Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Saying 'yes' to Existence = 'yes' to Everything?

  1. Nov 24, 2003 #1
    There is a quote in particular I would like to share with you. It is from a 2001 Linklater film: Waking Life.

    1. The quest is obviously your willingness to live your life and you want to be freed from the negatives that sporadically arise in your existence.

    Ok he starts off good. In life or the "quest" of life from the eternal void of nothingless, which often happens there exists many ways to be liberated from negatives that they come across in everyday occurence. For example, the media can paint a bad painting on things and pass it off as progess. This could be considered of the Iraqi war on terrorism. Lives our lost daily but the news correspondents and the White House continue to belive progress for Democracy in Iraq is being accomplished. But, we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world. The government and media are passive observers.

    Anyway back on the topic at hand.

    The idea is that this man is false in my opinion. He fails at the last sentence. The second last sentence or the 'set-up' sentence is: "It bursts into a chain of affirmations that knows no limit."

    By saying this I think he is concluding or de-concluding that saying a 'yes' to one instant or a 'no' to another will manipulate our lives entirely.

    I can come up with a counterexample that won't follow this hypotheisis.

    1)By saying a 'yes' or a 'no' to an instant doesn't mean we "ruin" our lives from the negative, maybe it just means we are set off course or a manipulation happens that are conscious "says" is the right option or opinion. By setting up affirmations in no way means that no limit will be met.

    Then he follows by saying, "To say yes to one instant, is to say yes to all of existence."

    I think we do have control over the future, for example, I'm atheist and I don't believe in what I call "chess-fate" I belive the decisions we make dictate the way our lifestyle gives in return. By saying 'no' to one instant or 'yes' to another doesn't mean we 'alter' our lives entirely, just manipulates it and set's it off course.

    This conclusion he made doesn't really fit into life. Unless of course nuclear weapons comes into the equation, thus the decision he made wouldn't fit any other instance. You can make a judgment that will ruin your life, and this is by killing yourself. But otherwise for those two instances no other conclusion I can think of by saying 'yes' would make a 'chain of affirmations' to life, itself.
    Even so, even introducting nuclear holocaust weapons in the system doesn't mean we change or evolutionize the "instant" of our existence.

    You can make 'bad' decisions that affect your life in some way plausible but a burst of affirmations that knows no limit is ridiculous.

    Here's an analogy for you:

    Ok, when a religious person often sins - they go to confession and pray for forgiveness, by doing this they "think" or "believe" that they've commited a 'sin' and got rid of it by confessing that they were wrong to do so. Thus they believe the sin is uplifted from their sould and washed way by Gods judgment. My washed away example plays into this by saying and disrupting this mans philosophy. By doing this, all based on opinion, saying a 'yes' or 'no' to an instance doesn't change your life -- only sets you off course, I then give two examples in which a way that this 'yes' or 'no' analogy could ultimately play in the roll on how your "life" turns out. By either a) You commiting suicide or b) a nuclear holocaust. I then, say that the nuclear holocaust can't be done by a 'yes' or 'no' from one person, but has to be done by many. So my theory still stands in agreement with my purpose.

    Comments? Agreements? Arguments? Venting?
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 26, 2003 #2
    ok but what did that old man mean? I don't think I could even argue with him cause I don't know what he ment.
    by saying yes to one moment what exactly are you doing?
  4. Nov 27, 2003 #3
    Ok, lets go back and have a close look at this quote.

    Im not exacly sure what you were trying to say in your post, but here is what i take this man to be saying (great film by the way, a lot of discussion could be instigated from such a film)

    We are trying to be liberated from the negative. The old mans claim is that this is due to a desire to be in nothingness. Why does he say this? Because everything is a matter of balance. we must be rid of the negative but this has consenquences: we must also sacrifice the positive. This leaves us with a neutral ground, or a nothingness. This is diffrent to his next sentance about cliaming one instance, but does reflect on it...

    If we claim and 'instant', meaning (i will take it) as exsistance in a moment of time, you must claim all of exsistance in every moment. If you claim an instant, then you have also deemed it as negative or positive. as we are trying to get away from the negitive as an absolute priority, we must sacrifice the positive, and infact deny the instance. The only way we can deny the negative is to deny exsistance. That is all he is trying to say, i think. So, be a skeptic greek style, believe all is an illusion and give up looking when you cross the road.

    as for everything being a chain reaction, a contagious state that if you claim one instace you must claim them all, i believe that he means that if you claim one instance you are forced to claim all of them... for if you have good reason to claim one you have to claim them all for the same reason, its a matter of logic.
  5. Nov 28, 2003 #4
    I agree a lot of discussion could be made out of this film, but apparetnly not enough people 'understood' my meaning to post so here I go once more.

    I was saying from this Old Guy's quote -- I meant by saying 'yes' to a certain instant doesn't necessarily mean that a chain of affirmations follows to that given 'yes'. You could screw up a instance by saying 'yes' but that doesn't mean the nothingness in your life is altered.

    I concur with you here.

    You must live you life to each and every instance with is existance. All instances in our life could potentially be a negative or positive, the occurence or thought processes that happen to chose the balance from the imbalance are all based on 'yes' or 'no' answers and opinions. Given this every sacrifice you make could leave you with an eternal pit of nothingness and a void which could make or break your life by altering it from the 'yes' or 'no' answers from that given instance.

    When you say, The only way we can deny the negative is to deny the existence.

    Actually I don't agree with you on the Old guy's meaning of his outlook on negativity. I don't think or know when he said his quote he was meaning that we deny our existence of life by liberating the negatives. He was, or I belive telling Wiley that we need to make careful choices, otherwise if we don't there will be the nothingness in our lives from liberating our beliefs and choices we make that dictate the lives we live.

    I agree. If you claim on instance of your life you must be able to re-concur with yourself that this choice you made was transcripted with the other thoughts, ideas, and attitudes you chose from the "yes" or "no" views of that instance. If you disobey these instances you will end up in nothingness.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook