Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

@igm,

igm wrote:

You believe in creation. How do you believe the first thing to be created was created?

Creation is the process of manifestation. That definition implies an idea. For me creation began in a metaphysical or spiritual realm as a cause. That cause is the first thing created so in the manifest world it will be the last thing to be completed.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

For me creation began in a metaphysical or spiritual realm as a cause.

Who or what created this realm?

3 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Who or what created this realm?

It seems philosophy doesn't require proof but it does accept proof. Science is a branch of philosophy like religion is a branch of philosophy or music is a branch of philosophy and like branches of a tree exist to aid in the trees quest for survival (in our case the quest for knowledge and truth.) So, I admit my expression was incomplete, it's just conceptual in my mind. To really know the beginning may be to know the end but the end hasn't yet been realized so I don't think I can do anything but guess (propose.) And that statement really depends on if the beginning had purpose. What existed prior to creation I don't know matters.

0 Replies

@igm,

If may be "prior to creation" is incomprehensible because there isn't anything comprehensible there.

0 Replies

@igm,

I find it hard to understand a building without understanding what it's built upon, i.e., it's foundation. The greatest works discussing creation I believe are derived from ancient teachings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_creation_myths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:1

1 Reply

@jerlands,

We have to use conventional truth to undermine conventional truth. Understanding the fact that nothing remains the same for any length of time whatsoever, undermines the mistaken notion of creation. It undermines the mistaken notion of self and other, subject and object, existence and non-existence.

Contemplating that reality is completely impermanent, is the key to unlocking and removing dualistic confusion. Dualistic confusion is the root cause of suffering and the preventer of lasting happiness.

This contemplation on impermanence, only works if it is done in order to remove suffering and gain lasting happiness, especially if it it done for the benefit of all.

3 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Understanding the fact that nothing remains the same for any length of time whatsoever, undermines the mistaken notion of creation.

How is this so? You're saying creation and evolution don't jive?

igm wrote:

Contemplating that reality is completely impermanent, is the key to unlocking and removing dualistic confusion. Dualistic confusion is the root cause of suffering and the preventer of lasting happiness.

The root cause of suffering and lack of happiness may well stem from other conditions. Such as believing GMO food is good for humanity.

igm wrote:

This contemplation on impermanence, only works if it is done in order to remove suffering and gain lasting happiness, especially if it it done for the benefit of all.

It seems everything you're saying is based on a the idea of creation without evolution or evolution not related to creation? That issue is debate.. I don't think so.. I see ID.. Science has touched upon the ability of matter to be constructed by electromagnetic information (https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0.) Now I know we have yet to see everything.

As for non-dualistic identity.. corporeal existence more or less negates that possibility because everything in this world is in context with another.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

We have to use conventional truth to undermine conventional truth.

Why do we have to undermine anything? We probably should undermine things that are destructive to humanity but it seems to me that should be done with the highest regard.

igm wrote:

Understanding the fact that nothing remains the same for any length of time whatsoever, undermines the mistaken notion of creation.

I understand that's an opinion. I happen to see that some things do have permanence, that they exist throughout time and that man only grows to come into union with. Now how to manifest the metaphysical (for lack of better word?) Or maybe, how to manifest everything? Maybe to understand everything we have to become everything? Man is said to be the "crown of creation" and within him lies all the functions of nature. So possibly just examining ourselves holds some clues? But what really is the truth? Are we simply just CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur?) +++ I hear the answer to that+++ no, we're the exchange of ions...

For that matter... are all men created equal?... I believe the context was "under the law" but we want to give it different.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

I happen to see that some things do have permanence, ...

I see that there is empirical evidence for everything changing, being impermanent, but I don't see any evidence for anything remaining the same, can you give me an example of something that is permanent?

2 Replies

@igm,

the beginning

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

jerlands wrote:

I happen to see that some things do have permanence, ...

I see that there is empirical evidence for everything changing, being impermanent, but I don't see any evidence for anything remaining the same, can you give me an example of something that is permanent?

It is a permanent fact that you wrote this post I am quoting from you...

1 Reply

Quote:

Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

I aint read this thread, but I'll give you an individual word, and you tell me--does it have any meaning?

Here's the word:

****.

0 Replies

Truth be told, I can never understand why these kind of questions ever come up. If the "first" word was just a "meaningless sound," then, by definition, it wouldn't be a word.

Those who argue that you can't think without language overlook the obvious, i.e., you have to be able to think BEFORE you can ever invent a language. The whole premise is self-refuting, but I see it posed, seriously, time and time again.

1 Reply

@layman,

Maybe language and thinking evolve more or less simultaneously.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Maybe language and thinking evolve more or less simultaneously.

Maybe, Rog, but that doesn't make much sense to me. Symbolic thinking (which language requires) is just one form of thought.

If a baby couldn't "think," in some form, without first knowing a language, then it could never "learn" the language. Yet they do so in an astonishingly small amount of time, especially when you consider that their brains and capacity for mature thought are extremely limited at that age.

2 Replies

@layman,

I once told one of my chillin, who was about 1 year old and had never spoken a word, to "go down the hall to the closet and bring me back a wash cloth."

He listened intently, and then did exactly what I asked him to. He "knew" the language before he could ever begin to speak it. How? Magic?

0 Replies

@layman,

There's some speculation the first sounds a child makes (arising from inhalation/exhalation) and sounds common to surprise, joy, sorrow may have influence.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

There's some speculation the first sounds a child makes (arising from inhalation/exhalation) and sounds common to surprise, joy, sorrow may have influence.

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Can you put it another way?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Can you put it another way?

Not really... the origin of language may have been influenced by sounds common to other humans, things they all could relate to either within themselves or things in their environment that was common and made sound.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

layman wrote:
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Can you put it another way?

Not really... the origin of language may have been influenced by sounds common to other humans, things they all could relate to either within themselves or things in their environment that was common and made sound.

Well, yeah, you did put it another way, and that makes sense.

1 Reply

Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know