Sorry, I do not know how my post doubled in air, but none-the-less, fredrick, our physicality is the product of what our parent ate and their seed conjoined with their DNA imprinting for 'us' to become manifest, phenomenally, In terms of the noumenon we can't say with any authority exactly how That comes about as an aspect of our nature, since it is said to be unknowable and ineffable. 'We' are left to our preponderances supported only by what is shown us by way of our holy spirit, the 'common denomnator', within each of us. if we are attuned to hear Her whisperings. aka "The thing within itself"; In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself. better stated as the no thing within the thing. Or, the no thing that gives rise to all-every thing. Our Mother Nature, Goddess of goodness.
A term especially associated with Kant, denoting things as they are in themselves, as opposed to things as they are for us, knowable by the senses (phenomena). The noumenal lies behind the mind-imposed forms of time, space, and causation, and is therefore unknowable. On one view Kant is locked into a ‘two-worlds’ view, so that the noumenal is rather like Berkeley's God, in being responsible for the phenomenal world, except that we cannot know anything of its nature. On a different view, the distinction merely reflects Kant's understanding that all knowledge is knowledge from a standpoint, so the noumenal is the fraudulent idea of that which would be apprehended by a being with no point of view. It is unclear how on Kant's own view we can mean anything by the term, but Kant does suppose that we need to postulate a noumenal reality and especially a noumenal self as a condition of human free will, the phenomenal self being all too determined in its actions.
Could that possibly be a/the root of all evil? hmmm . . . Iamusinus must ponder thusly. The negative side of a power struggle, interesting how this theme keeps 'popping-up', as an idea, out of nowhere.
'Man' usurping the divine power within him for his own 'egoistic' determinations, urges and desires typical of the flesh, or lower nature of the two but not two, and which is nothing more then only the seperation from a higher moral good, making it appear so, in view of 'mankind' as an inherent evil, run amonk? its 'root' is manifested as the separation from goodness, e.g. 'self'-willed. One explaination for this might be that, a higher good can come from it.?
Upon a little preponderance would it be fair to say that our 'elemental' being decays and provides 'energy' after the decaying/life force is finally exhausted for other life forms here in this realm, and of our soul, as it comes into this 'elemental being, though it cannot be said to be a 'physical'element, (a facet of our persona at best) as in strictly 'scientific circles/terms'
and therefore cannnot be reproduced,except in child-bearing or artifcial insemination, yet we're told by the mystics and the philosphers the saints and the messengers of thi "God", that the soul continues on as an etheric, as opposed to an ephemeral 'real'/existence? I would doubt that this is the only one of Gods, realities.
Or so we are advised, do we heed the information or dismiss it as a skeptic, the one who doubts cannot doubt their own existence otherwise they wouldn't be adhereing to what they say they believe/do not believe in.
So then the question which begs an answer, do you see yourself as only a swirling mass of physical atoms, which does indeed end and transform into another source of energy for another form of life?, and from what does this swirling mass of atoms, owe to/see as, 'it's' animating and life-giving force?
No worries, Drifter, about the doubled posts; it happened to me several times before when, instead of hitting the edit button I hit the quote button and posting it. And no way to do anything about it, such as delete, but I have edited the second version to something else at times.
As far as your excellent question is concerned, and in line with your latest post, we must indeed all look inside ourselves to find which version(s) we believe in. For me, the universe is a place next to the original place, the materialized locations we call home -or our bodies- are 'second hand' in that they are deliveries in this second state from the first state.
The question we cannot answer is whether there is anything left of the first state, or whether that first was ever even singular. Anything I have experienced in the realm of otherworldly could be explained by my connecting with other energy of this universe, not of the first state.
For instance, and I am not saying this is the way it is, we may provide each other our dreams we dream at night. Picking up energy in the day time that charges us (or wears us out) can be released during our sleep and float back either to the origin or to the lowest point (such as water always flowing to the lowest point).
When we wake up we may think that god communicated with us, but it might as well have been the spiritual residu coming from your neighbor, your sister half a world away, the dog or any other source that functions on the spiritual level you have tuned in to.
Basically, I identify myself spiritually as second-hand original source. To place a singular god entity on top of everyone and everything materialized is possible, but it does not provide any additional information. Whatever was before the Big Bang is not knowable (except via our hearts), and my gut feeling tells me that our universe is a whole lot more interesting than what was before.
The root of all evil is that we think we are a lot bigger than we really are. I believe in the goodness of all people, but I am a realist in that I know there are people who do not believe that. That doesn't make them bad, but it allows them so see others in a bad light, and then sometimes even take action that is bad in itself. Hitler, for instance, did not believe in the goodness of people, and acted accordingly. And yet Hitler was in reality nothing but a little person, just like the rest of us, claiming things beyond our own human realm, and able to get a hold of power that was multiplied by socioeconomic frustration, bad times, a military might, and the simple capacity to show that other people are nothing but little people too. We all know it didn't make him or Germany or Europe any bigger; it just showed how we are all connected to each other, and really it showed how little we all are.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
The root of all evil is that we think we are a lot bigger than we really are. I believe in the goodness of all people, but I am a realist in that I know there are people who do not believe that. That doesn't make them bad, but it allows them so see others in a bad light, and then sometimes even take action that is bad in itself. Hitler, for instance, did not believe in the goodness of people, and acted accordingly. And yet Hitler was in reality nothing but a little person, just like the rest of us, claiming things beyond our own human realm, and able to get a hold of power that was multiplied by socioeconomic frustration, bad times, a military might, and the simple capacity to show that other people are nothing but little people too. We all know it didn't make him or Germany or Europe any bigger; it just showed how we are all connected to each other, and really it showed how little we all are.
I'd like to add that singularity is also at the root of all evil (placing my words in this respect back in line with the general theme I am trying to deliver). The wording of 'being best' or the singular position in top is a highly contestable position. It delivers the one in top something extra (such as money and pride), while it can clearly frustrate others deeply. Global domination by old nations England and France, for instance, was part of the frustration of newly formed nations Germany and Italy who did not dominate much of the rest of the world, then tried, and were unable to 'get' much because the French and the English 'had taken' so much already.
The first step was already an incorrect step: to dominate others. The second step made it worse: to compete with each other on who dominates the most others in far away countries. I have nothing against competition, but the competition needs to be played in a correct field. I believe the European conflict is explained by this root of evil, of competition beyond the human scale. And made worse by the words of claiming oneself first or best, while providing large benefits to those who played best outside the human scale. Moderation is good, especially for human beings who are so tiny in this enormous universe.
To finish the European conflict: the United States did not provide the way out after WW I, but did an excellent job after WW II. By proclaiming colonies a thing of the past, the United States stood on the right side of history, and helped take away a deeply felt source of frustration in Europe, not to mention the frustration felt by the people in the 'colonies' themselves. The U.S. didn't move into the colonies and liberate them, but as one of the victors of WW II, its words alone were immeasurably valuable. Far more important than anything that surpassed in WW II, and you may consider this a risky statement, is this taking away of the source of European evil. Of course, there are still remnants, but then again the entire world is involved in a new global competition that is played out in uneven fields of fairness.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
No worries, Drifter, about the doubled posts; it happened to me several times before when, instead of hitting the edit button I hit the quote button and posting it. And no way to do anything about it, such as delete, but I have edited the second version to something else at times.
As far as your excellent question is concerned, and in line with your latest post, we must indeed all look inside ourselves to find which version(s) we believe in. For me, the universe is a place next to the original place, the materialized locations we call home -or our bodies- are 'second hand' in that they are deliveries in this second state from the first state.
The question we cannot answer is whether there is anything left of the first state, or whether that first was ever even singular. Anything I have experienced in the realm of otherworldly could be explained by my connecting with other energy of this universe, not of the first state.
For instance, and I am not saying this is the way it is, we may provide each other our dreams we dream at night. Picking up energy in the day time that charges us (or wears us out) can be released during our sleep and float back either to the origin or to the lowest point (such as water always flowing to the lowest point).
When we wake up we may think that god communicated with us, but it might as well have been the spiritual residu coming from your neighbor, your sister half a world away, the dog or any other source that functions on the spiritual level you have tuned in to.
Basically, I identify myself spiritually as second-hand original source. To place a singular god entity on top of everyone and everything materialized is possible, but it does not provide any additional information. Whatever was before the Big Bang is not knowable (except via our hearts), and my gut feeling tells me that our universe is a whole lot more interesting than what was before.
The root of all evil is that we think we are a lot bigger than we really are. I believe in the goodness of all people, but I am a realist in that I know there are people who do not believe that. That doesn't make them bad, but it allows them so see others in a bad light, and then sometimes even take action that is bad in itself. Hitler, for instance, did not believe in the goodness of people, and acted accordingly. And yet Hitler was in reality nothing but a little person, just like the rest of us, claiming things beyond our own human realm, and able to get a hold of power that was multiplied by socioeconomic frustration, bad times, a military might, and the simple capacity to show that other people are nothing but little people too. We all know it didn't make him or Germany or Europe any bigger; it just showed how we are all connected to each other, and really it showed how little we all are.
Sounds good, Drift, that 'nothing' would have been unstable, although all we know is that there is something, which says that 'nothing' can not be, or else it would still be here. That is, of course, if 'nothing' was was the complete lack of all qualities, including potential, from wherever laws held sway then; however, if it had some potential, then it was not a true nothing. Whether 'nothing' tried or not, I couldn't say.
As for whether beings or Beings need anything extra to animate them into being or Being, such as having a 'soul', I wrote up some thoughts a few days ago and may post them, but not to substitute for Fredrick posting his own; it's just that the discussion spurred some 'creativity' in me.
As the imagined ‘Infinite Animator’
needed no ANIMATION Ermself,
creating an endless regress,
then neither did the lessor case (us),
even so then all the more.
Now that I wrote
such a concise statement,
as we do in verse,
I will probably write
thousands of words of prose,
in 3 parts.
Aren’t humans funny?
An interesting read, Drifter, but I feel the baby was thrown out with the bathwater just when both of them became lukewarm.
I do not belong to the scientists' camp that supports the belief that something came out of nothing. I do not buy into that kind of reasoning. Rather, I state that the phenomenon of nothing was essential to make the step possible from previous state to current state.
Does the step require a god? There is always a god. But what does the word mean (because it is just a word)? A conscious entity still existing next to us, or is god a state that describes us all in the complexity we call the universe? For the former, subjection is the essence. We do find a lot of subjection in our universe: we are subjected to gravity, for instance. For the latter choice, transformation is then the essential word. I like that option better, even when I do admit to be just a little person. Even though I am tiny, I have some gravity pull myself (though only of the neglectable kind right next to this little giant we live on).
As you see, Austin and I walk very similar paths here, but prose is not my 4tay.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Those of the TOE often wonder what drives the animation of the little guy (us) and that of the Big Guy (the Divine), that is, the working out of the driving spirit of our own lives for one, for we are the little guy, and two, the workings driving the spirit of the Big Guy, in addition to pondering the question of whence both beings became as well as of them needing anything ‘extra’ to animate them, if they did.
How is it that both of the two guys can live and exist, although one is at yet only presumed? What guiding hand animates the beings of the two guys of being alive in their being/Being, that elixir of ‘I am’?
What does it take for a being to be (made) alive?
Now, we are not of course the littlest guy possible, for we are very complex, although we are made of the littlest stuff, the fundamental substance(s). We have the power and being of our form as it has now become over however many years it took and will take; but, relatively speaking, the Big Guy is the Biggest of All, for it is assumed that His power is unlimited.
We could just say that us little guys just are, that’s it, case closed; but, as scientists and humans it is not appealing to merely declare things by fiat, for then what does that do? Only if we see no other answers does it do something.
What is the evidence for our own being aside from knowing we have parts? Well, we feel it, we live it, and we are it, but what is the evidence of that from which we evolved and the point at which we became alive? The scientist might look to evolution while the spiritualist, might think that either that Adam and Eve were made intact or that evolution reached the point whence a soul was inserted or that it is done at birth, evolution being a factor or not.
We see atoms, molecules, and their ever continuing more and more complex composite forms, both organic and non. It takes parts to make a being. The chainis from the simple to the complex, through ever increasing degres of compositeness.
At the high end of the spectrum, beginning with atoms and even their own constituents, whatever they turn out to be, we have us as a later result, for that is what we see without recourse to thought experiments in the realm of imagination.
Therefore the spirit of life lies in between the beginnings and what we are now, for, at some point therein, life of an organic nature began, thence became alive. Note that we are not now relying on myths, but only on that we know, for the possible “could be’s” and “maybe’s” of myths, imaginations, and fables are near to endless.
Remember, we don’t like to just say that something just is, for either of the two beings, although some people are not consistent in this approach for the Beingness of the Big Guy.
A simpler case to picture might be: that from a bunch of parts a car arises, being then driven by the engine, but we’re darned if we know exactly how the engine works, although some may know.
So, while we know that the spirit of human life began and we also know very much of what drives the chemistry and biology of ourselves, such as DNA, neurotransmitters, the food process, the work of the blood, how organs function, protein unfolding, cell operations, and so much more that is known now and to come to be known.
We have progressed from thinking that evil spirits caused odd behavior to learning the roots of odd behavior or body malfunctions, that is, we now know of of the source of ailments of the body and the mind for which evil spirits were once blamed instead of bacteria, viruses, and the neurochemistry of the brain.
Never yet has it been seen that we are not of an electrobiochemical nature, any guesses of imagination and wishes not withstanding, for these methods may ‘claim’ anything.
Now, to be fair, could something or Someone have thrust all of the fundamental substance into our universe, even knowing to what it would amount? Could be, but who knows, since no evidence is seen—or perhaps it can’t be seen, by definition? So, this is still in the realm of figmentations.
Could Someone have assisted the formation of life from a universe already underway? Who knows, for there is no evidence for it? Imagination has no bounds.
Could the stuff of the universe just have been here forever or somehow created itself? Who knows, for we only know for sure what we can see, all else being relegated to the unseen realm of assumptions, but as those imagintions suggest those for the Divine cause, then it might as well be the same without the Divine.
So, for this discussion, did the Big Guy animate us little guys somehow, by any method, whether before making the universe or during or whatever?
Let’s assume so, for now, although we have no basis for this or any other unknowable pronouncement, but just to complete our questions of animation in case they might have some bearing on our own.
OK, so let’s say that the Energy of the Big Guy animates the spirit of man or whatever makes humans human.
Are we done? Does the 3 letter word that is usually used to refer to the Big Guy have some psychological magic in it that says, “We’re finished; it’s solved; end of discussion; case closed”?
Yes, it does, so that’s why I don’t even mention His name directly here.
So, we are not done, for our main concern is of who or what animates a being or a Being, but now we are looking into the Being—the Big Guy.
Explanation of the source of His Life Energy pales in comparison to the explaining of our own, the ratio being infinity to 1. Our animation of beings question has become astronomical at the Big Guy’s level, but it is our main question herein and so we must stick ot through to the end, going beyond the magic words.
What animates the Big Guy’s spirit? How could a Guy just be of some stuff mixing together? Well, E could, but then so could we, so then E is not needed, but E still could be there, or not.
Should we just say that E is made of another kind of stuff, some other forever stuff like, and then say “case closed”? NO, for that is just ‘saying’.
Should we say that we should just assume something because we can’t know all? Well, assume what? A will, a destiny, a way to live, a Hell, reincarnation, Mormonism, what?
We are several steps away in our imagination now, having stepped deep into the byways of the mind’s projections upon projections without limit.
Currently, what we see of humankind’s development is what we see. But is seeing fake? Can’t know, for that depends on just saying it is so.
So, what to do?
We are obviously presented with our being, whencever way it was of. That much we do know.
Should we make a presumption, one that leads to several more layers of the same after that? Could do, but they would all remain presumptions still.
It seems there is not much else to do but to be as we seem to be of what we do seem to know about.
This freedom to be is not so terrible, for it is completely unconstrained, but it is only free within our form, of course, for that’s how it has to be.
Some say ‘What the heck, here I am, but I didn’t ask to be put here! Now I am forced to be’ This is the existentialist view. Some of those types choose to react with nervousness and angst about the why and what to do; but, some say, ‘Well, since we are here and so we must first and foremost always deal with our existence.” That is why they say existence precedes essence (meaning really the questions about essence, not the essence itself).
So, Are humans animated by a supposed Another who is not animated by ANOTHER? Not likely, for we are an even simpler case than the supposed Another, one who requires no outside animination.
All in all, the Big Guy is only supposed, so we can’t just say that E animated the little guys. Even if we allow it as possible, we find that Beings need no animation since E didn’t need it.
Linear Mode
