GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin: People say that something "exists" when they can observe or imagine it. That is where the relativity comes in.

Laird: We can imagine the Totality, therefore by your words above, it exists..

Kevin: No, we can't imagine it. No "image" can be formed of it. How could you form an image of that which has no boundaries? It is not logically possible.

If you don't believe that you can imagine it then how can you even talk about it? What word would you use instead of "imagine" to describe what runs through your mind when you talk of the Totality? "Model" perhaps?

Laird: Are there any other senses in which you think that the existence of the Totality is unique?

Kevin: It is unique in every way because there is nothing even remotely like it.

I was hoping that you'd provide specifics, not generalisations.

Kevin: By sticking a label on the Totality and calling it "causeless", you are treating it like some kind of finite object upon which you can stick things.

Laird: You already stick labels on it - labels like "infinite".

Kevin: That's a misinterpretation of the words.

Please explain how I'm misinterpreting the words.

Kevin: But that's not what it is. It's not an object.

Laird: "Totality" is a term that points to a "block" (poetically speaking of course). A block is an object.

Kevin: But the Totality is nothing whatsoever like a block. A block is a finite thing while the Totality isn't. That makes them entirely different.

So then why did you write, in the "Naturalistic philosophy denies life" thread, this (italics yours):

Since God is everything, by definition, everything is contained in God - not only as individualised items, but also as a single block. That single block includes all time.

Laird: So in some sense (even if only poetic) we can consider the Totality to be an "object".

Kevin: You can only speak about the Totality poetically when you understand what the poetry means. If you don't, then you can't.

I perceive that I am one of those unfortunates who does not understand what the poetry means.

Pray then, enlighten me as to the meaning of the poetry.

Kevin Solway wrote:I explained that the Totality is causelessness itself, so speaking of causeless causelessness shows a lack of understanding of what the Totality is.

It would be like talking about a square square. No sane person would do it.

So, let's see then - it seems that now not only is "Totality" synonymous with "God", but it's also synonymous with "causelessness". So I should be free to translate "causelessness is a paradox of existence" into "Totality is a paradox of existence", right?

Laird: nothingness has no requirements

Kevin: It requires that there's not something.

That's not the sort of requirement that I'm talking about. I would describe that more as a logical entailment. The sort of requirements that I'm talking about are those which generate/sustain the presence of the various entities, properties and processes of somethingness. Since nothingness has no entities, properties and processes, it has none of these sorts of requirements.

Kevin: Clearly, the natural state is whatever is.

Laird: That removes the distinction between "natural" and "artificial". The artificial state is just as much as the natural state is.

Kevin: The artificial is a subset of the natural.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes we make a dichotomy out of the two: "natural sugar" versus an "artificial sweetener". Context is important, and in the context of my assertion that nothingness is more natural than somethingness, it's clear that I intended to create a dichotomy.

Laird wrote:

No, we can't imagine it [the Totality]. No "image" can be formed of it. How could you form an image of that which has no boundaries? It is not logically possible.

If you don't believe that you can imagine it then how can you even talk about it?

It is everywhere around.

What word would you use instead of "imagine" to describe what runs through your mind when you talk of the Totality?

Reality.

That's a misinterpretation of the words.

Please explain how I'm misinterpreting the words.

As I say, you're interpreting the Totality as something finite, with boundaries - something you can package-up.

But the Totality is nothing whatsoever like a block. A block is a finite thing while the Totality isn't. That makes them entirely different.

So then why did you write . . .

Because the purpose of words is to attempt to convey meaning. The more poetic the use of words, the more difficult it can sometimes be to convey the meaning.

Pray then, enlighten me as to the meaning of the poetry.

That's what all my writings are about, including "Poison for the Heart", etc.

I should be free to translate "causelessness is a paradox of existence" into "Totality is a paradox of existence", right?

There's nothing paradoxical about it when you understand it.

Laird: nothingness has no requirements
Kevin: It requires that there's not something.

That's not the sort of requirement that I'm talking about. I would describe that more as a logical entailment.

If there is anywhere "nothingness" there are necessarily causes operating which sustain that nothingness. If there is nothing, there is a reason there is nothing and not something - and that is the cause of it.

Laird wrote:Perhaps, since you're right that I shouldn't indulge in word-bending, I should call this entity "lowercase supreme god", or LSG for short. Other suggestions welcome.

Dog?

Actually, that would suggest a dog. How about Og?

Laird;

"I don't see why one thing's existence (or our awareness of it) should be reliant upon its opposite rather than simply being an absolutely existent or perceived thing".

What you are saying is that a +ve charge could simply be absolutely existent. OK, now what? What do you propose happens next and how? Or is it that nothing happens and nothing is actually happen-ing right now? Or what would a happening require if something was indeed happening?

And when you say, “OUR awareness of IT”, how many things do you visualize there; is “you” and “it” one and the same thing? Either you will have to abandon the English language, or rewrite grammar then I'm afraid.

And it is not necessarily only the “opposite” that a thing may rely upon, but anything other than what IT is, be it IT”S own environmental surroundings since it is limited as an IT and hence could not extend infinitely; whatever that surroundings may be, including nothingness.

“An absolutely existent or perceived thing”, necessarily requires at lease perception to be, and perception and the thing perceived, cannot be one and the same thing. So how do you explain or understand how either one could be absolute on its own?

I do agree that often contrast is useful in forming and fine-tuning our understanding, I'm just not so sure that it's essential.

So you think the contrast between the LSG of Good and LSG of evil is not essential but merely useful? So you do believe that there is no essential difference between good and evil?

I’m sure you are an extremely active mind, so either keep working on it if you want to be sure, or just drop it, which I don’t think you could do even if you tried to, for it will always come pounding back, because of your natural tendency to know and experience more.

There are lowercase gods and there is the uppercase God. All that I'm saying is that the uppercase God might really be more akin to a lowercase god. Perhaps, since you're right that I shouldn't indulge in word-bending, I should call this entity "lowercase supreme god", or LSG for short. Other suggestions welcome.

So since there is no USG, it stands to reason the neither LSGs could destroy or overpower the other completely, hence the LSG of good cannot exercise all of its goodness (read Life), neither can the other all of its evil (read Death), because of not being an USG. And below you imply that one of them (Good aka LIFE) can be IMMORTAL? You think the other guy would allow that?

I'm just suggesting the possibility that the reason that they are universally agreed upon is that there are absolute conceptions of good and evil that our minds are keying in to.

Well, why not? But how I see it as is that MIND itself is an active arbitrator, that is not “keying” into some absolute “concepts”, but is acting out its own nature of evaluating the degree of personal benefits as against mutual benefits. If mind is a highly complex self-reflective electro-magnetic system, then love and hate, good and evil, are active ingredients of its nature, by the mere fact that you must have studied at school, that like charges repel and opposite attract, and what do you think mind is made up of other than such interacting charged particles, that culminate as a centralized control system because of the evolved complexity of an individual brain that supports it, which now can be abstractly thougt over; otherwise “good” and “evil” resided within every molecule or every particle you can think of, and do not need to "key into” some externally absolute conceptions; it is all "within".

Hmm. You write that absolute life (i.e. without a shred of death i.e. immortality?) would necessitate a collapse of existence, but why should that be? Why would immortality cause existence to cease?

Did I? However, since because life and death is the order of the day, immortality cannot be, but simply the cycle itself, if you want to call that "immortality" then fine. Now because both the LSGs keep battling each other and one cannot overpower the other absolutely because they are both absolutely equal in power, otherwise at least one of them has to be an USG, and they are not according to your own theory. So?

What you are talking about is essentially, or say unwittingly is, that Existence is absolutely dualistic in nature, and from that point of view, I cannot help but agree.

What I understood of it, yeah.

I hope this post didn't make it any less interesting. :D

Kevin Solway:

There's nothing paradoxical about it when you understand it.

Since it is not possible to get your mind around Totality, how can you claim to understand it? What if I say I understand what you are saying, every word of it. How can I logically then proceed to think that what you are saying represents Reality or Totality when I concede neither I nor anyone else can fully grasp what Reality and Totality are? Far too much lies outside our experiences to be amenable to our knowledge; perhaps far too much lies beyond a mortal's ability to experience.

That is what I think makes me balk at what you are saying, not that it is inherently inconsistent, although your defense of it makes it seem inconsistent at times.

You must have answered this a million times by now, I would guess. It's almost as if you have found a niche in your mind that represents no paradoxes. Why that niche and not another one?

I think a more honest approach would be to resign yourself to further seeking. You are like an oracle on a medium sized mountain set far enough apart so that no other mountain seems taller from where you sit. And this in the space age.

Kevin: No, we can't imagine it [the Totality]. No "image" can be formed of it. How could you form an image of that which has no boundaries? It is not logically possible.

Laird: If you don't believe that you can imagine it then how can you even talk about it?

Kevin: It is everywhere around.

So you just look around and you see the Totality. And what you see can be imagined, ergo the Totality can be imagined. Your insistence that the Totality cannot be imagined is fallacious. And to say that the Totality "is everywhere around" is to say that it exists, which was the original point of contention.

Laird: What word would you use instead of "imagine" to describe what runs through your mind when you talk of the Totality?

Kevin: Reality.

That's a noun, not a verb - it doesn't work: "Kevin realities the Totality".

Can you come up with a verb that fits?

Laird[reinserted]: You already stick labels on it - labels like "infinite".

Kevin: That's a misinterpretation of the words.

Laird: Please explain how I'm misinterpreting the words.

Kevin: As I say, you're interpreting the Totality as something finite, with boundaries - something you can package-up.

Come on Kevin, that's no answer. I wrote that you already stick labels on it - labels like "infinite", and you replied that "that's" a misinterpretation of the words. Presumably by "the words" you meant "infinite" (and what else?). But what did you mean by "that's"? i.e. what is a misinterpretation of "the words"?

Kevin: But the Totality is nothing whatsoever like a block. A block is a finite thing while the Totality isn't. That makes them entirely different.

Laird: So then why did you write [elsewhere that the Totality is a single block]?

Kevin: Because the purpose of words is to attempt to convey meaning. The more poetic the use of words, the more difficult it can sometimes be to convey the meaning.

I must remember that trick: if I ever contradict myself, I was "just being poetic" the first time.

Clearly there are ways in which the Totality is like a block, or you wouldn't have written it in the first place. Being finite might not be one of them, but being interconnected is.

Laird: Pray then, enlighten me as to the meaning of the poetry.

Kevin: That's what all my writings are about, including "Poison for the Heart", etc.

Could you be any more indirect I wonder?

Please answer directly.

Laird: I should be free to translate "causelessness is a paradox of existence" into "Totality is a paradox of existence", right?

Kevin: There's nothing paradoxical about it when you understand it.

I'm glad that you hold the keys to the universe in your vast and mighty mind. It's comforting to think that somebody does.

But what I really wanted to do was to test that you have no qualms with the words "causelessness" and "Totality" being used interchangeably - such was the basis of you finding fault with me for writing of "a causeless Totality". Come on Kevin, don't descend into these depths of pettiness. Let's look at what's going on here. The orginal series of quotes was:

Kevin: But as for a causeless creator-alien "God" - that is simply impossible.

Laird: And yet you're perfectly happy to advocate a causeless Totality...

Kevin: "Causeless Totality" is a mistaken conception because the Totality is causelessness itself.

Do you see that you might be accused of the very thing that you accused me of? I might equally say to you that "'causeless creator-alien "God"' is a mistaken conception because God is causelessness itself."

I simply echoed your phrasing to show you the contradiction in your thoughts. So the first thing that's going on is that you're being a bit petty and a bit of a hypocrite.

More relevant though is that you failed to address the substance of my point and chose instead to pick this petty fault with me, which smacks of evasion. So let me ask you directly: do you accept that the causelessness of the Totality is no less "impossible" than the causelessness of a creator God?

Kevin Solway wrote:If there is anywhere "nothingness"

I'm not talking about there being nothingness somewhere, I'm talking about nothingness being all that there is - or rather, all that there isn't.

Kevin Solway wrote:there are necessarily causes operating which sustain that nothingness. If there is nothing, there is a reason there is nothing and not something - and that is the cause of it.

No, no - causes are a something. If there are causes then there is by definition not a nothingness.

Laird wrote:

So you just look around and you see the Totality. And what you see can be imagined, ergo the Totality can be imagined. Your insistence that the Totality cannot be imagined is fallacious. And to say that the Totality "is everywhere around" is to say that it exists, which was the original point of contention.

See, Kevin, I think this is what I'm trying to point out.

Your very logic leads you right to its own navel: you must conclude that Reality cannot exist. We are a subset thereof; we think, therefore, we exist. If we do not, then our thoughts also do not, and all philosophy is moot. If any philosophy whatsover can be not moot, then we do in fact exist. (Even the validity of a single concept, such as moot vs. not moot, indicates that we exist.) How can a set that exists be a subset of one that does not exist? The nonexistence of the set of all things that exist shows the logical limit of logic.

I suggest to you that Reality in fact has multiple levels, seven of them. Each level has seven sublevels, and each sublevel seven seven sub-sublevels, and so on. Logic is the property of one of the levels, and can speak to levels beneath it it the hierarchy, but is not applicable on its own or higher levels. Logic applied to its own level ultimately leads to its "navel."

This fact stems from the triune nature of the Godhead, reality being a manifestation of each of its members taken singly or in combination with the others. N things taken in combination can be done so in 2^n ways. Here n=3, so 2^3 = 8. The combinations include the null set, which we disallow since reality cannot itself be empty. 8 - 1 = 7.

There are seven levels to the Linnean system of classification, seven notes to the diatonic scale, seven levels to the ISO model, seven rows to the periodic table of the elements, etc.

I submit the very structure of the world as we see it around us, if not its gross structure then the nature of the structures we use to analyze it, lie on the "God must exist" side of the preponderance scale.

Laird wrote:So you just look around and you see the Totality. And what you see can be imagined

No, you can't imagine something that has no boundaries.

And to say that the Totality "is everywhere around" is to say that it exists

Not if you define "exists" to mean having a boundary.

Can you come up with a verb that fits?

You could say that you experience Reality (the Totality/God). But it doesn't matter what words you use, because if a person doesn't understand the Totality then any words they use to describe it will be wrong.

There's nothing paradoxical about it when you understand it.

I'm glad that you hold the keys to the universe in your vast and mighty mind. It's comforting to think that somebody does.

It's simply not possible to conceive the Totality as being paradoxical, once you understand what it is.

I might equally say to you that "'causeless creator-alien "God"' is a mistaken conception because God is causelessness itself."

In that case God would be identical with the Totality, and would not be an intelligent alien creator being.

Personally I hold the Totality to be the real God, and all others are fantasies.

do you accept that the causelessness of the Totality is no less "impossible" than the causelessness of a creator God?

The first has no boundaries, while the second one does, so can you see how different the two are? That which has boundaries, such as an intelligent alien creator God, must necessarily be caused. And that which has no boundaries necessarily cannot be caused.

Kevin Solway wrote:If there is nothing, there is a reason there is nothing and not something - and that is the cause of it.

No, no - causes are a something. If there are causes then there is by definition not a nothingness.

Why are you even talking about the concept of nothingness, since we know for certain that it is a falsity? We know there is something now, and therefore we know for certain that there can never have been this nothingness of which you speak. If there ever was such a nothingness then there would not be something now.

brokenhead wrote:Your very logic leads you right to its own navel: you must conclude that Reality cannot exist.

Since I define that which exists to have have a boundary, it follows that "Reality" (the Totality) cannot be said to exist - since it has no boundary. It just "is".

We are a subset thereof; we think, therefore, we exist.

We exist, yes. We exist because we have boundaries.

Kevin Solway:

Since I define that which exists to have have a boundary, it follows that "Reality" (the Totality) cannot be said to exist - since it has no boundary. It just "is".

What is the difference between the two terms: is and "is"?

I think I am having a problem, then, with your definition. You define that which exists to have a boundary. Where do you get that?

brokenhead wrote:What is the difference between the two terms: is and "is"?

Different context. It is normal for words to have different meanings in different contexts.

You define that which exists to have a boundary. Where do you get that?

That's the way the term is normally used. Things are said to "exist" if we can observe or imagine them.

Sapius wrote:It seems the word ‘Totality’ is being employed in an empirical sense (space/time, as in “looking” around, or even sensing IT), while pretending it is purely a logical truth.

Once the word "Totality" is defined to be "all things" it then follows as a logical truth that all empirical things are part of the Totality.

Totality would necessarily be bound by if nothing else then by its definition

This is the same as saying that a thing is bound by logic.

It is not a real limitation of a thing that it conforms to logic.

Totality, it has a definitional boundary, and hence "exists".

There is nothing other than the Totality, and in that sense it doesn't exist (it neither exists and nor does it not exist).

[Sorry, Sapius, I accidentally messed-up your original post]

There is nothing other than the Totality, and in that sense it doesn't exist (it neither exists and nor does it not exist).

If there is nothing other than the Totality, then everything must be a part of it. How can there be a coherent sense in which a thing that exists is a part of something that does not? More: every single thing which makes up the Totality exists, yet the Totality itself does not?

What you insist on doing is to keep pointing to the limits of your own philosophy.

brokenhead wrote:

There is nothing other than the Totality, and in that sense it doesn't exist (it neither exists and nor does it not exist).

If there is nothing other than the Totality, then everything must be a part of it. How can there be a coherent sense in which a thing that exists is a part of something that does not? More: every single thing which makes up the Totality exists, yet the Totality itself does not?

As I said above, it neither exists and nor does it not exist. Since it is not a "thing" (with boundaries), it cannot be said to either exist or not exist.

Things within the Totality are said to exist because they have boundaries, but their essence (spirit) is the same as the Totality.

Kevin Solway wrote:[Sorry, Sapius, I accidentally messed-up your original post]

No problems, but you do realize that this has happened more than a couple of times. I think you should stay away from using the Administrator login unless necessary. The problem is, without the original post, bits and pieces taken from there may seem out of context, and I think you know how important contexts are. However…

K: Once the word "Totality" is defined to be "all things" it then follows as a logical truth that all empirical things are part of the Totality.

But you don’t really mean that, do you? I mean you don’t really mean anything by your definition, because your definition (All things) remain, but just the word “Totality” goes out of existence, as and when and how you say so, or lets say that the word itself - neither does IT exist nor does IT not exist, because what ever you claim ABOUT the “Totality”, that doesn’t make an ounce of difference to ‘All or even a single thing’ that there is; does it? So I think you know what you can do with it… absolutely nothing :D

(My original post was addressed to you, Laird, and some points that supported your case, and I also wanted to say that as of tomorrow, I will not be around for 2~3 weeks.)

Kevin: That's the way the term is normally used. Things are said to "exist" if we can observe or imagine them.

(I had responded to this showing the this supports the above argument, but since the context is lost…. I don’t remember how it coherently went… so I will ask this question instead..)

By what means or a criterion does something imagined “exists”? And please don’t say ‘if you can imagine it, it “exists”’?

Kevin: It [the universe] doesn't "exist" so the question of how it exists is a false problem.

Laird: I really can't understand how you can make such an assertion - it's quite ridiculous.

K: On the contrary, it's ridiculous to suggest that it does exist. If it exists, it exists relative to what, exactly? Can you now see why the notion of its existence is ridiculous?

L: Therefore "everything" does not exist. Plainly, however, it does.

K: Plainly it does not. It exists relative to what?

Relative to every or any thing at all, you care to think or imagine.

K: There is nothing other than the Totality, and in that sense it doesn't exist (it neither exists and nor does it not exist).

K: As I said above, it neither exists and nor does it not exist. Since it is not a "thing" (with boundaries), it cannot be said to either exist or not exist.

Nothing in particular about these quotes, but I was just observing at how ‘doesn’t “exist”’ from the very first quote a few pages back, went on to (it is neither this nor that) in brackets, and then finally out of it, with ‘it does not “exit”’ out of the picture, at least for now.

Kevin writes:

Things within the Totality are said to exist because they have boundaries, but their essence (spirit) is the same as the Totality.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the second part of this statement, but it is intriguing.

I find myself at odds with a philosophy that can make a statement as to the existence of anything, yet can make no statement as to the existence of everything. Either the notion of Totality, the notion of existence, or the notion of boundary you employ has to give, has to change, to incorporate the patent existence of Reality.

What do you make of cosmologists' assertion the the Universe is expanding? Note that they do not say it is expanding into anything, such as "empty" space. Rather, the extent of space itself is expanding, and at a measurable rate. This - and their belief that they can estimate the Universe's diameter - suggests a "boundary" of some sort, does it not?

I think the QRS philosophy admits of no further possible growth. I find it highly unlikely that when you consider the ages that have passed and the ages to come, we happen to live at a time when all that can be said of existence is now being said. This just rings false.

On the other hand, a philosophy which recognizes the evolutionary character of the human intellect and the world it occupies, seems to accord more with the facts. The mortal coil is still unfurling; it appears to be unfurling into something; vicissitudes of human life notwithstanding, the mortal coil appears to fit its home. It's like we are in school. When we are ready, we are permitted to advance.

Dave,

Dave Toast wrote:Laird wrote:Perhaps, since you're right that I shouldn't indulge in word-bending, I should call this entity "lowercase supreme god", or LSG for short. Other suggestions welcome.

Dog?

Actually, that would suggest a dog. How about Og?

Hmm, it sounds a little like the name that caveman Ug would give to his God. Perhaps we could try for something a little more flattering. I admit that "LSG" sounds something like a mix between a food additive and a mind-enhancing drug, so it's probably not a final solution, but I'm not convinced that we should switch to "Og".

Sapius,

Sapius wrote:What you are saying is that a +ve charge could simply be absolutely existent. OK, now what? What do you propose happens next and how? Or is it that nothing happens and nothing is actually happen-ing right now? Or what would a happening require if something was indeed happening?

I think that I see what you're getting at. Let me hazard a guess and please tell me if this is what you mean. This much I would say myself: one of the fundamental characteristics of the universe is change; change necessitates differences as one thing becomes another. Now it seems that you go further and say also that not only are differences necessary for change to function, but opposites and contrasts are necessary as well. Perhaps you would also say (as Jamesh frequently propounds on) that change functions through the dynamic interaction of opposites. Is that being fair to you?

Sapius wrote:And when you say, “OUR awareness of IT”, how many things do you visualize there; is “you” and “it” one and the same thing? Either you will have to abandon the English language, or rewrite grammar then I'm afraid.

I'm not saying that there are no differences, I'm just saying that I don't think that opposites are necessary to sustain each other. But perhaps you are right after all that, even if it isn't necessary, the interaction of opposites is the way that the universe works. I'm open to that possibility.

Sapius wrote:And it is not necessarily only the “opposite” that a thing may rely upon, but anything other than what IT is, be it IT”S own environmental surroundings since it is limited as an IT and hence could not extend infinitely; whatever that surroundings may be, including nothingness.

Ah, so you agree with me that opposites aren't necessary?

Sapius wrote:“An absolutely existent or perceived thing”, necessarily requires at lease perception to be, and perception and the thing perceived, cannot be one and the same thing. So how do you explain or understand how either one could be absolute on its own?

I disagree that "perception and the thing perceived, cannot be one and the same thing".

Sapius wrote:So you think the contrast between the LSG of Good and LSG of evil is not essential but merely useful? So you do believe that there is no essential difference between good and evil?

Oh, it depends on what you mean by "essential" there. If we posit that good and evil exist, then the difference between them is essential - it's part of what defines them. But IMO it's not necessary that the world be constructed in terms of good and evil so in that sense good and evil are not "essential" and so therefore neither is the difference between them.

Sapius wrote:I’m sure you are an extremely active mind, so either keep working on it if you want to be sure, or just drop it, which I don’t think you could do even if you tried to, for it will always come pounding back, because of your natural tendency to know and experience more.

Yeah, I can't help trying to understand, even though I sometimes immerse myself in distractions and pleasures - enjoying myself is as high a priority as understanding, perhaps even more so.

Sapius wrote:So since there is no USG, it stands to reason the neither LSGs could destroy or overpower the other completely

I'm not so sure that that's true. The very possibility that one of them might ultimately triumph might be what keeps them fighting and what maintains the balance between them.

Sapius wrote:hence the LSG of good cannot exercise all of its goodness (read Life), neither can the other all of its evil (read Death), because of not being an USG. And below you imply that one of them (Good aka LIFE) can be IMMORTAL? You think the other guy would allow that?

In the scenario that I'm positing, both of them are IMMORTAL in the sense that death (permanent loss of consciousness and feeling) is not an option, it's just that the amount of power that each one has varies depending on its (His) ascendency in the eternal battle.

Laird: I'm just suggesting the possibility that the reason that they are universally agreed upon is that there are absolute conceptions of good and evil that our minds are keying in to.

Sapius: Well, why not? But how I see it as is that MIND itself is an active arbitrator, that is not “keying” into some absolute “concepts”, but is acting out its own nature of evaluating the degree of personal benefits as against mutual benefits. If mind is a highly complex self-reflective electro-magnetic system, then love and hate, good and evil, are active ingredients of its nature, by the mere fact that you must have studied at school, that like charges repel and opposite attract, and what do you think mind is made up of other than such interacting charged particles, that culminate as a centralized control system because of the evolved complexity of an individual brain that supports it, which now can be abstractly thougt over; otherwise “good” and “evil” resided within every molecule or every particle you can think of, and do not need to "key into” some externally absolute conceptions; it is all "within".

First you say "why not" and then you argue against it. So shall I take it that you believe that what I suggest is "possible, although unlikely"?

What you are talking about is essentially, or say unwittingly is, that Existence is absolutely dualistic in nature, and from that point of view, I cannot help but agree.

I suppose that good and evil are dualistic concepts, so I suppose that I am saying "unwittingly" that Existence is in at least some sense dualistic, but I don't think that it necessarily is in all senses.

Sapius wrote:: I hope this post didn't make it any less interesting. :D

No, although I think that we're starting to repeat ourselves to one another. At some point you're going to get sick of me and say "Damn it Laird, when are you going to see things like I do??" :-P

Sapius wrote:I also wanted to say that as of tomorrow, I will not be around for 2~3 weeks.

Good luck with your endeavours whilst you are away and I look forward to hopefully resuming our discussion when you return.

Laird wrote:Perhaps, since you're right that I shouldn't indulge in word-bending, I should call this entity "lowercase supreme god", or LSG for short. Other suggestions welcome.

DT: Dog?

Actually, that would suggest a dog. How about Og?

Laird: Hmm, it sounds a little like the name that caveman Ug would give to his God. Perhaps we could try for something a little more flattering.

That was the point though mate. Dog was meant to be derogatory/backwards and when Og occured it seemed even more appropriate in that caveman kind of way.

I know LSG is capitalized because it's a an acronym but, what with the whole proper God being capitalized and the distinction you're making, lowercase 'g' seems apt: LSg. And then, being as it cannot be supreme by definition due to its lack of omnipotence, the 'S' has to go completely really (unless it stands for superior, which would better explain its nature). From Lg, it's not so far to Og.

Og is no God at all really. Og is just a powerful consciousness, subject to the same conditions a squirrel is. Even though Og might be able to more skillfully manipulate those conditions with Og's superior knowledge, Og is only superior to me and you in the same way that we're superior to squirrels.

Lsg - Lowercase superior god. Og for short.

Laird: So you just look around and you see the Totality. And what you see can be imagined

Kevin: No, you can't imagine something that has no boundaries.

Of course you can! Imagination isn't about forming an exact "image" of the imagined entity. When you imagine someone's face do you imagine every freckle, every wrinkle? Or do you rather omit details and form a bigger picture?

We can omit details when we imagine, and we can also form an even more abstract conceptualisation. So it is when we imagine the Totality - we abstract it. We also don't have to imagine it in its entirety - as I wrote above, if we can see the Totality all around us, then we can imagine those parts of it that are around us.

Laird: And to say that the Totality "is everywhere around" is to say that it exists

Kevin: Not if you define "exists" to mean having a boundary.

Nor if I define "exists" to mean "sits on a treestump playing bongos". Unfortunately for both of us, neither are accepted definitions of "exists".

But go on then, construct your new definitions. It's up to you though to prove that they're more suitable than accepted definitions. And when a definition leads to a conclusion such as "every thing exists but everything does not" then I conclude myself that it's pretty unsuitable, as brokenhead has already pointed out.

Laird: Can you come up with a verb that fits?

Kevin: You could say that you experience Reality (the Totality/God).

That doesn't capture the process of conceptualisation that you go through when talking about the Totality. So OK, how about the word "conceptualise"? "Kevin conceptualises the Totality".

Kevin Solway wrote:It's simply not possible to conceive the Totality as being paradoxical, once you understand what it is.

Here is the paradox: "every thing is caused, but everything is not".

Laird: I might equally say to you that "'causeless creator-alien "God"' is a mistaken conception because God is causelessness itself."

Kevin: In that case God would be identical with the Totality, and would not be an intelligent alien creator being.

Firstly, please drop the adjective "alien". There is a definite distinction between an alien and a God and throwing that word in there is disrespectful because it muddies the waters. If you want people to respect your conception of the Totality, then when talking about the Christian God, you should respect the traditional conception. That conception holds that God is a causeless creator. He creates aliens, He is not an alien Himself. Just as you hold that the Totality is causeless, so the traditional conception of God is as a causeless entity, so: no, in that case God need not be identical with the Totality.

Kevin Solway wrote:Personally I hold the Totality to be the real God, and all others are fantasies.

Heh, and I get criticised for bending the meaning of the word "God" (not by you Kev, and I appreciate that).

Laird: do you accept that the causelessness of the Totality is no less "impossible" than the causelessness of a creator God?

Kevin: The first has no boundaries, while the second one does

Not according to what I understand of theology. I understand that God is often (always?) conceived of as infinite, unlimited and hence unbounded.

Kevin Solway wrote:And that which has no boundaries necessarily cannot be caused.

I disagree that by your model the Totality is totally unbounded anyway. You describe it as being infinite in all spatial and temporal directions. OK, so that's a form of unboundedness. But you also describe it as deterministic: in that sense you have compared it to a "block". So in that sense it has a "shape" - being the fixed (albeit infinite) pattern of events of which it is comprised, and in the sense that a shape has a boundary, so does the Totality have a boundary.

You deny that it's possible to question the causes of the Totality being that it contains all causes, but we might reasonably ask: why does the "block" of the Totality have the "fixed shape" that it does, and not some other shape?

Kevin Solway wrote:Why are you even talking about the concept of nothingness

I thought that that was clear: because I'm asserting that it is the natural state and that the fact that there is instead a somethingness therefore requires explanation and is indeed even paradoxical given that "f there ever was such a nothingness then there would not be something now", and yet there is something now.

Laird wrote:And when a definition leads to a conclusion such as "every thing exists but everything does not" then I conclude myself that it's pretty unsuitable, as brokenhead has already pointed out.

Not with you here. Can you see the difference between the existence of a number of crows gathered together and the existence of the murder part of a murder of crows? Between the existence of the elements of a set and the existence of the set itself?

Actually, it should be Slg as opposed to Lsg being as it's a lowercase god as opposed to a lowercase superior.

So, what with the whole God-good and Devil-evil thing, Slg would have to end up as Slag or Slug.

I like Og better though.

Dave,

Dave Toast wrote:Dog was meant to be derogatory/backwards and when Og occured it seemed even more appropriate in that caveman kind of way.

I'm trying to work out why you're being derogatory. If this God did exist, then He would be the one thing saving you from eternal torment, and furthermore He would be the paragon of virtue, and therefore deserving of ultimate respect. So I don't think that you would disrespect Him in that case. Clearly then, you do not believe that He exists. I can then think of two reasons why you might want to be derogatory.

The first is that you think that the ideas of Christianity are ridiculous and possibly even dangerous and you think that my twist on them somehow adds legitimacy to the religion when you think that I would be better engaged in trying to delegitimise and destroy it.

The second is similar but a little different. Perhaps you simply think that manichaeanism is on its own merits ridiculous, perhaps because you think that it doesn't fit with your experience of the world.

Am I anywhere close?

Dave Toast wrote:Og is no God at all really. Og is just a powerful consciousness, subject to the same conditions a squirrel is.

Well He's a God in the sense that He's an ultimate: there is none greater than Him. And who knows what kind of magic (i.e. as-yet inexplicable to you and I) He might partake of that frees Him from the same conditions as a squirrel? I'm loath to presume that what we can currently conceptualise of cause-and-effect is the complete story.

You know what? I'm going to stick with "God", but I'm going to stick an underscore before and after to make it clear that I'm talking about my proposed conception of God and not the traditional Christian one. If pantheists can have their version of God, and if Kevin can have his, and if Hindus can have theirs, then surely I'm permitted to propose my own version? So _God_ it is.

Laird: And when a definition leads to a conclusion such as "every thing exists but everything does not" then I conclude myself that it's pretty unsuitable, as brokenhead has already pointed out.

Dave: Not with you here.

Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Dave Toast wrote:Can you see the difference between the existence of a number of crows gathered together and the existence of the murder part of a murder of crows? Between the existence of the elements of a set and the existence of the set itself?

Sure I can, but if an element of the set exists then how can we say that the set itself, which contains that existing element, does not exist? If one of the crows exists then how can we say that the flock of crows doesn't exist? I mean, sure, if we define "exists" in the way that Kevin wants to, then we can for the Totality (so he claims, although see one of my recent posts for my opinion that in fact the Totality is in some sense bounded, and hence must exist even according to his definition), but it doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think it makes our language any clearer and it certainly makes it less flexible.

We would also need a new word to cover the great range that the current definition of "exists" covers, unless we switched to using "is", which is an inferior substitute in many cases. Edit: and what about "exist" i.e. without the trailing "s"? There is no straightforward substitute. "Do concepts exist?" would have to be replaced with something clumsy like "Are concepts?", which would unfortunately lead to the obvious rejoinder: "Are concepts what?" Second edit: Nevermind about this paragraph, I wasn't thinking clearly. The only that time we need a new word is for the way in which the Totality "exists". But since Kevin has already allowed that we can speak of the Totality "existing" "as a figure of speech", we don't need a new word after all.

brokenhead wrote:I find myself at odds with a philosophy that can make a statement as to the existence of anything, yet can make no statement as to the existence of everything.

It does make a statement about the existence of the All - namely, that it can neither exist nor not exist. This is a logical necessity.

Either the notion of Totality, the notion of existence, or the notion of boundary you employ has to give, has to change, to incorporate the patent existence of Reality.

That which has no boundary (the Totality) cannot be thought of as changing.

What do you make of cosmologists' assertion the the Universe is expanding?

They don't speak of the Universe expanding (with a capital "U"). They speak of our universe as expanding. There may be an infinite number of such universes.

I think the QRS philosophy admits of no further possible growth.

Growth of what?

The Totality can't be thought of as either growing or not growing (since it has no boundary).

I find it highly unlikely that when you consider the ages that have passed and the ages to come, we happen to live at a time when all that can be said of existence is now being said. This just rings false.

Since the beginning of time, all wise men have known the absolute truth of existence.