H20=water

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:09 pm

H20 = water...it doesn't, it merely symbolizes...thus everything we = to god, also symbolizes...further, we cannot know god via symbols/language and their devises, nor can we apprehend god as a reality, because we can only apprehand 'things' by limiting them in space /time dimension/s...we can believe in god, or have faith in god...thats it, any further is PURE IGNORANCE, no matter how eloquently elucidated....

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:08 pm

It's not a matter of faith that there is a Totality. It is a provable fact. So I'm not sure what your point is.

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:06 pm

the only way you can 'prove' it is by resorting to belief/ logic /symbolism, all merely signs ( 'Hollywood' the word is not Hollywood the place. Just as Valhalla the word is not Valhalla the place. In the first case, Hollywood the word relates to a 'place' in Nature we can visit - place which is limited in real time and space. Valhalla the word, on the other hand, related to a mythological construct...an idea....when you say totality exists, what you're saying is that totality = the sum of existance - all there is? how do you know this? you can't....
you can hope there is, you can believe there is, you may be able to prove it by way of abstract reasoning, but you CAN'T know it...

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:31 pm

ksolway....do you know how many pimples are on your back?
obviously not...but you can prove the totality of everything...
Mmmmm.....

logic is it's own universe...

P C. Maine

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:01 pm

Blimey, he is thick, isn't he? :)

Zarathustra,

Do you doubt the existence of the universe itself?

In spite of my better judgment, I'll assume you'll say no.

Okay, hold that thought. You have just affirmed the existence of the Totality. No more proof is required.

-

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:15 pm

Q to zara: 'do you doubt the existence of the universe itself?'
zara to Q: yes...

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:20 pm

You actually believe it is possible that there is nothing whatsoever, that nothing exists at all, anywhere?

-

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:41 pm

I exist....

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:55 pm

and no-thing exists that can be known, only interpreted as,
including totality...

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:12 pm

zarathustra wrote:I exist....

Are you saying that you only believe you exist, but that you may not actually exist at all? Or do you know you exist. If you know you exist, then there is a Totality.

I get the very strong impression that you have never thought about these things before, and haven't started yet.

I suggest you think about things first, get your ideas in order, and then send us the results, instead of just posting us random thoughts as they pop into your head.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:23 pm

Completely agree with you, Kevin. His thinking is amateurish and his posts are lazy. It's barely worth responding to him. However, it is a public forum and there are others viewing, so ......

Zarathustra,

Let's try again. Firstly, since you affirm that there is not nothing whatsoever, you are affirming that there is an existence of some kind - whatever it may be. The sum total of this existence is what I call the "Totality".

Straight away, we have just proven, together, that the Totality exists without any shadow of a doubt.

I exist....

Do you believe that your existence forms the totality of all there is?

and no-thing exists that can be known, only interpreted as,
including totality...

You are simply regurgitating the postmodernist script here. There are some things about the Totality which can be known with absolute certainty, which are beyond interpretation. For example:

- The Totality is not nothing whatsoever.

- There is nothing beyond the Totality.

- The Totality is without cause.

- The Totality is absolute in nature, beyond relativity.

- The Totality is not a "thing" - i.e. a limited entity within the Totality.

And so on.

These are simple, straightforward deductions based on what the Totality is defined to be. They are beyond the power of postmodernism/relativism to doubt. In effect, they are post postmodernist truths.

-

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:55 pm

ksol and Q...I began here by posting arguments, which i don't think were amateurish...but none of them were addressed, you just took what suited you and ran with it (esp. Q). one of many many examples of how you respond to argument:

zara: I exist
Q: you are simply regurgitation postmodern mentality...

this is what you do - you don't argue, you pontificate, you make a series of dogmatic statements which the reader is left to accept or or reject....totality is this, totality is that...so what? That's not philosophy, its theology...so now I will expound a post-post modern argument for you to consider, but I suspect you'll address it with dogma....as usual....

Blair · Post by **Blair** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:26 pm

zarathustra wrote:this is what you do - you don't argue, you pontificate, you make a series of dogmatic statements which the reader is left to accept or or reject....totality is this, totality is that...so what? That's not philosophy, its theology....

How is totality, theology? I think they don't argue because they see through your motivations and thoughts. I can see them also. Your motivation in what you write is less than honest, it's a thought out argument, for the sake of your ego. You are more transparent than you realize.

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:49 pm

its obvious that Q BELIEVES in concepts and names of things aeternae veritates...he prides himself on these things as things that raise him ( in his own mind ) above we ordinary every day mortals. he thinks that in language he possesses KNOWLEDGE of the world i.e. not only does he believe he gives things designations through words, he believes he has found supreme knowledge through them...

having little or no understanding of the scientific application of words, he does not fully appreciate, that language in science does not reveal truth in itself ( within the language ) but signifies something that exists BEYOND the words and symbols. scientific logic also rests on presuppositions that have nothing to do with the real world, for example that there are identical things: that the same thing is identical at different points in time. It is the same with mathematics, especially when we consider that in nature there is no exact straight line, no real circle, no absolute magnitude...

Q and his cohorts claim that totality is 'everything', which can be known through 'cause and effect'...but this cannot be, because totality can never be known, (only assumed as a logical consequence) simply because there is no end to the concept, because it does not correspond to dimensional time and space which are necessarily defined by limits... its the same as saying infinity can be known by cause and effect, or god, or the ultimate or whatever (meaningless tautologies)...but they can't...to reiterate: totality, as well as cause and effect are THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS...in nature there is no cause and effect, things just happen...IT IS...

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:55 pm

so you believe....

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:05 pm

prince, you silly little man...total refers to the 'sum' of something 1+2+6=9. totality = that which is combined into a total which AMMOUNTS TO SOMETHING - not everything!

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:10 pm

three posts ago, when I spoke of totality, I defined it as Q defines it...

Blair · Post by **Blair** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:33 pm

you are the silly little man.

It took me a while to figure out A=A too. Once you get it, it makes all the difference.

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:08 pm

thanks for confirming the fact that you are just another dim-witted metaphysican...do you know why you don't confront my arguments - because you can't...better to go on the attack,
which only goes to show how imperfect you really are...

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:08 pm

zarathustra wrote:

its obvious that Q BELIEVES in concepts and names of things aeternae veritates...

As usual, you are way off the mark. In truth, I don't believe in anything at all.

he prides himself on these things as things that raise him ( in his own mind ) above we ordinary every day mortals. he thinks that in language he possesses KNOWLEDGE of the world i.e. not only does he believe he gives things designations through words, he believes he has found supreme knowledge through them...

I've always maintained that supreme knowledge is found in the emptiness of all things, not in language or concepts. And it is certainly not found in postmodernist rote-learning.

having little or no understanding of the scientific application of words, he does not fully appreciate, that language in science does not reveal truth in itself ( within the language ) but signifies something that exists BEYOND the words and symbols. scientific logic also rests on presuppositions that have nothing to do with the real world, for example that there are identical things: that the same thing is identical at different points in time. It is the same with mathematics, especially when we consider that in nature there is no exact straight line, no real circle, no absolute magnitude...

None of my truths depend on assumptions of that kind, although I agree that both science and math are limited by them. In fact, my truths do not depend on any assumptions at all.

Q and his cohorts claim that totality is 'everything', which can be known through 'cause and effect'...but this cannot be, because totality can never be known, (only assumed as a logical consequence) simply because there is no end to the concept, because it does not correspond to dimensional time and space which are necessarily defined by limits...

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence and a genuine desire for knowledge can understand everything that can ever be known about the Totality. They just have to take off their blinkers.

its the same as saying infinity can be known by cause and effect, or god, or the ultimate or whatever (meaningless tautologies)...but they can't...to reiterate: totality, as well as cause and effect are THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS...in nature there is no cause and effect, things just happen...IT IS...

The Totality is real, and we are all a part of it. Stop hiding behind your postmodernist constructs and deal with it.

-

freelight · Post by **freelight** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:52 am

zarathustra wrote:I exist....

Hi all,

Well break out the wine,.......Z just discovered his own existence! lol. (jest).

Of course we have to use 'words' in a discussion forum...knowing that the 'word' never 'is' the 'thing' we are talking about. - language serves as revealers, pointers, concepts, symbols opening to us those ideas/realities we are relating/conceiving/perceiving, etc.

But while on the subject of your 'self-existence'....you can only know you exist by virtue of mind/consciousness. This Mind/Consciousness includes and must by recognition accept the Fact that a Totality of Being exists - you can call the 'Totality', the ALL, the ONE, etc. Existence includes within its own being, totality. The Totality is not just something but its Allness includes everything.

Lets explore Q's mini-list -

- The Totality is not nothing whatsoever.

- There is nothing beyond the Totality.

- The Totality is without cause.

- The Totality is absolute in nature, beyond relativity.

- The Totality is not a "thing" - i.e. a limited entity within the Totality.

I really dont see what kind of mentality resists the obvious, tacit Fact of the Totalitys Being. It is truly Wondrous....all emconpassing. - sure there is a divine and holy Mystery to the Totality of Being, but there is a comprehensible definitive philosophical understanding which upholds the coherency of the Totality as existing. (Obvious).

What is wonderful and more speculative of some schools is that the Self I AM Consciousness is part of the One Original Mind and this self-awareness of being must by nature include the totality....as Mind is ever aware of the entirety of Being/Existence. You cannot prove the Totality does not exist or you would have to deny your own existence in the process. To assume that only 'you' exists as some sort of nebulous mind-mass seperate from the WHole or totality of Existence(the One Universal Mind) would be mind-boggling! Existence Now includes the Totality of All that IS.....FOREVER.

paul

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:15 am

freelight wrote:

This Mind/Consciousness includes and must by recognition accept the Fact that a Totality of Being exists - you can call the 'Totality', the ALL, the ONE, etc.

How do you know that the Totality is "oneness". By what means have you proven this?

And doesn't the Totality's "oneness" completely negate the Christian conception of God?

-

Beingof1 · Post by **Beingof1** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:23 pm

David:

And doesn't the Totality's "oneness" completely negate the Christian conception of God?

Just a quick comment.
This is taking Christianity to its ultimate conclusion and arrives at the same place as all profound, liberating thought and experience. In fact, it is supplemental to the whole as it heals all fragmented fractures. The pieces all fall into place.
This is not 'theology' as is the grand misperception by Christiandom and its organized leadership. It is the true teachings that Christ was revealing. I suggest the Nag Hammadi scrolls for the linking of this thought.
As an example from the Gospel of John in the standard text:

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Most take the common theology as the true teachings of Christ. This is not the same thing at all. Jesus and his teachings are lightyears ahead of almost all ordinary Christian doctrine.
[/quote]

freelight · Post by **freelight** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:24 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote:freelight wrote:

This Mind/Consciousness includes and must by recognition accept the Fact that a Totality of Being exists - you can call the 'Totality', the ALL, the ONE, etc.

How do you know that the Totality is "oneness". By what means have you proven this?

)======= I gather this from my sense of God being One. There is only One Spirit, substance, .....and it appears the Totality is One in essence, but includes all things. Not sure I have proved it except for accepting the concept as feasible.[/list]
And doesn't the Totality's "oneness" completely negate the Christian conception of God?

)========I dont think so, unless you are speaking of the traditional/orthodox christianity which is rooted in duality. I see the All as One - comprising The Totality. And if God is All there IS...this oneness is perpetual thru-out.
paul

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:30 pm

Paul,

DQ: How do you know that the Totality is "oneness". By what means have you proven this?

P: I gather this from my sense of God being One. There is only One Spirit, substance, .....and it appears the Totality is One in essence, but includes all things. Not sure I have proved it except for accepting the concept as feasible.

If you haven't proved it, then how is it distinguishable from wishful-thinking? Are you saying that the whole of your spirituality rests on a mere wish?

DQ: And doesn't the Totality's "oneness" completely negate the Christian conception of God?

P: I dont think so, unless you are speaking of the traditional/orthodox christianity which is rooted in duality. I see the All as One - comprising The Totality. And if God is All there IS...this oneness is perpetual thru-out.

What makes you think that God can't be a duality?

-

GENIUS FORUMS

H20=water

H20=water

Totality

Self-existence

Oneness