Who- why- where are we ?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by attofishpi »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
attofishpi wrote:
Yes. I have had 20yrs of direct interaction with this 'God' - i have knowledge of its existence through experience.
You have every right to believe so, as anyone else has the right to believe he/she has experienced archangel Gabriel, Fatima Virgin, almighty Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, etc. The question is: are those beliefs related to something real?
Hang on - whats this 'belief'. If you said you saw a round football today, and i said no you only believed you did - would you only believe me, or would you remain steadfast in the knowledge that you saw a round football.
And remember - im not talking of one instance of interaction with God - 20yrs of almost daily experience.
Sure call it Thor Zeus whatever you want, i cannot deny i was not given its name, but i do know that if i call Christ a fucking bitch - i get told "you have crossed the line" and for want of a better description, chaos breaks out, beginning with the words "You bit."
Conde Lucanor wrote:
attofishpi wrote:Experience trumps any analytic philosophical twaddle that you think you can muster - there is NO such philosophical argument that can prove the non-existence of God.
There are indeed philosophical arguments to prove the non-existence of a particular god said to have will and thought, and being all powerful and all knowing. The most obvious one: all powerful and all knowing contradict each other and restrict any possible will and thought.
Dependant on definitions of 'all knowing' 'all powerful'. Again, experience trumps philosophical meanderings.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
attofishpi wrote:We never even defined 'God' and you continued to insist that for it to be God - it must have both omnipotence and omniscience.
No, that's just how a particular god is portrayed and defined in the theology of monotheistic religions.
I'm interested in Christianity - can you cite your examples? (Obviously from the buy bull - even though i dont buy bull)
Conde Lucanor wrote:It's obvious that a different conception of god will belong to any other religion not related to Christianity, Judaism, or Islamism. I'm not in the business of proving that Zeus does not exist. If your god is Zeus, well, go along with that. I don't think he is portrayed as omniscient and omnipotent. But if your god, whatever it is, pretends to be omniscient and omnipotent like the Christian god, you're in for trouble.
As i said - i know God gets pissed off if i call Christ nasty expletives and i know i was made aware by the God that had me incarnated into a very barely religious Catholic family. So yes i am Christian. Does that mean i have to believe "let there be light" and "there was light".
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Londoner »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
As you can see, you inevitably use time dimensions to describe properties of an object. You use the word "simultaneously", which conveys time and a relative position of the object in it. The being of an object is inevitably displayed in a sequence of time, otherwise things would be eternally static and nothing would ever change. We know that is not what actually happens and we define the previous states of objects as the past and their potential states as the future.
I use the word 'simultaneous' and others that refer to subjective time in order to point out they embody contradictions. You are still using phrases like 'displayed in a sequence of time' which you will surely agree are figurative, it again hangs on this image of time being a sort of conveyor belt, with objects sitting on it, whereas the past and the future do not have any being at all.

Regarding 'objects' changing, I refer you to my previous post. The earliest philosophers said the world could be described as being entirely in a state of constant flux, but also of not changing at all. It would be the same world; the only difference is how we choose to describe it.
That is truly absurd. Were you born just exactly as you are now? Is it a completely different being the "Londoner" that grows hair and nails? How about the one that just blinked and the one that will blink in a second? Are they all different beings?
In one sense I am a different object to the new born baby, in another sense I am the same object. Which sense you take will depend on which of my characteristics you want to give the label 'Londoner' to, and that is your choice, it depends on what you want to do and what you want to communicate.

I am not a 'different being' to the Londoner of a second ago, that would suggest that there two Londoners, indeed that there was an infinite number of past Londoners and one present Londoner. But there is only one, this one. You might remember an earlier Londoner, or create a cause-effect type explanation for the present Londoner, but they are only ideas in your head; your memory is not like a perception of some shadow world in which previous states of Londoner still persist.
So you would agree that what counts as 'god' is a social construction, an idea, too. The real question is: do any of our ideas represent objects that have objective existence, that is, objects that are real?
To know that then we would have to know what we meant by 'real'. But if we defined what we counted as 'real' then we would just create a tautology. For a crude example, suppose we said ' things that can be seen are real'. Then, if asked 'how do you know that is real?' we would reply 'because we can see it'. 'How do you know what you see is real?' 'Because things that can be seen are real'.
What you are saying implies that humans can never even know about god. How would they know if it belongs to another dimension that is not part of the universe, but outside of it (according to you) and where not even logic can dwell, because it can't have any meaning. It's not that it's hard to know, but that it's impossible to know. Therefore you couldn't be here talking about that god you say you know.
I never said I 'know' God. There is always a tendency to assume that if anyone who finds faults with anti-theistic arguments it must be because they are a theist. I am simply pointing to what I think are problems with this particular anti-theistic argument.

I think humans can be (and are) aware that the way they normally understand the universe; using time, extension, cause-and-effect etc. is not necessarily correct. But it does not follow that they can necessarily understand it in any other way, so indeed God is impossible to know using those normal mental tools - as I think many theists would agree. Usually their knowledge of God is drawn from other things, like personal revelation or scripture. You might well want to question that, but it would be a different subject to the one we are discussing here, i.e. God's relation with time etc.
Note that you are the one referring to god as having a physical location ("outside a system"), so you are treating it as a physical object....Isn't that what you do with the word god? You take the word universe and then expand it and call it god. Meaningless indeed.


I was using your terms; I was trying to show how they wouldn't work with God.
No. Infinity means "without ends" (from latin finire, which means to finalize), without limits, borders, frontiers. There is no outside to infinity, because it would imply an end, a border, after which we would find the thing that is outside.
If something has no ends, no borders, then not only can nothing be outside it, but nothing can be inside it either. That is because whatever 'thing' we said was inside it, would be limited to the total quantity of that thing. And if that thing had a total quantity, then it would be finite.

For example, 'an infinity of monkeys' would only make sense if there were some things that were not-monkeys. But then, if those things that were not-monkeys were monkeys, then the 'infinity of monkeys' could be even bigger. So by having named any subject we have contradicted the 'infinity' bit. As I say, the same applies to number. If 'infinity' contained any given amount of numbers then there would be the possibility of one more number...

I'm afraid I will have to leave it there for a while as I am off on holiday. But thanks for the exchange!
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

attofishpi wrote: Hang on - whats this 'belief'. If you said you saw a round football today, and i said no you only believed you did - would you only believe me, or would you remain steadfast in the knowledge that you saw a round football.
If I kept it to myself, then it will not be an issue. But if I say it to you, there's an obvious intention to communicate something I want you to believe too. It becomes a different problem than just believing it myself. I might want you to get convinced that my belief is not an illusion, but a representation of a real event or an existing thing. In that case, I will have to provide evidence that the event really happened or that the thing really exists, if that's what I want to prove. But again, I might not care about anyone believing that my own beliefs are not an illusion, in which case I wouldn't even bother talking about it.
attofishpi wrote: And remember - im not talking of one instance of interaction with God - 20yrs of almost daily experience.
Sure call it Thor Zeus whatever you want, i cannot deny i was not given its name, but i do know that if i call Christ a fucking bitch - i get told "you have crossed the line" and for want of a better description, chaos breaks out, beginning with the words "You bit."
People all over the world and in all times have claimed that they have experienced things. An enormous amount of those claims have been shown to be false or wrong. Claiming that they have experienced them is not enough, is just a statement that could be either true or false. And to be accepted as truth there are some requirements that must be met, either by inductive or deductive reasoning.
attofishpi wrote:We never even defined 'God' and you continued to insist that for it to be God - it must have both omnipotence and omniscience.
I'm interested in Christianity - can you cite your examples? (Obviously from the buy bull - even though i dont buy bull)
There are plenty of sources of Christian theology. You can look it up in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, but I guess a good direct source will be the official, 255 infallibly declared dogmas of the Catholic faith. These are not just opinions, but declared in councils as official dogmas, which are not to be questioned (unless be declared an heretic or apostate). Among those dogmas we find:
14. God possesses an infinite power of cognition (omniscience)
21. God is eternal.
23. God is everywhere present in created space.
24. God’s knowledge is infinite.(omniscience)
25. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (omniscience)
26. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (omniscience)
27. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (omniscience)
28. God’s Divine will is infinite (omnipotence)
30. God is almighty. (omnipotence)
43. All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.(omnipotence)
attofishpi wrote:As i said - i know God gets pissed off if i call Christ nasty expletives and i know i was made aware by the God that had me incarnated into a very barely religious Catholic family. So yes i am Christian. Does that mean i have to believe "let there be light" and "there was light".
I know that you have to believe in the Christian dogmas to be a Christian.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Londoner wrote: I use the word 'simultaneous' and others that refer to subjective time in order to point out they embody contradictions. You are still using phrases like 'displayed in a sequence of time' which you will surely agree are figurative, it again hangs on this image of time being a sort of conveyor belt, with objects sitting on it, whereas the past and the future do not have any being at all.
It's the other way around: beings have a past and a future. They are located in the space and time dimensions. You seem to acknowledge only the space dimension, a static universe where there are no events, no change, no movement.
Londoner wrote:In one sense I am a different object to the new born baby, in another sense I am the same object. Which sense you take will depend on which of my characteristics you want to give the label 'Londoner' to, and that is your choice, it depends on what you want to do and what you want to communicate.
You're still saying "I am", you're still advocating the reality of being. To speak figuratively, as if adding "in one sense" dissolved the concrete objective being in an abstract representation, does not do the trick: you're still Londoner, and whatever happened to the baby born Londoner affected the being of the adult Londoner in the present and will continue to do it in the future. We have just one changing Londoner.
Londoner wrote: To know that then we would have to know what we meant by 'real'. But if we defined what we counted as 'real' then we would just create a tautology. For a crude example, suppose we said ' things that can be seen are real'. Then, if asked 'how do you know that is real?' we would reply 'because we can see it'. 'How do you know what you see is real?' 'Because things that can be seen are real'.
Surely we might want to agree on a criteria of being real before evaluating whether something is real or not. My definition of real is something that has objective existence, that is there, independent of our consciousness.
Londoner wrote:What you are saying implies that humans can never even know about god. How would they know if it belongs to another dimension that is not part of the universe, but outside of it (according to you) and where not even logic can dwell, because it can't have any meaning. It's not that it's hard to know, but that it's impossible to know. Therefore you couldn't be here talking about that god you say you know.
I never said I 'know' God. There is always a tendency to assume that if anyone who finds faults with anti-theistic arguments it must be because they are a theist. I am simply pointing to what I think are problems with this particular anti-theistic argument.
Does not matter much that you don't claim to know god. What matters is that you imply that you cannot know god, which is the same as taking the agnostic position. Obviously, you cannot infer properties of something you cannot even discern or relate to existence.
Londoner wrote:Usually their knowledge of God is drawn from other things, like personal revelation or scripture. You might well want to question that, but it would be a different subject to the one we are discussing here, i.e. God's relation with time etc.
You're contradicting yourself, because you have claimed directly and indirectly the impossibility of knowledge of god. That impossibility includes "personal revelation" or scripture, which are pretty much in this side of the universe, aren't they? They are as human as can be.
Londoner wrote: If something has no ends, no borders, then not only can nothing be outside it, but nothing can be inside it either. That is because whatever 'thing' we said was inside it, would be limited to the total quantity of that thing. And if that thing had a total quantity, then it would be finite.
You're thinking about a finite container with discrete quantities of things inside. By saying "total quantity" you are already making it finite, because you're counting up to the last number, which implies there's a last number. An infinite universe that has no end will be continuous and things will be part of that continuum. A good analogy might be the Möbius Strip or any loop, where even discrete objects put along the strip can be counted on and on without reaching a last object of the series, thus not reaching a total amount.
Londoner wrote:I'm afraid I will have to leave it there for a while as I am off on holiday. But thanks for the exchange!
Cool. Have fun!!
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by attofishpi »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
attofishpi wrote: Hang on - whats this 'belief'. If you said you saw a round football today, and i said no you only believed you did - would you only believe me, or would you remain steadfast in the knowledge that you saw a round football.
If I kept it to myself, then it will not be an issue. But if I say it to you, there's an obvious intention to communicate something I want you to believe too. It becomes a different problem than just believing it myself. I might want you to get convinced that my belief is not an illusion, but a representation of a real event or an existing thing. In that case, I will have to provide evidence that the event really happened or that the thing really exists, if that's what I want to prove. But again, I might not care about anyone believing that my own beliefs are not an illusion, in which case I wouldn't even bother talking about it.
attofishpi wrote: And remember - im not talking of one instance of interaction with God - 20yrs of almost daily experience.
Sure call it Thor Zeus whatever you want, i cannot deny i was not given its name, but i do know that if i call Christ a fucking bitch - i get told "you have crossed the line" and for want of a better description, chaos breaks out, beginning with the words "You bit."
People all over the world and in all times have claimed that they have experienced things. An enormous amount of those claims have been shown to be false or wrong. Claiming that they have experienced them is not enough, is just a statement that could be either true or false. And to be accepted as truth there are some requirements that must be met, either by inductive or deductive reasoning.
attofishpi wrote:We never even defined 'God' and you continued to insist that for it to be God - it must have both omnipotence and omniscience.
I'm interested in Christianity - can you cite your examples? (Obviously from the buy bull - even though i dont buy bull)
There are plenty of sources of Christian theology. You can look it up in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, but I guess a good direct source will be the official, 255 infallibly declared dogmas of the Catholic faith. These are not just opinions, but declared in councils as official dogmas, which are not to be questioned (unless be declared an heretic or apostate). Among those dogmas we find:
14. God possesses an infinite power of cognition (omniscience)
21. God is eternal.
23. God is everywhere present in created space.
24. God’s knowledge is infinite.(omniscience)
25. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (omniscience)
26. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (omniscience)
27. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (omniscience)
28. God’s Divine will is infinite (omnipotence)
30. God is almighty. (omnipotence)
43. All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.(omnipotence)
attofishpi wrote:As i said - i know God gets pissed off if i call Christ nasty expletives and i know i was made aware by the God that had me incarnated into a very barely religious Catholic family. So yes i am Christian. Does that mean i have to believe "let there be light" and "there was light".
I know that you have to believe in the Christian dogmas to be a Christian.
Oh. Ok.
DOGMA?
reversed.
AMGOD.

www.androcies.com
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

attofishpi wrote: Oh. Ok.
DOGMA?
reversed.
AMGOD.
http://www.androcies.com
I promised I was going to check your site. After doing so, since I cannot agree with any of its content, I can praise its style and format.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
attofishpi wrote: Oh. Ok.
DOGMA?
reversed.
AMGOD.
http://www.androcies.com
I promised I was going to check your site. After doing so, since I cannot agree with any of its content, I can praise its style and format.
How generous!
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by attofishpi »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
attofishpi wrote: Oh. Ok.
DOGMA?
reversed.
AMGOD.
http://www.androcies.com
I promised I was going to check your site. After doing so, since I cannot agree with any of its content, I can praise its style and format.
How generous!
Yes i thought so. I no longer consider myself a theist, but atheists do real eyes eventually you can get blood out of a stone.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Londoner »

Back from holiday! Rome. Just coincidence.
Conde Lucanor wrote:
It's the other way around: beings have a past and a future. They are located in the space and time dimensions. You seem to acknowledge only the space dimension, a static universe where there are no events, no change, no movement.
'Dimensions' are the names of the measurements we make; they are not places such that things are located within them. For example, we might describe a point within the universe in terms of co-ordinates, but there is no metaphysical edge to the universe where there is an 'x' axis etc.

Measurements are comparisons; I can compare this object to that ruler in a particular way and say 'it is 10cm long'; i.e. that one of its dimensions is '10cm', and others will understand me. But that 10cm only arose as a function of my choice to single out that object; I could have combined that object with another object, or taken it apart, in which case I would have different measurements. I do not believe there is a dimension 'length', such that the '10cm' has some sort of independent existence within a metaphysical totality of 'length-ness', irrespective of my choice.

I think we need to avoid mixing up 'dimension' as in 'measurement', with 'dimension' as in 'alternative worlds'.
Me: In one sense I am a different object to the new born baby, in another sense I am the same object. Which sense you take will depend on which of my characteristics you want to give the label 'Londoner' to, and that is your choice, it depends on what you want to do and what you want to communicate.
You're still saying "I am", you're still advocating the reality of being. To speak figuratively, as if adding "in one sense" dissolved the concrete objective being in an abstract representation, does not do the trick: you're still Londoner, and whatever happened to the baby born Londoner affected the being of the adult Londoner in the present and will continue to do it in the future. We have just one changing Londoner.
What about before I was conceived, or born? Or when I am dead and decayed? Am I still the one changing Londoner? I would say that whether we wanted to count these states of being as still 'Londoner' is flexible, that "in one sense" we still might call the dispersed atoms of my body "Londoner" but for most purposes we would say they are so different from the present "Londoner" the name no longer fits. There is no right answer, it just depends on what we are trying to communicate. A scientist might argue that "Londoner" never did exist, since there is no reason to differentiate that particular assembly of atoms from the rest of the universe - it is all the same stuff, obeying the same laws.

To say that 'We have just one changing Londoner' makes him like that broom we have had all our lives - the one where we have replaced the head five times and the handle five times...
Surely we might want to agree on a criteria of being real before evaluating whether something is real or not. My definition of real is something that has objective existence, that is there, independent of our consciousness.
I do not think it is at all easy to fix on that criteria. For example, as far as something exists objectively, independently of our consciousness, then how could we know it? We can only know via our consciousness, so how can we disentangle the thing in itself from the nature of the consciousness that perceives it?

And again there is the problem with the 'something'. Whatever we have singled out as a particular 'thing' can indeed be said to have certain properties (exist in time, have length etc.) but these have only arisen as a function of that initial singling out; when we are giving what we might think of as objective descriptions of the 'thing' we are really extrapolating on that 'singling out' decision, which was a subjective choice.
Does not matter much that you don't claim to know god. What matters is that you imply that you cannot know god, which is the same as taking the agnostic position. Obviously, you cannot infer properties of something you cannot even discern or relate to existence.
The agnostic position would be that we can know certain things, but the existence of God is not one of them. My position is that on certain metaphysical questions we cannot know anything at all. When God is discussed in terms of 'omnipotence' and all the rest, I think that this puts God into that category, along with 'what is real?' and the rest.

I'd say that an idea of God that puts him outside the scope of science, maths, logic etc. does just that. That is the correct position to take. Whereas to say 'that idea puts him outside the scope of science etc. - and therefore it is incorrect' is a mistake.
Me: Usually their knowledge of God is drawn from other things, like personal revelation or scripture. You might well want to question that, but it would be a different subject to the one we are discussing here, i.e. God's relation with time etc.
You're contradicting yourself, because you have claimed directly and indirectly the impossibility of knowledge of god. That impossibility includes "personal revelation" or scripture, which are pretty much in this side of the universe, aren't they? They are as human as can be.
Absolutely. As I say, I am distinguishing arguments about God based on the infinite (which I think are mistaken - irrespective of which side is using them) from those claims of knowledge of God based on claims of personal subjective experiences. I was simply observing that in practice religious belief tends to be more based around the second, rather than the theorising about abstract notions of God that we are discussing. (Philosophy boards perhaps being an exception).
Me: If something has no ends, no borders, then not only can nothing be outside it, but nothing can be inside it either. That is because whatever 'thing' we said was inside it, would be limited to the total quantity of that thing. And if that thing had a total quantity, then it would be finite.
You're thinking about a finite container with discrete quantities of things inside. By saying "total quantity" you are already making it finite, because you're counting up to the last number, which implies there's a last number. An infinite universe that has no end will be continuous and things will be part of that continuum. A good analogy might be the Möbius Strip or any loop, where even discrete objects put along the strip can be counted on and on without reaching a last object of the series, thus not reaching a total amount.
If the objects on the strip were discrete, then they would be distinguishable one from the other. It is necessary that they must be distinguishable in order for us to count them. That being the case, then to call them a 'series' and to say the series does not end would require us to both distinguish each object individually but simultaneously to think of it only as only being part of a series, which would be self-contradictory.

Suppose we imagine the strip, then try to imagine those 'discrete objects'. Whatever we imagine (numerals, pictures, dots) are not infinite. It is true that they might be made so similar in that our eyes could not remember each shape, such that we could not remember where we had started counting, but that would just be a failure of human perception, easily remedied by marking the start.

And, of course, the Mobius Strip is itself an object; there could be two strips, or a longer strip, thus increasing the series of objects.

My point again is that however we visualize 'infinity', whenever we say 'an infinity of X', then we create these sorts of problems. Infinity only makes sense as something purely abstract.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Belinda »

Londoner wrote:
To say that 'We have just one changing Londoner' makes him like that broom we have had all our lives - the one where we have replaced the head five times and the handle five times...
Unlike Londoner the broom lacks papers of identity such as birth certificate, utility bills, and the broom lacks DNA pertaining to broom as one entity. The broom lacks finger prints. These are all objective indicators of personal identity. Subjective indicators include the will to stay alive and memories.

The law is one effect of a civilised society, and in democracies the law is founded upon Christian ethics with some Judaic ethics, so I have been told. Our societies, European and former European colonies support personhood of the individual. This being so the law, and society, supports the objective and the subjective markers of personhood.


Personal identity is not inherent in the human species but is an attribute of mostly quite modern civilisation.

It may be objected that any slave who has not personhood rights feels herself to be a person with memories and will to live. That is true. However if you consider someone with dementia and depression the memories and the will to live can be absent.This why in a civilised country we take care of people with depression and dementia so that their right to personhood is maintained.

The frame of reference underlying my argument is that of identifying human beliefs as largely a product of culture not genetics or God.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Dontaskme »

waechter418 wrote:It seems that since we are aware of ourselves we have been trying to find out who, why & where we are and that many of our religions, cosmologies, philosophies and sciences developed around this quest.

The answers differ widely, see for example neurologists, Buddha, Hegel, astrophysicists, Lao Tse or Christian fundamentalists - yet each insists to have found the right answer, which is understandable, after all, it is not easy to admit that the quest has been in vain and increases our confusion.

What went wrong?
Nothing is wrong, what's wrong with right now unless you think about it? .. Buddha




WHO AM I ?
Who is this I that I seem to be,
That I feel I am, yet cannot see;
The one in me I've yet to know,
Though ever present wherever I go.
Who can it be, this I in me,
The I that I am, yet never see;
The one in me that still goes on,
When all about has come and gone.
The one in me that always knows,
That never comes and never goes;
That's always here and never there,
Ever present and so nowhere.
The one in me, the one in you,
The I in us and all else too;
The root and core of all that lives,
The essence and soul of all that is.
The I in all which cannot fall,
Alive in the hearts of great and small;
That's never apart and always near,
Knows no hunger and has no fear.
The one in all, the one in each,
The one all seek, but never reach;
The I that I am, that you are too,
The I that answers the question who?

From the book .. "Out of My Mind and Back to My Senses".
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Belinda »

Attofishpi wrote:
Yes. I have had 20yrs of direct interaction with this 'God' - i have knowledge of its existence through experience.
Why did you put startle marks around the name God?

How do you identify God so that you know that it is He with whom you are interacting?
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Dubious »

Dontaskme wrote:
Nothing is wrong, what's wrong with right now unless you think about it? .. Buddha


WHO AM I ?
Who is this I that I seem to be,
That I feel I am, yet cannot see;
The one in me I've yet to know,
Though ever present wherever I go.
Who can it be, this I in me,
The I that I am, yet never see;
The one in me that still goes on,
When all about has come and gone.
The one in me that always knows,
That never comes and never goes;
That's always here and never there,
Ever present and so nowhere.
The one in me, the one in you,
The I in us and all else too;
The root and core of all that lives,
The essence and soul of all that is.
The I in all which cannot fall,
Alive in the hearts of great and small;
That's never apart and always near,
Knows no hunger and has no fear.
The one in all, the one in each,
The one all seek, but never reach;
The I that I am, that you are too,
The I that answers the question who?

From the book .. "Out of My Mind and Back to My Senses".
Excellent poem! Was this actually written by Richard Hay or was it a translation? His book is mostly famous for his haikus which are easier to write than intelligent rhyme.
User avatar
waechter418
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:19 am
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by waechter418 »

Self is the vessel of All and thus hidden in it.
It is without knowledge of its beginnings, nor does it envision its ends.


From "aha" by waechter418 published in wordpress
User avatar
waechter418
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:19 am
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by waechter418 »

P.S.
All is conscious – but there those who are not aware of it.
Post Reply