#like there is actually an established framework you can process these existential emotions through

[princehendir]

I hate to say this more than anything. But a lot of people in online social justice spaces would probably be happier and more functional if they were religious.

[sagebodisattva]

Rationalism and Solipsism

So continuing on in our meticulous analysis of solipsism, we come upon an implied commonality between rationalism and solipsism. Rationalism is the philosophical position that truth is best discovered by the use of reasoning and logic, rather than by the use of the senses (see Plato's theory of Forms). Solipsism, the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist, is also skeptical of sense-data. Hence, these two positions are said to have a loose correspondence.

To call the association between rationalism and solipsism "loose" is a bit of an understatement. And this kind of generalization is a representation of a larger misconception within philosophy in general; a type of lazy reasoning that is derelict of due diligence by imprudently conflating awareness with the intellect. This is a fundamental stumbling block, and if an existential explorer cannot discern the subtleties of these particularities, they will subsequently spend most of their time wandering around in a philosophical haze; twice removed from reality. The rationalist may think he is moving closer to the truth by focusing exclusively on logic and dismissing the sense data, but, like most things in the spectrum of conceptualization, this is only an abstraction in the mind of the rationalist, an idea fancied by his intellect, that is still nevertheless completely dependent on the senses of said rationalist to give his intellectual system a reference point, despite the idea in his head that he is dispensing with reliance on the unreliable perception and finding firmer grounds within the application of an ideological instrumentation. So there is very little actual equivalence in the proposed similitude between rationalism and solipsism. Rationalism's professed skepticism of sensory perception is merely an ideate. Solipsism's skepticism of the senses is based on a deeper clarity of mind, beyond the intellect, that is acutely aware of the variance between the content of perception, and that which is aware of it... and, from this clarity, seeing that, in fact, the intellect is also part of the stream of illusory phenomena in sensory experience.

Rationalism seemingly cannot grasp these distinctions; but envisions that it is somehow taking a more reliable pragmatic approach by imagining that it's organizational abstractions are a more well founded means to the truth then on the stream of experiential phenomena on which the abstractions are based. So, re-emphasizing what I have often said before: the truth is not found in the field of perception; nor in the knowledge that is based on the aspects in the field of perception. Rationalism imagines that there can be some type of knowledge independent from the senses, but this is folly, as every bit of the intellect is formulated on the information garnered through sensory perception. How does a rationalist think mathematics even got derived, if not for being based on the configurations established through the avenue of the senses? Without the field of perception imparting the visual experience of an appearance of separated objects, no mathematics can be initiated. Numbers are symbolic of objects, and the only way the numbers got established to represent objects in the first place is through the cognitive recognition of objects appearing in the field of perception. Then, after the senses give the intellect a framework to operate from and build knowledge around, the intellect then goes on to imagine that it's knowledge transcends the framework instituted by the senses. Yes, the intellect trims the fat. The idea that abstractions are more tight and organized then the sloppy senses. This is how abstractions become reality. It's reality by proxy. But we are not ruminating or postulating how the concept of truth itself may be an abstraction. No, we're not even dealing with that. We are searching for the truth with the standard that, any real truth, to be a truth, must hold true independent of the thoughts. What remains true when the intellect has become subdued? So to clear up any possible confusion related to Platonic idealism, it isn't that the truth is an abstraction, but that false chosen assumptions taken as truths are abstractions. The idea of a perfect triangle existing as an eternal ideal independent of the mind and it's phenomena, is just that: an idea. The awareness that is aware of the concept of a perfect triangle imagined to be existing eternally in an ideal quintessence, is the only absolute truth that is ever present, all pervading, and remains true beyond all appearances. It is awareness itself. Everything else is conditional. Thus, rationalism always takes it's cue from the information translated through the senses, no matter how you slice it. Yet, the rationalist still likes to think that there are significant ways in which concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. But see, that's the thing: he likes to think of it that way. In other words, it's all just abstractions. The notion that logic leads to a purer form of truth is just an idea, not a reality. If anything, logic leads to a more diluted form of the truth because it is not dealing with reality, but only with symbols and representations of reality in the intellect. And even these representations do not symbolize actual reality, but are in fact representing only illusory phenomena. Hence, taking the symbols and representations in the intellect as reality is how a delusional mindset is fostered. This is how something like Platonic idealism gained traction and perhaps unintentionally wound up being supportive of mind independent reality, despite it's strong basis in the realm of the mind; as Plato taught that ideals are ultimately real, and different from non-ideal things—arguing for a distinction between the ideal and non-ideal realm; proposing that universals exist independently of particulars. This emphasis on the idea of "real" and of existing particulars, ends up reinforcing a false dichotomy. And much the same can be said about rationalism; whose false dichotomy sets up a separation between perceptions and the intellect.

And this is a counter productive exercise, as it inevitably reinforces objectivity and realism rather then mind dependent reality and idealism. You wouldn't think so, based solely on it's face, as one might expect rationalism to be able to recognize it's own purely conceptual format... but ironically, it cannot, instead, it ends up founding it's abstractions on the faulty premise that the mind, the senses and physicality are separated factors; and this is a fortification of falsehood, not the truth. And this strikes to the heart of the real underlying issue at hand: realism vs. the inter connectivity of reality and the mind. The main difference being, realism is an assumption. Idealism is what's already the case before any assumption. If rationalism cannot trust the senses, then it certainly cannot trust physicality, as physicality is just an appearance expressed through the medium of the senses. So if the senses cannot be trusted, how can rationalism assume the outside world as a given? I don't think it can. Not even for the sake of argument. It has no grounded reason to do so. It makes much of it's choices seem very arbitrary. It chooses to discount feelings and emotions, and chooses to discount the senses, and yet also chooses to assume the existence of an external world? Based on what? Doesn't seem to be entirely consistent, as none of these aspects are islands unto themselves. And so, what might these chosen assumptions be established on? Surely not pure conceptualization, as pure conceptualization finds it's ground in a sort of symbiotic relativity with sensations and the stream of perception. So one has to wonder how rationalism justifies it's dismissal of the senses. The main reason why it probably does, is because rationalism so detests any knowledge that bases information on anything remotely associated with feelings and emotions. And while this might be a partially useful standard, to throw out the senses along with them is tossing the baby with the bath water, as there is no way to cognitively process reasoning and logic without the senses that allow the setting for such a system in the first place. So there's no way around it. The external world existing as a separated physical object, is a faith based belief founded on that which is undeniably conveyed through a mental medium. If you think logic is more reliable then the senses, then logic has to be twice as reliable then the perception of an external world, and logic should rightfully be just as skeptical about it. Rationalism is actually closer to idealism, and hence to solipsism, in the grand scheme of things. And the main reason why solipsism and rationalism should be said to have an association is because they are both positions within the spectrum of the mind, not because they both are skeptical about the senses. That's a secondary reason. So rationalism is adjacent to solipsism, yet for some reason still chooses to identify and associate itself with ideas like materialism, objectivity and realism. Why? I guess we'll never know. Rationalism is seemingly insecure. It's going through a bit of a confused identity crisis.

[wolfwalkerstudios-blog]

Lustre Zeal Prologue Page One

This . . . is going to take some getting used to. And I don't just mean the formatting and editing which is its own thing, but rather the existential anxiety and fear that surrounds the creative process when starting out on a project because if people think writing the first word of a novel is hard, try drawing the first page of a comic. There are a million and one decisions to be made, many of which feel as though they will never be good enough to satisfy the nagging dread that somehow something is missing or that maybe if I tried to draw it again tomorrow I could do it better. There's also the feeling that if your work isn't good enough that its that much easier to dismiss, but mostly it comes down to the lack of experience that allows us to feel secure in our sense of our selves because once we put something out in front of others we risk both the pain of rejection and being misunderstood. People's taste in art being as subjective as it is certainly doesn't help matters much either as no matter what your intent as an artist may be, the limits of the medium and the visual language that people are familiar with are often used to measure a work's overall appeal, rather then any objectively definable determinator that can in turn be used to establish value. To put it another way, drawing a comic, writing a book, directing a film, or any creative endeavor really, is a bit like standing between two very different worlds as what the audience wants and what the artist desires to create often stands in direct opposition to each other. It goes something like this; as a writer my goal is to establish a narrative framework as quickly and coherently as possible, where is the story taking place, who is it happening to, why should the audience care, what is the setting and so forth. All of which sounds like advice you'd get in any first year writing course, but as an author, I have to take it a step further and separate those questions into various layers of metacontextual awareness and that means asking what does the writer know, what do the characters themselves know, and what is the audience aware of. By asking these questions, any text or dialogue that seeks to establish the narrative has to be weighed against any present and future context in order to maintain an internally consistent narrative otherwise you get plot holes you can drive a semi-truck through. Its not exactly the easiest thing in the world to do and can run a foul of things like absolute statements and ontological paradoxes but a good writer can work around those things. A bad writer uses them as a platform to espouse their own personal or political ideologies. Anyway, communicating that intent as an artist is a hell of a lot harder because it means I can't tell you what's happening without directly spelling it out and removing all sense of mystery or ambiguity, or actually showing you which removes all sense of context, obviates the need for a set-up, and ruins the potential catharsis engendered by a reveal. And suddenly the words 'show don't tell' sound's like a profoundly idiotic statement due to the fact that its applicability is wholly irrelevant as it removes cause from correlation and renders any anttempt to communicate visually moot. A fan of that particular idiom I am not. So how does narrative structure inform the experience of the audience? Well that's the flipside of the coin, because if the artist is doing their job well, the audience will never need to question the narrative framework being employed by the artist and simply be able to immerse themselves in the experience. But that means stepping back from a work and recontextualizing our priorities and goals by focusing on satisfying the needs of someone other then ourselves. Which means asking a completely different set of questions such as, who is the audience supposed to empathise with, what makes them a likable character, is the setting familiar enough that they can see themselves in it or does its alienness create a sense of cognitive, emotional, or cultural dissonance. As Walt Disney famously said, "We need to make our characters identifiable enough that a child can recognize them in five seconds. After that we've lost their attention." Which is a tough standard to live up to, but it helps to inform some of the aesthetic decisions that we as artists have to make as whether we're starting In Media Res or Jo-Ha-Kyu, we still have to work to establish the concept of the world the narrative is taking place in in the audience's mind. Whether I can do that effectively or not still remains to be seen as all of the narrative techniques I'm used to working with don't exactly translate well to comics and learning an entirely new set of visual aesthetics is going to take me a while to master. But at least I've gotten the process of inking and coloring organized enough now that keeping everything documented and on track is a realistic endeavor, instead of a soul crushing exercise in absolute futility.

If you feel like if you feel like supporting Lustre Zeal or any of the other projects I have in store then check out my Patreon page, the link can be found here: http://patreon.com/user?u=3705901