Darkness...

@PoPpAScience,

The big question is, what is a no-thing that something can come from?

Faun147 wrote:

Time is a hard issue to conceptualize. My concept of time is that it is an idea to help measure existence. It is measured by change. Existence can exist with or without it, just as length can exist with our without the centimeter. The question then shifts to: "can existence be without change?"

I agree totally with your concept of time.
Existance to me is, "change". Existance for me is the endless "changing", or as I like to call it, "The art of Evolution" set in motion by our Universe/God/Aware.

Sorry for the flood of posts. Just got home after 4 days on the road and got a little excited by this tread. LOL

1 Reply

@PoPpAScience,

PoPpAScience wrote:

The big question is, what is a no-thing that something can come from?

I call it "Absolutte ingenting", I somehow understand it, but I can`t quite explain it.

1 Reply

@molok69,

Another question then: What is the one thing that can absolutely be agreed upon by all, that had to be at the very beginning?

1 Reply

@PoPpAScience,

Genesis? Don`t know?
But I think maybe that it was the combination of "Absolutte ingenting" and "the pure coincidence"(no reason, no cause).

1 Reply

@molok69,

The only thing that I can say that absolutely was at the beginning, that no one can deny, is "Potential". For we are absolutely here. So, in the beginning there had to be a "Potential" to "Be".

1 Reply

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

What is darkness?
I have asked the question in several philosophy forums and off course the first reply is "absence of light", but I`m not completely satisfied with this answer. I ask myself is there something more to this "phenomena"? Maybe it is "something" that "disapear by light", a "non-existing/anti force" related to infinity/eternity(bla,bla,bla).
Anyway, I find darkness facinating and hope that someone has some thoughts to share.

Darkness: That which is not illuminated to the seeing eye.

0 Replies

@PoPpAScience,

PoPpAScience wrote:

The only thing that I can say that absolutely was at the beginning, that no one can deny, is "Potential". For we are absolutely here. So, in the beginning there had to be a "Potential" to "Be".

I like the way you think!
I would then ask what was the potential? My own answer would be "a pure coincidence"(excludes question like how or why).
What was the coincidence? The "selfcreation of existence" maybe?

1 Reply

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

Well, existence is a "product" of itself. Existence must "experience" itself in order to exist, and must exist in order to "experience" itself. It exsist as a result of it`s own existence! Anyway something like that, a paradox? I think so!

"Something like that" is right. I have to tell you that I haven't any idea what it means to say that existence is a product of itself; that existence must experience itself to exist; or must exist to experience itself; nor what it means to say that it exists as a result of its own existence. I don't have even a glimmering of what those sentences mean even if you distribute lots of quotation marks among them at random intervals. Those sentences contain English terms, and are grammatically English, but I have to tell you that they are unadulterated nonsense. Not figurative nonsense. Literal nonsense. They do not mean anything at all. The paradox is that you, who speak English, seem to think that those sentence have any meaning.

I am sorry to be so harsh, but it is because of such writing, that philosophy is disparaged and thought to be silly by a great many people. And if they judge philosophy by writing like yours, I have to say I do not blame them; not one bit.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

"Something like that" is right. I have to tell you that I haven't any idea what it means to say that existence is a product of itself; that existence must experience itself to exist; or must exist to experience itself; nor what it means to say that it exists as a result of its own existence. I don't have even a glimmering of what those sentences mean even if you distribute lots of quotation marks among them at random intervals. Those sentences contain English terms, and are grammatically English, but I have to tell you that they are unadulterated nonsense. Not figurative nonsense. Literal nonsense. They do not mean anything at all. The paradox is that you, who speak English, seem to think that those sentence have any meaning.

I am sorry to be so harsh, but it is because of such writing, that philosophy is disparaged and thought to be silly by a great many people. And if they judge philosophy by writing like yours, I have to say I do not blame them; not one bit.

I speak English? Well I`m from Norway, I speak Norwegian and I think in Norwegian! Expressing myself and my thoughts In English Is not easy by any means, I use dictionaries to find words that seem to imply what I wish to express, quotation marks are for me a way of saying "maybe not the best word for this example", as I have a Norwegian word for it, but can`t find a English one that completely imply the same.
Sorry, that you don`t understand, but here:
Eksistensen erkjennes av seg selv, d.v.s at den er et resultat av sin egen eksistens!
Find a dictionary and get to work!

1 Reply

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

I speak English? Well I`m from Norway, I speak Norwegian and I think in Norwegian! Expressing myself and my thoughts In English Is not easy by any means, I use dictionaries to find words that seem to imply what I wish to express, quotation marks are for me a way of saying "maybe not the best word for this example", as I have a Norwegian word for it, but can`t find a English one that completely imply the same.
Sorry, that you don`t understand, but here:
Eksistensen erkjennes av seg selv, d.v.s at den er et resultat av sin egen eksistens!
Find a dictionary and get to work!

The fact that I don't speak Norwegian is not reason to think that what you wrote is English. And, from what I can tell, it doesn't much make sense in Norwegian either. The trouble is not the translation. It doesn't seem to make sense in Norwegian either. After all, could it really be true that what makes sense in Norwegian turns out to be sheer nonsense in translation. Is it possible for the translation to be that bad? Ask yourself, would there be any way to fix the translation so that it did make sense in English? And, even suppose it made sense, have you any suggestion for how we might be able to tell whether the sentence, "existence must "experience" itself in order to exist, and must exist in order to "experience" itself" was true? Or doesn't that matter in Norway? Look, forget the translation. What does "existence must "experience" itself in order to exist, and must exist in order to "experience" itself" mean in English? And how could we tell whether what it says (whatever than might be) is true or false?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

1 Reply

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

confirming the existence of an object by registering it`s presence`.

But just what does that mean? And how does that help? The real test is whether you can not so much translate the Norwegian into English, but whether you can translate the Philosophese (that arcane and incomprehensible language) into either ordinary Norwegian or ordinary English, so that it makes sense. Neither Norwegian philosophese, not English philosophese, make sense unless I can understand them in the language I speak which is ordinary English. What, just to begin with, does it mean to way that existence is a product of itself? That makes no sense to me, and I wager that if I knew Norwegian, the Norwegian version would make no sense to me either. What sort of thing is "existence" for it to be a product? And how could anything be a product of itself? Those are questions you need to answer.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

For an object to be considered an object, obviously it must exist as an object!
In order to exist we can say that it must have a presence in the existence. The presence is only a fact, if it`s actually there(off course).
In order to exist it must provide somekind of information about itself(witch it automaticly does if it exist)with existence, and the information that is registered by the existence, confirms that there is an object!

The paradox of existence itself is that the information concerning it`s existence can not be registered by anything else than the existence itself.(Because nothing else exist)
And in order to register the information, it must allready exist(so it can recieve the information), but it has no existence until the information is registered, this implies that existence must allready exist in order to verify it`s own existence. Furthermore, confirmation is necesary for existence, and since the existence must give the information itself, you can say that existence is a result of something the existence itself provides.
That`s why existence is a "product" of itself. A paradox!

Well, if you don`t understand this Kennethamy I really don`t know what to do, other people I have presented this for, understood the first version.
Responses have been, "off course, obvious". So I really don`t know if the problem is my choice of words or that you just ain`t into it?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

"I am sorry to be so harsh, but it is because of such writing, that philosophy is disparaged and thought to be silly by a great many people. And if they judge philosophy by writing like yours, I have to say I do not blame them; not one bit.

kennethamy I agree with you totally on this matter about the mumble jumble of philosophical writings. That is why only the well educated catch on to their meanings. That is why there are billions turning onto religion and on a few turning onto philosophy.
But it is our responsibility in this day and age to express past philosophical teachings into modern and more simplistic terms. This way common individuals can read and understand higher forms of understanding, just like how religions are set to read and understand.
But!!, to attack others trying to express past and present philosophical ideas, like an atheist attacking a Christian, is also very wrong. It also leads me to wonder if there is a certain dogma or ideology that you are totally controlled by.

0 Replies

@molok69,

molok69 wrote:

I would then ask what was the potential? My own answer would be "a pure coincidence"(excludes question like how or why).
What was the coincidence? The "selfcreation of existence" maybe?

I would respond with: what is the nature of Potential? Fore in its nature, is its power to be the the birth place of "self creation". "Pure coincidence", can be also be stated as "fulfilling Potential".

1 Reply

@PoPpAScience,

Here are to definitions out of Dictionary.com

1. possible, as opposed to actual.

2. capable of being or becoming.

1 Reply

@PoPpAScience,

I totally get it
Does the `opposite of eternity`tell you anything? as I refere to it as "absolutte ingenting"?
If not? I`m not suprised at all.

But anyway, potential would be before existence itself, in "absolutte intet" witch has "laws" that tells me that It must be the opposite of "abs. intet" to co exist with it, and that tells me the `characteristics` of eternity, the potential.

Something like this:

1) At the exact moment of `genesis` there was:
"abso. intet" and "potential","The one only pure coincidende"(Toopc)
2)(Toopc) = "self-creating existence" process(motion/change)=time/space
3)"potential" becomes eternity/infinity("abso. intet" is)

From this I get that existence and eternity has a beginning, and therefore they have always existed(serious)

I`d like to see if anyone gets it?

1 Reply

@molok69,

Let me write it the way I would say the beginning as I see it and you tell me how I differ.

Before the moment of the beginning there was, "non-something".
This non-something was Potential.
Out of this Potential Popped "Aware".
"Aware" having only itself to be cognitive of, falls in upon itself into infinity and eternity.
Through the act of "Will", "Aware" stopped its fall, what would be called the singularity.
Now having "something" to be cognitive of, itself, "Aware" reflected back upon itself, better know as the "Big Bang".
"Aware" now being all there is, set forth through the "Art of Evolution", to be all it can "Be".

1 Reply

@PoPpAScience,

After writing several hours to really answer your question, I push the submit button and "dang" I was somehow "logged out" and when I logged in again everything was gone. FACT :-(

Well I can write it again, but now its almost midnight here in norway, so Im getting tired

But I will write It again

But what I concluded was that our versions of the beginning are totally different, they do of cource resemble eachother because they try to explain the same thing...

I you can not see this, we are very far from eachother in the way we think

Using my thoughts answering your question made realise that in this case I think around you, in the speed of light times eternity, my friend.

Bold I am because I know

Just a little eksample:

These words:

Out of`potential`popps "aware"

My question can you tell me exactly how you `created` this sentence, every philosophical and psychological intention you had.

If you are able to, show me?

If not, let me help you a little:

If makes sense it`s merely an Illusion

But in fact it is nonsense from beginning to end

A advanced thinker would be able to create the sentence from scratch

maybe you just came up with it and was blinded by its illusion

And by the way, `potential` is no nesessity for genesis

1 Reply

@molok69,

I wish to `restart` this thread, as it got very off-topic.

`Darkness` is everywhere( and beyond ), it is so extensive that I think it deserves more thought`s than just the `absence of light`.

What about `nothingness`? witch is the `absence of anything`,would it include the absence of `darkness`? (The absence of the absence of... does not make any sense)

I think `darkness` is closely related to infinity/eternity.

Anyway, I would appreciate if someone had some thought`s concerning `darkness` other than the `absence of light`statement!

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know