this thing some people call god

Yeah, they're still there alright! lol

No, it achieves it, as the part it is. In your mincing, you're saying nothing is being defined. Everything defines itself, by extension, to the smallest quarterback! LOL

So how an artifact? The past is past, is the future past too? LOL

I saw that coming! lol So agree with me! I didn't say that none of your points were good ones. :-D

Not my idea at all. That we could, everyone, happen on it together is though. :-D

Yes, let it show! I couldn't swallow most of them even if I tried! lol

Oh, making sure no-one's encouraged to wallow in the notion their learning is somehow previous is only a part of my overall accounting. But you've always been a little previous in your assessment of the naivety of my view. :-D

:-D I see there's a tantricity to your 'relations'. lol Nevertheless she loves my lovemaking, enough at least not to bang on about it unduly, and so, I farewell this thread once again! For a time! With her!

Au reservoir! Doux sagesse!

 

Peace on it!

 

Boy will I beat her when she gets home to that apartment I pay for!

(Just kidding, I don't beat women, even imaginary ones...)

 

As a point of clarification, I would like to quote the 'Dictionary of Philosophy' by Peter Angeles,

"Materialism. The following are some main views of materialism. 1. At one extreme it is the belief that nothing but matter in motion exists. The mind (spirit, consciousness, soul) is matter in motion. At the other extreme, it is the belief that mind does exist but it is caused by material changes (see EPIPHENOMENALISM) and is completely dependent upon matter; mind has no causal efficacy, nor is it necessary to the functioning of the material universe. 2. Matter and the universe do not in any way possess characteristics of mind such as purpose, awareness, intention, goals, meaning, direction, intelligence, willing, striving. 3. There are no nonmaterial entities such as spirits, ghosts, demons, angels. Immaterial agencies do not exist..."

material is used as a synonym for physical.

Do you not fit somewhere in that category as your arguments suggest, or are you just taking a materialist standpoint for argument's sake?

If you are not materialist, please explain. I would be very fascinated to hear.



Now----all this talk about Audrey Hepburn has got me wanting to watch that movie where she manages some bookstore and is fascinated with some French philosopher. A modelling agency takes her to Paris after an unplanned and unscheduled shoot at her bookstore (much to her consternation). She goes along to be their model but tracks down the philosopher who turns our to be a lecherous old man (clearly modeled after Jean-Paul Sartre himself and his crazy mistress and liaisons with young girls). However she falls in love with her photographer instead. I think that is the same one where she does that sexy jazz dance in that seedy coffee shop (a scene that was used in a TV commercial a few years back).

 

Just to pick up any loose ends.

To define a word with the word you are defining is not really defining beyond saying the condition is synonymous with the word but what does that tell us being that the word is a symbol of a condition and not the condition itself?

The past does not of itself exist. The future of itself does not exist. Both are residue or artifact of current emergence or emerging current and represent mental considerations, living tissue being the particulate fallout of a wave of creation, magnanimous intent. Time is not a line but a concentric reverberation, each pulse is entirely new but patterned on the previous and it is in the high slack and low slack surrounding each pulse that quantum changes are made.

I have said that the thought comes first, you ask why I say it and I respond that it is practical to remember in order to create the effects you would like to see and in turn avoid the miscreant use of mind. The difference between a world that you create or a world that you feel compelled to respond to. That is the ray of creation proceeds, thought, word, and deed. The body is not progenitor of creation but the articulation of it.

Hardly an original idea Dejavu and we have happened upon it together for ages but you do not recognize it because you insist that it appear in a certain form. It is the transcendent idea.

 

Since I'm not quite gone yet, I'll squeeze in another last reply :-D

Wolf:

Existence is physical - the extent of my materialism! It's funny being accused of 'reductionism', when I'm not the one attempting to prove a 'non-physical existence'. lol


On to address thedopes looseness.

thedope:

The law of self-identity, that a thing is what it is, and not something else, which is of course not to say it can't become something else.

LOL No. How is the future, which only exists in conception, residual? How is it not in every way as emergent as the present in which we conceive it? That our conception of what's to come is based in our memory of what's gone before in no way makes it residual.

LOL Miscreant. Creation in every instance is physical, is embodied. Yes creation proceeds all, but doesn't precede all, it is all! Everything originates in itself regardless that it originates in all else, and because of it! :-D

Never claimed to have been the first. By we are you talking about everyone? Together? How if I haven't recognized it?! What is the 'certain' form I am insisting upon? I don't even insist on form itself! I welcome it as content unlike yourself, ingrate. lol But I forget how sensitive you are; of course you're not your body thedope, you're just a god-damn sky pilot! lol

 

But you say that as if, there is a side to you that does believe that there is a nonphysical side to being. It's like saying, "Existence is physical, but there is another side to the universe that we do not see..." Or, "Existence is physical, but consciousness alone comes from something else..." If you say, Existence is physical and there is no non-physical aspect to the universe, then you are materialist all the way. To say, that is the extent of my materialism is like, a girl telling her boyfriend, "Don't worry, I am only a little pregnant."

Can you tell me how you are not materialist?

For example, If you believe that one can achieve an immortality, but that there is nothing but a physical universe, so it is an immortality within the physical realm---that is still a materialistic philosophy.

To be reductionist is to believe that there is one answer or system to everything. To believe that there is only a physical universe, and that there is no chance whatsoever that there is a nonphysical reality, is reductionist. To believe that there is a Christian God and that everything falls to Christian values, is reductionist.

You could argue that if we just simply believe in the possibility of a nonphysical reality that we too are being reductionist, but then I would argue that a reality of both physical and nonphysical realms could accommodate all kinds of belief systems. For example, the rules of science could apply to the physical realms but would not explain everything regarding the nonphysical realms. And in terms of value systems there are many, and they are all culturally dependent, and speak to different people in different ways. That would not be reductionist.

If the world is only physical, then multiple belief systems become meaningless, because they all believe in a nonphysical reality that you already reject. The physical world is limited to scientific rules, that even if they are wrong, it simply means we haven't found that one true rule. But nonetheless, there can only be one true way---that way which explains the physical universe at all levels.

 

Wolf

Everything is physical. Everything exists. There's no side to me that believes there is 'non-physical being'. You can label me a materialist if it, er, helps you to! lol

Not so. Infinity isn't one to be reduced. It is not one at all! :-D But it's physical. As I've said many times before, the only way I know how to grasp it, is to go on grasping it. lol

So pregnant or not at all? To hold that a thing is not physical is to deny its physicality, is to reduce it to one of your 'non-physical realms.' Not that it matters so long as you're not disembodying a person. lol

Yeah, I guess so. Meaningless. Tough break huh? lol Belief itself is healthy enough. But systems for it? Is the nervous system not enough?! LOL ...And... Now you're a reductionist?! :-- "There can only be one true way---that way which explains the physical universe at all levels." LOL! Infinity can be explained infinitely. I suppose if you wanted to stop explaining it you might run into a problem! :-D

 

I'm not familiar with such an idea except in terms of holiness, creation being a law without opposite. Anyway your appeal to a law of questionable dimensions does not end the difficulty with the definition. The symbol for a thing is not the thing. It could be at this very juncture that we find the source of your confusion?

For the very fact that the symbol for a thing is not the thing itself, things can be mislabeled. Of course labels mean nothing unless there is a key for translation or a common understanding. Love does not become, not love although what we may consider loving thought or action to be absent at times, all we hear are voices of contention
which are cravings for manifestation or the call for good being.

Creation is a law without opposite. Once conceived ever in conception. The thought of future comes before apparent future and apparent future is always past being the particulate fallout of a wave of creation. We see only the past as our reflections cause the collapse of waveforms. They are residual because the thought comes first. All that we see is reflected light, the echo of an impulse that first emerges in your mind.

Miscreant meaning unintended, accidental, or dishonest. The appearance of origination is caused by the distance of synapse, a chasm between here and there, a space where quantum aspects are negotiated. Energy transiting the space between synapses is disembodied, that is bridging a physical gap in the nervous systems construction.

Yes everyone together. We share our thoughts. That you do not entertain a thought does not mean it is absent.

Body is the certain form. Space cadet has been a popular description.

 

Just to clarify--what I am saying in that paragraph is why the scientific or materialist view is reductionist. You may be able to come up with an infinite number of ways to explain the infinite, but these explanations would get pretty redundant if we are simply trying to explain reality and being--especially if you limit it to only explanations that exclude the nonphysical.

I don't see how you can escape reductionist thinking when you start with the reductionist premise that everything is physical.

Anyway---it is all part of the existential experience, i.e. human experience. I questioned and questioned, and leaned towards a materialist explanation of reality, until I saw things I couldn't deny any longer. But only I can truly know what happened to me, and how valid these experiences were. You have your existential experiences that have shaped your outlook---in the end, I guess it all boils down to how happy you are in your life, and how you come to terms with your own mortality. I am here to share my philosophy, but not to proselytize or convert anyone to my own belief system.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lroU7apzma8"]Eric Burdon & The Animals Sky Pilot - YouTube

 

^^ lol


thedope:

Nope thedope. You're confused thinking I'm confused. A symbol for a thing is only the thing it is. Your idea that I might be confused is a spanner you seem keen on throwing into the works though. lol That creation is law without opposite incorporates utterly the law of self-identity. :-D Question its dimensions by all means!

Convolution ammounting to non-sense. The thought of future is its only appearance. Our perception doesn't enter the past, which does not, as you correctly say, exist in itself. The future doesn't reside anywhere outside of conception, which is always emergent. You would have our conception apart from creation! lol

So not disembodied at all. lol How otherwise bridge the so-called 'gap' in nervous evolution? lol The old exercise: In what does your famous "disembodiment" occur? (LOLOLOL)

Do we altogether share the thought of 'not having to die'? You and I might, (and I mean might lol ) but we're not everyone.

You don't understand that I don't insist upon it because I don't need to. Body is certain form as you say.


Wolf:

Try, do, to include a 'non-physical explanation'! What's there to exclude? LOL I think thedope sees eye to eye with me here if you don't, or won't. Not that I think he likes to despite knowing knowledge is being shared. Yet it remains however, that no-ones vision need quail before mine! :-D

That's fine. You don't need to. But nothing is being reduced in the premise of physicality, do you follow? All the quantum 'theorists' out there hear me! lol What, after all, is the premise that everything isn't physical? LOL!

I like you wolf. I know you're not here as an enforcer. I've seen things too I can't explain. And I'll always try to explain them, to myself at the very least! As for coming to terms with mortality, I don't think anyone does. Death is an unknown quantity.
;-D

 

Thank you Dejavu! I like you too---basically I like everyone.

P.S. I always pictured the sky pilot----in Vietnam----as not just the chaplain, but also the guy handing out the goodies, in that part of the base, or encampment, where people just looked the other way----especially if it included some hallucinogenic goodies.

 

A symbol for a thing is always a symbol and nothing more!
Do you realize then word sun is not the sun? If so I am mistaken at your level of understanding. What you call the law of self identity I call holiness. All things are laws unto themselves without opposite. There may be a difference between what a thing is and how it is identified. I need question no dimension as life emerges diversely. It's diverse emergence is it's unremitting appearance.
I know you are confused because you don't understand me thinking you do. There is much more to learn.

As we have discussed the thought comes first, physical manifestations are a sort of soot, the particulate fallout of a redundant wave. We see the deposits forged of energetic activity and in body's terms they look like muscle and bone and dendritic pathways in the brain. Conception is always emergent, perception is accumulated in time as we cultivate perspectives. We learn to see the world.
Memory and the past are identical and are identically represented as living tissue and current geological formations. When we say future we mean something extant now that does not currently appear and to have a future different from the past we make a different choice in the present. Each moment is a new creation. A moment is a wave length. Each new moment is patterned on reflection and why i call both the past and the future artifacts of current emergence.

Space.

Yes we do, intermittently.

You choose to in my case.

These are my terms. I have said my final goodbye to all expecting no return because I find myself here now always.

 

Well, yes, there is much more to learn. And yes, diverse emergence is its appearance. And yes, everything is what it is. But... I dont understand you thinking I do...what?! LOL

Emergence is 'patterned on reflection' only in consciousness. While the past is consigned to memory, the future remains our conception, and in no way an artifact. The present, as you present it, stands still! lol But don't worry, it's only words, symbols, that fail you. If I didn't believe in thedope the man, I wouldn't bother writing with you. :-D

Impossible to be disembodied in space. Unless you just mean 'killed'. Do you now want to say time? lol You know how that particular conversation goes, don't you? :-D

So not altogether. There's more to learn.

lol I couldn't if I tried! You are your body regardless of anyones insistence upon the fact! :-D Be thankful no-one's insisting you're not! I may trust your good nature, but not your ability to defend it! LOL

Not everyone knows it thedope. The world can run interference for you, but not intermittence! lol My goodbyes are always the last vestiges of politeness in the raw nature I am drawn to! :-D

I take off now! Only to go on, so expect my reply for the while in the wilds of your imagination!

:santa1: