What Of Your Essence?

Hey encode,

I’ll respond later when I have some time to think through your post.

gib

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.

:smiley:

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.

WendyDarling

Could I please get your definition of a soul?

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.

Different to the spirit then?

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.

WendyDarling

Ah good - some people believe they are the same thing . . . I need to think about what you have written today.

It seems there are a few missing pieces to the puzzle that have been found.

:-k

WendyDarling

How do we keep the loonies in check?

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.

Am I wrong?

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.

Hi gib

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.

:smiley:

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.

:laughing:

Hey encode,

Let’s see if I can brush off my memories of what we were talking about. :wink:

Well, I think we can get away with ordinary logician’s conditional. If C depends on B and B depends on O, then we’re saying: if C then B, and if B then O… which is: C → B, and B → O. Of course, that doesn’t capture everything you might have wanted to say, does it?

I think we sometimes think of the human brain too much like a computer. We design computers on purpose to be totally logical. We want them to be consistent and accurate. We don’t want them to sometimes make mistakes or come up with their own opinions.

We have to remember that our brains evolved through a process of natural selection, it wasn’t designed on purpose. We get things right and we think rationally only to the extent sufficient to get us by. It’s amazing how often we make leaps of logic and lucky guesses. We infer so much by instinct. For example, I’m preparing a barbecue, I ask a friend: can you go out and get burgers? I don’t need to specify that I mean buy burgers from the grocery store, not kill a cow and gut the meat out of him. How is it that the brain automatically knows the right interpretation? It’s just conditioned to make these leaps, and good thing because usually it gets it right. And you’re right about the emotional readings in the things we say–not to mention tone and special accents that fluctuate in our speech, and inferring meaning based on context, and a whole list of other things. Sometimes this is way more efficient than having to deduce everything logically, for if the chances that we’d get it right with a bit of implicit guesswork are high enough, we could save a lot of time and mental energy that would otherwise be used to do a full logical deduction.

I try not to make my spirituality depend on science or conflict with science. My spirituality essentially says that the physical universe that science studies is a material representation of God’s mind. This allows science to uncover anything, and I’m still able to say: well, that is a representation of something in God’s mind. It doesn’t matter what science discovers, or what we read in our science textbooks. I also don’t speculate much on what particular experiences or thoughts (I should say “thoughts” in quotes) go on in God’s mind, which means I don’t put any demands on how such experiences or thoughts must be physically represented, so again, science could uncover anything.

The only area of science that comes into conflict with my spirituality is quantum mechanics–having to do with non-determinism–but even there, a minor tweak to my theory fixes that.

No need to apologize. I was saying that poetry and metaphor, though requiring a bit more penetrating insight to get, also delivers a bigger punch when it succeeds. Sometimes we need to be strict and rigorous when communicating, but sometimes it’s worth using poetry and metaphor.

Hopefully not the last.

:laughing: Sure, I guess you have to decode your own posts sometimes. That happens to me a lot. I don’t think a person’s words ever lack meaning. Obviously, when we speak, we have something in mind which we’re trying to convey. Sometimes we lose that meaning, we forget or our brains can’t quite capture it as it once could, but it’s very rarely the case that we intentionally decide to utter a bunch of babble.

I guess I “love to be in love,” like Augustine said of himself.

encode_decode,

Loonies?

Are they those who need to be put away for their our safety and our own?

Aside from that, we keep ourselves in check. We regulate our own behavior.

Most of us like to be in love. It’s part of our psyches. We just need to choose carefully who or what that is…whether it is a person or nature or the universe or an algorism.
We need to choose carefully what our passions are.

If the lefties, the loonies, have their way the government will regulate our behaviors down to our very thoughts.

gib,

Name a way in which our origin and our past is capable of changing.

Become an inauthentic being, a liberal leftie, to destroy history and rewrite it, erase our past and the origins of our identities.

Erm, okay Gib…it’s your turn. :evilfun:

Wendy, if that was in response to my post, that is not what I had in mind.

I know, but I’m on a roll with the liberal lefties who are in my sights. If Aaron doesn’t answer your showdown challenge, I’ll defend the aliens (for additional practice).