Although Slack is definitively undefinable, can we come any closer to understanding it using science?
No, Pinklord, we cannot. This is not going to have anything to do with science except to remind you that if you take that method on as a singular worldview you are about as far away from achieving Slack as you can possibly be. Science has become the new authority on all matters, and those who cling to it as Holy Gospel are addicted to the possibility of power that their mythical certainties and absolutes suggest. Only “Bob” can be certain about anything, so the only thing you should even consider being certain about is “Bob”.
Absolutes and certainties are like anchors. They tether your mind to only the narrow field of experiences which validate whatever it is you are so damn sure of. The only prevention for this sickness is to make damn sure that you aren’t damn sure of anything. And the only way to achieve that is to abandon the pervasive and perverse notion of modern thought known in philosophy as realism.
Realism is the belief that the shit going on inside your head must also be going on outside of it. It posits an external reality outside of our experience, and arrives at this conclusion using bunk ass math. We can generally agree that our experiences are subjective. Since we cannot interact with any phenomena outside of an experience of it, all of the contents of our minds are entirely personal. Yet some people believe that agreeing accounts of experience somehow equal an absolute objective certainty.
If personal experience has an objectivity value of zero, you could add and multiply them infinitely and the sum would still be zero.
Latest posts by Joshua Scott Hotchkin (see all)
- Newly Released CIA Documents Reveal JFK Was Going to Expose Pedophile Ring - Jun 15, 2018
- Kurt Cobain Lives On As Jordan Peterson - Jun 14, 2018
- Lemonade: The Libertarian Cliche That Marks Their Arrival to the Mainstream - Jun 13, 2018