<?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 parallaxPhilosophy | liquid parallax</title>
	<atom:link href="http://liquidparallax.com/category/philosophy/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>Metaepistemology and Undomesticated Humans</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2008/07/16/metaepistemology-and-undomesticated-humans/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2008/07/16/metaepistemology-and-undomesticated-humans/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:44:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amusing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Assorted]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Educational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contemplation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deprivation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feral]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Berkeley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hallucination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hallucinations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Herd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Humans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[learning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meaning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mentality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Metaepistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mowgli]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tactile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Undomesticated]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/?p=295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Does knowledge derive from reality or its disparity between conflict? Or even as a denial that they are polar opposites? Does knowledge come from perceptions? &#8220;To be is to be perceived or to perceive&#8221; George Berkeley came up with this, meaning that something only exists, in the particular way that it is seen to exist, when it is being perceived by an observing subject. This invites wild variations of perception from the norm to be equally real. Hallucinations don&#8217;t exist. Drug experiences are not fake experiences. It is obvious that if you are hallucinating, you are perceiving something only you recognize. It is a real experience though. You are actually witnessing the episode. Your eyes capture all the information, but but perception creates transformations. If you were blind, deaf, mute, and without scent and tactile abilities, would you be able to receive knowledge? It doesn&#8217;t seem too possible. But does that mean that perception is the cause of knowledge? Maybe not. The only thing left without the senses is a brain with learning potential. Even if there are instincts embedded in the senseless person, using instinct seems an impossible feat. After all, the five senses themselves are instincts; no empirical [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2008/07/16/metaepistemology-and-undomesticated-humans/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hallucinate without Drugs (Perceive New Dimensions)</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/11/23/hallucinate-without-drugs-an-optical-high/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/11/23/hallucinate-without-drugs-an-optical-high/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:16:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Amusing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Educational]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surreal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[3d_glasses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anaglyph_images]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[autostereograms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cross_eyed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eyes_shut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hallucinate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hallucination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illusions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[optical_illusions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stereoscope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stereoscopic_vision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[visual_stimulus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/2007/11/23/hallucinate-without-drugs-an-optical-high/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Before I get criticized for using the word hallucination, I&#8217;d like to point out that illusion and hallucination are different, but they share a bit in common. The first (illusion) meaning you perceive something the wrong way, and the latter meaning you have a vision of something without any sightly cause to promote it (a green ghost from a blank white wall). I&#8217;ll also point out that a hallucination will probably have some visual stimulus that may influence what exactly you hallucinate. Even when eyes are closed they still perceive darkness. If outside on a sunny day with your eyes shut, you can still see light reflecting on your eyelids, making a lesser darkness than eyes closed in the dark. It is my opinion that illusions are subtle differences that come from undecipherable stimuli, and more imaginative illusions are deemed hallucinations in the presence of more subtle things or atmosphere. Foreword: None of these require 3D glasses (the Red/Blue shades for Anaglyph images) Begin the Tripping Autostereograms are the common single picture optical illusions where you start close up and cross-eyed and move back and start to see depth. A name often associated with this is &#8220;Magic Eye&#8221; although they [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/11/23/hallucinate-without-drugs-an-optical-high/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Music and Politics</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/05/29/music-and-politics/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/05/29/music-and-politics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 13:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bob_dylan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logical_fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[niches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political_ideology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social_injustice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/2007/05/29/music-and-politics/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Politics in music can be: a political front, where political ideology writes the music before artistic expression is considered. An example would be a singer who writes songs specifically for a party (to gain acceptance by a political party or to affect swing states or something stupid). A sub-category might be songwriters writing Christian songs to cater to a certain audience regardless of their own beliefs. In both cases, people are cashing in on particular niches. real feelings that are used by a political group, so that the musician becomes a puppet for a campaign. I think Bob Dylan might fall under this (but I think he was able to avoid being cornered, he might be explaining this on his album, &#8220;Another Side&#8221;). Dylan clearly has opinions and has spoken clearly about social injustice. He has not, however, segregated himself from the public to hear what he has to say. He never said &#8220;Hey, I&#8217;m a Democrat. Because of this I am telling you to change.&#8221; Instead he speaks from the heart and lets his words stand for what they are. Also, he never attacks people personally based on politics. This would be a logical fallacy against the man. Opinions [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/05/29/music-and-politics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Partial Death Abortion</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/05/01/partial-birth-abortion/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/05/01/partial-birth-abortion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 01:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abortions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assisted_suicide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[choices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fetus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partial_birth_abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right_to_choose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roe_v_wade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/2007/05/01/partial-birth-abortion/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fetally speaking, I&#8217;m well past my 100th trimester (three-month term) since I&#8217;m over 20 years of age. Today in one of my classes, we were discussing the legalese of Roe v. Wade and recent law pertaining to abortion. From a legal standpoint (and in order to have relevance for the government to be involved), there needs to be constitutional and/or judicial grounds for preserving or abolishing laws. Much of the initial motives for making abortions legal were to protect the pregnant woman. It is claimed that having an early abortion is safer than childbirth. Even if this is true, it is illogical; It would then follow that no child should ever be born which is absurd. Science has taken a wider look at other aspects and it appears that this isn&#8217;t a good case to keep partial-birth abortion. My college professor avoided to bring up scientific findings, but abortion itself is shrouded in debate about health risks. I am not an expert so I will not try to push my ideals into this field. I do know, however, that there is potential for numerous psychological problems. Aside from the immediate physical complications that can arise for the mother during the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/05/01/partial-birth-abortion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Self-Awareness Experiment</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/04/22/self-awareness-experiment/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/04/22/self-awareness-experiment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amusing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conscious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consciousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[existence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[instant_message]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repetition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[threshold]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/2007/04/22/self-awareness-experiment/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What would life be like if you constantly were confronted by your immediate self? A better memory, maybe. By providing instant feedback, I think we&#8217;d be self-aware of everything. The repetition would at least for a time make us think more about what we are doing. If you were always reflected back to your consciousness, it would reinforce what actions you make. It would be like a mirror of the self. You would always agree. You may be annoyed at the duplicity, but it may later be blocked out like many other things we knock out of our focus. You could develop an outside perspective as others would see you. As a figurative experiment, you could &#8220;talk to yourself&#8221; via an instant message program such as AIM, Yahoo Messenger, or others. Add yourself as a buddy on your list (You should be friends with yourself anyway). If you don&#8217;t have the heart to add yourself as a friend, then you have issues about your self-worth. You are better than that. Now gather the courage to send yourself a greeting. Try to react to yourself. Realize what it feels like. You will learn something. It adds to your thinking time, by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/04/22/self-awareness-experiment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blogging Less Says More</title>
		<link>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/04/16/blogging-less-says-more/</link>
		<comments>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/04/16/blogging-less-says-more/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:11:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Art/Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web-Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[less_is_more]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minimal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reductionist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terse]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liquidparallax.com/2007/04/16/blogging-less-says-more/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I notice that traffic-hungry bloggers and web-savvy advertisers tend to follow SEO marketing schemes of creating filler content and fluffing up word count. They claim that it will keep visitors satisfied and search engines will flock to their precious keywords which will increase click-through rates. The latter may be true, but the former is problematic. I often write an article when I want to encourage myself to do something, I want to help/inform others, or something hasn&#8217;t been said (or said too sparingly). I avoid bland and uninspired monologue at all costs, even in real life (but that&#8217;s another topic). My friend says it best, whom he got from one of his old teachers. I don&#8217;t have the best memory, but as best as I remember it: Say you&#8217;re wrote an essay. Try to consolidate everything together, minimizing and getting rid of filler words and sentences (X amount of times) while retaining meaning and intended purpose. When you think you&#8217;ve condensed everything, remove one last thing. Kurt Vonnegut says pretty much the same thing: If a sentence, no matter how excellent, does not illuminate your subject in some new and useful way, scratch it out. This type of thinking should [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://liquidparallax.com/2007/04/16/blogging-less-says-more/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>

