecology also has no purpose other than being a means to an end that results in its destruction. The science of ecology has nothing on the escapist promise of another world after death. It cannot sway to its cause one who must reject the world in order to avoid being destroyed along with it. What then is the purpose of life now here on earth? Why not just hasten the arrival of the new earth in the act of destroying the old? Why even be placed upon the earth if the soul is all that matters?

The ideology of Ecological preservation gives rise to the necessity of a new religion to sustain it, for left man's own devices he moves into polarities of Atheism and Theistic spiritual escapism. For it to persist it must have a purpose that transcends the immediate reality we know on earth. This is why there is a great awakening of new age religion that focuses on oneness with the universe, for passion requires a soul, which Atheistic science lacked a belief in. It requires also identification with one's surroundings which spiritual escapism alienates itself from. The Ecological argument requires more than Atheist realism and Theistic idealism to sustain it, it requires spirituality. A spirituality of pantheistic form that sees purpose, or a god in nature and not outside of it, whether it is believed to exist or not.

This new form of spirituality comes out of eons of agnosticism whether that be saying there is no way to prove there is a god or that events unfold as a means to an unknowable end of god's. Man is finally in blindly just accepting that he can know the purpose of the universe through knowledge of his inner self and thus can arrive at a harmony with his surroundings. For what he is seeing he needs no eyes, for empiricism and rationality inhibit him from the truth. And the gospel of this new movement is universal harmony and the works of this movement come in the form of ecological preservation. They hide among the rational Atheists by focusing on the science behind Ecologicalism and they hide among Theists passionately enticing them with the idea of accepting rather than rejecting the spiritual reality of nature. Their eyes may be open, but what's to say that this isn't merely an illusion of spirituality like all the other religions atheism has crushed with science? Whose to say this new spirituality is not an evil attempt to deceive the souls of many away from the old views of Theism? The Atheists and Theists both retain their agnosticism in relation to the Ecologicalist, but they find ways to relate in doing so, by playing with the new rational ways to explain the spiritual in quantum physic and by explaining the history of Theism as a vein of the grander scheme of human spiritual expression.

My question is why are both opposing sides finding middle ground with this new breed? It is either that is true, which being a skeptic I doubt is the case, though there must as always with any lie be some true within it that is corrupted in order for the lie to exist. Or it is that this is simply man's natural response to a nihilistic world devoid of a full grasp on the truth. That man must in absurdity, find his purpose by creating it, but must insulate himself from the knowledge of his authorship by penning the story in pseudonymious form of spirituality. For only then can he come to terms with life's unquenchable search for purpose being insignificantly cut short of enlightenment.

My Dream of Solitude

I Wish my dreams did not change with each new awaking. I'd like to have just one dream for the rest of my life so that I could make at least one come true. I do dare insist as an excuse that I am a reinasance man in the making, for from each dawn until every dusk I am in racing, after dream after dream, I pursue, all a new fresh path ripe for the taking. Oh the journey of Sisyphus alongside of him I ensue, with the everlasting plight of rolling rock upon a hill, this very trek mine the same I am making. I set my fate and merely wait to be forced back down against my will, and back down I will turn up to go yet again. Oh what sorrow, such bleak sadness in all my future days that follow closely as they be shaded by the days past that foreshadowed me. Oh the burdensome weight of life in it's absurdity, seems now to be my sole, single and only friend on my voyage with no sight of an end to see.

To My Future Wife Whereever and Whomever She May Be

I don't love you....God does. Our marriage is merely a reflection of how God loves the both of us in that the love comes not from us but Him therefore it is unshakeable and unstopable. May we remember that God loves through us and that it is not we who love in and of ourselves, lest we be discouraged by our inability to truly love outside of the pure love that only is of God. May we thank God everyday for the love He gives us for one another, for without His love we would have nothing, we would be nothing, two incomplete people on their own attempting to fashion together two broken hearts as one when only in His love can our hearts melt together as one.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Art and It's Relation to the Human Quest of Classifying Reality.

Art is simply the act of taking fragments of one's life experiences and editing them together to constuct a new whole, with a new meaning and purpose. Thus all men are artists for we all only have fragments, and from that we create an incomplete perspective that we believe to be a whole. We are artists simply because we cannot grasp things in their entirety and must methodically disassemble things into fragments them reassemble them back together in our head. Thus we have a subjective understanding of things because everything we experience goes through this filter. The evidence for this is seen in the fact that people break ideas down into more manageable and manuveable parts.....for example we use individual symbols in sequences to create words and use words to collectively comunicate ideas....this process subjects the overall idea being communicated to degeneration as the details of the idea slip thru the gaps in language both nationally and individually, for even within the same language words can have different conotations to different people based upon their prior experiences with a word. Just for clarification subjectivity does not mean no universal truth. Anyone assuming that merely proves my point about the subjectivity of word meaning due to prior experiences......I'll explain that if anyone does try to counter my claim that universal truth and subjectivity can coexist. All I can say is it is much like the blindmen and the elephant.......just three subjectively misinterpret the identity of the elephant, yet the elephant is still an elephant no matter how far from that truth the blindmen are due to their fabricated perspective of the entire elephant which is founded upon merely a fragment of the whole. The men in this situation may be able to grasp the whole eventually if they collectively orient each other with the part of the elephant they understand, but even still they have not universal experiences but subjective ones as individuals, thus this method will fail, for they will not be able to traverse the barriers set upon them by their individualized internal languages that are based upon the human act of dividing and categorizing experinces, editing them together into new sequences which are organized according to the structure of an individual's mind. This structure develops from birth as the result of the brain actively processing experiences in life. Experiences shape how we organize future experiences. Just as one places the word ant near where one formerly placed an A. Our structures are similar due to language, but even then not identical, for we all to not share the exact same experience with anyone. We may have the same experience externally, but internally they differentiate, for interpretation is part of the process of experience as an experience never reaches us without first being processed throught the filter of our past experiences. Art therefore is our attempt to communicate our experience with others.What ends up happening is we try to recopy our mental record of an experience into a physical record. I forgot to add back when I spoke about how the brain develops Its organizational structure that the structure is like the format as in like a computer harddrive. This format of the brain is constantly updated with each new addition of an experience, thus it is difficult again for communication, for things can take on new meanings over time. So back to art. This physical record is then art, which we issue to others as an attempt to recreate the internal experience of an external event in life. This then is interpreted thru the same process that recorded the original experience of the actively artistic individual, therefore the meaning degenerates even further just as film degenerates each time the negatives are reprocessed. The means erodes even more as the receiving individual views the physical record through the internal record of their experience while externally experiencing the physical record. This event allows for external interference with the individuals external experience. And now I Have exhausted all that is currently on my mind about this subject and must allow the process of experience to restore the reserves of mind. It's all art......it's all human expression......modern art is merely testing the boundaries of visual communication, but it's all the same. Some experiences are very close to being universal, but all are subjective. There is no way for two men to see life from the same mind, although that is the primary endevour of art. See the older art primarily used structures that are more on the universal side of the spectrum. The more specific and detailed the more universal, for that makes it easier for one to identify what one is and isn't familiar with. With abstract, everything is not exactly specific, thus the meaning is not really what is on the canvas, but how the individual organizes the structures presented within the picture inside his mind. This therfore is why modern abstract art seems more subjective. Also it is why artists strove to capture things abstractly, for it left their interpretation of the experience as far out of it as possible, for it is impossible to view anything outside of ones individual perspective completely, but one can try with different methods that came about during modern art. This lead to questions of whether artists were even to be called artists anymore, for sometimes they were so removed from their perspective in a record that it was more like it was just an event that was experienced by an audience rather than an actually human to human communication. Thus some art merely is a record of natural events. An example of this is a guy who hung paint cans from a ceiling to paint. Even then though it is still art, for the artist is communicating his experience with the impurity of human communication and as a result communicates his ambition to achieve communication that is free from subjectivity impurities. The only thing that can express objective truth is existence, but even that is interpreted thru our subjective eyes, thus we cannot be certain as to whether our existence has any solid objective backing or is merely an ungrounded false assumption founded upon our sujective interpretation of our internal experience of existence which is compiled from a collection of external experiences carried to to our brain by electrical impulses thru the nervous system. For all we know the nerves that give us a reason to believe we exist may not exist themselves. This really obliterates the entire structure of human logic when the rest of the order behind human interpretation and experience follow the path that the nonexistence of our nerve endings forms. All our logic is founded upon the structure that we form when we use our nerve endings to gather experiences outside of the interal world that is our minds. Thus if it turns out that our nerves do not exist, we potientially might not exist, for everything which we believed existed based upon evidence collected thru the nonexistent nerve endings is questionable, for something non existent cannot be used as evidence to prove the existence of anything else. This means everything we have ever experienced externally is potientially non existant and everything we have internally experienced is potientially non existence, for internal experiences are based upon external ones. Even if they are purely internal like thoughts, they still are based upon some kind of externally absorbed idea. One cannot think of something that to him does not exist, and since we test existence with external experience, all that we think about has some form of external origin. This means that if the external origin of something is in question pertaining to the matter of existence, then the whole structure that is based upon that external thing is in question of not existinig, therefore even the presence of thoughts cannot be used to indicate one exists. Eventually this destroyed every belief one had as the foundation is first destroyed, thus the very soundness of ones logic is brought into question which is uncertainy and essentially destruction. It's like a domino effect. If ones own ability to reason is in question based upon the fact that ones reason was entirely based upon an internally created perspective of external data coming from the nervous system that has been proven to be potientially nonexistent, then ones entire web of reason left unfounded and uncertain and potientially false, thus one potientially is non existent since the web of reason from which one declares the logical argument in defence of their existence is potientially founded upon experiences that occured through something that may not even exist. For that matter everything one has ever known may poteintially be nonexistent under these conditions.

True love must be grown into

True love is a mold that two must grow into, like a funnel blending them together as one. They start out separate, but thru the funnel of true love come out as one.....a child is the resulting concoction of two seperate solutions blended together down the funnel of true love.

The story I cannot entirely tell.

I wish I could tell the story that is fixed upon my heart that exists in as an anomaly in this finite moment, but I can't. Oh what a complexity that burdens my heart with it's wonder and mystery, it is perfect, but a perfection of which I cannot confess without being made a lier. Oh the truth in it's inability to be expressed entirely by the acts of man makes liers of us all. I would like to expound upon truth, not partial, but whole, for without the entire it is not completely truth and thus partial truth in essence be a lie. If only I was not confound to one long final breath exhausted over the passing of days on this terrestrial ball. If only I could relay the truth beyond my finite pass, the future past, in the prescence of no time at all. Then I could speak and be just before thou as not a lier, but then I would be thou who looks upon thee as an abomonal squire with holy eyes of fire, that burn bright with the searing light of truth which I of no physical right may see, save of your providencial pardon of grace and mercy.