…and here I thought that you were possibly one person (not the only one of course) in here who did not have that negative kind of Ego.
I am so appalled and disappointed in you, gib.
But IS one’s essence their Self? I thought that it was established that it was not.
I agree with you insofar as that thing not being literally, an object, but something abstract that is difficult to name and difficult to see.
I think of it more as the scent on the rose but I remember having a discussion with someone in here about that scent being an actual thing because of what it consists of/comes from and I can understand that ~~ but still, to me, we can have a sensation of it - that is its constant essence until it is dead.
I guess it all comes down to what one’s perception of a thing entails…solid or ethereal. Can a thing be ethereal and still be called a thing.
I’m like an accordion. Sometimes I’m inflated, other times deflated. Your disappointment deflates me.
One’s essence is what one is. It’s how you define “me”. There’s a subtle difference between how we define a thing, including ourselves, and the actual instantiation of a thing. We can define things that don’t even exist. We have a definition for Santa Clause. We know what Santa is. Thus, we can project an essence of “Santa Clause” without seeing him or believing he exists. Unless we’re able to attribute our understanding of what a thing is to an actually existing thing, the essence is “without a home” so to speak. But if we do attribute it to something that exists, then the thing and its essence become one. The essence makes it into a thing. It becomes the thing’s identity. So we have a concept of ourselves, and by itself it’s just our essence, but because we experience ourselves as existing, we attribute this concept to yourselves and we become our essence.
Sure, the word “thing” doesn’t necessarily connote solid. We say that “government” is a thing–an abstract thing. They key is: can we attribute an essence to it? That’s the same as asking: do we have a concept of it. Concepts are what make things into “things” for us. The human mind seems quite capable of form concepts of abstract things, so I’d say there’s no problem there.
An ice cube is a thing. Heat it up and it turns to water. Heat it up again and it turns to steam. Steam is ethereal. And it is
also a thing because it has physicality. You may say steam cannot be a thing because it is not solid. However solidity is an
illusion because atoms which are the fundamental constituents of every object are only ninety nine per cent empty space
Steam is not ethereal. Ethereal means ghostly, means something there occupying space but poses no resistance to objects moving through it. Usually invisible. It’s like the stuff physicists used to believe in before Einstein’s theories, an ether permeating all space and serving as a “fixed” background for all motion.
Yes, this makes more sense. In fact, I’ll add that the few points at which there is matter in solids (i.e. the particles) are more like waves than tiny billiard balls, making it questionable whether there’s something there at all.
I just can not get my head around it all . . . everybody is making sense in one way or another . . .
I know that we are all trying to talk about the same thing here - the problem I have is that there are many times when I agree with views that differ from each other. So I am just going to throw something in the mix to ponder. Sometimes the views are similar with slight differences and sometimes views are entirely different and all still make sense. I hope that makes some kind of sense. The problem I have with what I just said comes down to contrast.
Now to my main point . . .
So lets say we have the following definitions of slots:
O = Our Origin - Never Changing
B = Our Biological - Ever Changing
C = Our Conscious - Ever Changing
I propose that we each have an origin(O) - a lot like the origin on a graph - except that we don’t need any dimensions for the definition of our origin - it is purely a starting point of sorts. I further posit that each of us has a biological(B) which is easy for us to agree on. And lastly we should be able to agree on each of us having a conscious(C).
Our O is never changing and everything after this point changes so we can say that:
O < B < C
In other words; O leads to B which leads to C ~ because ~ O is less than B which is less than C.
Keep in mind that I am only using the ‘~’ symbol as a separator to make it easier to read.
Where does the essence fit into this logic?
► Is it ~ O or B or C?
► Else ~ Does it fit somewhere between one of these three slots?
► Or else ~ Is it a combination of all three?
Somebody please let me know if this logic is not making sense - I just want to make sure I am on a similar page if not the same page as everybody . . .
I just can not get this essence out of my mind. I was thinking that O(Our Origin) was our essence and is ethereal and eternal - allowing for life after death.
Another way to look at it is that Our Origin is like a Seed to be planted into the Garden Of Life - and therefore our essence - in my mind anyway . . .
I agree with all this with one change that your consciousness has an unchanging aspect of O as well that occurs before it’s placed/born in a physical body/shell so an OC, original consciousness,then the biological consciousness would be the BC, the changing aspect which comes after the O and the OC.
Hey encode, what does it mean to say O is less than B, which is less than C?
I agree that our origin never changes, but that’s a specific case of: the past never changes. That shouldn’t come as a surprise. Change requires time, so if we’re considering something that happens at a single point in time, it can’t change.
Then again, you could consider an event that extends through time–your birth could be said to take several ours, you were hardly born in an instant–and in that case, you would see change. By definition, an event involves change (you wouldn’t call a rock just sitting there for hours an “event”). But it’s still change that’s “fixed” in the sense that it’s in the past, and whatever change it went through, it’s now written in the stone of the past. This seems to be because calling it an “event” means that we’re thinking of it as a whole, not a part that we know will change as more of the event unfolds.
The past (time in general) is an abstraction. Moreover, you could say that the past keeps changing in the sense that more keeps getting added to it. Today, the past does not contain what I will do this evening. Tomorrow it will. Nonetheless, once something becomes part of the past, it ceases to change. The question in my mind is: is the past real?
Sometimes I feel like calling you the gibinator - lol - only because you are so cool man . . . I also figure that you’ll be back.
Let me take a partial response here and make a partial response . . . when I interact with you I find myself having to contemplate often - this is a good thing.
To say that O is less that B is to say that the Origin by itself is less than the Biological; To say that this is less than C is to say that the Origin plus the Biological is less than all three combined. For it to have made perfect logical sense I would have had to write it a different way using other symbols that I consider a little uglier. To get what I meant straight off the bat requires a certain esoteric leap that not everybody can make the first time around. The beauty of many things in life is that they are somewhat exoteric which allows us to communicate - however there is a lot of beauty to be found in the esoteric also . . . often times there is elegance to be found in both the esoteric and exoteric.
What I wrote was delicate in nature so I allowed for the possibility that the hidden logic may or may not have been uncovered by:
In which case I am so glad you asked - interaction allows for clarity.
This is some deep stuff gib, no matter what angle you take. I have an idea that science as well as philosophy are big parts of your life - they are sometimes difficult to reconcile but most times have great synergy with each other. Your explanations are deeply alluring because they are very communicative and quite rigorous.
I could also say that change does not require time - that change requires motion. That time is often manufactured as a requirement to the analytical. We could consider each other both correct and both incorrect; this would only require choice . . . people do have some power over choice . . .
I think there is this other side to many people that can also be communicative yet less rigorous at times and yet it seems to lure us all at least part of the time.
Poetry and metaphor are fine examples of vocal and or textual information containing meaning of a more delicate nature - this allows for interpretation - it also allows for ambiguity - then again it prompts conversation - the same words can speak differently to many people . . .
We can not doubt the value of strict meaning . . .
. . . we also must place value in the less strict where meaning is to be found . . .
. . . it seems to me that we can not escape it . . .
You have used analogies in your examples and I use analogy quite often myself . . .
. . . I think your analogies are better than mine though because they are more expressive . . .
I assure you that I will respond more thoroughly yet concisely in form than what I have this time around . . .
In the meantime I am going to contemplate further the rest of what you have written as well as the writing I have partially responded to already . . . You are welcome to and may respond to this post if you feel the want to . . . I would again value your thoughts on what I have written here and it is likely that what you would write will imaginably enhance my thoughts . . . not trying to inflate your ego here . . . just being honest . . .
My last thoughts here in this post for now - even if they are a little off track - is that poetry along with its, at times, delicate nature, also has the potential to evoke emotion much like music - I recently read a study of brain scans that showed the same area of the brain activated when exposed to music and poetry.
Despite x amount of subtleties in this post . . . I do believe it contains some meaning . . . That it has its own essence too . . . Any thoughts on this?
No rush - these things take time - I think we are all having a busy week. Aside from that I would not put too much thought into it - they are only my crazy thoughts - I can be rational when the time calls for it - I just think we need to look beyond the rational at times - this could be considered my opinion . . .
Anyhow - we are in the Sandbox here - I intend on expressing what I mean in a more understandable format.
I just wanted to touch on the abstract - more difficult to get at stuff - by introducing the stuff that some people feel instead of being able to easily quantify.
Well, if I’ve got you right, the esoteric part would be the special mathematical notation you would use to represent: C depends on B which depends on O. I wonder what symbolism that is.
Any thoughts on your meaning, or on your post having its own essence?
I think yes on both counts. Obviously, it has a mean–you meant something when you wrote it–and you might even say it had its own essence. If we can conceptual “your post,” that constitutes its essence, it gives us something with which to identify it.
It is your will (its’ strength, perseverance, mobility<—can’t think of the word I mean for that one, kind of like water looking for a way to flow around obstacles), the emotions with which you naturally align (harmonize with, excel at), and goodness or badness in action (I may be able to come up with some better descriptor for this last one, the hero, the villian, both), it’s combined into its own form of energy, life-giving, life sustaining energy.
Yes. The soul is an actual body of energy while the spirit is the remnant, the memory, of an individual that is represented in an object or moment in time.
Perhaps it does . . . Could I please get your definition of a soul?
Different to the spirit then?
What are your thoughts?
Judging from your definition of soul, I would have to say yes.
This would mean it would be essential for a person to know what is at the level of their soul before they could go against it for the greater good. I am certain most people have no idea how to do that. It sounds like it would be difficult to go against ones essence . . . I am still learning here - just an FYI.
It would come down to thoughts and actions, going against one’s essence, but who would willingly go against their nature? How would they ever realize something better when it seems unnatural to them? To them , it may feel as if they are living a lie to deny their nature, they would never be convinced 100% to become different, more. That’s why I claim essences are an unchanging, eternal state. If our essence changed with the season’s of a lifetime or lifetimes, how would we continuously recognize ourselves. Who would I be?
Perhaps we, our conscious souls, are placed into human forms to find our essences, thus ourselves in thoughts and actions.
Sorry about the late response. You said to me “Well, if I’ve got you right, the esoteric part would be the special mathematical notation you would use to represent: C depends on B which depends on O. I wonder what symbolism that is.” You do have one side of the equation correct - the other side is more about an unexpressed meaning within the words - a hidden meaning if you will. There is notation that we could use but I think one would be better off inventing a special notation for it that helped to make it clearer.
WendyDarling picked up on what I was meaning - I was guessing she would have before I posted - I also made the contingency for anyone who did not understand clearly what I was saying. I have discovered that one can communicate outside of rationality quite well and still understand perfectly well what the other person is saying when they are doing the same - I have also discovered that emotional communication can give more meaning to some things - in this case it was not really either of those - it was more like my username - I encoded some meaning and WendyDarling was able to decode it - I am guessing there are many other ways to get a point across too.
It really is quite a lot to process since these days we tend to try and remain logical - I think we would lose quite a large part of our history if we let logic do all the talking. O, B and C do indeed build on top of each other - you are correct.
I totally agree with what you are saying here. In the case of spirituality it is a matter of personal choice. I feel that science never offered any logical conclusions on many things - I do love my science but I choose not to rely on it for my spirituality. Other people have helped me with spiritual meaning and hopefully I have helped them too.
When I do my science, I make sure to apply the philosophy to it accordingly - science to me is without spirit.
I was only being figurative that is why I started with “I could also say that change does not require time” note the word “could”. I agree with everything you have said here with the exception of one thing - strangely I find my self almost agreeing however and that is “At the end of the day, I think time and change are synonymous.” and I would have to say, not exactly but close enough is good enough - you are being rational again gib.
On being rational . . .
I know gib - I am sorry if I am a little less strict and rigorous with my words than I should be - I find it difficult to express some things that I do not have tangible evidence for and yet I am still drawn to those things - someone accused me of throwing a wrench in the works - never my intention but often happens with me.
No - lol - I like to compliment somebody if they deserve it. I promise I will not go too far over the top though - and I hope you will forgive me if on the rare occasion that I may go against the grain of that promise. You were the first person here to be openly friendly to me and that I will never forget. You deserve the kind words and I appreciate you not applying too much pressure on me - sometimes I cave in a little with too much pressure - I am only human.
I nearly pissed myself when I read this - I see you still have a great sense of humor - I had a good laugh. Aside from the content I find funny, I totally agree with everything you have written here. Poetry is indeed a good example of a form of communication that conveys both ideas and emotion.
One or two. I think the post has its own essence locked in by time and I think that I have given it some of my own essence as anyone else would in their own posts.
What ever I meant is now lost in the sands of time . . . nah, I am not being totally serious here. I hope it meant something and I hope it has some essence - giving my post something conceptual is perhaps something I might have failed at to a degree - I am sure you will agree however that it is most certainly an encode_decode post.
