Is life deception? And IF live is deception, why would it be worth to be lived that much? In the hope it turns differently? Why would we "enjoy life" if "life is deception"? Either it means we are masochists (unlikely), or that life is not deception (more likely).
with all the crap thats going on in the world i've always felt that the world we live in is someone else's illusion and we are all just actors on someone else's stage, because so much of our lives is not in our control.
when my first son was born the first thought i had was "you my son have just now justified all the crap in the world", not just talking about conspiracy's and whatnot, but the way we treat each other now, and the complete disassociation we feel towards each other.
the world is just a stage!
Infinite Love Is the Only Truth: Everything Else Is Illusion.
(Disclaimer: "you" does not refer to anyone in particular, rather to everyone.)
Life is deception.
When I say "A" (something abstract, specific thing is irrelevant), you will (hopefully) interpret "A".. and something extra. You will interpret my intention, my goals, you will interpret any subtle emotional qualifiers you could expect from me, and you will generally not understand what I intended, what my goals are, and you are likely to fail to grasp what emotional qualifiers I use. In short, you will interpret "A", and an added package of completely failed secondary interpretations. That package is "a-minor". The actual meaning and intention that I give "A" (i.e. "the message I intend to convey") depends heavily on my contextual references. If I were to say "It rains", one would require substantial contextual information to find out whether that was a true statement, a factual announcement, or a random remark without any basis in real life.
So when I say "A", you do not hear me say "A". Instead, you hear me say "A"+"a-minor". The additional information is a lie. And since the secondary interpretations of a message often have a strong influence on the actual meaning of the message (e.g. if I were to be sarcastic, generally the entire truth qualifier of my message is inverted), the "a-minor"-package tends to relieve any message of its original intention and gives a whole new meaning to the message. Now, it should not be surprising that in most cases, the "a-minor" is incorrectly interpreted. Human communication deals with that by having multiple layers, one being the factual information, second being the emotional information ("how one feels about <message>"), and third being contextual references. Normally one can communicate without requiring complete understanding of the second or third layer, but it does tend to become complex.
That establishes that most communication is false, since ideas imprinted by one upon the other (by use of language) are inaccurate and -as a result- false.
Perception is the next to fall. One does not see/hear/smell/taste/feel everything. As a result, perception is incomplete, inaccurate, and untrustworthy. Optical deceit is but one of many tricks that shows how limited perception is. Anyone remember that experiment with yellow, green, blue and dark-coloured chocolate? All the same, but the dark and yellow chocolate were clearly more acceptable as the green and blue. Taste was deceived by the optical differences. Not to mention adding a simple smell factor to something delicious, which does not change its taste, but since the scent is different, the perception of the food changes. As a result, perception is false. What we see is not what we get, what we taste is not what we eat, what we feel is not what we have pressing against our skin. As a derivative result, anything based on perception is also false and inaccurate. We do not have science, we have the illusion of science, a bunch of unrelated chance events occasionally 'witnessed' by humans who based 'laws' upon them, held together by the human mind in a semi-rational framework of true and false. In essence, everything is false, yet some things are less false as others.
Actions (committed by agents [generally humans]) are nothing. There is no effect that can be proven, as a result, no proof exists that any action ever took place. After all, any perception we may have suggesting there *is* an effect is either false, inaccurate, or at the least untrustworthy. Therefore, no action has ever been committed. Any action that *has* been committed (to memory) is a projection of what we perceive to be effects, related to a hypothetical action. There was no action, and there are no effects. Everything we witnessed and witness is a random neuronal twitch. There are waves in reality, subtle changes and massive inversions, which we interpret as being related, or caused by something. Our human brains cannot accept the notion that no cause is required, that things just happen at random without cause, and therefore, without effect. They (i.e. our 'brains') ultimately seek to organise everything we 'experience'. "A ripple in the water? Something must have fallen in the pond." We did not see anything fall in the pond, but inferred it from the ripples which we believe to be 'unnatural' to a pond.
We need all this, since we cannot accept the fact that everything happens all at once. We *NEED* to add cause and effect to everything, or we will go crazy.
So: - What we say to others is not what they hear. - What we see, is not what is there. - What we eat, is not really our food. - What we do does not affect reality. - What we believe is merely an inaccurate attempt at organising experiences. (Pick out the one that does not belong!)
Now, I said, and say: "Life is deception." But does that influence whether a life is worth living or not? Hardly.. in reality, lives do not have 'worth' to begin with, so any notion I might have in that regard cannot be influenced by my conclusion. 'Worth', as it is, has become a worthless qualifier.
Though, as Shakespeare said: "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players:" [spoiler]They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms. And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school. And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances; And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion, Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.[/spoiler]
Sure we can't know if what we see is what do exists in reality in "absoulte trueness". And all what we perceive, smell, touch, and so on, is based on what our body and what our brain let us get from it. Afterall, same goes for animals, who, if they could argue with us, would debate about things we tell them. As, according to them, it would be a wrong perception as their is different, so they would by default consider theirs to be true one. Because they would never have encountered different one before. Hence, couldn't know whether their or ours is better (yes, better, because nothing can tell whether we or them are right, unless an all knowing entity would reveal it, and even then, it could be an interpretation from us on its words, coming from our unexisting objectivity).
My question still remains, why is life deception? And why would we say that those who want to end it for themselves, are wrong? Afterall, all is relative, we see the world a way, blind, deaf and others, see it differently. And perhaps they used to see it our way, and know they won't anymore, and don't want to remain there, but have not much choices. It can be said also for psychological different perceptions, no need to have physical disease to have different perceptions.
What makes someone get the right to tell someone to live/not live? We indeed do have justice to punish those who crossed the line and broke the rules. It's a common agreement to make sure our different characters, don't go freely without taking into account others' liberty, and act as they wish without caring. It's just for surviving we decided to punish those who faulted. More or less rightly and logically, but that's not the debate. Otherwise, we can't really say we have right to tell or force someone to live/not live IF that person didn't broked the rules (the only thing we humans instaured where it's "legit" to decide whether or not someone lives).
We can't be sure of anything, excepted -perhaps- "I think therefore I am". Objectivity doesn't exist. Nor is truth. Interpretation(s) make it be so.
I know that our perceptions are flawed, still I do not see it as deception, because afterall, it's not like if we wanted to know how things *truely* are. Because anyway, we'll probably never do. Nor will all others creatures living. Analysis of events just flaws them in their own being, incase they can analyze and think. We never know what people really mean. We aren't transcendant beings, afterall.
Life is interpretation. Life is imagination. Life is creation. But in my opinion, life is not deception.
well i would say at the end of the day humans are just glorified animals with much of the animal instincts still in us but in most repressed by our nature as humans but in some not.
sex;the urge to reproduce..basic animal instinct that humans have worped ie i have never seen a kangaroo use a vibrater or lube or tie each other up for whippings.
cheating(relationtips and sex),its proven that in the animal kingdom rogue males have a higher sperm count than males with a "harem" hence the females of harems will always enetertain roving males as opposed to the dominant male and why males actually "roam" or cheat.
killing/offing the competition;pretty self explanitary..we as humans supress the urge to kill and dominate yet history has proved some just click that switch and go for it.
so life is just one big basic animal instinct,being born,grow strong,fight for dominance,reprodue and die.
Blood washes off, Bruises go away, Bones heal, Scars show character, Pain is Temporary, VICTORY lasts forever!
