Separateness OBVIOUSLY 'appears' to brains, and identity OBVIOUSLY 'appears' to human brains.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:11 pmFirst, discreteness seems evident. Reality is not homogenous. I am not the Ipad I type on, the coffee I drink, or the chair I sit on. You, Lace, are a distinct other. Separateness and identity appear to natural and normal.Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:26 pmSure.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 6:03 pm
I can only give you my -- a deist's -- view.
I won't talk about, or defend, or criticize, the theistic perspective (or dissect your monistic view).
You still wanna hear what I think?
And matter forms into various different shapes (and forms). However, thee Universe, Itself, is NOT ACTUALLY disconnected NOR separated.
It is just matter, which is able to move about FREELY, which is what comes together to form different shapes, which is what creates the 'appearance' of separateness, which only then becomes a "separate identity" because of the 'thought' and 'thinking' within a human body.
These 'identified things' are only "separated" by 'space', or a 'distance' of 'space', but this 'space' is just part of thee Universe like 'matter' is. The two together is what causes ALL apparent "things" to be 'conceived' and 'conceived of'.
Being able to 'separate' thee One into 'conceived' "separate things" and to then make different/separate 'identities' is just the ability of the human brain, through thought and thinking, and it is this ability of the human brain, which is what was needed for thee Universe to work out, comprehend, and understand HOW to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly AND correctly, and thus also HOW to come to KNOW Thy Self
WHERE is this WRONG ASSUMPTION that thee Universe's Existence is an "entropic event" coming from, EXACTLY?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:11 pm Second: if one takes the notion that sumthin' purposeful undergirds Reality, it's probable this sumthin' is a person in its own right. If there is no such undergirdin' to Reality, we're left with the mystery of complexity and individual self-awareness. Even assuming a kind of unintelligent universal vitalism (purpose without a intention) solves nuthin' (why should Reality, an entropic event, allow for anti-entropy?).
Or, better still WHERE is the ACTUAL PROOF that thee Universe's Existence is an "entropic event"?
Thee Universe is just an eternal AND infinite process, consisting of OPPOSITES but while existing IN EQUILIBRIUM.
The purpose of ALL "things" in Life, including Life, Itself, is VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLY able to discover, or learn, understand, and KNOW.
Even the word 'himself' implies two different and separate "things".henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:11 pm Third, there are certain universals among men, no matter their culture. Chief among these universal (or perhaps foundational to them) is the intuition that one belongs to himself.
So, what EXACTLY IS 'one's self'?
WHY do you PERSIST with the VERY OLD usage of the word "men" to refer to human beings, themselves? Are you STILL under the DELUSION that "men" are somehow BETTER or MORE SUPERIOR than "women" are?henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:11 pm That he is his and it's natural and normal for him to be his. In a Reality without purpose, or in one where purpose is unintelligent, why do all men see themselves this way?
If no, then WHY NOT evolve and start using words MORE THOUGHTFULLY and FAR MORE CORRECTLY as well?
But if you STILL REALLY think or BELIEVE that "men" are BETTER or MORE SUPERIOR to "women", then just continue on with your VERY OUTDATED usage of words.
Also, NOT ALL human beings see "them self"to be "theirs" "alone". This is just a relative new phenomena in human evolution, and it is only a phenomena among 'you', older human beings, as well.
OF COURSE human beings do NOT want to be TOLD what to do, and TOLD what is Right and what is Wrong, unless of course one has been brought up the Wrong way, but the reason human beings do NOT like this is because they instinctively KNOW what is Right and Wrong, and thus instinctively KNOW what the Right thing to do is, and this is EXACTLY WHY each is "their own", as some say. But just as CORRECT is the FACT that human beings NEED "each other".
So, to claim "he" is "his" as though "it" could exist WHOLLY INDEPENDENTLY is Incorrect. And, to claim "it is "natural" and "normal" for "him" to be "his", is just an ATTEMPT to 'try to' "justify" that your claim is actually true, right, and correct. Adding the words "normal" and "natural" into a sentence does NOT automatically mean that the claim is then ACTUALLY "normal" or "natural" AT ALL.
For example, 'try' and live in an indigenous culture where the people's lived WITH the earth, and NOT in the culture that you are used to where the peoples live TAKING FROM the earth, and see just how long you would survive, and live, for, with the "you" are "yours" attitude.
And, if thee Truth be KNOWN, those cultures LIVED, and were, far MORE 'natural' AND 'normal', in relation to Life, living, and the earth itself, than the present cultures, in the days when this is being written, which uses forums like this to share knowledge and understandings with.
Of course one human being can LIVE ALONE, from a particular age, but what would be the purpose, or use, of that? If one can NOT share their experiences with "another", then is there ANY purpose to being alive, or living, in the first place, AT ALL?
And if this has NOT YET been recognized or known; " The 'he' is 'his' ", or " for 'him' to be 'his', or even the "himself" " terms and phrase are actually two words with two different identities. They are NOT one and the SAME 'thing'. So, to 'try to' say or claim A single 'thing' is 'its' 'own', (besides thee Universe, Itself), will never work. Each one of 'things' ONLY exist because of, and in relation to, "other" "things".
A "man" or A 'human being' is ONLY "its" "own" if that one IMAGINES 'it' is. 'It' is NOT "its" "own" in ANY sense in relation to the Universe, Itself, nor to thee ACTUAL Truth of things, except in how I described above where A human being does NOT 'need' to be TOLD what to do NOR what IS Right and Wrong.
There may be a perceived sense of separateness between the 'you' and the 'me', and even between the 'me' and the Creator, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO separateness AT ALL between thee 'I' and thee Creator. That is; once who and what 'I' am is UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:11 pm So, for the deist (this one, anyway), it's not ego claiming separateness; it's what is plain and apparent that leads to recognition of separateness, between persons (between me and you, between you and me and the Creator).