|
|
Post by tute on Jul 8, 2018 13:42:10 GMT 10
Lesson # 2.
I suppose it could be frustrating for those that have stood steadfast to atheistic beliefs and then when final reason and logic awakens them from their sleep they embarrassingly realize they were never quite… quite on the same page as those that had been able to connect some, most, or all of the dots. But hey, anyone can be wrong.
I am now cracking on a bit with age in this ‘Christian’ environment, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to comprehend that folk are/were continually waylaid by a belief structure that under close examination proved to be so false. Now get that right!…. It was the structure that is/was debatable and left a lot to be desired; not the premise of a grand architect. But before you lose your cool again… you also have to understand where that grand architect resides…. And one hell ova lot of folk; dots connected or nay, can not comprehend the obvious…. Or the importance….
I need to digress at this point and refer to the monotheism vs polytheism in our societies and the understanding of a God. I would also prefer to leave the Jesus element out of the equation, mainly because it should not be there unless you can and do comprehend a bigger picture, complete with trilogies.
Also… if one wanted to talk about a God in a logical and reasonable way you would sit down with the likes of Epic and be given the tour in great detail. Whereas I do not have the time or the inclination. But I attempt to do so because, remember… I have been challenged to spill my guts… and I am vain enough to oblige.
I talked in the last post about 8 billion folk being in unison… I can break that number down (by no means comprehensively) for you thus and besides the rag tags, the bulk will have a belief structure containing multi gods… Taoists (The Way) Buddists (Buddha) Hinduism (Adaita Vedanta) And last but not least, the Aetheists… the atheist having no phucking belief at all apart from their own importance.
The bulk of those believers (inclusive of the latter) have multi engineers as a means of referral within their structures.... all having variable instructions as to the way to the self.
Lastly there are the singular one god faiths of Christianity and Islam, whose structures dictates that you too can come to recognize self, but in this instance it is predominantly (preferable) to be a combined affair. Though by no means are you excommunicated from the said edifices should you decide to go it alone.
But then mono or poly... all is one... what the hell.
Enter then, to this world of belief, disbelief and often taught confusion.
Though I must not leave out another major player in the purpose of discovering the self! ‘Zen Buddhism’ Zen will instruct you in the methods of finding self, but when you have done so, you will be told that self will no longer be there….
I had to mention that because the latter is a profound piece of rationale complete with the conclusive logic.
In my 30 years plus of travels within the realms of the metaphysical; Zen is the one belief that finally declares that total truth… though I must confess the Vedanta proffers a similar conclusion… but I am not well versed in the Vedanta. Nevertheless what the interpretation can be deciphered as is; One is not the self… one becomes the whole.
Science; when quantum physics broaches metaphysics and takes along its string theory, will categorically reiterate the same conclusions. Just as it is with the atoms and the quarks; There are many but there is only one. Without the many there is none.
And some clown said; omnipresent, omnipotent, my ass
So ends lesson #2
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 8, 2018 20:53:34 GMT 10
I don't follow how a tautology can be a validation of something, if I happen to state in two different ways the same thing, that don't make it real it just makes it easier for someone to get my concept. It's only logically valid, Cster. In fact it's logically necessary that it be valid because the meaning of the predicate is contained in the subject and the predicate is the product of the subject. It adds nothing, however, to knowledge about the world. But then, nor does most conversation about metaphysical matters or the world of possible rather than actual universes (i.e. those we actually know about via physics). It's just playing with words. Word games. That's what we do most of the time. We construct actualities and possibilities with our minds and our language. Physicists do it with Math, or so I'm told. The rest of us build castles in the air using our concepts and our language, and our concepts are only attainable through language. I can play with words and concepts forever because I enjoy it, and there was a time, not so long ago, that I thought it was a pathway to The Truth (!!). Then I realised that it was a pathway to just more words, but at least these games exposed the false friends masquerading as meaningful truths. Now I don't really want to play any more, unless asked to. I'd rather just watch others play (and they play so earnestly and with so much gusto). "Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever ..." (Krishnamurti 1929) www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-dissolution-speech"Like everything metaphysical, the harmony between thought and reality is to be found in the grammar of the language." (Ludwig Wittgenstein 1953) en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein |
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 9, 2018 6:02:22 GMT 10
As Epicontratus, the Famous Spiritual,Gasutraky, Islamucontusye & Famous & Respected Forums Preacher used to preach ++ false friends masquerading as meaningful truths. Now I don't really want to play any more, unless asked to. I'd rather just watch others play (and they play so earnestly and with so much gusto)++
EPIC!?!?!? Do you mean that the salami slices fell/melted from YOUR eyes??? A less KNOWN "preacher" has been preaching the VERY SAME SERMON!
IF YOU DESPERATELY NEED IT...treat kindly other members posts and THEY, as payment for services rendered, will do the SAME!! Far better to have very few ADMIRES than never ending HORDES of....fake admirers!!!
Pedro
PS. Epic make sure to remove ANY ex-salami slices from the floor! They are slippery & jumpy & smelly...they MAY jump back to their original abode...stuck to the eyes!! Do NOT forget that ++ and they play so earnestly and with so much gusto++ you (too) are/were part of a very active, adamant & prolific " thartugoth el barffiuth Respected player"!!
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 9, 2018 6:42:19 GMT 10
No, Pedro. My last post was nonsense. Just another example of word games for their own sake.
Today I am refreshed. My lassitude has been replaced by sunny ataraxia. I am ready, like Pilgrim, to continue the Search for the Celestial City. (More word games.)
But, really, today I shall cultivate my garden.
(I bet those boys in Thailand don't think life is just about words.)
|
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 9, 2018 7:01:35 GMT 10
Why did they go that far in? that they require such a rescue effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 9, 2018 7:04:04 GMT 10
++My last post was nonsense++ THAT is what Pedro says/writes...frequently! WE do HAVE to compromise!! WE do need other Accomodating People...very FREQUENTLY on the... Forums! I started to deliver a deep dissertation to 4...tomatoes plants....never suffered a dis...appointement from THEM plants!! See you NEXT time!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by -Tute on Jul 9, 2018 7:09:36 GMT 10
Why did they go that far in? that they require such a rescue effort. Ah yes... ...Now that is the burning question.... not only were they locals, they were able to read the warnings.... As to the leader of the pack... Hmmm.
Truth will be revealed.... those young fellas will hardly remain silent forever. I will be pleasantly surprised if this turns out to be misadventure
|
|
bluesky
Fought a few Battles
Posts: 95
|
Post by bluesky on Jul 9, 2018 9:39:59 GMT 10
I fear that this thread is bringing up more questions than are able to be answered.  I agree that both Church and State and us poor beings ask ourselves these questions daily, nightly, in order to make sense of our world, our universe. But there are no answers to these questions, because they are not questions that can be answered, they are non-questions. They are human interpretations of events. The Universe is not unfolding with pre-vision. Don’t you think that scientists looking at a reaction in a test tube are also subject to interpretation, or do you believe that scientists are really able to presuppose a theory of knowledge that affirms science and themselves as the only arbiter of truth? However, the one thing that we might all agree on is that Existence exists, where existence is a state of Being, undefinable except in terms of itself, i.e. that which is is by virtue of its own quiddity. This is a tautology and hence is a valid proposition. Looks similar, though I can’t be sure, to Thomas Aquinas’ theory of existence and essence: Working within the Aristotelian tradition, Thomas holds that something is understood when it is separated from matter and is necessary to thing in some respect. For instance, when we understand the nature of a tree, what we understand is not primarily the matter that goes to constitute the tree in question, but what it is to be a tree, or the structuring principle of the matter that so organizes it and specifies it as a tree rather than a plant. Furthermore, assuming our understanding is correct, when we understand a thing to be a tree, we do not understand it to be a dog, or a horse, or a cat. Thus, in our understanding of a tree, we understand that which is necessary for the tree to be a tree, and not of anything that is not a tree. Hence, our understanding of a thing is separated from its matter and is necessary to it in some respect. ...our concepts are only attainable through language. You’ve raised the chicken and egg question. Do ideas or words come first? Benjamin Lee Wolfe was a linguistic determinist and he said, "Language itself shapes a man’s basic ideas." It’s probably more of a case that language influences what we think, not determines what we think. The faculty of procedural memory works without words. How do you put on your seat belt? You probably answered in your mind without the use of words. Artists think in images, so do athletes and participants of other professions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism#Criticism |
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 9, 2018 16:43:35 GMT 10
Hi Bluesky
Re your quote:
Working within the Aristotelian tradition, Thomas holds that something is understood when it is separated from matter and is necessary to thing in some respect. For instance, when we understand the nature of a tree, what we understand is not primarily the matter that goes to constitute the tree in question, but what it is to be a tree, or the structuring principle of the matter that so organizes it and specifies it as a tree rather than a plant. Furthermore, assuming our understanding is correct, when we understand a thing to be a tree, we do not understand it to be a dog, or a horse, or a cat. Thus, in our understanding of a tree, we understand that which is necessary for the tree to be a tree, and not of anything that is not a tree. Hence, our understanding of a thing is separated from its matter and is necessary to it in some respect.
This looks like Plato's "forms" or "ideas". Although Aristotle moved on from Plato, regarding forms as discoverable in nature - Plato arguing that they were beyond human comprehension - the idea that a thing has an ideational form that is more than the materials that make up its structure, suggests to me that phenomena exists in the mind before they are perceived as structured matter. At least it is for Plato, his student Aristotle, and Aristotle's medieval disciple Aquinas.
Aristotle followed Platonic reasoning regarding the formal cause of any phenomenon. There must be an underpinning idea (form) that exists in the mind (and in nature for Aristotle) that causes a thing to be identified for what it is. A dog becomes a dog because we perceive it to be so before we mentally assemble its many features and conclude therefrom that it is a dog.
For Plato God "exists" in a formal sense only ("the form of the good", also "the One (the Unity, τὸ ἕν), the fundamental ontological principle"), though ascribing "the Good" to "the One" suggests to me that this "One" is not One, but Two: essence/quiddity and an attribute. I'm not sure how Aristotle handles that. I don't think he was very interested in God other than as Unmoved Mover. Aquinas, functioning within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, was willing to ascribe attributes to God, but in my way of thinking he confuses the the Platonic "One ... fundamental ontological principle" with the demiurge of the Gnostics. Tillich restored the non-dual fundamental ontological reality to Christian theology with his "God beyond (or above) God" - the "Ground of Being", not to be confused with the human-created demiurge worshipped by Jews and Christians (and Muslims, etc. etc.) Tillich disturbed the good burghers of his time with statements like:
“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” Systematic Theology: Vol I, 1951'
and
“It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it.”
(https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/the-non-existence-of-god-tillich-aquinas-and-the-pseudo-dionysius/948612DB4E9C89584C01B08AAF02C58E)
Cheers
Epic
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 9, 2018 17:08:39 GMT 10
Hello again, Bluesky. Re your comment: You’ve raised the chicken and egg question. Do ideas or words come first?
Benjamin Lee Wolfe was a linguistic determinist and he said, "Language itself shapes a man’s basic ideas." It’s probably more of a case that language influences what we think, not determines what we think."........................................................................... You're thinking of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which proposed that "the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition".It includes a strong hypothesis and a weak hypothesis: The strong version says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories.
The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions. (Wikipedia: Linguistic Relativism) I don't know which is better, nor what linguists currently think about it. I studied theoretical linguistics in my salad days, but can't remember much. My professional field was applied linguistics, which has its own research-based theoretical framework. I do remember Steven Pinker writing in The Language Instinct about a "jungle boy" who was found in South America some decades ago who was able to think conceptually while not having a systematic language, so I suppose the "strong hypothesis" is a bit too strong for its own good. (Edit: I can't find any reference on the net to this putative "jungle boy", but I have a clear memory that a boy or young man in Central or South America who grew up without a language community was studied and could think before he acquired language. Another case occurred in America in 1970 - a girl had been kept by her father in the basement until she was freed at 13. She had no language but could think. If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that language creates the mind, Pinker objects strongly. He believes that the mind creates language and that language is innate within it. Now, is there in fact such a thing as "the mind". Some would say no, that what is referred to as "the mind" is simply a "category mistake". This argument was famously put by Gilbert Ryle in his 1949 book The Concept of Mind, but I'm not going to go on about that here. You can see the argument in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind)I think postmodernists place a lot of emphasis on language, perhaps to the extent, as I've probably erred on, of seeing it as necessary for advanced conceptual thought. There's a lot more to this, but I don't have the energy or time to follow it through properly. |
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 9, 2018 17:49:29 GMT 10
Hmm, the structure of any sentence is a view into the world view or opinion of the speaker. We say as much with each phrase of choice as we do with all the words in description for purpose of transmitting the message.
Language seeds by description, or can seed by description. Without needing to give a direct order.
Something like all of that is how we convey a concept. As is happening here within these posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 9, 2018 21:17:18 GMT 10
Please note that I've edited my post on language and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis by adding a paragraph about Steven Pinker and children who grow up without a language community.
In regard to the idea that language is a product of the "mind", Gilbert Ryle argued that such dualism is mistaken (it's a "category mistake"). According to Ryle, "mental processes" are merely "intelligent acts".
What is intelligence? I won't go into that now, but cognitive psychologists are wary to ascribe it to something fixed and innate. IQ tests are now called GA (General Ability) tests, and Howard Gardner, the Harvard psychologist, has established a usable framework of "multiple intelligences" (i.e. abilities and aptitudes) that we all share to some extent. We might be strong in Linguistic and Intra-personal (introspective/reflective) abilities but weak in Kinesthetic and Visual-Spatial ability, for example. Others may excel at Music and Maths, but be poor in Interpersonal skill. And so on. There are now, I think, nine "intelligences" that Gardner recognises.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 10, 2018 5:47:07 GMT 10
Thanks to Cster and Epic and the entire participants group to this Thread!!!! Pedro HAD to submit to the GA, as described by H.Gardner (Harvard Psycho. Inst.), at the Joseph Rublelic Kiama Criterion Higher Institute. I will receive the written results of my test, at the end of July. It seems that Pedro excelled on 6 of the 8 Intelligences, recognized by H. Gardner, failed on Intelligence 7 and I forgot (  ?) to FULLY compile the Recognized Intelligence 8!?!? The Chief Supervisor of the General Ability Test, commented (favorably) on my knowledge of Bulverism and Post- Industrial Revolutions Islamic Traditional Daily Ramadan Rules & Traditions! I did admit to him that my Knowledge was MOSTLY gained/refined by reading the posts of Islam and Bulverism on this Seniors Forum. I would NOT be surprised if the Chief Supervisor will post a few posts...in the near future….HERE!! |
|
|
|
Post by tute on Jul 10, 2018 9:28:24 GMT 10
Lesson 3.
Now hear this…. Its not a matter of a chicken or an egg. It’s a matter of having put the cart before the horse.
I had two more lessons prepared to go; but last night I said to my self, to hell with this Tute; Go for the jugular ….
This is not targeting anyone in particular, so you can push your farex aside Greg. The rest of you can try to keep your toys within the confines of your prams.
This is not an exercise in meditation either, but it will require your concentration for a minute or two.
All this is, is a look at quantum physics… minus some confusing dots….
READY!
1. Stay still and relax
2. Clear your brain from the normal clutter.
3.. Take a deep breath….
Now consider this second; this one, the one and only right here where you stand, the ‘NOW’…. Apply the now to the other side of the world, the sun, moon, alpha Centauri and beyond… or what ever/however/wherever you may think is a suitable position to place it. It still remains the same second. Understand! The very same second. There are no others! never was! never will be. Everything that ever was, exists in this second, irrespective of where you may be; inclusive of Alpha Centauri and beyond.
That’s right…all those dinosaurs, all those Apes, all of your ancestors, everything! that ever was, are right here in this very same second……..
Further; there is no light, no dark, let alone a big bang in any other place but your mind… (or as in Gregs case, the bedroom) All, that you know and consider to be real is a construct from that mind and that second. It must be that way… it can be no other way.
If there is a concrete past for your existence beyond this second then I will challenge you to step out of this second and resurrect it…. Any part of it that turns your crank; I don’t mind. Produce it; if you can do that, I will believe the other 99% of your wanky ramblings... Bulverism included.
Now start again with the beginning of yourself, get rid of the detritus …(using the style of Okhams razor would be a start) Then and only then you just might begin to see some light.
There is nothing new in the narrative above… in fact most will recognize it… but for Gods sake don’t confuse it with chickens and eggs.
Understand who it is that is in charge of the confusion…..join the horse and the architect and leave the shit behind in the cart.
I shall repeat ( a tautology if you must) within that second that is the NOW, you will find all that has been seen and known; and all that are yet to be seen and known. So if you want to talk about existence, stick with the obvious. Science is probably a good secondary extension within that second that coincidently makes the best job of a satisfactory explanation… its just a pity that in most instances it refuses to give credit to the full extent of the dots that it is joining....
...within this second I might add.
Why do I have no time for atheistic thoughts/actions?….. the dumb dopey dicks deny the existence of that crucial second. …. But then hey! Its their call.
Then with some reflection...
Never approach a bull by the front.... a horse from the rear..... Or that fool from any direction
|
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 10, 2018 21:51:39 GMT 10
My father must have been really good at joining the dots. For he would talk to mother and then take his belt and swat my behind, second after second he would annunciate every swat right there in the now of each second with a word like don't you ever do that again (climb the trees behind the house paddock) as one second was dismissed another would eventuate only to see a swat mark where nothing had been before
|
|
|
|
Post by tute on Jul 11, 2018 4:37:42 GMT 10
My father must have been really good at joining the dots. For he would talk to mother and then take his belt and swat my behind, second after second he would annunciate every swat right there in the now of each second with a word like don't you ever do that again (climb the trees behind the house paddock) as one second was dismissed another would eventuate only to see a swat mark where nothing had been before And every swat could be brought back Cster.... but only in your mind. The physical second belonged only to that second. That second was exactly the same second that belonged everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by tute on Jul 11, 2018 5:04:50 GMT 10
As we have had such a you beaut reference to some triangle that is supposed to denote a picture of Bulveristic truths/reality (the gospel to some...I think) I thought I would give you a further wee mathematical truth... just to jingle the realities a touch.
'Bulverism' Luv it... it denotes so much... all with the one word as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 11, 2018 5:09:06 GMT 10
++ but only in your mind++ ALL those SECONDS and ALL these Dis-Joined dots!!
OUR Travels in a distant PAST...Times could be....mind UN-Settling!! There is ONE advantage in delving into OUR Back-Wards travels! This digging-up our PAST assures US that WE did have a beautiful/awful PAST and may...sadden US ... IF THIS is our PRESENT… WHAT will be OUR future? Will WE spend/waste MORE time Consulting the Deep Oracles of Senior Citizens Forums?
|
|
|
|
Post by tute on Jul 11, 2018 5:15:43 GMT 10
++ but only in your mind++ ALL those SECONDS and ALL these Dis-Joined dots!! OUR Travels in a distant PAST...Times could be....mind UN-Settling!! There is ONE advantage in delving into OUR Back-Wards travels! This digging-up our PAST assures US that WE did have a beautiful/awful PAST and may...sadden US ... IF THIS is our PRESENT… WHAT will be OUR future? Will WE spend/waste MORE time Consulting the Deep Oracles of Senior Citizens Forums? Sometimes Pedro.... sometimes I think you are the only poster here with the finger truly on his pulse... then I bring myself into the NOW |
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 11, 2018 5:38:28 GMT 10
At least now one can witness the others now
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 11, 2018 6:32:50 GMT 10
Gosh! Becoming, ceasing, the past, the future, our memories, signs of growth and decay - all reduced to a "second", a "moment in time" (or out of it if time is purely perceptual). Well, sorry to be pedantic, and probably to miss the point, but is there such a thing as a "second" in the existential and perceived/experiential sense? Rather than what the clock says (and an athlete can win a race by 0.001 of a horological second, so that kind of second exists) do we experience such a thing as a "second"? Is a swimmer, for example, aware of the difference between the moment before the 0.001. Can she say "Oh yes, I remember that"? Time, the deep thinkers say, does not exist other than in the lived experience of the subject, though one is aware of the passing of events in chunks of experience or memory, and the clock and calendar confirm this. But a "moment" in time? Is there any such thing? An atom of time?? The early Buddhist scholars thought a lot about time and moments, as have modern philosophers - several moderns are mentioned in the link below - and my understanding, from memory and a quick scan of the linked essay, is that the Buddhists, at any rate, saw moments only as flow: becoming, ceasing and with up to 16 "stages" of flow in and around any lived moment, but no static point in the process. They did distinguish, however, between a "moment of thought" and a "moment of matter". Perhaps Tute's argument would be helped if he suggested we think of a "moment of thought" or a conscious moment rather than a "second", which is in fact impossible for us to isolate from previous and following seconds (they're all flow). buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/kalupa.htm |
|
|
|
Post by cster on Jul 11, 2018 6:59:48 GMT 10
Its elastic it is, Moments can flit by in less than I can manage to keep up and yet any other moment can seem like and age, must depend on how fast I think or perceive the moment, of course if I'm not looking it seems to flash by. Existence is fleeting, blink and you'll miss it.
This here and now is where I start to find myself unable to keep up. Like the view out a train window um maybe the older rattler train windows looking at the scene through it was always tied to the speed of the train, and at times I simply could not keep up for want of feeling dizzy.
|
|
|
|
Post by tute on Jul 11, 2018 7:18:50 GMT 10
Gosh! Becoming, ceasing, the past, the future, our memories, signs of growth and decay - all reduced to a "second", a "moment in time" (or out of it if time is purely perceptual). Well, sorry to be pedantic, and probably to miss the point, but is there such a thing as a "second" in the existential and perceived/experiential sense? Rather than what the clock says (and an athlete can win a race by 0.001 of a horological second, so that kind of second exists) do we experience such a thing as a "second"? Is a swimmer, for example, aware of the difference between the moment before the 0.001. Can she say "Oh yes, I remember that"? Time, the deep thinkers say, does not exist other than in the lived experience of the subject, though one is aware of the passing of events in chunks of experience or memory, and the clock and calendar confirm this. But a "moment" in time? Is there any such thing? An atom of time?? The early Buddhist scholars thought a lot about time and moments, as have modern philosophers - several moderns are mentioned in the link below - and my understanding, from memory and a quick scan of the linked essay, is that the Buddhists, at any rate, saw moments only as flow: becoming, ceasing and with up to 16 "stages" of flow in and around any lived moment, but no static point in the process. They did distinguish, however, between a "moment of thought" and a "moment of matter". Perhaps Tute's argument would be helped if he suggested we think of a "moment of thought" or a conscious moment rather than a "second", which is in fact impossible for us to isolate from previous and following seconds (they're all flow). buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/kalupa.htm
There are no problems at all within your reply Epic. Indeed I was sharing a segment of perception. A second being more commonly accepted when referring to a frame of time. It saved the long winded explanation of why and how (proof) 'time' is a construct.
Given the depth of explanation I was involved in I just considered it more appropriate to use a common denomination that fulfilled the obligation to make it at least readable to the average Joe.
C'mon now Epic....I mean, most folk herein believe that flesh and blood is the only reality.... you have to keep it real. Whaaaat!....No seconds... no time frame. Holy Moses next thing you know we will be stepping into Metaphysics and Science
Just a question for you though Epic... why is it that you back all your posts with the thoughts (consciousness) of others.... are you unsure of something? Or could that consciousness be termed Universal.
We are a work in progress Epic and the progress can only be determined by....... |
|
bluesky
Fought a few Battles
Posts: 95
|
Post by bluesky on Jul 11, 2018 9:12:53 GMT 10
Everything that ever was, exists in this second, irrespective of where you may be... I think what you’re driving at here is the so called B-theory of time as opposed to the A-theory of time. If the ‘second’ exists (see Epic’s post), and in that time everything that ever was exists as you’ve said, then, if it didn’t exist before that second it has to have a cause. If that is true, then what you said in the following doesn’t appear make a lot of sense. ‘Further; there is no light, no dark, let alone a big bang in any other place but your mind… (or as in Gregs case, the bedroom) All, that you know and consider to be real is a construct from that mind and that second.’You seem to be thinking in terms of the universe being conceived in the mind, it could be the case that the mind is conceived in the universe. Epic, I first stumbled upon the bit about the multiple intelligences about ten years ago in Myers Psychology seventh edition. I went with it for a while but over time it just didn’t seem right to me. I think IQ is something separate from all other attributes, including personality. Really clever people, I think, don’t really have to engage the faculty; it’s just there, like a force of nature for want of a better term. I’ll have a look in another of my texts later. I think I’ve seen that jungle boy talked about in there. Edit: Epic, The best I could find was that nativists believe that our ability to acquire language is innate and develops through a process of maturation – that is the attainment of full functional capacity by a cell, tissue, or organ within the organism. Interactionists take the view that language comes about with interaction with the environment., mainly with the culture. So the latter of these two groups believe environment to be dominant in language acquisition, whilst the former think inborn factors are dominant. I couldn’t find anything on the ‘jungle boy’; however, I did recall the story about “Genie” who endured a radical and horrific language acquisition experiment that would seem to indicate that language as the interactionists see it. So much for the nativists view. www.popflock.com/learn?s=Genie_(feral_child) |
|
|
|
Post by tute on Jul 11, 2018 10:11:51 GMT 10
Cause! ...?. No offence Blue Sky but Oh dear! must the cart always come before the horse.
Forget the chicken and the egg routine.... stick with the obvious. If you are going to deal with a time... then there can be no A or B or even C, D and E. Time is not a positive that can be a given. A before or an after. Einstein nailed all this together with relativity theory... and E+Mc2. He was correct in establishing a measure.... But then with very little imagination required.... of what?
We! and I do mean We! are so firmly ensconced in our wee world that we refer to as a reality that we firmly enforce by every means possible a means to establish a measure for that reality. Therein lies the problem with the chicken and the egg. Therein also lies the questions of all believers... atheist or otherwise. It is why Zen says; when you get there you will finally find there is no 'there'
Why is it do you think that it is the old sages that just sit and smile; and whilst speaking of smiles; Why also.... did the Cheshire cat so instruct Alice .....
As to seeing is believing? what did you make then of the geometric diagram a few posts prior...
Bulverism would have it that the three sides of a triangle is conclusive proof. Quite rightly I contested it.... are you all in bed together? |
|
bluesky
Fought a few Battles
Posts: 95
|
Post by bluesky on Jul 11, 2018 19:30:43 GMT 10
Cause! ...?. No offence Blue Sky but Oh dear! must the cart always come before the horse.
Forget the chicken and the egg routine.... stick with the obvious. If you are going to deal with a time... then there can be no A or B or even C, D and E. Time is not a positive that can be a given. A before or an after. Einstein nailed all this together with relativity theory... and E+Mc2. He was correct in establishing a measure.... But then with very little imagination required.... of what?
We! and I do mean We! are so firmly ensconced in our wee world that we refer to as a reality that we firmly enforce by every means possible a means to establish a measure for that reality. Therein lies the problem with the chicken and the egg. Therein also lies the questions of all believers... atheist or otherwise. It is why Zen says; when you get there you will finally find there is no 'there'
Why is it do you think that it is the old sages that just sit and smile; and whilst speaking of smiles; Why also.... did the Cheshire cat so instruct Alice .....
As to seeing is believing? what did you make then of the geometric diagram a few posts prior...
Bulverism would have it that the three sides of a triangle is conclusive proof. Quite rightly I contested it.... are you all in bed together?
See edit above re: language acquisition. |
|
|
|
Post by tute on Jul 12, 2018 4:31:53 GMT 10
What are you talking about Bro?
Hmmmmm
A few posts back I found it was necessary to draw you guys attention to the 8 billion odd folk that make up this .... 'Planet'. All of those folk combined are in charge of the show.... Every single one of them will be contributing one way or the other. That is the only way this world can function.... 'Exist'
Every ONE that ever was; and ever will be, have, and will put forward their contributions. It is a work in progress. That is what I am talking about!
What is the prime motivator for that work in progress? I was also taking about that!.
Though as per the norm, there appears to be some consternation as to the importance of each role; that's what WE are talking about.
Though I fully comprehend what you are talking about, you and your team seem to come apart at the seams when the subject broaches a possibility that Science, Metaphysics and all those individual subjective religious beliefs can be married together to make this total universal existence a comprehensive and seamless whole.
We are all driven by the one force; I have no problem recognizing it and embracing it... Though I must confess I do find it difficult to comprehend when folk continue to divert their energies away from the obvious solution to their dilemmas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Jul 12, 2018 6:04:33 GMT 10
Pedro THINKS (yes, sometime I do IT) that IF: YOUR illusions of YOUR ever expanding KNOWLEDGE does NOT improve/make YOUR life more pleasant, interesting, BEARABLE...ehm..well...should I write IT? YOU have been wasting your LIMITED amount of time, assigned to YOUR limited Life!
Under a different name/description/terminology, BULVERISM has BEEN discussed for a few THOUSAND of years. The conclusions reached NOW are those reached 4 thousand 900 and 49 years...AGO! The best subjects of discussions, dissertations are those that do not reach ANY useful conclusions...but...allow us to continue up/down our paths! There is the certainty that WE will never see the LIGHT, DARK, and LIGHT at the end of a...NON EXISTENT tunnel!!
BLAST!! I do not know the meaning of WHAT I wrote!! NO fear, it was not wasted time; I will post IT on a Deep Spiritual Thread…..near Some or Where!
|
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 12, 2018 16:48:56 GMT 10
Just a question for you though Epic... why is it that you back all your posts with the thoughts (consciousness) of others.... are you unsure of something? Or could that consciousness be termed Universal.
Hi Tute I'll probably be off social media to some extent for the next couple of weeks. I need to catch up on other things. Re your question, I probably quote others for the following reasons: 1. It's standard practice, a requirement in fact in academic writing, that one quote one's sources. All my writing is academic. A friend once told me I talked like a book. Fair enough, and I write like it's an academic essay or thesis. Sorry about that. Sometimes I relax a bit. 2. Something pops up in a person's post and I think, "I've read about that. I must check it out". Checking out nowadays doesn't mean sloping off to one's voluminous book shelves and taking down a dusty tome. It means Googling, so I Google and find something that takes up the matter I wanted to check out. I might quote from it or paraphrase, and, if I do, I cite it. Maybe overkill for a forum post (not an academic essay or Journal article), but maybe someone will want to look at the link I've sent. 3. I don't have much imagination and am not a divergent thinker. I take other people's ideas and chew them over. I don't have the authority or credibility to burden others with my unresearched opinions. For those reasons I rely on what other more credible writers say, and if I borrow their words and ideas I think it's right to acknowledge them. All my perspectives are merely my own, based on my experiences and interpretations. We know enough from our own experience and human history to tread carefully around those who lack self-doubt or who proclaim the Truth as though it was something they'd been gifted to know. I'm happy to put forward possible truths, but they're always tentative. If not, they're probably trivial. Every word we say or write, if we want to be credible, needs to be examined for blemishes, then washed and rinsed before going on the table. Even then, it's pretty hard to be on the button all the time. Cheers Epic |
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Jul 12, 2018 17:11:22 GMT 10
Epic, I first stumbled upon the bit about the multiple intelligences about ten years ago in Myers Psychology seventh edition. I went with it for a while but over time it just didn’t seem right to me. I think IQ is something separate from all other attributes, including personality. Really clever people, I think, don’t really have to engage the faculty; it’s just there, like a force of nature for want of a better term. I’ll have a look in another of my texts later. I think I’ve seen that jungle boy talked about in there. Edit: Epic, The best I could find was that nativists believe that our ability to acquire language is innate and develops through a process of maturation – that is the attainment of full functional capacity by a cell, tissue, or organ within the organism. Interactionists take the view that language comes about with interaction with the environment., mainly with the culture. So the latter of these two groups believe environment to be dominant in language acquisition, whilst the former think inborn factors are dominant. Hi Bluesky I'm not sure how valid the Multiple Intelligences model is. I think it's been reviewed, critiqued and revised over the 35 years since Gardner put it into the marketplace of ideas, but I've not checked it out much as I haven't felt any need to. I suspect you're right that there is such a thing as innate intelligence, but in what way it's different from ability I don't know. Does one need musical intelligence before one can excel at the violin, for example, or is that ability to excel itself constitutive of musical intelligence? Is aptitude different from intelligence and/or ability? I saw something recently that studies indicate that Jews are high achievers not just because education and achievement and modelling, etc. are highly valued in Jewish cultures, but for some reason peculiar to themselves. Is the genius of Jews a product of their genes? Gardner's Multiple Intelligence model, regardless of how it stands up to critique as a psychological theory, is helpful in schools because it does articulate the range of abilities around and makes the point that kids who don't excel at Maths/Science and/or Linguistic/Verbal abilities nonetheless have "intelligence", too. And I think that's a valid and affirmative point to make in view of the diversity of talents that kids have and the fact that kids who are very sharp at, say, academic school work, may be dunces at designing and maintaining things, leading groups in a project, painting backdrops for school plays, or scoring enough points to get the basketball team home in a tight match. (I remember being told that Aboriginal kids have very strong "spatial intelligence". Maybe they do, and it might be genetic. It would partly explain why they're so good at Aussie Rules football.) |
|
?) to FULLY compile the Recognized Intelligence 8!?!?
