Prostitution and Eternal Values

[Nick_A]

It amazes me how quickly the loss of the conscious awareness of eternal values can devolve into indoctrination. Adolf Hitler describes the ultimate prostitution of eternal values into self serving indoctrination creating their opposite. Never underestimate human ingenuity.

Adolf Hitler stated, "I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience - imperious, relentless, & cruel."

[Dontaskme]

IN-SHADOW - A Modern Odyssey - Animated Short Film



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j800SVeiS5I&t=29s


.

[Conde Lucanor]

You never see the movement or growth of the tree in its entirety hence your observation of the tree will always contain an element of "untruth" to it considering you may view its nature approximately (through time) or as a constant approximate form (through abstract thought).

I don't see my loved ones everyday. No one ever see objects in the world around them every single second of their existence. The fact that we don't observe them permanently, in no way makes our knowledge of those objects false or illusive. Not even putting quotation marks. We can still observe them in other instances and make inferences about the reality of their existence. Trees grow, people get older, everything changes following rules consistent with our observations.

Perceiving an object will not cause anything to the object.

Does it? Would the car have been formed unless someone looked at it? Would it have been formed if noone was to look at it? It's potential purpose may have only been to be looked at, "bragged about", yet that "potential" nature what the boundary which allowed the "actual" to occur.

Looking at the materials and people that build a car will not make a car. And there will not be a real car before it is built. It will be the action upon the materials by the people that use their skills and tools that will bring the formed car into existence.

But the car, as strictly the application of dimensions through the manipulation of materials that in themselves are composed of "temporality" (as each element exist through movement as a temporal reality) is strictly the manifestation of perception.

That's pure nonsense. Cars, as any other object, can exist objectively, regardless of our perception of them. The moons of Jupiter did not pop up into existence when they were discovered, they were there millions of years before they "manifested in our perception".

Perception being the manifestation of dimensions, through the process of measurement, in inseperable from an act of creation or maintenance.

More nonsense. I was not there when Michelangelo created the David sculpture. My act of perception of it happened around 400 years later, which is the same as saying that the act of creation and my perception were separated in space and time by a long measure. And during four centuries, people talked about Michelangelo's David, without my observation of it having any relation with its existence.

[Eodnhoj7]

You never see the movement or growth of the tree in its entirety hence your observation of the tree will always contain an element of "untruth" to it considering you may view its nature approximately (through time) or as a constant approximate form (through abstract thought).

I don't see my loved ones everyday. No one ever see objects in the world around them every single second of their existence. The fact that we don't observe them permanently, in no way makes our knowledge of those objects false or illusive.

The observation of change, within any phenomena, observes an inherent approximation of that very same phenomena in the respect we cannot observe it fully for what it is. And full understanding would require an absence of change as "consistency". While change may be observed under a set of rules, these rules which give boundaries to the change, are in themselves consistent; hence the observation of changes from a fixed focal point is an observation of relating parts which in themselves are extensions of a whole.

Considering, using the tree again as an example, observing change has an inherent element of approximation within it:

1) We never fully see the tree for what it is as objectively we observe it through change. The tree contains a "deficiency" of truth in it.
2) Using the tree as a form which is defined by the inherent relations which manifest it, we can observe the tree only by the changes through which it moves. Hence, the tree is defined by the inherent limits in the relations we observe.
3) We observe change hence the tree, and the form of tree hence change. This alternation observes that all forms in themselves exist as probability densities in one respect and all probability densities are merely the "limits" of the forms (the nature of randomness is the key limit to our understanding of what constitutes a form.)
4) This "deficiency", observed at it's height as "change", is characteristic of "untruth" or "illusion".


Not even putting quotation marks. We can still observe them in other instances and make inferences about the reality of their existence. Trees grow, people get older, everything changes following rules consistent with our observations.

Perceiving an object will not cause anything to the object.

Does it? Would the car have been formed unless someone looked at it? Would it have been formed if noone was to look at it? It's potential purpose may have only been to be looked at, "bragged about", yet that "potential" nature what the boundary which allowed the "actual" to occur.

Looking at the materials and people that build a car will not make a car.
The formation of a car is defined by the inherent relations which constitute it, which this formation of the car (the means to which it is actualized) being not just the foundation of the car in time (as an observation of its point of origin) but an inherent structure within the car's nature as a finite structure (all finite structures are determined by the space/time localities through which they manifest).


And there will not be a real car before it is built.
The question of the nature of "real" breaks down to what is perceived by the five senses, generally speaking. The problem occurs in the respect that these 5 senses are observed through an inherent act of measurement as "reason", in which the senses exist as structures or categories in themselves. So what we deem as "real" is premised fundamentally in an intellectual act of measurement where objective truth is determined by the abstract boundaries applied to it.

The car exists as:

1) The abstract measurements, through thought, which give premise to its construction.
1a) The geometric forms
2a) Mathematical measurements
3a) Subjective individual and cultural inclination
4a) Etc.

2) The materials (metals, plastics [fundamentally tree resin, liquified corn, etc.]) which are potential localized parts of the car as the potential locality of the car itself.

3) Individual and Society interpretations of luxury and efficiency.

4) Etc.




It will be the action upon the materials by the people that use their skills and tools that will bring the formed car into existence.
And what exactly are these actions determined by? A list of subjective (luxury) and objective (practical need) may determine these actions yet these subjective-objective phenomenon, axioms, are merely premise points of measurement in themselves. A point is "willed" into existence hence a corresponding chain of realities, structured by the boundaries of time and space, come into being.

But the car, as strictly the application of dimensions through the manipulation of materials that in themselves are composed of "temporality" (as each element exist through movement as a temporal reality) is strictly the manifestation of perception.

That's pure nonsense. Cars, as any other object, can exist objectively, regardless of our perception of them. The moons of Jupiter did not pop up into existence when they were discovered, they were there millions of years before they "manifested in our perception".

Perception being the manifestation of dimensions, through the process of measurement, in inseperable from an act of creation or maintenance.

More nonsense. I was not there when Michelangelo created the David sculpture. My act of perception of it happened around 400 years later, which is the same as saying that the act of creation and my perception were separated in space and time by a long measure. And during four centuries, people talked about Michelangelo's David, without my observation of it having any relation with its existence.

The perceptions which measured not just the cultural impact of this art at the subjective level, but also the objective historical facts which determined the nature of this very same art. These measurements of the subjective and objective nature of this art formed the boundaries of what you understand of this art today. They manifested themselves across time and space, which bound them as finite realities in and of themselves, which in turn formed your "perspective" as a limit to the nature of this very same knowledge. While not full in the sense that it was present at the point of origin of the art, it fundamentally still maintains itself as an approximate extension of it; hence holds a degree of truth.

[Conde Lucanor]

The observation of change, within any phenomena, observes an inherent approximation of that very same phenomena in the respect we cannot observe it fully for what it is. And full understanding would require an absence of change as "consistency". While change may be observed under a set of rules, these rules which give boundaries to the change, are in themselves consistent; hence the observation of changes from a fixed focal point is an observation of relating parts which in themselves are extensions of a whole.

But there's an inherent paradox in your argument: if you cannot trust observations because they are partial, you wouldn't be able to understand and assert anything about the real world, not even that there's phenomena observed, nor that there's an approximation to it, nothing whatsoever. So how come you're here making claims about the things we observe?

1) We never fully see the tree for what it is as objectively we observe it through change. The tree contains a "deficiency" of truth in it.

I see you're a big fan of putting quotation marks to preposterous claims, as if all of the sudden that will turn them more digestible. No, they keep being preposterous. Objects don't hold in themselves properties of truth or lack of it. Objects can exist without propositions about the world.

4) This "deficiency", observed at it's height as "change", is characteristic of "untruth" or "illusion".

But as already explained, there's no "truth deficiency" in the object observed, so it's not an essential, unavoidable property of the object. There may be deficiencies in the observations or the observer, but that can be easily compensated with independent observations, logical inferences and a lot of other tools humans have within their reach to make reasonable truth claims about the world.

The formation of a car is defined by the inherent relations which constitute it, which this formation of the car (the means to which it is actualized) being not just the foundation of the car in time (as an observation of its point of origin) but an inherent structure within the car's nature as a finite structure (all finite structures are determined by the space/time localities through which they manifest).

That the car is constituted, that it is a singular identifiable entity with given properties, by no means implies that it constituted itself. Within the "inherent relations" there are the hands, processes and raw materials that took part in its making. It is a car because it was built to be a car.

The question of the nature of "real" breaks down to what is perceived by the five senses, generally speaking. The problem occurs in the respect that these 5 senses are observed through an inherent act of measurement as "reason", in which the senses exist as structures or categories in themselves. So what we deem as "real" is premised fundamentally in an intellectual act of measurement where objective truth is determined by the abstract boundaries applied to it.

You forget that the apprehension of the properties of objects, the process of perception and understanding, it's not a pure, isolated cognitive process. It happens in an environment where other agents perceive, communicate their ideas and help to make sense of the world.

And what exactly are these actions determined by? A list of subjective (luxury) and objective (practical need) may determine these actions yet these subjective-objective phenomenon, axioms, are merely premise points of measurement in themselves. A point is "willed" into existence hence a corresponding chain of realities, structured by the boundaries of time and space, come into being.

Your attempt to reduce practical action to passive contemplation makes no sense and it's completely illusive. Agents transform materials for real, they don't do it symbolically. Such transformations can be objectively described, understood, replicated, etc.

The perceptions which measured not just the cultural impact of this art at the subjective level, but also the objective historical facts which determined the nature of this very same art. These measurements of the subjective and objective nature of this art formed the boundaries of what you understand of this art today. They manifested themselves across time and space, which bound them as finite realities in and of themselves, which in turn formed your "perspective" as a limit to the nature of this very same knowledge. While not full in the sense that it was present at the point of origin of the art, it fundamentally still maintains itself as an approximate extension of it; hence holds a degree of truth.

That's just plain wrong. I don't need to determine "the nature of this art" or have an opinion of what is or what is not art. For the purpose of the argument what matters is the independence in time and space of the creation of an object (it could be a horseshoe) and my observation of the object.

[Eodnhoj7]

The observation of change, within any phenomena, observes an inherent approximation of that very same phenomena in the respect we cannot observe it fully for what it is. And full understanding would require an absence of change as "consistency". While change may be observed under a set of rules, these rules which give boundaries to the change, are in themselves consistent; hence the observation of changes from a fixed focal point is an observation of relating parts which in themselves are extensions of a whole.

But there's an inherent paradox in your argument: if you cannot trust observations because they are partial, you wouldn't be able to understand and assert anything about the real world, not even that there's phenomena observed, nor that there's an approximation to it, nothing whatsoever. So how come you're here making claims about the things we observe?

Observing an observation as "partial" puts a fixed limit to what it is as an approximation of truth. So as a "part" the truth is evident for what it is under fixed boundaries which do not contradict its status as a truth but rather observes it's inherent structure for what it is. Take for example the "truth" of observing a car. I may observe the car, but not the relations it is composed of or will be composed of. This does not take away from the fact that the car is a car, however we may not see this truth in itself fullness. Observing an "atomic fact" as an "atomic fact" is in itself an observation of a constant where a thing is observe for what it is: a part.

1) We never fully see the tree for what it is as objectively we observe it through change. The tree contains a "deficiency" of truth in it.

I see you're a big fan of putting quotation marks to preposterous claims, as if all of the sudden that will turn them more digestible.
Would it be better if I use this manner of emphasis rather than quotes?
No, they keep being preposterous. Objects don't hold in themselves properties of truth or lack of it. Objects can exist without propositions about the world.
If objects can exist without proposition about the world then how do we see them through the phenonomenon of the world? Regardless of the connection to the world, objects are lens through this very same phenomenon hence are connected to it through the act of perception. So "1" as a concept may not be connected to an empirical understanding from one perspective, but because an empirical perspective inevitably results in the definition of "1" we cannot say it is inherently separate. Connectedness is an observation of extension between structures through active or static movement, hence to observe any form of disconnect is fundamentally an observation of a limit to the inhernt object(s) that act as boundaries for their existence.

4) This "deficiency", observed at it's height as "change", is characteristic of "untruth" or "illusion".

But as already explained, there's no "truth deficiency" in the object observed, so it's not an essential, unavoidable property of the object. There may be deficiencies in the observations or the observer, but that can be easily compensated with independent observations, logical inferences and a lot of other tools humans have within their reach to make reasonable truth claims about the world.
The truth deficiency in the object observed are the very same limits which form it. The car exists as a limit in itself where the movement of the materials which formed the car, the car disintegrating into further materials, the movement of the car and inherent changes of the parts in it...etc. are not fully observed because of the boundaries of time. The car exists as a boundary of time considering time as movement, observes the car as composed of further movements which inevitably change. The car is localized timeline in itself as it is a composition of movements (internal and external). As a localized object the car is constant in the respect it is an extension of 1 dimension of movement, however it is an observation of change when observed as a localization of multiple dimensions of movement. The car maintains a dual role of "constant" and "changing" with the synthesis of this dualism resulting in the neutral axiom of car. In these respect under a synthesis of "change" and "no-change" we can observe that all axioms maintain a nature of truth and no-truth (as the limits of truth evident to us because of time).

The formation of a car is defined by the inherent relations which constitute it, which this formation of the car (the means to which it is actualized) being not just the foundation of the car in time (as an observation of its point of origin) but an inherent structure within the car's nature as a finite structure (all finite structures are determined by the space/time localities through which they manifest).

That the car is constituted, that it is a singular identifiable entity with given properties, by no means implies that it constituted itself. Within the "inherent relations" there are the hands, processes and raw materials that took part in its making. It is a car because it was built to be a car.
The car as an extension of a measurement is a measurement system in itself (very low degree of consciousness) as the movement which constitute it, in certain respects, maintain themselves without our full awareness of them. The folding of dimensions through dimensions, as movement, replicates the same form of movement with the thought process. For example we can observe all dimensions extend from a premise of the "line" hence the process of measurement observes the line fold through itself as a boundary folding through itself. The car as composed of parts, which are composed of boundaries dependent upon linear dimensions (straight and curved) fold through themselves on their own as "movement", much in the same manner as the thoughts which composed them and which they are now extensions of.

The question of the nature of "real" breaks down to what is perceived by the five senses, generally speaking. The problem occurs in the respect that these 5 senses are observed through an inherent act of measurement as "reason", in which the senses exist as structures or categories in themselves. So what we deem as "real" is premised fundamentally in an intellectual act of measurement where objective truth is determined by the abstract boundaries applied to it.

You forget that the apprehension of the properties of objects, the process of perception and understanding, it's not a pure, isolated cognitive process. It happens in an environment where other agents perceive, communicate their ideas and help to make sense of the world.
Cognition, as a form of measurement, maintains a dual role of unity and multiplicity and in these respects all objects are extensions of a whole in one respect while mirroring this wholeness as individual units in themselves.

And what exactly are these actions determined by? A list of subjective (luxury) and objective (practical need) may determine these actions yet these subjective-objective phenomenon, axioms, are merely premise points of measurement in themselves. A point is "willed" into existence hence a corresponding chain of realities, structured by the boundaries of time and space, come into being.

Your attempt to reduce practical action to passive contemplation makes no sense and it's completely illusive. Agents transform materials for real, they don't do it symbolically. Such transformations can be objectively described, understood, replicated, etc.
Objective description is symbolic in the respect the symbolic nature of the object maintains a role of mediation where:
1) a symbol acts as a medial point of origin to previous/further symbols.
2) an object acts as a medial point of origin to previous/further objects.
3) All descriptions, as boundaries with all boundaries being universal in the respect they give premise and foundation to structure as order in themselves allow a form of mediation to take place where a phenomenon extends from and is maintained through phenomenon under a common form of unity.

The perceptions which measured not just the cultural impact of this art at the subjective level, but also the objective historical facts which determined the nature of this very same art. These measurements of the subjective and objective nature of this art formed the boundaries of what you understand of this art today. They manifested themselves across time and space, which bound them as finite realities in and of themselves, which in turn formed your "perspective" as a limit to the nature of this very same knowledge. While not full in the sense that it was present at the point of origin of the art, it fundamentally still maintains itself as an approximate extension of it; hence holds a degree of truth.

That's just plain wrong. I don't need to determine "the nature of this art" or have an opinion of what is or what is not art. For the purpose of the argument what matters is the independence in time and space of the creation of an object (it could be a horseshoe) and my observation of the object.
Determining the "nature of this art" as a set of relations which mediate further relations is fundamentally inherent within art itself; hence art as a median of truth is necessitated by determining the nature of truth and its corresponding phenomenon.

[Conde Lucanor]

Observing an observation...

There's simply no logical connection between the elements of your sentences. This is just another example.

Take for example the "truth" of observing a car. I may observe the car, but not the relations it is composed of or will be composed of.

That's totally wrong. Of course one sees relations in the object, it is an essential part of the process of observation, and actually of all perceptions and their mental representations. We capture from the object its spatial relations, its time relations, the relations of the whole and the parts, of the object in relation to others, of its essential properties against the accidental properties, its different degrees, etc. If there's something we do see is relations.

This does not take away from the fact that the car is a car, however we may not see this truth in itself fullness. Observing an "atomic fact" as an "atomic fact" is in itself an observation of a constant where a thing is observe for what it is: a part.

We know that a car is a car because of the observations and the logical inferences we make from several experiences of dealing with objects of the world. The act of perception does not work, as you pretend, as the isolation of a singular entity in one indivisible pack of information. Everything is context and relations, even when singling out an object in our perception.

I see you're a big fan of putting quotation marks to preposterous claims, as if all of the sudden that will turn them more digestible.

Would it be better if I use this manner of emphasis rather than quotes?

Understand that it is not a problem of form (such as your refusal to use the proper forum tools to quote your counterpart's posts, which does raise a problem of form). You put some concepts in quotation marks as an excuse to pass concepts that are not logically acceptable.

If objects can exist without proposition about the world then how do we see them through the phenonomenon of the world?

Because things in the world exist objectively, independently of conscious agents. Furthermore, no truth claims or propositions about the world are necessary for perception to take place. A dog perceives a tree and behaves towards it accordingly, but no one has heard of a dog making assertions about the reality of a tree.

Regardless of the connection to the world, objects are lens through this very same phenomenon hence are connected to it through the act of perception.

By lens we must refer to a medium, a means through which an observation is performed, but you're brazenly mixing up the object observed and the means of observation, which is quite differently from acknowledging the subject/object relationship and its high level of dependence from the means of perception, which even though initially sets limits to our understanding, can actually be compensated by other tools of social culture, as it has been shown in the development of philosophy and science.

So "1" as a concept may not be connected to an empirical understanding from one perspective, but because an empirical perspective inevitably results in the definition of "1" we cannot say it is inherently separate. Connectedness is an observation of extension between structures through active or static movement, hence to observe any form of disconnect is fundamentally an observation of a limit to the inhernt object(s) that act as boundaries for their existence.

Let me tell you, you really begin to sound like Deepak Chopra. And believe me, that's definitely not a compliment.

The truth deficiency in the object observed

What truth deficiency in an object? That was refuted before and you have not added more sense to it, so as far as I'm concerned, that's an illegitimate concept.

The car exists as a boundary of time considering time as movement, observes the car as composed of further movements which inevitably change. The car is localized timeline in itself as it is a composition of movements (internal and external). As a localized object the car is constant in the respect it is an extension of 1 dimension of movement, however it is an observation of change when observed as a localization of multiple dimensions of movement. The car maintains a dual role of "constant" and "changing" with the synthesis of this dualism resulting in the neutral axiom of car. In these respect under a synthesis of "change" and "no-change" we can observe that all axioms maintain a nature of truth and no-truth (as the limits of truth evident to us because of time)

Man, idealism really sucks. Big time. You're all entangled in weird abstractions. Put your feed in the ground: if a material object of the world exists it's not because of some ideas flying around in people's minds or some immaterial realm, but because it carries in itself the properties that constitute real, material existence. It can be properties given to a newly created object, but that doesn't change the change the statute of its objective existence.

The car as an extension of a measurement is a measurement system in itself...

Again, confusing the object observed, the means of observation and the qualitative or quantitative value of the observation. Big confusion you have there.

Objective description is symbolic in the respect the symbolic nature of the object maintains a role of mediation where:

Read above. The object does not mediate in perception. It's the other end of perception.

Determining the "nature of this art" as a set of relations which mediate further relations is fundamentally inherent within art itself; hence art as a median of truth is necessitated by determining the nature of truth and its corresponding phenomenon.

You really have trouble making logical connections. This was pretty obvious and simple: the terms of the problem are far, too far from what you keep saying. We are not talking about art, at best we were talking about an object being created. I already explained that it could have been a horseshoe by a blacksmith. The essence of the problem is that my perception of the object is completely independent in time and space of its creation, in other words, of its coming into existence. Thus, things can exist, whether I (or someone else) ever perceives them.

[Eodnhoj7]

Observing an observation...

There's simply no logical connection between the elements of your sentences. This is just another example.

Well then I will make it simple. I make an observation of "x", I in turn reflect upon that observation and in turn observe it as an observation.

Take for example the "truth" of observing a car. I may observe the car, but not the relations it is composed of or will be composed of.

That's totally wrong. Of course one sees relations in the object, it is an essential part of the process of observation, and actually of all perceptions and their mental representations. We capture from the object its spatial relations, its time relations, the relations of the whole and the parts, of the object in relation to others, of its essential properties against the accidental properties, its different degrees, etc. If there's something we do see is relations.

Actually you cannot observe all the places it has been or will be in their entirety nor the actualy moving parts which compose it as they happen.

This does not take away from the fact that the car is a car, however we may not see this truth in itself fullness. Observing an "atomic fact" as an "atomic fact" is in itself an observation of a constant where a thing is observe for what it is: a part.

We know that a car is a car because of the observations and the logical inferences we make from several experiences of dealing with objects of the world. The act of perception does not work, as you pretend, as the isolation of a singular entity in one indivisible pack of information. Everything is context and relations, even when singling out an object in our perception.

Context and relations are dependent upon the relation of parts which in themselves are isolated as localities which relate to other localties. This relations of parts observes movement.

I see you're a big fan of putting quotation marks to preposterous claims, as if all of the sudden that will turn them more digestible.

Would it be better if I use this manner of emphasis rather than quotes?

Understand that it is not a problem of form (such as your refusal to use the proper forum tools to quote your counterpart's posts, which does raise a problem of form). You put some concepts in quotation marks as an excuse to pass concepts that are not logically acceptable.

If objects can exist without proposition about the world then how do we see them through the phenonomenon of the world?

Because things in the world exist objectively, independently of conscious agents. Furthermore, no truth claims or propositions about the world are necessary for perception to take place. A dog perceives a tree and behaves towards it accordingly, but no one has heard of a dog making assertions about the reality of a tree.

Regardless of the connection to the world, objects are lens through this very same phenomenon hence are connected to it through the act of perception.

By lens we must refer to a medium, a means through which an observation is performed, but you're brazenly mixing up the object observed and the means of observation, which is quite differently from acknowledging the subject/object relationship and its high level of dependence from the means of perception, which even though initially sets limits to our understanding, can actually be compensated by other tools of social culture, as it has been shown in the development of philosophy and science.

The "means" of observation is the angle through which we observe it (whether a perspective or objective tool) which inevitably places what is being observed in specific boundaries. This "means" of observation, quite literally an angle oftentimes, connects us to the reality being observed by providing medial boundaries.

Now the objects which exist independently of conscious agents inevitably act as boundaries to our observations themselves. For example I may see "x,y,z" objects which form my perception of reality. I may not see "a" however, but "a" exists as a negative limit to "x,y,z" where "x,y,z" is defined by what it is "not" (in this case "a").

The object observed places limits on the nature of our observations and inherently forms them. Again for example, from a beginning point of empiricism, I may observe a hole in the ground. This hole is evident to me. However the hole acts as a medium for me to perceive a form of a circle as a limit to that very same hole (the boundaries which compose it) and this "form" in turn changes the nature of my perception.

So "1" as a concept may not be connected to an empirical understanding from one perspective, but because an empirical perspective inevitably results in the definition of "1" we cannot say it is inherently separate. Connectedness is an observation of extension between structures through active or static movement, hence to observe any form of disconnect is fundamentally an observation of a limit to the inhernt object(s) that act as boundaries for their existence.

Let me tell you, you really begin to sound like Deepak Chopra. And believe me, that's definitely not a compliment.

No, Deepak Chopra deals with spirituality, we are talking about the nature of consciousness and it inherent relations with logic. We are talking about the nature of "boundaries" which compose it also.

I deal with self-righteous idiots like you all the time, you are just a fly on the wall to me...I will break you just for the hell of it because of the boredom. I won't even lay a finger on you, or throw an insult...for all you know I am just roping you in further...or not...

The truth deficiency in the object observed

What truth deficiency in an object? That was refuted before and you have not added more sense to it, so as far as I'm concerned, that's an illegitimate concept.
It is simple if an object is determined as true by the level of definition we are able to percieve in it, and we cannot observe all definition or limits which compose that object (only some), then by default we do not see the whole object hence what we see as "true" in the object contains some form of deficiency.

The car exists as a boundary of time considering time as movement, observes the car as composed of further movements which inevitably change. The car is localized timeline in itself as it is a composition of movements (internal and external). As a localized object the car is constant in the respect it is an extension of 1 dimension of movement, however it is an observation of change when observed as a localization of multiple dimensions of movement. The car maintains a dual role of "constant" and "changing" with the synthesis of this dualism resulting in the neutral axiom of car. In these respect under a synthesis of "change" and "no-change" we can observe that all axioms maintain a nature of truth and no-truth (as the limits of truth evident to us because of time)

Man, idealism really sucks. Big time. You're all entangled in weird abstractions. Put your feed in the ground: if a material object of the world exists it's not because of some ideas flying around in people's minds or some immaterial realm, but because it carries in itself the properties that constitute real, material existence. It can be properties given to a newly created object, but that doesn't change the change the statute of its objective existence.
Of course "idealism sucks", we can see how the materialistic stance is inevitably directed towards it like a vacuum. You have to keep in mind, or at least empiricially observe it through your senses, that the "material" world not only results in this conversation but inevitably leads to the problem of idea. Materialism results in Idealism inevitably, because materialism (as many of your...arguments (that is a generous term) prove by merit of their form and function) inevitably cycles through itself into either contradictions or paradoxes.

The car as an extension of a measurement is a measurement system in itself...

Again, confusing the object observed, the means of observation and the qualitative or quantitative value of the observation. Big confusion you have there.

No really, all observation contains an inherent degree of measurement as the maintanence and application of "boundaries". The relatin of these boundaries allow movement to occur, with this movement maintaining these very same boundaries. The car, composed of various boundaries which relate through each other under movement, inevitably contains a low degree of self-measurement in the respect that one boundary maintains another boundary (ex: movement of oil in relation to tube. Oil keeps tube in use, tube gives form to oil.)

Objective description is symbolic in the respect the symbolic nature of the object maintains a role of mediation where:

Read above. The object does not mediate in perception. It's the other end of perception.

As an "end" of perception, or a "limit" to it, it provides another starting point for further observations and in these respects mediates it. Take for example I may observe a tree as an "end" to my perception. The tree is an end, however it may point my observation in another direction such as the squirrel on one of its limbs. In these respects the object acts as a mediator.

Determining the "nature of this art" as a set of relations which mediate further relations is fundamentally inherent within art itself; hence art as a median of truth is necessitated by determining the nature of truth and its corresponding phenomenon.

You really have trouble making logical connections.
No, I will say this and be accused of "bragging" but I have have been tested in all of this before. I have an IQ of 161 at its top, plus various other psychological tests, administered by professionals, claiming I should have been a particle physicist. Now you will accuse me of being arrogant for throwing the number around, of "what other people said", but these are the standards "generally" (at least for now) by what intelligence is measured by. Do they work? No, but people like you usually believe they do considering you gain your identity off of what other's think.

The simple truth is that you are stupid...and it frustrates you that not only someone else has a different view point than you but that is may "possibly" be over your head. Your philosophy, how you view the world, is strictly just garbage to me that needs burned...so go on do your best...I really don't care...I am just going to rope you into until you either self-destruct (which will be funny) or give up.

This was pretty obvious and simple: the terms of the problem are far, too far from what you keep saying. We are not talking about art, at best we were talking about an object being created. I already explained that it could have been a horseshoe by a blacksmith. The essence of the problem is that my perception of the object is completely independent in time and space of its creation, in other words, of its coming into existence. Thus, things can exist, whether I (or someone else) ever perceives them.

We percieve all realities through proxy. "The tree falling in the woods noone is around to hear it" example can be applied. Do we hear or see the tree fall directly, ie the "movements". No, but we see the bird that lands on the doorstep because of it...hence one movement is observed approximately by another movement where one movement is an extension of another. The question of the "origin" comes into being as while we do not see the "original" movement of the tree falling we can observe its ripple effect. This ripple effect acts as its own origin for further movement and takes a dual role of both effect and cause. In this manner what we understand of reality is cause/effect acting as strictly the observation of "structures" that mediate further structures.

A second problem occurs, which I have observed above, in respect to the nature of "observation". Considering observation both maintains and manifests boundaries or limits which compose reality, the nature any boundary maintaining or manifesting a further boundary in itself contains by definition a low degree of consciousness. So while the tree may not be self-aware, the spatial limits (lines,curves, etc.) which it is both formed of and forms inevitably results in a degree of awareness in the respect that these vary same boundaries form observation.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheresof Balance wrote:
But as you've previously mentioned, I do understand your desire to believe in it.

Belindas rebuttal:
But eternal being doesn't imply everlasting life, or life after death. Everlasting and after are terms that refer to time.

SoB (in blue and all my fancy colors): Here are the definitions again:
Note: ignore the green and red for now

eternal [ih-tur-nl]
adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.
noun
5. something that is eternal.
6. the Eternal, God.
--dictionary.com--

eternal
adjective
1 Lasting or existing forever; without end.
‘the secret of eternal youth’
‘fear of eternal damnation’

1.1 (of truths, values, or questions) valid for all time; essentially unchanging.
‘eternal truths of art and life’

1.2 informal Seeming to last or persist forever, especially on account of being tedious or annoying.
‘eternal nagging demands’
‘she is an eternal optimist’

2 Used to emphasize expressions of admiration, gratitude, etc.
‘to his eternal credit, he maintained his dignity throughout’

3 (the Eternal) Used to refer to an everlasting or universal spirit, as represented by God.
‘a man entirely under the sway of the Eternal and not of the material’
--en.oxforddictionaries.com--

First, as to the usage of red: all of which is directly related to time!!!

So if you're using a different meaning than those supplied by collegiate reference material on the Human English Language, then state the scientific method utilized to prove the definition you created in your minds eye! Because those definitions above, leave no room for your religious belief system, unless you have 'logical proof of concept' that would suffer peer review as being possible. Please keep in mind that in all cases above, their 'usage examples,' simply show how the word has historically been used, and lends no necessary credibility to its 'logically trueness'. As a matter of fact, in all cases they are illogical. As conclusions, they do not follow any sort of logical imperative. It's just human, 'wishful thinking,' 'in denial,' "bullshit!!!" In other words, 'totally improvable!!!'

Indeed they all end as far as us knowing them goes. However us knowing them does not necessarily imply that they have to be known.

To which, without going into further details, SoB rebutted:
I agree, humankind need not know of any particular thing for it to be the actual case.

So here are further details, from the SoB:
Nor does it imply that, 'not having to be known,' proves any theory of either 'belindas,' or 'SpheresOfBalances,' as necessarily valid. Proof is required, the scientific method must be employed. Things can't be wished into existence.
I fully understand why mortals want to believe in eternity! And why they would go to such trouble to continue to use it as, 'something actually possible.'

As to the definition of eternity goes, it can never be measured by mere mortal humans, as they don't live long enough to know it's measure, it's value. So they cannot speak of it, as if it's certain, PERIOD!! Humans can't necessarily speak of the future, as if it's certain, at all. And they can only marginally assert certainty as it pertains to the past. We only actually have now, and now is never eternal, and as such we cannot know eternity, we can only project our minds fancy as a possibility, hopefully realizing all the while, what's at the root of that fancy; it's casual. Why we want/desire to believe in eternity is because we know we die. Our progeny is contained within the hope of eternity! All for nothing? We can't stomach it!!! Duh! Yeah, I have children too people. But then this is a philosophy forum.

Everyday humans do things that actually damns the promise of eternity, at least as far as those that created the concept goes, sure the rest of the universe will keep ticking until, 'when/if,' it winds down, heat death, entropy. Which is one scientific theory. At best, 'eternity' is only a theory!

And as far as the topics concern with values goes, value can only be decided by those that are willing to pay.

[RWStanding]

Eternal value should signify universal value, applicable to all human societies, not some ethereal figment.
Both elementary and end values appear to be relevant to all communities of sapient creatures. There will be some people who are incapable of understanding these values, but their community would treat them according to those values. This does not mean everyone is treated the same, but according to their needs and natures. Nor does it mean that the whole world belongs to everyone. In altruist society, everyone is responsible to it and others, and held to suitable account for failure.
But the specific problem of homosexuality raises a serious situation. Adults who are convinced of their sexuality may be tolerated accordingly. On the other hand children need to be treated as such, and a universal truth – rather than value – is probably that they need guidance rather than aimless liberty to decide for themselves. For that matter, to merely ask adults what they desire and treat that as a human right, is just as fallacious – or rather, it is not what altruist society is about, but is what a society based on personal autonomy proclaims. It may be remarked that people who claim autonomy and at the same time like to believe they are altruistic, are either confused, or they equate altruism with ultra-liberalism [Britain is moving that way].

[Conde Lucanor]

Well then I will make it simple. I make an observation of "x", I in turn reflect upon that observation and in turn observe it as an observation.

As usual, you got all the concepts mixed up. Let's try to put some order: an observation is the act of perception with the senses, which has been internalized in a mental representation of the objects observed. That becomes the experience of the subject in relation to the object. Further reflection will be directed to the experience, but that is a mental reflection (maybe even a recreation in the mind of the perception process), not a new sense perception directed to the process itself turned into an object of contemplation.

Actually you cannot observe all the places it has been or will be in their entirety nor the actualy moving parts which compose it as they happen.

No, and it is not necessary, as long as I get enough information to find key relations and fill in the gaps. I don't see the moon every day, but that will not raise a minimal possibility that the Earth's moon or any of its properties are not real.

Context and relations are dependent upon the relation of parts which in themselves are isolated as localities which relate to other localties.

You just took a long and unnecessary roundabout of words to land in the same point where you started: context and relations are dependent upon context and relations. Ha!

This relations of parts observes movement.

Where did you get such and absurd claim? It certainly doesn't come from any logical argument. Are we supposed to give any sense to the claim that "relations observe"?

The "means" of observation is the angle through which we observe it (whether a perspective or objective tool) which inevitably places what is being observed in specific boundaries. This "means" of observation, quite literally an angle oftentimes, connects us to the reality being observed by providing medial boundaries.

That has nothing to do with "the object being the lens". The lens and the objects have independent existence and even though they can come into relation in the act of perception, they never merge to the point that the object dissolves into mere subjectivity, nor the means of perception becomes the object.

Now the objects which exist independently of conscious agents inevitably act as boundaries to our observations themselves. For example I may see "x,y,z" objects which form my perception of reality. I may not see "a" however, but "a" exists as a negative limit to "x,y,z" where "x,y,z" is defined by what it is "not" (in this case "a").

My perception of reality will be comprised of the elements that I regard as being real. If I claim "a" to exist, then "a" belongs to the same set as "x,y,z"; your negative boundary simply loses all meaning and has no justification as an "inevitable" constraint.

The object observed places limits on the nature of our observations and inherently forms them.

That's a complete inversion of what really happens. The limits are in our observational and cognitive faculties, not in the objects themselves. Fortunately, those limits are not fixed, they can move with the help of cultural tools.

Again for example, from a beginning point of empiricism, I may observe a hole in the ground. This hole is evident to me. However the hole acts as a medium for me to perceive a form of a circle as a limit to that very same hole (the boundaries which compose it) and this "form" in turn changes the nature of my perception.

The circular form does not change your perception, its boundaries are part of the experience of observing a hole in the ground from the very beginning. It's not like you first observe or appropriate the concept of the hole in a first instance (devoid of the formal relations) and then discover the formal relations.

No, Deepak Chopra deals with spirituality, we are talking about the nature of consciousness and it inherent relations with logic. We are talking about the nature of "boundaries" which compose it also.

Well, he can fill entire pages with nonsense, and so do you.

It is simple if an object is determined as true...

Put this clearly in your mind for once and for all: entities can be determined as being real or not real, not as true or untrue. The category of truth is reserved for propositions, for claims about the accurate description of the world. One can claim an object is real or not real and then anyone can evaluate such claim and determine that it is true or not true. The assessment of the truthfulness of this proposition will not come from any intrinsic property the object possess, but from the level of correspondence between what is claimed and what actually is. Only in your dreams there's a hidden property of untruthfulness inevitably tied to objects.

Of course "idealism sucks", we can see how the materialistic stance is inevitably directed towards it like a vacuum. You have to keep in mind, or at least empirically observe it through your senses, that the "material" world not only results in this conversation but inevitably leads to the problem of idea.

That was a nice joke, but in complete contradiction of your own stance. Since you claim everything carries an intrinsic "untruthfulness", you're obliged to withhold any assertions about the reality of the world. At best, you could only claim that "anything goes". But we can see your double standard: when it comes to other people's assertions, they are inevitably limited by the own scope of the inquiry, but when it comes to yours, well...there you are supposed to have full access to the truth of the empirical and observations have no limits. How convenient.

Materialism results in Idealism inevitably, because materialism (as many of your...arguments (that is a generous term) prove by merit of their form and function) inevitably cycles through itself into either contradictions or paradoxes.

Actually, not such paradoxes are "inevitably" found in the materialistic view of the universe. Just like Xeno's, with the old practice of sophistry philosophers can produce interesting mental games, even though they are empirically demonstrated as false every time. But at least, they are interesting mental games to occupy our minds for a while, something that you have not produced yourself in this thread. I mean, your only argument is a complete, ridiculous joke.

As an "end" of perception, or a "limit" to it, it provides another starting point for further observations and in these respects mediates it. Take for example I may observe a tree as an "end" to my perception. The tree is an end, however it may point my observation in another direction such as the squirrel on one of its limbs. In these respects the object acts as a mediator.

A mediation in perception is completely different than a mediation in understanding, even though they are related in the whole process that conform the subject's experience. You just don't get the distinction and jump from one to the other clumsily. I can see trees, squirrels, grass, etc., but I'm also able to realize that squirrels are no essential part of trees.

No, I will say this and be accused of "bragging" but I have have been tested in all of this before. I have an IQ of 161 at its top, plus various other psychological tests, administered by professionals, claiming I should have been a particle physicist. Now you will accuse me of being arrogant for throwing the number around, of "what other people said", but these are the standards "generally" (at least for now) by what intelligence is measured by. Do they work? No, but people like you usually believe they do considering you gain your identity off of what other's think.

You can say you're a superhero if you want. I prefer to rely on the evidence. So far, it's easy to see that you cannot make simple logical connections and you're completely inept in using the appropriate forum tools, something that a fourth grader could easily handle. When you walk the talk...

[Eodnhoj7]

Well then I will make it simple. I make an observation of "x", I in turn reflect upon that observation and in turn observe it as an observation.

As usual, you got all the concepts mixed up. Let's try to put some order: an observation is the act of perception with the senses, which has been internalized in a mental representation of the objects observed. That becomes the experience of the subject in relation to the object.
The observed "facts" of science, are in themselves observations, hence a mirroring process occurs. The observation in itself, because of the "fact", becomes and object.

Further reflection will be directed to the experience, but that is a mental reflection (maybe even a recreation in the mind of the perception process), not a new sense perception directed to the process itself turned into an object of contemplation.

Actually you cannot observe all the places it has been or will be in their entirety nor the actualy moving parts which compose it as they happen.

No, and it is not necessary, as long as I get enough information to find key relations and fill in the gaps. I don't see the moon every day, but that will not raise a minimal possibility that the Earth's moon or any of its properties are not real.

Gaining enough "information to fills the gaps" comes to fault when the percieve reality becomes probabilistic and can "only be filled" with further probabilistic facts which in themselves have gaps.

Context and relations are dependent upon the relation of parts which in themselves are isolated as localities which relate to other localties.

You just took a long and unnecessary roundabout of words to land in the same point where you started: context and relations are dependent upon context and relations. Ha!

Yes, and this inherent circularity is inevitable in all acts of observation even in linear progression where the projection from a point 0 inevitably results in going back to it. Hence we can observe a "constant" where alternation not just forms a truth but gives the inherent boundaries through which it exists. In this manner, the strictly linear approach you argued (again evidence by the very nature of line itself) contradicts itself as a form of infinite regress as a continual separation.

The fact that "context and relations are dependent upon context and relations", observes that both contexts and relations are inherent extensions of a universal wholistic alternation and in these respects are approximates of a unified constant truth in one respect while exist for what they are as multiple relations in another. This dualism of "extension of unity" and "approximation of unity through multiplicity" observes that "context" and "relation" are boundaries of definition in themselves and are axiomatic for what they are: "context" and "multiplicity".

This relations of parts observes movement.

Where did you get such and absurd claim? It certainly doesn't come from any logical argument. Are we supposed to give any sense to the claim that "relations observe"?


1) All parts of compose of boundaries which localize the phenomenon as a part.

2) The boundaries which localize the parts are the same boundaries which form the observer (ex: the observed photons are the very same photons which compose the observer, hence the act of observation points to an inherent circulation of photons).

3) Boundaries, through this alternation, fold through themselves, hence the act of observation is an act of measurement which results in structure as order. Observation, under these premises, is a synthesis of boundaries.

The "means" of observation is the angle through which we observe it (whether a perspective or objective tool) which inevitably places what is being observed in specific boundaries. This "means" of observation, quite literally an angle oftentimes, connects us to the reality being observed by providing medial boundaries.

That has nothing to do with "the object being the lens". The lens and the objects have independent existence and even though they can come into relation in the act of perception, they never merge to the point that the object dissolves into mere subjectivity, nor the means of perception becomes the object.

They do not have an independent existence considering both the nature of all objects as "atomic facts or truths" are the means we relate to further "atomic facts or truths". Again if I am observing a photon, my understanding of photons is determined by the tools I can build which are composed of them. While the nature of the photons is not directly understood in building the tool it is indirectly understood by building the tool itself considering we understand more about the tool when using it to observe these very same photons.

The understanding of photons, in turn helps us to build better tools in which to observe them and hence the "object acts as lens" where these atomic facts literally provide new angles of perception.

Now the objects which exist independently of conscious agents inevitably act as boundaries to our observations themselves. For example I may see "x,y,z" objects which form my perception of reality. I may not see "a" however, but "a" exists as a negative limit to "x,y,z" where "x,y,z" is defined by what it is "not" (in this case "a").

My perception of reality will be comprised of the elements that I regard as being real. If I claim "a" to exist, then "a" belongs to the same set as "x,y,z"; your negative boundary simply loses all meaning and has no justification as an "inevitable" constraint.
Your response of "negation" was formed as a result of me applying a positive definition. Regardless of your level of belief in what is real, your absence of belief was determined (given form) under the negation you provided.

The object observed places limits on the nature of our observations and inherently forms them.

That's a complete inversion of what really happens. The limits are in our observational and cognitive faculties, not in the objects themselves. Fortunately, those limits are not fixed, they can move with the help of cultural tools.

"The limits are...not in the objects themselves" but are "move" by "the help of cultural tools" causes a problem when these tools as means of movement are in themselves fixed under an objective notion of "culture" and hence we can see that truth maintains a universal element of group unity as a means of measuring reality. "Culture" becomes an objective limit in these respects...for your argument, hence it (as I said above "as an object") "places limits on the nature of our observations and inherently form them.

Again for example, from a beginning point of empiricism, I may observe a hole in the ground. This hole is evident to me. However the hole acts as a medium for me to perceive a form of a circle as a limit to that very same hole (the boundaries which compose it) and this "form" in turn changes the nature of my perception.

The circular form does not change your perception, its boundaries are part of the experience of observing a hole in the ground from the very beginning. It's not like you first observe or appropriate the concept of the hole in a first instance (devoid of the formal relations) and then discover the formal relations.

No, Deepak Chopra deals with spirituality, we are talking about the nature of consciousness and it inherent relations with logic. We are talking about the nature of "boundaries" which compose it also.

Well, he can fill entire pages with nonsense, and so do you.

Pythagoras, Plato and Thales, as some of the key fathers of the mathematics/logic/geometry (hence scientific method), we use today observed these very same "boundaries". The simple truth is that it is not so much "non-sense" I am arguing but your self-projection of potential non-sense you fear you are arguing.

It is simple if an object is determined as true...

Put this clearly in your mind for once and for all: entities can be determined as being real or not real, not as true or untrue. The category of truth is reserved for propositions, for claims about the accurate description of the world. One can claim an object is real or not real and then anyone can evaluate such claim and determine that it is true or not true. The assessment of the truthfulness of this proposition will not come from any intrinsic property the object possess, but from the level of correspondence between what is claimed and what actually is. Only in your dreams there's a hidden property of untruthfulness inevitably tied to objects.
What is real is truth what is not-real is not true. Even a hallucination is real in the respect it is a hallucination, it's depth of truth mirrors its relation to the surrounding environment (do other people). But regardless of whether people see it or not, it still affects there behavior as their behavior is bound by the behavior of the man who hallucinates.

Of course "idealism sucks", we can see how the materialistic stance is inevitably directed towards it like a vacuum. You have to keep in mind, or at least empirically observe it through your senses, that the "material" world not only results in this conversation but inevitably leads to the problem of idea.

That was a nice joke, but in complete contradiction of your own stance. Since you claim everything carries an intrinsic "untruthfulness", you're obliged to withhold any assertions about the reality of the world. At best, you could only claim that "anything goes". But we can see your double standard: when it comes to other people's assertions, they are inevitably limited by the own scope of the inquiry, but when it comes to yours, well...there you are supposed to have full access to the truth of the empirical and observations have no limits. How convenient.
All "inherent untruthfulness" observes that we can see truths only as mediums through the relation of parts. This in itself is consistent, that "parts" are axiomatic or self-evidence considering we may not fully agree on what composes them we are nonetheless bound by there existence as a "limit" which forms our argument. Hence untruthfullness is merely an approximation of unified truth in one respect, while observing this "gradation" as an extension of a whole, hence constant, truth.

Materialism results in Idealism inevitably, because materialism (as many of your...arguments (that is a generous term) prove by merit of their form and function) inevitably cycles through itself into either contradictions or paradoxes.

Actually, not such paradoxes are "inevitably" found in the materialistic view of the universe. Just like Xeno's, with the old practice of sophistry philosophers can produce interesting mental games, even though they are empirically demonstrated as false every time. But at least, they are interesting mental games to occupy our minds for a while, something that you have not produced yourself in this thread. I mean, your only argument is a complete, ridiculous joke.
Xeno's paradoxes fall under their own paradoxes as he claims reality does not move, yet the measurement scales he uses (which are real), do move. Hence Xeno's paradoxes point to an inherent dualism, again of unity and multiplicity, where the pardox in itself is merely an observation of the limit of our knowledge.

As an "end" of perception, or a "limit" to it, it provides another starting point for further observations and in these respects mediates it. Take for example I may observe a tree as an "end" to my perception. The tree is an end, however it may point my observation in another direction such as the squirrel on one of its limbs. In these respects the object acts as a mediator.

A mediation in perception is completely different than a mediation in understanding, even though they are related in the whole process that conform the subject's experience. You just don't get the distinction and jump from one to the other clumsily. I can see trees, squirrels, grass, etc., but I'm also able to realize that squirrels are no essential part of trees.

Are the squirrel's not a "part of the tree" if they exist through them (eat nuts, homes through its materials, etc.).

No, I will say this and be accused of "bragging" but I have have been tested in all of this before. I have an IQ of 161 at its top, plus various other psychological tests, administered by professionals, claiming I should have been a particle physicist. Now you will accuse me of being arrogant for throwing the number around, of "what other people said", but these are the standards "generally" (at least for now) by what intelligence is measured by. Do they work? No, but people like you usually believe they do considering you gain your identity off of what other's think.

You can say you're a superhero if you want. I prefer to rely on the evidence. So far, it's easy to see that you cannot make simple logical connections and you're completely inept in using the appropriate forum tools, something that a fourth grader could easily handle. When you walk the talk...

I am giving you evidence based upon the standard test of how one "reasons" that the standards you present are lower than the one's I am arguing. The simple truth is that you are just stupid and don't want to admit it for fear of your world being turned upside down.

[lazyfordumbpeople444]

Dontaskme wrote:

You are the gardener.

What you believe or what you think will become your reality.

Like I said in my last reply to you. If there is no I, no self, then I, self , cannot be the instigator of beliefs.

I partly agree with what you say as psychology, but pain and joy do break into the stronghold of my chosen reality. Anyway, you can't have it both ways: 1. that the gardener is the only uncaused cause, and 2. that I am a cause.

I can have it both ways as follows: 1. and 2. are each a valid aspect of the gardener which overarches 1. and 2.

The only way available to human beings to access eternal values if they exist is reason. Faith is usually a fancy word for obedience to what some man in a big wig said long ago.

Yes you can have it both ways..because you are the one in which the other one arises.

You do not need concepts like faith and belief just to be...you already are, else the concepts of faith and belief could and would not even arise.

You are not a concept...you are that concept-less empty space in which all concepts arise and are known as and when they arise...one with the knowing..

What is the reason or purpose for living?

Nothing...except what the mind puts there, the gardener.

No, there is no premise that you are a consciousness floating around.
You HAVE a consciousness. and it is in your brain. Let that sink in

[Dontaskme]

No, there is no premise that you are a consciousness floating around.
You HAVE a consciousness. and it is in your brain. Let that sink in

Consciousness is everything and not-a-thing simulatanously.

It can’t be seen / it is the seeing. It can’t be known / it is the knowing.

It’s not in anything nor is it outside of anything. It’s everywhere at once, namely, nowhere/now here.

.

[lazyfordumbpeople444]

No, there is no premise that you are a consciousness floating around.
You HAVE a consciousness. and it is in your brain. Let that sink in

Consciousness is everything and not-a-thing simulatanously.

It can’t be seen / it is the seeing. It can’t be known / it is the knowing.

It’s not in anything nor is it outside of anything. It’s everywhere at once, namely, nowhere/now here.

.

Can you describe to me then what is it that makes you aware of what you do? Tell me why you born then and for what reason and tell me what happens when you faint and loses your consciousness which is verifiable that happens in the brain as anything that helps your blood flows to the brain again can make you regain consciousness. Explain to me that in your religion