- April 27th, 2021, 2:22 pm
#382826
I propose you don’t need to profess a belief in chronology or causality to make any statement, despite the appearance...
The minimum requirement of any legitimate “statement of” is “interaction with”...if a statement from a source does not trace to some event or some thing other than the source of the statement, then (and this is kind of funny) it is necessarily not a legitimate statement of anything...is would be determined to be a fluke...something totally random...it is also therefore to be thought of as supernatural and to that extent we must treat it as if it were impossible… our statements are complex… they profess complex chronology, causality, experience, and with all of that they betray an underlying unrest (desire) from the one making the statement, as the statements we are familiar with are made by intelligent minds which, as far as we know, are built in with unrest / desire / reactivity / or what would be called programming in the computer analogy. We do not make these sorts of complex statements without provocation by various, simultaneous memory references, all of which compete for dominance in each of our statements, forming the resultant organized statement as a result of their internal competition which manifests as a synthesis...a dance… a fight which becomes lovemaking, if you will.
And this is quite beautiful to observe, but there is a deeper reality to “statements” than the kind of unique statements made by thinking minds… in this sense, things which are more complex (these thinking statements) are also more limited and bound by more parameters...What if we revealed those specific parameters as unnecessary to the statement itself?
I propose that the statement has a fundamental character which must be considered as separate from chronology/causality… an unthinking / undesiring nature of statements embedded beneath the thinking / desiring
What is a statement, truly?
The “happening” of a statement from an intelligence is technically reducible to the same kind of happening anywhere (in terms of how we describe it).
A statement is by an object or thing, relating to it’s interaction with another object or thing
To an observer, statements may be regarded everywhere… there is no more legitimacy to the statement observed coming from another person that 2 + 2 = 4 than the statement by a dry piece of wood, as it actively bursts into flames when struck by lightning… the first statement is a reference to memory and outside stimulation in the person we observe in the same way that the second statement is a reference by the wood to the nature of it’s molecular constituents and to the lightning which has struck it… they are, at root, the same kind of expression, which we might call a statement.
Therefore, statements are reducible (by tracing them to their source) to “reaction” (implying causality, chronology, etc…) which is reducible by the same method of tracing to “interaction”. We cannot conceive of a “reaction” (invoking one or another of multiple objects or things) without a previous “interaction” (invoking the event of the happening itself, [between what we later would characterize as two or more objects, where one reacts from the other(s)] as being ONE object… one happening (having the dual nature of an event and an the object(s) in the event).
So statements are just interactions, fundamentally. By definition, interaction is spontaneous between the participants, and therefore also non causal or chronological in itself… it is however, not stagnant necessarily… an interaction is considered as an event and is active to the beholder
By this argument I realize certain problems may arise:
For one, we must conclude that, not only are statements with no traceable interaction “illegitimate”... they are also impossible… therefore, any statement made by a person would be traceable to an interaction and also expressive of it to some extent… therefore, all statements must have inherent legitimacy to some extent…even absurd, contradictory statements, as they are considered relative to the one expressing them. Just not the kind of legitimacy we would care about, and the statement in itself may be regarded as illegitimate if it is regarded relative to some particular methodology… Such as if someone were to say 2 + 3 = 4, the statement is illegitimate according to the known methodology, but it still meets the requirements of a pure statement which requires a legitimate non chronological non causal interaction that it can be traced to… It is a statement on the nature of the one making it, not on the nature of mathematical process.
However, it is not inherently the case that a statement against chronology or causality is illegitimate, either according to the interpretations of scientific methodologies or to the nature of statements… one must not be required to express a belief in chronology or causality in any given statement… actually it may be quite the opposite, that we betray a belief in the non causal, unchronological nature of reality, as built by interactions which are spontaneous and outside time or order.
You could claim that your claim was made and given spontaneously… you may infuriate those who hear it, but it may be a legitimate statement.
RJG wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 7:29 amI've enjoyed reading this debate,Atla wrote:Einstein doesn't defy logic. Absolute, one-directional time is the illogical one, several times over: the future appears out of nothing, the present disappears into nothing. And the whole arrow of time business is an arbitrary, asymmetrical direction of existence. The future is different from the past, with nothing to compensate for the difference.Whether the arrow of time is forward, backwards, or whatever is irrelevant. Denying the existence of Time (i.e. "change") is logically impossible, as the denial itself relies on its existence.
Anyone, including Einstein, that makes the claim that "claims can't be made" is contradicting themselves. Einstein is part of this 4D block universe. If there is no real change in this universe then Einstein can't do anything. He can't claim change does not exist.
I propose you don’t need to profess a belief in chronology or causality to make any statement, despite the appearance...
The minimum requirement of any legitimate “statement of” is “interaction with”...if a statement from a source does not trace to some event or some thing other than the source of the statement, then (and this is kind of funny) it is necessarily not a legitimate statement of anything...is would be determined to be a fluke...something totally random...it is also therefore to be thought of as supernatural and to that extent we must treat it as if it were impossible… our statements are complex… they profess complex chronology, causality, experience, and with all of that they betray an underlying unrest (desire) from the one making the statement, as the statements we are familiar with are made by intelligent minds which, as far as we know, are built in with unrest / desire / reactivity / or what would be called programming in the computer analogy. We do not make these sorts of complex statements without provocation by various, simultaneous memory references, all of which compete for dominance in each of our statements, forming the resultant organized statement as a result of their internal competition which manifests as a synthesis...a dance… a fight which becomes lovemaking, if you will.
And this is quite beautiful to observe, but there is a deeper reality to “statements” than the kind of unique statements made by thinking minds… in this sense, things which are more complex (these thinking statements) are also more limited and bound by more parameters...What if we revealed those specific parameters as unnecessary to the statement itself?
I propose that the statement has a fundamental character which must be considered as separate from chronology/causality… an unthinking / undesiring nature of statements embedded beneath the thinking / desiring
What is a statement, truly?
The “happening” of a statement from an intelligence is technically reducible to the same kind of happening anywhere (in terms of how we describe it).
A statement is by an object or thing, relating to it’s interaction with another object or thing
To an observer, statements may be regarded everywhere… there is no more legitimacy to the statement observed coming from another person that 2 + 2 = 4 than the statement by a dry piece of wood, as it actively bursts into flames when struck by lightning… the first statement is a reference to memory and outside stimulation in the person we observe in the same way that the second statement is a reference by the wood to the nature of it’s molecular constituents and to the lightning which has struck it… they are, at root, the same kind of expression, which we might call a statement.
Therefore, statements are reducible (by tracing them to their source) to “reaction” (implying causality, chronology, etc…) which is reducible by the same method of tracing to “interaction”. We cannot conceive of a “reaction” (invoking one or another of multiple objects or things) without a previous “interaction” (invoking the event of the happening itself, [between what we later would characterize as two or more objects, where one reacts from the other(s)] as being ONE object… one happening (having the dual nature of an event and an the object(s) in the event).
So statements are just interactions, fundamentally. By definition, interaction is spontaneous between the participants, and therefore also non causal or chronological in itself… it is however, not stagnant necessarily… an interaction is considered as an event and is active to the beholder
By this argument I realize certain problems may arise:
For one, we must conclude that, not only are statements with no traceable interaction “illegitimate”... they are also impossible… therefore, any statement made by a person would be traceable to an interaction and also expressive of it to some extent… therefore, all statements must have inherent legitimacy to some extent…even absurd, contradictory statements, as they are considered relative to the one expressing them. Just not the kind of legitimacy we would care about, and the statement in itself may be regarded as illegitimate if it is regarded relative to some particular methodology… Such as if someone were to say 2 + 3 = 4, the statement is illegitimate according to the known methodology, but it still meets the requirements of a pure statement which requires a legitimate non chronological non causal interaction that it can be traced to… It is a statement on the nature of the one making it, not on the nature of mathematical process.
However, it is not inherently the case that a statement against chronology or causality is illegitimate, either according to the interpretations of scientific methodologies or to the nature of statements… one must not be required to express a belief in chronology or causality in any given statement… actually it may be quite the opposite, that we betray a belief in the non causal, unchronological nature of reality, as built by interactions which are spontaneous and outside time or order.
You could claim that your claim was made and given spontaneously… you may infuriate those who hear it, but it may be a legitimate statement.
- By iamstephanieejike
- By Sy Borg