JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 02:58 pm
@Procrustes,
You come to conclusions as an excuse to stop thinking an 'alleviate' that burden off your 'self'. This is what I mean by 'way out', you just go on defending what you already know so you don't have to un-cover what's 'there' anymore.

Who you really are is in fact infinite and the possibilities are endless, but you'll never find out so long as you still 'think' there are 'things' such as 'miracles, life, etc. etc.'

One more thing, I cannot tell you anything that you haven't already 'thought' of before.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 03:11 pm
@JPLosman0711,
...scratch disco rrrr...scratch disco, scratch disco...rrrr...
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2011 03:18 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Yes you 'hear' alot of that I bet.
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 02:15 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 06:28 pm
The question of this thread/topic is oxy-moronic. Existence is all there is. Nothing is a useless word. Follow the works and thoughts of Nassim Haramein and see how our understanding of physics is being changed.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2011 07:44 pm
@William,
William, you are right that the question is oxy-moronic insofar as existence and non-existence cannot occur at the same time, at least not if there are metaphysically solid or extant "things" and "non-things" in the arithemetic sense of absolutely postive and negative forces. But as I said earlier, this is itself problematical:
Everything is in a constant state of process. It's "being" is really "becoming." As such, everything both exists and does not exist at the same time. While the simultaneous ascription of the words, existence and non-existence, is contradictory, that is not so with the reality of their ephemeral nature.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 12:20 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

William, you are right that the question is oxy-moronic insofar as existence and non-existence cannot occur at the same time, at least not if there are metaphysically solid or extant "things" and "non-things" in the arithemetic sense of absolutely postive and negative forces. But as I said earlier, this is itself problematical:
Everything is in a constant state of process. It's "being" is really "becoming." As such, everything both exists and does not exist at the same time. While the simultaneous ascription of the words, existence and non-existence, is contradictory, that is not so with the reality of their ephemeral nature.


then nothing does not actually exist , at all , just in the abstract
Procrustes
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 02:59 am
@north,
Quote:
then nothing does not actually exist , at all , just in the abstract


I'm not too sure, but all manner of human exploration has not reached that potential where we can definitively rule out nothing as not actually existing. Maybe for the time being the only real answer to this question is 'who knows?'
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 09:41 am
@Procrustes,
In the formulation I suggested things neither exist nor do not exist as "things" (either absolutely present or absolutely absent). We make "things" static only in the abstract (as constructs, as models of/in reality). In physical reality they are always BECOMING something else; they are PROCESSES, both existing and not existing almost simultaneously. I guess this sounds much better than saying that they neither exist nor not exist (almost) simultaneously.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 11:22 am
@JLNobody,
There is only 'you', Be-ing.

You claim in your posts that 'there are no things' and yet you seem to speaking as if 'what' you are speaking to were, in fact, some sort of 'thing'.

There cannot be 'that which simultaneously exists and doesn't exist', if that were so then 'you' couldn't exist at all. There is only you(existing), there is no 'entity' that sometimes represents you(doesn't exist).

You keep misinterpreting your 'self' as if 'it' were some 'thing' you can find within the world, this is why your posts are just a bunch of 'blabber' that you try to 'sell'.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 06:04 pm
@JPLosman0711,
You almost completely misrepresent my thesis.
If anything there is no me who is be-ing. There is only the process of this be-ing (I like the hyphen, the gerund form, which suggests process).
You say that I speak of my "self" as if "it" were a "thing." You do realize, of course, that that is a function of our language's grammar, don't you and that my on-going discussion has always been a denial of the static egoself?
I accept your apology, because "I" am so nice.
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 05:28 am
@JLNobody,
I think I have an idea of what you mean by processes that are in constant becoming in physical reality (correct me if I'm way off; I like to be corrected Smile ). The existing and non existing oscillation of reality is like the behaviour of photons in a way (dual natures); but if we are to be concerned about physical reality itself, who is to say what lies outside the ripples in this pond of ours? Although it might be highly unlikely that there would be this 'brick wall' or 'interwoven blanket' of nothingness that surrounds or permeates everything respectively, the possiblity is surely to be considered, as you say, in the static abstract constructs of our own making. In my opinion, language does not give any justification to the reality of their being 'nothing', nor does thinking about it. If nothing is something and something is nothing, then isn't it better that we hold onto something while we are alive? (By the way, I agree with your idea of processes, but I'm intrigued but what you mean when you use the word)
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 10:09 am
@north,
north wrote:

JLNobody wrote:

William, you are right that the question is oxy-moronic insofar as existence and non-existence cannot occur at the same time, at least not if there are metaphysically solid or extant "things" and "non-things" in the arithemetic sense of absolutely postive and negative forces. But as I said earlier, this is itself problematical:
Everything is in a constant state of process. It's "being" is really "becoming." As such, everything both exists and does not exist at the same time. While the simultaneous ascription of the words, existence and non-existence, is contradictory, that is not so with the reality of their ephemeral nature.


then nothing does not actually exist , at all , just in the abstract


It is the isolation of being from nothingness, as if either concept could exist independently, that is the abstraction.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 10:23 am
@Procrustes,
My notion of process is much influenced by Heracleitus and Nietzsche, but most of all by my "grasp" (pardon the pun) of zen buddhism with it core idea of 'emptiness" (sunya). This emptiness is also a fullness, a plentitude out of which everything emerges and changes.
BTW, I do believe that we do best to live our lives fully, to embrace what appears to be at each moment but also not to attach to it--to hug it--so hard that we block our flow into what's coming next, as well as to the possibilities/potential of emtiness. Thanks for an insightful response.
0 Replies
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 01:52 pm
@JLNobody,
There is no 'function of our language's grammar', if you were really being honest with your 'self' you would see that right away.

You are confused when you say 'there is no me who is be-ing', there is only pure Be-ing(you).

You are still mis-representing your 'self' as if it were some 'thing' you can find within the world that has presence at hand and is readily accessible.

Until you step out of this 'symphony' that is the entangled mis-understood representation of your 'self', you will be the one suffering.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 01:57 pm
@JPLosman0711,
I guess we just have to agree to disagree, based on our persistent misunderstanding of each other. I sure hope you are wrong about me. Otherwise I am suffering, and what's worse, enjoying it. Be well.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 02:02 pm
@JLNobody,
You really have nothing to gain here by 'saving face', you are not some sort of 'thing' that has a face to save quite frankly.

Once you come to see that all of life is a mirror you won't make posts like that one.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 03:30 pm
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

Once you come to see that all of life is a mirror...

How does one come to see that all of life is a mirror?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 04:07 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Who is saving face? Who is the aggressor?
Now that mirror statement sounds promising. Could you elaborate?
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2011 01:19 pm
@JLNobody,
'All that there is' is merely a reflection of you, Be-ing. If you really knew your 'self' you wouldn't make posts like you do.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/16/2022 at 10:42:16