Navigating Perpetual Existence

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:48 am

Navigating Perpetual Existence (preview on Amazon)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (all text removed by something-real)
Last edited by something-real on Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:07 am

Welcome M. 'something' Henry.

Enlightenment as such is not discussed but all writing and use of language can and should be examined, as that's the nature of language: something to expand, critique refine or re-invent. It's the life of language: without this, it's all too easy to get astray into ones own prison of words or trippy sense fantasies. This is a discussion forum after all so I hope you can at least spend a few words, exchanging energies that way in a more spontaneous, free-form way.

Your first chapter is understood and seems somewhat compatible with the "Absolute" as described by many on this forum. But instead of discussing what you wrote, could you give some feedback on the writings of the forum owners as found on Kevin Solway's Thinking Man's Minefield and David Quinn's output?

Personally I'm not seeking what you offer, if anything, I'd like to get rid of some. But perhaps others will be interested.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5664
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Russell Parr » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:19 am

Hello SR, thanks for stopping by.

I have written a book, called "Navigating Perpetual Existence." The first chapter is posted below. The book is for those that seek to achieve enlightenment, rather than discuss it. I'm looking for a handful of such people to read the book, in exchange for a written explanation of the changes, if any, the data causes in their outlook. The book is not long, 145 pages or so.

It's always a pleasure to see someone who is serious about enlightenment and the pursuit of it. Not sure what you meant by your statement, but I can assure you that this place is all about achieving enlightenment. Discussion is the means by which we help sharpen each other up, in wisdom and expression. Unfortunately, there are very few that stick around and subject themselves to critique.

I see you've formulated a "Holy Trinity" of sorts as a model to explain God. Models can be very helpful in shaping the mind towards an enlightened understanding of reality. But models can only get one so far. Ultimate Truth is too simple for any model to embody. I see that you allude to this at the end of your post, with the scripture of God's response to Moses. Perhaps the rest of your book gets into this as well.

One such model that helped me tremendously is that of causality, as explored by David Quinn in his book "Wisdom of the Infinite". It is a short book like yours, and gets the job done in a nice, tidy fashion. It can be found in the link Diebert provided, but the first chapter doesn't seem to be working, so here's a link to a PDF.

Without getting into detail, I can tell you that there are things that don't seem agreeable with me within the first chapter you provided, in the manner that I understand this topic. But I am curious enough to skim through the rest of your book to see where it goes. PM me if you'd like.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:56 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Last edited by something-real on Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Russell Parr » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:59 am

something-real wrote:By the third paragraph of David Quinn's introduction, he falls into deep error. The paramount importance of an understanding of reality is not even close. Life is based in energy. Energy is perpetual. Prior to physical form, all things existed in potential energy. After physical form, all things continue in energy. The dimensions prior to and after physical form are permanent. Only this Earthbound phase is temporary, ended by physical death. As a temporary existence in a temporary space where all we perceive are configurations of molecules which are configurations of atoms which are configurations of energy, this is not reality. It is an electronic representation of energy defined into physical structures to facilitate a dimension where beings of energy, consciousness and language capacity are fused to matter.
That's a rather odd point to disagree with.. I would argue that your prose is precisely aimed at perfecting one's understanding of reality. Where we might disagree is in, what seems to me, your insistence that enlightenment is the product of understanding a formula, data structure, or model based on certain aspects of reality, as told by science.

The problem with science is that it ultimately falls short when dealing with the infinitude of reality. Science, at least by modern standards, relies on empiricism. The senses are inherently finite and so can only give us a finite tidbits about reality. To go beyond this is to leave science behind and enter the realm of pure logical deduction/induction. You do this yourself when you express truths like "Because there is something now, there had to have always been something."

Science, as I understand it, is a subcategory of philosophy. Science can only tell us so much about the world, which is valuable in itself, but philosophy tells us the rest.

Do you have any thoughts on metaphysics?

Genius is not picking and choosing that which is agreeable. It is considering the accuracy of data, following that data to where it leads and allowing cross-referencing information to establish points of truth until the big picture emerges.

Agreed. Even moreso, once the big picture is understood and fully grasped, the data and information gathered are transcended, and no longer needed.

___

Upon a second reading of your response to Diebert, it seems, ironically, that your accusation regarding the focus on the materials Diebert suggested moreorless mirrors my accusation regarding your focus. I encourage you to read some more of Quinn's book, it may resonate with you more than you think.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:46 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Last edited by something-real on Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Russell Parr » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:47 pm

something-real wrote:It's not so much that I disagree with Quinn but the common definition of reality is the acceptance of the physical dimension as such.
I see. And I agree. What Quinn meant by reality both considers and goes beyond the physical dimension. It is sometimes referred to as Ultimate Reality around here.
I handed you the basis of actual reality and you didn't want that.
I haven't rejected it yet. I can only make judgements on it based on your explanations so far. We may only disagree in semantics. Who knows?
Also, that which is commonly considered science is more consensus.
I assume you meant "mere", and to that I agree with.
There is a true science but it too begins with primal laws on which existence rests. When contemplating reality with the knowledge of those laws, the science remains relevant, important and must be continuously revisited. The first law of science is the law of opposites. Existence and nothing are the primal opposites. Existence is composed of energy, consciousness and language capacity. Everything else is the result of energy definition and conversion. That is the basis of reality, no matter how long it takes for an individual to understand it, and to deny it takes one down into fighting for a belief.
I'm going to need more information before I can tell you whether I agree with this or not. But as is, I'll share some thoughts regarding part of it.

If existence and nothingness are opposites, then they are ultimately one and the same. That is the nature of opposites; you can't have one without the other. Whether the one or the other is in play depends on orientation and perspective. For example, for something to exist, there must be a conscious observation of it. But as conscious observation is finite, it cannot speak for reality in an ultimate sense. Things we perceive are there precisely, and only because we perceive it. The infinitude of reality, or energy as you might say, entails a boundless, borderless aspect of reality, beyond and beside conscious observation. Therefore, things exist, and do not exist.

I believe the trio of energy, consciousness, and language capacity could be entwined into this, if one is so inclined, but I'll leave that up to you.
Prose?
I merely meant your presented thesis. Probably not the best word there, admittedly.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:08 pm

something-real wrote:One can spend a lifetime mulling over physical substance yet achieve absolutely nothing but to pat their own shoulder in acknowledgement of their own keen insight.

For many, that seems to be exactly what is desired though.

I'm not offering you anything. I presented an opportunity to think.

You're not offering me anything by presenting an opportunity? Please don't play with words since you offered your book in exchange for something, in your own words. And this is what exchange of thought can do for you: to see how your own brain might trick one into a web of contradiction and deception. Or at least how others could interpret that needlessly, if not the case. Then there's something to gain in communication.

Beneath all possibility there is a primal structure and my book explains it. It was not created to fit into anyone's preconceptions or misconceptions. It is for the few that are able to actually calculate far enough to understand matters like energy, consciousness and language capacity as the substance of life.

You've landed on a forum where people generally are not believing in any fundamental "substances", physical or metaphysical. Unless we call that substance something logical like causality or existence itself. Or in other words when substance would mean absolute truth or essence. But these are still intellectual tools. The best tools are like doors, you pass them and don't look back or stand around the door, making it mean more than it just was.

The books you ask for feedback on are discussions of the interactions of atom based objects and entities. That bores me.

Odd, I thought your book, as far as I've read it on-line, was still quite materialistic in its outlook. Energy like you use it would still a highly materialistic thought-form. In your context it's by all means a form of ultimate entity. In that sense you seem to have created a new idol to replace the old.

But still. congratulations on how active you have managed to spread your writing but of course, it might mean you might be much invested in all the truths you've found. You are describing a model which works for you. Some individual theology. But it seems tailored to you and the few like you. the topic is great though and I hope you can still engage in discussions on the words and what you intent with them. There's always something to learn.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5664
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:07 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Last edited by something-real on Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:36 am

something-real wrote:Diebert, you've digressed to accusation. I'm not here to "Play with words."

Welcome to actual discussion! Part of discussion is pointing out inconsistencies, when we think we perceive them. It doesn't seem to be something you're interested or comfortable with. Fair enough: it takes two to tango.

In any case you entered a forum centered around discussions and ideas, condensed but not limited by the ones you describe as boring or irrelevant. It makes me wonder why even bother entering a house where people do what you don't feel like with things you're not interested in.

My advice would be to study carefully what some other people have to say and not dismiss it too quickly. Work with others instead of steamrolling over it all with your own material. And I do think you might learn a few things by sticking around. There are some commonalities as I glanced from browsing your work. My point is really: you're not the only one delving in that material arriving at many interesting states while doing so. Many, many others have done some excellent work and have written about it, also at this place and you can find many more references along the way.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5664
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:15 am

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Last edited by something-real on Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Russell Parr » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:03 am

something-real wrote:Russell, The opposites are not so much one in the same but definitely co-dependent. Existence is divided into two opposites, one contains all positive energy and one contains all negative energy. This physical plane is where negative and positive human energy potential are being separated.

I understand the link you're making between existence and perception. Every possibility was contained in the original conscious energy. Those that have been actuated have become reality but all possibility exists in potential, which fuels the infinite power of the will and the vastness of existence.
You make a decent point about co-dependency, but again, there's much here that is incomplete in itself, leaving me with little to work with.

It just smells really fishy to me, something-real. You claim enlightenment, yet you seem averse to judgement. You sign up under a pseudonym. You withhold the whole of your work, protecting it as it were, as if you need to sense some degree of susceptibility before comfortably divulging the rest.

The truly enlightened have nothing to hide. They understand themselves to be reality, and so express the whole of themselves freely. They are living examples of non-attachment, knowing that words and models are as temporal as sandcastles in a tsunami.

You come off as someone who has progressed close to enlightenment, but never quite arriving. In sensing this, you cling onto the means that got you to the threshold. Let go of your models, your physics. It will only cause you distress in the long run.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:00 pm

This is not a genius forum.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Russell Parr » Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:08 pm

Well I did offer you to PM me.

There's hardly a shortage of those that claim to be enlightened. Do you blame me for being skeptical? Not that I have much faith in what you have to offer based on how this thread is going, but again, if you'd like to share your book, you're more than welcomed. I'm not a black belt in Google-fu like Diebert, so you'll have to provide a link for me.

----

Oh, I guess he's had enough.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

He could not even begin to understand this so it has been deleted.
Last edited by something-real on Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Russell Parr » Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:42 am

I finally found your book (at least a preview). Turns out I didn't need any advanced Google-fu at all! A simple search of the title pulls it up. I was only making it harder for myself.

It appears that you had the book listed on lulu and barnes and noble (perhaps others), and had since pulled it. That, combined with your deleting of comments, tells me that you are uncertain of yourself. This is good, because as far as I can tell, you should be.

It's not that your book doesn't have any value, I'm sure it paints a compelling story for those that wish to partake in it. But as far as enlightenment goes, it misses the mark. For example, you express what appears to be a belief in an inherently existing consciousness, as well as an afterlife. To me, these beliefs can only be the result of egotistical hopes and fears. It also appears that your expression of enlightenment entails a dependency on a system, or formula, of thought. The fluidity of nature provides no ground for such a thing.

I'd rather not critique your book or posts any further at this point. You seem pretty sincere about enlightenment, and I'd rather foster a desire to continue seeking, if that's possible. You don't have to wrestle with us over it; there are great compilation works put together by Kevin Solway, for example. You could check out other widely available works such as the Bhagavad Gita, or the Tao Te Ching.

Besides all that, don't take any of this as a proclamation of superiority. I'm sure we both know that that's not what enlightenment is about. If you are indeed in ironclad certainty about your message as is, then congrats. But I very much doubt you will get very far with it here.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:46 am

You form incredibly stupid conclusions, constantly. I pull my my book and revise it to expand topics that people much smarter than you want to know more about. If you don't understand that we are conscious energy and that energy is an eternal force of physics then you need to study more physics. You're projecting negative energy and that will be your path. You will learn that it will return to you. You need to resign from the genius forum. You're an idiot.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Russell Parr » Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:30 am

I prefer to think of us, and all things, as products of eternal causality. To call it "energy", as far as physics go, is to stick to one side of the dichotomy of energy/matter. As for as energy being an "eternal force", well there's no way to quantify that. There's no way to observe the Infinite empirically. We can instead deduce eternal facts about reality philosophically, but in doing so, we leave behind the restrictive realms of scientific thought.

Besides that, you only make a mockery of yourself with the insults. Not that I'm not humored by it.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:48 am

You stick with what you can understand and what you can quantify. I don't mean to insult you. It's just that normally people understand that they cannot judge what they have not investigated and all of the many words that you have typed without knowing what I have written is idiotic. I get it. You can't write on the topic because you don't understand it. For someone to say that they do, is difficult for you so like a baby in a tantrum, you seek some way to make it not so. Even if it that way is to attempt to convince yourself that I don't understand it. It's okay. Maybe one day you'll understand the physics of existence. Maybe someone else will explain it to you in a way that doesn't make you feel the need to build yourself up.

When you do understand the eternal nature of conscious energy, you will remember that I came to you. Goodbye.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Russell Parr » Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:26 am

something-real wrote:Maybe someone else will explain it to you in a way that doesn't make you feel the need to build yourself up.
What goes up must come down. As was alluded to you from the start, what you need is some dismantling.

Good luck with your work.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby something-real » Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:49 pm

Nothing has gone up and nothing has come down. You have drawn on your imagination, which is not enough. The prerequisite intellectual base of higher understanding is the knowledge that all things, whether thoughts, objects, matter, antimatter, life forms and the spaces between them are forms of energy. If you do not understand that and the laws of thermodynamics, you cannot understand anything I present.

If you can't figure that life force is energy, you could go on youtube, type, "Ghosts" and watch the dead radiate enough energy for electronic devices to register their presence. The nature of perpetual life has been known since the beginning of time, around the globe. If you cannot quantify that for yourself by looking at people outside of their bodies, you lack the clarity to ever grasp the elements of existence.

To imagine that you are able to state what I need, stems from a delusion of the role of some form of gatekeeper here but really, you are not. You can't even get past the basics. Though it is doubtful, if you ever begin to understand enlightenment and or the operation of the elements of existence, you will find that all of us that do, write the same thing in different ways. There is one thing that we all realize so we see where each other stands with regard to the clarity that has been reached. There is no competition between books. Once every few thousand years, something fully gets it. It happens to be me.

Dismounting? Ridiculous. There is no need I have that you can perceive. You can only speak from what you imagine and project from within a challenged state. My need is helping people avoid serious pitfalls by becoming knowledgeable navigators of perpetual existence and that is what is happening for me. You chose to take a stand of opposition and that is your choice. You will learn by experience from within a system that you could have understood beforehand.
something-real
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:00 am

So all we have here is a touchy, hostile character pushing his writing, refusing discussion on anything as it's seen as "attack". And I haven't even started to inquire his position on women, relationships, love and so on! But one can guess. And now, like a childish insecure mind, posts start to become erased by its author. To say what? We've got these type of visitors before. The benefit of following such a long-running forum I suppose.

For the context you removed I'll add the URL's so people can make up their own mind.

Navigating Perpetual Existence (preview Amazon)

The book of Enlightenment - Google Books

M. Henry wrote:Spiritual writings also have an unrecognized, almost secret aspect in that they allow readers to interpret them through the lenses of their own energy


One would just wish M. would apply his own wisdom a bit broader here and see where it will lead. Usually a bit painful.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5664
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Pam Seeback » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:52 am

Hi something-real, if you haven't left us, I present this for discussion:

something-real: "Consciousness is the second eternal element. Just as energy can only come from energy, consciousness can only come from consciousness. If existence was ever an inanimate space, void of consciousness, there would have been no force to initiate consciousness and life would still not exist."

As per the above, energy and consciousness are presented as two separate causal forces, aka, dualism. I assume from reading the rest of your amazon preview that it is not your intention to present a dualistic model of existence. If I am correct about your intention, can you explain the contradiction between your intention and your writings?
Pam Seeback
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Serendipper » Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:02 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
something-real wrote:Diebert, you've digressed to accusation. I'm not here to "Play with words."

Welcome to actual discussion! Part of discussion is pointing out inconsistencies, when we think we perceive them. It doesn't seem to be something you're interested or comfortable with. Fair enough: it takes two to tango.

Russell Parr wrote:Besides that, you only make a mockery of yourself with the insults. Not that I'm not humored by it.

I am helplessly compelled to congratulate you guys for how you handled that exchange because I know too well what it's like to offer your insightful opinion only to have it callously sullied with such excrement:

something-real wrote:You're an idiot.

SR, I can imagine what you're feeling, but I can't have much sympathy for you out of the tremendous frustration I have stemming from the fact that your behavior is the norm on social media; and, is often destructive to enlightenment if not for those with such remarkable patience as displayed by Russel and Diebert. I realize that makes me deficient in the thing which I'm admiring, but I am human and it feels good to vent. Plus, I see some value in chastisement lest this sort of behavior persist without abatement.

something-real wrote:If you don't understand that we are conscious energy and that energy is an eternal force of physics then you need to study more physics.

If there is a force external to physics, I'm not sure it's obvious how the study of physics would shed much light on such a force. What's ironic is you then carry-on about negative energy returning to one's path like some sort of karma; and as if on cue for the completion of the ironic setup, you call someone an idiot.

something-real wrote:This is not a genius forum.

This site is an oasis.

something-real wrote:All things.... are energy.

Fine. Now what? What is the cause of the energy? What makes the energy vibrate at the frequencies required to form quarks, or whatever? Where did the laws come from? Where did the "order" from what should be "random gibberish" that gave our universe structure come from?

If you exist inside of a computer, how could you know? Only by observing that there is programming and realizing that such programming had to come from something very non-random (sapient).

On the subject of infinity:

Russell Parr wrote:I prefer to think of us, and all things, as products of eternal causality. To call it "energy", as far as physics go, is to stick to one side of the dichotomy of energy/matter. As for as energy being an "eternal force", well there's no way to quantify that. There's no way to observe the Infinite empirically. We can instead deduce eternal facts about reality philosophically, but in doing so, we leave behind the restrictive realms of scientific thought.

You are truly insightful! (not just this post.)

But I don't believe in infinity. We can say our minds are unable to comprehend the greatness of the universe without invoking concepts such as infinity. I think it's an overkill to make your point.

Infinity is defined as one-bigger than anything that exists, therefore it doesn't exist. Infinity will always be one-bigger and the full definition of it can't be realized until you leave the realm of existence and enter into the mental construct that is mathematics.

Infinite causality necessitates the formation of every possible thing, regardless of probability. Not only that, but such eventualities would occur an infinite amount of times. It's really ridiculous. In other words, you and I have had this conversation before... and we've had it an infinite amount of times already (and I still can't remember what you said :p ).

I can't recall what you've told me an infinite amount of times, but I can speculate on what you might ask as a consequence to my claim, which is: How did the first "effect" come into existence with no "cause"? Because, without infinity, that's the inevitable question. My answer to that is: God. There must be one. That's the only rational conclusion in lieu of the ridiculous.

The "ultimate freewill" could not be dependent on anything, or it wouldn't be free. Freewill couldn't be determined by causality or it would merely be another domino in the chain. Freewill is distinct from causality and the cause of causality could only be such a thing that, itself, could have no external cause.

Critique away! I'm anxious to read the objections :)
Serendipper
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Postby Russell Parr » Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:16 am

Hey Serendipper,

Serendipper wrote:You are truly insightful! (not just this post.)
Thanks for the compliment, but I'll pass the credit to those that I echo; the founders of the forum and the giants whose shoulders they stand upon.

But I don't believe in infinity. We can say our minds are unable to comprehend the greatness of the universe without invoking concepts such as infinity. I think it's an overkill to make your point.

Infinity is defined as one-bigger than anything that exists, therefore it doesn't exist. Infinity will always be one-bigger and the full definition of it can't be realized until you leave the realm of existence and enter into the mental construct that is mathematics.
I'm glad you bring this up. This thread is a great example of how easy it is to default to mathematical/scientific conceptualizations of infinity these days. I'm reminded of this video as an example.

My expression of the Infinite is philosophical. When referring to the Infinite I am not referring to quantifications, but simply boundlessness, or limitlessness. By eternal causation, I'm not saying that causal events stem back towards an infinite past, but that whatever happens in reality, whether in the past or future, whether static or active, is bound by causality.

Infinite causality necessitates the formation of every possible thing, regardless of probability. Not only that, but such eventualities would occur an infinite amount of times. It's really ridiculous. In other words, you and I have had this conversation before... and we've had it an infinite amount of times already (and I still can't remember what you said :p ).
Every moment and scenario is unique, despite the appearance of similarities. Even if an "exact" scenario occurs twice, they still aren't identical by way of being separate from each other. Other than that, infinite possibilities mean that even similarities are not necessary.

I can't recall what you've told me an infinite amount of times, but I can speculate on what you might ask as a consequence to my claim, which is: How did the first "effect" come into existence with no "cause"? Because, without infinity, that's the inevitable question. My answer to that is: God. There must be one. That's the only rational conclusion in lieu of the ridiculous.
I consider any speculation of a God that is separate and invisible to us as pointless. To believe God to be anything other than Nature itself, of which we and everything are a part of, is likely nothing more than a feeble attempt to alleviate the unavoidable uncertainties that come with being inherently finite observers of reality.

The "ultimate freewill" could not be dependent on anything, or it wouldn't be free. Freewill couldn't be determined by causality or it would merely be another domino in the chain. Freewill is distinct from causality and the cause of causality could only be such a thing that, itself, could have no external cause.
"Free will" is just a label that describes a particular causal event. It is called free because we experience it to be free. Of course, this is quite tricky to come to terms with. But consider how easy it is to perceive that a robot, no matter how complex it's programming, only gives off an illusion of free will. It's only harder to categorize our own will as dependent because normal egotistical consciousness is conditioned to adhere to the idea of self freedom.

That isn't to say that such an idea isn't useful, or necessary, which it certainly is. But it isn't ultimate. It's all a matter of perspective: it's free because we experience it to be so, and it isn't free because causal determinism is fundamental and absolute.
User avatar
Russell Parr
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Next

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests