User:ExDeos

Past and Future

Aristotelian logic of Time is one that:

"Without change, there is no time. As a constant state would be one in which time is irrelevant and nonexistent."

My basic premise of Time is two states, that is:

Things that were.
-and-
Things that will be.

For the third state that immediately comes to notion, is the state of:

Things that are.

However, in this exists a falsehood. For "Things that are," are only the meeting place of "Things that were," and "Things that will be." Understanding that the principle of an "instant" is only the application of mathematical infinitesimals, and only a portion of something definite and indefinite, finds an existence that is neither true or possible. For further clarification, the claim that the present is a state undermines the definition of "What is a state?" Using the definition from Princeton's WordNet online dictionary, state is defined as, "The way something is with respect to its main attributes." However, the present attributes are only the attributes of the past, inflecting to an multitude of degrees into the future.

Just as a tree growing towards the heavens, the trunk is but one piece, but at some point, the trunk branches into various directions, each branch smaller and weaker than the trunk. Whereas the trunk of the tree is symbolic for the past, and the branches are the future. The solid base upon which the rest divides and takes many different paths.

At each instance of branching, is the place a branch or the trunk? Of course, it is called neither of these things, but is the point considered in possession of attributes unique to itself? Or does it only possess qualities of both branch and trunk, and nothing unique to itself? Furthermore, the trunk occupies a space. It takes a specific form. The branches also occupy a space, but in its multitude is not as measurable. However, the space between the trunk and the branch is an area of no-space, and therefore does not have any qualities besides a name and location. The present has no state, but only a name and a location.

Free Will

Considering the space a branch occupies, there is a notion of indefiniteness towards considering the future. However, just as a trunk of a tree is made of wood and carries water, so does its branches. Just as the past contains specific elements, so must the future. For if the future did not contain these elements, it would not be existent in reality, only a deception of the mind and heart. So there are specific pathways upon which the future -MUST- travel.

Envisioning a bead of water falling from the sky, it falls to the ground and gets taken in by the roots of the tree. The water travels to the trunk of the tree, by nature of the capillary principle of the tree. However, the motion of the water up the trunk begins to not just rely on the physics and properties of the tree, but it begins to rely on the principles of the water. The water itself must travel up the trunk and find a specific pathway which to provide nourishment.

Our lives are like these drops of water. Where we have both choice and non-choice. The free will of following our own hearts and minds through the path of the world, as well as the objective truth and necessities of the world being characterized as a "that which must be."

Nature vs. Nurture

There is a common sentiment that great men aren't born, they're made. Whereas there should be no barriers of self when it comes to self-actualization, there are definitely barriers. Security of person is a large barrier. The insecurity of losing a means of finances, the insecurity of social image, etc. can cause innumerable setbacks. However, this is only the doorway of the vast wall of failure. The greatest inhibitor is the barrier of time. For a second wasted yesterday, is a minute gone today, and an hour gone tomorrow.

This means that we can spend our entire life trying to become the "greatest chess champion" and never realize success. However, there are some graces that we have individually in which we can achieve greatness.

How great is the 7'4" basketball prodigy who pursues a life of becoming a horse jockey?

The question posed here contains a multi-layered question. First, what happens when we pursue something we are innately less capable of doing? Second, what happens when we neglect something we are innately more capable of doing? And lastly, is happiness found in unsuccessfully doing what you love or successfully doing what you are good at?

Ultimately the first two answers can have disastrous results. However, the last question that this poses is one which is not answerable, but moreover solvable by redefining the elements of the question...

What is Love?

Returning to the issue of, "Is happiness found in unsuccessfully doing what you love or successfully doing what you are good at?" Most people are graced, and love what they're good at. This is not coincidental, but must be neglected, as it does not tailor itself to a solution of the problem.

Instead, we must focus on those that hate what they are good at. To understand this, we have to understand the nature of Love and Hate...

To be continued... --ExDeos (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)