PDA

View Full Version : Absolute Reality



Jonna
07-19-2002, 08:31 PM
Against my better judgment, I am starting this possible power keg because several people PMed me about my ideas on Reality. For those whom are interested in having a serious discussion and sharing view points, I welcome you. However for those who are just going to complain that we are being egotistical because we have a shared interest which we would like to discuss, ‘Bugger Off‘! I don’t want this thread to be closed so serious posters please do not even respond to whiners and juvenile deviants. Hopefully the pure length and depth of this discussion will bore those individuals and they will leave. With that said lets start….

What is Reality? It is the same as asking what is Truth or Consciousness or Existence or the universe/matter or God; for it is all the same thing, the same answer and the same question. There is one thing that I must bring to light before I start though. In order to get to the Absolute nature of a thing, you must first strip away all of your emotional feelings, your ideas and values, your morality and sense of what is right and wrong. We are all stuck in of perceptions of what is and not what ‘really’ is; we must delete ourselves from the situation in order to see it with clear eyes. With that said let us begin I will tell you the one single answer to all questions and the one single question to all answers.

One is the only real number. However, One can not exist without something in opposition to itself; thus Two is born and One no longer exists as itself.

Why is this? It is because the existence of One can only be verified when it is contrary to something else, Two. But isn’t this a contradiction? Yes and no. I am sure that most of us probably think that it is, but it is also not because One would, in actuality, still ‘Be’ without Two, but not in any sense that we would recognize it with our learned understanding of things. This is the only Absolute Truth, the only Absolute Reality and the only Absolute God.

This is the short answer to the question, but the road traveled to the destination is half the voyage and so I will elaborate a bit with some excerpts from the early draft of my book that I am writing about the subject. Sorry it is so choppy, but I am reducing about 30 pages to 2 or 3. I will be back in a few days to discuss this with others and hopefully we will have some fun with it.


Excerpts from early draft:

“….there is only one Truth, one answer, from which everything else webs out. The center of an endless web from which everything is connected and each silken strand gives birth to the next. For we are all like tiny spiders that can only remember the last few strands that we have tread upon and foresee the next few strands in the distance before us. Much like the phrase: One who can not see the forest through the trees. Our memories, or lack of, are what bind us, but how can this be helped? Our memories are the means by which we create, both consciously and unconsciously, the concept of who we are and where we are going, of the world around us and of all our blindly excepted realities. Reality, how little the socially accepted concept of that word means to me now. My eyes have plunged beyond the brow of my cranium and lost themselves to a world in which eyes have no value. Of which our every day concept and ideas are based on the inept traditions of yesterday that refused to transcend itself.”

“As with all journeys, the path is begun with a single step. It is this first step that allows one to feel comfortable enough with one’s own footing in order to precede to the next step and so on and so forth. However, one must always be cautious not to become obsessed with a single stepping stone and lose sight of the path. This path, that I make reference to, is the voyage to the understanding of our own existence at a fundamental level that goes beyond our existence. It is the yearning to answer the age old questions of: who am I, what am I, why am I here, where am I going and where have I been. The astonishing thing is that all of these inquires lead to the same single answer, but it is only when we follow these questions from start to finish and then back upon themselves, as if we were to weave a web strand by strand from the outer structure inward, that we can truly understand. Understand that One is the only real number.
First I believe that it is necessary to differentiate between the Essence of a thing and its Existence. Essence is the absolute nature of all things which we incorrectly consider as separate because of our perceptions of time and space. In other words, essence can be described as the what “Is” or the ultimate notion of “Being“. In most belief systems essence is what is referred to, even though it is being seen through the distorted glasses of those taking refuse in existence, as God. It is unbound by our concepts of birth and death because Essence is beyond the confinements of Existence. Existence, on the other hand, is the separation of essence though conceptual form. It is similar to the idea of dividing the ocean by draining it into different sorts of containers. This is the realm in which we all live and believe is Ultimate Reality. In crude terms, your parents have given you existence, but you come from the essence which no form can bestow or revoke. You see, all things come from essence where as form or existence is merely a divisional extension created for the purpose of better understanding itself. By this I mean to imply that, essence is (although not conscious itself) the whole of pure consciousness or energy (one is ingrained within the other), but in order to comprehend itself it must divide itself through perceivable forms of existence. Since all systems require another system to gage themselves by, essence must invest itself in its own separation in order to comprehend itself in relevance to itself. At this point, this may seem like quite a paradoxical concept, but later on it will make much more sense.
So it is through essence that we come into existence through the embryonic period or, in other words, are born into a realm of time and space through the accumulation of corporeal energy. It is through the creation of form that the “I” or “Ego-self” develops. The Ego-self is nothing more or less than a manipulatively functional comprehension of positive and negative responses obtained through past experiences as being in relevance to the benefit of the self. In other words, the Ego-self is much like the annihilazation of a tape recorder played backwards in time. After a very short time, the Ego-self becomes practically indistinguishable from the consciousness of the form which it inhabits and a vital truth is hidden (but that is to come much later). The Ego-self's purpose is to protect the individual's well being both physically and psychologically. In what society refers to as a well-adjusted person, the Ego-self accomplishes its goal quite well, but what is the price that we pay for this? It is the Ego-self that maims and kills, that harms others for its own advantages, and that wishes ill will against those who do not conform to its own pious beliefs; it never promotes another system outside of itself that does not directly or indirectly benefit the Ego-self. I am sure that you have heard of individuals performing "selfless" acts for the benefit of others. While this is seen by many as a noble action, it is not sought after on a universal level because we live in the world of the advancement of the Ego-self at all costs. This advancement that I speak of is based, world wide, on a zero point system. This zero point system is one in that if individual A succeeds (+1), he or she must do so through the failure of individual B (-1). So the realm of individual A and individual B is always zero ((+1)+(-1)=0). Just imagine how much progress we could make if we were to discard this system, if we were to work together instead of in competition with one another. Vaccines for illnesses, advanced medical procedures, new sources of fuel, extended life span, and countless other scientific and technological achievements all created in a fraction of the time. But it is the Ego-self that works towards its own self-gratification, that strives for the wealth and prestige of the discovery of the next great invention. This is the hindrance to our evolution that the Ego-self creates. It is the inability to remove the training wheels when we no longer need them.
Do you see the dilemma yet? Besides the fact that a zero point system will never progress at any substantial rate, the Ego-self is finite. It has no point of transfer from within the confinement of complex corporeal structures. The Ego-self can not exist indefinitely in its reality because the same form that brings it into existence also hinders its ability to be transmigrational. In other words, when the body dies so does the Ego-self. You see the Ego-self is a byproduct of the interaction between mind and form, which in turn is an action of neurological processes (i.e. the mind is not a noun but instead the actions of an active brain). This is to say that the ego-self is not transferable down into a purer energy because the smallest level it can hope to achieve is that of a specific combination of molecular architecture, of the organic mortar, metal and wiring that is needed to construct an organism. I say organism because the brain can not complete its goal without the interfacing of other organs, fluids, bones, etc., such as those that make up the human body, in order to keep the brain active. It is here that the real problem makes itself know; only entropy can be achieved from this sort of system.
There is one thing I feel that I must make perfectly clear: the Ego-self is NOT consciousness. The existence of the Ego-self is made possible only through form, consciousness is not. The Ego-self is like a parasite that strengthens the false ideas of the separate nature of essence through the creation of an “I“. It modifies the perceptional abilities of consciousness and form in order to further its own existence. What consciousness is we will come to after more stepping stones have been lain, but as I have shown it is only logical to conclude that the Ego-self is merely a single stone on the path and not an end unto itself. Just as a boat is needed to cross a river but afterwards simply becomes a hindrance to carry on your back, the Ego-self is something that should be discarded when its usefulness has been exhausted. However as all things are seen as “survival machines”, most believe that the Ego-self is the only way to propagate and so they buy into the myth of the perpetual existence of one’s separateness.
Now I do now wish to express the idea that the Ego-self is useless; it provides a very important service. This service is the protection and security of the form that it inhabits. How else would the form survive during its childhood, but the Ego-self is only needed during a particular stage of life. It is like crawling before walking, in order to evolve we must stop one to start another. In other words, the sense of an “I” that the Ego-self generates in order to assist its growth is the same thing that holds itself to limitations of the “I”.“

“The first step on the path to satori begins with the suspension of the Ego-self. It is only through this action that Freewill becomes a consciously possible decision. Now I can just imagine that someone, possibly many, will be offended by the insinuation that he or she does not have Freewill. However, what most consider to be Freewill is in fact not. You see, the Ego-self is nothing more then the desire for the preservation of a system that consists of little more than the accumulation of past experiences relevant to the individual form. At an early age, one develops habitual tendencies through the responses that he or she attains from specific behavior. These habits develop into what can be considered as an individual’s personality or base characteristics. If one performs a specific action biased upon habitual tendencies, this is not Freewill, but instead a deeply instilled conditioned response. Raise a lever; receive a pellet....or a shock. Many think that they are free, but that is the real illusion concerning Freewill. How often have you or someone else pointed out that you were displaying some sort of behavior that is typical performed by a parent or someone that you spend a great deal of time with? This is because when we are exposed to a recurring behavior performed by someone that we see as having greater power than ourselves (i.e. parents, adults, childhood heroes, etc), we unconsciously mimic that behavior in order to provide the Ego-self with more power to protect itself. The Ego-self continues to do this throughout its existence in order to propagate itself with everything from desirable traits to attract mates to profitable behavior within a business environment. The problem is that we have unconsciously conditioned ourselves by so many different sources (family, friends, environment, religion, government, education, etc.) and we don‘t even realize it.
There is yet another way in which we tarnish any chance that we may have for Freewill. This can be seen when we believe that someone or something other than ourselves has control over us. We shall first discuss the invalidity of externally control over feelings and emotions. I am sure that we have all heard comments such as “he/she has hurt my feelings”, but how is it that an outside entity can have any control over something that is beyond its reach. Emotions are internalized processes that can not be forced by an external source. In other words, when a person feels something it is because on some level one wants to feel that way. We are our own victims without ever realizing it. We give other people control over us, we allow them to harm us. There are many reasons for this. When we are children it is quite difficult to differentiate truth from lies within any semi-rational boundaries. We merely believe what we are told because of “good faith”, because it is what we are expected to believe, and so we often fall into the trap of mistaking the perceptions of others as reality. Only you can define your worth because only you can create your worth. We are all capable of much more than we allow ourselves to realize. You must remember the power to control yourself is always yours. There are only two things in this life that are beyond the control of your presence in existence: the fact that that you were born and the fact that you will die. This is they way of form; the constant evolution of existence. True birth or death does not exist, only the Becoming. Existence is the Becoming. This is because Existence is a constant state of transition. Being is a solidified state that only takes up residence outside of time (Essence), where as Existence is the realm of the becoming of form.
Most individuals reading this book will realize the truth in the concept we have just covered, but control over the self in an external sense seems to be a more difficult idea to grasp. One can not be physically forced to do the will of another.”

“The only thing that an individual with Freewill knows that he or she must do is deal with the consequences of their actions. The consequences, that an action or reaction brings into being, have no hold on its origins because time moves forward and not backwards. In other words, the Ends only exist because of and after the Means have been performed and therefore do not have any control over the Means. Now do not mistake this purer structure with that of one involving a goal. A goal is a stipulation that one places on the action in order to achieve a desired outcome. Goals are merely illusions of thought because they do not exist in absolution. It may sound like I am contradicting myself, but you must remember that up to this point I have only discussed things in detail pertaining to Existence. Both the Ego-self and Freewill can manifest themselves within Existence, but they can not do so within Essence or what I call the Neo-Absolution because form and concept only exist within existence. These are concepts that I will come to much later.

There is however a larger problem; we are not the only ones conditioning ourselves. We are conditioned by society through culture, religion and education for the purpose of continuing an established system. Whether the imposed conditioning of a system is conscious or unconscious varies through what individual is performing the conditioning. For instance, culture is an unconscious conditioner because it is based upon the acceptable norms in relation to traditional beliefs; this is a habitual behavior. The established religions, although they may have been based upon a longing for a purer truth during they’re conception, exist as a pious hierarchy where one individual can be seen as infinitely purer and as pertaining more value than another. This is a prime example of a system that possibly started or grew from a conscious conditioner, but was accepted with such unquestioned belief and faith, even by those in highly esteemed positions, that it has become an unconscious conditioner. The general education of a society is a bit more complex. Assuming that the information being taught is historically and universally correct (in the sense that it is not manipulated to comfort or farther the future of a particular society), the real factor is the educator’s objective. Sometimes one teaches only the knowledge that they want to be known, sometimes the knowledge of things that are both true and not true because they simply do not know any better and sometimes one teaches what they have sought out to be true. This is both a mixture of conscious and unconscious conditioning. The human mind has been conditioned to fit into a “peg & slot” game for the reason of perpetuating any number of belief systems.



So should we condemn everyone and everything that may have conditioned our behavior, that may have caused us to be untrue to ourselves? No, of course we should not. What we need to understand is that most of these individuals or systems perpetuate their beliefs because they honestly believe that they are the truth. Neither the parental unit nor a particular culture nor any specific religion is the originator of the belief systems that we live with today. They are merely passing along the information that has been relayed to them by other sources. Like any rock dropped in a pond, each repercussion to the preceding action is similar, but slightly mutated. What it is that we must strive for in the search for Ultimate Truth is the first reverberation of a stone thrown into the pond. This is because, in our present state, we can never exist as the actual stone, but instead only comprehend a symbolic representation of the stone through its impact on existence. This first reverberation is what I have named the Original Echo.

Now I am sure that there are individuals out there who believe that they have Freewill because they have fought against the system and its conditioning all their lives. This is not Freewill because the structural basis of this new system is nothing more or less than the exact opposite of the old one. The most glorious skyscraper constructed on a dilapidated foundation will not prosper. The individual that rebels or deviates from the norm is ostracized and penalized. This is how the system’s beliefs are enforced, by the fear of being powerless and rejected from its group mentality. A perfect example of this lies in Christianity with the figures of God (the system), Jesus (the rewarded follower of the system) and Lucifer (the punished individual rebelling against the system). Jesus and Lucifer are equally important to the system because they both enforce it. One as an example of the rewards bestowed upon those perpetuating the belief system and another that is used as an example of the punishments pertaining to the rejection of the system’s beliefs. The strange and interesting thing is that the system needs a certain small percentage of its mass to rebel from its structured beliefs because it instills a type of fear factor within the rest of the system’s population that helps to ensure their cooperation. These Jungian like archetypes of God, Jesus and Satan are extremely common in many belief systems.

This however is merely the first part of the problem concerning the illusions of freewill. What it is that we have been discussing thus far in this chapter is Freewill in relationship to the past. Now it has come time to discuss it in relevance to the future. The future is set because it is being set every moment in the long progression of moments.”

“The notion of the past and of the future are abstract concepts; they will never come or go because when they do they are no longer themselves. Only the here and now exists, the current moment. Never the less, the past and future are important because the Ego-self bases the current moment on them and vice versa.”

“Now that I have shown how the typical human sense of Freewill is an illusion, I imagine that you are wondering how it is that this illusion can be broken. First and foremost, the illusion must be recognized for what it is, an untruth. One must discover their own conditioning and overcome it, to rethink their behaviors with a newborn mind. I know that this sounds impossible and for those that have become hopelessly dependent on the lies for a long period of time, perhaps it is, but I have know a few individuals that have transcended their own conditioning. It is possible when the will is strong enough. One must unlearn what they have already learned in order to find the path to becoming an Original Echo.”

“What is reality? Over the entire history of Homosapien existence, the human mind has assimilated sensory information as symbols. I am not speaking merely of words and the sounds of language, but also of visual images (i.e. animate and inanimate objects). This corruption of perception warps Absolute Reality into what it is that we believe to be reality. You see, a symbolic representation of an object can never come close to the thing that you are attempting to comprehend. For instance, if someone were to hand you a photograph of a tree you would be able to identify the object as a tree, but this representation of a tree is not the tree. Now if you were standing in front of the same tree that was represented in the photo, you would be able to identify what stood before you as a tree, but it is still a symbolic representation of what you believe a tree is suppose to look like. You see this misinformation is not obtained through your actual senses, but through the conditioning of your mind in the way that it translates sensory data.

So what is reality? Reality is the interactive accumulation of symbolic impressions as acquired through one’s senses and sociological conditioning. In other words, reality is only what we believe to be true because of our historical knowledge, present experience and culturally enforced sacred and secular dogmas. Perhaps the most extreme falsification of pure reality through such means (commonly known to date) is that of a time when it was believed that the Earth was flat or that the it was the center of the universe. At the time, those ideas were considered to be reality because they were what was accepted as true, but, as we can see today, they have no validity within our current sense of truth or reality.

Now you may be wondering: Why is it that so many individuals of such diverse cultures and geographical locations cling to such similar concepts of reality? I believe that this question can best be answered by something which a zoologist named Richard Dawkins refers to as “Memes”. Memes can be explained as a sort of parasitic idea or concept that is transferred from mind to mind by way of language. Its reasoning behind migration is the same as genes, to spread itself out as a survival instinct. These memes or trends spread and become the norm by way of mass reproduction.

As we have already seen that there are many truths but only one Absolute Truth that is free from the constrains of the Ego-self and sociological conditioning, the same goes for Absolute Reality...…”

“If it has not widely become known at the time that you read this, then you must realize that energy is the only real substance existing within space and time. Everything is energy existing at different densities. Matter, containing mass, is energy. This paper, you, rocks, trees, water, air molecules and for that fact all things that exist within space are forms of energy. Both absolute truth and absolute reality will lead you to energy. This is the base of all things, the birth of all nations. Energy is the purest of all originals. Everything that your ego-self, perception and information conditioning systems has come to know as real in and for itself is actually energy falsely disguised.

Absolute reality is not indirectly based on energy, but in fact is energy free of the misinterpretive perceptions of the ego-self. This is the only universal reality from which absolute truth stems.

“Essence or what I can the Absolute is the actual stone dropped into a pond which creates Existence through the waves that are brought into form.

The name that I give to the interaction and final result of all these participants is the Absolute. This is the understanding and merging of universal truth, universal reality and energy. The result is something that is not even possible to fully comprehend unless the stepping stones have first been tread upon. For the destination can never be reached without the journey.

The Absolute is that you do not end or begin at your perceived physical or conscious self. You are as much me as I am you; we are merely disconnected by our perceptions of the “I” and of the “Other”. We are as much the rock as the rock is of the tree or of the air or of us. We are all, as is everything, energy disconnected by ego-perception. Forms only exist in the way that our minds perceive them. It is all One. If you wish to call this One god, you are wrong because that would be to place false ideas of morals, values and other stipulations on something pure. The One is not conscious, but instead the whole of consciousness that exists as nothing but itself. If you wish to call this One the void, then you are wrong. It is nether void or not void. The One is a strait line, no deviation from area A to area B, consisting of no more than a point.

To walk the path, with ventilated eyes and hands unbound, is to be one with the One of all existence, to be existence.”


Well, that it pretty much that. If you actually read that all you must really be interesting in the subject and I comment you! I think that more people should think about it more often. Well, what do you think on the matter……

SWAFMAN
07-19-2002, 09:49 PM
Jonna, you've obviously invested a great deal of intellectual effort into this thesis. Self-examination and contemplation of Universal Truth are the deepest wells into which one can peer, and seek the light of Understanding. Whether or not the Truth (your Absolute Reality) can ever be proved through scientific method, or even whether it is valuable or applicable to anyone but You is immaterial (no pun intended), as you implied - it's the journey that is ultimately at least as important as the destination.

I agree with, and have even previously posted (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=115681#post115681) similar points on how others only have the power to hurt our feelings if we give them that power. I've tried (with success, I hope) to instill this idea in my children.


In other aspects of my life, or the lives of my immediate family, when faced with a situation where certain outcomes are governed by forces largely out of my control, I try to focus on the things I can effect.

So, what's it gonna be, folks? Are you gonna be in charge of your own happiness, or do you forfeit all control of your happiness & enjoyment....

My feeling upon reading your post is that it sort of asks a question or poses a riddle, but does not offer an answer.

In other words, it does explain your views on the difference between self-ego-driven / environmentally/culturally/socially-driven perceptions of reality and Absolute Reality, and you speak of a collective (for lack of a better term, on my part) wherein humanity transcends the bounds of self-ego-driven reality in favor of a purer Reality, but you don't discuss much about what this transcendent stage in the evolution of humanity would (or in your view should) be or do, other than the reference to all the advances that could come to pass if all the scientists worked together to solve medical or other challenges, rather than working in competition from and for their respective corporate or government employers.

Do you imply or envision that by transcending our self-ego and achieving this state of Absolute Reality that we may, at some point in our evolution, discorporate into some sort of collective ecto-plasm? Or that something like that happens to us after the death of our corporeal selves and continues on, if we attain self-ego-less Absolute Reality?

Jonna, I'm not hammering you on this at all! Just asking questions to help me understand your thesis.

derek
07-19-2002, 10:05 PM
jonna,

if you could clarify some things in your opening post, i would appreciate it.:)

1. are you saying the common concept of "freewill" is false because our "choices" have consequences, thus they are not really "free". or society rejects those who deviate from the norm?

2. are you saying reality is open to the individual's interpretation?

darthvyn
07-19-2002, 10:41 PM
impressive. i am deeply, deeply impressed. i was right, it is a lot like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence.

i need a while to mentally digest this. after that, i will be back as well, with my thoughts on the matter, and the energy...

i am always overwhelmingly delighted when someone shows that much thought, that much courage, and that much determination. thank you very much for sharing this. i am sure it was a hard decision to make, especially (if i am reading correctly) when it is not yet finished.

Dar' Argol
07-19-2002, 10:51 PM
*This post is not meant in any demeaning way*

WHY do you guys do this to me????:( After I think I can relax a bit from "explosive threads" another pops up. Not that I am saying that you should not post your opinions/thoughts/beleifs/etc. But you relize when a thread like this pops up, 9 times out of 10 it gets closed?? Then SirSteve gets flack from other sources saying that he cencors his forumites and won;t let them express themselves wich already fuels the fire?? I am not saying never start another thread but it get frustrating to have to page through novel sized posts to make sure everything is going ok and nothing is getting out of hand.

Our jobs here as Mods are to keep the forums clean and organized. Not closing thread after thread!! That is not our point. I don't like doing it, regardless of what others might think, I HATE closing threads!! I feel liek Big Brother watching over you and killing anything that is not "all ages" for this site.

So that being said, please continue, try to keep it clean and civil, and use good judgement. If you think your post will upset a forumite, then rethink/reword it a little better. Thanx and enjoy:D

stillakid
07-19-2002, 11:28 PM
I made the mistake of reading this at the end of the day. I need a night's sleep to purge my cache before taking this on. See you in the morning! :)

Beast
07-19-2002, 11:35 PM
I think my brain just imploded trying to read your post Jonna. No offense, but I may need to sleep on it as well, before I can figure out exactly what your talking about. Intresting subject, if it's what I think it's about. :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

mabudonicus
07-20-2002, 12:33 PM
Interesting,for sure. Thanks Jonna, fro sharing that. To keep the "heat" off of SSG (and to let DA sleep someday..:)) I'll make my comments in PMs, as the theory, while I agree with pretty much all of it, eludes me on ceratain points, mostly the ones SWAFMAN brought up.....
Again, don't worry, DA, we'll keep it clean. I promise I will only watch this thread from this point on.
Oh, and to lighten the mood a tad, a quote from an extremely inebrated buddy of mine, up on the soapbox clutching for the Truth "The policy of reality (say that with about 6 syllables, he was slurring but good) is that nobody gives a %$!@ about a DYING BABY SEAL!!!". I told him he had to go home after I finished laughing at him.....

Exhaust Port
07-20-2002, 12:38 PM
Some questions/observations:

I don't buy that 2 is the justification for the number 1. 2 is only a number that explains more than one "1." It doesn't justify the existance, it only expands upon it. Orange doesn't explain the color Red. Without Orange (or 2) the color Red (or 1) doesn't cease to exist. Without 1 (Red), 2 (orange) or any number following cannot exist as it's founding base unit is false. 1 is the justification for "0" and vise versa. "0" alone doesn't stand for anything without it's polar opposite which would be 1. One cannot exist without the other.

Now I understand that using the red/orange analogy alone doesn't explain what your point is (what about Yellow or Green) I only used it to explain the 1 vs 2 and 0 vs 1 existance. I guess it's similar to a basic logic circuit.

I liked your Existance/Essence explaination but it gets too cluttered and loses track at the end. The addition of the Ego-Self doesn't seem to explain much beyond the original Existance/Essence point. I don't agree with the "zero point" world that the Ego-Self operates.

The Ego-Self can't advance (+1) without the lose of another individual (-1) and because of that there is little or no advancement as well as no true selfless act. In order for this to work the conscience/subconscience would have to know of or calculated the loss of another individual in order to be acted upon. This would mean that the advance/loss could never be beyond the original individuals action whether it be +/-1.

An example: Those individuals on flight 93 (I might be wrong on that number) who, in my opinion, performed a self-less act to stop the actions of the terrorists. That incident alone saw the loss of all the persons on board. Those Ego-Selfs could never have known the extent to which their actions would save lives even at the expense of their own. As we, or those on the flight, will never know what "could have been" it's hard to invest in this "zero point" world system. There will be and have always been losses and gains in individual Ego-Selfs that extend beyond the knowledge of the original person.

Because of that I truly believe in selfless acts. Whether an act is perceived as a +1 or -1 is purly based on the viewpoint of those assigning judgement, not the individual/Ego-Self performing it.

I also believe in a true Freewill and that it doesn't require the "enlightenment" of an individual to exist. If Freewill was only the mimicing of ones parents and other environmental influences then there would be no advancement or growth. For us to advance to this point it has required an evolution from the mimicing of previously held behaviors and beliefs at some point. Advancing from ground zero to this point something must have created the emotion of Love (the relationship kind) and I find it hard to believe that it would have been the result of a previous experience. At some point there wasn't that "previous experience."

I also hold true that the Ends are always present with or without the Means. You've stated that the Ends are culmination of the Means. Whether we are aware of the Ends or not, they are still present prior to the Means. Laws are in place that outline the actions/reactions of all physical objects and that can't be altered no matter what the Means. I understand that you're saying that time travels in a straight line and that the Ends are connected to the Means. Therefore you say the Ends therefore don't exist without the Means as they are connected in a straight line through time. Again, because time travels in a straight line the Ends were always inevitable whether or not we can see them from the present.

To me this doesn't justify the arguement that we have no Freewill. From the present the Ends are not 100% and we'll never have the technology to know them completely. Not until the Means are complete do we fully see the Ends. It's not fair to look back in time, see the straight line from the Means to the Ends, and argue that one had no other choice than to follow that path.

Freewill is not a judgment of the past but an exploration of the future. It's an unknown future as we will never have 100% anticipation of the Ends. Therefore no past influence, parents or whatever, can be totally responsible for our current or future actions as we are constantly expanding into an unknown future.


I'll just leave it at that for now.

billfremore
07-20-2002, 01:31 PM
I'm like Jar Jar, my brain has imploded and is currently oozing out my ear after reading that.:D

Although the point rasied on the correllation of 1 and 2 does remind me of a discussion my girlfriend and I had as she explained to me the theory of the sound of one hand clapping.

My brain imploded then too. :D

SWAFMAN
07-20-2002, 02:35 PM
I think the "One cannot exist unless there becomes a standard of reference to it through the creation/presence of a Two" premise is kind of similar to the old saw: "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Scientific method dictates that there would still be a sound, but then you also get into this sort of Sartre Truth & Existence existential muck, which can be argued ad nauseum with vagaries.

THE Slayer
07-20-2002, 10:31 PM
I know this will probablly get lost in the shuffle, but heh.
In absolute reality are you referring to "1" as an "all"? If you are part of me and I am part of you, wouldn't that still make sense. I agree that Reality is created and shaped by energy, that's sience, But do you really think that when shown a picture of tree and an actual tree the result is any different. In both instances you've identified the energy of "tree".
All reality would be weaved from a flow of energy making "1" "all". The past present and future would exisist simoultaniously, or not? And energy can be manipulated and even pre-determined. Last question. Can the ego-self effect an essance from you're pov?

Jonna
07-21-2002, 04:03 PM
I quickly read through some of the posts because I just do not have the time today. However I would like to state again that this is quite choppy as the 2 or 3 pages of excerpts that I posted are missing the other 30 or so pages that surround them. I have no problem responding to all the the questions posed, but I hope that all of you also post your personal ideas on the matter. It is not my intention to stand upon a soap box and preach about the theories that I have, but instead for us to share all of our ideas and help one another understand a little better.

As I have stated, there are many side issues that are missing from my original post that would help the main point, but if I added anything more I was afraid that noone would read a painfully long post. I am glad that all of you have showed interest in my ideas, but, in turn, I am also extremely interested in the conclusions that all of you have come to. Talk to you later!

P.S. Dar' Argol,
Sorry to do this to you, but I actually thought about this a lot before posting it. By my own interest, I would not have expressed my possibly controversial views here (especially with the way some threads have gone lately). However, several individuals had PMed me concerning the topic and this showed that there was some interest among the posters. I also share your view for the desire for this not to turn into a flame thread. I hope that everyone posts in a respectable way with their unique view points that I am sure that we would all like to share in.:D

Dar' Argol
07-21-2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Jonna
P.S. Dar' Argol,
Sorry to do this to you, but I actually thought about this a lot before posting it. By my own interest, I would not have expressed my possibly controversial views here (especially with the way some threads have gone lately). However, several individuals had PMed me concerning the topic and this showed that there was some interest among the posters. I also share your view for the desire for this not to turn into a flame thread. I hope that everyone posts in a respectable way with their unique view points that I am sure that we would all like to share in.:D

Jonna, I know you put a lot of thought into this. And I, like you, hope that people can be respectful here. It just seems to me that after every controversial htread ends, another pops up. I think I should start a I hate controversial threads! thread, but that would probably become controversial and I would have to shut it down:D. Oh well, just try to remember everyone, be respectful of others view points, even if they are not the same as yours:)

Jonna
07-22-2002, 08:03 PM
Alright, here we go!


Swafman:
My feeling upon reading your post is that it sort of asks a question or poses a riddle, but does not offer an answer.

As I said, these few pages that I posted are supported and elaborated on by many other things in my rough draft. The sections that I posted were all in the beginning, so it actually was my intention to provide more questions for the sake of gaining interest in the reading and hopfully writing a book that people would want to read till the end.


Swafman:
Do you imply or envision that by transcending our self-ego and achieving this state of Absolute Reality that we may, at some point in our evolution, discorporate into some sort of collective ecto-plasm? Or that something like that happens to us after the death of our corporeal selves and continues on, if we attain self-ego-less Absolute Reality?

Good one. Actually no coporeal beings can acheive Absolute Reality or Neo-Absolution. We, humans, can only comprehend the things around us, even our own ideas, in symbolic terms because that is how we have set our mental processes up. I could descripe a Winklebnich (nonsensical word) to you till I am blue in the face, but you would not truly understand what one is. There is a big difference between thinking and expierencing. Perhaps those are not the best words to use. There is a great line in "The Matrix" where one person says something like there is a difference between knowing the path and walking it. The closest state that one can come to Neo-Absolution (this is a word that I use a lot and it means basically everything in one: Absolute Reality/Truth/Existance/God/etc., because when you come right down to it, it is all one.) is what I call the Original Echo.

"Like any rock dropped in a pond, each repercussion to the preceding action is similar, but slightly mutated. What it is that we must strive for in the search for Ultimate Truth is the first reverberation of a stone thrown into the pond. This is because, in our present state, we can never exist as the actual stone, but instead only comprehend a symbolic representation of the stone through its impact on existence. This first reverberation is what I have named the Original Echo."

The best that we, in our coporeal state, can strive for is to attempt to understand the stone's first impact upon the pond, the first reasoning for why things are the way that they are. All else is speculation because we can never really know. Just as what I have written is my 'theory'. No human can ever prove or disprove it all. I am just offering what seems like a logical conclusion to me.

Here is something to break up the brain melt. Most of my philosophy I originally wrote in prose. Maybe this will make more sense.

The Original Echo

Transmit the voices in your head to God
or was it the other way around
everything is the one and yet distant
mimicking the layered reverberations of the original
each time becoming immensely distorted
grotesque and monstrous
in a combine mangled incompetence
removal of the epidermis
results in renewal of the planetary garden
the original sound is eternity
with every soul being an original echo
that in turn is born to the identity of a form
and the echo is further extended
the mutation of the absolute
founded by the ripples of water
crashing back down upon the distant shores
How many lightbulbs does it take
to get back to the original echo?


Derek:
1. are you saying the common concept of "freewill" is false because our "choices" have consequences, thus they are not really "free". or society rejects those who deviate from the norm?

Freewill! I have heard both sides of the argument on Freewill and I don't completely agree with either of them. If I am trying to do anything by writing this book, it is show people that they can empower themselves and not feel helpless in the world as I once did. Freewill really consists of how we perceive time. The past is fixed, we can do nothing about it and so must be confined by our history by what we have learned and what we have done. However, if we can understand consciously why it is that we reflexivly (I make up words all the time) chose the actions that we chose, then we can control ourselves and our destinies by chosing actions that are not merely a reflex action similar to our past actions. That is, I believe, the closest that we can ever come to freewill. A free future, but always a fixed past.



Derek:
are you saying reality is open to the individual's interpretation?

Of Course! We can only experience 'reality' through our individual senses and processing of those senses; therefore it stands to reason that since each of us has a slightly different view point on it we also each have a slightly different 'reailty'. Why do most of society generally see things the same way? Read Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It is a brilliant book in which he writes about a concept called "Memes". This is sort of like parasitic ideas or "concept that is transferred from mind to mind by way of language. Its reasoning behind migration is the same as genes, to spread itself out as a survival instinct. These memes or trends spread and become the norm by way of mass reproduction."

I need a break. My brain is melting now!:crazed:

Jonna
07-22-2002, 08:55 PM
darthvyn, stillakid, billfremore, JarJarBinks, mabudon

Thank you for your indirect prase. I know if stillakid is not argueing with me right off the bat, I must have said something right.;)


Exhaust Port, Swafman, THE Slayer

Perhaps I need to explain why "One is the only real number" a bit better. As I have said, One is the only real number, but one does not exist without something in which to gage itself and so Two is born.

One is the only real number as we have seen with advancements in String Theory as of lately. Everything, matter, electrons, quirks, etc. comes down to one pure form of energy. Please understand that I am speaking with strong Buddhist overtones. One only exists in the human mind when we have something else as a point of reference, two. We only understand one thing in its distance from something else. That is not to say that One "is not", but instead that it doesn't exist in any way that we can truly comprehend it's existance. One "simply is" without its own existence as a reference point. This is what I mean in my original post when I try to differenciate between Essence and Existance. Essence is the One reality, the one Truth and the one God. I hate to use the word God because it rouses so many preconceived ideas, but I can't think of any other word to use. One is the Essence of all things broken down to a pure form, without form, in which they exist only as one another. This is Reality, Truth, God; what ever you want to call it. But in existance we seperate them for the reason of better understanding them because we can not even begin to understand them all at once. The human mind is just not set up that way.

So what is it that I suggest? We, with our current compacities, can never truly understand Essence, but we can strive to understand Existance. And if there is a stepping stone on which to begin our journey, then that is where I will plant my first stride.

But this is not the "What does Jonna Think" thread!!! What do all of you think??? If you want to talk to me further about what I think, please PM me. But I want to know what all of you think, I would greatly appreciate info on your discoveries on this matter and any that might lead to me getting a better understanding of it. Two heads are better than one and a bunch of heads will cause a 3 Stooges act, so don't be shy and speak your mind!:)

derek
07-22-2002, 09:37 PM
jonna,

let me get your opinions on some famous philosophers:

immanuel kant and ayn rand.

scruffziller
07-23-2002, 05:50 AM
Well I love a long analyzation every bit as the next guy, I just don't have the patience to type it all out. As for the number theory. I think you have it backwards, 2 cannot exist until the establishment of 1. As for reality itself. It exists wether you are consious of it or not. Perception does not dictate what is there. The universe was here long before you were born and will be long after we are gone. The only perception that matters is "the source" of where all this came from, whatever you may believe that is.

Jonna
07-23-2002, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by derek
jonna,

let me get your opinions on some famous philosophers:

immanuel kant and ayn rand.

They do have some valuable things to say but I am more into Spinoza, Nietzsche, Jaspers, Gautama, Plato, Jung, etc, but actually I get more inspiration from writers and poets like Camus, Rimbaud, Artaud, etc.


scruffziller
Well I love a long analyzation every bit as the next guy, I just don't have the patience to type it all out. As for the number theory. I think you have it backwards, 2 cannot exist until the establishment of 1. As for reality itself. It exists wether you are consious of it or not. Perception does not dictate what is there. The universe was here long before you were born and will be long after we are gone. The only perception that matters is "the source" of where all this came from, whatever you may believe that is.

I am not sure if it is that I disagree with you or that we are getting our wires crossed. "I think you have it backwards, 2 cannot exist until the establishment of 1." Well, yes of course! I don't believe that I said other wise. But that is irrelevent to the point that I was trying to convey. If everything is one, then there is nothing left to be two; nothing in opposition to itself. I only ment to say that the human mind is only set up to understand things which have a point of reference, something that is not the subject, in order to understand the subject. That's all. So we can theorize about Everything as One but can never really get there in our current state because if we did, we would no longer be in our current state, we would no longer be the seperate entity which we all know as our individual selves.

Darth Nitwit
07-23-2002, 01:44 PM
Ahhhhh! Now my head hurts!

THE Slayer
07-23-2002, 07:03 PM
Jonna, I would like to know where people who are considered to be Psychics, Clairvoyants, Telepaths, TK's, etc fit into understanding "reality." Would you say they are more easily attuned to understanding, or more open to getting the "wires crossed". or even buddist,
Silence goes a long way in understanding.

Jonna
07-23-2002, 10:20 PM
Ya know, why the hell am I the only one sharing my opinions here!?! I already know what I think and don't need others to justify it for me. I have seen and felt things that most people are locked away in small cells for admitting; things that defy the way in which we are allowed to see them by society; things which I have not and will not talk about. I have little doubt as to my ideas on this matter, but am interested in the ideas of others. So why is no one else posting their thoughts and experinces??? You all must have thoughts on the matter or else you would not be interested in it enough to bother reading this thread. Please someone post something to keep this thread of interest. I will criticize no one for their ideas here! For once, only in this thread, I won't be a smarta**! Promiss!

plasticfetish
07-25-2002, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Jonna
Ya know, why the hell am I the only one sharing my opinions here!?!

In this case, I think it may have a lot to do with the fact that you are considerably more ... um ... limber when it comes to dealing with ideas like these. After all, you do have most of us at a disadvantage ... you've been writing a book on this subject. I personally haven't worked this part of my melon too vigorously in recent years. Besides, I'm a visual person ... I think abstractly with colors and shapes ... and as such I have mailed you a 12' x 20' abstract painting that will hopefully explain my own personal opinions.
(OK ... kidding ...)
I'll just grab bits and reply/ask questions/blabber.

-----

"One is the only real number. However, One can not exist without something in opposition to itself; thus Two is born and One no longer exists as itself."

I'm assuming you are trying to state that there is a true kind of duality to "everything" (I like to use technical terms like "everything" and "things", so please don't let it throw you.)
I think this is something we can all understand instinctively. But, are we also assuming that there was at some point simply "one" and then later "two" ... this would assume that there really is a beginning to "existence". I'm not sure I feel that is true.

-----

"Why is this? It is because the existence of One can only be verified when it is contrary to something else, Two. But isn't this a contradiction? Yes and no. I am sure that most of us probably think that it is, but it is also not because One would, in actuality, still 'Be' without Two, but not in any sense that we would recognize it with our learned understanding of things. This is the only Absolute Truth, the only Absolute Reality and the only Absolute God."

A matter of perception ... The one and the other ("two") when seen as a pair can be seen as a unit and therefore a kind of "one" of their own. I think this is where you went with the idea that everything collectively ads up to be a kind of universal truth. I would state that I don't believe in "one" or "two" ... It's either nothing or infinity for me ... and there's your duality.

-----

"there is only one Truth, one answer, from which everything else webs out. The center of an endless web from which everything is connected and each silken strand gives birth to the next."

Are you sure? Perhaps there are infinite truths? Infinite realities? Is there really a center to the web?

-----

"I am sure that you have heard of individuals performing "selfless" acts for the benefit of others. While this is seen by many as a noble action, it is not sought after on a universal level because we live in the world of the advancement of the Ego-self at all costs. This advancement that I speak of is based, world wide, on a zero point system. This zero point system is one in that if individual A succeeds (+1), he or she must do so through the failure of individual B (-1). So the realm of individual A and individual B is always zero ((+1)+(-1)=0). Just imagine how much progress we could make if we were to discard this system, if we were to work together instead of in competition with one another."

Why must individual "B" fail for "A" to succeed? Besides, isn't "Success" a term that is open to interpretation. I would say that the only true success that a person may have is one that benefits society as a whole, or leads to the evolution (at least in some slight way) of that kind of advancement.

-----

"Besides the fact that a zero point system will never progress at any substantial rate, the Ego-self is finite."

This seems true ... but, at what rate are we supposed to progress? Perhaps we grow perfectly in accordance with our design. We evolve as a unified society at exactly the rate we need to ... this is determined by the biology and psychology of our society.

-----

"Now I do now wish to express the idea that the Ego-self is useless; it provides a very important service. This service is the protection and security of the form that it inhabits. How else would the form survive during its childhood, but the Ego-self is only needed during a particular stage of life. It is like crawling before walking, in order to evolve we must stop one to start another. In other words, the sense of an "I" that the Ego-self generates in order to assist its growth is the same thing that holds itself to limitations of the "I"."

Yeah ... but, the "ego-self" merely evolves into something slightly different ... more of a collective social ego. When times are really grim, we all band together to fix things ... we all understand (at least subconsciously) that we need to keep things "stable" and make sacrifices to survive as a whole.

-----

"Emotions are internalized processes that can not be forced by an external source. In other words, when a person feels something it is because on some level one wants to feel that way."

I think it is not because one "wants" to, but because one is "designed" to feel things in a certain way. Sure emotions and feelings can be controlled and perhaps overly controlled ... but they do serve many purposes. Again ... perhaps this is part of the reason why we DO evolve ... even if it's so slow.

-----

"Now that I have shown how the typical human sense of Freewill is an illusion, I imagine that you are wondering how it is that this illusion can be broken. First and foremost, the illusion must be recognized for what it is, an untruth. One must discover their own conditioning and overcome it, to rethink their behaviors with a newborn mind. I know that this sounds impossible and for those that have become hopelessly dependent on the lies for a long period of time, perhaps it is, but I have know a few individuals that have transcended their own conditioning. It is possible when the will is strong enough. One must unlearn what they have already learned in order to find the path to becoming an Original Echo."

And once you have unlearned your past illusions, what do you replace them with? More illusions designed by each one of our specific and individual perceptions?

-----

"Now you may be wondering: Why is it that so many individuals of such diverse cultures and geographical locations cling to such similar concepts of reality?"

It could perhaps be because we all share a similar design and as such there would tend to be similar patterns that develop in our behavior and belief systems. (Perhaps we're all drawn to some kind of natural truth ... no, I doubt it.)

-----

"If it has not widely become known at the time that you read this, then you must realize that energy is the only real substance existing within space and time."

As far as we know or can conceive of right now.

-----

Now ... hmm ... as far as posting my thoughts and experience goes, I suppose my greatest weakness is that some time ago I did what most aging people with families and tiring jobs and a lawn to mow and bills to pay tend to do, and I stopped trying to analyze something that didn't really seem to affect my personal existence. Oh, I don't mean to say that it isn't important to try and understand the world and perhaps the universe around you in the most clear and possibly delusion free way. I am also not trying to say that it isn't important to keep trying for a little piece of "clarity" when it comes to your perception of "reality" ... we should all be working toward "enlightenment" shouldn't we? What I'm saying is, at a point you realize that what is truly important is to understaning your place in the world that you DO perceive and to always work at being a "balanced" part of that world.
I suppose this has to do with simple survival. You try to know your place, you are conscious of your current effect on the world and you work to always make it, in some way, a positive effect. I think that simply KNOWING that you're involved in something stupid when you are, and being able to say it out loud has a huge benefit. To bring up the ripple analogy, I thing that simple attitude and spoken ideas can have great (and possible long term) effects on society. Again, it's the nature of social evolution and it's also why forums like this one are important (and why we shouldn't immediately worry about "hassles" and having to delete a specific forum because people don't agree.) Here we have a way to spread thoughts and ideas so that they may die or perhaps live and grow to benefit future minds. Who knows, in a thousand years (when the 15 Star Wars films have been reedited for the 6 thousandth time) Jonna may have huge temples erected in his honor as a result of what people think they remembered that he had written in a book a millennium ago ... though much of it will have changed due to mistranslation ... but that's not important because it's the thought that really counts. Isn't it?

mabudonicus
07-25-2002, 12:49 PM
I just realized, you're wrong, Jonna, A can't exist without Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Jonna
07-25-2002, 01:05 PM
This is all I have to say to you, mabudon.

http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=143338#post143338

bigbarada
07-26-2002, 02:23 PM
Wow, reading your theories, Jonna makes me realize just how childish my own ruminations on the universe are (especially since they came to me while playing Super Mario 64 for the Nintendo):o

Anyways, the basics of my idea (and keeping in mind my belief in God as the foundation of all my ideas - it helps to know people's biases beforehand, we all have them. People who claim to be completely unbiased are lying, if you have an opinion, you are biased.):

If you watch Mario jumping around the TV screen, assume for example that he has self consciousness and what he believes to be free will (he doesn't realize that every move he makes is being controlled by someone in a separate plane of existence). He is simply made up of electrical pulses running through computer circuitry, but of course he doesn't know this. To him the world around him, which he percieves with his two senses (sight and sound) is absolute reality. You could argue that he has a sense of touch, since he can be physically injured, but that is really irrellevant.

Now look at our world. We, as humans, are essentially groups of electrical particles in (as Tool phrased it) a slow state of vibration. We run around and percieve the world as absolute reality (only we use five senses not two). To me it is just as plausible to believe that there is a plane of existence outside ours that we cannot even fathom with out limited brains. Just like Mario not being able to fathom our world.

So those are the basics of my idea, of course it is not a perfect theory and I'm sure there are many things that I haven't considered, but it's a start.

Jonna
07-26-2002, 02:44 PM
I have an odd one for you concerning dimensions. We all believe and experience existance in 4 dimensions: 3 of space and one of time. However, because of advancements in String Theory (a bit of a throw off from Quantum physics) this has been proven untrue. There are dimensions, at a quantum level, that are curled up upon themselves and we can not experience them with our weak senses. It is believed that this happened during the big bang. Some theories say 11, some say 12. I believe that M-Theory claims something like 26 dimentions. I found this quite interesting.

I am just the COOLEST NERD!;)

bigbarada
07-26-2002, 03:01 PM
Regarding the concept of 'time', I don't really believe that it is the big all powerful force that "grinds hard stones to meal." In fact, as a force of nature, I don't believe it even exists in the same way that other natural forces exist. Time is simply our way or measuring progress or decay. Exactly the same way we use feet to measure distance. Our concept of time only exists because of our dependence on it.

It's called the Saphir-Whorf hypothesis, in that our language determines how we think and percieve the world around us, not the other way around. Since we have a word for time and we think in terms of past, present and future; then we see time as this all-powerful force that "all things devours."

Ever watch the movie Amistad? In one scene, the lawyer is trying to explain what he "should have" done in the courtroom to the African man. The language for that particular African tribe had no word for "should." Thus they had no concept of it. Either you did something or you didn't. It's basically the same priciple.

Anyway, your idea of multiple dimensions that we are incapable of percieving is the basis for my theory.

plasticfetish
07-26-2002, 03:11 PM
Did anyone ever read the book "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" by Edwin A. Abbott? Bigbarada's Mario epiphany reminded me of this. It would be cool to see the strory re-written with Nintendo characters.

:]

Jonna
07-26-2002, 03:16 PM
Someone once said that time keeps everything from happening at once. Don't know who it was!

I have actually been working on a theory for the overlapping of the past, present and future co-existing in the same space simultainiously all the time (HA!:P). Having a bit of difficulty proving its validity on a quantim level though. I think that my brain is fried over it and I need to step back and look at it all from a different angle.

:mad:

bigbarada
07-26-2002, 03:28 PM
My basic idea is that one nanosecond basically eradicates the previous nanosecond. Like a computer file rewriting itself constantly (you'll find that most of my theories revolve around computers, because I feel that we are creating a new reality with the advances in technology and the internet.).

We can't travel back in time because the past no longer exists, we can't travel forward in time because the future hasn't yet been determined. Travelling into the future would only give you one possible future anyway (one that would be forced to reckon with your sudden disappearance in the "present").

Jonna
07-26-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
We can't travel back in time because the past no longer exists, we can't travel forward in time because the future hasn't yet been determined. Travelling into the future would only give you one possible future anyway (one that would be forced to reckon with your sudden disappearance in the "present").

On a side note: One can travel to their future at a different speed as someone else. Einstein wrote the break throughs on this idea. The general idea is that the faster an object goes the more time slows down for that object. I think the analogy was something like: If you were to take two people of the same age, leave one on Earth and put the other in a space ship traveling very fast out into space and then back again, the one that stayed on Earth would be substantialy older than the one in the ship. They acually proved this in the 80's, I think it was. They took two atomic clocks, one on the ground and one in a jet, and flew around. When they compared the clocks the one in the jet was slower then the one on earth. Pretty neat! :D

bigbarada
07-26-2002, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Jonna


On a side note: One can travel to their future at a different speed as someone else. Einstein wrote the break throughs on this idea. The general idea is that the faster an object goes the more time slows down for that object. I think the analogy was something like: If you were to take two people of the same age, leave one on Earth and put the other in a space ship traveling very fast out into space and then back again, the one that stayed on Earth would be substantialy older than the one in the ship. They acually proved this in the 80's, I think it was. They took two atomic clocks, one on the ground and one in a jet, and flew around. When they compared the clocks the one in the jet was slower then the one on earth. Pretty neat! :D

Cool! Just indicates, to me, that 'time' is not a constant, it is relative to the individual. If it was this all powerful force of nature, it wouldn't be able to be manipulated so easily. The basic principle behind my idea is that, all too often(and in the riddle I use for my sigline) 'time' is portrayed as a 'cause.' Or a reason behind the growth and decay of the universe. I believe it is simply an after effect of the universes existence, at the most. A simply concept that we use to try to understand a perplexing universe, is more likely.

As a rule, people really try to avoid questions with an "I don't know" answer. People crave closure and simple answers to life's questions. Thus when something cannot be understood it is given a name and treated as a separate entity. It is the reason we get words like 'time', 'magic' and (some would argue) 'god.'

Wow, this is a new one, I've just 'unconvinced' myself of my own argument. Maybe I am looking at 'time' through too narrow of a lens. Using my limited perception to try and discover the answers of an impercievable universe can be dangerous. It's how we get revolutions that leave us in worse positions than we were before.

Jonna
07-26-2002, 04:25 PM
"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space" by Albert Einstein


Gotta love a man who likes to show his tongue!:p

mabudonicus
07-27-2002, 01:02 PM
Sorry about that last post, Jonna, I was trying to log out and just happened to be here.
BB- yeah, time is tricky, alright. One thing that makes a really odd muse concerning how time moves differently according to how the individual percieves it is to look at a common housefly. The speed at which they can process information and react to it is quite uncanny if you really think about it.
Perhaps time is the "other" number, with each individual being the "one" in their own reality, in a more buddhist direction again.
Time is, indeed, just like feet and inches, in that every individual uses their own system to measure the universe (we got's metric:)), but if you think about it, the same thing is being measured, so it is with time. Measurements can be used as a way of transmitting/sharing precise, detailed information, and time is the only real common experience, one to which we all must subscribe in some fashion.
My heads starting to hurt. PS- Jonna, sorry to not post in here for a bit, my own slice of reality has kinda been beating me up lately, and I'm all like Weeeeeee!!!

bigbarada
07-27-2002, 01:49 PM
Yes, I was giving it some more thought yesterday, and I am still opposed to the idea of 'time' being this all-powerful force that consumes everything in it's path. I guess I see 'time' as more along the lines of a side-effect of the universe's creation. In other words, it's not the driving force of the universe.

mabudonicus
07-27-2002, 02:04 PM
Right, it's merely the road on which reality rides, and it can be widened, or sped up or slowed down. If it were to speed up, would everything seem faster?? I believe not, because I honestly don't believe that we can tell how fast it's going in ANY way.
There is no "other" which is seperate to show the relativity, sorta like how movement and depth are hard to judge in space, where there is less and different reference than we're used to here on earth. Time sorta just plain "is", as far as I can tell.
BB- no offense intended at all, but with theories like that in your head, I can't imagine what it was like for you in the Army. It's hard to wrap my head around it, I just picture a drill instructor yelling out your posts and it cracks me up.....

bigbarada
07-27-2002, 02:19 PM
LOL, I wasn't built for Army life, that became clear almost immediately after starting my second enlistment. I only enlisted a third time because I had too many bills to pay, so I was kind of trapped. People who knew me always wondered how I got up to the rank of Sergeant, because I was 'too nice,' as everyone put it.:)

Darth Nihilus
07-27-2002, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
Wow, reading your theories, Jonna makes me realize just how childish my own ruminations on the universe are (especially since they came to me while playing Super Mario 64 for the Nintendo):o

Anyways, the basics of my idea (and keeping in mind my belief in God as the foundation of all my ideas - it helps to know people's biases beforehand, we all have them. People who claim to be completely unbiased are lying, if you have an opinion, you are biased.):

If you watch Mario jumping around the TV screen, assume for example that he has self consciousness and what he believes to be free will (he doesn't realize that every move he makes is being controlled by someone in a separate plane of existence). He is simply made up of electrical pulses running through computer circuitry, but of course he doesn't know this. To him the world around him, which he percieves with his two senses (sight and sound) is absolute reality. You could argue that he has a sense of touch, since he can be physically injured, but that is really irrellevant.

Now look at our world. We, as humans, are essentially groups of electrical particles in (as Tool phrased it) a slow state of vibration. We run around and percieve the world as absolute reality (only we use five senses not two). To me it is just as plausible to believe that there is a plane of existence outside ours that we cannot even fathom with out limited brains. Just like Mario not being able to fathom our world.

So those are the basics of my idea, of course it is not a perfect theory and I'm sure there are many things that I haven't considered, but it's a start.

My goodness, you should read Sophie's World. For some reason I have that tripe lying around, I haven't quite gotten around to burning it yet.

The problem when we philosophise is something I have seen mentioned in the numerous posts I have scanned - "assumption". The human mind can not think cleanly as it is tempered by its own experiences, its own prejudices. People take a theory that they relate to (whether that be on a conscious or sub-conscious level) and work within that.

One example I can think of comes from Descarte. He argued that God exists because humans, as imperfect beings have this idea of perfection. Ergo (no pun intended) how can imperfect creatures possess the idea of perfection?

Here Descarte assumes that God exists and works his philosophy to 'prove' that. In this case the idea of perfection is the device, which is flawed because perfection has never been proven, it is not a truth. But again Descarte assumes this and in the end he has proven nothing.

IMO, I believe the idea of perfection comes from the inferiority complex that is instilled within us from birth. To suceed in life we have to be 'better' than the other person, we have to have more than the other person or else our lives have been for nought. If we are constantly striving to be better, than what is our ultimate goal? What do we call home base? Perfection.

I also have a problem with your 'one' theory. What you describe as the relationship between 1 and 2 would perhaps be better explained as the relationship between 0 and 1. By what do you judge 1 to be than that which is more than nothing? You need nothing to know what 1 is, that is to say all extends from nothing. Which is meaningful if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory.

I can't believe I'm talking philosophy at 4:45am. Me very tired.

Darth Nihilus
07-27-2002, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
People who knew me always wondered how I got up to the rank of Sergeant, because I was 'too nice,' as everyone put it.:)

So says the big, angry looking man.(j/k):p

bigbarada
07-27-2002, 03:58 PM
I've heard that comment from Descarte and a similar one stating that "If God is perfect, then He must exist since non-existence would be an imperfection." Another on states that "Just the idea of God proves that He exists."

I see these as nothing more than a play on words. No real logic attached to them, just a way to use the English language against itself. They add up to nothing more than philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Keeping in mind that I do believe in God.

Darth Nihilus
07-28-2002, 12:24 AM
Although I am agnostic, I hold nothing against religion or the belief in God. It's just that Descarte's reasoning is a poor attempt at rationalising his beliefs. My opinion is that if you believe in God then you just do, it's a leap of faith you don't have to explain to anyone. I only used Descarte to show how our beliefs and prejudices limit the way in which we seek the truth, that I don't think is possible because we can never shake what we have been taught and what we have learned.

bigbarada
07-28-2002, 12:35 AM
Regardless of whether the end results agrees with my beliefs or not, I just can't support a poorly constructed argument.

I've even heard some arguments against Evolution so bad that I have to speak out, even though I don't suscribe to Evolution (not the form of it that is accepted today).

If you bypass logical reasoning to get to your point then you do nothing but weaken your own position. And you are right about belief in God, it is a leap of faith that shouldn't need justification or a reason.

Jonna
07-29-2002, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Darth Nihilus
I also have a problem with your 'one' theory. What you describe as the relationship between 1 and 2 would perhaps be better explained as the relationship between 0 and 1. By what do you judge 1 to be than that which is more than nothing? You need nothing to know what 1 is, that is to say all extends from nothing. Which is meaningful if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory.


Yes, I could say 0 and 1 instead, but it would cause the same problem in addition to our minds harboring preconceived notions that the 0 has some sort of direct relationship to "nothing" or "nothingness".

Just try to think about it like the Buddhist concept of the Void; that is actually there I got the idea for it. The Void is normally talked about in Western society as a state of nothingness that is sought as the goal on the Buddhist path to enlightenment. *(Correction: Western society usually considers Nirvana as the destination of the Buddhist, but that is completely wrong. Nirvana is merely the bliss that is achieved when one truly understands that everything is connected and he/she is also everything. Wholeness. But understanding wholeness and becoming it (the Void) are two different things.)* This concept doesn't make sense to most people, as it did not make sense to me for a long time, until you start to look at things a bit differently.

The Void is indeed nothingness, empty and without form (as far as we understand those concepts). BUT, it is also full with everything that is, that exists. This is because the Void is outside of existance. The Void is Essence; the Essence that is all things unborn, that are born into existance. The Void is free from the restrains of "Being" and that is why it is sought after as the highest level, the purest level. *See original post on Essence/Existance*

This obsession of mine to understand the concept of the Void is what sent me on this whole journey to begin with. Hope that makes things clearer. I hate the fact that I rarely feel like I am expressing my ideas adequately.


:zzz: :zzz:

Jonna
08-07-2002, 06:21 AM
So it is 5 in the morning and I am sitting up in bed, staring at the wall. I actually do this quite often when I get wrapped up in my thoughts. It is not that I am staring at the the wall per say, but instead that I am tonguing the folds of my mind so deeply that I am not aware of what my eyes are doing.

Any-who! I come out of my thoughts and start to look around at things: picture frames, decorative candles, carefully arranged plastic flowers, cassette collection (500+), Japanese dressing screen with plastic vines draped over it, original Dali artwork, first edition Nagel print, etc., etc., etc. So I get up and go to the living room: large tv, matching black leather couches, VHS/DVD collection, CD collection, 2 Video game systems, several book shelves holding a collection of books that could reach the ceiling if I stacked them, fake tree (Mind you, there is a plush Lemur in the tree which I always find amusing), fancy lamps, 2 VCRs, a DVD player, more artwork hanging from the walls, Bla, Bla, Bla, Blabla. The kitchen I don't even bother going into after I catch a glimps of the bits of fruit and vegies perserved in little jars for show. I walk into my den which is where I keep all my toys and computer stuff.....I won't even go into that.

And I start wondering....when the Frelling Hell did I accumulate all of this garbage??? Did I phase out for a bit (that is what my girlfriend calls it) and go on a shopping spree? I call it garbage because it won't help you to achieve anything or truly make you happier. It is just all ornimental cr@p to draw your attention away from problems you might have.

It got me to thinking. Maybe the real underlining reason that we buy all of the things that we do is to make certain aspects of life more barable; to distract ourselves from things that we do that really upset us in an attempt to trick ourselves.

In my case, it is my current job. It pays quite well, however I achieve absolutely no emotional or intellectual fulfillment from it so I buy myself a bunch of pretty junk to distract myself from it.

I know this is probably one of the things that is know but goes unsaid. Anybody feel the same way?

billfremore
08-07-2002, 08:57 AM
We are all just victims and perpetrators of the rampant consumerism of our society.

I often look at things and wonder why did I need that?

The Star Wars stuff is obvious, I'm simply being that greedy child that wasn't allowed to have everything I wanted and now I'm buying it.

As for the rest... like Jonna says mearly distraction.
That and I think it's society (an easy target to blame:)) and media telling us what we have to have or we won't be cool/complete/happy.

Sometimes I wish I just lived in the woods and didn't interact with anyone or anything.

What's starting salary for a hermit these days anyways? :D

Jonna
08-07-2002, 10:17 AM
I have no problem eating squirrels. Please ask me to eat squirrels. I hate the B@sterd$!

billfremore
08-07-2002, 11:19 AM
Alright then go eat a squirrel.

"Chipmunks roasting by an open fire..."

mabudonicus
08-07-2002, 11:39 AM
Yeah, true, I don't think i 'fit' into the "common reality'..
People think i'm either being elitist or just weird when they ask if i've seen "movie x' and, in order to avoid telling them the 'truth' i just say "nawww, I don't really like movies'. People will even go so far as to say 'but you MUST!!', and i don't get that one at all. people generally DON'T want to know, cause if you start to THINK about it, you might actually have to think all the time.... i swear I'm just doing them a favour....honest

plasticfetish
08-07-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Jonna
In my case, it is my current job. It pays quite well, however I achieve absolutely no emotional or intellectual fulfillment from it so I buy myself a bunch of pretty junk to distract myself from it.

I know this is probably one of the things that is know but goes unsaid. Anybody feel the same way?

Yes.
In my case, I've been working in film and mostly television for 8 years. I have a house full of "pretty junk". I agree that the stuff serves as a distraction ... it just depends how overwhelming you let it get. I recently stopped working full time (70hr+) weeks on cr*ppy TV shows ... no more nice money ... and now I'm thinning out the junk pile a bit also. I suppose these things come and go in waves.

My wife (clever, too clever) says that all of the toys and other cr*p serve as a surrogate for my long gone childhood. A reminder of the quiet days before cell phone bills and car repairs. Sure, she's right ... but, I also find that those memories help to remind me of less stressful times and in turn help me to relax and be more creative when I need to be.

It's also called "nesting" ... you're making a nice secure place for yourself full of stuff you like. A place where you can feel safe when the job/world threatens your peace of mind.

Don't worry about the job. Jobs come and go. Stay focused on what your "real" goals are and keep working toward them. Inch by inch by inch by inch ...

:]

Vortex
08-07-2002, 03:40 PM
Sadly our society judges people by what material goods they own. Its in the upper crust of the socialites- how big their home is, what car do they drive, what do they put out for parties, how do they decorate their homes and offices- to the poor and destitute - how much junk is in their shopping cart or what bits of clothing they can find.

I don't think people can see natural beauty or inner peace anymore with all this constant bombardment of ads claiming you need this or that to be happy.

Sort of like the SUV commercials that pander to the yuppies. Even though you work downtown, work your life way for the firm, work weekends, you STILL need one of these to get away and get into nature. When in reality they never leave suburbia or their upscal urban lifestyle.

But when all is said and done, if you're comfortable and happy with what you have, still have shelter, food, love and some personal comforts that's all you can really ask for.