|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 26, 2023 17:57:38 GMT
The soul is a thing when inhabiting a thing, the soul is no-thing when it moves beyond inhabiting forms. The soul fundamentally is space as awareness; without sense we observe space, with the senses we observe space. This act of observation is space itself considering space allows for the imprinting or rather assuming of things upon itself. Space underlies everything as everything is space. The transmigration of the soul is the soul exhausting all forms before it moves to a state of formlessness. This is considering space, i.e. no-thing, is potentiality and as potentiality must exhaust all possibilities if it is to remain changeless as the exhaustion of every possibility is the same as nothingness.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 28, 2023 3:20:36 GMT
No "thing" will ever make you sound like a real adult trying to be a philosopher
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2023 18:15:15 GMT
No "thing" will ever make you sound like a real adult trying to be a philosopher If "at the highest level of reality all logic and order disintegrates" then we are left with no-thing.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 9, 2023 17:27:22 GMT
The beyond thing can be imagined as some kind of a potential act, but this act, until it's been realized, is not beyond, but within. If in a certain place there is no thing, it means in that place there is some kind of an emptiness. If there is no sound, it means there is a pause. But as pauses so sounds are waves; waves are mechanical changes of things, so for a pause or an emptiness there is another thing that is moving, while that other is not moving (relatively to that one).
We can imagine a space as some kind of a zoon. I mean we can imagine a thing that has a size XL or XXLL or kinda. However, for our thoughts it doesn't make any sense, if there are no bigger or smaller things. If I think about A and B, I don't really care which size A and B have if I know that A is bigger, than B. That's it. Their measure is their relation to each other. Therefore, for a space to be zoomed means that the space is a field of possible events. Here it means the next: if we've got A and B, then for any new C, D, etc C will be bigger, or smaller, than A or B, D will be smaller or bigger, than A, B, or C, etc.
What is time then? It is before or after. If we've got A and B, then for C it's possible to come later, or earlier, than A or B, and for D is to come earlier or later, than C, A, or B, etc.
We cannot or unable to start with no A or B. It's impossible. Without any criteria there is no movement. So, shortly this is the beginning of Kantian philosophy, what I recently wrote you.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 17:37:46 GMT
The beyond thing can be imagined as some kind of a potential act, but this act, until it's been realized, is not beyond, but within. If in a certain place there is no thing, it means in that place there is some kind of an emptiness. If there is no sound, it means there is a pause. But as pauses so sounds are waves; waves are mechanical changes of things, so for a pause or an emptiness there is another thing that is moving, while that other is not moving (relatively to that one). We can imagine a space as some kind of a zoon. I mean we can imagine a thing that has a size XL or XXLL or kinda. However, for our thoughts it doesn't make any sense, if there are no bigger or smaller things. If I think about A and B, I don't really care which size A and B have if I know that A is bigger, than B. That's it. Their measure is their relation to each other. Therefore, for a space to be zoomed means that the space is a field of possible events. Here it means the next: if we've got A and B, then for any new C, D, etc C will be bigger, or smaller, than A or B, D will be smaller or bigger, than A, B, or C, etc. What is time then? It is before or after. If we've got A and B, then for C it's possible to come later, or earlier, than A or B, and for D is to come earlier or later, than C, A, or B, etc. We cannot or unable to start with no A or B. It's impossible. Without any criteria there is no movement. So, shortly this is the beginning of Kantian philosophy, what I recently wrote you. If we make the observation that "we cannot know of a thing beyond our field of knowledge" then we are setting a negative boundary to said thing, i.e. what it is not, thus know it to some degree. Our absence of knowing said thing is internalized and in these respects there is nothing beyond us.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 17, 2023 19:42:04 GMT
The beyond thing can be imagined as some kind of a potential act, but this act, until it's been realized, is not beyond, but within. If in a certain place there is no thing, it means in that place there is some kind of an emptiness. If there is no sound, it means there is a pause. But as pauses so sounds are waves; waves are mechanical changes of things, so for a pause or an emptiness there is another thing that is moving, while that other is not moving (relatively to that one). We can imagine a space as some kind of a zoon. I mean we can imagine a thing that has a size XL or XXLL or kinda. However, for our thoughts it doesn't make any sense, if there are no bigger or smaller things. If I think about A and B, I don't really care which size A and B have if I know that A is bigger, than B. That's it. Their measure is their relation to each other. Therefore, for a space to be zoomed means that the space is a field of possible events. Here it means the next: if we've got A and B, then for any new C, D, etc C will be bigger, or smaller, than A or B, D will be smaller or bigger, than A, B, or C, etc. What is time then? It is before or after. If we've got A and B, then for C it's possible to come later, or earlier, than A or B, and for D is to come earlier or later, than C, A, or B, etc. We cannot or unable to start with no A or B. It's impossible. Without any criteria there is no movement. So, shortly this is the beginning of Kantian philosophy, what I recently wrote you. If we make the observation that "we cannot know of a thing beyond our field of knowledge" then we are setting a negative boundary to said thing, i.e. what it is not, thus know it to some degree. Our absence of knowing said thing is internalized and in these respects there is nothing beyond us. No, no, no, no, no... Plato was wrong, so Socrates – no resemblance, no mesmerising, no mnemonics, no previous knowledge is needed. Do animals have previous knowledge? No. Do ooze have previous knowledge? No. Do bacteria have it. No. Maybe rocks should have it. No, they don't. This is the most ridiculous thing, that after someone (Plato or kinda) said that we must think. Only thinking is good! Only thinking is the sign of the best race! Any non-thinkers will be burning in furnace!... These are foolish narratives. Actually, even 'foolish' isn't foolish, and wise isn't wise. Words mean nothing, or something... We don't need them. They are the main source of our confusion. Get rid of language – no problems will occur. So, no "previous field" of knowledge, no any kinds of are really needed. Languages are the destroyers of ours. Our ruiners. The language is a bad soil. It grows only troubles, paradoxes, and explicit strong language.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 21:56:01 GMT
If we make the observation that "we cannot know of a thing beyond our field of knowledge" then we are setting a negative boundary to said thing, i.e. what it is not, thus know it to some degree. Our absence of knowing said thing is internalized and in these respects there is nothing beyond us. No, no, no, no, no... Plato was wrong, so Socrates – no resemblance, no mesmerising, no mnemonics, no previous knowledge is needed. Do animals have previous knowledge? No. Do ooze have previous knowledge? No. Do bacteria have it. No. Maybe rocks should have it. No, they don't. This is the most ridiculous thing, that after someone (Plato or kinda) said that we must think. Only thinking is good! Only thinking is the sign of the best race! Any non-thinkers will be burning in furnace!... These are foolish narratives. Actually, even 'foolish' isn't foolish, and wise isn't wise. Words mean nothing, or something... We don't need them. They are the main source of our confusion. Get rid of language – no problems will occur. So, no "previous field" of knowledge, no any kinds of are really needed. Languages are the destroyers of ours. Our ruiners. The language is a bad soil. It grows only troubles, paradoxes, and explicit strong language. 1. Language is the relation of symbols. 2. A symbol is that which directs to something else. 3. All phenomena are directed to further phenomena. 4. All phenomena are symbols. 5. Phenomena are a language.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2023 9:20:25 GMT
No, no, no, no, no... Plato was wrong, so Socrates – no resemblance, no mesmerising, no mnemonics, no previous knowledge is needed. Do animals have previous knowledge? No. Do ooze have previous knowledge? No. Do bacteria have it. No. Maybe rocks should have it. No, they don't. This is the most ridiculous thing, that after someone (Plato or kinda) said that we must think. Only thinking is good! Only thinking is the sign of the best race! Any non-thinkers will be burning in furnace!... These are foolish narratives. Actually, even 'foolish' isn't foolish, and wise isn't wise. Words mean nothing, or something... We don't need them. They are the main source of our confusion. Get rid of language – no problems will occur. So, no "previous field" of knowledge, no any kinds of are really needed. Languages are the destroyers of ours. Our ruiners. The language is a bad soil. It grows only troubles, paradoxes, and explicit strong language. 1. Language is the relation of symbols. 2. A symbol is that which directs to something else. 3. All phenomena are directed to further phenomena. 4. All phenomena are symbols. 5. Phenomena are a language. 1. Language is confusion 2. Confusion is hesitations 3. Hesitations misguide 4. Misguide bring nonsense 5. Nonsense born language
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 19, 2023 22:43:21 GMT
Ironically the matrix is language it is the thing that has made man so destructive it is the most powerful thing that exist
And its us then catalyst for the Jewish and Christian religions it is both the good and the bad in this world
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 21, 2023 18:43:19 GMT
The Soul (a unique conscious sense of ‘I’) is without doubt not an emanation of the brain. About 500 years from now, computers could be used to try and teleport people, much like in Star-Trek. If every atom is duplicated, and the original body destroyed then the body is technically teleported. Or is it? Would the unique sense of ‘I’ move from one body to the other? I answer this by mapping out the five permutations that could arise if we decide not to destroy the original body... continues here .. www.flight-light-and-spin.com/chapter/pandora-2.htmBut most vital here are the consequences for biology which is premised on atheist materialist nihilist, death-of-the-soul-philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 21, 2023 20:10:15 GMT
NOT EVEN A SINGLE THOUGHT CAN BE PRODUCED WITHOUT LANGUAGE.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 22, 2023 3:56:24 GMT
NOT EVEN A SINGLE THOUGHT CAN BE PRODUCED WITHOUT LANGUAGE. I think that language has most definitely changed the way we think and understand but i dont think that it completely governs are thoughts as you say that it does For example are dreams are the original "language" or form of communicating and its the language of experience and knowing But because we are taught from birth to use speaking for all of are communication we have lost the understanding therefore we find are dreams to be confusing and we always wonder why and what are dreams mean because the only form of communication we know is speaking and when we sleep the dream worlds #1 means of communication isnt words. And thats just 1 example
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 22, 2023 12:47:01 GMT
NOT EVEN A SINGLE THOUGHT CAN BE PRODUCED WITHOUT LANGUAGE. This hinges on how we define language. There are of course plenty of thoughts beyond any formal academic language definition.
But deep thinking, and authentic language are certainly so closely connected as to be virtually synonymous, yes.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 22, 2023 14:50:42 GMT
NOT EVEN A SINGLE THOUGHT CAN BE PRODUCED WITHOUT LANGUAGE. This hinges on how we define language. There are of course plenty of thoughts beyond any formal academic language definition.
But deep thinking, and authentic language are certainly so closely connected as to be virtually synonymous, yes.
It is indeed as difficult to define language as to define thinking. Anyway, I distinguish UNDERSTANDING and THINKING.... In brief: Understanding need not be verbal/linguistic at all, as in the case of infants. Thinking is done with concepts [specific lumps of understanding], which are linguistic, that is, having a perceptual form: visual, tactile, or for most adults, auditory/acoustic. [Here I skip my next ten pages.] Upon reading the above post s, my immediate reaction was: if you get rid of language, you cannot think at all, aside from issues of communication.//This is a huge topic.
|
|
|
Post by karl on May 22, 2023 17:06:01 GMT
This hinges on how we define language. There are of course plenty of thoughts beyond any formal academic language definition.
But deep thinking, and authentic language are certainly so closely connected as to be virtually synonymous, yes.
It is indeed as difficult to define language as to define thinking. Anyway, I distinguish UNDERSTANDING and THINKING.... In brief: Understanding need not be verbal/linguistic at all, as in the case of infants. Thinking is done with concepts [specific lumps of understanding], which are linguistic, that is, having a perceptual form: visual, tactile, or for most adults, auditory/acoustic. [Here I skip my next ten pages.] Upon reading the above post s, my immediate reaction was: if you get rid of language, you cannot think at all, aside from issues of communication.//This is a huge topic.
As I see it, it's a matter of definition. Instead of reserving the concept of thinking for verbal reasoning, one can define thinking more broadly, so it includes verbal and non-verbal reasoning.
One can introspectively reason with concepts there is yet to be a word for. The function of verbal language is that it makes communication much easier, particularly with others, but also with oneself. It's why people sometimes speak to themselves to clarify their thoughts.
|
|