This is an unofficial archive of PsychonautWiki as of 2025-08-11T15:14:44Z. Content on this page may be outdated, incomplete, or inaccurate. Please refer to the original page for the most up-to-date information.
Unity and interconnectedness: Difference between revisions
>Josikins |
>Oskykins No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<onlyinclude> | |||
[[category:Novel states of mind]] | [[category:Novel states of mind]] | ||
[[File:Tumblr_inline_mmi698051Y1qz4rgp.gif|thumb|right|upright|238px| This symbol depicts the universe as a "self-excited" circuit. It was originally created by the late theoretical physicist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler John Archibald Wheeler] in his 1983 paper [http://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/wheeler_law_without_law.pdf law withoutlaw]. The eye represents the self and the line directly opposite represents that which it is perceiving within the "external" environment. The two sections are connected into each other via arrows to demonstrate that it is a singular and unified system.]] | [[File:Tumblr_inline_mmi698051Y1qz4rgp.gif|thumb|right|upright|238px| This symbol depicts the universe as a "self-excited" circuit. It was originally created by the late theoretical physicist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler John Archibald Wheeler] in his 1983 paper [http://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/wheeler_law_without_law.pdf law withoutlaw]. The eye represents the self and the line directly opposite represents that which it is perceiving within the "external" environment. The two sections are connected into each other via arrows to demonstrate that it is a singular and unified system.]] | ||
| Line 100: | Line 101: | ||
If the universal definition of the self can be defined as “'''the thinker behind one's thoughts'''”, identifying a separate individual component besides the singular whole which serves this purpose seems to be inherently impossible on both a physical and a philosophical level. This realization (which may well be overly simplified or completely wrong) indicates that one is permitted to use terms such as “I”, “you”, and so on, but not because they refer to an empirical and separate self. Instead we are permitted to use them simply because they are convenient symbolic approximations or linguistic tools for use in conversation which, through social interactions with others, we have been taught to believe as something much objective than they really are. | If the universal definition of the self can be defined as “'''the thinker behind one's thoughts'''”, identifying a separate individual component besides the singular whole which serves this purpose seems to be inherently impossible on both a physical and a philosophical level. This realization (which may well be overly simplified or completely wrong) indicates that one is permitted to use terms such as “I”, “you”, and so on, but not because they refer to an empirical and separate self. Instead we are permitted to use them simply because they are convenient symbolic approximations or linguistic tools for use in conversation which, through social interactions with others, we have been taught to believe as something much objective than they really are. | ||
</onlyinclude> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Subjective effects index]] | *[[Subjective effects index]] | ||