There are some days when the news or other daily events do not provide me the inspiration to write. My writing tends to depend on the art of persuasion rather than pure entertainment. Well, at least based normal people's ideas of entertainment. I love writing and it is as necessary as breathing for me, but flowery romantic writing is not my forte and neither is comedy. I prefer the Dostoevsky's of the world, with all of their rawness, insight, and passion. A forum is sometimes a good outlet for me to use my grey matter at besides boring my family and neighbors to death.
"Listen" in on some of my forum (sorta) nirvana moments--unproofed and raw:
On aging:
All I ask is for my thoughts and memory to outlive me, rather than outlive my own memory and thoughts.
On the existence of God:
"Switch your brains to synthesis and off of analysis for a second like only a true INTP can, folks.
If we create life from the nonliving, then we are a creator. This still does not disprove or prove we were created by a creator, divine or otherwise. Remember, I am not proving or disproving god, I am merely give a "nod" to limitations of science, technology, and human reasoning to know an answer either way (thus leaving the possibility open). A more complex question to ask me would have been whether absolute truths actually exist? Let's assume there are absolute truths:
The "P" in INTP makes me want to be able to change horses in midstream and keep my options open. If I was a J maybe I would be happy to say yes there IS or is NOT a god and call it law, whether or not it is the absolute truth. "I dunno" and "there IS a possibility" are not exactly equal and I can assure you that almost anything I think (much less, Einstein's) is not the product of a "lazy mind." Einstein was hardly a lazy mind, when he asserted that electrons could have orbits, though he could not observe it. The Intuitive nature of someone like Einstein, a model of INTP-ness, simply acknowledges that one cannot wisely assume something does not exist or occur, because it is not observed. Science is constantly recanting its "truths," so were those truths ever really truths? I am simply arguing that unless there is absolute disproof, the truth is still out there... whatever that may be. Atheism and religion both hold a belief in an absolute "truth"; yea or nay one way or another.
You can know faith and you can believe in knowledge, but they are not exactly the same concept. Remember "facts" only seem set in stone, but beliefs often really are, but that does not make beliefs absolute truth. Believe what you like and take solace in whatever that may be, because likely that will be the closest to absoluteness you will ever get.
Good times, gentleman."
From a previous existence of god post:
"Regardless, if there is or is not a divine, the burden of proof is on us."
On the internal visual environment of my mind (this was a creative thread):
"When I dream, I am often in my childhood home. There is never any furniture, except for the built in bookcases filled with books, and there is always mid-morning sunlight pouring in through the windows onto gleaming wood floors. Lovely."
To those from the forum, this post may be redundant, but for others this may be of some interest. It is to me anyhow.
Have a lovely night,
