some decades.
But stupidity is the issue and its first manifestation is disrespect
for diversity, in general. In particular, stupid people are closed to
diversity of knowledge and experiences that others have.
For instance, miracles can always happen... quite as a near improbable
event can. What it means is another matter. I feel hearing out that
out, from one who has experienced, is more interesting than the
pontificating babble on the same matter from someone who has not had
the wondrous experience.
So too, knowledge of any kind... if someone can build it up from the
empiricals, physical or mental, to realisations that have wider-space
longer-time scale validity. It is the absolutist general statement,
having no relationship with the empiricals and their truths, that seem
so stupid.
Human beings have a responsibility to knowing themselves first, before
speculating about dimensions and what-not. Just now, a cause and
effect relationship was stated between brain and mind. And, I do not
see why or how. I do see the physical qualifying what is in the mind,
as emotion or thought. But they are in the mind, and are not the mind
itself. The brain is there while we are asleep, and alive too, so why
do not "have" a mind then ? In fact, why are we ourselves "absent"
then ?
All in all, there is a need on our part to be less glib about facts
and truths. Untill then, it would be a good idea to go on some
adventure, or at least long walks, or make a man or woman happy, or
treat another person to happiness, or taste our way to pleasure, or
write down one's thoughts and see for oneself what it actually is...
On Mar 18, 9:39 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How do you know that, RP, when your dead ? Have you ever died before ?
>
> > We all have a body and a mind. Based on its capabilities, or
> > incapabilities, what are we talking about ? Nature ? We hardly know
> > what, how much, how far, in what ways... it works, in all the 10 to
> > power 22 star worlds. What we know of it can hardly determine what we
> > do know about it, quite as the past can hardly define the future !
>
> I read "not" the first time and had to do a double take on your
> correction. Your concerns are the reason I use the term 'nature', when
> I use it romantically I try to make it clear that I am taking
> liberties. In general I agree with the last part, which gives me a
> large pause on words like 'absolute' and 'infinite', as I prefer to
> see that which is outside the boundary of my vision as a mystery full
> of potential or perhaps containing probabilities given the degree of
> my experiences. This reconciles easily with me between pursuits of
> science, philosophy and human nature.
>
> > Likewise, God. WTF are we talking about ? Now this could seem rude but
> > should make perfect sense in the context. As in what is this God ?
> > What constitutes it ? How does it relate to that other fog word "
> > Nature " ?
>
> Nature, to me, is all there is, whatever that may be. Notions such as
> God I include within 'romantic liberties' but that is a preference
> within my personal philosophy. Others use it differently in diverse
> ways, some of which I find appealing.
>
> > I sincerely believe such threads are started on account of something
> > diseased within us !
>
> What point would there be to a pursuit of knowledge or truth without
> ignorance? Denying the latter sounds robotic. IMO approximation is
> implicit.
>
> > Healthy people should be talking of matters they know or have
> > experienced. One can then opine, extrapolate, theorise... and still be
> > understandable.
>
> A good general policy, not sure if all this was for both RP and I but
> I for one admit failure on every term above at some time or other.
> "What if?"
>
> Call me a masochist but I enjoy the diversity of thought, meanderings,
> responding to your message, pestering RP's wisdom, etc.. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 11:26 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Good
> >> Allan
> >> On Mar 17, 2012 5:28 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > As long as I am alive I am conscious of the world and myself , but when I
> >> > am dead I reach a state of permanent unconsciousness , a state of supreme
> >> > peace where nothing disturbs me , a sort of nirvana. that is the ultimate
> >> > state from which nobody returns.
>
> >> > On Friday, March 9, 2012 3:32:12 AM UTC+5:30, Ash wrote:
>
> >> >> This does make some sense to me RP so I hope my question doesn't sound
> >> >> critical. For me thinking in this way causes a massive amount of
> >> >> difficulty, as it sounds like immutable truths, so I have to translate
> >> >> away the language to get glints of my own thinking through. We could
> >> >> easily call my predicament not seeing the forest for the trees, and
> >> >> that would be a fitting if not limited statement. In my mind I prefer
> >> >> to start with the will representing laws of nature which are dynamic,
> >> >> and work more along an opportunistic heuristic. For me it is obvious
> >> >> that some people talk about an n-dimensional entity, but n is an
> >> >> aspect of scope in one's perspective. If n is potentially infinite,
> >> >> then the truths may have strength but are more optimizations than
> >> >> static ontology. I am wondering if there is some useful perspective
> >> >> that can be used in my situation, or perhaps it is a hopeless case.
> >> >> Perhaps you have something to help me?
>
> >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Neil , there is no difference. The universe is not nature but a
> >> >> > manifestation of Nature or God. It is unconscious but not dead, as
> >> >> > that would have meant no life , further it has to be unconscious as
> >> >> > the conscious is always bound to certain limits and is dual.
>
> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> That's a little bit different - and I'm in agreement. Some scientists
> >> >> >> have suggested we could make a universe with life conditions in the
> >> >> >> laboratory - still leaving us with issues about beginnings. Science
> >> >> >> fiction wise one can imagine making such universes in order to travel
> >> >> >> in time in them to discover more on how we were made - by occupying
> >> >> >> earlier stages of them. I tend to think of the unconscious as what
> >> >> >> isn't in rational consciousness, but I know this is inadequate as much
> >> >> >> human consciousness in action is not known to the participants
> >> >> >> rationally.
>
> >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> Life had to come from somewhere , why not from an unconscious Nature
> >> >> >>> which would explain the presence of Laws behind every action and
> >> >> >>> inaction.
>
> >> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > That doesn't help RP. Why this rather than a host of alternatives?
>
> >> >> >>> > On Mar 4, 4:28 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> God is not made of fire , air , earth , water , ether and
> >> >> consciousness ,
> >> >> >>> >> rather all these emanate from Him. God is unconscious and without
> >> >> >>> >> attributes.
>
> >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation
> >> >> which
> >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have
> >> >> choice , but
> >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory
> >> >> of the
> >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound
> >> >> by laws and
> >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God".
> >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation
> >> >> which
> >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have
> >> >> choice , but
> >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory
> >> >> of the
> >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound
> >> >> by laws and
> >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God".
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário