Those who are well versed in the various philosophical explorations, terms of art, etc. are asked to summarize the following assessment, using non-lay terms (i.e. talk over my head) so I can follow up with some good research into what is meant by what you say, using sources that have hashed it out already. That way I can be more versed in my own thoughts and shortcuts in articulating them.
“ALL.â€
Life is a perception limitation experience assisting ALL in perceiving relative aspects of it’s self.
ALL would have us perceive as much or as little of what is outside of us, or within us, as we actually do, or see fit to do. Since ALL will be done, it doesn’t matter (to ALL) if we perceive a lot or a little, or if we merely observe, or if we actually participate in life, or at what levels if we do. ALL doesn’t care since ALL is, to a certain extent, circumstance.
We have some choice over how much we perceive, and over our level of participation in what we perceive.
I want to research what you say before following the leads that obviously spring from it (i.e. ethics; conduct; ALL may sound “intelligent†in the above analysis, like a God or something, be it need not be so. I’m not going there for the purposes of this inquiry. In other words, while ALL may not care, we can decide to care or not and that is something I want to address later after I have a handle on the basic definitions/understandings of my type of thinking (above) and what others have said about it. i.e. where does it fit in the major categories (and/or subcategories) of philosophical thought.
If you haven’t read or understood my other shit about “ALL” and “A” = “-A” etc. and want me to flesh out some of the above, just ask.
In short, what kind of philosophy is that (1 through 4)?
“ALL” is time (time is consciousness). Normal conscious awareness is about a third of a second. “ALL” is every second past, the potential of every future second’s, always of the “second” of now. “ALL” is relative, to the degree of awareness -relativities reality - the second. Meditation increases our awareness, and over time also changes our degree of frequencies perspective (-or relativity) from of “second” to of “hour”.
The mind consists of Id, ego, and anima-animus. The ego tends to form (“I” and “want”). "I’ works of value and quality. The Id is identity of world and self - but there is no difference - it is all in mind, we project what we don’t like or repress about our selves onto others!!!. The mind is of a circle - cut in half we have ego and id, and on the other side is either the anima or the animus. This is the collective consciousness/unconsciousness. This will provide feelings, thoughts and beliefs to surface, as if we have no control. This is chaos and is god and is collective, and is repressed.
(- [size=150]“it’s”[/size] self) - you are saying “other” or an imaginary “god” like observer, that you are assuming to be “your” self. By definitiion you are saying there must be a god that obseverves everything for life to exist. As for self - it is “perception limitation experience”, observing life, with a god figure observing all - this is a secret of philosophy - we consider absolute existence, !!by mistake!!
as stated… ask me to clarify, if questions…
second follows second. Some choices are between a rock and a hard place. Meditation, spiritual practice - silently. ALL - our conscious and collective unconscious determines fate, as total chaos. chaos is god. Order is God - we have a relativity of order, or a false or incomplete conception of “order”. Our morals have crucified us, as if we can’t justify killing…???..ill’s of society - this is where we understand collective by understanding tensions as forces.
It comes from my mind. My ego had me making a mistake in assuming that you (and others) may have actually been reading all the stuff I’ve been writing since I arrived. On the other hand, my ego was not so large as to think it was original to me. I assumed it’s all been “done” before by wiser people than me. I wanted leads on those sources. I will check out Hegel.
Regardless:
ALL, for me, is indeed “everything.” However, as I have explained in other threads, I hate the word “thing,” even if it’s attached to “every” or “no” or “some” because of the sense of tangibility that it is saddled with.
I intend ALL to include (I hate that word too because it implies “containment”) nothing, or the absence of things. I used to say “ALL necessarily included the absence of itself†but I found that strayed from my understanding of ALL which means ALL; Not just all things, but the absence of things also, including ALL, and every possible (and impossible) combination of things and not things.
I come to this understanding of ALL because of my struggle with the concept of infinity. Some have tried to limit infinity with the idea of a circle, curves in space, where it is folded back on itself, or the idea of “ever growing/expanding” universes or multiple universes. But all those efforts all fail to adequately explain what I see as infinity because they have boundaries; either special or temporal. In other words, infinity is not all it’s cracked up to be if it’s anything other than ALL, and especially if it can be crunched down into a pre-big bang, or singularity state.
These notions are furthered by my understanding of eternity and the idea that time is really just a measure or lapse from one place to another, or distance. These both come to a screeching halt in a singularity or a pre-big bang state; which in turn gets me to thinking about what I’ve called “ultimate density.†If everything is or can be crunched down into a single spot, even to the point of disappearing, then maybe something and not-something can exist in the same place at the same time (or no time, since there is no distance from one to another thing). This is where I get the “A†= “-A†which, I understand, violates the identity and non-contradiction laws of logic.
But if the laws of physics break down in a singularity, then so too may the laws of logic break down; Unless, of course, you don’t view those laws as having broken down, but, rather, that our understanding of those laws is just limited or flawed, as was Newton’s relative to Einstein, and Einstein relative to those who have made yet further advances (quantum physics, string theory, etc.).
In other words, it’s not that these predecessors were wrong; it’s just that what they understood was not universally applicable or complete. We too may come to understand “A†= “-A†someday, or what happens in a singularity or a pre-big bang state.
This thinking has lead me to distinguish between what we understand now (definitional logic or definitional physics, as we define them now) and what we will come to understand some day in the future (absolute logic and absolute physics). These distinctions can be compared to Plato’s shadows (definitional) and Plato’s forms (the absolute, or ideal). And this concept can be re-viewed again as the difference between “understanding†and “knowing†or “fact†and “intuition†or “brain†and “mind†or “relative†and “absolute†or “subjective†and “objective.â€
If you can’t see the connections here, that is due to my lack of understanding of the terms of art in your discipline (philosophy) and my inability to articulate my case, or, alternatively, it’s due to your immersion so deep in your art that you can’t step outside the box any more and see it like a lay-person such as I. That may be why it seems like idealistic, comic book, scary shit to you. Though I think “science fiction†would be a nicer way to say it. After all, you may be stuck in a definitional, shadow, understood, fact-based, brain that is relative and subjective. Again, though, I confess it could just be me. Beware, though; your advanced knowledge of philosophy could easily be used to make me feel the fool even if I’m not. My first logic prof told me it could be used as a weapon to hurt people, even by those who really don’t know what the hell they are talking about. So, I come humbly asking my initial post in the hopes that I might bring myself up to speed with those who are smarter than I.
In the past, you (and others) have taken me to task for cross-pollinating concepts that might better ought to be exclusive or left in their own “discipline.†But to date, I have failed to see any real reason for the dichotomies. In fact, the further I push the concept of, oh, say, “relativity†from the physics perspective, the more I see how indistinguishable it is from the same word in morals, relativism and other “areas†that might be seen as distinct by a disciplinarian. See also all those comparisons I listed above. For example, if “realism†is a philosophical term of art that means different, or more or less than people who are inclined toward “reality†or the “real world†or, as some would stretch it, a nasty, brutish, short, Machiavellian power deal, then by all means, say as much. But then explain. Don’t just walk off all smug, with a “go look it up, you moron†post.
In any event, back to ultimate density. As a digression, I used to see “angles†wherever I went. When I passed by anything angular, I would envision a line coming off of it, like a thin razor blade cutting through space. A flat table top would radiate outward, for infinity from that top, in all directions from the plane. Likewise, fractions would come off of angles. So, if that same table top had a ninety degree edge, then another line would head up and down, vertically. And off of that junction between the two planes, and at the corner of the table, would come yet another radiation at forty five degrees. I soon realized that if all these angles went on for ever off of every single “flat†thing out there, and especially if all angles continued to be cut in half, then there would be no space, anywhere, save for the fact that these radiating angles were not real and save for the possibility that Earth may be the only place where such geometric forms find abundance, created by man. Then, as distance increased from Earth or other natural sources such as crystals, etc. (just like the expansion of the universe outward in every direction from the big bang), the open spaces between angles would increase.
So, here we are, back at space, which is really nothing more than distance between things, and time, which is really nothing more than a lapse from one thing to another. It seemed to me that really, maybe space and time are not only relative, but maybe they are really only relative perceptions, like my angles. So, we are actually all, right now, in the same place at the same time. But, since ALL must include ALL, it can’t be limited to just a singularity but must also have time and space; hence the limited perception device of life, or the brain, as distinct from the mind.
Imagine that pulsating big bang I know you’ve heard about (but which is in dispute) where the universe explodes in a big bang and moves ever outward, then collapses into nothing again, then explodes again, over and over and over. Well, my idea is that too. It’s no big bang. It’s the pulsating big bang. And it’s the ever expanding big bang. It is ALL. It cannot not be; and yet it must be and not be, and at the same time, in the same place, and not. If it were anything less then it would not, by definition, be ALL. This means there are infinite universes too. And not. All those black holes that fall in on themselves and reach singularity do many things. Some pop out into an alternative universe, others stay crunched at that unfathomably small defiance of logic and physics while other actually, yes, disappear! It’s magic!
So, here we are, as a mere part of ALL.
Our lives are the perception limitation devices that permit ALL to be composed of parts which, but-for the limited perception, would not exist, thus depriving ALL of it’s essence.
You will note my caveat in the post to which you responded about God (or a man in a black coat for that matter) not having to come into the equation. I suppose you could call ALL God which, if you understand what I mean by ALL then yes, it must and must not be God, same place, same time.
But as I said, don’t get distracted by that God stuff, because it’s not necessary to the analysis.
So, there we have ALL. The fact that it runs counter to the identity law and the law of non-contradiction is only of concern to us to the extent that we seek only to function where we are, or, by analogy, we only needed Newton if we wanted to stay and function where he was at. If you are what I (as a lay-person) would call a “realist†then you certainly have no interest in, or use for what I am talking about. But then your only concern might be gravity and apples hitting you on the head. Don’t bother yourself with relativity and time and such nonsense from Einstein, much less quantum stuff or the violation of every law you have come to understand.
If there is no God, then ALL really doesn’t give a shit what we perceive or if we participate in what we perceive, or how much we perceive, or how we participate. That gets into the other, later questions about morals, etc. And I am not there myself, so I just want to hammer out some of this other stuff first.
But, if we have some choice as to what we perceive (we can’t see all the light because our eyes can only do so much, but we can see some light), then maybe we have options we can look at that our understanding prevents us from seeing. I can’t remember the whole thread on light and why it does or does not seem to act as an arbiter of so many things, but I’ll go back and read Skeptic again. Anyway, if light travels at X speed and it’s arriving here all the time from the sun and from much further away, and if the stars we see are actually not any more what we are seeing, because their organic or radiated light was emitted thousands, millions or billions or years ago, then we are seeing the past now. If we could get out in front of the light reflected from our own planet, we could see the dinosaurs and what really happened to JFK. But I’m told we can’t exceed the speed of light to get out in front of it, to look back and see the past. We can only travel forward. Hmm.
However, if everything is really here, now, we should be able to see it if our perception was not limited by our understanding. If we could choose to perceive different light, or if space is bent, or if wormholes exist and if we can look through them (even if we can’t travel through them), then maybe we could look at the light coming from Earth or even somewhere more interesting.
Now, somebody has to be us for ALL to be ALL. But if we have any choice, then maybe we could be somebody else, and another person could then be the “us†that we would otherwise be. That would free us up to move around. The only question is, can we break the law? Or the speed limit. Is there some cosmic cop telling us how fast we can go? And if so, how come we keep going faster? And how come people keep re-writing the laws? Or is just that we don’t really know what the laws are? Maybe there aren’t any.
I don’t even want to start asking about dark matter, anti-matter and all the forms of “energy.â€
But in the end, I DON’T understand the following things, but I think I know them:
“ALL.â€
Life is a perception limitation experience assisting ALL in perceiving relative aspects of it’s self.
ALL would have us perceive as much or as little of what is outside of us, or within us, as we actually do, or see fit to do. Since ALL will be done, it doesn’t matter (to ALL) if we perceive a lot or a little, or if we merely observe, or if we actually participate in life, or at what levels if we do. ALL doesn’t care since ALL is, to a certain extent, circumstance.
We have some choice over how much we perceive, and over our level of participation in what we perceive.
I was just hoping some philosopher either understood this shit better than me, or at least knew it before me. I strongly suspect he or she is out there and has written something more than a comic book about it. I was also hoping it fell into a “section†of philosophy with a name so I could go read some more about it.
Since I have done about the best I can in saying what ALL is, all I can do now is to try and say what it is not: I can’t. No one can. There is nothing (don’t get hung up on the word, the concept or what they represent) that is not accounted for by ALL.
Quite simply ALL is ALL. In other words, when you tried to draw a distinction between what we know or think we know and what exists, ALL covers BOTH of those, and so much more, including what we don’t know or think we don’t know and all that does not exist. It includes subjective and objective realities. Everything is true. All opinions are true. All philosophies are correct.
[i]''Everything is true. All opinions are true. All philosophies are correct.
And not.‘’[/i]
Yes, but they are also neither, as all concepts giving to assertaining or processing information are processes within itself and thusly can only be applicable in context.
True. Everything is true (and not, depending). For instance, when you say “applicable in context” I see that as everything is applicable in context and since all contexts exists then whatever is applicable in them is applicable in them. It’s relative to the context. Somewhere, some place, there are purple elephants with six legs as the norm. And you and I are doing this one second before, one second after, and years, and every possible fraction and combination of hair color in between, and yada yada yada ad infinitem.
"Existence"and “truth” and “logic” and “things” and “everything” and anything less than ALL is simply a relative, subjective piece of ALL.
The only reason “ALL is everything” is bad terminology is because everyone associates “everything” with things. Things don’t include the absence of things. Witness the difficulty people had with the “nothing does not exist” thread. Of course “nothing does not exist.” Just as “thing exists.” So, you have to go beyond things, including the word nothing, and the concept nothing, and get right down to what the word and the concept represent: the absence of things. Words and concepts are things and nothing is less than that.
Well, ALL includes things and the absence of things. It includes everything and nothing in the same place at the same time, like a singularity or a pre-big bang state. But it also includes all states, including spatial states and time states and universes and, well, ALL!
That’s why I don’t like the word “everything”; because in invokes in the mind “things.” ALL covers it all, without the language baggage of things or nothing.
So, whenever I use the word ALL, it is impossible for you or me or anyone to come up with any thing or non-thing or concept or idea or philosophy or whatever that is not covered by it.
How does it work with existence? Well, ALL doesn’t “work with” existence. Existence is just one tiny portion of ALL. Existence, or our Universe as we know it, is just a spatial thing that is relative, as in relativity, and as in limited to our subjective perspective. So the wisest philosophers with the most all-encompasing theories are but pieces of ALL if thier theories are anything less than a theory of ALL.
To the extent ALL works with existence, it is as I said: ALL has existence, or life, or the brain as a perception limitation device designed to allow ALL to have all it’s parts; i.e. and absence of itself as a whole.
“A” = “-A” = ALL, where “A” = ALL.
Once that is understood, we can come back down to Earth and deal with all the shit we think exists in our limited, relative, subjective little “reality” and all the individual philosophies and whatnot. It’s not that they are not valid, it’s just that they are to the whole as Newton was to Einstien as Einstien was to quantum theory as quantum theory is to string theory as string theory is to what we will understand some day that we don’t currently understand. They are all good in thier own right and their own context and for thier own purposes and they will put bread on the table, but they aren’t the whole picture.
Have you ever heard of the alternative universe or dimension theories where there are one or more universes or dimensions right here, right now, but we can’t see or appreciate them any more than a hypothetical two dimensional person could percieve our three or four dimensional world? Well, it’s like that. It’s ALL happening right here, right now, but we can’t percieve it. Only the number of universes and dimensions is not just one, two, three, four or ten. It’s infinite. We can conceive of them, but we just can’t percieve them because we are like the two dimensional flat guy who can’t see outside of his world.
Using lingo doesn’t show intelligence of philosophy. Using critical thinking, common sense, logic, and a bit of imagination is what makes a good philosopher.
Don’t take it personally, Charlie. I don’t retain a lot of what I read, and I surely don’t remember who said what very well. I tend to read posts, and not posters.
I think you are being a bit ambitious here, Charlie. Philosophy is the result of a careful analysis of words, then statements, then theses. So, you have to start by defining a technical term (term of art, as you prefer). There is nothing wrong with using an everyday word as a technical term. I think that is better than making your own word up, most of the time.
ALL need not run counter to the law of identity, however, for this law applies only to particulars. You don’t need one term to take on all of Western science, religion and philosophy. This is what you are doing, in effect - trying to reduce all thought to one omnibus concept. This is philosophy run amok.
I really think you should read some Hegel. Note two things - he did use everyday words in a technical sense, and he employed a peculiar kind of logic in order to expose his view. My point is that technique matters - a point that novices regularly ignore. You need a method - without that, it is very difficult to decipher what you are trying to say.
Again, your definition of ALL seems to require that you take on the entire history of thought. But it’s just a definition. Don’t try to make the deal before the deal. Define your term, and then see where it takes you. There are no shortcuts in philosophy - philosophy is the antitehsis of conceptual shortcutting. Daring us to find something that your one word doesn’t “cover” sounds like just such a shortcut.
Slow down, in other words. You write like you are afraid that if you don’t say it all atonce that someone will find a fatal flaw. This is also common to novices. Someone will find that flaw, or they won’t. Nothing you can do about that.
What I think I see everyone doing (all thinkers through out all time) is starting at the begining and working thier way outward toward an end that keeps moving away, two steps of every step they take toward it.
I’m not trying to say anything about what lies between here and there, rather, I’m just trying to get around out in front of it and work back toward the center.
If you are rounding up cattle, you need to get out in front of them first or they will indeed continue to scatter. My definition of ALL is merely an attempt to get all the independent cowboys to comprehend the whole herd and then work together. Sure, there are always going to be some out-riders.
On a micro level, for another analogy, I see the theory of relativity as some people who worked from the center out, and quantum theory as some folks who tried to run around front and are now working back. Sooner or later, there will be a unified theory of everything. It’s like that, only more.
why is philosophy run amok? I don’t find “ALL” a threat at all. ( pardon the pun ) for ALL is just another word for " Universe " and ALL its implications , which has physical limatations , as well as thinking limitations. it is for us to use Reason to work out what is true and what is not
) leads to all the other qualities .