-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
goodness of reality, like wetness of the sea
- Thread starter Raz
- Start date
embracethevoid
Rising Star
hixidom said:
A statement/equation, zero evidence provided. And you know how that the human mind was the very first to "invent" a concept which has managed the universe for literally 13 billion years?
All that is ever left after things birth and die is goodness, pure goodness. Once the decay season is finished, there is pure good; entropy is inherently moving in a path to minimise itself.
Goodness is inherent to existence. It is Tao. All definitions of "good" must assume the identity of Tao. I think the OP especially pertains to the Clear Light. Being Clear Light, we have a hard time recognizing Clear Light within ourselves, just as a fish has a hard time knowing water.
zero evidence provided. All experience, and thus all evidence, is subjective (i.e. processed and interpreted by the human mind). What evidence could I possibly have to support any claim about objective reality? By definition, we cannot experience objective reality, and so any claim about objective reality is ultimately unproveable. I take back my claim about objective reality, but still argue that the human mind is virtually fully responsible not only for the discovery of concepts such as goodness, but also for their creation.
Existence is.
We project.
We project.
primordium
Rising Star
hixidom said:
Do you believe in any abstract objects that are non-spatiotemporal? Do you, for instance, have an ontological commitment to mathematical entities?
My thoughts are committed to mathematical structures whether I like it or not. Or perhaps the mathematics of reality is committed to thought structures. Reality and mathematics certainly do seem quite different when my state is altered. Is mathematics inherent in my mind or is it inherent in reality? I take it that is your line of reasoning. I can't study objective reality so, the way I see it, I have no good reason to ascribe mathematics to it. Rather I think that mathematics can be used to learn more about the human mind and its particular brand of logic.
Even mathematical concepts may be comparably spatio-temporal. For example the set of integers is just an array of numbers, but what is spacetime if not a 4D array of numbers (7+D if we include momentum and other spaces)? Each element in an n-dimensional mathematical structure is comparable to a physical particle, and operations between the elements of such a mathematical structures are comparable to the interactions between physical particles in an n-dimensional space ... At least that's one interpretation that I can come up.
Even mathematical concepts may be comparably spatio-temporal. For example the set of integers is just an array of numbers, but what is spacetime if not a 4D array of numbers (7+D if we include momentum and other spaces)? Each element in an n-dimensional mathematical structure is comparable to a physical particle, and operations between the elements of such a mathematical structures are comparable to the interactions between physical particles in an n-dimensional space ... At least that's one interpretation that I can come up.
primordium
Rising Star
hixidom said:
What presuppositions lead to the prejudice that you are unable to "study objective reality"? (I am not attempting to negatively connote prejudice.)
I think that anti-psychologism has been neglected from recent decades of philosophic attention--at great cost. Instead, we have "hard-headed materialists" running around claiming that even laws of logic are reducible to contingently-evolved neural networks.
When I say "I can't study objective reality", I mean by definition. My experience is purely subjective, by definition (well, by my definition, at least). I realize now that there are two ways to interpret what I said:
1) I can't objectively study objective reality.
2) I can't subjectively study objective reality.
I think what I meant was (1), because I see a "study" as being necessarily perceptual and thus ultimately subjective, so "objective study" is a paradoxical phrase. I disagree with (2) in that I think a subjective study of objective reality is possible, if not necessary, but I think there is still no way to objectively verify that subjective interpretations accurately represent objective reality. I can imagine a "reality" in which there is no objective reality and only a subjective interpretation exists, but this is a hard stance to take (after all, it is making a claim about objective reality), though I find anything easy to wrap my head around when I'm tripping.
Raz, if I read "goodness" in your OP as "perfection", then I agree with what you said. Would you say that this translation preserves your original meaning?
1) I can't objectively study objective reality.
2) I can't subjectively study objective reality.
I think what I meant was (1), because I see a "study" as being necessarily perceptual and thus ultimately subjective, so "objective study" is a paradoxical phrase. I disagree with (2) in that I think a subjective study of objective reality is possible, if not necessary, but I think there is still no way to objectively verify that subjective interpretations accurately represent objective reality. I can imagine a "reality" in which there is no objective reality and only a subjective interpretation exists, but this is a hard stance to take (after all, it is making a claim about objective reality), though I find anything easy to wrap my head around when I'm tripping.
Raz, if I read "goodness" in your OP as "perfection", then I agree with what you said. Would you say that this translation preserves your original meaning?
embracethevoid
Rising Star
hixidom said:
Dead on.
And you do not see that this is as objective as objective gets? 2+2=4 is indisputable for all spaces in which that equation holds true.
You see, in subjective thought space, ALL things possess a binary value: true/false.
But in objective thought space of which subjective is a subset, this is superceded by tautology. Self-referential constructs which appear to make a statement but in truth are simply the same word rephrased and restated.
In fact, Reality is one tautology. There are no "objects" in reality as all depend on As-Samad (that which on all things depend). There is only one object in the universe and that object is the universe.
primordium
Rising Star
embracethevoid
Rising Star
hixidom said:
Leave aside all words and terminology and dead ends and diatribes. See THIS in front of you? THIS is one item. We split it into things e.g. "table", "computer", "tea cup" but these are only aspects of THIS. THIS entity is a single entity. The teacup is the table is the computer. THIS is objective, THIS is the one 'fact' or data structure that continually grows as we scan across the 4th dimension.
You know about Theseus' Ship paradox? That paradox appears only when we try to split Reality into manyness. Manyness does not truly exist except as an appearance. Instead, it is a single stream emanating from point 0 to (here, now). The entire data structure changes with each cycle of the clock. Consequently it is meaningless to ask whether you are inhabiting the same body you were a moment ago, as the ENTIRE energy has changed. So in this sense, the plastic your mouse is made of has changed; while the mouse has maintained its solitonic structure, the essence of 'plasticness' has itself evolved.
If we draw an ontology of 'plasticness' where we decompose THIS into a set of wavicles and isolate 'plastics', we will see that before a certain point in the 4th dimension the set 'plasticness' is bounded as plastic did not exist. When it originated, it began to grow and evolve but with each slice of 4D, the entire set 'plasticness' is a different set. This pertains to the holographic nature of the universe: the plastic in my mouse resonates with plasticness, plasticness resonates all plastics everywhere in the universe. We could draw a heatmap of 'plasticness' and it would show the distribution of plastics through the universe, just like the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has been mapped, yet it is continuously evolving.
I hope this dissolves any misunderstandings.
embracethevoid
Rising Star
hixidom said:
souleinspiering, Loveness, Godness or perfectness are Words I feel works as pointers to explain my experience of the reality I feel is the Foundation for this reality.
When you are sleeping and dreaming the reality has a feeling of being natural, until you Wake up and feel; this reality feels more natural. In contrast, waking from this natural Life/dream (I did it in a drowning NDE in 2003) the feeling of reality I got was "super natural" (as in way more natural).
Remembering the wholeness of that reality while in this life is like remembering the wholeness of my Life while sleeping/dreaming in my bed. I sometimes sense parts of it, but the big Picture eludes me in the contracted state and most of the time I´m too distracted by all apparent movement of current reality to bother questioning it.
a human did not discover the goodness of reality; It was all spirit baby!
primordium said:
Thanks for the heads up, love this guys vibe =)