please answer the following the question in as much detail as possible:
what would you do if you were stranded on your ideal island, absent of any human contact, and with full knowledge that rescue/escape attempts would be futile?
now that you have already answered that question:
do you live for anything greater than yourself? are you religious or believe in (a) god(s)?
thanks.
what would you do if you were stranded on your ideal island, absent of any human contact, and with full knowledge that rescue/escape attempts would be futile?
now that you have already answered that question:
do you live for anything greater than yourself? are you religious or believe in (a) god(s)?
thanks.
Well, I don't live for anything higher than myself. I don't see the point.
I live for myself 'n my GF. :) I do belive in a power called God.
why the lack of answers to the first question?
Do we have to describe our ideal island? well as for what I would do on that island would be to first find a sufficient supply of food and water. After that there wouldnt be anything else really to do except chill the fuck out. Although I was baptized a catholic and have gone through all the teachings, I really do not believe in god and do not consider myself religious. I live for not only myself but to try to better the lives of those Im close to. I feel that I shouldnt have to do good deeds because I will go to hell, but because I want to.
With the whole island thing I would probably be like well this is kinda gay and try to gtfo with my hand made pos ship like in cast away and most likely drown or end up washing ashore back on the island. I live for anyone who cares for me, other than that I dont really live for myself even, or value my life much. I dont like to think the world revolves around me, but rather what I can do for the people who know me and care for me. I am not religious and take more of the agnostic stand point.
i'm not too sure what I'd do.. probably just live off of it and keep spirits high by building shit and killing animals. If i was alone I would probably try to rationalize the situation and just survive. i can't really say though at this point. i would kinda freak out for the first couple of days thats for sure.
I dont think i am very religious at all. I think it is ridiculous that I am being judged by some high and mighty invisible wo/man. I live by what makes me happy, which at this point, is everything. I don't much like the idea that either I am going to hell or I am surrendering my rational thought to jesus. I don't think it is a religion really, but I identify most with Daoism. The well being and balance of life without hate or greed.
what is your answer lr?
I dont think i am very religious at all. I think it is ridiculous that I am being judged by some high and mighty invisible wo/man. I live by what makes me happy, which at this point, is everything. I don't much like the idea that either I am going to hell or I am surrendering my rational thought to jesus. I don't think it is a religion really, but I identify most with Daoism. The well being and balance of life without hate or greed.
what is your answer lr?
lucas: To answer your first question: I'd live it out until I either went insane or started to become feeble, then suicide!
Allowing for the ideal island rules. This would be an awesome existence. It sure would be different seeing as there aren't people, which would be sad but I would still create things for the improvement of the animal lives, try to find a way to extend my existence in ways other than human-human reproduction.
I'm not too sure how I'd go about it but if it were my ideal island I'd have the tools to manipulate genes and do some cloning of stuff. If I could clone myself with XX chromosomes (girls) and genes diverse enough (monkeys, or dead people that lived on the island) from myself that would be cool too. I'd do it with a mutant monkey that I genetically shaped to be close enough to myself so as to give birth in this extremely absurd dp island world.
If no self replication was possible I'd make things more awesome for the animals who live there. I'm sure I would quickly go uncivilized. Yes, likely I'd go stone age on those bitches. I would probably not feel much fear from most of the island animals, so I may revert to taking out my depression in psychotic rages killing animals for my spite of not having another like minded being. Since no retribution for these acts would be sought, there would be an obvious dissemenation quickly of any social consequentiality.
Personally I'm not sadistic enough (even when no society oppresses me) to torture animals for the hell of it, I doubt it would matter though if someone were so inclined in this situation. I would primarily eat veggies because ideally I would raise most of my food agriculturally, unless I felt like hunting or fishing for huge fishies.
Also the animals should probably get something out of my being a badass with them. I'd train kangaroos to ride, and maybe make them hold babies of other animals. I would on my island, also have a huge freshwater system with Pangasius gigas ( mekong giant catfish ) which are pretty much my favorite fishies in the world, and train those to take me around my island. I would also try to find animals that I can strap to my face to provide oxygen so I could go swimmin in the ocean. I probably wouldn't swim too far out, so as not to die.
That brings me to the boat. I want a boat and a hut. I'd make a canoe with the ol' burn-to-cut method. This is where you cut a big tree down, and start burning in the places you would normally have to cut. Obviously tending the fire all the while. I'd build me a hut, and also a temple. The hut would be temporary and made out of reeds and big leaves, the kind that the african bushman dudes use that stand up to torrential rain and storms. The temple would be mofukin gangster with boulders rolled in and stacked. I wouldn't forget the garden.
That's about all I got. I'd end up dying but I'd play a glorified legos game, and create vicarious solutions to the normal reproductive process for keeping what it is to be a human alive. I would try to do the time capsule thing. Maybe do some big obelisk too. One day something intelligent enough to recognize the structure would get something out of it.
I don't conceive of things in amplitude of greatness the way you worded that. I don't consider my life a certain level of greatness, and benchmark against the greatness of dogs, physical, logs, girls, toys, gods, or gravity. Say, logs are less great than I, I think I deserve to live. Say, god is greater than I, I should probably live. Most things are on the same plane but of different quality. My conception of the universe is such that the things ultimately greater than myself are to be respected, attempting to achieve a knowledge of such higher designs makes me want to explore further the universe in which I exist. I am a part of it and things are cyclical independant of me, I will die and the greater universe of existence will continue. I choose not to die for myself so I can experience the torture and bliss of humanity. In this example I experience the same, with more of a specific kind of torture: social absence.
The only god situation I believe to consider is the concept of universal omnipotence as the design that masters all design. I'm not talking about the personal monastic "G" that is so overhyped and hyperstigmatized. And everyone today is agnostic, but from what I've been hearing it's just some sort of reactionary against what most americans view as the illogical derivative christianity -- as if it's the only religion around that understands or stands up to conceptually significant criticism of 'intellectual' americans. To this I laugh. What I call god is more abstract than you would probably consider, though I can't be certain. Communicating about god is about the most incommunicable thing we can consider in language. The word is ultra-ambiguous and means plenty of things to people. It means so much that I doubt anyone will agree on what it encompasses or wholly embodies. Has it ever? It goes deep into people who fear it, who desire it, who don't and do know, and to those who don't understand.
I'm not sure that I would suicide, just because the universe will cease my existence and I will pass anyway. I wouldn't go out of my way to expedite that process.
I'm not too sure how I'd go about it but if it were my ideal island I'd have the tools to manipulate genes and do some cloning of stuff. If I could clone myself with XX chromosomes (girls) and genes diverse enough (monkeys, or dead people that lived on the island) from myself that would be cool too. I'd do it with a mutant monkey that I genetically shaped to be close enough to myself so as to give birth in this extremely absurd dp island world.
If no self replication was possible I'd make things more awesome for the animals who live there. I'm sure I would quickly go uncivilized. Yes, likely I'd go stone age on those bitches. I would probably not feel much fear from most of the island animals, so I may revert to taking out my depression in psychotic rages killing animals for my spite of not having another like minded being. Since no retribution for these acts would be sought, there would be an obvious dissemenation quickly of any social consequentiality.
Personally I'm not sadistic enough (even when no society oppresses me) to torture animals for the hell of it, I doubt it would matter though if someone were so inclined in this situation. I would primarily eat veggies because ideally I would raise most of my food agriculturally, unless I felt like hunting or fishing for huge fishies.
Also the animals should probably get something out of my being a badass with them. I'd train kangaroos to ride, and maybe make them hold babies of other animals. I would on my island, also have a huge freshwater system with Pangasius gigas ( mekong giant catfish ) which are pretty much my favorite fishies in the world, and train those to take me around my island. I would also try to find animals that I can strap to my face to provide oxygen so I could go swimmin in the ocean. I probably wouldn't swim too far out, so as not to die.
That brings me to the boat. I want a boat and a hut. I'd make a canoe with the ol' burn-to-cut method. This is where you cut a big tree down, and start burning in the places you would normally have to cut. Obviously tending the fire all the while. I'd build me a hut, and also a temple. The hut would be temporary and made out of reeds and big leaves, the kind that the african bushman dudes use that stand up to torrential rain and storms. The temple would be mofukin gangster with boulders rolled in and stacked. I wouldn't forget the garden.
That's about all I got. I'd end up dying but I'd play a glorified legos game, and create vicarious solutions to the normal reproductive process for keeping what it is to be a human alive. I would try to do the time capsule thing. Maybe do some big obelisk too. One day something intelligent enough to recognize the structure would get something out of it.
I don't conceive of things in amplitude of greatness the way you worded that. I don't consider my life a certain level of greatness, and benchmark against the greatness of dogs, physical, logs, girls, toys, gods, or gravity. Say, logs are less great than I, I think I deserve to live. Say, god is greater than I, I should probably live. Most things are on the same plane but of different quality. My conception of the universe is such that the things ultimately greater than myself are to be respected, attempting to achieve a knowledge of such higher designs makes me want to explore further the universe in which I exist. I am a part of it and things are cyclical independant of me, I will die and the greater universe of existence will continue. I choose not to die for myself so I can experience the torture and bliss of humanity. In this example I experience the same, with more of a specific kind of torture: social absence.
The only god situation I believe to consider is the concept of universal omnipotence as the design that masters all design. I'm not talking about the personal monastic "G" that is so overhyped and hyperstigmatized. And everyone today is agnostic, but from what I've been hearing it's just some sort of reactionary against what most americans view as the illogical derivative christianity -- as if it's the only religion around that understands or stands up to conceptually significant criticism of 'intellectual' americans. To this I laugh. What I call god is more abstract than you would probably consider, though I can't be certain. Communicating about god is about the most incommunicable thing we can consider in language. The word is ultra-ambiguous and means plenty of things to people. It means so much that I doubt anyone will agree on what it encompasses or wholly embodies. Has it ever? It goes deep into people who fear it, who desire it, who don't and do know, and to those who don't understand.
I'm not sure that I would suicide, just because the universe will cease my existence and I will pass anyway. I wouldn't go out of my way to expedite that process.
my response:
question one
1. i might build a mansion.
2. write a complete autobiography including all memories i can recall.
3. build a complete systematic philosophy.
4. store these manuscripts in a cave, block it off.
5. hang myself in my dining room.
question two
no, i live for myself.
=====
reply to dp follows
no self-replication is possible on this island. there's a reason i said you're trapped on an island and not in a biology laboratory.
> I don't conceive of things in amplitude of greatness the way you worded that.
who are you referring to?
> Say, logs are less great than I, I think I deserve to live. Say, god is greater than I, I should probably live.
what are the point of the obviously invalid arguments?
> things are cyclical independant of me
care to explain what that means? are you referring to ecological cycles?
> I choose not to die for myself so I can experience the torture and bliss of humanity.
what do you mean, "die for yourself"? are you referring to the belief that suicide is a selfish act? if this is the case, i don't understand the point.
> The only god situation I believe to consider is the concept of universal omnipotence as the design that masters all design.
which means what exactly and has what particular consequences?
> And everyone today is agnostic, but from what I've been hearing it's just some sort of reactionary against what most americans view as the illogical derivative christianity -- as if it's the only religion around that understands or stands up to conceptually significant criticism of 'intellectual' americans. To this I laugh.
how is agnosticism:
a) a religion?
b) a criticism of intellectual americans?
everyone is not agnostic. are you joking?
> What I call god is more abstract than you would probably consider, though I can't be certain.
no, you can't be certain. however, you can be certain of the abstractness of what i've mentioned numerous times--your language (and the lack of effective communication it presents to me personally).
> Communicating about god is about the most incommunicable thing we can consider in language. The word is ultra-ambiguous and means plenty of things to people.
no, god is relatively easy to communicate. systematic philosophies are among the most difficult to communicate (think phenomenology).
sure, but you yourself have been a proponent of context. guess what the context is in this thread. typically, we are making a reference to a monotheistic god. however, i leave the door open so that you can explain and tell us what your god is, removing all ambiguation.
> It means so much that I doubt anyone will agree on what it encompasses or wholly embodies. Has it ever?
you answered your own question. people have different conceptions of god(s), so naturally they will never agree.
> I'm not sure that I would suicide, just because the universe will cease my existence and I will pass anyway.
no, the universe will not cease your existence. you will continue to exist.
=====
question one
1. i might build a mansion.
2. write a complete autobiography including all memories i can recall.
3. build a complete systematic philosophy.
4. store these manuscripts in a cave, block it off.
5. hang myself in my dining room.
question two
no, i live for myself.
=====
reply to dp follows
no self-replication is possible on this island. there's a reason i said you're trapped on an island and not in a biology laboratory.
> I don't conceive of things in amplitude of greatness the way you worded that.
who are you referring to?
> Say, logs are less great than I, I think I deserve to live. Say, god is greater than I, I should probably live.
what are the point of the obviously invalid arguments?
> things are cyclical independant of me
care to explain what that means? are you referring to ecological cycles?
> I choose not to die for myself so I can experience the torture and bliss of humanity.
what do you mean, "die for yourself"? are you referring to the belief that suicide is a selfish act? if this is the case, i don't understand the point.
> The only god situation I believe to consider is the concept of universal omnipotence as the design that masters all design.
which means what exactly and has what particular consequences?
> And everyone today is agnostic, but from what I've been hearing it's just some sort of reactionary against what most americans view as the illogical derivative christianity -- as if it's the only religion around that understands or stands up to conceptually significant criticism of 'intellectual' americans. To this I laugh.
how is agnosticism:
a) a religion?
b) a criticism of intellectual americans?
everyone is not agnostic. are you joking?
> What I call god is more abstract than you would probably consider, though I can't be certain.
no, you can't be certain. however, you can be certain of the abstractness of what i've mentioned numerous times--your language (and the lack of effective communication it presents to me personally).
> Communicating about god is about the most incommunicable thing we can consider in language. The word is ultra-ambiguous and means plenty of things to people.
no, god is relatively easy to communicate. systematic philosophies are among the most difficult to communicate (think phenomenology).
sure, but you yourself have been a proponent of context. guess what the context is in this thread. typically, we are making a reference to a monotheistic god. however, i leave the door open so that you can explain and tell us what your god is, removing all ambiguation.
> It means so much that I doubt anyone will agree on what it encompasses or wholly embodies. Has it ever?
you answered your own question. people have different conceptions of god(s), so naturally they will never agree.
> I'm not sure that I would suicide, just because the universe will cease my existence and I will pass anyway.
no, the universe will not cease your existence. you will continue to exist.
=====
> who are you referring to?
larz
> what are the point of the obviously invalid arguments?
I am acknowledging your question:
> do you live for anything greater than yourself?
It isn't the reason I choose to stay alive; things greater than me. I live for the aggregate experience of life. If you call my individual experience the thing that is paramount I would say it could be true - but to extend that concept, everyones experience is similarly paramount. In this way my greatness cannot be superlative to others, I live for every thing, which possibly is in certain measurable ways, greater than me. The thing you're talking about seems to be a greater being. Which I end up discussing.
> "I am a part of it and things are cyclical independant of me, I will die and the greater universe of existence will continue."
> care to explain what that means? are you referring to ecological cycles?
I did explain what that means, what needs explaining? Do you need to know the things that are cyclical? Time, plants, animals, viruses attack cells, genes mutate, technology develops, civilizations rise and fall, species feed on other species, ecological cycles, geological, historical. The list continues.
I guess another way to describe what I'm referring to is the paradox of being the center of my life, while being an insignificant universal temporality [humans on a geological timeline, africans being in america, my short life, the lifecycle of planets...].
> which means what exactly and has what particular consequences?
As the concept, I aspire to understand the perfection of the design that I observe. Whatever leads me to the most elegant conceptions of omnipotent design, is what I live for; including all the details of that design.
> how is agnosticism:
a) a religion?
b) a criticism of intellectual americans?
> everyone is not agnostic. are you joking?
a. it's not, i wasn't saying that agnosticism is religion.
b. the cliche's of agnostic argumentation about christianity are funny to me. it's as if christianity is the only major religion worth debating.
No I'm not joking, I'm am exaggerating with the term 'everyone' though.
> what do you mean, "die for yourself"? are you referring to the belief that suicide is a selfish act?
No to the selfish act q. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't put that as I wanted to. I was mainly talking about not committing suicide. reworded: As for myself, I choose not to die, so I can experience the torture and bliss of humanity.
> no, the universe will not cease your existence. you will continue to exist.
after you die? just so we're clear, you are considering an afterlife? we're talking about death and suicide.
larz
> what are the point of the obviously invalid arguments?
I am acknowledging your question:
> do you live for anything greater than yourself?
It isn't the reason I choose to stay alive; things greater than me. I live for the aggregate experience of life. If you call my individual experience the thing that is paramount I would say it could be true - but to extend that concept, everyones experience is similarly paramount. In this way my greatness cannot be superlative to others, I live for every thing, which possibly is in certain measurable ways, greater than me. The thing you're talking about seems to be a greater being. Which I end up discussing.
> "I am a part of it and things are cyclical independant of me, I will die and the greater universe of existence will continue."
> care to explain what that means? are you referring to ecological cycles?
I did explain what that means, what needs explaining? Do you need to know the things that are cyclical? Time, plants, animals, viruses attack cells, genes mutate, technology develops, civilizations rise and fall, species feed on other species, ecological cycles, geological, historical. The list continues.
I guess another way to describe what I'm referring to is the paradox of being the center of my life, while being an insignificant universal temporality [humans on a geological timeline, africans being in america, my short life, the lifecycle of planets...].
> which means what exactly and has what particular consequences?
As the concept, I aspire to understand the perfection of the design that I observe. Whatever leads me to the most elegant conceptions of omnipotent design, is what I live for; including all the details of that design.
> how is agnosticism:
a) a religion?
b) a criticism of intellectual americans?
> everyone is not agnostic. are you joking?
a. it's not, i wasn't saying that agnosticism is religion.
b. the cliche's of agnostic argumentation about christianity are funny to me. it's as if christianity is the only major religion worth debating.
No I'm not joking, I'm am exaggerating with the term 'everyone' though.
> what do you mean, "die for yourself"? are you referring to the belief that suicide is a selfish act?
No to the selfish act q. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't put that as I wanted to. I was mainly talking about not committing suicide. reworded: As for myself, I choose not to die, so I can experience the torture and bliss of humanity.
> no, the universe will not cease your existence. you will continue to exist.
after you die? just so we're clear, you are considering an afterlife? we're talking about death and suicide.
Oh ya, what significance does the dining room have in number 5 of what you would do? Any reason for picking that method?
> If you call my individual experience the thing that is paramount I would say it could be true - but to extend that concept, everyones experience is similarly paramount.
everyone's experience is paramount to you or them? surely you mean you, because i don't see how you could make such a generalization for everyone.
> I guess another way to describe what I'm referring to is the paradox of being the center of my life, while being an insignificant universal temporality
you are making a metaphysical assumption that the world exists really (as in realism) and independently (as in objective) of yourself. why do you believe this?
> it's as if christianity is the only major religion worth debating.
considering it is by far the most popular american religion, it necessarily follows that it would be the most prominently debated in america.
> As for myself, I choose not to die, so I can experience the torture and bliss of humanity.
but there is not humanity on this island, which is why i created this question.
> after you die? just so we're clear, you are considering an afterlife?
i'm considering every metaphysical aspect of existence.
> what significance does the dining room have in number 5 of what you would do? Any reason for picking that method?
thanks for reading into my symbolism a bit; most people fail to do this with everything i write. i've let people read my journal recently, and it really don't help them understand me much. as for the dining room, i'm not yet quite sure what it represents.
thanks for the badass back-and-forth. larz
everyone's experience is paramount to you or them? surely you mean you, because i don't see how you could make such a generalization for everyone.
> I guess another way to describe what I'm referring to is the paradox of being the center of my life, while being an insignificant universal temporality
you are making a metaphysical assumption that the world exists really (as in realism) and independently (as in objective) of yourself. why do you believe this?
> it's as if christianity is the only major religion worth debating.
considering it is by far the most popular american religion, it necessarily follows that it would be the most prominently debated in america.
> As for myself, I choose not to die, so I can experience the torture and bliss of humanity.
but there is not humanity on this island, which is why i created this question.
> after you die? just so we're clear, you are considering an afterlife?
i'm considering every metaphysical aspect of existence.
> what significance does the dining room have in number 5 of what you would do? Any reason for picking that method?
thanks for reading into my symbolism a bit; most people fail to do this with everything i write. i've let people read my journal recently, and it really don't help them understand me much. as for the dining room, i'm not yet quite sure what it represents.
thanks for the badass back-and-forth. larz
> everyone's experience is paramount to you or them? surely you mean you, because i don't see how you could make such a generalization for everyone.
It's not that simple. I wouldn't say everyone's experience is paramount to me as I place my own values on how others act. I just see how experiences are uniquely paramount to that individual [as are mine], whether they recognize it or not, because it is their experience only, no one elses. In this exclusiveness of experience, there is a parallelism between why my experience is important, and why theirs is similarly important. Coming to this conclusion of similarness I choose to live for the fact that my experience is just as unique as anyone elses, rather than living to be greater in valuation than other people. The thing that is greater than me that I live for would be the universe. Pretty anticlimactic sounding, but the universe has a lot to it, including this text and everything it represents and alludes to and proves wrong and so forth.
dp> I guess another way to describe what I'm referring to is the paradox of being the center of my life, while being an insignificant universal temporality
lr> you are making a metaphysical assumption that the world exists really (as in realism) and independently (as in objective) of yourself. why do you believe this?
I'm not sure what you mean. So I'm considering realism, and it is independent of myself? Yeah I would say, in death. All I am really thinking is that when I die, life in the world independently will continue beyond my physicality. My heart and brain will eventually stop [save if singularity occurs] and whoever remains alive will continue living their life without me, and die as well, and the world history continues and the universe continues without my being a concious entity any longer.
How do you view death and such? You seem shocked that I think anything will happen metaphysically after I die. Do you have issues detatching from individuality and becoming nothing or all? I think we all[living people] do at some level since we haven't suicided.
> but there is not humanity
except the humanity I create[or alone embody] with the unique situation of not having others to dictate that humanity, or even interact with it.
dp> I'm not sure that I would suicide, just because the universe will cease my existence and I will pass anyway.
lr> no, the universe will not cease your existence. you will continue to exist.
dp> after you die? just so we're clear, you are considering an afterlife? we're talking about death and suicide.
lr> i'm considering every metaphysical aspect of existence.
I don't see how it's logical that I will not cease this existence, regardless of if I have an afterlife or reincarnation. So how do I continue to exist if I don't commit suicide? Eventually the universe will expire me, through time or some event that causes my death. How are you saying that it will not eventually do this, 'considering metaphysical aspects of existence'? What will continue to exist? me? and then what's me? spirit or something?
> thanks for reading into my symbolism a bit
sure! - dp
It's not that simple. I wouldn't say everyone's experience is paramount to me as I place my own values on how others act. I just see how experiences are uniquely paramount to that individual [as are mine], whether they recognize it or not, because it is their experience only, no one elses. In this exclusiveness of experience, there is a parallelism between why my experience is important, and why theirs is similarly important. Coming to this conclusion of similarness I choose to live for the fact that my experience is just as unique as anyone elses, rather than living to be greater in valuation than other people. The thing that is greater than me that I live for would be the universe. Pretty anticlimactic sounding, but the universe has a lot to it, including this text and everything it represents and alludes to and proves wrong and so forth.
dp> I guess another way to describe what I'm referring to is the paradox of being the center of my life, while being an insignificant universal temporality
lr> you are making a metaphysical assumption that the world exists really (as in realism) and independently (as in objective) of yourself. why do you believe this?
I'm not sure what you mean. So I'm considering realism, and it is independent of myself? Yeah I would say, in death. All I am really thinking is that when I die, life in the world independently will continue beyond my physicality. My heart and brain will eventually stop [save if singularity occurs] and whoever remains alive will continue living their life without me, and die as well, and the world history continues and the universe continues without my being a concious entity any longer.
How do you view death and such? You seem shocked that I think anything will happen metaphysically after I die. Do you have issues detatching from individuality and becoming nothing or all? I think we all[living people] do at some level since we haven't suicided.
> but there is not humanity
except the humanity I create[or alone embody] with the unique situation of not having others to dictate that humanity, or even interact with it.
dp> I'm not sure that I would suicide, just because the universe will cease my existence and I will pass anyway.
lr> no, the universe will not cease your existence. you will continue to exist.
dp> after you die? just so we're clear, you are considering an afterlife? we're talking about death and suicide.
lr> i'm considering every metaphysical aspect of existence.
I don't see how it's logical that I will not cease this existence, regardless of if I have an afterlife or reincarnation. So how do I continue to exist if I don't commit suicide? Eventually the universe will expire me, through time or some event that causes my death. How are you saying that it will not eventually do this, 'considering metaphysical aspects of existence'? What will continue to exist? me? and then what's me? spirit or something?
> thanks for reading into my symbolism a bit
sure! - dp
what would you do if you were stranded on your ideal island, absent of any human contact, and with full knowledge that rescue/escape attempts would be futile?
what is my "ideal island?" well, regardless, the first thing that comes to mind is that I would write down my experiences and feelings. kind of like a letter to whoever finds it. it's interesting how this theme of human contact or shared experience would remain even if I was alone.
I would probably spend a lot of time just thinking. when I think 'island,' I think 'beaches,' so I am imagining laying in the sand and just staring out at the water and thinking about literally everything, but mostly physics probably. I might half-ass try to chart some stars and do some elementary calculations about the Earth's movement or something, maybe to determine where the island is?
if I had access to a library somehow that would be amazing. I would spend a lot of time reading and figuring things out, especially physics-type stuff.
ultimately, I think I would be very lonely though :/.
do you live for anything greater than yourself? are you religious or believe in (a) god(s)?
I live for the future! that is, the idealized version of the future that I hold in my head. I live for it to be realized.
no on the gods question. I believe that there may very well be a hell of a lot that we don't understand about the universe. this might be in some people's minds the definition of a god similar to Einstein's definition ("I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."), but I don't believe in any established religion.
this is a funny post because i am watching lost right now.
i am going to answer it eventually
i am going to answer it eventually
nice post, asemi.
My ideal island would have full satellite communications, nuclear warfare capability, offsite weapons and backup facilities, geothermal and solar energy sources, be naturally fortified against amphibious assault, and be composed of kryptonite. On this island I would subjugate the world and begin my galactic empire. All would tremble before me, and I would bring terrible awesomeness to all. <3.
masturbate.
please answer the following the question in as much detail as possible:
what would you do if you were stranded on your ideal island, absent of any human contact, and with full knowledge that rescue/escape attempts would be futile?
meditate most of my waking hours, look for a good water supply and shelter. try to find a way to keep spiders away. maybe the island has those green tree fruits that keep them away? create a toilet system
now that you have already answered that question:
do you live for anything greater than yourself? are you religious or believe in (a) god(s)?
the buddha's way is unsurpassable, i vow to become it
what would you do if you were stranded on your ideal island, absent of any human contact, and with full knowledge that rescue/escape attempts would be futile?
meditate most of my waking hours, look for a good water supply and shelter. try to find a way to keep spiders away. maybe the island has those green tree fruits that keep them away? create a toilet system
now that you have already answered that question:
do you live for anything greater than yourself? are you religious or believe in (a) god(s)?
the buddha's way is unsurpassable, i vow to become it
I wonder how many neuroses I could develop living alone for all that time...
I would reveal the true extent of my insanity. I would make the island mine! I would start with small adjustments to ensure sufficient food and water and fire wood. Then I would slowly shape the island. Piece by piece I would build things. I don't know what, I would pile all of the rocks I could find into immense patterns that conformed to the landscape and created aesthetically appealing architecture. Every day I would wake up and shift something around piece by piece the island would change. I wouldn't make it better for the vegetation or for the animals, if that was a by product then so be it. Perhaps I would build castles or cave dwellings. Perhaps I would create fake artifacts that would puzzle future castaways. Perhaps I would create a weird topographical design that some kid randomly looking at different places on google maps would see and say "what the hell is that?"
I think I would find peace easily. The island would be a reversion to some of the greatest joys of my childhood when questions such as "is there a god" were answered from my guts rather than my head. I would not create a temple for my body and my existence would be my temple to all that is beyond my comprehension. My creations, would be my worship of all that I was beyond me. I would never need to compare myself and my success to that of my peers. I would be able to abandon my frustrating pursuits of mates and just be the child once again.
I think I would find peace easily. The island would be a reversion to some of the greatest joys of my childhood when questions such as "is there a god" were answered from my guts rather than my head. I would not create a temple for my body and my existence would be my temple to all that is beyond my comprehension. My creations, would be my worship of all that I was beyond me. I would never need to compare myself and my success to that of my peers. I would be able to abandon my frustrating pursuits of mates and just be the child once again.