<$BlogRSDURL$>

Rants about my life torn between physics and philosophy...

Sunday, April 18, 2004

And now for a philosophical thought...

One of the key problems in metaphysics is the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Currently, though, it seems that most answers to this are based on one of two methods/notions:
1. Prove that there must be something, and then you have shown that there can not be nothing. Logically there is something rather than nothing because there being nothing not only does not make sense, but also is impossible.
2. Any answer presupposes the existence of something, but the question requires that there can be no supposition.

As a quick thought, it occured to me to try to turn this around... Alright, if we cannot presuppose the existence of something, then lets presuppose there is nothing...










Emptyness, no thought, and thus no way to answer the question! It is strange. We cannot make a supposition in either way, yet all logic seems to intuitively be based on something existing! Even the most basic concept of 1&1=1 (digital logic) presupposes there is 1, which indicates there must be a 0! And so we now not only have 1 thing, we have 2: 1 and 0!

This is very strange and very disturbing, I find...


I wanted to make an addendum to my meditation. The concept of "healthy relationship" tends to throw people a bit, since the use of "healthy" is someone counter common sense as I use it. In a discussion with a friend, I came up with a good way of explaining it.

An "unhealthy relationship" (for lack of a better word) is an unstable relationship. It is like walking along the edge of a cliff. Everything is fine when we have our balance, but all it takes is a sudden gust of wind, a sudden departure of attention, whatever, and the risk of falling increases.

A "healthy relationship", as I have used it, is more like walking on a bridge. There are railings, and a wide area to keep the walk stable. It is still possible to fall over the edge, but not nearly as likely.

Thursday, April 15, 2004

My latest entry will be in the form of a meditation. I had many recent emotional events that sparked this meditation, which was written on paper at 3:00am this morning. It is actually a meditation on psychology and sociology.



Initially, my concern was on types of relationships, and how certain types always seem to fail and certain others seem to have a chance of lasting. Thus, I find myself generalizing types under certain categories.

Category: Good Relationships
Types: Friendship, Love, Sex

Category: Social/Necessary Relationships
Types: Acquaintance, Working/Business, Mutual Benefit

Category: Bad Relationships
Types: Enemy, Competitor, Victim/Abuser

With these three categories in mind, each with three types, I wondered what combinations would make for a healthy relationship. My first thought was to reject this idea, as any "Bad" category would be unhealthy. But is a bad relationship necessarily unhealthy? Yes, it is unhealthy to the person but the relationship itself is not an "unhealthy relationship." Thus, I felt it necessary to define "healthy relationship" as I will be using it. Perhaps "healthy" isn't the right term to describe it, but it shall be used for lack of a better term.

Thus, I came to these definitions:

Healthy Relationship (HR): a relationship based solely on one category, with various combinations of type.
i.e.) Love -> Healthy relationship, as in that from a father, mother, brother, sister, etc...
Working/Business + Mutual Benefit -> healthy relationship, as in business partners.
Sex+Love+Friendship -> healthy relationship, as in that between a loving husband and wife.

Unhealthy Relationship (UHR): a relationship that has type combinations from more than one category.
i.e.) Sex+Mutual Benefit -> unhealthy relationship, two people using each other for sex.
Friendship+Working/Business -> unhealthy relationship, as in two friends entering into a business agreement, any disagreement in the business will put a strain on the friendship.

And I continued to think along these lines, having not though yet of any healthy relationship of the "Bad" category. Again, the thought that a relationship can be healthy without it being good for the person came to mind. And so I thought... Imagine a situation where I am in competition with someone I do not like. The competition and dislike of the opponent can encourage me to work harder, and drive me to win the competition. Would this then be a healthy relationship? Perhaps yes. Competition can be healthy, and I don't have to like everyone. I still wonder as to the inclusion of "victim/abuser" in this category, but perhaps I can cover that later.

So I thought about real relationships, common relationships. It seems common relationships take the form of Friendship, Acquaintance, or Enemy, but many other relationships come out of combinations. I wonder, then, can sex without love be a HR? Can there be sex without love? Sure there can. Friendship + Sex can work, as in a marriage where the love is gone. But more often than not, this relationship turns unhealthy by the seemingly necessary inclusion of mutual benefit, or abuser/victim types. Mutual benefit comes when two friends are using the sex merely for that ultimate stress release. Or where one person decides that they don't want the sex any longer, while the other does, and so the sex continues merely for one person's benefit. I could not imagine that being a healthy relationship.

Seemingly by necessity, Sex must be combined with other types. Sex + Friendship + Mutual Benefit is common. Sex + Acquaintance can be too (prostitution). The only healthy relationship I could actually imagine (lasting healthy relationship) would then be Sex + Love + Friendship. Thus, I seem to find myself in the same conclusion as Christianity, that Sex requires Love. There can be no casual sex, seemingly.

And so I thought that perhaps my category/type relationship was a little strange. Surely someone cannot be an acquaintance and a friend, or an enemy and a friend, correct? There seemed to be forbidden category/type combinations. And so perhaps a reformation of the hierarchy is in order.

1.
Category: Good
Class: Friendship
Auxiliary: Love, Sex

2.
Category: Necessity/Social
Class: Acquaintance
Auxiliary: Business, Mutual Benefit

3.
Category: Bad
Class: Enemy
Auxiliary: Competition, Victim

I felt this setup was much more... hmm... open? Allowing new classes and auxiliary to be added to each category, without damaging the original claim. Seeminly there can be no cross between class-class, but class-auxiliary combinations can be very complicated. So then I was able to think about many more unhealthy cross overs...

Friendship + Competition
Acquaintance + Love (such as a crush)
Enemy + Mutual Benefit (such as two people using each other)
Friendship + Business (business partners that are friends)

It seems then that family relationships are the hardest to classify. Social values suggest we must love our family, but in reality it seems this is not so. We can be friends with family, and we can be acquaintances, and there can even be Love + Acquaintance, as in the case of my relationship with my grandfather, whom I never really knew well enough to be friends with before he died.



At this point, I was tired and fell asleep. And so ends my first official meditation.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?