a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 #

letra de this and that (a song of contraditory arguments) - nathanology

there’s a lot to argue about in this world, and sometimes it seems like the most important arguments are the least likely to end anytime soon — god or no god? capitalism, socialism? /dʒɪf/ or /ɡɪf/…?

usually when you’re arguing with someone about one of these things, you do assume that one or the other of you is right. usually you assume that’s you. and maybe you are, and maybe you aren’t

but there is also a third possibility:

this is the possibility that you’re right, and wrong, and they’re wrong, and right, and also neither of you are either right or wrong, and at the same time, you’re both right and wrong and neither, about the same thing

[this would be a violation of the principle of noncontradiction, which states that the same thing can’t be both true and untrue of the same thing at the same time in the same way. this come from aristotle. but, aristotle also thought that sh-llfish were spontaneously produced from deposits of wet sand. turns out they do reproduce, they’re just hermaphrodites. but i don’t blame him for that, i’ve never seen an oyster having s-x with itself. although they are supposed to be an aphrodisiac.]

for in the case of some arguments, you may find that the principles from which you proceed can lead both to your own conclusion, and at the same time to the exact opposite of what you were each trying to argue in the first place, and the same is true for whomever you’re arguing with

[this is not to say that there is no truth —

but there may be more truth than you supposed there to be

and so if even if you think that you know what you mean

don’t be mean.]

take for instance the old argument between whether the world is ultimately spiritual or physical in nature. — idealism vs. materialism, as they call it in philosophy class

say there’s no soul or spirit, and it’s all mere matter

and all our thoughts and feelings are a part that follows after —

a product of neurons automatonic transfer

a stimulus responding but not a conscious answer
and consciousness at its n0blest is just the total synthesis

of ultimately physical infinitesimal little bits

which eventually fl!cker and switch off in impotence

and so the consciousness they constitute is without all significance. —

…that would be the materialist viewpoint

— and yet your feelings are real, and it’s real you’re hearing this

and such self-reflection is just what soul and spirit is —

and so those physical processes that cause us our fear and bliss

produce non-physical phenomena that clearly exist:

and so matter is inclusive of the principle it’s thought to miss —

that is, it has a capacity for conscious intelligence

and if you’re willing to admit that matter can be conscious, you

admit that it includes that which it’s defined in contrast to

…or:

say there’s no matter and it’s all spirit and soul

and objects that have mass, that your hand appears to hold

are in fact a vast interplay of images that really are no

more real than mere dreams, and we’re what makes the dreams go —

and we too may be dreams of a singular super-soul

and all these dreams’ purpose is to see through to it’s truth and goal —

and that which appears to be an inanimate wad

of mere stuff is, weird enough, actually god

…like when you’re on drugs

but all dreams aside, what happens a lot

is i freeze when i’m cold and i burn when i’m hot

and if i right now i ate sh-t and dropped here on this spot

the floor would make it clear that an illusion it’s not

and if i must define even the clearest sensations as an illusion

then who even am i? and what am i doing?

and whom could i ask that, if i, as the asker

were not separated from you by our matter?

…here’s a possible answer:

it’s this and that and both and neither —

and it’s a fact, so don’t believe it

it’s not sense or nonsense

so all that leaves

is a process through contrasting possibilities

wherever that leads

whatever that means

whomever that includes

and that includes you and me —

it is what it isn’t

and is and isn’t what it seems

so don’t be sure, and don’t be mean

…here’s another example, from the domain of political discourse:

say you’re a radical progressive, generally defined —

you think the preexisting structures should be left behind:

we must tear down these systems and then free the mind

from the old-guard’s traditions that hold it in line

there’s no truth to teach, one seeks but there isn’t tho;

therefore we should teach to be creative and critical

and in the absence of any other overarching purpose

in the universe, there’s just the individual freedom of persons

— but isn’t even this relativistic reassessment

itself but an expression of a biased entrenchment?

aren’t the very critiques that lead in a better direction

themselves all subjective and subject to convention?

and if all absolutes are inducements of oppression

is anti-absolutism itself exempt from its own objection?

doesn’t centering ourselves around our self-invention

subject us to yet another centralized conception ?

…it’s a good question. or:

you’re a radical conservative, economically and socially —

you assert there’s a way things are and are not supposed to be

which means what’s yours is yours and what’s mine is only owned by me

and you oppose those whose ideas oppose this openly

and the reason we find ourselves in weird situations

is we’re drawing new lines that aren’t clear in their placement

as people try to veer from the way nature made them

and this leads to society’s deterioration

yet if you find yourself saying there’s such a thing as nature

that has a fixed form as defined by its creator

wouldn’t every strange form he’s made lately, or still hasn’t yet

still be an expression of his will, and that naturalness?

and if god is absolute, omniscient and omnipotent

then he also made revolutions, even if you’re not into it —

and it follows from his omnipotence, omniscience and absoluteness

that his nature would include both the old school and the new sh-t

…but the truth of it is:

it’s this and that and both and neither —

you don’t know sh-t; you’re not wrong either

don’t be a believer

but also don’t assert

that there’s nothing to believe in

and don’t be a jerk

however that works

whatever that means

whomever that includes

and that includes you and me —

it is what it isn’t

and is and isn’t what it seems

so don’t be sure, and don’t be mean

i don’t know what i’m doing, i’m just rhyming while doing it

wise in my foolishness, blind in my foolish wit

i’ve been trying to find the truth and i’m behind in pursuit of it

yet i might yet find it precisely in losing it

but what good does that do? and isn’t what i’m muttering

just an abstract distraction from the actual suffering

of the persons and facts in the passion of utter being?

— yes, perhaps. that and this other thing…

- nathanology

letras aleatórias

MAIS ACESSADOS