Here is a philosophical theory of everything, i really mean everything

[Pattern]

Hi Pattern,
In your opening post you mentioned some higher levels?
Onr of them was not higher reasoning?
Then Label mentioned something she herself, along with your own, was looking for.
Something came to mind and I would like to submit for your perusal some thruths that I have discovered and ask your opinions on it.
It's about phenomenon and neumenon. Manifest and unmaniest are one.

Thanks, and kind regards always,
d.

http://prahlad.org/gallery/nisargada...searchable.pdf

Scroll down (slide bar) to Chapter 17 for the full discourse. It's not long winded.
It's a very brief chapter only a couple small 'pages' chapter 17, if one could even consider them that, that follow a certain train of thought, or no thought, as the case may be.
I would appreciate your perspectives?

"The sentient being is only a very small part within the
process of the apparent mirrorization of the noumenon into the phenomenal universe. It is only one
object in the total objectivization and, as such, 'we' can have no nature of our own. And yet — and
this is important— phenomena are not something separately created, or even projected, but are
indeed noumenon conceptualized or objectivized. In other words, the difference is purely notional.
Without the notion, they are ever inseparable, and there is no real duality between noumenon and
phenomena.
This identity — this inseparableness — is the key to the understanding, or rather the
apperceiving of our true nature, because if this basic unity between the noumenon and the
phenomenon is lost sight of, we would get bogged down in the quagmire of objectivization and
concepts. Once it is understood that the noumenon is all that we are, and that the phenomena are
what we appear to be as separate objects, it will also be understood that no entity can be involved
in what we are, and therefore, the concept of an entity needing 'liberation' will be seen as nonsense;
and 'liberation', if any, will be seen as liberation from the very concept of bondage and liberation.
When I think about what I was before I was 'born', I know that this concept of 'I am' was not
there. In the absence of consciousness, there is no conceptualizing; and whatever seeing takes place
is not what one — an entity — sees as a subject/object, but is seeing from within, from the source
of all seeing. And then, through this 'awakening', I realize that the all-enveloping wholeness of the
Absolute can not have even a touch of the relative imperfection; and so I must, relatively, live
through the allotted span of life until at the end of it, this relative 'knowledge' merges in the noknowing
state of the Absolute. This temporary condition of 'I-know' and 'I-know-that-I-know' then

merges into that eternal state of 'I-do-not-know' and 'I-do-not-know' that 'I-do-not-know."

I really tried to read your the text but im sorry, to me it seems like nonsense. Perhaps it is interesting nonsens like a lot of postmodernist phenomenology, i dont know. Maybe im narrowminded but i dont have time for that. I take my theory quite seriously at the moment so please respect that.

To everybody: this is not a chit chat thread about every theory so please start another thread if you have another theory. I happily take all criticism or whatever your thoughts may be regarding this theory. I take interest in other theories but not here. Thank you.

[Pattern]

To Lablewench: I meant no sarcasm. I dont use that on internet. : )

[labelwench]

To Lablewench: I meant no sarcasm. I dont use that on internet. : )

My purpose in replying to yourself (and many others on this forum) or thanking posts even when I often to not participate in a thread, is to give indication that their work IS being observed. Even such small acknowledgement is a small input of positive reinforcement, which by the nature of how energy works, often is sufficient to encourage the poster to continue with their work, for all endeavor requires a dedicated amount of time and energy.

That is the sum total of what my participation here is about.

For personal gratification, I have all of reality and it matters not to me how others perceive the universe. It's merely a bit of curiosity in regard to the diversity of life and an observant study of psychology as a personal interest of mine.

(The smiley with the red grin is a 'razz' symbol, which can be taken as a negative unless there is sufficient trust between the parties communicating.)

[Drifter]

I really tried to read your the text but im sorry, to me it seems like nonsense. Perhaps it is interesting nonsens like a lot of postmodernist phenomenology, i dont know. Maybe im narrowminded but i dont have time for that. I take my theory quite seriously at the moment so please respect that.

To everybody: this is not a chit chat thread about every theory so please start another thread if you have another theory. I happily take all criticism or whatever your thoughts may be regarding this theory. I take interest in other theories but not here. Thank you.

Typical retort in these parts Pattern, sorry and no hard feallings, I hope.
I respect your fellings and will remain as annonymous on your thread, as the ever watchful (on such topics as, 'philosophy') eye.

[Pattern]

I have found that i am not the first to think in this direction. This article proposes the same wiewpoint as i have. Actually i did not have this view untill i was struck by this theory, anyhow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

...there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or "forces" between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general.

These words come from some one named Von Bertalanffy and they describe the search for what might be the theory proposed in this thread.

[PeteJ]

The idea that it is 'the fear of pain' that makes flesh move is strange. Is it my fear of hunger that makes my car move in the direction of the shop?

[Pattern]

The idea that it is 'the fear of pain' that makes flesh move is strange. Is it my fear of hunger that makes my car move in the direction of the shop?

Yes.

And by the way i´ve made two more movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEvhffir7Qs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k5sydeJc_E

Cherio!

[Pattern]

Hi everybody. I want to inform you all on my progress. Well there is actually no progress at all but i have made a new introduction to the theory. I hope you like it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu0Fd...zpoXsVmboHyzcu

Any questions?

[Mikal]

Hi Pattern…. I find it very interesting that you note connections between consciousness—communication—society, because David Chalmers in his book, ‘The Conscious Mind’ implies in some statements that some domains such as that comprised in society i.e.: ‘sociology, economics’ are far removed from the simplicity of low-level processes in consciousness. He implies in his statements that an explanation of this domain requires higher-level processes in consciousness. He implies that two basic facts about the physics of our world are autonomy and simplicity which are low-level facts underlying a high-level phenomenon which have a basic unity where the domain ‘society’ is removed from the simplicity of low-level processes thereby making illuminating reductive explanation impossible UNLESS there is communication with the unity.

In the sense that on page 1 of this thread you put The Cultural Level of consciousness under ‘Two More Conscious Levels’ do you understand the significance of what Chalmers is saying about consciousness and could you add anything to this??

Thank you for the video, I find your theory quite interesting because it contains a quite unique ‘ordering’ level to it.


Kind regards Mikal

[Pattern]

Hi Pattern…. I find it very interesting that you note connections between consciousness—communication—society, because David Chalmers in his book, ‘The Conscious Mind’ implies in some statements that some domains such as that comprised in society i.e.: ‘sociology, economics’ are far removed from the simplicity of low-level processes in consciousness. He implies in his statements that an explanation of this domain requires higher-level processes in consciousness. He implies that two basic facts about the physics of our world are autonomy and simplicity which are low-level facts underlying a high-level phenomenon which have a basic unity where the domain ‘society’ is removed from the simplicity of low-level processes thereby making illuminating reductive explanation impossible UNLESS there is communication with the unity.

In the sense that on page 1 of this thread you put The Cultural Level of consciousness under ‘Two More Conscious Levels’ do you understand the significance of what Chalmers is saying about consciousness and could you add anything to this??

Thank you for the video, I find your theory quite interesting because it contains a quite unique ‘ordering’ level to it.


Kind regards Mikal

Good question.

I have read some of Chalmers work and I see parts of it in the patterns och my scheme. I belive he uses the word emegence for the pattern you describe. I fully agree with him on that emergence playes a huge roll in most of these things.

This wikipedia article on emergence is not bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence