Today, I figured I'd take a moment or two (or possibly five depending on if we are referencing standard or metric moments) to introduce myself to those who are new to the caravan, which, judging by the comments so far, would include both nobody and god. Anyway...
Hi, I am The Vessel (or Vessel for slightly shorter). As long as I'm at the reigns of this caravan, I figured people might be interested in getting to know a little more about me and, by doing such, gain a better understanding of the perspective from which I operate. If so, I have taken the time to fill out much of the hundred things list. I will also, from time to time, take a moment to answer (possibly truthfully) any questions people might want to ask about my worldview, my life in general or my love of kitties (or my new obsession with monkitties (thank you Val)).
Being as that nobody has, as of yet, left a question, I decided to get things rolling by taking a question I figured someone might ask and answering it. This should serve to both let readers (?) know more about me, and help to fill the deep void of longing for shameless self promotion of which I am a victim. So here we go...
"Dear Mr. Vessel, when you aren't out being a studly he-man, macin' the chicas and generally oozing coolness, what is it you enjoy doing?"
Well, Timmy (you nosy bastard) I'm glad you asked. Being as that needle point and vodka induced re-enactment of all Rumpleteezer's and Macavity's scenes from "Cats" (which, with a little re-writing, affords one the opportunity to sing the lyric "search Macavity") don't help to promote the image I have worked so hard to establish (and that, of course, I don't do those things), I spend much of my free time reading outdoors, playing golf, and, when the opportunity arises, trying to be of as much assistance to those in need as my abilities will allow. Aside form that, often times, at night (I learned this the hard way), I like to stand out in the front yard and stare up at the stars in the sky. It is awe inspiring to stand there and consider that the celestial bodies I can see are such an insignificant percentage of the number which actually exists as to be inconsequential in any relevant manner, which, by some odd completely unexpected coincidence, leads me to the topic of discussion for today.
Another change of perspective.
There is nothing that can assist one in trying on another perspective better than actually being afforded the opportunity to physically view things from another perspective. The photo above was taken by the Mars rover from the surface of one of the other planets in our solar system (you'll have to guess which one). The star like dot is, as you may have guessed by the mall-esque sign pointing to me (how the person who drew that arrow knew where I was, I have no idea (This is reminiscent of the time Smokey the Bear came on my television and said "Only you can prevent forest fires", I was only five for Christ's sake, anyway...) our little blue ball of watery home, the Earth.
So, how does this perspective tie in to our little caravan? Well, when we view our home planet from such a perspective it becomes obvious that it is simply one of innumerable collectives of matter that exist throughout the universe and, as is so excellently illustrated by the photo, inconsequential in any definable way when set against the immense backdrop of the universe in which we exist. When this dot, reflecting the light of the sun, meets its death, by whatever means, the universe will not notice. It will go on existing for billions of years more, just as it did for billions of years previous, without our human lives or the planet on which they formed. Does this sound like we are the reason for all of existence?
How vain, how delusional with self importance, how blind to reality, must we be to not see that, while our lives may have meaning to us, when viewed from our unique perspective as the affected entity, from the perspective of all that exists our existence is of no more consequence than that of a rock?
Let us again change our perspective and employ our godly viewpoint, as we did the other day. From this viewpoint as a creator god, intent on forming an environment for a few billion lifeforms whose material existence in this universe is merely a microscopic blip on the screen of the eternal existence for which they were created, does our universe make sense? I think it is obvious it does not.
Why not just create our planet? Why not just our solar system? Why not just our galaxy? Why not just one thousand galaxies? Why not just one million galaxies? If our life on this planet is a finite time used to judge our worthiness for an eternal timeless existence, by what stretch of the imagination is our universe the rational environment to create?
The fact is that there is absolutely no reason for a god to create such an expanse for such a minute existence. To believe that we are the reason for all that exists is so ridiculous as to border on insanity. When we look at things from this perspective we have no choice but to reason that we are not the reason for all that exists, but that all that exists is the reason for us. We are made from the universe, the universe is not made for us. To come to any other conclusion requires that we ignore all reasonable interpretations of the data and instead stick closed-mindedly to an explanation for our existence authored by, comparably, scientifically illiterate men trying to explain an existence they could not even begin to comprehend with the data they had available.
Well, I hope today's perspective change has at least been an enjoyable journey, if not a fruitful one. Next time you find yourself outdoors at night, instead of looking to the sky and seeing a divine plan, look objectively and start counting how many other existences you must ignore to allow yourself such an egocentric perspective of reality. And next time you find yourself outdoors during the day, remember, only you can prevent forest fires (whew, it feels good to pass that burden along).
Reading this post has made me want to go back and reread "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan.
Thanks for dropping by. If you get a hankering for Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World" is an excellent read as well.
Since you are 100% correct in your analysis of how the earth ranks in the universal food chain, I'll focus instead on your response to Timmy of the inquiring mind.
My first question is how you read outdoors - - is it kind of like braille? How do you turn the pages?
My second question is whether or not "...when the opportunity arises, trying to be of as much assistance to those in need as my abilities will allow..." is a veiled reference to having sex with strippers? If so, does this indicate that your "abilities" are limited, then? How sad for you. And the strippers.
Val:
No, reading outdoors is exactly the same as reading indoors except you replace the in part with an out. And yes, the pages are quite heavy.
As for your second query, I will have you know that I always keep my charitable and professional lives separate from my stripper sexing life. I quickly learned the importance of this after accidentally sticking a dollar bill the the national president of Habitat for Humanity's g-string. He didn't appreciate that at all.
It depends on how big you write it.
There's a little game afoot on blogstream, and you're now it - - here's what you do:
1) Write a post on "Five Things I've Heard & Never Forgotten". This post should contain FIVE - - not four, not six - - things that you've heard and never forgotten. Could that be any clearer?
2) Copy your post and put it in the "Comments" section of MY post on the very same subject.
3) Impose this task on four other unsuspecting bloggers.
See? Easy. A trained monkitty could do it.
1.) Well, I was right there with you until right after the write a post part. What is the post supposed to be about? This is all highly confusing. But, since you were willing to tag me, most likely against your better judgment as a yaboite, I guess I'll see what I can come up with.
B.) Where do I put it? Many people have answered this for me before, but that just doesn't seem right.
Kitty.) Impose? Now that I can do!
I'll front you with a question Vessel:
A) Do you believe in 'intelligent' life on other planets &
B) If so, how do you contextualize that belief in a scientific framework, with limited-to-no empirical evidence.
C) Can you make the argument for 'B' without relying on 'well there is an infinite universe, and everything has a finite probability, so everything must be true somewhere'.
Answers be here
"A) Do you believe in 'intelligent' life on other planets"
I believe in the possibility of life on other planets. We could, upon gathering sufficient data, affix a percentage to the possibility and my feeling is that it might be fairly high, though I have no ability at this point in time to say this is, by any means, truth. So, if the question is if I believe it is a truth that life exists on other planets, I would have to answer no. if the question is if I think it possible, or even likely, I would answer yes.
"B) If so, how do you contextualize that belief in a scientific framework, with limited-to-no empirical evidence."
As you will notice, I have no need to. This is not trying to weasel, or even 'armadillo' (to use an animal completely out of context) my way out of the question. The thing is I really don't hold to positive beliefs without empirical evidence. It is not something I decided, it is simply the way I am.
"C) Can you make the argument for 'B' without relying on 'well there is an infinite universe, and everything has a finite probability, so everything must be true somewhere'."
Since I have no reason to believe the universe is infinite, but actually have much reason to believe it is not, and while everything that has a probability of truth has a finite probability I do not take this further to suggest that this leads to everything having a finite probability (i.e. A can not = ~A no probability of the opposite being true, even in an infinite existence, is necessary), then, well, basically that doesn't even matter being as that I would never argue for the existence of extraterrestrial life without empirical evidence.
Again, I think that when, or if, we figure out the whole abiogenesis problem, and extrapolate that data across the number of likely host planets, we will come to an understanding that life, or at least self replicators, are likely not a product of our planet alone. Until we reach that point, I see no reason to hold to a belief one way or the other, lacking evidence one way or the other.