2
   

The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself

 
 
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2017 06:19 pm
In truth, the naturally occurring 'shape' of the eternally cyclic Universal Process is the only shape that ever actually occurs in Reality.

Because 'Causeless Shapelessness' is ALWAYS completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical, the 'Causeless Shape' of this Process can ONLY be the 'structured ever-changing asymmetry' that It is.

Fundamentally, ALL apparent 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent 'features' of this structured ever-changing asymmetry.

WHAT this Process REALLY is, and the actual reason WHY It is occurring at all (AND why the illusion of separateness and duality EVER arises within the 'experience' of all of It's sufficiently complex features), is absolutely unknowable...


...and yet, Here It IS...


...Here You ARE...


Thoughts?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 661 • Replies: 13

 
emmett grogan
 
  4  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2017 07:20 pm
No matter where you go, there you are. No problem, no mystery.

Glad I can clear that up for you.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2017 09:07 pm
@Relinquish,
https://able2know.org/topic/400328-34#post-6493265
0 Replies
 
Relinquish
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2017 11:55 pm
@emmett grogan,
No problem, sure.

The mystery, however, yet remains.

It seems that a deep acknowledgement of this unsolvable mystery is the most 'open-eyed' stance that could be taken.

What is seen by these open-most eyes? Any accepted answer will effectively obscure it...
emmett grogan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2017 12:11 am
@Relinquish,
What mystery? Here we are. No magic about it.
ascribbler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2017 01:11 am
@Relinquish,
Quote:
WHAT this Process REALLY is, and the actual reason WHY It is occurring at all
...and yet, Here It IS...
...Here You ARE...
Thoughts?


S'happens, what's to know?
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2017 03:21 am
@Relinquish,
read up on Whitehead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead
Relinquish
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2017 04:15 pm
@emmett grogan,
Where did I mention ANYTHING about magic?
0 Replies
 
Relinquish
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2017 04:19 pm
@ascribbler,
WHY does s'happen? I'm simply pointing out that the answer has NEVER been known, and it never will be.

I'm also pointing out that there is actually only ever one 'happening'.
0 Replies
 
Relinquish
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2017 04:21 pm
@Razzleg,
I've read about Whitehead and his process philosophy.

What's your point?
Razzleg
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Aug, 2017 01:22 am
@Relinquish,
Relinquish wrote:

I've read about Whitehead and his process philosophy.

What's your point?


"About"...well, maybe, i'm suggesting actually reading him, or Elizabeth Kraus's companion. i'm not sure what you think you're doing, but it might be helpful...right now your just relying on word salad to sustain your argument.

'Causeless Shapelessness' is, in fact, a useful description of my ass...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Aug, 2017 05:44 am
@Razzleg,
Whitehead process philosophy makes as much sense as Walt Disney on Sunday...I don't give 2 farts about rejecting materialism per se which anyone honest would agree is enough of an obscure concept. Other than that his process philosophy is a bunch of bull. A contradiction in terms. There is no X, Y, Zed to talk about processing. Relations without relators, without foundation are as good as phenomenology being confused with noumenology...the kind of crap that appeals to ya am I right?
pradeepkumar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Aug, 2017 05:46 am
@Relinquish,
It depends on how we approach it as it comes.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2017 12:38 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Whitehead process philosophy makes as much sense as Walt Disney on Sunday...I don't give 2 farts about rejecting materialism per se which anyone honest would agree is enough of an obscure concept. Other than that his process philosophy is a bunch of bull.


Well, i'm as unprepared to be a full-scale Whitehead apologist as i am to figure out your Disney reference. i mostly suggested reading Whitehead, in the context of this thread, because it seemed like a fruitful line of inquiry for the OP's purposes.

That being said, ANW was a complex, subtle, tradition-divergent thinker. Many of his ambiguous statements were deliberate, some represent the clumsiness indicative of a fresh method of inquiry (and, of course, some were just misguided). i'm surprised you're not more sympathetic...

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
I don't give 2 farts about rejecting materialism per se which anyone honest would agree is enough of an obscure concept. Other than that his process philosophy is a bunch of bull. A contradiction in terms. There is no X, Y, Zed to talk about processing. Relations without relators, without foundation are as good as phenomenology being confused with noumenology...the kind of crap that appeals to ya am I right?


Well, ANW didn't reject materialism, he was a materialist, of a certain stripe. What he critiqued was substance ontology. Nor did he reject "relators"; he was a pluralist. He merely thought that the "relators" themselves were dynamic processes interacting with more of the same. As one that eats, breathes and shits i have a hard time disputing that.

There are areas of his φ that i find problematic, but, yeah, this sort of crap does appeal to me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The unsolvable mystery of Reality Itself
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2017 at 03:17:06