Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Namelesss]

The nature of humans is that they know nothing about the past (you may fail to realize this though), they know nothing about the future.

Two assertions that are not true.
Any moment, ever, can be seen as 'present' or 'past' or 'future'.
I often see 'future' moments, here! Now!
All moments are Here! Now!

We humans get to know the past simply because there are human witnesses writing testimonies about what happened.

The present is never 'written down', only memories of a 'past' (no matter how recent) can be written down/thought about.
The experience/Knowledge of the present moment is always gone by the time that some wag grabs his camera or stylus!
What is written, is no more than memories.
No 'testimony' should be believed, just used as data for more thought..
All 'future' and all 'past' only exist in/as 'thought/ego'. *__-

[jerlands]

The nature of humans is that they know nothing about the past (you may fail to realize this though), they know nothing about the future.

Two assertions that are not true.
Any moment, ever, can be seen as 'present' or 'past' or 'future'.
I often see 'future' moments, here! Now!
All moments are Here! Now!

All possibilities are present here and now and that's it. Like sunlight different plants utilize different aspects of it. Of course if you don't believe in free-will or movement or change then how do you ever get a garden going?

We humans get to know the past simply because there are human witnesses writing testimonies about what happened.

The present is never 'written down', only memories of a 'past' (no matter how recent) can be written down/thought about.
The experience/Knowledge of the present moment is always gone by the time that some wag grabs his camera or stylus!
What is written, is no more than memories.
No 'testimony' should be believed, just used as data for more thought..
All 'future' and all 'past' only exist in/as 'thought/ego'. *__-

I comprehend how the present is fleeting but I disagree again with this notion that thought and ego are somehow the same. Ego is an aspect of Self, it is not all that self encompases. Thought may arise within self but it's origins are relationships with both internal and external things. If you want to lump everything together and call the seed the lettuce then you will never have a salad

[Namelesss]

Two assertions that are not true.
Any moment, ever, can be seen as 'present' or 'past' or 'future'.
I often see 'future' moments, here! Now!
All moments are Here! Now!

All possibilities are present here and now...

A 'possibility' is an 'actuality' of which one is ignorant (doesn't have the Perspective).
When 'everything exists', what is a 'possibility'?
And do the experiment;
at any moment of your perception (life) ask yourself "where am I", and the consistent, Universal answer is always Here!
"When?"
Now!
Always Here! Always Now!

Of course if you don't believe in free-will or movement or change then how do you ever get a garden going?

There are numerous Perspectives of the 'garden'. From one, it is bare rocky soil.
From another, it is burgeoning with edibles, ripe.
From another, a field of dead stalks.
From another, furrows...
All synchronously present depending on our Perspective.
There is no 'causality', merely perception.
One moment might find us with a shovel in hand.
Like a bunch of snapshots, 'time' does not 'flow', it is quantized, a 'pile' of momentary snapshots of the One Reality. The 'flow' is the appearance of 'motion'.

The present is never 'written down', only memories of a 'past' (no matter how recent) can be written down/thought about.
The experience/Knowledge of the present moment is always gone by the time that some wag grabs his camera or stylus!
What is written, is no more than memories.
No 'testimony' should be believed, just used as data for more thought..
All 'future' and all 'past' only exist in/as 'thought/ego'. *__-

I comprehend how the present is fleeting but I disagree again with this notion that thought and ego are somehow the same.

Ego is an aspect of Self, it is not all that self encompases.[/quote]
Ego - all that we think that we are!
I notice the capital 'S' on your 'Self' of which ego is an 'aspect', and then you use a different 'self' to argue.
That doesn't work, logically.
And even the 'Omni- Self!' seems to be 'Thought/Ego', as I will demonstrate presently;

Some thoughts occurred to me earlier, on the subject (or close to it), but have yet been... edited... tuned... for mass consumption.
See if you can get the jist;

The boundaries between thought(s) is no more than the 'boundary' between tall and short, or me and you; appearance only.

Thus, (t)here is no more than a single... 'proto (undifferentiated potential) - thought/ego - thought of who and what is 'self', 'ego', those thoughts with which 'we' identify!
Who we are, is 'thought', Who the Universe is, is 'Thought/Mind/Consciousness... The One!, undifferentiated from the 'undifferentiated potential' (Bindu) that is the One Omni- Universe/God, Self!

All existence is a single moments of Universal/God's Egoic Self! Awareness!

Thus 'thought/ego' is a feature of Self! The Omni-!
God's Ego.
Thus We, Who exist in/as thought/ego, ARE God's Ego!
The Ego being necessary to Know/experience Self.

Thought may arise within self but it's origins are relationships with both internal and external things. If you want to lump everything together and call the seed the lettuce then you will never have a salad

From one Perspective, a seed; from another, a salad, from another, a poop... All possibilities already exist.
Thought does not 'arise', it is already Here! Differentially perceived from/by different Perspectives.
Like the seed and the lettuce! The ability to perceive beyond the 'local' moment, to see the 'future', means that I can enjoy the lettuce while you are still clearing the rocks!
*__-

Did I not already give the illustration of 'left'?;

'Point to the left'.
Easy.
Note where you are pointing.
Now turn 1 degree and point to the left.
Again note the results.
Now another degree, etc...
And another 1/4 of a degree...
Turn in every possible direction, on every possible axis!
It turns out that every direction is 'left', 'left' is a 'cloud needing a particular Perspective to have any 'direction' at all!
Now point to the 'right'!
Same drill!
Note that the exact same cloud of 'left', is also, at the same moment, a cloud of 'right'!
And a cloud of 'up'!
And a cloud of 'down'...
Do the experiment!

The only 'distinctions' that can even be called 'left' or 'right', OR 'up' and 'down'... are a matter of Perspective!

Ultimately, We are One (unchanging (motionless), all inclusive, Knowable/unknowable) 'Cloud'/Reality!!

[jerlands]

Of course if you don't believe in free-will or movement or change then how do you ever get a garden going?

There are numerous Perspectives of the 'garden'. From one, it is bare rocky soil.
From another, it is burgeoning with edibles, ripe.
From another, a field of dead stalks.
From another, furrows...
All synchronously present depending on our Perspective.
There is no 'causality', merely perception.
One moment might find us with a shovel in hand.
Like a bunch of snapshots, 'time' does not 'flow', it is quantized, a 'pile' of momentary snapshots of the One Reality. The 'flow' is the appearance of 'motion'.

To imagine the garden is one thing but to bring it to fruition is another.

[Namelesss]

There are numerous Perspectives of the 'garden'. From one, it is bare rocky soil.
From another, it is burgeoning with edibles, ripe.
From another, a field of dead stalks.
From another, furrows...
All synchronously present depending on our Perspective.
There is no 'causality', merely perception.
One moment might find us with a shovel in hand.
Like a bunch of snapshots, 'time' does not 'flow', it is quantized, a 'pile' of momentary snapshots of the One Reality. The 'flow' is the appearance of 'motion'.

To imagine the garden is one thing but to bring it to fruition is another.

Yes, ASSUMING that "we bring it to fruition", in the first place.
What is 'imagining'?
Everything that you experience, including yourself, is 'thought/ego'... 'imag-ination'.
That is why 'belief' = insanity, because Reality is "make-believe", no more than a 'Thought'!
We don't perceive a rock, or a lettuce, we perceive 'code' and we believe the display on our monitor as Reality, when it is the code, Mind/Thought/"make-believe" that is the Reality.
"Imagine" your 'garden', thus it is real to you. So are the seeds that you imagine, and the soil...

[jerlands]

To imagine the garden is one thing but to bring it to fruition is another.

Yes, ASSUMING that "we bring it to fruition", in the first place.
What is 'imagining'?
Everything that you experience, including yourself, is 'thought/ego'... 'imag-ination'.
That is why 'belief' = insanity, because Reality is "make-believe", no more than a 'Thought'!

How is gravity make believe?

We don't perceive a rock, or a lettuce, we perceive 'code' and we believe the display on our monitor as Reality, when it is the code, Mind/Thought/"make-believe" that is the Reality.
"Imagine" your 'garden', thus it is real to you. So are the seeds that you imagine, and the soil...

If what you claim as code is the synthesis of elements that compose anything I'll accept. And, if what you perceive as make-believe as not seeing the fact matter is largely void space I can accept that but, what we see is not the thing itself but the interaction of that thing within its environment. That is what I see that I believe you are missing. The seed is the potential, the lettuce is the result of the interaction of that potential through time.

[Namelesss]

Yes, ASSUMING that "we bring it to fruition", in the first place.
What is 'imagining'?
Everything that you experience, including yourself, is 'thought/ego'... 'imag-ination'.
That is why 'belief' = insanity, because Reality is "make-believe", no more than a 'Thought'!

How is gravity make believe?

Okay, fair enough;
Lets begin with our premise, 'motion' is a matter of 'appearances'.
Gravity is a theory meant to explain the appearance of 'motion'. The 'motion' of an 'object' moving from your hand to the ground. The theory of 'gravity' helps to understand, make sense, of that perceived 'motion'. To explain that mirage.
Notice the hell our scientists are experiencing in their attempt to 'real-ify' gravity?

Simplistic illustration;
All moments arise synchronously, all together.
We've all seen, or made, the little paper flip book, perhaps of the man bouncing the ball.
Every page is a unique Perspective, and when viewed in a particular order, it appears that the ball is falling and bouncing back up.
In Reality, all of these positions arise simultaneously, but there is no 'sense' to be made from the 'cloud', so we view, uniquely, each 'still frame', and... 'imagine' 'motion'.
Our quantum tells us what the mystics have been saying for millennia, that all is 'connected', One!
If that is the case, then the slightest movement, anywhere in the Universemust affect/change the entirety of Reality, change the entire Universe!
If you really could make a choice and make it so, then you have recreated the entire Universe, for (what usually amounts to) your personal comfort.
Now, if everyone were such Godlings, altering the Universe for every desire, we would have crashed and burned the first moment out!

We don't perceive a rock, or a lettuce, we perceive 'code' and we believe the display on our monitor as Reality, when it is the code, Mind/Thought/"make-believe" that is the Reality.
"Imagine" your 'garden', thus it is real to you. So are the seeds that you imagine, and the soil...

If what you claim as code is the synthesis of elements that compose anything I'll accept.

The 'code' (quantum probability wave field, undifferentiated potential) (not "my claim" but cutting edge science) is what you imagine to be "anything" and "elements"... and anything else that is ever perceived by (Consciousness) Perspective!

And, if what you perceive as make-believe as not seeing the fact matter is largely void space I can accept that

There is no 'void space' that has ever been witnessed/Known.
There is always 'something' there, every-thing exists, no-thing cannot exist (other than as a meaningless word).
Is this lettering that you are reading composed of ink? Partly? It certainly appears to be...
'Make-believe' is looking at these symbols and finding meaning, seeing a metaphor and dressing yourself in them to go out.
We make believe that there is an us that can own things...
To really 'believe' this, that there Really is all this, autonomously existing, juxtaposed to each other in 'space'... is insanity. Symptomatic. Ignorant, at best. (But that is Bliss, no? A desirable state, ignorance! *__- )

but, what we see is not the thing itself but the interaction of that thing within its environment.

Not 'inter-action', necessarily, but what we can perceive is due to the duality, the conditionality of Thought!
Thought/Ego/Duality provides "contrast", without which, there is not anything to be Known.

That is what I see that I believe you are missing. The seed is the potential, the lettuce is the result of the interaction of that potential through time.

Were the 'appearance' of motion Universally Reality, you would be accurately describing the obvious.
That is like coming up with all sorts of theories to explain the 'motion' of the ball in our flip-book.
We are seriously studying mirages as if Universal Reality.
Thus are scientists flummoxed! *__-

[jerlands]

How is gravity make believe?

Okay, fair enough;
Lets begin with our premise, 'motion' is a matter of 'appearances'.
Gravity is a theory meant to explain the appearance of 'motion'. The 'motion' of an 'object' moving from your hand to the ground. The theory of 'gravity' helps to understand, make sense, of that perceived 'motion'. To explain that mirage.
Notice the hell our scientists are experiencing in their attempt to 'real-ify' gravity?
Simplistic illustration;
All moments arise synchronously, all together.
We've all seen, or made, the little paper flip book, perhaps of the man bouncing the ball.
Every page is a unique Perspective, and when viewed in a particular order, it appears that the ball is falling and bouncing back up.
In Reality, all of these positions arise simultaneously, but there is no 'sense' to be made from the 'cloud', so we view, uniquely, each 'still frame', and... 'imagine' 'motion'.
Our quantum tells us what the mystics have been saying for millennia, that all is 'connected', One!
If that is the case, then the slightest movement, anywhere in the Universemust affect/change the entirety of Reality, change the entire Universe!
If you really could make a choice and make it so, then you have recreated the entire Universe, for (what usually amounts to) your personal comfort.
Now, if everyone were such Godlings, altering the Universe for every desire, we would have crashed and burned the first moment out!

We affect the universe each time we throw garbage into our rivers. You may not perceive it but I do.

If what you claim as code is the synthesis of elements that compose anything I'll accept.

The 'code' (quantum probability wave field, undifferentiated potential) (not "my claim" but cutting edge science) is what you imagine to be "anything" and "elements"... and anything else that is ever perceived by (Consciousness) Perspective!

Do you think we actually recognize everything yet?

And, if what you perceive as make-believe as not seeing the fact matter is largely void space I can accept that

There is no 'void space' that has ever been witnessed/Known.
There is always 'something' there, every-thing exists, no-thing cannot exist (other than as a meaningless word).
Is this lettering that you are reading composed of ink? Partly? It certainly appears to be...
'Make-believe' is looking at these symbols and finding meaning, seeing a metaphor and dressing yourself in them to go out.
We make believe that there is an us that can own things...
To really 'believe' this, that there Really is all this, autonomously existing, juxtaposed to each other in 'space'... is insanity. Symptomatic. Ignorant, at best. (But that is Bliss, no? A desirable state, ignorance! *__- )

Void space is that which is between the earth and the sun, between the neutron, proton and electron, filled with potential and dependant upon that potential. It is the potential that creates movement and time. It is one thing in relation to another that creates our world and it is that relationship we interact within and witness.

but, what we see is not the thing itself but the interaction of that thing within its environment.

Not 'inter-action', necessarily, but what we can perceive is due to the duality, the conditionality of Thought!
Thought/Ego/Duality provides "contrast", without which, there is not anything to be Known.

I'd agree that thought arises from duality and possibly without duality there would be no thought.

That is what I see that I believe you are missing. The seed is the potential, the lettuce is the result of the interaction of that potential through time.

Were the 'appearance' of motion Universally Reality, you would be accurately describing the obvious.
That is like coming up with all sorts of theories to explain the 'motion' of the ball in our flip-book.
We are seriously studying mirages as if Universal Reality.
Thus are scientists flummoxed! *__-

It may be true that life is a mirage to some and others it is a path.

[Namelesss]

Do you think we actually recognize everything yet?

All that exists is already perceived, experienced/Known.
All at once, synchronously, Here! Now!
By 'We' I am assuming that you mean all unique Souls.

...It is one thing in relation to another that creates our world and it is that relationship we interact within and witness.

Yes, duality, thought/ego that gives rise to the appearance of 'contrast'.

I'd agree that thought arises from duality and possibly without duality there would be no thought.

Thought/ego = duality.

It may be true that life is a mirage to some and others it is a path.

And to others, it is a "bowl of cherries"! *__-

[jerlands]

If that is the case, then the slightest movement, anywhere in the Universemust affect/change the entirety of Reality, change the entire Universe!
If you really could make a choice and make it so, then you have recreated the entire Universe, for (what usually amounts to) your personal comfort.
Now, if everyone were such Godlings, altering the Universe for every desire, we would have crashed and burned the first moment out!

We affect the universe each time we throw garbage into our rivers. You may not perceive it but I do.

If you can't see how people make changes both good and bad to our environment I think you've blinded yourself and your other senses are equally dulled.

[Namelesss]

We affect the universe each time we throw garbage into our rivers. You may not perceive it but I do.

If you can't see how people make changes both good and bad to our environment I think you've blinded yourself and your other senses are equally dulled.

Yes, seeing things from 'your' Perspective is easy, everyone on the planet does, or has seen things from your Perspective.
So, after all your seemingly honest questioning, after all my well thought out, generous elucidation, you tell me that since I do not share your Perspective, I am a 'blind dullard'?
And we have been having such a rollicking conversation right up until now! *__-
But it has degraded into you telling me that if I don't see things from your Perspective, I must be a dullard? Seriously?
Actually, I could say the same thing, but neither accomplishes diddly, other than as a discussion ender.
What could you possibly learn from a blind dullard? *__-

[jerlands]

If you can't see how people make changes both good and bad to our environment I think you've blinded yourself and your other senses are equally dulled.

Yes, seeing things from 'your' Perspective is easy, everyone on the planet does, or has seen things from your Perspective.
So, after all your seemingly honest questioning, after all my well thought out, generous elucidation, you tell me that since I do not share your Perspective, I am a 'blind dullard'?
And we have been having such a rollicking conversation right up until now! *__-
But it has degraded into you telling me that if I don't see things from your Perspective, I must be a dullard? Seriously?
Actually, I could say the same thing, but neither accomplishes diddly, other than as a discussion ender.
What could you possibly learn from a blind dullard? *__-

That's true and I apologize for the insult. My outrage is based on your seemingly naive perspective that man is unable to do harm or do good.

[Fooloso4]

Here is one of my favorite stories from the Bible:

And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' (Genesis 2:16-17)

And the woman saith unto the serpent, `Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we do eat,and of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die.' (3:2-3)

This story within a story within a story is a cautionary tale about storytelling. What we are not told is what Adam tells Eve about what God told him, but in this story about the first story told by man there is both a mistake and an embellishment.

We are told:

and Jehovah God causeth to sprout from the ground every tree desirable for appearance, and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Young’s Literal Translation 1:9)

The tree in the midst of the garden is the tree of life which, significantly, was not forbidden. Nothing was said about not touching it any of the trees.

Compounding this problem for us, is that some translations, such as the New International Version, ignore the distinctions and put the tree of knowledge in the middle along with the tree of life.

If the first person who is told the story gets it wrong how much more do we get wrong? The shift from an oral to a written transmission does not solve the problem but rather compounds it through variations and translation. How much drift is there through interpretive embellishment?

The proliferation of various conflicting commentaries and interpretations attests to the problem. The claim that the Hebrew Bible is the “old testament” superseded by a new and improved “new testament” attests to the problem. The idea that the Hebrew Bible is a ‘testament’ or covenant rather than it containing covenants attests to the problem. The idea that a book of books forms a single coherent book attests to the problem.

What is often overlooked or not understood is just how foreign the Hebrew Bible was to western, that is, Greek, or more granularly Greek and Roman, culture. Christianity did not make it any less foreign through its stories of a Jewish man who was transformed from a messianic figure, a son of God, to the Son of God, God, and the Trinity.

What is often swept under the rug is that Paul’s promise of what was at hand, what was to occur during his lifetime did not occur. The writings that developed from that time, some of which were eventually declared to be canonical and the rest suppressed or destroyed, had as their intended purpose making broken promises part of the plan of a single promise that will eventually be fulfilled. The supposed Messiah died on the cross, but rather than that being the end it became the beginning of the end, the problem of which did not end with Paul as was promised, or with the next generation that promised itself it was the last, or with any generation since then.

[Namelesss]

Yes, seeing things from 'your' Perspective is easy, everyone on the planet does, or has seen things from your Perspective.
So, after all your seemingly honest questioning, after all my well thought out, generous elucidation, you tell me that since I do not share your Perspective, I am a 'blind dullard'?
And we have been having such a rollicking conversation right up until now! *__-
But it has degraded into you telling me that if I don't see things from your Perspective, I must be a dullard? Seriously?
Actually, I could say the same thing, but neither accomplishes diddly, other than as a discussion ender.
What could you possibly learn from a blind dullard? *__-

That's true and I apologize for the insult. My outrage is based on your seemingly naive perspective that man is unable to do harm or do good.

Assuming that 'man actually does', that is what man does, what he does.
Like electricity.
It is up to the vain judgmentalism of the observer to perceive 'good' and 'evil' ('out there', when there is no 'out there').
Again, such judgmentalism is the clueless constant nibbling of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil', the single prohibited 'Tree' in the Garden!
Sin! Toxic! Warning!
You ask the point of the bible?
Well, that is one HUGE point, yet you ignore the warnings and you make excuses for it's blind and blithe consumption (feels soooo good, superior...).
Just like the 'Serpent'... *__-

[jerlands]

That's true and I apologize for the insult. My outrage is based on your seemingly naive perspective that man is unable to do harm or do good.

Assuming that 'man actually does', that is what man does, what he does.
Like electricity.
It is up to the vain judgmentalism of the observer to perceive 'good' and 'evil' ('out there', when there is no 'out there').
Again, such judgmentalism is the clueless constant nibbling of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil', the single prohibited 'Tree' in the Garden!
Sin! Toxic! Warning!
You ask the point of the bible?
Well, that is one HUGE point, yet you ignore the warnings and you make excuses for it's blind and blithe consumption (feels soooo good, superior...).
Just like the 'Serpent'... *__-

This is all gibberish, gobbledygook. As long as you're not a threat to yourself or others... but then I perceive the later.