It is the thing of all things that can be known as everything and nothing that has that something or known to be with that one thing or not. It’s that thing. It’s been compared to many things, so many things that it is almost cliché and passé; it’s quite sad. This something is so much something that it cannot be nothing because it is that something that moves. Though I’m sure that it can be nothing but really I’m sure it’s something. I know you know what it is. It’s been compared to many things. The only thing it can really be justly compare to is the sky but we don’t truly realize the sky or its actual magnitude because we can see it with our eyes and have had this standard for the sky; blue, white, Grey, black. Truly though, it can only be compared to the sky and have some justice. Anything else would be a terror; an atrocity. It’s been given a name, I’m sure you know what it is. Though it doesn’t do it any justice I’m sure. It’s called .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
hi alex,
were you high?
HAHA just kidding.
"it" is intangible and the sky really isn't, it's more or less something real and explainable so are you sure about your analogy?
i love you ^_^
if you try and explain the sky to me you just might find yourself dumb founded.
You may be able to explain the surface, or what you see at first, but anything beyond that is infinite.
So to answer your question, yeah I'm pretty fucking sure.
well, if that's where you're getting at then pretty much everything else is like the sky, which oddly enough resembles the embodiment of this so-called "it".
hmm...i suppose you are right but if you go there then i would have to ask you:
do we really know anything or do we just say we know enough about something which translates into knowing a thing because of our insecurities of our incapabilities as human beings. if so, this thing can be a symbol as everything we ever "know" and "don't know"
well, the only definite truth is uncertainty. you're knowledge, my knowledge are both questionable... but since that is the case my argument stands as plausible and inrefutable. so i'm right. sadly, that means you're right to. anyway, i'd like to think i'm more on the right path... you know since you went there and strayed from the sky argument.
hmm i suppose you can look at it that way but of coarse from your point of view you would be "more right" (which i don't necessarily agree on). for example you probably read my entry to read as if "it" was talking about a noun - person, place, or thing - and then we had this small argument which you were a catalyst to my "realization" or knowing that all i could ever know is i can truly know nothing in it's entirety.
BUT
If you look at it from a different prospective you might see the possibility that i already knew this and i made the "it" an, apparently, vague and broad thing because it is everything and i needed to use the "sky" example to lead people on the right path (i.e. Jenny June)
p.s. i was reading Descartes and Socrates when you were cramming for a.p. stats.
no, i perceived it as none of those things you listed.
"all i could ever know is i can truly know nothing in it's entirety."
... i think i got you there.
i win.
"nono, don't give me that."
for you to win you would have to know what winning is.
i've been giving you that.
i think this will be my last...haha
Post a Comment