|
Post by enigma on Oct 10, 2013 21:47:59 GMT -5
Can look at it in another way too, in that there is a tri-union of what appears to be three phenomena...observer, observing, and observed. You can even say that observer and observed are really the same in that they are a pseudo "thing", while observing is an "action" or "doing". But really, its all one self.....either the self is in the action of "knowing thyself" (observing), or its still, simply BEING, without the action of observing or "knowing thyself". Either way...all still SELF, or......GOD For some, it could be useful to notice (not think about) how that 'process' started to appear broken up into an observer and something observed. It's possible to notice this because it's mind that imagines this split, or accepts the ideas of others without question. Mind divides things conceptually as part of the process of forming experience. There's no real basis for this bifurcation process, but it's useful anyway. It's just what mind does, and why the mind can't be the tool used exclusively to try to see through this process. Once it's convinced of the actuality of these ideas, anything else just seems absurd. Suddenly, everything, including God or Being or Self or the universe, seems like it has to be either a subject or an object.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 11, 2013 11:37:05 GMT -5
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. What we are debating is the existence of the "universe". It's also what your OP is about. First you presupposed that there is a thing called existence and then you tried to present an argument for why existence should necessarily contain a universe. There is the verb "to exist" (or as an adjective: existent) to mark the presence of a thing, but to claim that existence is an actual entity is a mistake, there is no sufficient reason why we should privilige the verb "to exist" over other verbs, because if we do privilige it then we necessarily get caught up in contradictions. For example we say that "the bottle is yellow", but from this it doesn't follow that there must exist an entity called "yellowness" by virtue of which all yellow bottles exist. We say "the bottle does not exist", but from this it doesn't follow that there exists a thing called "non-existence" by virtue of which all non-existent bottles exist. The point is that it is extremely problematic to transform "existence" into an entity or property, what we should be debating is the existence of the universe, and not the existence of existence. I am debating why the universe should exist rather than not. The universe seems infinite and eternal only in the sense that any seamless surface (for example of a sphere) appears infinite and eternal to itself, simply because one can never find a border to this surface. So "infinity" and "eternity" are derivative of the seamlessness. You can imagine two spheres with a completely uniform and seamless surface, so that differences on the surface can never be perceived by entities that live on these two surfaces, however, an external observer could easily see that one sphere is larger than the other, but the entities on each sphere would believe that they live in an infinite and eternal universe. Now to the argument that "non-existence can never exist and existence can never non-exist". As I've shown it makes no sense to treat "existence" as an entity or as a property. The structure of the above argument is the same as in the argument that "non-yellow can never be yellow, and yellow can never be non-yellow". From the argument alone it does not follow that "yellow" must necessarily exist. Equally it doesn't follow that a universe must exist just because "a non-universe is not a universe, and a universe is not a non-universe". Doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how any of that necessarily follows.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Oct 11, 2013 21:46:15 GMT -5
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. What we are debating is the existence of the "universe". It's also what your OP is about. First you presupposed that there is a thing called existence and then you tried to present an argument for why existence should necessarily contain a universe. There is the verb "to exist" (or as an adjective: existent) to mark the presence of a thing, but to claim that existence is an actual entity is a mistake, there is no sufficient reason why we should privilige the verb "to exist" over other verbs, because if we do privilige it then we necessarily get caught up in contradictions. For example we say that "the bottle is yellow", but from this it doesn't follow that there must exist an entity called "yellowness" by virtue of which all yellow bottles exist. We say "the bottle does not exist", but from this it doesn't follow that there exists a thing called "non-existence" by virtue of which all non-existent bottles exist. The point is that it is extremely problematic to transform "existence" into an entity or property, what we should be debating is the existence of the universe, and not the existence of existence. I am debating why the universe should exist rather than not. The universe seems infinite and eternal only in the sense that any seamless surface (for example of a sphere) appears infinite and eternal to itself, simply because one can never find a border to this surface. So "infinity" and "eternity" are derivative of the seamlessness. You can imagine two spheres with a completely uniform and seamless surface, so that differences on the surface can never be perceived by entities that live on these two surfaces, however, an external observer could easily see that one sphere is larger than the other, but the entities on each sphere would believe that they live in an infinite and eternal universe. Now to the argument that "non-existence can never exist and existence can never non-exist". As I've shown it makes no sense to treat "existence" as an entity or as a property. The structure of the above argument is the same as in the argument that "non-yellow can never be yellow, and yellow can never be non-yellow". From the argument alone it does not follow that "yellow" must necessarily exist. Equally it doesn't follow that a universe must exist just because "a non-universe is not a universe, and a universe is not a non-universe". Doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how any of that necessarily follows. The issues you raise are issues of logic. The thing is though, when we are refering to What IS, what we are refering to itself ENCOMPASSES all logic, and not the other way around like it is with all apparent 'things'. So VERY paradoxically, logic logically does not apply when we are refering to What IS.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Oct 11, 2013 23:46:57 GMT -5
To put it another way, we could say that in order for logical coherence to be experiencable at all, it must be encompassed. That which logical coherence is encompassed by can not, itself, be logically coherent. What I am pointing to is forever necessarily un-encompassed and un-encompassable.
Ultimately, it is neither coherent nor incoherent.
It is what it is, and it is all there is.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Oct 12, 2013 4:32:55 GMT -5
To put it another way, we could say that in order for logical coherence to be experiencable at all, it must be encompassed. That which logical coherence is encompassed by can not, itself, be logically coherent. What I am pointing to is forever necessarily un-encompassed and un-encompassable. Ultimately, it is neither coherent nor incoherent. It is what it is, and it is all there is. it is on the end of that pointy-finger, go no further.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 12, 2013 5:59:39 GMT -5
To put it another way, we could say that in order for logical coherence to be experiencable at all, it must be encompassed. That which logical coherence is encompassed by can not, itself, be logically coherent. What I am pointing to is forever necessarily un-encompassed and un-encompassable. Ultimately, it is neither coherent nor incoherent. It is what it is, and it is all there is. Yours is a statement of logic, although a faulty one. I have never been in a debate where when someone claims that logic is mind-made (or something to this effect), as a last desperate attempt to win the debate, he doesn't already at least secretely know that he has lost the debate. If you categorically reject logic, then to be consistent you have to admit this at the very start (but then you'll have to live with the fact that nobody will discuss anything with you), and not at the very end when the battle is already lost.
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 12, 2013 7:07:12 GMT -5
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. Hmmm a mystery for the mind, huh? Like during the early days of cartoon detective D. Tracy, it was a mystery for the mind how one could possibly talk into a wrist watch like device to another across the other side of the city, and like it was a mystery for the mind how smoking tobacco could possibly cause illness such as lung disease, and like it was a mystery for the mind to imagine the power one might witness in a lightning bolt possibly giving light through the darkness of night, huh? Thankfully not all minds are so moribund to abandon the infinite promises - for the mind. It will always be a mystery for the mind as your question cannot be solved from the level of the mind. When one's focus is clearly set on such desperate capitulation, a self fulfilling and confining prophecy is guaranteed - yes even for the infinity of 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. Sometimes imagination becomes overly rampant and undisciplined, at which afflictive confusion is the obvious result.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 12, 2013 8:22:00 GMT -5
The issues you raise are issues of logic. The thing is though, when we are refering to What IS, what we are refering to itself ENCOMPASSES all logic, and not the other way around like it is with all apparent 'things'. So VERY paradoxically, logic logically does not apply when we are refering to What IS. Suppose you are thinking about the behaviour (logic) of a human being. From this alone there is no way to conclude that you yourself aren't a human being and that you don't behave repetitevely, and that if you do have behaviour it's not bound by some logical principles.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 12, 2013 12:26:38 GMT -5
Yes it's such a mystery for the mind. Hmmm a mystery for the mind, huh? Like during the early days of cartoon detective D. Tracy, it was a mystery for the mind how one could possibly talk into a wrist watch like device to another across the other side of the city, and like it was a mystery for the mind how smoking tobacco could possibly cause illness such as lung disease, and like it was a mystery for the mind to imagine the power one might witness in a lightning bolt possibly giving light through the darkness of night, huh? Thankfully not all minds are so moribund to abandon the infinite promises - for the mind. The mind is not infinite but finite and thank God for this. The Self is the only thing that is infinite and also the only Thing.
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 12, 2013 15:03:17 GMT -5
Hmmm a mystery for the mind, huh? Like during the early days of cartoon detective D. Tracy, it was a mystery for the mind how one could possibly talk into a wrist watch like device to another across the other side of the city, and like it was a mystery for the mind how smoking tobacco could possibly cause illness such as lung disease, and like it was a mystery for the mind to imagine the power one might witness in a lightning bolt possibly giving light through the darkness of night, huh? Thankfully not all minds are so moribund to abandon the infinite promises - for the mind. The mind is not infinite but finite and thank God for this. The Self is the only thing that is infinite and also the only Thing.If it's your desire and choice for YOUR mind to be finite, limited by your fears and subordinates, then that is YOUR choice and thank (your) god for this. Thank (your) god also that your choice as such only applies to YOUR mind.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 12, 2013 15:08:59 GMT -5
To put it another way, we could say that in order for logical coherence to be experiencable at all, it must be encompassed. That which logical coherence is encompassed by can not, itself, be logically coherent. What I am pointing to is forever necessarily un-encompassed and un-encompassable. Ultimately, it is neither coherent nor incoherent. It is what it is, and it is all there is. What?
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 12, 2013 15:19:15 GMT -5
The mind is not infinite but finite and thank God for this. The Self is the only thing that is infinite and also the only Thing. If it's your desire and choice for YOUR mind to be finite, limited by your fears and subordinates, then that is YOUR choice and thank (your) god for this. Thank (your) god also that your choice as such only applies to YOUR mind. not really mind is mind there is no such thing as a personal mind
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2013 16:06:08 GMT -5
The mind is not infinite but finite and thank God for this. The Self is the only thing that is infinite and also the only Thing. If it's your desire and choice for YOUR mind to be finite, limited by your fears and subordinates, then that is YOUR choice and thank (your) god for this. Thank (your) god also that your choice as such only applies to YOUR mind. What is Mind tcejer?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 12, 2013 18:33:30 GMT -5
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. I don't understand the logic here. You're saying that there is only one thing (isness, being, "what is", etc). Then you're saying that within this thing there are two fundamental opposites. I don't understand where they come from. Even if you say that the opposites are just imagined, then I still don't understand where they come from and how they can have an effect (and cause stuff to happen) if the opposites are merely imagined. I also don't understand why you say that it is necessary that "beingness" is experiencing itself.
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 12, 2013 19:18:10 GMT -5
If it's your desire and choice for YOUR mind to be finite, limited by your fears and subordinates, then that is YOUR choice and thank (your) god for this. Thank (your) god also that your choice as such only applies to YOUR mind. not really mind is mind there is no such thing as a personal mind As the case with many, you present as a little confused about what you actually believe, and clever words aren't providing sufficient cover. So a couple of questions for you ... 1. Why do you introduce the concept of a personal mind in the same statement as suggesting it doesn't exist? 2. What is your definition of a 'personal mind', and how does it differ from your 'finite mind'; which isn't personal. Also ... 3. What so limits your 'finite (yet impersonal) mind'?
|
|