ommism?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I propose a new line of though. Ommism. Everything is one. There is just one thing, and that thing is called everything. All the rest is just sub-dividing.

(Sub-dividing is a musical term. If the beat is 4/4 you count 1-2-3-4. But it may be easier to count the offbeats as well, 1 and 2 and three... or 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 during the same space of time, for more referance points.)

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,654 • Replies: 30

No top replies

You're right.

Oh, it's also called Zen.

Joe(om)Nation

0 Replies

Re: ommism?

Cyracuz wrote:

I propose a new line of though. Ommism. Everything is one. There is just one thing, and that thing is called everything. All the rest is just sub-dividing.

(Sub-dividing is a musical term. If the beat is 4/4 you count 1-2-3-4. But it may be easier to count the offbeats as well, 1 and 2 and three... or 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 during the same space of time, for more referance points.)

Zen got it wrong. We say nothing when we say there is one thing. For all we have is a number, and the thing goes unmentioned. Also, one thing could be viewed as many things and/or one thing, simply because we do not have the means of making a count. Things are different or countable only from a third thing.

0 Replies

Jones, did you get the part about sub-dividing? That's what you're doing here. There is only Omm. That includes Everything. Omm ergo sum.

No matter what your imagination is, it is always smaller than Everything, though it is a part of it.

Joe, do you know what the word zen means?

0 Replies

He was shattered when he saw how everything's exactly as it seems.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Jones, did you get the part about sub-dividing? That's what you're doing here. There is only Omm. That includes Everything. Omm ergo sum.

One thing could be viewed as many things and/or one thing, simply because we do not have the means of making a count.

0 Replies

If we do not have the means of making a count
we cannot even count to one,
therefore the count is zero,
which would make my teacher laugh
because his student finally saw the zen.

What does zen mean?

Joe(Excuse me, did you say your name was Spinoza?)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

If we do not have the means of making a count
we cannot even count to one,
therefore the count is zero,
which would make my teacher laugh
because his student finally saw the zen.

What does zen mean?

Joe(Excuse me, did you say your name was Spinoza?)Nation

If we can't count then a count of zero is not possible.

0 Replies

Quote:

If we can't count then a count of zero is not possible.

Even better.

Nothingness.

Joe(see the beaming teacher)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
If we can't count then a count of zero is not possible.

Even better.

Nothingness.

Joe(see the beaming teacher)Nation

If a count is not possible I can't leap from that to make assertions about 'something' and 'nothing'. Either case could apply or not apply.

0 Replies

I think there is a semantics complication regarding the word "nothing." It seems to have a different meaning when Cyracuz is using it, than when it is used by the general public (i.e. Jones). Nothing means the absence of anything. I cannot accept such an idea, so what is there left but everything.

You see, I was also thinking along the line of the concept of "everything." Everything being the Universe (capital "u" Laughing

just to include the possibility of the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics) and everything in it.

Separation (especially in the extreme meaning of the word) is an illusion, but time and space is not an illusion.

0 Replies

It's not so hard. Can you see? Can you see something? This is a yes or no question, and if you answer no, then I can't help you. But if you say yes, the next question is "what do you see?"

And you can't see nothing. It is a term only valid through relativity. You see something. Even if that something is the absence of what you expected (nothing). Counting is not in it, because by the time you get to counting, you have already seen, understood, and made up your mind as to what it is you're seeing.

0 Replies

Quote:

If a count is not possible I can't leap from that to make assertions about 'something' and 'nothing'. Either case could apply or not apply.

That's right. You are getting this so fast. J

0 Replies

Re: ommism?
Cyracuz

Quote:

I propose a new line of though. Ommism. Everything is one. There is just one thing, and that thing is called everything. All the rest is just sub-dividing.

But if there is just one thing and that thing is called everything, how can it that one thing have parts?
You say: there is only one thing, called A.
The rest is sub-dividing and we obtain B, C, D.
But, is B equal to A?
No, because it is a part of A. If it was equal to A it would be A, not a part of A.
The same with C, D ....
So, if there is only one thing, it cannot be divided, nor have any parts. Because if the One Thing had parts, there would not be One Thing, but several different things.

So, Cyracuz, why not say with Parmenides: the being is. The non-being is not. The being is one and is not multiple: any part of it would be different from the Being, then that part would be the non-being. And the non-beings is not. All multiplicity is illusion.

(This said I don't agree with you nor with Parmenides) Smile

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

It's not so hard. Can you see? Can you see something? This is a yes or no question, and if you answer no, then I can't help you. But if you say yes, the next question is "what do you see?"

And you can't see nothing. It is a term only valid through relativity. You see something. Even if that something is the absence of what you expected (nothing). Counting is not in it, because by the time you get to counting, you have already seen, understood, and made up your mind as to what it is you're seeing.

If I say I can see 'one' thing, then I see two things.
I cannot see 'one' thing because I have no means of making a count.

0 Replies

Well val, can not one thing be diverse within itself?

lol, well I don't agree that objects that we see are illusions but I do think that we are all a part of the Everything that Cyracuz might be talking about.

0 Replies

Ray

Quote:

lol, well I don't agree that objects that we see are illusions but I do think that we are all a part of the Everything that Cyracuz might be talking about.

I agree: objects of our experience are not illusions.

About Everything. What is it? Does that mean that the future has already occurred? Or that the time is an illusion?
You see, given a present event A, events B, C, D ... can be produced, although only one will exist. But, from the present, all of them are possible. Your Everything includes all possibilities? Or does it include only what will be? In this last case, in order to speak of Everything the future must have already happen. If not, your Everything is open, probabilistic.

And what does it mean to be part of Everything? Are you a part of the mammals? Or a part of mankind? No, you are an individual. Mammals or mankind don't exist. They are universals. General concepts. There are individuals that have some characteristics that are include in the general concept of mammal or mankind.
The only way I can understand your idea is to conceive the Everything as an organic entity, or a system. We can say that my heart is part of my body because I see my body as a global system where the heart has a functional place. But, if I die and the heart is taken from me to be transplanted in another body - or to be given to the dogs, like a portuguese king did - the heart is not a part of my body. It is a piece of flesh.

0 Replies

But if you can't count you won't get a good job and have to live on a pittance with all that means,and it means plenty.And you certainly won't be able to afford a computer and thus it follows that you can all count.Why are you trying to deny it?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

But if you can't count you won't get a good job and have to live on a pittance with all that means,and it means plenty.And you certainly won't be able to afford a computer and thus it follows that you can all count.Why are you trying to deny it?

Emerson said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but i'm not Emerson and not averse to folly on occasion.

0 Replies

Quote:

I propose a new line of though. Ommism. Everything is one. There is just one thing, and that thing is called everything. All the rest is just sub-dividing.

You should be careful about proposing a set that contains "everything". According to "Russel's Paradox" (after the mathematician Bertrand Russel), there exist two types of sets:

1. Sets that do contain themselves
2. Sets that do not contain themselves

The set of all sets of type 2 cannot be properly defined without reaching a contradiction.

One set cannot contain everything, without containing itself. Thus the universial set in Set Theory is always defined.

0 Replies

ommism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know