Creation Question

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2007 10:11 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Everyone knows that god's name is Harold; "Our father who art in heaven, Harold be thy name!
It is mere silliness to think seriously that 'Consciousness/God/Tao' has a personal name like we. Just more anthropomorphisation...
The 'name' magic is the magic of 'description/context, which is 'existence'. With 'definition (name)' existence is. They arise together. Hence it's 'magical' application in effecting one's 'will' in existence. A simple name alone can do nothing but with an adept, and small magics at that. Hence, hair, fingernail clippings, ears.. are more 'context', more power to effect 'your will' upon that 'person'. All hollow games of the prideful ego.. Fantasy games can be fun, but that is what they are.

My silliness does not concern me. What people think is true they defend. A person's concept of truth they take to heart, and have an emotional attachment to. Is God powerful? Who knows. Is God dangerous? As dangerous as those who would stone you on behalf of God. There is no point in a rational approach to the irrational. Rather; sense it as rocks in a river at night. Think of it as little benefit and much danger. Try to value people who believe in God as wanting to be good, virtuous, and moral. Are they not better in some sense than those trying to be b-a-d bad?

Certainly, what you say is true of hair and fingernails, etc. Which is why people often gave locks of their hair to people they trusted with their love. Still, a name is a dangerous thing.
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2007 04:09 pm
@Fido,
Fido;7215 wrote:
What people think is true they defend.

Exaxtly! 'Belief'!
That is why I don't ordinarily speak in terms of 'true' and 'false' as it is all one to me. One can, within this context, speak of 'best theories', or what is pragmatic and what isn't, or 'lets do the sxperiment and see'... But 'true' holds no real meaning, from this perspective.
But, evidence certainly seems to support your statement.

Quote:
A person's concept of truth they take to heart, and have an emotional attachment to.

Yes, it is emotionally powered prideful ego, and people will commit any atrocity to defend ones egoically attached 'beliefs'. The nature od a belief is that they must survive and propagate.
Again, evidence certainly seems to support your statement.

Quote:
There is no point in a rational approach to the irrational.

A 'rational aproach' might be fine, it just wont be of much use when it finally arives. And history has shown us that an 'irrationality' of one moment/perspective can become a 'rationality' the next.

Quote:
Try to value people who believe in God as wanting to be good, virtuous, and moral.

First, most of the horrors inflicted upon man has been committed by people 'believing in god'. Again, 'belief' acts like a virus that must survive at any cost and propagate; "Convert or die, heathen! Jesus loves you!"
First, at last count, your 'god' doesn't value one person of his 'creation' any more or less than another. Why should, then, I?
"Want"? Want is irrelevent. I don't 'want' to display my foolishness, for the world to see, here, yet I continue (until I don't). Life is what happens while you are busy 'wanting' (which is 'judging' which is 'pride' which, in the 'Godworld/religions', is considered 'sin'.)
We have no choice but to be as we are.

Quote:
Are they not better in some sense than those trying to be b-a-d bad?

That would certainly be a rather 'common' perspective, but with many 'ugly' social ramifications.
Those who are seen 'judgementally' as 'bad' are no more responsible for their nature than anyone else. 'Punishment' is no different then 'reward' in their 'prideful' origin. They both issue from the mouth of the Beast!

Quote:
Still, a name is a dangerous thing.

Hence, mine.
nameless out.
*__-
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2007 07:01 pm
@de Silentio,
Quote:
nameles - Not from this perspective. Your 'thought' arises each moment with the rest of the universe. Your brain is 'created' (mnemonically) in toto, along with everything else in the universe of the momentary memory.


Ah, I see where you are going now. There are two words that confuse me, and I would like you to elaborate on them further: They are mnemonically and toto.

Please give me ample time to work up a response. I will not make the same mistake twice! Smile
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2007 07:29 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;7225 wrote:
Ah, I see where you are going now. There are two words that confuse me, and I would like you to elaborate on them further: They are mnemonically and toto.

The easier one is 'toto', meaning 'total'. 'In toto' meaning in total, 'the whole thing.'
"In toto" does not refer to the location of Dorothy's finger! *__- (sigh)

'Mnemonically/mnemonic' refer to memory. Remember the movie 'Johnny Mnemonic' with J.-C. Van Dam?
Perhaps our experience of existence is no more than a 'momentary' memory (a mnemonic) in (the One) Consciousness/Mind.

Quote:
Please give me ample time to work up a response. I will not make the same mistake twice! Smile

There are times that it might take me 3 or 4 hours to craft a response.
Relax, take your time, don't stress, it's just a dream!

"Besides, why make the same mistake twice when there are so many new mistakes to make." (humor)
Personally, I do not 'believe' in the concept of a 'mistake' as 'error' any more than a 'mistake' of adding too much salt adds to the great fund of 'learning' and 'experience' (which I don't 'believe' in either).
"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole..." -Rene' Guenon
It is (lack of) perspective (context) wherewith we 'judge' existence as error if it 'disagrees' with how we imagine it 'should' be. Vanity, vanity...
 
charles m young
 
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2008 02:08 pm
@nameless,
There is no beginning, but rather phases of thought, phases of concepts, and phases of being. Being that we are finite, we cannot process infinity. Just like something counters nothing, infinite is countered by finite. One cannot exist without the other. Creation is simply a process, and it is ongoing. Our current dimension is consistent; however there are dimensions that are inconsistent. We are subjected to physical limitations, but there are concepts that our original creators are thinking up of physically unlimited dimensions. We ourselves are important in the creation phase, and we need to properly perform our necessary functions to allow creation to continue. Every phase and dimension has had some sort of goal to achieve before it was able to conduct a new phase or dimension in. therefore creation is ongoing and there are infinite finite realms that have been and will be created, as well as infinite infinite realms. Thus creation is a constant phase, and its counter is nonexistence. Just as real as you are, you also do not exist. And all the good things, you are, there is bad as well. This chain of existence is so complex and well encrypted, that it is impossible for the average person to break the codes. There are those who do not want us to understand the truth of our origin, and they set up many systems that would keep us away from the truth. There are also those who desire to show us the truth, but those who don't want us to know set up systems that prevent us from hearing those who would reveal the truth. Finally, the revealers of truth found a loop-hole have passed the truth on to us. It is a very intricate system of formulas and processes that create the results we see in the physical realm. If you would like a more detailed explanation, just ask.
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2008 01:49 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
Ah, I see where you are going now. There are two words that confuse me, and I would like you to elaborate on them further: They are mnemonically and toto.

'In toto' means 'in total'.
'Mnemonically' means having to do with memory. 'Mnemonic' information, is memory content.
Capisce'?
Peace
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2008 02:25 pm
@de Silentio,
I get you. I just havn't had time to sit down and manufacture a good response. (I can come up with a crappy one, but that's no fun)

Perhaps I will have time next week. Because, I really want to respond to your post. Balancing my Son, School, Work, and Philosophy has been difficult this semester.

Peace, Brother.
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2008 07:12 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
I get you. I just havn't had time to sit down and manufacture a good response. (I can come up with a crappy one, but that's no fun)

Perhaps I will have time next week. Because, I really want to respond to your post. Balancing my Son, School, Work, and Philosophy has been difficult this semester.

Peace, Brother.

I look foreward to your thoughtful reply.
I'll have to re-read the thread a bit to catch up to speed. Yeah, life is one hell of a juggling act, form a 'certain' perspective.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if by the time you respond to what I have said, my thoughts on the matter have changed? We'll see...
No rush, though, I am presently limited to a library computer (mine died) and there are 'time constraints' on the usage thereof.
See ya (good luck with the kid, thats a full time job in itself!)
Peace
 
Paxton
 
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2008 02:41 pm
@nameless,
many claim that the reason any faith based religion is an unwise decision is specifically because it requires faith. there is no before hand, common sense evidence to relate this belief to undeniable, verifiable proof and therefore those who believe it should be looked at differently.

there has never been any concrete proof for why we should trust another human being, but we do. there has never been any concrete proof for why we should not interfere with other human beings in our path to success, but some of us maintain that is a good idea not to.

but why? you can defend it however you want, use whatever reason you can, but unless you have EVIDENCE for this' morality's existence outside of the human mind then it's BULL.

you see what i'm getting at? i'm not saying this is a perfect argument, please outline my mistakes so i may improve, but i hope my point comes across ok.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2008 03:37 pm
@de Silentio,
Doesn't this original problem exemplify how all logical and metaphysical problems, in the end, all boil down to the vagaries of language? The operative phrase here is "how old is", which is ambiguous in that it doesn't specify where one is counting from. In colloquial use, in which people are generally not created by God to be adults, that ambiguity is unimportant. But this logical puzzle hinges only on that embedded assumption within the colloquial usage.
 
nameless
 
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2008 05:59 pm
@Paxton,
Paxton wrote:
but unless you have EVIDENCE for this' morality's existence outside of the human mind then it's BULL.

Actually, there is no irrefutable evidence that ANYTHING has it's "existence outside of the human mind". No evidence at all.

Quote:
morality's existence

Is 'morality' not as subjective as each unique individual perspective? Especially as it (morality/pride/ego) seems to have it's 'location' within the 'individual' mind; some 'more', some 'less' some with none and some crawling with it, all balanced?
(Everything exists. Existence is perceived context.)
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2008 07:28 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Actually, there is no irrefutable evidence that ANYTHING has it's "existence outside of the human mind". No evidence at all.
Evidence yes. Proof, no.
Quote:


Is 'morality' not as subjective as each unique individual perspective? Especially as it (morality/pride/ego) seems to have it's 'location' within the 'individual' mind; some 'more', some 'less' some with none and some crawling with it, all balanced?
(Everything exists. Existence is perceived context.)

The most subjective thing in the world is not morality, but life; and yet people manage to concieve of life objectively. So, yes morality is subjective and concieved of objectively. Correct?
 
Paxton
 
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2008 07:30 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Actually, there is no irrefutable evidence that ANYTHING has it's "existence outside of the human mind". No evidence at all.


Does the train coming towards me exist? If it is only within the mind then that means the circumstances can be altered by my will. But we know that death will inevitably occur. It is in this sense that I attribute the fact of existence outside the human mind as it is something that is a truth for any human regardless of mental will.

nameless wrote:
Is 'morality' not as subjective as each unique individual perspective? Especially as it (morality/pride/ego) seems to have it's 'location' within the 'individual' mind; some 'more', some 'less' some with none and some crawling with it, all balanced?
(Everything exists. Existence is perceived context.)

I suppose the question is, if your morals are wrong, are they right because you believe in them? I can accept moral relativism to some extent.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 03:34 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Actually, there is no irrefutable evidence that ANYTHING has it's "existence outside of the human mind". No evidence at all.

Evidence yes. Proof, no.

No 'evidence' that is not easily refuted, hence, no real evidence.

Quote:

Quote:

Is 'morality' not as subjective as each unique individual perspective? Especially as it (morality/pride/ego) seems to have it's 'location' within the 'individual' mind; some 'more', some 'less' some with none and some crawling with it, all balanced?
(Everything exists. Existence is perceived context.)
The most subjective thing in the world is not morality, but life; and yet people manage to concieve of life objectively.

Nothing is "more subjective" than anything else. Subjectivity is not a gradient.
No one conceives anything in the subjective mind that can be objective. The mind conceiver is absolutely subjective as it IS your mind doing the conceiving.

Quote:
So, yes morality is subjective

Yes! It is a pridefully egoic judgemental excersize of the individual ego. Completely subjective.

Quote:
and concieved of objectively. Correct?

Nothing that is 'conceived' in the individual mind, with it's unique perspective, can be 'objective'. There is no 'existence' without individual perspective...
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 03:45 pm
@Paxton,
Paxton wrote:
Does the train coming towards me exist?

Everything exists.

Quote:
If it is only within the mind then that means the circumstances can be altered by my will.

I'm sorry, but this is a non-sequitor.
First you would have to demonstrate that you have a 'will' that can 'alter' anything. I say that is an egoic fantasy, from this perspective.
It is all a done deal, nothing can be 'altered' or 'changed'. Just 'observed' and fantasized about.


Quote:
But we know that death will inevitably occur.

Yes, we are aware of that which appears as death. The 'end' of a perspective...

Quote:
It is in this sense that I attribute the fact of existence outside the human mind as it is something that is a truth for any human regardless of mental will.

Your 'life', your 'universe', your 'concepts of it all' as is your 'death' remain within your mind.


Quote:
I suppose the question is, if your morals are wrong,

I never said 'wrong'. Some 'do' morality, some do not. I do not. I am 'amoral'. That is my nature. Others are 'moral' and that is their nature. No 'right', no 'wrong', just 'is'.

Quote:
are they right because you believe in them?

All those with 'beliefs' believe that they are 'right'! For them, they are right. The problem is when their ego declares a monopoly on their 'truth' and must push it on others as 'the Only Truth', one sixe fits all Truth! That is the viral nature of 'belief'.

Quote:
I can accept moral relativism to some extent.

Good, accepting that which 'is' is a peaceful life.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/01/2021 at 04:35:43