Why do people say "Chillin like a Villain"
I know it's because it rhymes but lots of things rhyme, it just doesn't make any sense.
I don't know any villains personally so admittedly I'm generalising based on their media appearances, but they don't see to be chilling at all.
They always plotting, scheming or undermining. It sounds stressful and exhausting.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure they love what they do but they are not chilling in any capacity, quite the opposite.
I'm rethinking this, I can now think of so many ways in which "God" (not a religious God, the idea of God).
But I still think this has power as an idea of God, I guess it's comparable to the illustrious "Theory of everything" so desperately (& nobly) sought by so many physicists
I think "God" as a concept is the ultimate abstraction
If you keep understanding reality at more and more abstract levels, you run into a problem.
There is neither no ultimate abstract - phenomena is distinct governed by discrete abstractions. Or you abstract indefinitely and the final abstraction is what can be called God.
I have long believed that objectively experiencing an object is impossible and sided generally with Kant's opinion that any object can only be experienced as a phenomenon, an experiential representation.
To make my next point, I need some Sets.
Set A) An individual human's experience of a chair in a specific room
Set B) Every living human experience of a chair in the same specific room
Set C) Every possible human experience of a chair in the same specific room
Set D) Every possible known animal experience of a chair in the same specific room
These sets are coming out of a greater subset of every possible experience (Set E). Sets A-D presumably make up an infinitesimally small subset of all possible experience, but this tautologically must exist, as the qualifier possible is used.
Let's say a hypothetical being were to experience everything in Set E simultaneously (not overlapping experiences but separately). I claim its holistic experience of the chair would be objective, as the being experiences the chair expression in every perceivable form.
That is not to say the experience objective is the illusive "thing-in-itself" but rather an objective experience. This is, of course, only in terms of matter, but if you were to extrapolate this example to time, adding every possible experience in every possible moment, this should work fine too.
A place to discard my thoughts