A 4a.m. Ranting: revolutionary, or simply incoherent.

In an effort to understand ourselves we must know our origins. Science tells us the facts, the basics, but science itself is a complex and dynamic system. As we uncover its mysteries and unlock its heavy blast doors, newer, longer, and more labyrinthine corridors follow. Hence for one to attain a sense of mental satiety, albeit an assuaging contrivance, he must invoke his own intuition, his pure "Thought Science." As the Great Einstein himself so fruitfully did, one must dive to the unfathomable depths of his own mind, maybe even to form his own legacy, a reverberating paradigm shift, akin to the Theory of Relativity and its profundity. But of course, what is more profound than the beginning....the end....perhaps?

Many a time I wonder what good is it.... to understand the world, our existence, and not simply wade through its murky waters without ever seeing its soul, merely touching it with our calloused feet? If I simply ignore my ignorance, I will never worry over such “inanities”.... But I have come to conclude that ignoring one’s naivete and passing by a Knowledge who stares idly in wait of a mind to house it, only further agitates one’s innate drive to comprehend himself. I have also come to conclude, however, that science and philosophy are one in the same, no man will ever comprehend this world by science alone. This.... is a matter of existence. It is inescapable, inexorable, omnipresent, omniscient , there is nothing that is beyond it, it is.... existence. Anything one can ever describe, anything that can ever be thought, any thing that can only be indentified as indescribable, rendered nonexistent, any thing that is nothing- exists. It is impossible to be beyond existence. So what does this tell us, prehaps, does it give a glimpse of eternity, a taste of infinity? no. These things have no real existence but within our minds as a by- product of relativity, for relative to a point, a line segment is infinite, but for every infinity there is a line segment that it constitutes.

If I, or anyone for that matter, were to realize that we understood existence, that we finally saw “infinity” in its line segment state, its magnificence may be so overwhelming that the mind must shut down, it must destroy itself to create meaning within this meaningless existence. Yes...meaningless. Although many find it too depressingly veracious to be reality, it nonetheless is; there is no “this” without “that”, there is no “good” without “evil”, there is no “life” without “death”, there is no “I” without “not I”, there is no “veracity” without “falsehood”, nor is the converse of each statement true. No thing exists without its opposite to define it. It is the ultimate and quintessential duality law of reality, the reality of the mind. To see the line segement is to rid the mind its fundamental stratagem. All that is, all that was, and all that can be, is seen in its single pith, its “kernel” form.

To see the kernel may very well extinguish any purpose we as sentient beings could possibly have....Then again what purpose can purpose itself have....Ah! I have forgotten, such a thing is nonexistent outside the realm of surreality. Still more, surreality is only the reality that is “not mine”. Further yet, “mine” is only that which I assume as “not, not mine”. To say “this statement is false” is to say that it is false in being false, thus veracity lies in untruth, thereby being that untruth is not truly false, but in fact true...:- a paradox. To say “this statement is true”, is equally to say, it is falsely false; for falsehood to be determined, though, I must be existing in a reality, but in a reality where “this statment is true” how can I say that “this statement is false” for the word is denotes existence, moreover existence is only assumed where one observes or would observe something, and one can only observe something that is veritable/real. Ergo, in order to differentiate truth from untruth I have to observe the statement that I am trying to categorize as truth or untruth in the state of reality and surreality simultaneously-seperate...:- a paradox. In other words, I can only differentiate truth from untruth by first saying both are true in each reality, and equally false in each reality, then I must go on to say that only one ‘reality’ is real. I must say that “mine” is what I prefer as mine, after assuming both to be mine, merely to define “mine” as the relatively-preferred frame of reference...:- a paradox...a paradox, in fact, that implies truth does not exist, nor surreality, nor falsehood, thusly it implies that falsehood cannot exist within paradox.

The Paradox! Is it the quintessence? Yes....good cannot exist without evil, veracity without truth, therefore the duality of nature, the laws that define perception, the “veritables” that comprises observation, that constitute reality, purpose, causality, existence, all of them- a product of paradox.Yes...the paradox! The paradox from which all opposites are based on, the premises of duality; good-evils, veracious-fallacies, now-thens, this-thats, nonexistent-existences, cause-effects....this world is Paradox, absolutely.

Tell me my friends...what refutes Relativity with a greater irrefutability than Paradox itself?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will not attempt to answer your questions, but I will offer another POV:
We don't *understand* the world and ourselves in the strict sense of the word 'understand'.
We are only acquainted with the world and ourselves and are able to live with them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I perceive a flaw to your argument, Sir. With all due respect, I will attempt to explain just how it is that I find your argument flawed.

Your argument: Although many find it too depressingly veracious to be reality, it nonetheless is; there is no “this” without “that”, there is no “good” without “evil”, there is no “life” without “death”, there is no “I” without “not I”, there is no “veracity” without “falsehood”, nor is the converse of each statement true. No thing exists without its opposite to define it.

Whereas I will agree that to define a small box, one must be acquainted with boxes of various sizes; otherwise, one would not know whether or not a box was "small." However, this certainly does not give us cause to say that if there were no large or medium-sized boxes, there could be no small ones. "Small might, and surely would cease to have meaning, if all boxes were destroyed except for the small ones; nonetheless, those boxes, once called small would still exist, even if we called them crates. It it the term that loses its power of existence, not the the particular.

This is also true of other types of opposites. Without light, we have darkness. So, what is darkness? Matter? What is it? It is the absence of light. It has no quality that we can easily describe, except that we cannot see things when it is dark, and this same limitation can be accomplished by simply applying a blindfold. In truth, however, taking away the entrance of light to the eyes that are covered amounts to taking away the light. Even though light was not removed from the room, it was unable to extend, and extend is what light does, right?

To rid ourselves of darkness, we have lights. When we flip the switch, bring a lantern, a candle, a match, we have light. Where does the darkness go? It does not go; extinguish the light! See, it is still there. Therefore, we probably agree that the way to rid ourselves of dark places is to bring light to those places, or arrange them differently so that light can come in. In any event, light must be, and must able to extend into that place we no longer wish to be dark.

So, what if something extraordinary happened, and there was no light. Are you saying there could be no darkness? Nonsense.

Tell me what I missed in your point. ......Thank you. pmt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

P.M.

The term itself is the definition of the "particular" for in order for it to be particular, it must be defined particularly. And that is my point.

Actually...wrong. I see you have missed many of my points. The light to you does NOT exist unless you assume there is an existence outside of your own, which in actuality there isn't. If you were born without eyes what meaning does "red" have?

It's not about merely turning off lights, its about defining and categorizing aspects of nature. If I have no concept of darkness I will have no concept of light. If I have never been up, I will not know there exists no such thing as "down". If I have never seen "stopped", I will not know what motion is. You cannot say "this" without having a reference of "that". So goes my main thesis.

We preceive the world through "A and Not A" eyes. To have, however, any concept of "A" we must already define what "not A" is, and equally to define "not A" we must define A. To say A=A is nonsense without defining A. To say A is A means nothing unless one has a concept of what "not A" may be. Thus lies the baroquely paradoxical existence of which we are all a part of. The only "truth" the only "reality" is that which cannot be defined, and does not exist, the paradox. The paradox of this-that is what we derive our definitions of "this" or "that" from.

 

"Yes...meaningless. Although many find it too depressingly veracious to be reality, it nonetheless is; there is no “this” without “that”, there is no “good” without “evil”, there is no “life” without “death”, there is no “I” without “not I”, there is no “veracity” without “falsehood”, nor is the converse of each statement true. No thing exists without its opposite to define it."

Where's the correlation between the preceeding and proceeding, here? You haven't established a lack of meaning, only reiterrated the basic precept of "what is" and "whats is not." In fact, you've added it yourself, however inadvertently. If Good is defined as "not Evil," by your own admission, then it has meaning.

To follow the "light" and "dark" as an example...

You define darkness as the absence of light, and light as the absence of darkness. This is fallacious on several grounds: circular argument, missing the point, definition, equivocation. The list goes on. Your argument, taken as a whole, falls into the same trap. Your conclusions and your premises are one in the same, and proport to prove absolutely nothing. There is no overarching relation to your principle thesis: that reality is what we make of it.

Badly misquoting Shakespeare, would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?

Or, does the universe exist around man, or he around the universe?

 

yep. agree 100pc with that.

 

Does the nature of duality in the universe dictate that the universe itself abide by this principle? In other words, is there an anti-universe? A nonverse? What are its properties?

 

Words from ChrisCunningham: The term itself is the definition of the "particular" for in order for it to be particular, it must be defined particularly. And that is my point.

Okay, this is a reasonable premise, I suppose, for epistomology as such. I am saying that this is senseable to me, (as it seems to me to whom you are responding...or something like that). However, why confine your thinking, your perceptions, your overall outlay to formulas and dogmatic logic of what is. It seems to me that in doing so, we forget what is to come. Therefore, as I indulged your statement, finding merit therein, will you be so kind as to consider this: "So, what if something extraordinary happened, and there was no light. Are you saying there could be no darkness?"

You see, even though I see your point, just because we tag something from a source in our rational minds, this changes nothing except in the mind that begat it, and in the minds of those who buy it. My point is, it does not change "things." We are somewhat confined by our language, thus the difficulty that often occurs in translating. I will assume that you agree with this. Because of this language limitations, as knowledge grows, we rename or regroup certain things that have run the tests, and seem to be facts. Yet those facts were always there. I kind of say, to hell with perception, because we can so easily limit perception with hard-headed ignorance, thus the saying, "We see what we want to see." I challenge you, therefore, to that gift of imagination, so important in learning, to see beyond that tired old, not so popular anymore, idea that nothing exists unless we perceive it.

You are very bright, I can tell, and I surely am not intending to indicate otherwise, and you may be right, I may still be missing your point. But I have heard or that argument probably hundreds of times, but I have read and heard arguments that challenge that as well.

I will give you this, Mr. Chris. My thoughts on this may seem no more than "flies in your philosophical ointment." Just know this. I do not disagree to prove anything, but to maybe provoke another spark somewhere. Sometimes it is those who dogedly disagree with me that nudge something new, even though I never agree with them. And, sometimes those who doggedly disagree are simply annoying!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

>pmt.

 

I'm sorry, I never bothered to read your full post but I just want to comment on the above.
I do not think that science leads to ever expanding corridors. It almost invariably leads to corridors however but I feel that they are getting shorter and shorter as we get closer to the truth. We are definitely not getting further from the truth as u imply!

 

Ha, it was a wonderous adventure tracking this thread down again. Ah well....to continue....

John, we get further and further form the truth because for each and every theory created, other (more complex and less eaily proven theories) are engendered. In fact the theories of today become more and more based on mathematics than empiricism and experimentation, i.e. Quantum Gravity, Inflationary Theory, Black Hole Mechanics, etc. It is becoming more and more "speculative" in the sense that without the math there would be no other basis. No one has seen a black hole evaporate, taken accurate measurements of the Jerk within the universe, nor have they seen quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity in an undisputable wedlock. So I think it is rather grounded to say we ARE devitating from the TRUTH.

 

This reminds me of The South Park episode. I think it was Kyle that was dressed all in Goth and something happened that should of made him sad and when somebody asked him, he was like. No I am actually happy that this happened. I am happy because it is these lows that make me appreciate the good times and remember the happy times. Without this happening, I wouldn't have known the good in my life... (It was something to that affect. I can't completely remember)

Anyway though. It is in that same vein of. You won't know what good is without the bad. You won't know what bad is without the good. I hate to take this and apply it toward God, but I will.

It talks about God is perfection and everything and it makes you wonder if that is why God created sin, so that he could help us identify his holiness. If your statements are true, then we wouldn't have understood good and bad unless both existed together. Have I gone off course?

 

What Is And What We Perceive Are Not Necessarily The Same. Think Big!

 

Chriscunningham, actually all you needed was a little sleep that night.
Lack of sleep, made you ponder upon your own existence. Hence thought of solipsism, and ranted out your non-sequitur rationalizations about existence.

Existence exists, it's non refutable, eternal. A consciousness exists that perceives this existence, hence my consciousness exists, and I percieve existence, therefore I exist. Furthermore I possess identity, therefore other individuals apart of my mind exist with their own idividualism and their own perceptions of reality.

To continue, solipsism is non-sense, because no man is an island, it takes a society for the survival of the human organism or any organism for that matter. No entity can survive alone, no entity does, we are all social animals. Even gods are grouped together, for example the trinity, the ancient myths of Roman & Greek gods are social divinities that hung around together, atoms, microbes, excetera.. are all social entities that interact with one another.

*Quote: It almost invariably leads to corridors however but I feel that they are getting shorter and shorter as we get closer to the truth.*

What truth?.

Questions like; Waht's the meaning of life?, where do we come from?, who are we? who created the universe?.

Questions of this type are used mainly by mystics in order to sell you a bag of tricks or "truths" that they can't explain however you suppose to have "faith" of their assertions, because you can't refute them. You will surrender your minds to these charlatans, hence humanity already did, and we are still paying for it. The charlatent who first came out with this non-sequirtus non-sense was Plato, the father of mysticism.

Godless.

 

Godless,

I never once said existence didn't exist: That would be completely moronic. Morever, it doesn't take society/humanity to guarantee the survival of the individual. I could hunt animals in the woods far away from any human being and I bet you I would survive. So to say "no man is an island" is fallacious on the grounds that perhaps no man IS an island, but this does not preclude a man from BEING an Island.

And furthermore, your aformentioned questions aren't used by mystics as a ploy for profit, they are used to help one reach a complete understanding of himself-- the universe. Those who don't ask them fear the answers and regurgitate their fear as indifference and "practicality". So you may continue calling it mysticism, but in the end I can appreiciate life a bit more by knowing I want to understand it.

 

Cool, Cunningham, but could you not find something to chew on in the words from Godless? I do hane to disagree that a man can be an island, or his own god--not that you said that, but hey! Your words would lead to that. I think Godless was conveying, among other things,that what you perceive is not all there is; you are part of somthing bigger than yourself, my friend.

Good night, you thinkers. Pleasant dreams.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well. I'll agree this happens sometimes, but a lot of the time, we ARE closing down on the truth.

 

P.M. I am a part of the universe, and the universe is a part of me. I am my own God.....

 

Yeah, yeah, Chris. You are right on the firts two. Now, let me help you out: You are a part of God, and He is a part of you. How's that, brother?

 

Hi PM;

What I'm trying to explain to him (which he completely missed the point) is that man has to associate with others, he has to depend, on whoever he buys that gun, so he can hunt, he has to depend on the maker of bullets so he can shoot the creature, and for the survival of the human race! a man must mate. We are creatures of socialization, we must associate with others to insure the survival of our species, and any other species of the world is also a social entity. In order to mate, and produce offsprings.

Anyhow chris, I also screwed up!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I was answering you and thinking of the other thread i'm looking at, which I'm constantly refuting solipsism.
Forgive me!.
Godless.

 

*Cough* No, you're not; refuting that is.

Ah, finally someone senses the anti-light. Not many see beyond the dogmatic opposites mankind usually work with, which give them so many problems when philosophizing. The opposite of Light is not Darkness, nor Life to Death, nor Good/Evil, Truth/Lie.

The definition of true opposites must be the annihilation of both should they merge. Light and Darkness merging just gives gloom, Life merging with Death yields some half-life (tm?), and so on. They all merge into something new, where they should nullify eachother were they true opposites.

So, as the dear fading captain was grasping at, we must contemplate the (anti-)existence of an anti-Universe, where all matter, energy and concepts in existence in our universe meets its opposite, its anti. No doubt, all contemplating on the nature of this anti-universe is mindbending; how do you visualize anti-white for example?

Darkness and Light are but 0 and 1 (well, 1 being total illumination), you're neglecting -1.