soup!

[_Z_]

wil

well i agree that the actual learning is internal, external sources like books etc simply bring the mind to a given thing. hence if all minds are brought to the given! tis possible under the right circumstances but you would need iether a universal/worldwide event to bring it to mind or for us all to ‘arrive there’ - so to say. if anything i would suspect the latter.

dauer

given the subjective way in which we come to know the world, such an event seems unlikely to me.

i am not so sure, we are considering the idea as coming from without, what it is comes from within? what i mean is that if we were to say; ‘to find the truth of oneself is to find the truth of the world [in the greater context]’ and that to find the self is to find infinity, it follows in my mind that infinity is the one and the whole at the base of all things and hence a single word from it would speak to all - so to say.

It might simply mean that, in addition to the variety of ways that we understand reality, there would be a few more things that we’d all tend to agree about.

...and if we continue that line of thought!?

[dauer]

Z,

I don't really agree that to find oneself is to find the truth of the world. I would say maybe that to find oneself is to find a deeper personal truth.

I don't think we can continue with that line of thought. I think subjectivity serves as a sort of stop-gag to prevent some sort of all-inclusive realization. Even a mass revelation might still be subjective.

[wil]

Originally Posted by dauer

Z,

I don't really agree that to find oneself is to find the truth of the world. I would say maybe that to find oneself is to find a deeper personal truth.

I don't think we can continue with that line of thought. I think subjectivity serves as a sort of stop-gag to prevent some sort of all-inclusive realization. Even a mass revelation might still be subjective.

I was just lookin within (ala daffy duck style, just bend your neck around go reverse it on itself) and when you look out from within you see within from without.

As we all came in on different storks, could it be that each journey doesn't pertain with the other? ie when you use the coin sorter there is a reason they all just don't go in the same slot, tis the purpose of the sorter, Doh!!

Every person I encounter is nudging me toward my perfect journey, for this I must be grateful!

[dauer]

wil,

I don't understand how that relates to what I said.

[_Z_]

dauer

I don’t really agree that to find oneself is to find the truth of the world. I would say maybe that to find oneself is to find a deeper personal truth.

i agree, but maybe both? ...well on one level; as we look deeper into ourselves we look deeper into things, meaning etc. on another i think the innermost self is the ultimate reality or infinity [its not a ‘self’ of course].

I don’t think we can continue with that line of thought. I think subjectivity serves as a sort of stop-gag to prevent some sort of all-inclusive realization. Even a mass revelation might still be subjective.

it would be subjective once perceived i.e. once it has arrived, the subjective comes after the original aspect. we get info either from the outer or inner then it is considered and hence subjective. i hate all that empirical nonsense

wil

I was just lookin within (ala daffy duck style, just bend your neck around go reverse it on itself) and when you look out from within you see within from without.

have you had one more glass than I
i do get the point though that inner becomes outer and vice versa.

As we all came in on different storks, could it be that each journey doesn’t pertain with the other?

good point! not if you tie them up with an infinite knot, in other words all the different storks and journeys are like a circle ~ or spaghetti junction kinda.
i kinda prefer your perspective though, the problem with revelation would be its 'end-game'. what happens next, what happens next, what happens next X infinity.

[dauer]

z,

i agree, but maybe both? ...well on one level; as we look deeper into ourselves we look deeper into things, meaning etc. on another i think the innermost self is the ultimate reality or infinity [its not a ‘self’ of course].

I see what you mean. I don't really agree. I think it's also possible that going deeper into oneself is going deeper into subjectivity. But I do understand where you're coming from.

it would be subjective once perceived i.e. once it has arrived, the subjective comes after the original aspect. we get info either from the outer or inner then it is considered and hence subjective. i hate all that empirical nonsense

How else can we relate to it, if not via perception?

[_Z_]

dauer

How else can we relate to it, if not via perception?

sorry, i wasnt saying that we wouldn’t perceive it, more that it is not perceived until presented. hence if it was presented universally then we would all ‘subjectively’ perceive it at once. having said that one part of me is saying; this is occuring continuously it is just not a word but the naked truth. anyways that is a whole other area, i was just investigating the potential for such a thing.

i think you are right though, eventually we will arrive at some kind of rapture, when all things have been resolved [if]. like inventions ~ we keep making increasingly better versions of a thing until an idea can go no further. thus eventually most things would reach their apex. of course there will always be new things arise and change generally, so perhaps we are talking percentages, and perhaps in each age.

[wil]

Originally Posted by dauer

wil,

I don't understand how that relates to what I said.

Finding oneself the deep personal truth could be the truth for all, but not apply to all as you have building blox dauer, I have wil and z has z.

So while I see the alphabet that is required for me and understand the same 'whole' is required for you to complete, you've got a different starting block, differing set of experiences long the path so while I say...look yes this is my revelation I see how it is complete for both me and you, you look at it and scratch your head saying

Originally Posted by dauer

wil,

I don't understand how that relates to what I said.

[Bishadi]

So while I see the alphabet that is required for me and understand the same 'whole' is required for you to complete, you've got a different starting block, differing set of experiences

But to use the alphabet, each can articulate on equal footing. SO a universal foundation within the language does assist the ability to exchange information.

All words and even the alphabet were all created by man. At any moment a word can be created with any definition. To be accepted the definition must have basis and then be universally accepted in order to continue an existence in usage.

Well the definitions of what makes ‘life’ actually exist within a collection of mass, is still the unanswered definition, universally accepted; hence the ‘soup of life.’

This ‘soup of life’ is the exact place the sciences and religions do not meet.

That definition is what combines all mankind. As then to share how life exists then no religion or belief can deny, the truth!

The sciences, the religion nor any representation short of observing ‘light’ and all her properties, has failed to offer a universal description.

To represent that framework in pure form is that revealing to mankind.

TO comprehend ‘life’ as it truly is and for each person to begin life with the alphabet or language to understand, then each can be personally aware of exactly how and why each choice is their responsibility to existence.

But the key is that in order for that truth to truly be correct, then it must be mathematically correct as well as theologically correct, and to understand how ‘light’ actually works in a scientific frame, then a comprehension as to how the religions could have actually been able to ‘see’ (prophecies, dejavu), can be physically described. (entanglement). Or simply, to represent the truth in physical form (math) there is a true form which provides physical descriptions for most every phenomena described in theologies.

The primary key is to remain honest; and the first is to recognize that knowledge evolves; that man can create; that man is the only cause of errors to understanding.

And to remain completely honest then each can know literally that existence only operates in ONE fashion and that goal to observe this has been the quest of our species since the beginning of time; hence the evolution of knowledge.

That pinnacle of mankind is to understand ‘how it works.’

So heaven is that place in time where our species does in fact understand, while alive, knowing that each choice is what offers life to our existence, based on what we do during this time of choice.

So to define life in the purely factual form, and then offer the words of comprehension purely equal to all existence, is that final chapter to mankind!

Peace

[_Z_]

That pinnacle of mankind is to understand ‘how it works.’

but not to forget the why and whence, the origins and purpose.

So to define life in the purely factual form, and then offer the words of comprehension purely equal to all existence, is that final chapter to mankind!

i would say the final chapter [before the next lol] is to realise that knowledge is limits, that there is a whole level far to subtle for absolute definition. indeed definitions tend to be relative, we can always blur the lines between one fact and its neighbour.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by _Z_

but not to forget the why

will always be subjective. Do you agree?

and whence,

Virial theorem offers many different dates and there all wrong based on how energy is assessed but this is one that can be addressed mathematically.

the origins

Origins of life is easy. Mass associates based on the energy exposed. If 'good' associations offer a contiuance of that energy to continue longer the life of the system continues. This is the pattern governing evolution. This reveals itself at the molecular level when 'light' (em upon mass), is recognized as 'energy' upon mass. This revelation is that paradigm shift which substantiates the combination of each branch of knowledge.

The math, the religions and philosophies, describing life and its existence all combines under the understanding of 'light.'

i would say the final chapter [before the next lol] is to realise that knowledge is limits,

Try telling a young man, 'he can't'..... That he is not good enough to understand...

That idea is the error just as heisenbergs uncertainty principle.... it was his error of not having the material knowledge.

that there is a whole level far to subtle for absolute definition.

Agreed in the sense of defining but not of comprehending causation.

indeed definitions tend to be relative, we can always blur the lines between one fact and its neighbour.

That is what caused all the tangents in the sciences (mankind itself) as there are very few who remain focused on simply defining the most important question that each person ever born has wanted to know......'what is life'........?

[_Z_]

will always be subjective. Do you agree?

no not at all, forget the human mind and its apparent subjectivity, everything we observe has reasons and its own objective reality. i think the idea that everything is subjective leaves us in a matrix, when the truth is that that is its own falsehood. ultimately there must be reality even if we subjectively have no idea what it is [which i think is wrong because we have a very good idea of what it is].

Origins of life is easy

for sure yes, unless we ask; what are the origins of ‘life’... i know you will be thinking that is a contradiction of something i just agreed with, but what i am asking is where does everything originate, or to say that everything that exists belongs ultimately to the greater universal, thence to the whole and infinity. so ‘life’ just as ‘being’ or ‘mind’ are within the whole and the infinite.

the evolution of life, indeed universal evolution is of something, a greater party, what i mean is that life evolves because its essence and potential is ‘there’ and wants to become [in laymans terms]. 0,1,2,3 exist in math because 0 demands 1 which in turn demands 2 etc, they to are evolutions, but 3 also must become itself for its own purpose.
anyway i gone way of course there and am not probably making sense, so let us say there are origins and fundamentals.

That idea is the error just as heisenbergs uncertainty principle.... it was his error of not having the material knowledge.

i don’t understand?

Agreed in the sense of defining but not of comprehending causation.

causation within the limit of the universe we can indeed as you say define. the universe does not compose the whole of the greater reality, hence causation or our knowledge of it is necessarily limited to existence.

[cyberpi]

If a person eats only protein then they miss out on the necessary fats and minerals. If a person eats only carbs then they miss out on the necessary protein and fats. If a person eats only fats then they miss out on the necessary proteins and carbs. A person needs water even more frequently than food but too much at once will kill a person. I'm not one to necessarily mix the carbs and proteins and fats and water all into one bite... cow's milk... a bowl of stew; however, I recognize the need for not being an extremist and to try new foods. Need to eat the protein, some fat, carbs, and to stay hydrated... soup works.

[_Z_]

maybe soup is the goal? everything seams to be blending on many levels these days. hmm

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by _Z_

maybe soup is the goal? everything seams to be blending on many levels these days. hmm

Or we could get stewed?

Or pickled?