Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 21:02:19 GMT
Can some x really be identical at time T1 and T2? The correct answer to your question, I think, depends on whether or not it is possible for X to transcend time. If X is a thing that transcends time then, yes, it could be identical at t1 and t2. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 21:16:48 GMT
 Absolutes are not always necessary, especially when dealing with the nature of the universe. A glass is a glass and a tree is a tree, and we can claim that much to be a true statement without harsh judgemental questioning, but whatever flaws we may see inherent in something, or even someone, these are not absolutes or imperfections as we may individually perceive them to be. There is always room for improvement and attitude is key, but if you are striving for perfection— which doesn't really exist—in yourself, or what you anticipate or expect of others, then you will constantly be  . The bruising has to be felt at some stage. Like another poster has commented, things are what they are. The rest just comes down to ego mind and condemnation of something we may not like or want to acknowledge as being a complete and whole projection of our own being. Life is just reflected and mirrored back straight at us. It's intricate nature is interwoven through every facet of it's and our complete being. It is good that people strive to improve and it is good that people don't always accept things as ' just the way the way they are'. If we didn't there would be no advancement in many fields of endeavour. The important thing to remember , as I think you suggest, is that nobody has perfect knowledge as regards what constitutes perfection . That doesn't mean perfection doesn't exist though. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 27, 2017 21:30:13 GMT
Can some x really be identical at time T1 and T2? The correct answer to your question, I think, depends on whether or not it is possible for X to transcend time. If X is a thing that transcends time then, yes, it could be identical at t1 and t2. I'm not of the opinion that "transcending time" makes the slightest lick of sense conceptually. (And it especially wouldn't with respect to temporal references like T1 and T2.) |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 27, 2017 23:14:09 GMT
I think that in order to decide if a (material) thing is flawed, one has to have an idea in mind of a thing's purpose. Otherwise things just are. For example, one application of a piece of silicon might require it to be pure. But for another (for example semiconductor electronics) impurities are essential for the application. A transistor depends on impurities introduced into the silicon for it to behave like a transistor. For one application, the impure silicon is flawed, for the other it's "perfect". I suppose that in the realm of ideas it may make sense to talk of an inherently flawed idea. But this is in the realm of ideas, which to me suggests that flaws are essentially conceptual, and require a point of view. I agree that in order to decide if a thing is flawed we first ought to have to an understanding as to its purpose. And, whilst we can try to establish the purpose of a material thing, I don't think we can ever say with certainty that we know the entirety of a material things purpose for the simple reason that we do not have perfect knowledge of all that is material. However, our limitations, in the defining of a material things purpose, do not imply that such definition is not possible. Just because we, in our current state of understanding, cannot be certain as to a things full purpose, this doesn't imply that such a purpose, as yet undiscovered or realised, doesn't exist. No but it is still an open question whether any "full purpose" exists. No one yet has been able to show that the universe has any purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 28, 2017 0:24:00 GMT
It is good that people strive to improve and it is good that people don't always accept things as ' just the way the way they are'. If we didn't there would be no advancement in many fields of endeavour. The important thing to remember , as I think you suggest, is that nobody has perfect knowledge as regards what constitutes perfection . That doesn't mean perfection doesn't exist though. How do you know though, that regardless of acceptance or not, that things will still advance whether or not one strives for perfection or not? As already mentioned, who's perfection, yours or ours? Show me where this perfection is, or explain it as you see it? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 28, 2017 0:26:29 GMT
No but it is still an open question whether any "full purpose" exists. No one yet has been able to show that the universe has any purpose. Then perhaps just it's existence and being is it's purpose. If you are here, shouldn't that sense of consciousness and realization be purpose enough? |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on May 28, 2017 11:35:19 GMT
I agree that in order to decide if a thing is flawed we first ought to have to an understanding as to its purpose. And, whilst we can try to establish the purpose of a material thing, I don't think we can ever say with certainty that we know the entirety of a material things purpose for the simple reason that we do not have perfect knowledge of all that is material. However, our limitations, in the defining of a material things purpose, do not imply that such definition is not possible. Just because we, in our current state of understanding, cannot be certain as to a things full purpose, this doesn't imply that such a purpose, as yet undiscovered or realised, doesn't exist. "Purpose" is not innate to a thing. "Purpose" is something we ascribe to something or project onto something in order to predict and model its behavior according to what is interesting and valuable to us at any given moment. It is entirely dependent on context and human interests, less so on any physical facts about the object itself. You are right or wrong about something's purpose only to the degree that imaging it "has" this purpose turns out to be fruitful. There's literally nothing more to it. The "purpose" of a soda pop dispenser in a cafe is to provide selected beverages in exchange for money. The exact same object could be re-purposed at any time to be ballast or an anchor on a boat, with no physical changes to its innate nature. |
|
|
|
Post by nausea on May 28, 2017 14:56:40 GMT
whatever man
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 28, 2017 22:42:13 GMT
No but it is still an open question whether any "full purpose" exists. No one yet has been able to show that the universe has any purpose. Then perhaps just it's existence and being is it's purpose. If you are here, shouldn't that sense of consciousness and realization be purpose enough? Yes, for me of course. But that would be my point of view. When I die my point of view will no longer exist. If the earth and all of its life ceases to exist, what purpose will the universe have then? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 28, 2017 22:52:01 GMT
Then perhaps just it's existence and being is it's purpose. If you are here, shouldn't that sense of consciousness and realization be purpose enough? Yes, for me of course. But that would be my point of view. When I die my point of view will no longer exist. If the earth and all of its life ceases to exist, what purpose will the universe have then? The pov being from the ego mind, which is a feature of our physical human embodiment. Consciousness awareness is eternal, that is the self-realization and that is that there is no "self". Your purpose is transcendence, and being free from the limitations that the physical sense of self on earth represents for many. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 17:30:30 GMT
No but it is still an open question whether any "full purpose" exists. No one yet has been able to show that the universe has any purpose. A matter of faith perhaps. But, otoh, doesn't the fact that you are alive, suggest the universe has purpose? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 17:44:23 GMT
"Purpose" is not innate to a thing. "Purpose" is something we ascribe to something or project onto something in order to predict and model its behavior according to what is interesting and valuable to us at any given moment. It is entirely dependent on context and human interests, less so on any physical facts about the object itself. . We do not create purpose by observing a things behaviour. We might, by observation, discover aspects of a things purpose which are true , but we do not create its purpose. We merely learn, or try to understand its purpose. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 17:50:49 GMT
It is good that people strive to improve and it is good that people don't always accept things as ' just the way the way they are'. If we didn't there would be no advancement in many fields of endeavour. The important thing to remember , as I think you suggest, is that nobody has perfect knowledge as regards what constitutes perfection . That doesn't mean perfection doesn't exist though. How do you know though, that regardless of acceptance or not, that things will still advance whether or not one strives for perfection or not? As already mentioned, who's perfection, yours or ours? Show me where this perfection is, or explain it as you see it? Of course sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. Sometimes the best course of action is to do nothing at all. Whose perfection? God's perfection. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 17:55:24 GMT
Yes, for me of course. But that would be my point of view. When I die my point of view will no longer exist. If the earth and all of its life ceases to exist, what purpose will the universe have then? The pov being from the ego mind, which is a feature of our physical human embodiment. Consciousness awareness is eternal, that is the self-realization and that is that there is no "self". Your purpose is transcendence, and being free from the limitations that the physical sense of self on earth represents for many. You wrote to the effect that 'transcending time' doesn't make a lick of sense conceptually earlier.. so how come here you are advising Cham that their purpose is transcendence? What good is spiritual transcendence if it doesn't involve transcending time ? Lol |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on May 29, 2017 18:07:48 GMT
We merely learn, or try to understand its purpose. Purpose is neither a physical property of something in the universe, nor is it some sort of silly metaphysical aura. There is nothing more to "understanding" purpose than correctly predicting and modeling the way something interacts with its environment. It is something we project onto elements in the universe, and that is literally all it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 29, 2017 21:55:38 GMT
How do you know though, that regardless of acceptance or not, that things will still advance whether or not one strives for perfection or not? As already mentioned, who's perfection, yours or ours? Show me where this perfection is, or explain it as you see it? Of course sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. Sometimes the best course of action is to do nothing at all. Whose perfection? God's perfection. Perhaps you don't know what to say then, because your concept\notion of God and what God or The Godforce represents is different to mine. You are striving to meet what you only "perceive" as God's standards of perfection. It is all perfect as it is, and I would say you are just being rigid and coming from a religious conceptualized notion of what you feel God represents. That rigidity is also coming from a control space, which is also an ego space. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 29, 2017 22:06:43 GMT
The pov being from the ego mind, which is a feature of our physical human embodiment. Consciousness awareness is eternal, that is the self-realization and that is that there is no "self". Your purpose is transcendence, and being free from the limitations that the physical sense of self on earth represents for many. so how come here you are advising Cham that their purpose is transcendence? What good is spiritual transcendence if it doesn't involve transcending time ? LolWhat I said to Cham, is what I have said throughout most of my posts? If you could please point out where I wrote 'transcending time' doesn't make a lick of sense conceptually, then I may be able to give you a more cohesive response to what you just asked. Most of my posts have mentioned about purpose and transcendence, and discussing your thoughts on "perfection" and what it represents. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:33:49 GMT
What I said to Cham, is what I have said throughout most of my posts? If you could please point out where I wrote 'transcending time' doesn't make a lick of sense conceptually, then I may be able to give you a more cohesive response to what you just asked. Most of my posts have mentioned about purpose and transcendence, and discussing your thoughts on "perfection" and what it represents. My apologies Toasted Cheese!!! I got your post mixed up with another poster. Sorry bout that! Not sure how I managed to mix up Terrapins with Toast mind you but yikes I did :/ Sorry for the confusion 😀 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:44:25 GMT
We merely learn, or try to understand its purpose. Purpose is neither a physical property of something in the universe, nor is it some sort of silly metaphysical aura. There is nothing more to "understanding" purpose than correctly predicting and modeling the way something interacts with its environment. It is something we project onto elements in the universe, and that is literally all it is. You don't believe anything has a reason to exist beyond what 'we' project or interpret as its purpose? When you say "it is something we project", who is 'we'? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 19:14:46 GMT
Perhaps you don't know what to say then, because your concept\notion of God and what God or The Godforce represents is different to mine. You are striving to meet what you only "perceive" as God's standards of perfection. It is all perfect as it is, and I would say you are just being rigid and coming from a religious conceptualized notion of what you feel God represents. That rigidity is also coming from a control space, which is also an ego space. As a Christian I do not fully understand perfection that died on a cross. I am grateful for it because I believe that through this act God's perfection overcame the worlds imperfection. You are right to question how people set their measure of what constitutes perfection. Too easy for ego to step in and say this is perfect that isn't. Only grace can tell us what is perfect. How could a person 2000 years or so ago travelling through Jerusalem and seeing a stranger named Jesus dying on a cross have known he was witnessing the perfect Divine unless God's grace made it known? I believe perfection is real but I believe, as I think most religions teach, that only God really knows what perfection is because only God is truly perfect. You said ' all is perfect as it is'. I disagree strongly! I am not perfect and I am part of the whole therefore all is not perfect. Julian of Norwich, a Christian mystic , said 'all will be well' not 'all is well' quite simply because all isn't well or perfect.. yet. : ) |
|
