Imagination is more important than knowledge,

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by EmptyForceOfChi, Nov 27, 2005.

  1. onemoment Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    'when that, that is imagined is shown to be true...chemistry table'

    Thinking, does that mean that the imaginary labels are also true? What is true about any arbitrarily divided and labeled 'thing'? Now that physicists have come up with even smaller divisions - labels for them-'quarks' etc, what is the 'actual thing' with a definitive boundary? Before the microscope, there were no smaller divisions. But where does any one 'thing' end and another begin. All these divisions can never be the truth. From outside of the earth, there is no 'human', there is no 'cell' etc, etc. How can a perspective, inclusive of an observer (who always brings the observer bias/slant) ever be truth? Surely truth is something obvious and something we can all agree on.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    no

    since just purely imaginary labels that have no basis in reality



    three dimensional substance

    which has breadth , depth and space



    we can all agree on the fundamental neccesary properties of an object to manifest in the first place , ( above response ) , no matter how small ( for instance the infinity of a Zillon )
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. onemoment Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    Thinking: 'we can all agree on the fundamental neccesary properties of an object to manifest in the first place'

    All we can agree on is the names we give things - it's an agreement - but the words are all created in our imaginations. Do the imagined words really explain or capture the essence of these things? And doesn't everything - knowledge and imagination (if you insist on differentiating them) - rely on a consciousness and/or awareness to exist prior to all appearances that are named?

    Could consciousness/awareness be the only reality, the only truth? Could we not all be this? And if so, what division is there in this awareness except for when we insist there is a 'me' and a thing outside of me that I name (imagination)? And isn't this division arbitrary? Does time, for example, exist only because we now have an arbitrary division of something? Did it not exist before we had named it because we had no notion of this smaller division that we all agreed existed? How can time be real?

    Isn't awareness the only 'fundamental necessary property for all objects to manifest' in the first place? Isn't this something people all around the world, regardless of their belief system have in common and the only truth that we can all agree on?

    What this awareness is, we can never know for certain unless we think that knowing is about naming something and agreeing that that is what it is - that is, that it is this name we have created for an arbitrary division (imagination or a dream).
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
     
  8. onemoment Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    Thinking: the object does not care about being " named " the object is what it is

    So what is the object if it is not the name? What is anything if it is not the name, except obviously consciousness - but again that is just another name - so really everything is, and what it is we cannot imagine, because imagination is words and we agreed that words are not what anything is. Check out the urban guru cafe site if you are starting to get my drift.
     
  9. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207

    The object is what a factual name reffers to.
     
  10. onemoment Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    Swarm: 'a factual name'

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

    Does naming something an agreed word mean that the word is what the object REALLY is?

    And just because I have named something, does it necessarily mean it is a 'something' separate from the whole? Is a cell separate from the body? And then is the body separate from the space it is in? It can certainly never exist outside of space just as a quark cannot exist outside of space.

    Can't you see that just because we have a name for it, it doesn't mean that it really is a separate thing?

    Who came up with these names anyway? Someone imagined them, because they did not exist as a separate part until they were named. And just because we can describe some apparent process, does it mean that this someone who named it named it from some point of truth? No, it is only when we all agree it is 'a factual name' that it becomes an accepted explanation of reality - knowledge (but it came from imagination) - and even then it is not accepted by everyone.

    But don't we all have something in common regardless of the knowledge and imagination we appear to possess? No-one can deny another's consciousness, or livingness (if they are in a comma).

    Imagination and knowledge (if you insist on discriminating between the two) must appear on the truth of what is most important, what we can all agree on - and consciousness is that broth or that container, that commonality. And someone does not need a name for that to know it exists - and what concrete substance doe it have?

    In fact, there is no separation between consciousness and, the imagination and 'knowledge' - you couldn't slide the thinnest piece of paper in the gap between them. There is no gap - don't you always know that you are thinking, even before you have the thought 'I am thinking'? Why? Because that 'knowing' or consciousness is the 'knowing' prior to any translation of the the mind saying 'What a creative and imaginative thing I just thought'.

    And what parts are there in consciousness? Only the parts that the mind (imagination) is naming - but even that is just a story in consciousness (I don't have to think 'I am thinking' to know thinking is happening. Thought is spontaneous and out of your control as is consciousness - one and the same).

    Experience how imagination and knowledge have no experiential difference as they bubble up - they come from nowhere and disappear into nowhere to be recalled or imagined when they are recalled or imagined again. Both ethereal/elusive, as ethereal as consciousness and as ethereal as everything appearing in consciousness when consciousness is seen to be all there is.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  11. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
     
  12. onemoment Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    Thinking:actually experience is first > then knowledge > then comes imagination

    Well, 'experience' is a translation of the moment, 'I had an experience', for example. The translation of that pure experiencing, to turn it into an experience, requires both knowledge (what you term 'knowledge') and imagination.

    If you mean that the first thing is 'experiencing', then yes, I would agree. What is REALLY happening is happening, but anything we say about it turns it into an experience for someone, the 'me', a subject - 'me', and an object - 'sensation'. And can the object appear if there is no subject for it to appear to? No, they are both a part of the equation - they are part of the experiencing. So it does boil down to experiencing, just not an 'experiencer' and an 'experience' - for that is an interpretation relying on imagination and knowledge (and knowledge is nothing more than imagination we agree is now going to be considered 'factual' for communication's sake and there is no reality in that).
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2009
  13. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    so what came first the Earth or you ?
     
  14. onemoment Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    Thinking: so what came first the Earth or you ?

    Consciousness is. It has no beginning and no end. The earth and 'me' appear in consciousness.
     
  15. Ladicius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Wow, you two kept this thread a live for a decent amount of time (by you two..you know who I mean, to lazy to look back and copy your names).

    Let's just go with, neither are worth anything without truth. Making this whole conversation a little frivolous, and me coming back to answer just as frivolous. Simply because words don't provide truth, which would also mean, you can't prove valid any of your knowledge OR anything you've conjured up in your imaginations.

    Ps: Please don't respond what I just said could be a lie

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. onemoment Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    ladicius, you said, to paraphrase, words don't provide truth...so... you can't prove valid (truth) any of your knowledge OR anything you've conjured up in your imaginations.

    Lie or not, it is a brilliant summation (with my minor improvements in paraphrasing)!
     
  17. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    I disagree

    words are the way we get to the truth

    words evolve , language evolves

    and they do because we want to be more precise in what we are trying to explain
     
  18. onemoment Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    Thinking, I have presented my point about words above. What does a belief prove? And what can you possible argue to substantiate this believed in thought of 'yours'.
     
  19. Ladicius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Really? What is your definition of truth.
     
  20. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504

    that which no matter how you look at it , the reality of it can't be denied

    for example the difference between being on land and being on water
     
  21. Ladicius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Haha, well humor me and put yourself in the situation of your parents and everyone else around you telling you that water is dry and hard while the earth is malliable and wet. If you were to tell them the opposite they'd deny it to the end of time. So please give me a more substantial definition of your truth.
     
  22. onemoment Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    Yes, these are both experiences that we have and if we talk about them we can describe the differences but the differences we describe or the story we tell of this experiencing is not the 'truth', the experiencing is the truth.

    The difference or similarities of these two is just a story we tell, and once again we cannot agree on the real story, but we cannot deny the experiencing of being on land or in water.

    'Knowledge' is ever changing and no two people are going to agree on the differences inherent in being on land or in water - and yet no one can deny the experiencing of being on land or in water. The experiencing is the truth, not the story we tell about it.
     
  23. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    and this is rational argument , against my example

    hardly
     

Share This Page