Hi Tina. This is fine for psychology, but science is positive, negative and no neutral___Motion never stops, in the absolute frame of observation. Aristotle showed this 2300 years ago, and Freud and Husserl showed psychology's opposite, which Protheory mentions, at the turn of the last century... This is what everyone must recognize___The two law systems of psychological and scientific truths are opposing. IMO, the only uniting of them is through science, but that's a rather complex story, most don't wish to know___The real and absolute isomorphic truth... Sorta like the I-Ching___Changes, changes, changes. These things too, shall pass away... The answer lies in understanding counter-intuitive truth's relationship to intuitive truth...
Lloyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina
There we go again - when will people realise Protheory explains this!
Three potential truth values:
Positive - negative and neutral
Yes - not Yes (no) - not yes and not no (a big maybe!)
Time off spend on making video for youtube - Profpat will like it I'm sure!
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
What about Choice E all the above. This way we have Mahatma Gandhi pick:
Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:
"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."
Some people have many heroes in life, Profpat, others only a few. I belong to the latter category, and if you'd ask me who my hero is, I'd say Mahatma Gandhi. I admire him enormously for uniting a nation to defeat the controlling United Kingdom. However, the words he used are not correct in themselves. For example, one cannot expect the Messiah still to come and state that the Messiah has arrived already both at the same time. The message Gandhi delivers here is not to be taken literally, because then the words are not correct. Still, we consider his words to convey a correct message: he has no conflict with conflicting religious positions (or something of a similar meaning).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick
A choice must be made to
a/ choose for one [of the two];
b/ choose for another religion;
c/ decide not to choose;
d/ decide not to choose.
C and D are not identical. One can decide to not make a decision because both are considered of such great value that one prefers to not undermine either one, or one can decide neither has any value and so a choice is not of any importance. Two people each making one of these two choices are two different people: one is very religious, the other is very much not interested in what these two religions have to offer.
Of the four position above, two deliver direct clear answers: a and b.
Answers c and d belong to a sliding scale. Gandhi's answer belongs to this sliding scale as well, though adjusted for he does not choose between two religions. His answer is probably best explained as showing great interest and respect for all religions.
Nevertheless, Profpat, you are correct — there is such an E position. The pyramid has 5 positions, four grounded (two that are well grounded, two that are transformational positions) and one position in top that is an abstract. For the pyramid using the example above, the abstract would be something like: the ability to believe. All options above can be placed under this umbrella, and this also includes the option to ignore this ability.
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.
In my religion, I try to take the best of the beliefs of the religions Gandhi mentioned, and leave the rest.
In fact I broke it down to two key elements: GOD and LOVE.
Profpat,
That is a good choice, of course. However, each choice comes with the best and not-the-best. Even if you were to take the best of all religions, a certain shallowness then automatically follows because moving to a deeper level requires accepting certain premises first. Painting with only the nicest colors (for instance, only the pastels) does not help when trying to capture the entire firmament of All. At the same time, this is one of the difficulties of the overall delivery I propose as well: the final delivery is done in the abstract only.
It is important to recognize that we organize ourselves certain ways, and religion is just one example. If we look at society as a whole then we can find various ways of organization existing next to each other (and partially overlapping each other). The synergistic delivery is that the whole becomes more than just the parts, while the parts do not adjust themselves fully to that whole — rather they remain themselves, must remain themselves to contribute to society fully.
Best to you as well, Profpat.
P.S. I looked at your pdf delivery and it looks very good. My comment would be that it possibly contains too much information, making it more muddy in some places than need be. I hope you recognize my theme: concepts capture truths within their own structure, and should not try to go over their boundaries to capture more. Still, your delivery captures many truths. The face on the last page reminded me of the number phi that is considered the underlying structure, for instance, to a human face.
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 Following User Says Thank You to Fredrick For This Useful Post:
Glastonbury Abbey discovery:
Truth — "Choosing" an absolute truth without providing proof, isn't really a choice: it's a philosophy with all the questions left out.
Excellent contribution, Austin. The quotation marks around "choosing" can be tossed as far as I am concerned, because I consider the choice the crux of the matter.
The word 'truth' is particularly difficult for it feels as if what is mentioned is something that can stand all by itself, while in reality truths exist only under the most precarious conditions. As the writer I wanted to make sure the reader applied the complex version of 'truth' — as such I tried to demand an active attitude by the reader (for a writer is limited in delivering how a reader reads the words).
Thanks for making your Abbey discovery noteworthy.
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.
...science is positive, negative and no neutral___Motion never stops, in the absolute frame of observation. Aristotle showed this 2300 years ago, and Freud and Husserl showed psychology's opposite, which Protheory mentions, at the turn of the last century... This is what everyone must recognize___The two law systems of psychological and scientific truths are opposing. IMO, the only uniting of them is through science, but that's a rather complex story, most don't wish to know___The real and absolute isomorphic truth... Sorta like the I-Ching___Changes, changes, changes. These things too, shall pass away... The answer lies in understanding counter-intuitive truth's relationship to intuitive truth...
Lloyd
Lloyd,
In your words I read that you consider science to be whole unlike anything else. Do I read that correctly in your words?
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.
One of the hardest obstacles we all have to overcome is not getting stuck in place of a single truth. I know I have my own fair share of getting stuck in my own ways of thinking, and I like it much if I encounter someone like you who is able to take the broader view — apparently quite easily — and allow other perspectives to come in, letting them have their own importance in the whole enchilada.
Best to you, 2.
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.
Let me try explain further how the 2D (or 3M) of our reality is also found in time. With the 2D-fields we can see that even our environment is based on a duality that can indeed get very complex. On profpat's pdf, for instance, we can see how the Octant is the multi-sided version of the three directions (or six directions if you want to spell it out fully). Eight cubicles are found in his Octant, and this number is of course 2 to the 3rd (2 x 2 x 2). Each additional multiplication of 2 delivers us further refinements of our experience (even to the point that we don't care about further refinements anymore).
The way I see time is that there are two different approaches to time. The first way is the simplest: there is no future and there's no past — there is only the now. The effects of time on objects (and on individuals) become visible only, because we have the capability to remember and we have the instruments and the senses to experience what once was 'now,' but we can only do so in our current 'now.' If we wish, we can imagine the entire universe to exist simultaneously in just this 'now' and nothing else. We can imagine life on other planets, light years away, right now — even when we cannot contact them in this now. Of interest to this version is that we cannot measure how broad 'now' is. If measured in time, 'now' is naturally far less than a second. Or, you'd possibly call something 'now' that happens in a framework of ten minutes? For some it may be an entire day. An entire year may get captured in 'our' now: 2007. While we can scientifically structure time, 'now' itself is not measurable. In no way can we establish a well-defined 'now.'
The second approach to time is quite different and based on doing away with 'now' altogether, and making time an experience only. In this set up, time is based on two fields: the past and the future. Both fields are angular, connected at one (or some) spot(s), and only at the 'location' where past and future meet up do we experience the present. The present is not a steady aspect of our entire universe in a singular way, rather the present is individual-based. My present is not the same as your present; my experience is not your experience. You and I may be set up the exact same way to experience time, yet the experiences themselves are not identical. There is no 'now,' except for what are individual experiences.
Of interest to the pyramid theory is that both the four positions at the base of the pyramid and the top position are delivered by these two views of time. Again, the abstract top, which is singular because it is an abstract but that is plural in reality, is found in the first version described above about time. Only the 'now' exists; it is singular, and yet we cannot accurately describe 'now' at all. The entire universe exists only in a fraction of time, much less an obvious part of how we normally perceive the universe — as 14 billion years old, give or take. But in reality it exists still in just one fraction of time. We can capture it with our minds/brains and establish 'now' as indeed a real feature of life, but we have no real handles on 'now.'
The second delivery with just the past and the future as fields can be placed along the base of the pyramid, with each taking in a position in opposition to the other. We can see time as energy based angular positions. The two positions are like the North and the South pole, grounded and locally in full control, while the experience of time is like East and West, rotating, moving gradually in one direction. None of us is at all four positions at the same time. While for some the sun rises (at the moment of birth), for others the sun sets (at the moment of death). We experience the passage from past to future (or if you wish, we experience the passage from future to past).
Again, a pyramid is found, dual in nature in that the specific positions are aspects that do not belong just to the overall experience (though they contribute to the overall experience), while the overall experience is 'automatically' part of each individual experience. We all have our own time frame, yet we may experience an overall time frame as well (real and/or only perceived). The collective time becomes real only as the culmination of the individual times.
I appreciate your comments.
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.
How come, when I'm on the internet and smoking a cigarette, it burns up so fast, but when someone is waiting for me to go into a reataurant, it seems to last forever?
Linear Mode
