G
Guest
Guest
I'll be blunt, would anybody mind having a friendly philosophical debate about some topics? I think we could all use some nice intellectual stimulation....
F
Fang
Guest
Aww what the hell!!!
what do you want me to do???
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
Fang's Web Pages
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fang
http://www.Egroups.com/group/Fang_BOS
It's only cheating if you get caught
- Fang_Of_the_BOS@hotmail.com
what do you want me to do???
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
Fang's Web Pages
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fang
http://www.Egroups.com/group/Fang_BOS
It's only cheating if you get caught
- Fang_Of_the_BOS@hotmail.com
Sure, sounds good...
::Stretches philosophical muscles, pulls philosophical hamstring::
Ah, dammit!
No, seriously, what exactly do you suggest? If it's just as straightforward as that, I guess that you could just get the ball rolling. I don't know how well I'd fare in a philosophical conversation, let alone debate, but I'd be willing to give it a shot until you drive me into the ground.
Oh, and I may also add that, while I'm all for having the thread in this close-knit, secluded cul-de-sac of NMA, it really would be more of a topic for the general forum.
Oh well, it's not like the mods care too terribly much about what goes on here anyway. We're smart enough to handle ourselves
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
::Stretches philosophical muscles, pulls philosophical hamstring::
Ah, dammit!
No, seriously, what exactly do you suggest? If it's just as straightforward as that, I guess that you could just get the ball rolling. I don't know how well I'd fare in a philosophical conversation, let alone debate, but I'd be willing to give it a shot until you drive me into the ground.
Oh, and I may also add that, while I'm all for having the thread in this close-knit, secluded cul-de-sac of NMA, it really would be more of a topic for the general forum.
Oh well, it's not like the mods care too terribly much about what goes on here anyway. We're smart enough to handle ourselves
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Sure, sounds good...
Well here's what I had in my mind. Basically I say a single word phrase or sentince and we converse on it, no main question just a topic to converse on, I'll present the topic but I will not be the first "speaker", so to speak. Well if its all Okay I shall say the first topic:
Exsistence.
There it is, lets get this ball rolling! (oh and don't worry I'll join in)
Well here's what I had in my mind. Basically I say a single word phrase or sentince and we converse on it, no main question just a topic to converse on, I'll present the topic but I will not be the first "speaker", so to speak. Well if its all Okay I shall say the first topic:
Exsistence.
There it is, lets get this ball rolling! (oh and don't worry I'll join in)
RE: Sure, sounds good...
I really don't understand the need for all of the theological and scientific pontification over the meaning of existence. Sure, it's a fact I'd like to be privy to, but why agonize so thoroughly over the answer when we're not even sure of the nature of the question?
Is there even a meaning of life? If so, is it religious? Which religion? Is it the fulfillment of a task? Is it the achievment of a state of being? Or is it on a smaller level, perhaps something more personal? Of course, that's assuming that the meaning of life isn't something entirely more abstract...
And what of the holdover solution advocated by some, that the meaning of life is simply what you make of it? It really seems that there are three possibilities to this line of thinking: It could be correct, but if not, that either means that it is just psychological grasping towards something that we cannot yet, if ever, comprehend- much like the physicians of a bygone age turned to bloodletting because they didn't yet possess the knowledge of true medical science- or, negating that, there remains the ever-looming possibility that there is no meaning of life, no purpose for existence.
While this may be true, I tend towards the line of thought that not everything in this universe is fueled by pure unstable chance. But, this leaves me with several other questions. First of all, if there is truly an all-encompassing purpose to human existence- or, not limiting ourselves, the existence of all life in the universe- then there would almost certainly have to be, in some degree, a such thing as destiny. After all, how is it even remotely possible to reach some kind of pre-concieved cosmic constant if the integral causal tangents for reaching this higher purpose are allowed to run willy-nilly? There is no such thing as effect without cause, means without end (save for in a singularity, and this is a theological exchange, not a physics discussion). Thus, whoever created the universe (and yes, in order for there to be an ultimate purpose to it all, someone would had to have created life, or at least set it towards the prescribed end) would logically have made sure that there were some methods, or at least stop-gaps, that made sure that the purpose was fulfilled, achieved, maintained, or etc. considering the nature of it all.
Then, there's always the possibility that it's all just some kind of experiment...
(As is my nature, I don't seem to have presented much of relevance in all of that loquacious garble. When you don't have the answers, pose more questions)
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
I really don't understand the need for all of the theological and scientific pontification over the meaning of existence. Sure, it's a fact I'd like to be privy to, but why agonize so thoroughly over the answer when we're not even sure of the nature of the question?
Is there even a meaning of life? If so, is it religious? Which religion? Is it the fulfillment of a task? Is it the achievment of a state of being? Or is it on a smaller level, perhaps something more personal? Of course, that's assuming that the meaning of life isn't something entirely more abstract...
And what of the holdover solution advocated by some, that the meaning of life is simply what you make of it? It really seems that there are three possibilities to this line of thinking: It could be correct, but if not, that either means that it is just psychological grasping towards something that we cannot yet, if ever, comprehend- much like the physicians of a bygone age turned to bloodletting because they didn't yet possess the knowledge of true medical science- or, negating that, there remains the ever-looming possibility that there is no meaning of life, no purpose for existence.
While this may be true, I tend towards the line of thought that not everything in this universe is fueled by pure unstable chance. But, this leaves me with several other questions. First of all, if there is truly an all-encompassing purpose to human existence- or, not limiting ourselves, the existence of all life in the universe- then there would almost certainly have to be, in some degree, a such thing as destiny. After all, how is it even remotely possible to reach some kind of pre-concieved cosmic constant if the integral causal tangents for reaching this higher purpose are allowed to run willy-nilly? There is no such thing as effect without cause, means without end (save for in a singularity, and this is a theological exchange, not a physics discussion). Thus, whoever created the universe (and yes, in order for there to be an ultimate purpose to it all, someone would had to have created life, or at least set it towards the prescribed end) would logically have made sure that there were some methods, or at least stop-gaps, that made sure that the purpose was fulfilled, achieved, maintained, or etc. considering the nature of it all.
Then, there's always the possibility that it's all just some kind of experiment...
(As is my nature, I don't seem to have presented much of relevance in all of that loquacious garble. When you don't have the answers, pose more questions
)http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
F
Fang
Guest
RE: Sure, sounds good...
But was existence ever actually created. If it was created by something then there must be something that created that. If existence was created what could have created it if there were nothing before it. How can there be nothing. One point is that nothing can ever be created or destroyed only changed. Or that's what we think anyway, primarily because we have never (To my knoledge) been able to invent something with out at least something before it. if you want to define the actuall meaning of life then you must first know what life actually is. What started it.
to also define the meaning of life we must determine what is death? what is it's significance? What happens after death?
Isn't it possible it was an accident. Isn't it possible to do something stupid and find that it created something amazing. isn't it also possible that you don't at first know. Imagine greater cretures like gods fighting for power, no reason but for power. Imagine then if one did something and created us. Then discovered us and began to walk among us in our ancient histroy using their great physchic powers to convince us they were gods and invented all religons. Imagine if all are true to some extent. Painting out thei founder, one of these greater creatures as the only true God to make themselves look good.
My personel theory and belief is that our existence is a test. Much like a game. Some of us are PCs and some NPCs. therefore the goal and purpose is to prove yourself by becoming as powerful as possible. When it's all done those who porved themselves go to a better place much greater than here. Were emotinons and feelings are much more powerful. A state of pure pleasure. Much like what heaven is said to be like. Unfortunetly however, also in my theory is that evil people will still be given places in evil heavens. And NPCs would become PCs in their later life if consequences gave them power. Much like being born half way through your life. So from what the above says existence is a test. And there is not just one but millions. Millions of planets some completly unreachable by our travel but some in our universe. Each presented with a certain amount of things that are defined as power.
Our main form of power seems to be Money. As well as territory and command. Also, perhaps the real most important sense of power s selfimprovement. To be full. To be strong physically, metally and emotionly. To have supreme physical and mental abilites. To be able to lift heavy whiegets and to be perform tasks related to cleverness for instance working on complicated math in short time. And another part to this is one humans (To my knoledge) have acomplished. Phsychic powers. The ability to perform tasks with our minds.
However wouldn't this make us lazy. To be able to get things from places without moving. Luck also comes into it as well. Those who are lucky are possibly those who have power. Their luck being a reward from higher beings for accomplishing to a certain extent in our world. Everything invented is also a reward, a reward to everyone in our existence, a gift from someone with intellectual power. However many seek to hinder us as well. With our cars many don't walk and so aren't fit. This draining them of power.
Using this theory to define life has worked although there isn't a single bit of actual physical evidence to prove any of this. next i'll use the thoery to define death in an attempt to define existence bearing in mind that what happens after death is existence as well, death just being a point in existence.
Well if our life is a test then when to we finish. If you go in for an exam you have a set amount of time right. You can't sit for hours while thinking and making calculations on every question. If you were allowed for ever and were stuck on a question that would give you the qualification and score you seeked to get you may sit there forever trying to figure out how to go about it. Isn't it the same for life. If the test had no end how would you enjoy the result.
In conclusion death has three main significances
1) when a character has gained enough power to move on they must have a way to move to the next existence other wise they would be forced to stay forever. With no point to the test then their would be no meaning of life making it all ireleveant.
2) when it becomes hopeless, when there is no way to gain the power needed. When you have done something that puts you down preventing you from moving on succesfully.
3) An NPC or even a PC can end as a result of another NPC or PCs actions.
Note** an NPC is like an AI they exist just as everyone else would to a set amount of complicated guidelines interacting with everyone else depending on their personality and actions and some times rolling scores itself to determine random reactions
hey am i any good at this????
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
Fang's Web Pages
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fang
http://pub51.ezboard.com/bfangbos
http://www.Egroups.com/group/Fang_BOS
It's only cheating if you get caught
- Fang_Of_the_BOS@hotmail.com
But was existence ever actually created. If it was created by something then there must be something that created that. If existence was created what could have created it if there were nothing before it. How can there be nothing. One point is that nothing can ever be created or destroyed only changed. Or that's what we think anyway, primarily because we have never (To my knoledge) been able to invent something with out at least something before it. if you want to define the actuall meaning of life then you must first know what life actually is. What started it.
to also define the meaning of life we must determine what is death? what is it's significance? What happens after death?
Isn't it possible it was an accident. Isn't it possible to do something stupid and find that it created something amazing. isn't it also possible that you don't at first know. Imagine greater cretures like gods fighting for power, no reason but for power. Imagine then if one did something and created us. Then discovered us and began to walk among us in our ancient histroy using their great physchic powers to convince us they were gods and invented all religons. Imagine if all are true to some extent. Painting out thei founder, one of these greater creatures as the only true God to make themselves look good.
My personel theory and belief is that our existence is a test. Much like a game. Some of us are PCs and some NPCs. therefore the goal and purpose is to prove yourself by becoming as powerful as possible. When it's all done those who porved themselves go to a better place much greater than here. Were emotinons and feelings are much more powerful. A state of pure pleasure. Much like what heaven is said to be like. Unfortunetly however, also in my theory is that evil people will still be given places in evil heavens. And NPCs would become PCs in their later life if consequences gave them power. Much like being born half way through your life. So from what the above says existence is a test. And there is not just one but millions. Millions of planets some completly unreachable by our travel but some in our universe. Each presented with a certain amount of things that are defined as power.
Our main form of power seems to be Money. As well as territory and command. Also, perhaps the real most important sense of power s selfimprovement. To be full. To be strong physically, metally and emotionly. To have supreme physical and mental abilites. To be able to lift heavy whiegets and to be perform tasks related to cleverness for instance working on complicated math in short time. And another part to this is one humans (To my knoledge) have acomplished. Phsychic powers. The ability to perform tasks with our minds.
However wouldn't this make us lazy. To be able to get things from places without moving. Luck also comes into it as well. Those who are lucky are possibly those who have power. Their luck being a reward from higher beings for accomplishing to a certain extent in our world. Everything invented is also a reward, a reward to everyone in our existence, a gift from someone with intellectual power. However many seek to hinder us as well. With our cars many don't walk and so aren't fit. This draining them of power.
Using this theory to define life has worked although there isn't a single bit of actual physical evidence to prove any of this. next i'll use the thoery to define death in an attempt to define existence bearing in mind that what happens after death is existence as well, death just being a point in existence.
Well if our life is a test then when to we finish. If you go in for an exam you have a set amount of time right. You can't sit for hours while thinking and making calculations on every question. If you were allowed for ever and were stuck on a question that would give you the qualification and score you seeked to get you may sit there forever trying to figure out how to go about it. Isn't it the same for life. If the test had no end how would you enjoy the result.
In conclusion death has three main significances
1) when a character has gained enough power to move on they must have a way to move to the next existence other wise they would be forced to stay forever. With no point to the test then their would be no meaning of life making it all ireleveant.
2) when it becomes hopeless, when there is no way to gain the power needed. When you have done something that puts you down preventing you from moving on succesfully.
3) An NPC or even a PC can end as a result of another NPC or PCs actions.
Note** an NPC is like an AI they exist just as everyone else would to a set amount of complicated guidelines interacting with everyone else depending on their personality and actions and some times rolling scores itself to determine random reactions
hey am i any good at this????
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
Fang's Web Pages
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fang
http://pub51.ezboard.com/bfangbos
http://www.Egroups.com/group/Fang_BOS
It's only cheating if you get caught
- Fang_Of_the_BOS@hotmail.com
K
Kilroy
Guest
OK, I'm in...
But not now. Mom's calling me to dinner and I have to study to a test tomorrow.
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a73d53c60e9b786.jpg
"Call me a vagabond, and I'll smile. Call me a thief, and I'll laugh. Call me a liar, and I feed you your liver."
But not now. Mom's calling me to dinner and I have to study to a test tomorrow.
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a73d53c60e9b786.jpg
"Call me a vagabond, and I'll smile. Call me a thief, and I'll laugh. Call me a liar, and I feed you your liver."
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Sure, sounds good...
Exsistence, what is the purpose of exsistence itself, let us say that its purpose is to be itself. Therefore we can assume that the purpose of exsistence is to exsist, and that for something not to exsist would go against the purpose of exsistence, unless it always did not exsist. From this we can say that Death is not an end of exsistence but an end of Life.
Let us say from this that, We (sentient beings) can choose our purpose to some extent, like what we want to do in life, what we want to be, how we want to live, etc. However, we cannot go against the purpose of exsistence because we are part of it, we exsist. We can choose not to give our Life a purpose(suicide), but we cannnot choose not to give Our exsistence a purpose. (Remember we are following an assumption that we started out with)
I shall have to continue this later, I have to go.
Exsistence, what is the purpose of exsistence itself, let us say that its purpose is to be itself. Therefore we can assume that the purpose of exsistence is to exsist, and that for something not to exsist would go against the purpose of exsistence, unless it always did not exsist. From this we can say that Death is not an end of exsistence but an end of Life.
Let us say from this that, We (sentient beings) can choose our purpose to some extent, like what we want to do in life, what we want to be, how we want to live, etc. However, we cannot go against the purpose of exsistence because we are part of it, we exsist. We can choose not to give our Life a purpose(suicide), but we cannnot choose not to give Our exsistence a purpose. (Remember we are following an assumption that we started out with)
I shall have to continue this later, I have to go.
G
Guest
Guest
Mortality.
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-01 AT 08:31PM (GMT)[p]Existence is in-existend... Maining: What is the opposite of existence?
Sorry, but this keyword is out of my league... I'll read what has been written so far and then: "I might be back!"
http://theorder.vault13.net/images/avatars/WilliAvatar2.jpg
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-01 AT 08:31PM (GMT)[p]Existence is in-existend... Maining: What is the opposite of existence?
Sorry, but this keyword is out of my league... I'll read what has been written so far and then: "I might be back!"
http://theorder.vault13.net/images/avatars/WilliAvatar2.jpg
F
Fang
Guest
RE: Sure, sounds good...
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-01 AT 09:21PM (GMT)[p]Yes but how is one actually created. To exist you have to be brought into existence. Presumebly by your parents. However they only take the action of creating you. It might be possibl to scientificly explain how the sperm and egg grow into a human body but not how a soul is cast onto that body. Assuming that a soul is what gives us our own choices, i say this because this is my opinon.
Well we've tried to justify what happens after death therefore defining death but the next thing we must consider and define is what happens before life. Do you exist before life as you suggest that you do after death. And what happens after death to keep you existing
isn't existence to ability to have a physical representation of your self. As in the case of an object. And in the case of a human the ability to physically exist and be able to make choices. If you can't do this after death how are you still existing. Your not, you are going againt (from what skynet says) the total meaning and purpose of existence.
Shouldn't that be impossible to do or destroy entire existence in the processes.
if you exist after life then you must before. After all to be created and not to exist before that point would be going against existence again breaking skynets rules.
if you do exist before life then how do you exist. In what state? is a place of no matter where a body is unneeded. If not then what exists there. Remembering it's impossible to create or destroy something only change it. That means everything lives forever in some state or another.
Assuming that our souls (minds) and our bodies are diffrent things. When you die your sole is assumed to move on to a better place your body decay. Now you can't change the soul removing the intelligence that allows it to make decisions for that is what the sole is and that would be destroying it's purpose.
Besides if the sole went then your existence would be over. If this is true then when did you r sole start and when does it end. It must have been here forever and continue to be here forever.
This brings us back to the question, what started it all. What made the first thing therefore starting existence.
It is possible (Also part of my theory) that before you were born you were a sperm, before your father was born you were an incredibly small life force within the sperm that created him. Before his father (Your Grandfather) both of you were small life forces within his sperm. Dating back forever meaning that millions and millions and millions (infinity) life force are in each sperm. Meaning that each life force moves on. As the child grows (assuming all children are men and all that it requires to have a baby is to chose to have one.)Then you will grow into a human and the life forces within you will become your sperm.
Then we have to add the female to the world. Assuming that there is only a chain of females as well and that all you have to do to have a baby is to chose to have one then everything would work the same with the egg containing the life force. Except the sperm are all exact copies of each other all containing a life force. Now to actually[i/] make a life from existence then what you have to do is succesfully mix the life force of an egg with that of a sperm.
Like making a cake. So the possible humans that could be created depend on the number of combination of sperm and egg in the world meaning there are an infinate amount of possibilites.
That sort of defines what happens before life. You exist as the sole of a sperm.
But what actually houses the soles. I'm assuming the sperm. But the egg and sperm are exually important because without both you couldn't maike a child.
is it possible (my theory) that the sole exists seperate to the sperm and eggs life force. Menaing you are in three parts meaning when you parents attempt to have a child then the life forces are mixed together. If succesful (some scientific rule) then a sole is assigned to the combination
So if we know that the sperm and egg exist within a host, (Themselves) which exist within another host (The body they are in) then we know what the sperm and egg are before life.
But if you add the sole in (Which you must if you unlesss you explain this a diffrent way) then there must be a place for the sole to exist in.
Is it possible for one to exist and not the others still not defying the rules of existence (Skynet's). I don't think so (But i'm confused)
So inclusion. There must always be a place for part of us assuming these rules are correct!!!
Am i ok now. Was i ok before!?!?!?!?
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
Fang's Web Pages
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fang
http://pub51.ezboard.com/bfangbos
http://www.Egroups.com/group/Fang_BOS
It's only cheating if you get caught
- Fang_Of_the_BOS@hotmail.com
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-01 AT 09:21PM (GMT)[p]Yes but how is one actually created. To exist you have to be brought into existence. Presumebly by your parents. However they only take the action of creating you. It might be possibl to scientificly explain how the sperm and egg grow into a human body but not how a soul is cast onto that body. Assuming that a soul is what gives us our own choices, i say this because this is my opinon.
Well we've tried to justify what happens after death therefore defining death but the next thing we must consider and define is what happens before life. Do you exist before life as you suggest that you do after death. And what happens after death to keep you existing
isn't existence to ability to have a physical representation of your self. As in the case of an object. And in the case of a human the ability to physically exist and be able to make choices. If you can't do this after death how are you still existing. Your not, you are going againt (from what skynet says) the total meaning and purpose of existence.
Shouldn't that be impossible to do or destroy entire existence in the processes.
if you exist after life then you must before. After all to be created and not to exist before that point would be going against existence again breaking skynets rules.
if you do exist before life then how do you exist. In what state? is a place of no matter where a body is unneeded. If not then what exists there. Remembering it's impossible to create or destroy something only change it. That means everything lives forever in some state or another.
Assuming that our souls (minds) and our bodies are diffrent things. When you die your sole is assumed to move on to a better place your body decay. Now you can't change the soul removing the intelligence that allows it to make decisions for that is what the sole is and that would be destroying it's purpose.
Besides if the sole went then your existence would be over. If this is true then when did you r sole start and when does it end. It must have been here forever and continue to be here forever.
This brings us back to the question, what started it all. What made the first thing therefore starting existence.
It is possible (Also part of my theory) that before you were born you were a sperm, before your father was born you were an incredibly small life force within the sperm that created him. Before his father (Your Grandfather) both of you were small life forces within his sperm. Dating back forever meaning that millions and millions and millions (infinity) life force are in each sperm. Meaning that each life force moves on. As the child grows (assuming all children are men and all that it requires to have a baby is to chose to have one.)Then you will grow into a human and the life forces within you will become your sperm.
Then we have to add the female to the world. Assuming that there is only a chain of females as well and that all you have to do to have a baby is to chose to have one then everything would work the same with the egg containing the life force. Except the sperm are all exact copies of each other all containing a life force. Now to actually[i/] make a life from existence then what you have to do is succesfully mix the life force of an egg with that of a sperm.
Like making a cake. So the possible humans that could be created depend on the number of combination of sperm and egg in the world meaning there are an infinate amount of possibilites.
That sort of defines what happens before life. You exist as the sole of a sperm.
But what actually houses the soles. I'm assuming the sperm. But the egg and sperm are exually important because without both you couldn't maike a child.
is it possible (my theory) that the sole exists seperate to the sperm and eggs life force. Menaing you are in three parts meaning when you parents attempt to have a child then the life forces are mixed together. If succesful (some scientific rule) then a sole is assigned to the combination
So if we know that the sperm and egg exist within a host, (Themselves) which exist within another host (The body they are in) then we know what the sperm and egg are before life.
But if you add the sole in (Which you must if you unlesss you explain this a diffrent way) then there must be a place for the sole to exist in.
Is it possible for one to exist and not the others still not defying the rules of existence (Skynet's). I don't think so (But i'm confused)
So inclusion. There must always be a place for part of us assuming these rules are correct!!!
Am i ok now. Was i ok before!?!?!?!?
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
Fang's Web Pages
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/fang
http://pub51.ezboard.com/bfangbos
http://www.Egroups.com/group/Fang_BOS
It's only cheating if you get caught
- Fang_Of_the_BOS@hotmail.com
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Sure, sounds good...
This is what I am thinking (remember this is just speculation):
READ THE ENTIRE THING, please
It seems to me that, Existence means that "it" has a purpose, it can be known and/or comprehended (it doesn't HAVE to be, but it can be) and it is itself. If something does not have a purpose, it doesn't exist. If something is not itself, it does not exist. If it cannot be known and/or comprehened, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist it cannot be known or comprehened, because by being known and/or comprehended it must exist, it must have a purpose(to be known and comprehened and to be itself), and it must be itself (different from everything else).
Non-Exsistence:
1. Traditionally defined as that which does not exsist (basically saying that Non-Existence is Non-Existence)
2. But Non-Exsistence can't not exist. Because we can comprehend it as a concept, so it has to exist.
3. So It can't be itself
4. So It's purpose can't be to be itself (since it can't be itself, b/c if it was it would be incomprehensible) so it's purpose must be to not be itself, or it has no purpose.
5. But if it is not itself it can't exist, so therefore it is itself....?????
6. We can find existence represented in everything but we cannot find non-existence represented in anything, which proves Non-existence's existence. Paradox.
Wait, wait, wait, wait. Revelation! I think we are looking at this all wrong. In order to understand Reality fully we really need to understand Non-Existence, I tried above but that failed, we ended in Paradox.
1. At the center of this issue is Non-Existence.
Now here's the problem I think, We are accustomed to look at all things through the perspective of Existence. Through our entire lives we have been presented only with things that exist for our mind to comprehend, we have not faced anything that does not exist for our mind to comprehend. So it is engrained in our mind very tightly to look at things from the viewpoint of existence.
We cannot look at non-existence from such a viewpoint (As far as I know) because we will end up with the mess above, stuck in Philosphical ruts and moving in circles. You can only look upon non-existence through the viewpoint of non-existence.
Now the question becomes, how do we look at non-existence from the viewpoint of non-existence?
(From this we can also assume that, you can only at Existence through the viewpoint of Existence)
Also, we have existence, we have non-existence, what else...what don't we know about? hmmmm
This is what I am thinking (remember this is just speculation):
READ THE ENTIRE THING, please
It seems to me that, Existence means that "it" has a purpose, it can be known and/or comprehended (it doesn't HAVE to be, but it can be) and it is itself. If something does not have a purpose, it doesn't exist. If something is not itself, it does not exist. If it cannot be known and/or comprehened, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist it cannot be known or comprehened, because by being known and/or comprehended it must exist, it must have a purpose(to be known and comprehened and to be itself), and it must be itself (different from everything else).
Non-Exsistence:
1. Traditionally defined as that which does not exsist (basically saying that Non-Existence is Non-Existence)
2. But Non-Exsistence can't not exist. Because we can comprehend it as a concept, so it has to exist.
3. So It can't be itself
4. So It's purpose can't be to be itself (since it can't be itself, b/c if it was it would be incomprehensible) so it's purpose must be to not be itself, or it has no purpose.
5. But if it is not itself it can't exist, so therefore it is itself....?????
6. We can find existence represented in everything but we cannot find non-existence represented in anything, which proves Non-existence's existence. Paradox.
Wait, wait, wait, wait. Revelation! I think we are looking at this all wrong. In order to understand Reality fully we really need to understand Non-Existence, I tried above but that failed, we ended in Paradox.
1. At the center of this issue is Non-Existence.
Now here's the problem I think, We are accustomed to look at all things through the perspective of Existence. Through our entire lives we have been presented only with things that exist for our mind to comprehend, we have not faced anything that does not exist for our mind to comprehend. So it is engrained in our mind very tightly to look at things from the viewpoint of existence.
We cannot look at non-existence from such a viewpoint (As far as I know) because we will end up with the mess above, stuck in Philosphical ruts and moving in circles. You can only look upon non-existence through the viewpoint of non-existence.
Now the question becomes, how do we look at non-existence from the viewpoint of non-existence?
(From this we can also assume that, you can only at Existence through the viewpoint of Existence)
Also, we have existence, we have non-existence, what else...what don't we know about? hmmmm
G
Guest
Guest
Sugar
No, actually I don't like thinking too much about that kind of thing. I really wish that there's some scientific explanation for *it* all, because beyond that it just gets out of my grasp.
This is where religions get muddled up. If there's really a meaning of existence, and some 'higher power' or some such makes us with a purpose and then buggers off somewhere else, I'm really inclined to believe in science over such incomplete stories. Stick to what you know, that's my other motto.
http://www.geocities.com/heidrunnthegreat/jetlee.jpg
[font size=3 color=ff0000
Dr. Wai sez:
"Now I feel small and insignificant."
No, actually I don't like thinking too much about that kind of thing. I really wish that there's some scientific explanation for *it* all, because beyond that it just gets out of my grasp.
This is where religions get muddled up. If there's really a meaning of existence, and some 'higher power' or some such makes us with a purpose and then buggers off somewhere else, I'm really inclined to believe in science over such incomplete stories. Stick to what you know, that's my other motto.
http://www.geocities.com/heidrunnthegreat/jetlee.jpg
[font size=3 color=ff0000
Dr. Wai sez:
"Now I feel small and insignificant."
RE: Sure, sounds good...
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-01 AT 10:49AM (GMT)[p][font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-01 AT 10:36 AM (GMT)
It isn't that non-existence is a paradox, or that we need to look at it from the viewpoint of non-existence. This, again, would present us with only half of the picture, as it would keep us from seeing things from the viewpoint of existence.
Logically, any developing society on any world in any galaxy, in any disputably existent dimension, would be best suited to pay attention at first to the "existence" half of things. I mean, sure, it's all well and good for us "higher" forms of life to put ourselves through endless mental toil over these things, but for an emerging species, there really isn't much use for it. After all, how many cavemen were ever trampled by non-existent mastadons? Thus, it becomes a question of "upbringing." For thousands, and maybe in some cases out there in the universe, millions, of years, our minds have been conditioned to think in certain terms. The directly imminent, the prevalent, the tangible, all take forcible priority in the thoughts of a species that keeps itself well within the balance of nature (and, with only humans as a point of reference, I can safely say that those that don't maintain themselves as a member of the global ecosystem end up doing some serious damage to their planet and themselves, which seems kind of Ironic considering that only when a species has largely removed the dangers and difficulties of a natural, "animal" existence can really have the adequate time and resources to so contemplate.) Since one can't very well make use of information that they don't know, any developing linguistic system will, by default, acknowledge the concepts that are both familliar and recognizable. Subsequently, the language of any society, the entire fabric that constitutes the concepts of their thought, is built on a one-sided basis.
But what does that mean? No being that evolves along biological lines such as these can understand the other half of the picture (the other half of the picture, by the way, being the unknown, the unknowable if you will, but not the nonexistent). At least, none still burdened with the hinderances of animal instinct and genetic memory as we are. And, let's say that somewhere, off in the seventh dimension (yeah, I know that sentence fragment in itself warrants another discussion entirely, but hear me out), there is another kind of life, one that exists outside of our concept of the three known dimensions- and time, the disputed fourth. It is more than likely that they would no more concise means to understand our existence than we do to comprehend theirs.
Any life forms, as we define life, are simply not able to comprehend all that the question-- or the answer-- encompasses.
At least, not any organisms utilizing linguistic communication. Of course, the only other options we can concieve are chemical communication, (which can transmit only concepts that the recipient has to have evolved to understand, presenting the same problem as linguistic communication), or the transmission of pure concept. Concept, of course, is only the closest approxamation that the collective of human thought can provide me with. This is just one more demonstration of the point that linguistic communication limits you to what you've got. Of course, this very discussion itself is proof that we can talk about what we haven't got, but is also proof that we can't address it direcly. So far, all our talk of anti-existence has not succinctly addressed an actual core, a theological form, but has rather taken on the aspect of a vague shaped talked around such a concept. One possible explanation for this is that it is a safeguard instituted by the body or bodies responsible for "the meaning of it all," to keep us from understanding why we are. After all, wouldn't any knowledge of what's supposed to happen influence our concious course of action in regard to that "destiny?" Another possibility is that the existence of it all is simply an accident, and the concepts we address are simply a brass ring that the collective minds of a society too far ahead of itself will eternally be reaching for.
Though, when you really think about all we know, and all we don't, it just seems to me that the possibility of everything being an accident, when there are so many observable patterns in math and science, and so much we still don't know about the nature of things, is infinitessimal at best.
Damn, my stepfather's yelling out his ass about me being on this late, which means that I went through all that trouble for a windup, and I won't be able to get to the pitch. Well, before he comes back from the kitchen to shut me down, I just want to say two things:
1)Some of my thoughts on this topic are influenced by Carl Sagan's Contact. I strongly suggest that you read it, as it's a good book with a lot of plausible theological and scientific insight into the nature of extraterrestrials and the universe.
2)I forgot who asked about "how could there be anything before there was anything" or whatever, it might've been fang, but whoever it was, ask on the general forum about what was before the big bang. I am sure someone like Xotor or Ugly John will launch into a long scientific dialogue that will blow your head apart. Or, failing that, check out any respectable physics or astronomy website.
Oops, he's yelling again. I'd better go before he pulls out the cord. I might not be on for awhile after this...
(After Edit: )
Heh. The bastard went back to bed, and I got back on line. NO ONE CAN STOP YAMU!!!
(Also After Edit: )
After reviewing some more, I see that I really said most of what I want to say, for now... I guess the pitch was somehow incorporated into the windup. Oh, and Skynet's non-existence paradox is another example of humans being forced to limit their thoughts concerning the universe to their own terms.(No offense Skynet)
Oh, and Fang, to assuage your concerns, you were good. (not just saying that). You stated your point of view clearly, and articulated.
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-01 AT 10:49AM (GMT)[p][font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-01 AT 10:36 AM (GMT)
It isn't that non-existence is a paradox, or that we need to look at it from the viewpoint of non-existence. This, again, would present us with only half of the picture, as it would keep us from seeing things from the viewpoint of existence.
Logically, any developing society on any world in any galaxy, in any disputably existent dimension, would be best suited to pay attention at first to the "existence" half of things. I mean, sure, it's all well and good for us "higher" forms of life to put ourselves through endless mental toil over these things, but for an emerging species, there really isn't much use for it. After all, how many cavemen were ever trampled by non-existent mastadons? Thus, it becomes a question of "upbringing." For thousands, and maybe in some cases out there in the universe, millions, of years, our minds have been conditioned to think in certain terms. The directly imminent, the prevalent, the tangible, all take forcible priority in the thoughts of a species that keeps itself well within the balance of nature (and, with only humans as a point of reference, I can safely say that those that don't maintain themselves as a member of the global ecosystem end up doing some serious damage to their planet and themselves, which seems kind of Ironic considering that only when a species has largely removed the dangers and difficulties of a natural, "animal" existence can really have the adequate time and resources to so contemplate.) Since one can't very well make use of information that they don't know, any developing linguistic system will, by default, acknowledge the concepts that are both familliar and recognizable. Subsequently, the language of any society, the entire fabric that constitutes the concepts of their thought, is built on a one-sided basis.
But what does that mean? No being that evolves along biological lines such as these can understand the other half of the picture (the other half of the picture, by the way, being the unknown, the unknowable if you will, but not the nonexistent). At least, none still burdened with the hinderances of animal instinct and genetic memory as we are. And, let's say that somewhere, off in the seventh dimension (yeah, I know that sentence fragment in itself warrants another discussion entirely, but hear me out), there is another kind of life, one that exists outside of our concept of the three known dimensions- and time, the disputed fourth. It is more than likely that they would no more concise means to understand our existence than we do to comprehend theirs.
Any life forms, as we define life, are simply not able to comprehend all that the question-- or the answer-- encompasses.
At least, not any organisms utilizing linguistic communication. Of course, the only other options we can concieve are chemical communication, (which can transmit only concepts that the recipient has to have evolved to understand, presenting the same problem as linguistic communication), or the transmission of pure concept. Concept, of course, is only the closest approxamation that the collective of human thought can provide me with. This is just one more demonstration of the point that linguistic communication limits you to what you've got. Of course, this very discussion itself is proof that we can talk about what we haven't got, but is also proof that we can't address it direcly. So far, all our talk of anti-existence has not succinctly addressed an actual core, a theological form, but has rather taken on the aspect of a vague shaped talked around such a concept. One possible explanation for this is that it is a safeguard instituted by the body or bodies responsible for "the meaning of it all," to keep us from understanding why we are. After all, wouldn't any knowledge of what's supposed to happen influence our concious course of action in regard to that "destiny?" Another possibility is that the existence of it all is simply an accident, and the concepts we address are simply a brass ring that the collective minds of a society too far ahead of itself will eternally be reaching for.
Though, when you really think about all we know, and all we don't, it just seems to me that the possibility of everything being an accident, when there are so many observable patterns in math and science, and so much we still don't know about the nature of things, is infinitessimal at best.
Damn, my stepfather's yelling out his ass about me being on this late, which means that I went through all that trouble for a windup, and I won't be able to get to the pitch. Well, before he comes back from the kitchen to shut me down, I just want to say two things:
1)Some of my thoughts on this topic are influenced by Carl Sagan's Contact. I strongly suggest that you read it, as it's a good book with a lot of plausible theological and scientific insight into the nature of extraterrestrials and the universe.
2)I forgot who asked about "how could there be anything before there was anything" or whatever, it might've been fang, but whoever it was, ask on the general forum about what was before the big bang. I am sure someone like Xotor or Ugly John will launch into a long scientific dialogue that will blow your head apart. Or, failing that, check out any respectable physics or astronomy website.
Oops, he's yelling again. I'd better go before he pulls out the cord. I might not be on for awhile after this...
(After Edit: )
Heh. The bastard went back to bed, and I got back on line. NO ONE CAN STOP YAMU!!!
(Also After Edit: )
After reviewing some more, I see that I really said most of what I want to say, for now... I guess the pitch was somehow incorporated into the windup. Oh, and Skynet's non-existence paradox is another example of humans being forced to limit their thoughts concerning the universe to their own terms.(No offense Skynet)
Oh, and Fang, to assuage your concerns, you were good. (not just saying that). You stated your point of view clearly, and articulated.
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Sure, sounds good...
Hmmm, I agree with you on the first Paragraph totally, our entire mind is built on such a one-sided basis, not that that's a bad thing, It just limits us sometimes.
Yet,
"But what does that mean? No being that evolves along biological lines such as these can understand the other half of the picture
(the other half of the picture, by the way, being the unknown, the unknowable if you will, but not the nonexistent). At least, none still burdened with the hinderances of animal instinct and genetic memory as we are."
Why is this? I'm not sure I understand the second and third paragraph clearly, could you elaborate on those two?
and also,
"After reviewing some more, I see that I really said most of what I want to say, for now... I guess the pitch was somehow incorporated into the windup. Oh, and Skynet's non-existence paradox is another example of humans being forced to limit their thoughts concerning the universe to their own terms.(No offense Skynet)"
No offense taken, none at all. Sounds a little like another Philosopher I have read before. here's just a short quote
", as soon as any philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise. Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power, to the "creation of the world," to the causa prima(first cause)."
Frederich Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil" Trans.-Walter Kaufmann
I just thought this had some relevence to what you were saysing about "limiting thoughts concerning the universe to their own terms."
Oh well, thats it for now. (Oh and BTW if anybody is interested I would reccomend "Beyond Good and Evil" a very interesting book). Hmmmm, I will think over what you have said more. And then return.
Hmmm, I agree with you on the first Paragraph totally, our entire mind is built on such a one-sided basis, not that that's a bad thing, It just limits us sometimes.
Yet,
"But what does that mean? No being that evolves along biological lines such as these can understand the other half of the picture
(the other half of the picture, by the way, being the unknown, the unknowable if you will, but not the nonexistent). At least, none still burdened with the hinderances of animal instinct and genetic memory as we are."
Why is this? I'm not sure I understand the second and third paragraph clearly, could you elaborate on those two?
and also,
"After reviewing some more, I see that I really said most of what I want to say, for now... I guess the pitch was somehow incorporated into the windup. Oh, and Skynet's non-existence paradox is another example of humans being forced to limit their thoughts concerning the universe to their own terms.(No offense Skynet)"
No offense taken, none at all. Sounds a little like another Philosopher I have read before. here's just a short quote
", as soon as any philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise. Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power, to the "creation of the world," to the causa prima(first cause)."
Frederich Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil" Trans.-Walter Kaufmann
I just thought this had some relevence to what you were saysing about "limiting thoughts concerning the universe to their own terms."
Oh well, thats it for now. (Oh and BTW if anybody is interested I would reccomend "Beyond Good and Evil" a very interesting book). Hmmmm, I will think over what you have said more. And then return.
RE: Sure, sounds good...
>Why is this? I'm not
>sure I understand the second
>and third paragraph clearly, could
>you elaborate on those two?
>Oh well, thats it for now.
You'll have to forgive me. That first bit, the one you agree with, is pretty much the bulk of what I meant. (It's a coincidence, I swear!)
The rest was just half-formed, split-ends ideas I was developing and wouldnt've even considered posting but for the fact that I hadn't slept in about 29 hours. A good deal of it was concerning whether or not there really was a "creator(s)". It could, if you wanted to remove so much detail and content that every dead philosopher in the world would dance in their graves, be boiled down to the thought that no mind limited by a set perception of a universe could ever fully encompass that universe.
The rest of it was just some cheesy drivel, inspired (uninspired?) by the current sci-fi fare I've been taking on.
> (Oh and BTW if
>anybody is interested I would
>reccomend "Beyond Good and Evil"
>a very interesting book).
>Hmmmm, I will think over
>what you have said more.
> And then return.
I look forward to it. Oh, and concerning "Beyond Good and Evil", I think I'll check it out. Something theological would be a welcome contrast to the aforementioned sci-fi fare I've been reading.
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
>Why is this? I'm not
>sure I understand the second
>and third paragraph clearly, could
>you elaborate on those two?
>Oh well, thats it for now.
You'll have to forgive me. That first bit, the one you agree with, is pretty much the bulk of what I meant. (It's a coincidence, I swear!)
The rest was just half-formed, split-ends ideas I was developing and wouldnt've even considered posting but for the fact that I hadn't slept in about 29 hours. A good deal of it was concerning whether or not there really was a "creator(s)". It could, if you wanted to remove so much detail and content that every dead philosopher in the world would dance in their graves, be boiled down to the thought that no mind limited by a set perception of a universe could ever fully encompass that universe.
The rest of it was just some cheesy drivel, inspired (uninspired?) by the current sci-fi fare I've been taking on.
> (Oh and BTW if
>anybody is interested I would
>reccomend "Beyond Good and Evil"
>a very interesting book).
>Hmmmm, I will think over
>what you have said more.
> And then return.
I look forward to it. Oh, and concerning "Beyond Good and Evil", I think I'll check it out. Something theological would be a welcome contrast to the aforementioned sci-fi fare I've been reading.
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Sure, sounds good...
"be boiled down to the thought that no mind limited by a set perception of a universe could ever fully encompass that universe."
I definately agree with that, but encompassing the entire universe doesn't (and shouldn't in my opinion) have to be a goal, but a means of arriving at a seperate goal, perhaps that goal should be knowledge. What I mean is that by trying to figure out everything about the universe we can find out what we can and cannot know and direct our mind accordingly. We learn as much from what we don't know as from what we know. We should try to figure out as much as we can but never be nieve (neive?) enough to think we can figure out it all (at least at this stage in human development).
Actually, I am working on something that goes along these lines (I think), I will post it soon. Well thats it for now,
Cheers.
"be boiled down to the thought that no mind limited by a set perception of a universe could ever fully encompass that universe."
I definately agree with that, but encompassing the entire universe doesn't (and shouldn't in my opinion) have to be a goal, but a means of arriving at a seperate goal, perhaps that goal should be knowledge. What I mean is that by trying to figure out everything about the universe we can find out what we can and cannot know and direct our mind accordingly. We learn as much from what we don't know as from what we know. We should try to figure out as much as we can but never be nieve (neive?) enough to think we can figure out it all (at least at this stage in human development).
Actually, I am working on something that goes along these lines (I think), I will post it soon. Well thats it for now,
Cheers.
RE: Sure, sounds good...
>I definately agree with that, but
>encompassing the entire universe doesn't
>(and shouldn't in my opinion)
>have to be a goal,
>but a means of arriving
>at a seperate goal, perhaps
>that goal should be knowledge.
Yes, yes! Only by the furtherance of knowledge, the most functional tool and the most powerful weapon ever known, can there ever be any hope for betterment. I never meant to say that encompassing the scope of the entire universe WAS a goal, although it may be, some odd eons down the line, where we end up. Instead, I was saying that we CANNOT understand it. I was simply musing about the ultimate futility of the quest for a meaning to it all, or for the way of it all. After all, our understanding now is so limited that, even if we were to be shown "the big picture", I doubt we would be able to understand it. This is not really a good analogy, but it's kind of akin to reading the first few lines of a book, and then being presented with the end. Most people seeking a "big answer" don't realize that the foundation has already been layed in billions of smaller questions. Every last bit of knowledge ever eked out of the universe by modest human effort are simply parts towards the whole.
> What I mean is
>that by trying to figure
>out everything about the universe
>we can find out what
>we can and cannot know
>and direct our mind accordingly.
>We learn as much from
>what we don't know as
>from what we know. We
>should try to figure out
>as much as we can
>but never be nieve (neive?)
>enough to think we can
>figure out it all (at
>least at this stage in
>human development).
I suppose I've been using the wrong metaphor. I've been referring to existence as a picture, when, had I had any better hindsight, I would've been referring to it as a tapestry. We, as human beings, can only thoroughly see our little part of this tapestry. As such, wee are in ignorance of the picture, and practically unaware of the tapestry. We can, however, see the individual threads. As we grow to further understand these threads and how they are woven together, our viewpoint expands, and we are presented with more of the picture. And, even when we are able to see the whole picture, we will still only be able to make educated stabs at what the back of the tapestry looks like. It's a gradual progression, to be sure, but one that we are undertaking everyday.
>but never be nieve (neive?)
Naive. Yamu is to english as Skynet is to philosophy
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
P.S. I apologize for my posts thus far, as many of them have been rambling and insuccinct. Just let me know if you have any pointers.
>I definately agree with that, but
>encompassing the entire universe doesn't
>(and shouldn't in my opinion)
>have to be a goal,
>but a means of arriving
>at a seperate goal, perhaps
>that goal should be knowledge.
Yes, yes! Only by the furtherance of knowledge, the most functional tool and the most powerful weapon ever known, can there ever be any hope for betterment. I never meant to say that encompassing the scope of the entire universe WAS a goal, although it may be, some odd eons down the line, where we end up. Instead, I was saying that we CANNOT understand it. I was simply musing about the ultimate futility of the quest for a meaning to it all, or for the way of it all. After all, our understanding now is so limited that, even if we were to be shown "the big picture", I doubt we would be able to understand it. This is not really a good analogy, but it's kind of akin to reading the first few lines of a book, and then being presented with the end. Most people seeking a "big answer" don't realize that the foundation has already been layed in billions of smaller questions. Every last bit of knowledge ever eked out of the universe by modest human effort are simply parts towards the whole.
> What I mean is
>that by trying to figure
>out everything about the universe
>we can find out what
>we can and cannot know
>and direct our mind accordingly.
>We learn as much from
>what we don't know as
>from what we know. We
>should try to figure out
>as much as we can
>but never be nieve (neive?)
>enough to think we can
>figure out it all (at
>least at this stage in
>human development).
I suppose I've been using the wrong metaphor. I've been referring to existence as a picture, when, had I had any better hindsight, I would've been referring to it as a tapestry. We, as human beings, can only thoroughly see our little part of this tapestry. As such, wee are in ignorance of the picture, and practically unaware of the tapestry. We can, however, see the individual threads. As we grow to further understand these threads and how they are woven together, our viewpoint expands, and we are presented with more of the picture. And, even when we are able to see the whole picture, we will still only be able to make educated stabs at what the back of the tapestry looks like. It's a gradual progression, to be sure, but one that we are undertaking everyday.
>but never be nieve (neive?)
Naive. Yamu is to english as Skynet is to philosophy
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
P.S. I apologize for my posts thus far, as many of them have been rambling and insuccinct. Just let me know if you have any pointers.
G
Guest
Guest
RE: Sure, sounds good...
hmmm...so lets advance our knowledge a little bit and attempt to explain a few things (this may be more than one attempt). Every Metaphysical book that I have seen so far presents a view of what is traditionally called "reality" (we may have to change this) and attempts to explain certain "things" about "reality." Oh damn, jeez, I have to go now, but I guess I will post this just so you know I'm alive. I will post later, sorry I couldn't finish the post.
Last thing before I go:
"P.S. I apologize for my posts thus far, as many of them have been rambling and insuccinct. Just let me know if you have any pointers." You should see my journal!
hmmm...so lets advance our knowledge a little bit and attempt to explain a few things (this may be more than one attempt). Every Metaphysical book that I have seen so far presents a view of what is traditionally called "reality" (we may have to change this) and attempts to explain certain "things" about "reality." Oh damn, jeez, I have to go now, but I guess I will post this just so you know I'm alive. I will post later, sorry I couldn't finish the post.
Last thing before I go:
"P.S. I apologize for my posts thus far, as many of them have been rambling and insuccinct. Just let me know if you have any pointers." You should see my journal!
D
Daemon Spawn
Guest
RE: Existence
The meaning of life and existence has much to do with our perception of the world and of ourselves. Existence does not automatically come with living or the state of being alive, but comes out of an awareness of one's mortality and/or power to perceive themselves as a sentient being that goes through the life/death cycle. The perception of yourself is what gives you your existence. You are able to separate your individual nature from the hordes of others and distinguish yourself as unique, and know that another you never before existed, and never will exist.
This perception of yourself reflects much of the ancient (or sometimes not so ancient) Oriental practices of becoming aware of youself through meditation and concentration. Only when you are truly aware of youself are youin touch of your existence, according to the Taoists, and other Asian dogma. The awareness of your physical self lends awareness to your spirituality and hence existence, the state of existing in the physical realm. The awareness of your spirituality lends awareness to your existence in the spiritual realm, the special ability of humanity. This spiritual realm can be acheived by any human, but only humans. If apes could distinguish themselves as a unique entity among themselves, they could enter the Physical realm. If they become aware of themselves as spiritual and mental beings, they would be able to enter the spiritual realm.
One small part of the concept of perception is that you are limited to what your five senses can perceive. This limitation is evident, as in such films as "The Truman Show," and "The Matrix," and also shows up briefly in Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions."(which, btw, is a great book and I recommend to anyone). The question these media present is: How do you know that what you are perceiving is truly reality?
My answer is: You don't know.(this actually might be another good philosophical topic, let me know if you think so). What if your whole life is a test run by higher beings, and that you are a robot, programmed to simulate "emoions" and "behavior"? What if this test, run by higher beings, IS your life, the meaning of your existence?
We humans have a deep fascination with this type of thought. (or else none of us would be here right now-in this message board). This fascination can be one reason we exist, to find out exactly WHY we do exist. This very sentence you are reading can be a meaning all on its own. IT exists. Or DOES it? Do you? Do I? How can you prove your existence?
The meaning of life and existence has much to do with our perception of the world and of ourselves. Existence does not automatically come with living or the state of being alive, but comes out of an awareness of one's mortality and/or power to perceive themselves as a sentient being that goes through the life/death cycle. The perception of yourself is what gives you your existence. You are able to separate your individual nature from the hordes of others and distinguish yourself as unique, and know that another you never before existed, and never will exist.
This perception of yourself reflects much of the ancient (or sometimes not so ancient) Oriental practices of becoming aware of youself through meditation and concentration. Only when you are truly aware of youself are youin touch of your existence, according to the Taoists, and other Asian dogma. The awareness of your physical self lends awareness to your spirituality and hence existence, the state of existing in the physical realm. The awareness of your spirituality lends awareness to your existence in the spiritual realm, the special ability of humanity. This spiritual realm can be acheived by any human, but only humans. If apes could distinguish themselves as a unique entity among themselves, they could enter the Physical realm. If they become aware of themselves as spiritual and mental beings, they would be able to enter the spiritual realm.
One small part of the concept of perception is that you are limited to what your five senses can perceive. This limitation is evident, as in such films as "The Truman Show," and "The Matrix," and also shows up briefly in Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions."(which, btw, is a great book and I recommend to anyone). The question these media present is: How do you know that what you are perceiving is truly reality?
My answer is: You don't know.(this actually might be another good philosophical topic, let me know if you think so). What if your whole life is a test run by higher beings, and that you are a robot, programmed to simulate "emoions" and "behavior"? What if this test, run by higher beings, IS your life, the meaning of your existence?
We humans have a deep fascination with this type of thought. (or else none of us would be here right now-in this message board). This fascination can be one reason we exist, to find out exactly WHY we do exist. This very sentence you are reading can be a meaning all on its own. IT exists. Or DOES it? Do you? Do I? How can you prove your existence?
M
MatriX
Guest
(I know this is an old post, sorry. Couldnt resist this one though )
Here's something to discuss. Beef.
)Here's something to discuss. Beef.