A trap for the intellect

a reply to: Terpene

Why not? These box are like themes for my mobilephone, if i have the Christian theme instaled my home button is a cross, if I have the Dino theme my home button is a T-rex, it still does the same and gets me to the same place...

Yeah, but the christian theme doesn't come with a Bhudda does it now . . .

Actually I stand corrected come to think of it. The christian box includes the fairies and the fae. But they are on the "other list". The scientist box has a fairy listing, push that button and at best you'll get ridiculed, at worst you'll get commited to psychiatric care.

a reply to: andy06shake

What about the fact that we will never be able to look at something from the exact same perspective at the same time.
We can get very close but we cant occupy the same space at the same time, which implies that the fact we deduce from our observations about said thing is just a consens on what we both observe, we might agree on certain things but time and angle can make it so we don't on others...
The name we give things are not the things themselves.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

That is just humans trying to make their feel good blanket the bestest, by demonizing and ridiculing other feelgood blankets...

a reply to: Terpene

We don't even remember things the same way Terpene.

Labels are of importance though, as they help shape identities as well as how we think about ourselves.

Obviously, there are some negative connotations where labels are concerned but we would have a hard job communicating meaning without such.

Take them away and watch the fun really begin, put it that way.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Far as i can establish all organized religious practices devised by man are about constructs made of thought and opinion.

Good and evil are human constructs.

Nature entertains no such delusions.

The notion of good and evil are about control, and given the very social animal that we are, requiring a modicum of etiquette and rules to be in place so we can interact in groups, else survival of the fittest prevails, good and evil serve there purpose.

Now isn't god just hear-say?

Possibly im on the fence there, the Bible never mind quite a few other religious text, that just happen to be the product of man, with all his fear and fallibility laid bare, would have you believe otherwise.

a reply to: andy06shake

Sure it makes communication easier but it also stifles understanding, compassion.

I really like colors to bring this point across. Let's look at a ripe lemon, we both say the lemon is yellow, but give the lemon a voice, and it will tell you that it is everything but yellow. The lemon hates yellow. Yellow is the only wavelength that is not absorbed by the lemon and gets reflected to hit your retina.

So is the lemon really yellow?

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
a reply to: jedi_hamster

your will is god's will. your thought is god's thought. there's no escaping it.

May I suggest that is the view from the inside? And thus the trap?

An excercise in thought . . .

such suggestion may be considered a trap as well. if what i said isn't a trap, then there's no "outside" since the "outside" would be equal to nonexistence, and your excercise in thought starts looking like denying one's very nature.

the one possibility that could bridge both points of view is an existence of more than one god, but that brings a problem. if a god is infinite and omnipresent, across all time and dimensions, and all possible universes are contained within, then you're facing some dillemas when trying to bring another, separate god, into equation. one, if they can coexist in the same space and if not, if they're even aware of each other and can confirm each other's existence. two, what is their very nature that brought them into existence. if you'll consider god's "I AM" a singularity which erupts into all that is, including all possible versions of all that is, then in theory every other god should be identical, and everything that exists within should be identical as well.

a reply to: Terpene

It makes communication possible, without labels how else would we communicate ideas?

You have to give things names else it all goes breasts up.

So is the lemon really yellow?

It is if you associate it with being yellow.

I think there are about 30 different types of lemon all the same that come in a variety of colours, all with different names aka a label.

I know not to eat yellow snow all the same.

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
The old saying said to have been over the gate at the temple of Delphi is Know thyself. To me at least that implies the existence of what is not thyself. Therefore what is separate.

That logically flies in the face of "everything is one" The monotheistic point of view.

or perhaps you're missing the point entirely, and it's a clue as to how one can know everything.

originally posted by: ARM1968
Well, if God is ALL then we are God, or at least a part of God. God must then be the entire universe - constrained by and existing within it. Beyond the universe God could not exist. Also means, logically, that God is the Devil too.

or the entire universe, and all universes for that matter, exist within god, and by extension, within us.

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
a reply to: andy06shake

They can't all be correct given the contradictory claims they make....................but they could all be wrong.

If one takes the view that these things are constructs made of thought, that exist as separate things in the sense of the egregrore, within the confines of the construct it may be as they say.

(Evil and mischievious grin)

the ability to know God or a creator force might just be somewhat above our paygrade.

Now isn't god just hear-say?

instead of treating god as a point, or even as a box you wanna get out of, treat god as a connection between everything.

you want mindf..k, think fractals.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
a reply to: jedi_hamster

your will is god's will. your thought is god's thought. there's no escaping it.

May I suggest that is the view from the inside? And thus the trap?

An excercise in thought . . .

such suggestion may be considered a trap as well. if what i said isn't a trap, then there's no "outside" since the "outside" would be equal to nonexistence, and your excercise in thought starts looking like denying one's very nature.

the one possibility that could bridge both points of view is an existence of more than one god, but that brings a problem. if a god is infinite and omnipresent, across all time and dimensions, and all possible universes are contained within, then you're facing some dillemas when trying to bring another, separate god, into equation. one, if they can coexist in the same space and if not, if they're even aware of each other and can confirm each other's existence. two, what is their very nature that brought them into existence. if you'll consider god's "I AM" a singularity which erupts into all that is, including all possible versions of all that is, then in theory every other god should be identical, and everything that exists within should be identical as well.

What if the GOD that said "I AM" was mistaken? Yaldabaoth.

Gnosticism has a pretty good explanation for EVERYTHING, and I have been SEARCHING for a VERY LONG TIME.

a reply to: andy06shake

I know not to eat yellow snow all the same.

Good for you andy

It is if you associate it with being yellow.

Isn't that somehow condescending? As far as that is possible with inanimate objects, but if we aren't aware of that dynamic for something like a lemon, imagine how we mess up the labeling of things alive.
If you associate long hair to women, does that make a long-haired man a women?

a reply to: jedi_hamster

or perhaps you're missing the point entirely, and it's a clue as to how one can know everything.

Even if it were possible for a person to understand the grand scheme of it all and the totality of all the knowledge in the universe, and know everything, would they want to?

I'm thinking that might be a rather boring and lonely place to exist.

Then again the expression is more to do with fully understanding oneself as far as I'm aware, even then through people should be careful what they wish for, as they might not like what they find.

a reply to: Terpene

I don't know about "condescending" but it may lack clarity of sorts given that not all lemons are yellow just as not all oranges are orange.

We like to put things into boxes and attach labels, classify and categorize subjects, it's just what humans do i suppose, and also part and parcel of the human condition.

If you associate long hair to women, does that make a long-haired man a women?

Buddy in this day of age, I'm not touching that question with a 10ft barge pole, as whether or not you meant it or otherwise is a loaded query and apt to go off in someone's face or offend their sensibilities.

I suppose the salient point is without labels we would not be having this conversation, so that is that.

a reply to: andy06shake

Well same applies to the orange, the color you get to perceive from the orange is all that the orange is rejecting.

You only see that which is not absorbed, it's quite straight forward and undeniable knowing what we know about light, this undeniable and scientifically proofed dynamic, is a good template to ponder other concepts about truth...

Is what we see in the world only that which is left for us to see?

a reply to: jedi_hamster
👍

🎁

a reply to: Terpene

Well same applies to the orange, the color you get to perceive from the orange is all that the orange is rejecting.

How can an orange reject being called an orange?

The fruit has no clue as to the labels we apply.

The noun and/or adjective, in the English language, is for our use alone far as im aware, not the fruit trees or colour, else it would say Orange on the bark or leaves would it not, instead of the box that they come in?

You only see that which is not absorbed, it's quite straight forward and undeniable knowing what we know about light, this undeniable and scientifically proofed dynamic, is a good template to ponder other concepts about truth...

I'll keep that in mind whilst watering my Tomato plants.

Is what we see in the world only that which is left for us to see?

Somehow i suspect the world would exist just fine with or without us being around to witness.

That's like saying "If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?"

And whilst very philosophical the answer is "Yes".

a reply to: andy06shake
"The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound." Wiki.

This is what was at the top of the list that google provided.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Can animals not hear sounds?

Especially ones that live in forests who have ears.

What about a tape recorder if nobody was about or any animal, would it not record the sound?

If the tree falls in a forest here on earth, cause and effect dictate that a sound is going to be produced, simple as that really no matter who is around to hear it.

Again you are mixing up philosophy with physics.