There is no logic for existence

[Jehu]

THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR ANYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE TO EXIST.

If by the term ‘logic’ you mean ‘reason’, then Parmenides wrote in his poem “On Nature”, “Whatever can be spoken or thought of necessarily is, since it is possible for it to be, but it is not possible for nothing to be.” By this he meant that the very question, “Why is there existence and not non-existence?”, indicates that one has failed to grasp the essence of what it means to ‘not be/exist’. There is existence because it is possible for existence to be/exist, while it is not possible for there to be/exist non-existence (i.e., that which does not exist). In fact, there is no greater universe of discourse than is that which is called, “being/ existence”, and all that is/exists (i.e., whatever may be perceived or imagined) belongs to this one indivisible Universe (all in one).

[Tomas]

.


-earlier jufa writing-
In swaying from my reasoning for a moment, I find the words of the Apostle Paul:
"I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitutious. For as I passed by, and behild your devotion, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, Whom, therefore, ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you,"

-tomas-
First off, he ain't no apostle of mine. Secondly, he is a forerunner of the anti-christ spirit. He is evil incarnate.


-earlier jufa thought-
to be a truth in one way, and a lie in another, for Paul does not declared God, only God's activities. God to Paul was, as God is today, a mystery incomprehensible to the human mind.

-tomas-
"Exactly" (to the greatest nth degree but just short of exactly). My take on what the Piso family of Italy, were striving for was for non-thinkers to direct the politicians, the money changers, and the religionists to corner the market on "consciousness". The chapter of Romans 13 has been so twisted out of context in that it has been Big Brothered into peoples' consciousness that government was created by "God".

Romans 13 with religion, gov't and money taken out is for a band of citizens to form their own "government" with one leader. No circumcision (both male and female) would be any more necessary. Much as a David Koresh setting, but without outside interference. When a child became "logical" somewhere around the age of 12-13, they would be permitted to leave the "government" they grew up in. The closest example I could give would be the Indian tribes in the Amazon, when the kid became "wise" (learned how to navigate for onesself such as feed the self, think for self, make it on one self), they were free to go and do whatever construct they were wise-enough to accomplish. Whether that be to remain single .. and/or to set off with a life-mate to the hinterlands of ... and begat all over again.


-jufa-
Finally someone has dealt with the subject matter. Thank you Thomas for leaving out all the ism's.

-tomas-
Well thanks but I'm learning right along, too. BTW - There is no "h" in the name Tomas. It's a childhood nickname that I use on the Internet for anonymity.


-jufa-
You say life is hard, I say life is easy or hard according to ones thoughts.

-tomas-
Due to "the fact" that I have a significant other, one is no longer allowed to think hard or easy on thought. We have a child that we must instill with logical truisms. We are our own community due to the element of a growing presence (our child) in our midst.

It comes from a tune by Tumbuk 5, "Life is Hard". It may be in my poetry thread on Worldly Matters. The forum for those not bothered by worldly matters :-/


-jufa-
But irrespective life is. What life is is to infinite for my finite mind to comprehend, but I can comprehend my living within life. jufa

-tomas-
Please .. a bit more detail :-)

PS - More later as the spirit moves

[jufa]

Jehu stated:
If by the term ‘logic’ you mean ‘reason’, then Parmenides wrote in his poem “On Nature”, “Whatever can be spoken or thought of necessarily is, since it is possible for it to be, but it is not possible for nothing to be.” By this he meant that the very question, “Why is there existence and not non-existence?”, indicates that one has failed to grasp the essence of what it means to ‘not be/exist’. There is existence because it is possible for existence to be/exist, while it is not possible for there to be/exist non-existence (i.e., that which does not exist). In fact, there is no greater universe of discourse than is that which is called, “being/ existence”, and all that is/exists (i.e., whatever may be perceived or imagined) belongs to this one indivisible Universe (all in one).

I am at a disadvantage in responding to what you have posted because you position yourself in Parmenides mind intellectually, inspirationally, and logically by your interpretations of what he meant at the time of his jotting down his thoughts. Had you walked in Parmenides' shoes with him, suffered and struggled, loved, hated and came to the exact same results as he did from his expereince, then your interpretations of what Parmenides has presented would have substance, depth, volume, and meaning. You did walk in Parmenides shoes, and therefofe you do not know what inspired him to pen his words, because you do not know the logic and reasoning of his experience. So you cannot speak of his meaning, just your interpretations of what you think he meant.

Moreover, I am at a disadvantage because I cannot ask Parmenides personally what he meant when he stated this or that. Truly I cannot ask you what he meant, because you have given me only as assumptive meaning of your interpretation of relativity from words of relativity.

What you say may or may not have some volume of truth, but I will not assume either way. Should you present yourself and your own viewpoint concerning the above, from what yu know from experience, then it is the road best open for my travel.

I am starting a new thread entitled "What are you going to do about it." You may, or may not find it to you mental liking.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

Tomas, I stand corrected about the "h".

Concerning Paul, he aint my apostle either. No comment on the issue of Paul and the anti-christ.

As for the rest of what you present, I found myself speaking of what you have stated, with the exception of the Scriptures, in what I am about to post.

Hope to see you there!!!

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Jehu]

What you say may or may not have some volume of truth, but I will not assume either way. Should you present yourself and your own viewpoint concerning the above, from what yu know from experience, then it is the road best open for my travel.

My view on the subject is quite clear: as I can find no fault with Parmenides reasoning on this matter, I am bound to accept his conclusion. This is the path of reason.

What exists ‘exists’, and what does not exist ‘does not exist’ [Law of Identity], and as we cannot rightfully assert that ‘what does not exist’ exists [Law of Contradiction], thus it follows that there exists only that which exists (i.e., existence), and naught else. Consequently, it is irrational to ask why there exists that which exists, and not that which does not exist. It is akin to asking why one must ‘backup’ one’s car in ‘reverse’ as apposed to one of the forward gears. Clearly, to backup is to go in reverse; and to be is to exist.

[jufa]

Jehu wrote:
My view on the subject is quite clear: as I can find no fault with Parmenides reasoning on this matter, I am bound to accept his conclusion. This is the path of reason.

What exists ‘exists’, and what does not exist ‘does not exist’ [Law of Identity], and as we cannot rightfully assert that ‘what does not exist’ exists [Law of Contradiction], thus it follows that there exists only that which exists (i.e., existence), and naught else. Consequently, it is irrational to ask why there exists that which exists, and not that which does not exist. It is akin to asking why one must ‘backup’ one’s car in ‘reverse’ as apposed to one of the forward gears. Clearly, to backup is to go in reverse; and to be is to exist.

Remember as snowflakes, no two viewpoint of clarity are the same. I am bound to expansion, and because Parmenides did not have a lock on the path of reasoning, even his own, for he did not know all wisdom or knowledge. Check and see if there are other philosophers who chose a different path of reasoning.

The subject matter here has nothing to do with what exist. The subject matter deals with whether one can give logical reason for creation, and the things within creation. To keep you on point, I am asking you to give me a logical reason for life, which in raw terms means existence. No more, no less. Simple as that. Perhaps you can find the answer in Parmenides writing. I am open-minded to sampling him on his knowing why existence is. I will not, however, be bound by any man's opinion who is seeking the same thing as I am.

Let me make it easy for you: Existence Exist WHY?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Gurrb]

I think it should be noted that purpose is merely a product of existence, and existence not a product of purpose or meaning. The only perfection one can fathom is that which does not exist; pre-existent of man--nothingness. As it's been stated, purpose must be present in our lives and within our existence, or we would cease to exist; wouldn't exist in the beginning. We, as humans, were not given the choice of whether to begin our journey into existence, but it is truly the only thing we can control: should we stay existing, or pass over to the world of non-existence; to a philosopher's perfect state of being? We can choose to betray "God's" decision to gift us with life, the only choice we can undeniable make as our own. Can logic be apparent in death? Can we still maintain the logic we have grown to know in our lives; an arbitrary state of mind we have set forth to further 'understand' our existence, our mind? If we were to examine opposites, then existence carries its state of that which is illogical; thus, the only logic that can be attained is through non-existence. We cannot manufacture a reason for our existence, simply because reason is a man-made idea. To obtain the answers for our existence is, like all things in life, a paradox as it can only be achieved through death, through moving on to that which is non-existent. Once again, a paradox arises, as how can one obtain knowledge when knowledge is that which is material: dependent upon the existence of a mind which can appreciate the knowledge.

[Jehu]

Remember as snowflakes, no to viewpoint of clarity are the same. I am bound to expansion, and because Parmenides did not have a lock on the path of reasoning, even his own, for he did not know all wisdom or knowledge. Check and see if there are other philosophiers who chose a different path of reasoning.

There are indeed others who have chosen a different path of reasoning, however, they are not called ‘philosophers’, they are called ‘scientists’.

The subject matter here has nothing to do with what exist. The subject matter deals with whether one can give logical reason for creation, and the things within creation. To keep you on point, I am asking you to give me a logical reason for life, which in raw terms means existence. No more, no less. Simple as that. Perhaps you can find the answer in Parmenides writing. I am open-minded to sampling him on his knowing why existence is. I will not, however, be bound by any man's opinion who is seeking the same thing as I am.

To not be bound by the opinions of others, is an admirable quality, however, one must be able to discern between that which is mere opinion, and that which is rooted in deductive reasoning. You asked if there was a logical reason for existence, and I provided such a reason; now you say that it is the reason for life that you seek. How can you hope understand the reason for life, if you have not yet fully understood the reason for being?

If you are indeed ‘open minded’, then perhaps you would like to delve more deeply into the matter, rather than simply disregarding that which you do not readily understand?

[holtzsaddleco]

There is no logical reason to the existence of us or the universe, that is because God has planned everything the way it is because that is how he wants it to be. Simple.

Circle Y Saddles

[Tomas]

Tomas, what happened to you in 'Nam? Did you kill children or something?

No, not that I know of. That said, I've known guys who served in the European and Pacific theater in WW2, then Korea and also VietNam. Almost to a man, they (of all races) respond that the Asian wars were the toughest on them. All the enemy combatants were of a smaller stature, so it was a bit more difficult to differentiate their ages. The Asian wars were "tropical" in nature except Korea (38th parallel) and what time of year their combat duty was. VietNam was highlands, delta, and/or patrolling the large/mid sized cities (very dangerous), as is Iraq, Baghdad comes to mind..

I guess what I'm saying is that Italy, Germany, France (and Diebert's home country) etc. were pretty much over in a year or two. When white people are warring against white people it's a bit easier? to tell a person's age/sex when staring down the barrel of a gun.

Like Iraq, VietNam, Pacific Islanders, Korea - their (the native) clothing stands out compared to the classic dress of westernized Marlboro Man 'white man look'. Like the American Indians, they could spot whitey before Custer's 7th marched over the horizon. I've been there (the battlefield and surrounding terrain) a good 20 times and it never gets old. The camping, hiking, talking with the oldtimers even in the dead of winter.

Finally, like the aged 3-35 year-old american boy/girls of today, their eyes know nothing but continual war in the Middle East.

It was that way for me, Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, LBJ just started throwing in more and more boys, the color TV war was daily news, eventually protested the war, got drafted, did the dirty deeds uncle sammy asked me to do, came back to USA, sat down in front of the color tv, protested the war some more, only to sit down some more again and watched the color tv war continue for several more years. My Lai massacres were a dime a dozen, prolly a hundred, at least. Does it never end?

As jufa says .. There is no logic for existence

[Pam Seeback]

As jufa says .. There is no logic for existence

When this realization dawns, is this not the beginning of the movement of individual awareness from the shadow mentality of belief in cause and effect (belief in dualism) into the light of revelatory awareness of being the Living Metaphor Expression of the Living Metaphor Thought?

A chance to step beyond the human intellect into the activity of pure reasoning of one's nature...for those who truly have accepted that they know nothing of the cause (the why) or effect (the what) of life. To become as a child....

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Awwwww...

To me you're all as family. :-)

Familiarity. Any idea how that can suck?

[Ryan Rudolph]

I agree,

far too much sentimental ego fluffing going on around here. This is a place of philosophy, not evil. learn the difference.

[Jamesh]

Existence has the exact same logic as conceptual logic.

All logic forms are deriviations of the dualistic nature of existence/"non-existence" - these are the concepts of On/Off, Full/Empty, Positive/Negative and so on.

However, "Non-existence" actually just means a lesser physical manifestation than another. There is no non-existence - there is only that which has not occurred.

Off, Empty, Negative are also relative terms - it is not that they signify non-existence or emptiness, they only signify dualistic relativity, namely greater and lesser.

Greater and lesser manifest via time. Time is the logic of the universe. Existence, also represented by changes of form, manifests only by the action of time. Both Infinity and Thingness stem from greater or lesser time. Time is the only possible true form of infinity. Time is infinite because it's sole nature is "expansion-of-self", which we perceive as the flow of time.

Universal Logic, the cause of everything, is very simple. If something has the power to infinitely expand from what it was to something more, than that action creates a differentiation between the present and the past (an effect). The universe is that beginningless and endless differentiation.

The differentiation is finite, the differentiation is initially singular, as in there is only one kind of difference, but it is infinite in range. The past is always “existent” in the present, all time that occurred in the past is still there, it cannot be made non-existent – it can only be buried by more recent time. Therefore differentiation between any point of Time that occurred in the past, relative to the present or more recent “pasts”, will create a different effect to an observer, resulting the many spectrums of thingness we see.

[Beingof1]

Logic is about identifying what is real and what is imagined. Illumination is the same thing, enlightenment is all about sanity.

Why do I exist?

Because I want to, its why I eat.

[jufa]

Jamesh wrote:
Existence has the exact same logic as conceptual logic.

So pray tell what is that logic?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

Logic is about identifying what is real and what is imagined. Illumination is the same thing, enlightenment is all about sanity.

Why do I exist?

Because I want to, its why I eat.

The same question given Jamesh to answer is given to you:

"So pray tell what is that logic?"

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength jufa

[jufa]

Hey Jufa you haven't answered my question yet!


Quote:
jufa: There is no logical reason for this universe to exist.

dejavu: What about the logic that it can do none other?

I will answer you when you tell me what that logic is

about the logic that it can do none other?

for the universe to exist. But then, should you be able to tell me what that logic is, you will have answered your own question, and the question I asked you to tell me what that logic is? Have you forgot that question I put to you which you never answered?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

I did. That the universe can do nought but exist.

Why? If you can't tell me why, then I'll see you when you get there.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Beingof1]

Logic is about identifying what is real and what is imagined. Illumination is the same thing, enlightenment is all about sanity.

Why do I exist?

Because I want to, its why I eat.

The same question given Jamesh to answer is given to you:

"So pray tell what is that logic?"

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength jufa

Logic is contained by the conscious mind and is therefore, subject to will. It is subject to being examined and that involves a choice. If the choice is made to be logical, it means to be absolute in honesty. This is a certainty as all things must be identified for what they are and are not.

The real question behind the question.
Like the ones that ask if God is perfect why is there evil? and miss the greater question.
If God is perfect, why creation?

Who or what is doing the asking?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, any axiom will be by definition the self-evident truth that supplies the logic of a system or realm. It's not logic I need to present, I only need to assert self-evident truth and all springs into place.

Well lets see if that axiom can be defined by your ability to comprehend and give self-evidence as to why existence exist. Don't want to hear what one could imagine, want you to testify that existence exist because of?

The axiom is existence: that something exists and not not-exists. It comes before the "why".

As logic cannot go further than the axioms it's based on, the question "why" cannot address existence. This does not annihilate logic, it only shows how logic is the ultimate consequence of having existence of anything at all.

[Carmel]

Diebert van Rhijn:
As logic cannot go further than the axioms it's based on, the question "why" cannot address existence.

Carmel:
I agree. Logic is limited in that respect.

Diebert van Rhijn:
This does not annihilate logic, it only shows how logic is the ultimate consequence of having existence of anything at all.

Carmel:
By what reasoning do you say that logic is the "ultimate" consequence, as opposed to just one of many, consequences of existence. It might be that love, compassion or creativity are the "ultimate" consequences of existence or that logic, love and creativity co-exist as "ultimate" consequences.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

By what reasoning do you say that logic is the "ultimate" consequence, as opposed to just one of many, consequences of existence. It might be that love, compassion or creativity are the "ultimate" consequences of existence or that logic, love and creativity co-exist as "ultimate" consequences.

Good question. Other, perhaps better words I was thinking of were necessary and unavoidable. Earlier in this thread I wrote: "existence asserts itself as logical conclusion: existence is the prime mover to the question of its existence". To exist means to stand out and only by standing out [oneself] reflection occurs. Or: the reflexive property of equality: a=a.

Existence (and there is nothing but) has no ultimate consequence

But itself. Voilà.

[Carmel]

dejavu:
Existence (and there is nothing but) has no ultimate consequence.

Carmel:
This view seems more logically viable to me than singling out logic(or compassion etc.) as the ultimate consequence(s).

dejavu:
Which is why, first of all, I described the logic for the universe as more.

Carmel:
This idea is a bit nebulous to me. Could you elaborate?

I guess I see the logic for the universe as change/metamorphisis, but with an underpinning of constancy, rather than "more", but I'm open to other ideas.

dejavu:
...the universe exists because it can't cease to. It is forever beginning. It's such an errant bastard.

Carmel:
This, I understand.

[Carmel]

Diebert,

I was typing while you were posting.

Thanks for the clarification.