|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 9, 2013 22:04:45 GMT -5
Another solution is that we live in a world that is of a negative charge. So that if you take away all things then you get a void, but this void will effectively be a higher energy state than with all the things. And this means that there doesn't even have to be a reason or effort for this negatively charged world to arise, simply because it costs absolutely nothing. It would be a "less than nothing" world that can arise spontaneously and for which the way of least resistance is not toward the void but instead toward more and more things and complexity. Yeah right like we need more and more things and complexity in life please.. Ok a noob question what does OP stand for that is used all the time on this forum. Thanks Nowhereman
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Oct 9, 2013 22:35:26 GMT -5
Ok a noob question what does OP stand for that is used all the time on this forum. Thanks Nowhereman Opening Post(er)
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 9, 2013 22:47:38 GMT -5
Well that's "original" Thanks
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 10, 2013 4:29:32 GMT -5
Yeah right like we need more and more things and complexity in life please.. Doesn't matter what we need. Something does exist instead of nothing, even though logically it's much easier for nothing to exist rather than something. And the world is already extremely complex, there is no way back. The challenge is to think existence without us having to posit a miracle, the challenge is how to think of a world for which it is easier to exist than not to exist?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Oct 10, 2013 11:40:52 GMT -5
Well that's "original" Thanks Original Post(er) will work, too. Same concept.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Oct 10, 2013 16:17:29 GMT -5
Yeah right like we need more and more things and complexity in life please.. Doesn't matter what we need. Something does exist instead of nothing, even though logically it's much easier for nothing to exist rather than something. And the world is already extremely complex, there is no way back. The challenge is to think existence without us having to posit a miracle, the challenge is how to think of a world for which it is easier to exist than not to exist? I don't know if positing 'This Which IS' as an infinite, eternal presence is to posit miracle. It may be a small leap of faith to suggest that this infinite, eternal presence is self-aware (and therefore self-experiencing), but no more a leap of faith than any strickly materialist position about the way things are, or any other position at all, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 10, 2013 16:54:36 GMT -5
I don't know if positing 'This Which IS' as an infinite, eternal presence is to posit miracle. It may be a small leap of faith to suggest that this infinite, eternal presence is self-aware (and therefore self-experiencing), but no more a leap of faith than any strickly materialist position about the way things are, or any other position at all, for that matter. To say that existence requires a "miracle" in order to exist means that there is no sufficient reason for why something exists rather than nothing. This question is more basic than the debate over whether existence is materiaistic or not. I like the "less than nothing" solution because it formulates a coherent reason for why something exists rather than nothing.
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 10, 2013 17:39:44 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I don't get it. Nothing above seems to make sense to me. Can someone please explain? The model is that there is the pure being of existence, I call it God, and that in its purest most essential nature, existence, or God, is just an ISNESS with no "knowing" or awareness of self. Thank you for your response to my question. The first thing I'd say about this; whilst I certainly appreciate the dilemma in doing so, I'd suggest you take the leap of dropping this 'god' from your equation. The term carries with it so much religious baggage and innuendo, that the moment it's suggested a schism is created in the imagination. This schism of course relates to the religious construct of 'god' as a man, burned resolutely, after millenia of religious demand upon our imagination, into the sub-conscious. The term itself is but a few centuries old, yet the mythical construct extends back perhaps ten times - as far and deeper into our psyche. From how you've expressed your model, I don't think your suggesting such illogical religious overtones, so the question arises of how such a vacuum of 'knowing or awareness of self' arrives at the minim of the creation of the universe from no-thing and no perception, to finally arrive at 'everything', with particular attention ultimately given to (again the 'no-thing' of) awareness and consciousness itself? When existence observes itself, there is a pseudo split between observer and observed that appears, but really it is not a split, its self looking at self, but appears to be a bifurcation of self of observer and observed. In the process of "knowing thyself", the endless appearances and variations of duality appear in the ONE self. "Endless appearances and variations of duality"? Thus far you've only identified one apparent variation of duality, which isn't a duality at all, but rather a conceptual disparity. Actual duality arises in the fundamental nature of consciousness, as a polarised conglomerate underpinning awareness as well as every choice ever made by the individual - those of which one is aware (such as looking at oneself), as well as those of which one is not so aware. Duality is just the process of self observing self in endlessly variable ways, but duality does not actually exist, because its still all one self. One self, looking at self, creates the appearance of a kind of duality of observer and observed. With the above, your conceptual duality surely cancels itself out, unless you can define it by a more substantive duality - as above perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 10, 2013 18:05:09 GMT -5
Thank you for your response to my question. From how you've expressed your model, I don't think your suggesting such illogical religious overtones, so the question arises of how such a vacuum of 'knowing or awareness of self' arrives at the minim of the creation of the universe from no-thing and no perception, to finally arrive at 'everything', with particular attention ultimately given to (again the 'no-thing' of) awareness and consciousness itself? Yes it's such a mystery for the mind. It will always be a mystery for the mind as your question cannot be solved from the level of the mind. Something that may help or leave a little understanding is if you imagine we have 2 universes here one works on the level of the mind and the other in a very different way. One is logical, has certain defined laws etc and the other in ways you can come close to only by imagination. One universe takes a brain and mind to figure itself out and the other more of a mad man speaking things that the mind sees as insanity yet holds something that just rings true when you hear it even though it makes little or no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Oct 10, 2013 19:29:47 GMT -5
I don't know if positing 'This Which IS' as an infinite, eternal presence is to posit miracle. It may be a small leap of faith to suggest that this infinite, eternal presence is self-aware (and therefore self-experiencing), but no more a leap of faith than any strickly materialist position about the way things are, or any other position at all, for that matter. To say that existence requires a "miracle" in order to exist means that there is no sufficient reason for why something exists rather than nothing. This question is more basic than the debate over whether existence is materiaistic or not. I like the "less than nothing" solution because it formulates a coherent reason for why something exists rather than nothing. You're quite right. There really is no sufficient reason for the existence of something rather than nothing. My answer to this conundrum is to suggest that 'Existence' is in fact not something, not a thing. There isn't ACTUALLY anything. As I have attempted to illustrate, 'Existence' is necessarily infinite and eternal. It is as such because the very presence of its apparent opposite; 'Non-Existence', would never be able to satisfy its own fundamental criteria of 'absolute absence'. So 'Non-Existence' can NEVER be, and therefor, 'Existence' can NEVER NOT be. As you say, it doesn't 'cost' anything. But being unencompassed and causeless as it is, it is not a thing. To explain the presence of all apparent 'things', I suggest that every'thing' is ultimately an 'apparent part' of a single, forever effortless unfolding that is the choiceless effect of the perpetual interaction that occurs between the pair of fundamental opposites (observer/observed a.k.a. infinite, ever-changeless emptiness / finite, ever-changing form) that 'Existence' seems to become while it forever experiences itself. It experiences itself simply because it is the intrinsic nature of an infinite, eternal presence to do so.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Oct 10, 2013 19:47:41 GMT -5
knowing that the ghostly-self cannot drop its controlling-nature, surrender becomes the name of the game. Giving-up is all that one can do realising, that one has been making-it-up, deluding-themselves like... drops begin to occur, tiny at first, then plonks and hair-raising life experiences come to the foreground as one settles into their heart, sometimes being shot-down with such-force they stay-put for days at a time. Self-doubt erodes in-time as joyfull-happiness arises all by itself, fulfilling ones life-dreams far above ones earlier expectation.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 10, 2013 19:50:54 GMT -5
knowing that the ghostly-self cannot drop its controlling-nature, surrender becomes the name of the game. Giving-up is all that one can do realising; that one has been making-it-up, deluding-themselves... the drops begin to occur, tiny at first, then plonks and hair-raising life experiences come to the foreground as one settles into the heart, sometimes being shot-down with such-force they stay-put for days at a time. Self-doubt erodes in time as happiness arises all by itself, fulfilling ones dreams far above ones earlier expectation. :-XX ...and then I pinched myself and woke up!
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Oct 10, 2013 19:55:18 GMT -5
knowing that the ghostly-self cannot drop its controlling-nature, surrender becomes the name of the game. Giving-up is all that one can do realising; that one has been making-it-up, deluding-themselves... the drops begin to occur, tiny at first, then plonks and hair-raising life experiences come to the foreground as one settles into the heart, sometimes being shot-down with such-force they stay-put for days at a time. Self-doubt erodes in time as happiness arises all by itself, fulfilling ones dreams far above ones earlier expectation. :-XX ...and then I pinched myself and woke up! enjoying your suspended state! ps, I edited
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Oct 10, 2013 20:00:30 GMT -5
Finding himself Nowhere, having detached from his life-flow, Man remains in space until he realises that creativity is his highest-state and he goes down to create something precious, just for the Hell-of-it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 10, 2013 21:23:31 GMT -5
I'm sorry but I don't get it. Nothing above seems to make sense to me. Can someone please explain? The model is that there is the pure being of existence, I call it God, and that in its purest most essential nature, existence, or God, is just an ISNESS with no "knowing" or awareness of self. When existence observes itself, there is a pseudo split between observer and observed that appears, but really it is not a split, its self looking at self, but appears to be a bifurcation of self of observer and observed. In the process of "knowing thyself", the endless appearances and variations of duality appear in the ONE self. Duality is just the process of self observing self in endlessly variable ways, but duality does not actually exist, because its still all one self. One self, looking at self, creates the appearance of a kind of duality of observer and observed. Just thought I'd take this opportunity to agree. Hehe.
|
|