On Creation

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 10:40 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;150340 wrote:
There has to be a good reason for being esoteric, to me, even in the mysticism sense.

The difference between mysticism and poetry is the latter is never trying to be.


I would like to read a full forensic ethnographic treatise with a psych profile on certain mystics. Some seem so mentally unbalanced, others so rock solid. I tend to lean towards the mystic and esoteric myself, I'm hoping I would be a solid lol.
 
Doorsopen
 
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 12:25 pm
@GoshisDead,
trismegisto;149286 wrote:
Let's see if I can clear up my understanding and help you with yours.
For us there are two kinds of love, Love of Self and Love of All. For the Infinite Supreme there is no distinction as the All is the Self. But for us it is a different matter. Every action taken in this universe is done out of Love. Either for Love of Self or Love of All.
Love of Self is essential to the survival of the body in this universe but beyond survival Love of Self is corrupted in greed lust desire etc.
Love of All is the freedom from our Self and a return to the true self.


If Love is an Absolute, it is necessarily incorruptible. If we are to accept that it may be corrupted by attributes which are not Love it cannot be an Absolute.
The concept of Self-Love, is a useful expression; but only if we agree that Self-Love is that which allows us to overcome greed, lust etc as an expression of the true nature of Self.


trismegisto;149286 wrote:
If love leads you to suffering it is because you Love yourself more than All.


Or perhaps because one values Love above the All.

trismegisto;149286 wrote:
But suffering is only a mental state. It is a form of weakness. Everyone has pain that is just a part of life, to endure, is to overcome that pain, to suffer is to become a victim of it.


Endurance of pain is not the same as overcoming pain, it is merely accepting it as a condition of life. To endure pain suggests a resistance to pain. This is not the same as transcending pain. One must confront the source of pain in order to overcome it.

trismegisto;149286 wrote:
As for the Darkness, it is merely nothing, the absence of Love, the absence of good, the absence of everything. But it is still a part of the infinite supreme. The darkness is merely a receptacle for the light of the infinite supreme. The only difference between the light within and the light without is that the light within is not infinite, it has form and limits. The light within is what most religions call God.
I hope that helps some.


Thank you for sharing this. Yes, your ideas do help me to clarify my understanding. I hope that I may offer some points for you to consider as well.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 02:07 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;150224 wrote:
More blathering from a fool. Will it never end?

You have demonstrated time and again that you have no ability for philosophy and yet you continue to troll around embarrassing yourself with you ineptitude?

Do you not even realize how sophmoric you are?
You have no business writing anything in this forum. You should just quietly read and learn.


Let us all surrender to abuse... I am sure if we give up our reason and go quietly we will be treated well, and fairly... Who wants to be first???

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 04:09 PM ----------

sometime sun;151817 wrote:
Snares ought be illegal, elephants get there feet stuck in them and are deformed for life.

I thought they were born that way...And Christians get snared too; but no one cries about them...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 02:30 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;150358 wrote:

True philosophy only exists in the mind and cannot be expressed with words, images or symbols. It is only through story that ideas are ever adequately conveyed from one body to another.

It's my opinion that thought and language are inseparable. For me, thought is unthinkable apart from language. But I include mathematics & music as part of this thought-language.

And when you mention story, is not this just concept arranged in a narrative?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 02:51 pm
@Fido,
Fido;151952 wrote:

I thought they were born that way...And Christians get snared too; but no one cries about them...

That is because a good Christian is crying for all of mankind they are to busy with charity than with gain.
Do you not think Christians with all their judgements ought know better, in fact could they?
Is not the 10 commandments the basis for all law?
Is not law a 'good' thing?
i know, what is a 'good' law or a 'good' Christian?.
Does it not end up being a law unto themselves?
forgetting that law is not just to proclaim the heathen but to teach them?

(little off here)
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 04:22 pm
@Doorsopen,
Doorsopen;151900 wrote:
If Love is an Absolute, it is necessarily incorruptible. If we are to accept that it may be corrupted by attributes which are not Love it cannot be an Absolute.


it is only our understanding that is corrupted.

Doorsopen;151900 wrote:
The concept of Self-Love, is a useful expression; but only if we agree that Self-Love is that which allows us to overcome greed, lust etc as an expression of the true nature of Self.


Love of Self only leads to a life of Necessity. It is exactly what causes greed, lust, etc. It is only through love of All that we can fulfill a life of Destiny and overcome petty issues like greed, lust, etc.

Perhaps you have a different concept of what Love of Self is, would you care to explain your concept? It may just be that we are using different terms to describe the same thought or the same terms to describe two different thoughts




Doorsopen;151900 wrote:
Or perhaps because one values Love above the All.


Only if it is Love of Self above Love of All



Doorsopen;151900 wrote:
Endurance of pain is not the same as overcoming pain, it is merely accepting it as a condition of life. To endure pain suggests a resistance to pain. This is not the same as transcending pain. One must confront the source of pain in order to overcome it.


Endurance of pain only negates Suffering, it does nothing to overcome the pain. To this end I will agree with you



Doorsopen;151900 wrote:
Thank you for sharing this. Yes, your ideas do help me to clarify my understanding. I hope that I may offer some points for you to consider as well.


Anytime I am forced to explain myself my Knowledge of Understanding increases. So you are welcome and thank you.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 03:23 PM ----------

Fido;151952 wrote:
Let us all surrender to abuse... I am sure if we give up our reason and go quietly we will be treated well, and fairly... Who wants to be first???


Clearly, you should be first.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 03:36 PM ----------

Reconstructo;151968 wrote:
It's my opinion that thought and language are inseparable. For me, thought is unthinkable apart from language. But I include mathematics & music as part of this thought-language.


Thought exists long before language. Language was created to convey thought from one body to another. However, if you hold that the information contained within a cell is language, then I can see where you are coming from.

In my experience there is a difference between this exchange of material information and the exchange of intelligible information called thought.

It is only this symbolic exchange of thought between two bodies that I refer to when I say language.

Reconstructo;151968 wrote:
And when you mention story, is not this just concept arranged in a narrative?


Yes, but it is a crude arrangement of concept as words are never entirely accurate.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 03:38 PM ----------

sometime sun;151977 wrote:
That is because a good Christian is crying for all of mankind they are to busy with charity than with gain.
Do you not think Christians with all their judgements ought know better, in fact could they?
Is not the 10 commandments the basis for all law?
Is not law a 'good' thing?
i know, what is a 'good' law or a 'good' Christian?.
Does it not end up being a law unto themselves?
forgetting that law is not just to proclaim the heathen but to teach them?

(little off here)


It is precisely because they are Christians. Keep in mind that there is a vast chasm between Christians and disciples of Jesus.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 06:32 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;152012 wrote:

Thought exists long before language. Language was created to convey thought from one body to another. However, if you hold that the information contained within a cell is language, then I can see where you are coming from.

In my experience there is a difference between this exchange of material information and the exchange of intelligible information called thought.

It is only this symbolic exchange of thought between two bodies that I refer to when I say language.

I think I see where you are coming from. Yes, there is structure/design presumably that was here before language...but I would argue that language makes this structure aware of itself. You might say that the Supreme looks at itself using Humans (and other species) as eyes. Now, I would probably just use X for the supreme, or maybe "the Absolute", as the ground of existence remains mysterious to me. But the idea is the same. I've heard it expressed this way. Man is the universe's way of seeing itself.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 07:35 PM ----------

trismegisto;152012 wrote:

Yes, but it is a crude arrangement of concept as words are never entirely accurate.


I agree with Jung, and perhaps yourself?, that myth can reach places that abstract language cannot. And for me this is related to the power of music and visual art, which have a sensual-emotional component which adds the fullness of the message. I also agree w/ Hegel that Christianity is the absolute religion in that it's Incarnation myth is the "truth" in symbolic form. God is a mortal man. This is not to deny the mystery he is immersed in, but Hegel might argue that would he is immersed in is himself, as all distinctions are contingent. Smile
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2010 07:06 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;152050 wrote:
I think I see where you are coming from. Yes, there is structure/design presumably that was here before language...but I would argue that language makes this structure aware of itself. You might say that the Supreme looks at itself using Humans (and other species) as eyes. Now, I would probably just use X for the supreme, or maybe "the Absolute", as the ground of existence remains mysterious to me. But the idea is the same. I've heard it expressed this way. Man is the universe's way of seeing itself.


"I was a hidden treasure and I yearned to be known. So I created in order to become in my creations the object of my knowledge."


Reconstructo;152050 wrote:
I agree with Jung, and perhaps yourself?, that myth can reach places that abstract language cannot. And for me this is related to the power of music and visual art, which have a sensual-emotional component which adds the fullness of the message. I also agree w/ Hegel that Christianity is the absolute religion in that it's Incarnation myth is the "truth" in symbolic form. God is a mortal man. This is not to deny the mystery he is immersed in, but Hegel might argue that would he is immersed in is himself, as all distinctions are contingent. Smile


It has been said that Man is the mortal God and God is the Immortal Man.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 10:13 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;152075 wrote:

It has been said that Man is the mortal God and God is the Immortal Man.


I've often wondered about the applicable validity of opposition metaphors in mystic traditions. Why are they applied so often? What are we supposed to gain from them? When the two ends of the metaphor cancel each other, what is left to understand?

But I do know that they meake a great Chuck Norris Joke structure.
Chuck Norris doesn't do push ups, he pushes the Earth down.
 
Baal
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 10:27 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;152050 wrote:

I agree with Jung, and perhaps yourself?, that myth can reach places that abstract language cannot. And for me this is related to the power of music and visual art, which have a sensual-emotional component which adds the fullness of the message. I also agree w/ Hegel that Christianity is the absolute religion in that it's Incarnation myth is the "truth" in symbolic form. God is a mortal man. This is not to deny the mystery he is immersed in, but Hegel might argue that would he is immersed in is himself, as all distinctions are contingent. Smile


The myth serves more of a purpose of edification and reification than anything else; even if the myth reaches places that abstract language does not, it is precisely because the myth in its supposed simplicity does not try to make a statement or sound clever. Rather the myth in itself embodies such a wry simplicity that it begets the inner Absolute as such, in its simple, non expansive and non-becoming state. The creation myth itself reflects this on a macrocosmic, collective scale, but the point still stands.

{added
Thus the myth only reaches a place that is known to exist in the first place, or rather, the myth creates that place rather violently, and it is up to the listener/reader/participant to actually agree to the formation of this myth in the first place. The same goes for art and music, to a lesser degree; there is a subtle appreciation for the inherent latent aesthetic which must itself be affirmed before it can be reached. Language on the other hand creates these realities, if ever so slowly and subtly - and as such it perhaps does not sound as glorious or transcendent as the other forms of aesthetics mentioned above, nevertheless language has a formative effect; in Hegelian terms, language is the only medium in which something is truly in a state of becoming, because it does not violently point in any direction}

For Hegel, as he perceives Christianity as being both the mortal and the Spirit, but the Individual and Universal, would naturally be the absolute as such, or rather vice versa; since it is the Absolute, it provides an absolute transcendent incarnation myth which fits in well both with the collectivist and individual notion of Spirit etc. etc.
 
William
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 02:38 pm
@trismegisto,
There is no proof of a creation of anything from our vantage point. None! All that is evident we do recognize is but a continuation of something else. Something else to something else. If anyone can identify a creation of anything, please make it known! It is an assumption at best. If one can identify what nothing is, please do so. Love is the complimentary/complementary union of something with something else. Nothing ever existed nor will it ever as far as we will ever be able to determine.

William
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 05:50 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;152312 wrote:
I've often wondered about the applicable validity of opposition metaphors in mystic traditions. Why are they applied so often? What are we supposed to gain from them? When the two ends of the metaphor cancel each other, what is left to understand?


That there is no difference between God and Man(men).
The differences in both direction are an illusion.

As above, so below.

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 04:54 PM ----------

William;152464 wrote:
There is no proof of a creation of anything from our vantage point. None! All that is evident we do recognize is but a continuation of something else. Something else to something else. If anyone can identify a creation of anything, please make it known! It is an assumption at best. If one can identify what nothing is, please do so. Love is the complimentary/complementary union of something with something else. Nothing ever existed nor will it ever as far as we will ever be able to determine.

William


The fact that you exist is proof of creation. The fact that you cannot create yourself proves that you were created. The fact that nothin within the universe including the universe can create itself is proof that everything within the universe including the universe itself was created.

As to the nature of creation, that relies entirely upon ones ability to consciously contemplate the nature of creation.
 
William
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 06:41 pm
@trismegisto,
I understand what you are trying to say and it the assumption of many. I, for one can't conceive of a time when there was nothing. The only thing I can imagine is always something. Creation is the something from nothing and I can't imagine that ever happening. No matter how small we go, we find something there, always have. See what I mean? So again I ask show me nothing and I will believe you. Promise!

william
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 07:13 pm
@William,
William;152535 wrote:
I understand what you are trying to say and it the assumption of many. I, for one can't conceive of a time when there was nothing. The only thing I can imagine is always something. Creation is the something from nothing and I can't imagine that ever happening. No matter how small we go, we find something there, always have. See what I mean? So again I ask show me nothing and I will believe you. Promise!

william

I do have to agree with William on this one to some degree. Let me try and give a poor example, Even god would have to come from something as I was taught. My teaching or perception very well can be wrong. let me try again, I see it to be some sort of miracle that a god could exist from nothing. let me try to go deeper with this thought.

Many seem to think that we would have to be created as we are to complex for all of what we can see to have just been randomly taken place. I would think that we would be taking a greater leap of faith or a step further to say that all of what we preceive existed in one thing called a god and to have a ability to to do every thing possible.

I am by no means saying that I understand all of this but if one can not give me proof without a shadow of a doubt I would think that a person that believs without proof is just as unknowing as I am but as Socrates said I am better off as I realise That I know nothing.Smile
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 07:36 pm
@William,
William;152535 wrote:
I understand what you are trying to say and it the assumption of many. I, for one can't conceive of a time when there was nothing. The only thing I can imagine is always something. Creation is the something from nothing and I can't imagine that ever happening. No matter how small we go, we find something there, always have. See what I mean? So again I ask show me nothing and I will believe you. Promise!

william


Don't think of Creation as something from Nothing, rather think of it as something from within Nothing.

But keep in mind that when I say Creation I am not talking about the Universe. The Universe is just one aspect of Creation.

Instead of trying to think of Nothing alone, first think of the Infinite Supreme. When you think of the Infinite Supreme think of Everything including nothing. Try and understand when I say that "everything" is different from "every thing." Every Thing is all that is within the Universe. Everything is all that is.

It may be easiest to think of the infinite supreme as a fog of sorts. A dense fog without end. Everything representing a white color and Nothing representing a black color.

(this isn't a very good analogy but its the simplest way to convey the thought)

Now imagine that some of the nothing condenses together in one place within the Infinite Supreme.

(Not all of the nothing because there is an infinite amount of nothing.)

This creates a pocket of nothing. Then, into this pocket, more fog pours in. the only difference between the fog outside the pocket and the fog inside the pocket is that one is outside of the pocket and the other is inside of the pocket. But this is a crucial difference. Now, the Everything including Nothing as limits. It is bound within the nothing.

(bound is not really a good word, its not like it is stuck there, but you get the idea)

This Light Within is what is considered by most religions to be God. From the pure light within (the CREATOR) this same cycle of separation of everything and nothing is continuously repeating itself in a sort of reverse Fibonacci sequence until we arrive at the sphere of life, where the process is reversed and the journey back to the Infinite Supreme begins.

With Science we can observe the Universe and see how this pattern gets smaller and smaller down to quarks, that is, every thing is part something and part nothing (that something ultimately being the pure everything of the Infinite Supreme, but science hasn't gotten that small yet). We can also see how once we reach the Sphere of life the process is reversed and the ascent is begun.

in plant life wecan witness it in how flowers balance or how cabbage grows, in animal life we can see it in shells and how rams don't have to adjust there stance over their lives even though their horns continuously spiral out.


I would suggest that if "something from nothing" is your problem then simply dismiss it.

Substitute it with: something from within nothing that is within everything including nothing.
 
William
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 04:16 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;152566 wrote:
Don't think of Creation as something from Nothing, rather think of it as something from within Nothing.


It seems you are trying to conceive infinity. That's a tall order Tri......as you might, ha! Hey, pun intended. Always wanted to do that. But still you are asking me to believe the same just drawing a different picture. No one can conceive such a thing from our view point.

I am with you on the all, boundless light and infinite supreme and all that. There aren't enough superlatives to define what ALL IS and I commend you in your effort.

Yes, at best, it is our best guess that we were "created", and yes it is likely we possibly were, but fathoming and comprehending and understanding all that is so far beyond esoteric it stifles the imagination. It's always been a popular discussion and an unanswerable one if god created the universe, who, then, created god? Mind bogglers and that's all they are. If it all the same to everybody, I don't concern my with such boggling stuff; there are many 'somethings' to occupy my mind. As a matter of a fact and I have mentioned this before here, the first "long word" I spelled was SOMETHING. I was so proud of myself. All my peers were still on three and four letter words and I was all the way up to something, ha! Nine letters in one word all in the 'write' order spelled correctly. Gold star for me, ha!

So yes something means something to me and nothing means nothing and you ask me to imagine it and I can't possibly do that and no one can definitively in such a way all will understand. So I ask why do it? Is it you feel it is ALL or NOTHING? Is that the notion that compelled you to include nothing in the all?

From our vantage point, yes, nothing exists but that is not all that god is. Defining all the god is, is mind boggling,.......literally; intellectually or emotionally overwhelming; "a mind-boggling display"; "a mind-boggling puzzle".........and we are among his so many pieces.

When we focus on something is better than boggle us with nothing in a description of something. And god, at best is SOMETHING else all together and we are part of that togetherness.

Tri I could go on and on and on in trying to define what nothing is and it will get us to exactly where nothing is...................NO WHERE. We are spinning our wheels, so to speak, to do that; you may not think that, but I do and it is here we have our quandary as it applies to all. Some do some don't and we kill each other because of that....................literally. And that is where we are spinning our wheels tragically, catastrophically leaving as far as we can realize NOTHING in it's wake. I care not to think of what that nothing will be nor will I where nothing is concerned.

I know you want me to think like you but I can't do that; no one can. All we will ever to is think together positively as one separately developing a synergy of perpetual motion in one direction. Let's hope it will be a positive one as far as we are all concerned.

trismegisto;152566 wrote:
It may be easiest to think of the infinite supreme as a fog of sorts. A dense fog without end.


Sorry, tri, it's difficult to see in a fog and I don't have the foggiest notion of a god in that respect. If you do, then all I can do is wish you well in your journey.

trismegisto;152566 wrote:
With Science we can observe the Universe and see how this pattern gets smaller and smaller down to quarks, that is, every thing is part something and part nothing (that something ultimately being the pure everything of the Infinite Supreme, but science hasn't gotten that small yet).


Observe the entire universe? From our vantage point at best it is a dim and foggy one yet in and of itself it is as clear as day. As far as science getting that small? I think that will be mighty risky; look at what we did with the atom. Perhap we will become nothing as long as we consciously attempt to look for it. God help us if we do ever find it. I care not to even attempt to visualize that, let alone imagine it.

trismegisto;152566 wrote:
We can also see how once we reach the Sphere of life the process is reversed and the ascent is begun. In plant life wecan witness it in how flowers balance or how cabbage grows, in animal life we can see it in shells and how rams don't have to adjust there stance over their lives even though their horns continuously spiral out.


I do agree we do see it in nature. But of the animal, what about the parthenogenesis we recognise in "some" of that life. How about that as it relates to us?

trismegisto;152566 wrote:
I would suggest that if "something from nothing" is your problem then simply dismiss it.


No problem and I do.

trismegisto;152566 wrote:
Substitute it with: something from within nothing that is within everything including nothing.


Nothing is nothing. I will always have a difficult time substituting any thing in it's place by proxy. If that is what you choose or imagine, so be it as far as you are concerned and I wish you well in your journey as you offer to others any conception of nothing. That has always been the case in any discussion of what god is; far beyond any one's ability to understand it. All it can do is create more confusion illustrated by Schrodinger's cat, Sokol's hoax, Dawkins' delusion, and Darwin's flawed original thinking. Personally I prefer Popeye's exclamation: "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam"! Colloquially speaking, of course. Speaking of which.....what's in a name, huh...................

.................Williyam :a-ok:
 
Doorsopen
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:59 am
@trismegisto,
I look forward to catching up with the posts I've missed the last day or so. But offer, along with my latest thoughts, the attached video sequence as a visual metaphor for the illusion of the emergence of 'something' from 'nothing' currently under discussion.
In this instance crystals emerge from a liquid solution where the presence of crystals is not at all perceivable. The necessary material for the formation of crystals is suspended in a liquid solution and a change in the circumstance of the solution releases this potential to allow for the emergence of the crystals from the solution. This is helpful in overcoming the perception that something which did not exist appears suddenly to come into being: YouTube - crystal formation

To further this metaphor ... in the instance of a saline solution, the crystals are not static, they emerge and dissolve into the solution with only slightly variations to the appearance of the crystal. The crystal appears to have solid form, but on closer examination, one may observe the fluctuation between existing and non-existing, the crystal appears to be stable, but the particles which form it are not at all stable. I use this as a model for understanding the emergence of reality from the All, it appears to be stable and unchanging, but is sustained through a continual fluctuating process. Reality is constantly emerging and dissolving back into its source.

trismegisto;152012 wrote:
Love of Self only leads to a life of Necessity. It is exactly what causes greed, lust, etc. It is only through love of All that we can fulfill a life of Destiny and overcome petty issues like greed, lust, etc.
Perhaps you have a different concept of what Love of Self is, would you care to explain your concept? It may just be that we are using different terms to describe the same thought or the same terms to describe two different thoughts


Yes, I find the expression 'Self-Love' as you use it misleading. The lower desires and power drives are formed in what we would call the ego, so I would refer to this concept of love-of-self as Ego.

Love is an attribute of God, but not the entire nature of God. I consider Love to be that creative force within the Universe which brings into being. In Hebrew tradition this is equivalent to Boreh, God the Creator, or Al-Khāliq in Islamic tradition. Hindu philosophy expresses this most clearly as Brahma as an offspring of Brahman. When I mention valuing Love above the All, I am making reference to this error of valuing an attribute above the source of this attribute. So, yes, I may, under this definition be compelled to value Love above all else, and by creating such a hierarchy of belief, de-value all else. Simply stated, it's loving the gift above the giver of the gift.

Nor am I suggesting that I love myself beyond that of which I am part. I stand in awe of the Universe and do not believe myself more entitled to the gifts of the Universe above any other entity which forms part of this fabric. The struggle, I am trying to come to terms with is aptly describe in this quote I recently encountered in Rilke:

"To have courage for the most strange, the most singular and the mast inexplicable that we may encounter. That mankind has in this sense been cowardly has done life endless harm; the experiences that are called "visions," the whole so-called "spirit world," death and all those things that are so closely akin to us, have by daily parrying been so crowded out of life that the senses by which we could have grasped them are atrophied. To say nothing Of God."

I am a coward in the Face of Love and because I value Love above myself, I cannot be in harmony with this attribute, and instead hold it away from myself for fear of its realisation within me.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 11:59 am
@William,
William;152692 wrote:
It seems you are trying to conceive infinity. That's a tall order Tri......as you might, ha! Hey, pun intended. Always wanted to do that. But still you are asking me to believe the same just drawing a different picture. No one can conceive such a thing from our view point.


There is a difference between conceiving and communicating. With the proper conscious contemplation we can conceive of everything but we are always limited on what things we can communicate to others.

William;152692 wrote:
I am with you on the all, boundless light and infinite supreme and all that. There aren't enough superlatives to define what ALL IS and I commend you in your effort.


Thank you

William;152692 wrote:
Yes, at best, it is our best guess that we were "created", and yes it is likely we possibly were, but fathoming and comprehending and understanding all that is so far beyond esoteric it stifles the imagination.


It is entirely possible for any individual to know of creation and the nature of the universe, however the difficulty lies in conforming this knowledge to language that is understandably communicated.


William;152692 wrote:
It's always been a popular discussion and an unanswerable one if god created the universe, who, then, created god?


The Infinite Supreme

William;152692 wrote:
Mind bogglers and that's all they are. If it all the same to everybody, I don't concern my with such boggling stuff; there are many 'somethings' to occupy my mind. As a matter of a fact and I have mentioned this before here, the first "long word" I spelled was SOMETHING. I was so proud of myself. All my peers were still on three and four letter words and I was all the way up to something, ha! Nine letters in one word all in the 'write' order spelled correctly. Gold star for me, ha!


I can understand how it would seem that way. But the fact that every religion in every culture throughout time has differing stories for the same thoughts demonstrates the universality of knowledge. We like to think that its all subjective, but, in point of fact, it is not.

William;152692 wrote:
So yes something means something to me and nothing means nothing and you ask me to imagine it and I can't possibly do that and no one can definitively in such a way all will understand. So I ask why do it? Is it you feel it is ALL or NOTHING? Is that the notion that compelled you to include nothing in the all?


Every thing is part nothing, that's just the nature of existence. You should be able to imagine anything. Perhaps you have an imaginative block, I am sure with some practice you can get over it if you really wanted to.

William;152692 wrote:
From our vantage point, yes, nothing exists but that is not all that god is. Defining all the god is, is mind boggling,.......literally; intellectually or emotionally overwhelming; "a mind-boggling display"; "a mind-boggling puzzle".........and we are among his so many pieces.


First you have to realize that you are not "his" so much as you are "him"

William;152692 wrote:
When we focus on something is better than boggle us with nothing in a description of something. And god, at best is SOMETHING else all together and we are part of that togetherness.


When people first start consciously contemplating Nothing it can be quite scary. The first moment of realization puts one in direct contact with death and most are not ready for such things.

From what you are posting however, it seems as though you want the answers without having to do the work. You have to actively make time to consciously contemplate these thoughts or it will never make any sense. The fact that whenever conscious contemplation is implemented no matter the place, time, or culture, the same answers are reached is just more evidence to a non-subjective reality.

William;152692 wrote:
Tri, I could go on and on and on in trying to define what nothing is and it will get us to exactly where nothing is...................NO WHERE. We are spinning our wheels, so to speak, to do that. You may not think that, but I do and it is here we have our quandary as it applies to all. Some do some don't and we kill each other because of that....................literally. And that is where we are spinning our wheels tragically, catastrophically leaving as far as we can realize NOTHING in it's wake. I care not to think of what that nothing will be nor will I where nothing is concerned.


Nothing is quite well defined I think and I feel that the reason we are spinning our wheels as you put it is that you refuse to contemplate the topic which you are not able to understand. However, just because you are not capable (of yet) to understand nothing really has no relevance as to the validity of the existence of nothing. It is merely beyond your individual understanding. From you post you come across as just sticking your head in the sand. I am sure this is not really the case, but that is what was communicated to me through your post.

William;152692 wrote:
I know you want me to think like you but I can't do that; no one can. All we will ever to is think together positively as one, separately developing a synergy of perpetual motion in one direction. Let's hope it will be a positive one as far as we are all concerned.


I am quite certain that if you attempt to consciously contemplate your place in the universe on a regular basis then you will begin to think just like me before too long. This is how humans have thought for over a hundred thousand years. It was only one thousand years ago that religious men taught humanity to be insane.



William;152692 wrote:
Sorry, tri, it's difficult to see in a fog and I don't have the foggiest notion of a god in that respect. If you do, then all I can do is wish you well in your journey.


If you cannot even try then how do you ever expect to learn?

William;152692 wrote:
Observe the entire universe? From our vantage point at best it is a dim and foggy one yet in and of itself it is as clear as day. As far as science getting that small? I think that will be mighty risky; look at what we did with the atom. Perhaps we will become nothing as long as we consciously attempt to look for it. God help us if we do ever find it. I care not to even attempt to visualize that, let alone imagine it.


I don't understand the point in this section can you rephrase it for me?



William;152692 wrote:
I do agree we do see it in nature. But of the animal, what about the parthenogenesis we recognize in "some" of that life. How about that as it relates to us?


If you can understand that all knowledge is remembered and accept that the knowledge of your ancestors is available to you through conscious contemplation, then you will begin to see the lines of human parthenogenesis as they truly exist


William;152692 wrote:

Nothing is nothing. I will always have a difficult time substituting any thing in it's place by proxy. If that is what you choose or imagine, so be it as far as you are concerned and I wish you well in your journey as you offer to others any conception of nothing. That has always been the case in any discussion of what god is; far beyond any one's ability to understand it. All it can do is create more confusion illustrated by Schrodinger's cat, Sokol's hoax, Dawkins' delusion, and Darwin's flawed original thinking. Personally I prefer Popeye's exclamation: "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam"! Colloquially speaking, of course. Speaking of which.....what's in a name, huh...................


I think you will reach a point where you realize that everything is conceivable and that your limits merely lie in your ability to communicate that which you have knowledge of.

Communication has always been the hindrance and most likely always will be. Fortunately for us when we choose to consciously contemplate what others have communicated to us the communication barrier dissolves.

There are no subjective realities, just differing levels of understanding.

---------- Post added 04-16-2010 at 11:04 AM ----------

Doorsopen;152830 wrote:
Yes, I find the expression 'Self-Love' as you use it misleading. The lower desires and power drives are formed in what we would call the ego, so I would refer to this concept of love-of-self as Ego.

Love is an attribute of God, but not the entire nature of God. I consider Love to be that creative force within the Universe which brings into being. In Hebrew tradition this is equivalent to Boreh, God the Creator, or Al-Khāliq in Islamic tradition. Hindu philosophy expresses this most clearly as Brahma as an offspring of Brahman. When I mention valuing Love above the All, I am making reference to this error of valuing an attribute above the source of this attribute. So, yes, I may, under this definition be compelled to value Love above all else, and by creating such a hierarchy of belief, de-value all else. Simply stated, it's loving the gift above the giver of the gift.

Nor am I suggesting that I love myself beyond that of which I am part. I stand in awe of the Universe and do not believe myself more entitled to the gifts of the Universe above any other entity which forms part of this fabric. The struggle, I am trying to come to terms with is aptly describe in this quote I recently encountered in Rilke:

"To have courage for the most strange, the most singular and the mast inexplicable that we may encounter. That mankind has in this sense been cowardly has done life endless harm; the experiences that are called "visions," the whole so-called "spirit world," death and all those things that are so closely akin to us, have by daily parrying been so crowded out of life that the senses by which we could have grasped them are atrophied. To say nothing Of God."

I am a coward in the Face of Love and because I value Love above myself, I cannot be in harmony with this attribute, and instead hold it away from myself for fear of its realisation within me.


Okay, I think that clears that up. Your Self-Love is different than my Love of Self but I see where you are coming from now that I understand your terms. Thanks.
 
Doorsopen
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 06:54 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;152855 wrote:
First you have to realize that you are not "his" so much as you are "him"



trismegisto;152855 wrote:
When people first start consciously contemplating Nothing it can be quite scary. The first moment of realization puts one in direct contact with death and most are not ready for such things.



trismegisto;152855 wrote:
This is how humans have thought for over a hundred thousand years. It was only one thousand years ago that religious men taught humanity to be insane.


Just stringing together your pearls of wisdom to avoid them being lost and scattered ! Thanks for these.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 10:00 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;152075 wrote:

It has been said that Man is the mortal God and God is the Immortal Man.

I can relate to this. Blake liked the phrase "Human Form Divine." In my opinion, Kant offered us the transcendental, which is a sort of eternal human nature, and then Hegel added the historical element, the element that must and can only develop in time. So we end up with the collision of time and eternity, essence and accident, concept and sensation. I speak this next line metaphorically: god exists only in man and man exists only in god.

For me it's all concept, metaphor, etc. But then that's all there is. For me that is "reality", or at least its organizing intelligible essence. (What can we say of sensation in itself? We can paradoxically point to the non-conceptual by means of the conceptual. No wonder musicians and painters are necessary. They deal with sensation directly.

---------- Post added 04-17-2010 at 11:17 AM ----------

trismegisto;152512 wrote:
That there is no difference between God and Man(men).
The differences in both direction are an illusion.
As above, so below.

I agree. Of course it's open to all sorts of misinterpretation, but that's the risk of philosophy. I also see Blake and Hegel as having this general view. Cruder forms of religion can be viewed as self-alienation, as an inferior stage of self-consciousness. A necessary stage of double vision? It seems to me that enough "self"-consciousness leads to a recognition of our concepts as concepts. We start to see God as man's creation but also that this creation of man also creates man, as our projected ideals are the motor of self-consciousness. I also think that self-consciousness leads a to questioning of what "self" can actually mean. I think the self as an island is a fantasy, that the self and the world (including the other self-consciousnesses) interpenetrate, and that the self-other dichotomy can also be described as illusory.

But I can't deny how useful and natural these illusions sometimes are. And I see how a critic can accuse this sort of philosophy as being impractical, poetic, obscure. I can sympathize with the accusations of impractical or poetic, but I don't really think it's obscure. It's just against the grain of certain religious/philosophical comforts. :Glasses:
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/20/2019 at 12:23:00