Who am I really? Who is but the form following the function of what, and what I am is a person communicating through actions, speech and writing. My thoughts, ideas and perceptions are interpreted through sensory receptors and then expressed through symbolic representations called words.
Words, mere arrangements of tokens organized to create titles which are then placed upon substance. Words should not be mistaken as substance themselves. Words should be understood to be an attempt to communicate the most accurate representation of an individual interpretation of the intended thought at matter.
As the world is in a constant state of change, words meanings may also change to recapture and reflect this consistent effect of altering chaotic conditions. Influenced by this kaleidoscopic environment, we, being members of this setting and contributing to its flavor, are also in this constant state of change.
Given that, by the time one finishes reading this effort of expression, the answer to who I am may differ from the time one began reading it. Some may regard this as rambling meaningless jargon relayed in a chomskyan fashion, and others may be able to relate. Above all we should try to understand.
Share
Since existence seems to be reliant upon the definition that we give to it, as those definitions change, so does the essence of that which exists – or doesn’t. So I think anyway . . .
Brandyn, I don’t feel that “existence” is reliant upon a definition, rather the other way around. Existence is what allows a definition to exist in the first place.
I do raise this question however…
Does “nothingness” exist? Or is nothingness the lack of existence. If that in which exists takes up space, how could that which exists, exist without the space it occupies. In other words, If there was no space to occupy would there be existence. Also, once again…does this space I speak of even exist?
Now questioning myself:
If existence is what allows a definition to exist in the first place, then what allows existence to exist? I would have to say “space” / “emptiness” in accordance to what I wrote above.
Also, what do you think of this? -
I’ve read that perhaps, “matter” could be considered as the solid form of emptiness. I continue to find this statement intriguing
I guess in my mind nothingness and existence are the same thing. Nothingness is merely that part of existence that we can’t wrap our minds around. Matter as the solid form of emptiness . . . solid, liquid, gas . . . I would say as the “visible” form of emptiness, but then again gas isn’t visible. Also, if it is matter, then does it cease to be emptiness?