|
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 xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:56:34 GMT
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 This is all language thus you refute yourself.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:58:37 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. The soul is fundamentally the same as space; space is eternal, without ends, merges within itself, is the source of all forms/is form/is beyond form, creates ratios, is beyond ratios....
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:59:29 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 Language is symbols. Dreams are symbols.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 20:01:39 GMT
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.
The question is how do we define "definition" without a self-referentiality that ends in anything (as "definition" becomes formless)....or is ending with anything really a bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 24, 2023 20:09:57 GMT
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 Language is symbols. Dreams are symbols. Yes little Timmy and do you know what the difference is between the 2?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 20:17:38 GMT
Language is symbols. Dreams are symbols. Yes little Timmy and do you know what the difference is between the 2? And do you know the phenomenon of "symbol" connects both much in the same manner 1+3 and 2+2 are both different expressions of the same thing?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 24, 2023 20:38:38 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. The soul is fundamentally the same as space; space is eternal, without ends, merges within itself, is the source of all forms/is form/is beyond form, creates ratios, is beyond ratios.... it is as much to do with a position in time as it is in space but more vitally
a soul is karma
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 26, 2023 19:43:24 GMT
The soul is fundamentally the same as space; space is eternal, without ends, merges within itself, is the source of all forms/is form/is beyond form, creates ratios, is beyond ratios.... it is as much to do with a position in time as it is in space but more vitally
a soul is karma
And Karma is the ratio of good actions to bad actions with all actions being grounded in the manifestation of forms and all forms are spatial. Because of this nature the soul is inseparable from space.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 27, 2023 15:06:57 GMT
it is as much to do with a position in time as it is in space but more vitally
a soul is karma
And Karma is the ratio of good actions to bad actions with all actions being grounded in the manifestation of forms and all forms are spatial. Because of this nature the soul is inseparable from space.
Now we are counting dimensions. The souls we commonly see are observed to be grounded in the space we see. The soul appears to be as much grounded in time as in space, as in any other 'dimension', that can be quantitatively measured, like color or smoothness.
But its more than that because not everything can be measured quantitatively. In fact it is typical for spirituality to put quality ahead of quantity. (Mind over matter).
So while quantities are absolutely spatial, qualities are always elusive in their pure essences, we only vaguely allude to them, and talking of them most often degenerates into disagreement.
But the conclusion that you reach of the soul being inseparable from space, is mere illusion.
Especially when we realize that the soul has more than 3 spatial dimensions.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 28, 2023 10:03:50 GMT
Yes little Timmy and do you know what the difference is between the 2? And do you know the phenomenon of "symbol" connects both much in the same manner 1+3 and 2+2 are both different expressions of the same thing? 1 you always count 2 what your counting doesn't fit together the way you say it does 3 even if they did your conclusions are still incoherent 4 you state this gibberish as fact reguardless of the fact that everyone disagrees with your Dr Seuss Asperger's short bus philosophy
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 2, 2023 19:17:30 GMT
And Karma is the ratio of good actions to bad actions with all actions being grounded in the manifestation of forms and all forms are spatial. Because of this nature the soul is inseparable from space.
Now we are counting dimensions. The souls we commonly see are observed to be grounded in the space we see. The soul appears to be as much grounded in time as in space, as in any other 'dimension', that can be quantitatively measured, like color or smoothness.
But its more than that because not everything can be measured quantitatively. In fact it is typical for spirituality to put quality ahead of quantity. (Mind over matter).
So while quantities are absolutely spatial, qualities are always elusive in their pure essences, we only vaguely allude to them, and talking of them most often degenerates into disagreement.
But the conclusion that you reach of the soul being inseparable from space, is mere illusion.
Especially when we realize that the soul has more than 3 spatial dimensions.
1. The observation that the soul is imprintable by forms, thus requiring an emptiness which is the same as space, and the observation that the soul exists through forms, with forms requiring boundaries thus space, necessitates the identity of the soul being grounded in space. 2. Are quantities spatial? Yes. Are qualities spatial? Yes. Why? Take the nature of color for instance. Its wavelength requires a form and this form requires space. Take another more abstract quality such as love. It leaves the observer with a feeling of connection and connection requires an absence of distinction between forms, this absence of distinction is formless thus necessitating the same nature as infinitely empty or infinitely full space. 3. The fact that the soul has more than 3 spatial dimensions necessitates it as having spatial dimensions thus it is space. 4. Space is a priori and a posteriori. It is a priori in the respect that in a complete vacuum of the senses emptiness is observed. This emptiness is space. If we are to go a step further and say that only the self is observed then this self-referentiality results in a loop that is the groundings of awareness...and this is again space (as forms exist as the space between spaces). As to space being a posteriori I do not believe I have to explain that we sense space. Space proves the dichotomy of a priori and a posteriori as false.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 2, 2023 19:20:41 GMT
And do you know the phenomenon of "symbol" connects both much in the same manner 1+3 and 2+2 are both different expressions of the same thing? 1 you always count 2 what your counting doesn't fit together the way you say it does 3 even if they did your conclusions are still incoherent 4 you state this gibberish as fact reguardless of the fact that everyone disagrees with your Dr Seuss Asperger's short bus philosophy Facepalm...do you even read what you write or do you just blurt it out and hope it sticks? Language and dreams are both symbols as they point to something. They are different expressions of the same thing (i.e. the symbol) much in the same manner 1+3 and 2+2 are different expressions of 4.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 4, 2023 22:27:43 GMT
1 you always count 2 what your counting doesn't fit together the way you say it does 3 even if they did your conclusions are still incoherent 4 you state this gibberish as fact reguardless of the fact that everyone disagrees with your Dr Seuss Asperger's short bus philosophy Facepalm...do you even read what you write or do you just blurt it out and hope it sticks? Language and dreams are both symbols as they point to something. They are different expressions of the same thing (i.e. the symbol) much in the same manner 1+3 and 2+2 are different expressions of 4. There are people that don't dream at all yet have a strong imagination likewise there are people that dream and have no imagination. Do you try to Mock and make fun of philosophers with your threads that you start? Or do you accidentally come across as rambling troll trying to make fun of philosophers by making up topics that no philosopher would ever touch upon at least not as serious note? I mean you accuse me of not reading what I write but the same should be asked about you
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 21, 2023 17:54:53 GMT
Facepalm...do you even read what you write or do you just blurt it out and hope it sticks? Language and dreams are both symbols as they point to something. They are different expressions of the same thing (i.e. the symbol) much in the same manner 1+3 and 2+2 are different expressions of 4. There are people that don't dream at all yet have a strong imagination likewise there are people that dream and have no imagination. Do you try to Mock and make fun of philosophers with your threads that you start? Or do you accidentally come across as rambling troll trying to make fun of philosophers by making up topics that no philosopher would ever touch upon at least not as serious note? I mean you accuse me of not reading what I write but the same should be asked about you Facepalm....I said they both share the same nature of being symbols. If a person does not dream but has an imagination while another person has no imagination but dreams they are both using symbols regardless.
|
|