|
>>
|
763a04.jpg
Star Rose
763a04
>I disagree, classification is a useful tool as long as one doesn't take it too far. It can allow an individual to give context to their existence, if you view a classification as a measuring tool rather than as a template it can lead to a greater understanding of one's self. One would not try to understand one's sense of self without classification any more than one would try to understand an object's size without a unit of measurement. Alternatively, classification is a useful way for social creatures with an imperative for specialization to comprehend their role within their social group.
Ah but here is the question. What is it that creates these classifications and what gives these forces the right to effectively shape, guide, DETERMINE ones role in the universe? The legitimacy of these role-creating forces is core here.
In your example, you bring up biological speciation as an example of positive self-guidance. In this there is agreement. Obliviators are no stranger to the delineation of roles to permit survival. No matter what beings in a species exist, they will prioritize survival emphasizing traits. Or should.
This can likewise be extended to measurement, language, mathematics (of which are of particular interest) and other such types of division.
however, it is the foundation of roles that there is a divide in everything. The crux of the argument therefore is what force defines the division you created, the point where one "takes it too far"?
One easy point is "the point where the assigning of roles no longer benefits survival." There we fray beyond our common agreement. At that point, what is gained by the assumption of roles?
The initial claim was that this assumption of a role provides a level of certainty, a feeling of fate and purpose, and your claim that it provides context for existence is effectively the same. The divide, then is that we view this this as a bad thing because it is an illusion, the universe being too exponential, people too complex for many of the roles they assign to themselves to be accurate. In effect, the roles they assigned were not accurate to the things they are in fact capable of. It provides false hope AND false limits. It closes the paradigm, because beings understanding of the universe is limited and therefore so is their understanding of their place in it.
In this case it is better to see oneself as anything, and create the context of their own existence (within the parameters of survival) then it is to attempt to further define ones own role at the risk of being destructive to their own being.
To put it simply.
There is a divide between the abstract and the physical, such as the barrier between us. Things cross this barrier to impact the other side. But these sides are not equal. The abstract requires the physical to exist. Ghosts need bodies to be created, and desire them again. When abstract ideas directly arise from physical acts, roles in this abstract realm are inherently helpful, for they apply to the physical. However, when the abstract attempts to create the physical, one by definition creates something not necessarily true in the physical.
While it is true that the abstract possesses the power to change the physical (such is an obliviators species-profession) such must be done by utilizing, understanding, MANIPULATING the physical as it appears, not as it is perceived.
One cannot let the abstract beliefs of what they are impact what they are capable of doing, because these beliefs are irrelevant and unreliable.
Wow bet no one will read that!
Simply,
In a word,
don't trust ghosts.
|