<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>liquid parallaxImmaterial | liquid parallax</title>
	<atom:link href="http://liquidparallax.com/category/immaterial/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://liquidparallax.com</link>
	<description>i am music, feel my waves.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 03:50:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>My Morning Jacket sings George Berkeley</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2008/09/13/my-morning-jacket-sings-george-berkeley/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2008/09/13/my-morning-jacket-sings-george-berkeley/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:38:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immaterial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collective perception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[existence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Berkeley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[God]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jesus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steam engine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/?p=294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I admire the ideas of George Berkeley. He&#8217;s probably misunderstood. He probably didn&#8217;t think what he was saying was the absolute nature of reality in it&#8217;s precise form. He merely brought to the surface that you can be completely sane and logical and believe that the physical doesn&#8217;t exist (or more accurately, that the material world is created in the immaterial mind foremost thus being a byproduct of immaterial and its existence being a collective perception). He isn&#8217;t a contemporary man with knowledge of today&#8217;s technology or advancements, but I think his ideas (whether true or not) still hold up fairly well. I don&#8217;t hold onto his philosophy as the elite definition of metaphysics, but I have certainly incorporated a similar mindset into my not-so-concrete conception of reality that is compatible with my outlook on life. My Morning Jacket tapped on Berkeley&#8217;s shoulder by bringing up some of his ideas into song, this one being called &#8220;Steam Engine.&#8221; So I do believe, none of this is physical At least not to me So, I do believe That anywhere it goes It&#8217;s always with me It&#8217;s not the dream That makes you weak It&#8217;s not the night that makes you sleep [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2008/09/13/my-morning-jacket-sings-george-berkeley/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meaning Language: Is it Meaningful?</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2008/07/13/meaning-language/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2008/07/13/meaning-language/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:58:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immaterial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[my-own-things]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surreal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alan Watts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Dylan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concept]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conversation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cut-up]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delivery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Formulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grammar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[instance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meaning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Methodology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neural]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[permutation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[purpose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[significance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transmission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Understanding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/?p=185</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Language is meaningful. So what? Meaning is to have purpose, intention, or significance. To signify is to be a sign to express or represent ideas or knowledge. Language can have meaning. But is there actually meaning in the previous sentence? What is Language? Language is transmission of thoughts and ideas through arbitrary symbols of speech, writing, and behavior. Is it comforting to know that exchange between the smartest living organisms is based on pointless movements, utterances, and scribbles? Different regions assign values to these symbols and each individual contributes a permutation in value. The symbols then are used to represent a form. The forms are then combined to reflect a motive or relay information. The information then is directly assigned to a unique situation. So language is faulty for arguing a particular instance (composed of many values) with generic rules (through assignment of consistent global traits). Communication Methodology. I break it down like this, although they probably aren&#8217;t rigidly divided: Idea > Formulation > Delivery > Capture Idea. This is a mental sensation. Some may call it an activated neural network. Some may see it as a product of thinking. It is difficult to not have ideas. People will say [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2008/07/13/meaning-language/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Santa: a Misspelling of Satan? Christmas killer.</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/12/24/merry-christmas-santa-a-misspelling-of-satan/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/12/24/merry-christmas-santa-a-misspelling-of-satan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:54:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amusing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Humor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immaterial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christmas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jesus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/2006/12/24/merry-christmas-santa-a-misspelling-of-satan/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Santa killed Christ? There is some validity to that statement, but that doesn’t mean Christ or Christmas is gone. Christ is very much alive and swinging after the resurrection according to the Good Book. Christmas still means the celebration of Jesus’ birthday (although his birth most likely occurred during spring, when the census took place). Of course people aren’t singing the “Happy Birthday” song to Jesus, but they are paying tribute to the tradition whether they know its original history, which includes customs from the winter festival Saturnalia, a pagan holiday. Santa has an array of origins and customs all over the world. St. Nicholas, a philanthropic bishop in 3 AD, gave gifts to the needy. Today, the old man in the red suit isn&#8217;t as saintly, but that&#8217;s where it started. And for those who think that Christmas is religion exclusive, realize that there are pagan rituals involved with Christmas like the decorated Christmas tree, from Winter Solstice. I never had my parents reenact Santa coming down the chimney and put presents under the tree. I had my picture taken with Santa Claus when I was a little kid, but I never made a thing of it. I didn&#8217;t [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/12/24/merry-christmas-santa-a-misspelling-of-satan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Brick Testament</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/10/13/the-brick-testament/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/10/13/the-brick-testament/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amusing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Humor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immaterial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illustrations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/2006/10/13/the-brick-testament/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sometimes the King James Bible doesn&#8217;t cut it. Not everybody is King James, or a king. It&#8217;s just in time they came out with a Lego Version. Rev. Brendan Powell Smith, who doesn&#8217;t seem to be an official reverend, has been working hard on creating illustrations to the Brick Testament. You can read the Bible along with funny pictures made from legos. Warning: some questionable lego activity (like nude lego people).]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/10/13/the-brick-testament/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Absolute Freedom of Present</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/10/02/absolute-freedom-of-present/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/10/02/absolute-freedom-of-present/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immaterial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free-will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[God]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/2006/10/02/absolute-freedom-of-present/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article is written to inspect the conflicts of freedom, and foreknowledge of God, and to propose some alternate ideas extending beyond orthodox theories of divine timelessness and monolism. I wrote this article before reading a segment of Boethius&#8217; &#8220;Consolation of Philosophy&#8221; written in 524 AD, which deals with the same topic. His explanation is not exactly what I present, but a more technical argument supporting the harmony of free will and foreknowledge. God is not a subject of time, because He created all things, and is the God over time. Besides being timeless (beyond the bounds of time, endless, eternal), God is &#8220;time-full.&#8221; He is always past, present and future. By knowing all our actions before and after we do them, God knows what actions we will/did freely do. Since God is past, present, and future, God has freedom in all realms simultaneously. Except for God, freedom is only possible in the present. We cannot perform a different action than an action that has already been done. One cannot alter their destiny because if they decided to do something they normally would not do, it would in fact be their destiny to do something they wouldn&#8217;t normally do. Without [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/10/02/absolute-freedom-of-present/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Superceding</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/09/14/superceding/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/09/14/superceding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Immaterial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[existence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imagination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nothingness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/blog/2006/09/14/superceding/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was thinking about thinking. Is it possible to not think at all? Or to think of everything simultaneously? I can assume it takes many cubic miles of minuscule meta-thoughts to make one coherent thought. Sometimes, (I think) I am thinking so complexly that my own brain will not understand. Those short moments when I baffle my imagination with a feeling of fulfilling nothingness, the surreal value of my empty yet vivid imagery invades my humanly character. At times, I know these sensations are not me alone, but a greater source of majesty. A ruler of existence trickles a droplet of almighty wonder on me- a mere speckle of dust, but a galaxy of awe in my eyes.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2006/09/14/superceding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

