Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

After studying most of the Religions and most of the Sciences. After trying to visualize the very beginning of All, with the purest of logic. After absorbing all I could from the age of 7 years old, till I was 41. I came up with this view 10 years ago. Now, this view is how I see things this day. I am open for a change of view, if more knowledge dictates it so.

Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

In the beginning there was, "The Paradox of Potential".
Out of this "Paradox of Potential", "Popped Aware".
"Aware" moved inward upon itself, into the "Abyss of Infinity and Eternity".
By the act of "Will", "Aware" stopped, and became "Cognitive" of itself.
From the "Singularity" of "Will", "Aware" "Waved" back upon itself.
"Aware", "Being" all there is, set forth through the "Art of Evolution", to be all it can "Be"

@PoPpAScience,

Refering to an earlier thread:
You where right, saying `potential` had to be at the first moment, and I would say that this `potential` was a "result" of the premises for `pure coincidence` being met.
The `potential` was the occurrence of `pure coincidence` witch obviously did occur, because of, well, pure coincidence.
I don`t know if this makes sense to you, but I find this quite logical.

And your phrase "Paradox of existence popped aware" does also make sense to me, but still I have some questions.

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

Refering to an earlier thread:
You where right, saying `potential` had to be at the first moment, and I would say that this `potential` was a "result" of the premises for `pure coincidence` being met.
The `potential` was the occurrence of `pure coincidence` witch obviously did occur, because of, well, pure coincidence.
I don`t know if this makes sense to you, but I find this quite logical.

And your phrase "Paradox of existence popped aware" does also make sense to me, but still I have some questions.

molok69, I love your wording of "pure coincidence". That is how I rationalized my thoughts on what would make "Aware", pop out of "Potential", when I first thought of it. And is how I would rationalized it now. As you can see, I feel that "Potential" is a starting point, like a womb, for "Aware" to pop into "Being". And that a "pure coincidence", as you stated, is the best answer to why. "pure coincidence", would in my mind be the catalyst that fulfilled, "Potential".

I feel we differ only very slightly, and understand where you are coming from.

@PoPpAScience,

Could you say a little more on this "aware"? what is it? what`s the logic behind it?

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

Could you say a little more on this "aware"? what is it? what`s the logic behind it?

Sure! For the record, "Aware", as a word, is the best I can use from the English language. The best description of "Aware" in my mind would be, its like a "Thought". I come up with this from what I learned about meditation. In meditation there is the teaching that thoughts arise from deep in the mind of people, like a air bubble rising from the sea floor. When one becomes good at meditation, they will be able to contemplate on these thoughts before they reach the surface. I see Aware/Universe/God, as a "Thought", that popped out of "Potential". Some would say, that the universe is the Mind of God. I say what is Mind if not "Thoughts".

I have an easier time seeing "Aware" as a "Thought", that popped out of "Potential" in a "straight line", into the "Abyss of Eternity and Infinity". Then "Will", turned "Aware" back upon itself putting a "Wave" in its "Nature". Thus leaving "Aware" self contained in itself.

@PoPpAScience,

Does this mean that you see the universe being somewhat "limited" within "thoughts"?

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

Does this mean that you see the universe being somewhat "limited" within "thoughts"?

The opposite. I see it as unlimited. Unlimited in the fact that what can be thought of, can be. Now humans are limited in thought. But, "Aware" is only limited to the process of Evolution.

@PoPpAScience,

PoPpAScience wrote:

The opposite. I see it as unlimited. Unlimited in the fact that what can be thought of, can be. Now humans are limited in thought. But, "Aware" is only limited to the process of Evolution.

Now you are almost scaring me, this is somewhat similar to something I "experienced" almost 10 years ago, I somewhat "realized" that this was true, I got a "notion" of something I refered to as the "spectre of thoughts". A somewhat "ever-evolving whole" consisting of "thoughts"

@molok69,

I have always had an easier time seeing thoughts manipulating E=mc^2, to create things. Like how in your own mind you can create what ever you can imagine, with out limit.

I find it so easy to picture "The Thought" ("Aware") manifestating into things. Then, things manifestating into Thoughts.

@PoPpAScience,

Yes I see, but first back to "aware" in the "Paradox of P.." and this act of "will", where did this "come" from?
I`m asking because I find all of this very interesting.

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

Yes I see, but first back to "aware" in the "Paradox of P.." and this act of "will", where did this "come" from?
I`m asking because I find all of this very interesting.

First I'll explain how I see the first moment of "Aware" out of "PoP" (Paradox of Potential). Since everything is relative to the viewer, the first action is only relative to "Aware", and must not be imagined in our context. I like to see PoP as "0" (zero). Now take the equation for the "volume of a sphere" (v=4piR^3/3). Take (R) and make it (-R). If (-R) acts as a number generator that starts at 0 and keeps adding 1 into infinity. You now have "Aware" moving inward into the "Abyss of Infinity and Eternity". This inward movement can only be stopped by "Aware" taking control, by the "Act of Will".

@PoPpAScience,

But how does this "will" occure?, is it something within "aware" that somehow just had to be? There must be an explanaiton to this, for me to stop asking the questions, how? and why?

I have no problems with `potential` or the `pop` and "aware", I also think that I understand "aware" falling in on it self(infinity/eternity), but you say this can only be stopped by "aware" taking control, how is "it" able to? and is there a reason why?

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

But how does this "will" occure?, is it something within "aware" that somehow just had to be? There must be an explanaiton to this, for me to stop asking the questions, how? and why?

I have no problems with `potential` or the `pop` and "aware", I also think that I understand "aware" falling in on it self(infinity/eternity), but you say this can only be stopped by "aware" taking control, how is "it" able to? and is there a reason why?

Just as "Potential" fulfilled the only thing that it could from no-Thing; some-Thing. "Aware" fulfilled the only thing that it could from no-Will; some-Will. After all, "Aware" is inherent with potential. And "Potential", is what it is.

"Aware" has been fulfilling its potential since the moment that it popped into "Being". This is what moves the "Art of Evolution", potential being realized by "Aware". The key to all things, even to this very day, is the never ending fulfilling of potential.

@PoPpAScience,

So if I say:

`Potential` triggered by "`pure coincidence`s premises met", allows `pure coincidence` itself to occur, obviously it did, and together with `potential`, `pure coincidence` sparks ignition to the `process` of "self-creating existence"(somewhat similar to "aware"). The `ignition point` of this `process` existing within itself into infinity,from this `ignition point` the "self-creating existence" expands by `self-confirming` the `potential` changes in the `process` eternally.

This would somewhat make sense to you?

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

So if I say:

`Potential` triggered by "`pure coincidence`s premises met", allows `pure coincidence` itself to occur, obviously it did, and together with `potential`, `pure coincidence` sparks ignition to the `process` of "self-creating existence"(somewhat similar to "aware"). The `ignition point` of this `process` existing within itself into infinity,from this `ignition point` the "self-creating existence" expands by `self-confirming` the `potential` changes in the `process` eternally.

This would somewhat make sense to you?

This does make sense to me, what you are stating. I personally would use "pure coincidence", as a statement, to argue that there does not need to be a motivating factor for the beginning to act as it did. But, I feel that from the moment that "Aware" popped into "Being" it acted the only way that it could. It acted Logically, because of the "Nature of Potential". The "Nature of Potential" is to be more, then it is. "Aware" being born of "Potential", adheres to its inheritance.

The statement you made about "ignition point", to me, is in the "Nature of Potential" itself. Potential is the "ignition point" for all change.

On "self-creating existence", as you stated. To me, it is an expression of "Aware" fulfilling its potential after it became "Cognitive", through the "Act of Will".

molok69 i do not mean to surround your Enlighten statements with my own. But I have no choice. Where you are coming from is the same as I, and many an Enlighten people through out history. The thing is, that I have seen this fact over 25 years ago and decided to try and go a step further. I studied all the great teachings from the Rishies, Buddha, Jesus, and others, trying to get a consensus to the statements they made. Seeing that they all say the same thing, but with what I call different "flavors", I tried to use Logic, as best that I could, to try and explain things one step more modern then in the past. This is not easy, but I must try.

@PoPpAScience,

That it actually makes sense to you, amazes me, as my "gibberish" thinking and ways of expressing them, rarely makes sense to anyone. Showing what I wrote to a average fellow Norwegian, would probably just give a sense of chaotic, randomly chosen words and phrases put on "paper".

Wish someone else would post some thoughts here soon!

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

That it actually makes sense to you, amazes me, as my "gibberish" thinking and ways of expressing them, rarely makes sense to anyone. Showing what I wrote to a average fellow Norwegian, would probably just give a sense of chaotic, randomly chosen words and phrases put on "paper".

Wish someone else would post some thoughts here soon!

You are using words that many eastern thinkers use to describe the living Universe, that is why I recognize them. I also look up words you and others use to get the most exact meaning I can. I do feel that if you use a few more smaller words to fill in your sentences, your point would stand out more.

Yes, it would be nice for others to join in the conversation. But, there are not very many people out there that deal with the Philosophy of metaphysics freely. They almost always only state the visions of others, or do not reply to questions or criticisms about their own visions. I appreciate the questions you asked about my statements. You are the only one to ever do that. It made me dig deeper into my thoughts to come with an answer. Not having to do that before, I found very challenging. Thanks!

@PoPpAScience,

What is the paradox of `potential`?

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

What is the paradox of `potential`?

The paradox of "Potential", is its duel nature. It is a non-something that acts like a something. It is the driving force that inspires the Universe, and yet it has no substance of itself.

Before "Aware" popped into "Being", there was the paradoxical nature of "Potential". It did not exist in form, but gave birth to "Aware". I look at "Potential", as being the only "Now", that is the only "Future".

@PoPpAScience,

Yes, that was what I imagined the paradox to be!

But I need help!

I`m experiencing some language issues with `pure coincidence`, particularly Norwegians pointing out that `co-incidence` must have a cause(at least two) but you still seem to understand what I mean by `pure coincidence`. As someone saying" This could not have happened by pure coincidence, there must have been a reason for this" would this not be somewhat a `normal` phrase, that someone speaking English actually could say?

`Pure coincidence` for me, is in Norwegian `ren tilfeldighet`.

But `coincidence` translated is not `tilfeldighet`.

`Tilfeldighet` translated is `accident, chance, contingency, fortuitousness, haphazardness`.

Is there a better word for my `pure coincidence`?

These language issues are driving me crazy!

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know