GENIUS FORUMS

I'm new to this forum, so let me open this rant with a short introduction. I'm 19, and I devote a lot of time to philosophy, it's the oil for my gears in my body. I'm smart yet very unschooled, but I'm sure I'll be able to express how I see things, wrong or right they may be.
Throughout my life, I've followed a lot of traditional religions, although to be honest, at such a young age I couldn't fathom truly what it (belief) was all about but...
I think for a true understanding of the nature of things (the innate, intent, and objectivity of reality), one must understand where the need to understand came from.
Earth and all it's glory of being capable of life, is itself quite the outlier when talking about the probability of existance. And with earth comes the innate ephemeral and realities of 'life', the dualistic nature of experience and intuition. This is the scene in which we play out our lives.
Humans, distinguished by not only our sentience, but also by our needs of expression, reflect this fallacious condition called life. Why are we so different than the 'perfect' tree, who doesn't even try to preserve itself yet does so effortlessly?
Starting from Africa, we all were hunter/gatherers (maybe not for the duration in Eden tho [if u believe in that]). What made us change was the comfortability that came with the conversion of nomadic to agricultural lifestyles. What were we before we could comprehend god (the Ephemeral)? Why even conjure up gods and devils?
I believe some of the first humans of which we were derived from had to exist in a constant struggle for survival (self preservation), existance was mainly focused on nature, but retroactively spawned nurture. That aside, Humans fear the unknown, when ever early human would come upon anything, human would judge the surroundings to determine whether or not it was a threat to their existance, they had to or else they'd be dead. We carry on these fears through phobias and such which were carried on by our DNA to protect our species.
But why create religion!?
Well, Humans fear what they do not know, as it could be threatening. But what about the ephemeral nature of things, the intangable question of "Why?" the metaphysics of reality and death. I believe out of sheer nesscessity we created religion to define the things we couldn't preceive. But this couldn't have been done without the help of society.
Society is a collection of humans/ideas who/which are all a part of a generally accepted defined nature. (What is right, what is wrong, etc.) Society was spawned from agriculture. The transition of nomadic to agricultural lifestyles, brought on a new existance, more over than being purely reactionary for the sake of survival, we became cognitive of the world around us. We had made time for us to see and think as we lived more comfortable without needing to relocate and hunt all the time.
So we create religion, we create society and develop egos (not all at the same time mind you), who's right and who's wrong? All and none.
True truths are only experienced, and although no other person can ultimately prove any other person wrong, when one or more people share the same or similar experience and relate (consciously or subconsciously) they start to establish a paradigm and affect society/reality. Any sort of truth that anyone finds, is honestly true, until they themselves prove themselves wrong. If humans died out, what experience/reality is there left?
--------------------
Philosophers are warriors and humans are meant to express themselves without filters. Society is semi-evil, as it allows us to not think for ourselves and let others determine the mode of reality and life and change our purpose from being artistic creatures to breeding white collar slaves. True knowledge is the understanding that you know nothing, and experience cannot lie. You know you're right when you can speak without saying, as words are fallacious anyways, but they help to relate.
"A white horse," is less defined than "A horse," as "A horse," encompasses not only the possiblity of being a white horse but EVERY other variety of catorgorized horses also.
-yombie

Hello yombie,

"A white horse," is less defined than "A horse," as "A horse," encompasses not only the possiblity of being a white horse but EVERY other variety of catorgorized horses also.

Exactly, and it is my conviction that every person can be given a perception that is more associating with ‘that variety of other categories and experiences’ that is related with new information, if that way is teached by the parents. It is the start of someone’s perception that appoints the way it develops. If one is teached to relate new input to as many as possible related information that is in his memory, he will make that semantic way of thinking to his own. To develop that semantics a baby/ child most think about new information himself. No explicit information must be teached, but implicit information that gives a child clues to discover out things himself. That indirect way of telling things develops understanding about the syntactic they must learn. The communication is essential and the more one discovers on his own, the more he will understand. After understanding something on his own, one can learn the related syntax afterwards. The more input will be discussed the more clues will appear.

“Explicit ways hold back implicit understandings, but are needed to explain it”.

yombie wrote:

Starting from Africa, we all were hunter/gatherers

But it didn't start there. It started with a bunch of fish who mutated legs and crawled onto the land.

If you want to understand where the desire for meaning comes from, take a good look at where the human virus spawned from. What made that fish crawl onto land? what makes humans fly spaceships to the moon? Why does anything do anything?

prince wrote:If you want to understand where the desire for meaning comes from, take a good look at where the human virus spawned from. What made that fish crawl onto land? what makes humans fly spaceships to the moon? Why does anything do anything?

By making existance real. Everything is only real if it is recognized. To recognize 'everything' first it must actualy exist. The constantly changing of it is in hands of the livings.

Wat is logical ?

But your only Looking at it from one perception. There are many more yet to be preceived. Religion is much more complicated than you think. You cant simply read to understand you also need to know why you understand. Your just looking at one end of a very large math problem that would take you thousands of years to understand. You just dont have that much time and your just not fast enough yet to stop yourselves.

Sonata wrote:But your only Looking at it from one perception. There are many more yet to be preceived. Religion is much more complicated than you think. You cant simply read to understand you also need to know why you understand. Your just looking at one end of a very large math problem that would take you thousands of years to understand. You just dont have that much time and your just not fast enough yet to stop yourselves.

If one percepts in 'explicit ways' one can't indeed. If one percepts by ‘implicit ways’ one can understand 'his own perspective'. All perspectives together can implicitly get understanding of all.

prince wrote:yombie wrote:

Starting from Africa, we all were hunter/gatherers

But it didn't start there. It started with a bunch of fish who mutated legs and crawled onto the land.

If you want to understand where the desire for meaning comes from, take a good look at where the human virus spawned from. What made that fish crawl onto land? what makes humans fly spaceships to the moon? Why does anything do anything?

prince, then are you talking about the phenomenon of life? I was merely talking about human experience, but why does life exist? :P cause it can, because existance is fallacious? Evolution is a large part of that, but you cannot state that we evolved from neanderthal (sp?) We (humans) actually walked the earth with homo-erectus. Where did humans come from? or Rather evolved from?
Primordial soup... random molecues combining and life peservering--> Life always finding a way + chaos + random molecues = new life... evolution happens then somewhere along the lines we develop crazy radical ideas by evolving our minds.
Maybe it was mushrooms (archaic revival by terrance mccenna)

Sorry for the tangent, what i meant to say was that life finds a way cause it can, and with the chaotic nature of things, it will.

what i meant to say was that life finds a way cause it can, ...

Sure Yombie, it can, but it could not if the potential was not there, and that goes for all that there is.

...and with the chaotic nature of things, it will.

Chaotic? may be, but I don't see it that way. It’s more about being perfect than chaotic. In my opinion, nothing at all can come to be if there is no "balance" achieved. In that I mean, because of a certain balance in and of motion, which causality makes sure that it maintains at all times, can things come to be in the NOW, which is a perfect "balance" and remains permanently in that state, hence is seen the "perfection" in ALL things, not only a tree.

We could consider any particular thing to be perfect, but only in the sense that it is actually impossible for anything to be something else at any given moment of existence, hence could not possibly be otherwise, hence perfect, as it is.

Now how perfect do you thing a tree would be if a mind did not exist to think or consider it as 'perfect'? or existence for that matter? So, a perfect balance in necessary, for all to exist in the NOW, and existence remains in that state permanently, nothing else is permanent at all. And once this is known, it is known, and “we” are not the first or the last ones that know, but this “knowledge” always remains, so does the perfect NOW, to be discovered and rediscovered, again and again, and again, ad infinitum.

By your initial post I can see that you are also an earnest thinker. Good for you :)

Sapius, I agree whole heartedly, but my methodology is that with perfect balance, comes the potential for the balance and the act itself. The chaos I'm talking about is the infantasmal nature of all the variables in existance, be it the causation of the big bang, the butterfly effect or anything, Balance relies on chaos to draw balance from.
The potential needed for life to grow can be found or simulated anywhere, but if the potential is there, then what makes life emerge? What step is taken to make the potential into something tangable? Does life not make it's own potential? We still don't know why plants grow, the why of the essense of life itself. Maybe cause life likes to manifest itself, and the plants, animals, and everything is just the expression of something intangible. Everything does need a potential, cause if something happens, yet the potential was not there, then it couldn't have happened. Yet the potential is merely the scene of which actions are played out... so what are those actions?

All things may be perfect, yet perfect may be subjective, if all things are perfect because it cannot be anything other than what it is.. say an apple, then what of a hermit who had never seen one, and thought it to be some foreign object that could threaten his life? Is it then "perfect", if it exists as two seperate entities in one paralelle universe (yours and the hermits). It is not so perfect as it is perceived differently.
The only thing that is perfect is anything that is meant to be observed, once it's observed, we subjectify it with our perception.
True perfection lies with that balance, as everything is innately objective, yet to perceive it makes it subjective, then the duality of both existing all at once, is true perfection.
I like to call humanity fallacious (yet I don't think we're a virus, i think we're wonderful creatures of expression) because we breed feed and kill ourselves synergistically.

"Now how perfect do you thing a tree would be if a mind did not exist to think or consider it as 'perfect'? or existence for that matter? So, a perfect balance in necessary, for all to exist in the NOW, and existence remains in that state permanently, nothing else is permanent at all. And once this is known, it is known, and “we” are not the first or the last ones that know, but this “knowledge” always remains, so does the perfect NOW, to be discovered and rediscovered, again and again, and again, ad infinitum. " - Sapius

If there were no minds to perceive, then all would be perfect,
Existence relies on perception to exist, cause if there was no mind to relate to reality, where is reality? It would be merely theory we couldn't comprehend, (this sentence is moot :P) and thus reality wouldn't exist, perfect! :)
The knowledge of now is not the knowledge of the dead, as they do not perceive it. The NOW is objective yet needs to be subjective to exist, thus as long as someone is perceiving the now, it will always be, until they all stop.

Reality and all it's rules are only bound by conscious thought.
Does the world work the same if we do not perceive that it does?
----------
thanks you sapius for the complement. I appreciate the conversation.

Yombie wrote:

If there were no minds to perceive, then all would be perfect,
Existence relies on perception to exist, cause if there was no mind to relate to reality, where is reality? It would be merely theory we couldn't comprehend, (this sentence is moot :P) and thus reality wouldn't exist, perfect! :)
The knowledge of now is not the knowledge of the dead, as they do not perceive it. The NOW is objective yet needs to be subjective to exist, thus as long as someone is perceiving the now, it will always be, until they all stop.

That what we perceive is purely mental, and therefore wholly subjective – is irrefutable. Yet many people push this simple truth out of their minds in order to ‘make up’ an objective reality. By doing so, they muddy up their thinking so profoundly that they are incapable of seeing the proverbial forest for the proverbial trees.

Reality and all it's rules are only bound by conscious thought.
Does the world work the same if we do not perceive that it does?

As you quite correctly pointed out, no world exists except the one we perceive NOW. Even to consider that there is any other world, apart from our mental construct, is clearly absurd.
-
Sue

Yombie,

thanks you sapius for the complement. I appreciate the conversation.

Not at all, in fact, I’m kind of so overwhelmed that you cannot imagine. Now that I have read your thoughts, I know for sure that you are quite close to breaking through. Because although you have your convictions, you are yet open to possibilities, and that is because I see humanness in your over all post, and that you readily, logically, accept two different point of views and merge their importance into one. I will point that out below as we go along. If you are interested.

Take my comments just as comments, and think over them carefully. All that makes a person communicate what one has experienced is the simple urge to make ANOTHER experience the wonder of what “HE” has, for another is no more different or incapable of experiencing the same, because essentially, all is but one and the same. If that was all subjective, and nothing could exist without MY subjectivity being around, then who is this ANOTHER? Or why are not other things adhering to my whims and wishes? Why does another mind, if it exists only because of MY subjectivity, is not mine? Or anything that exists, that is not ME or mine?

It is fallacious to thing that Nothing exists without subjectivity, and it is fallacious to think that a Mind is the only consciousness around. I shall try to show you that.

Let us analyze what you have said, and I will show where I agree, and where I don’t, AND also why. (This is going to be a long post, I hope you have the patience. I am not home now, so please allow me the time to post an “interesting” post.)

Are you really game?