100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Quantum mechanics' knowledge | |
|---|---|
|
|
 I seem to have misplaced my quantum toolbox... anyone have a quantum shifter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to have misplaced my quantum toolbox... anyone have a quantum shifter?
A quantum threader? I have a quantum jacker.... maybe it can be jacked, re threaded, and shifted, back into a non mechanical space... 
(S'ok....Michael, the OP, knows how my mind works...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 09/13/08 02:27 PM
|
|
Yeah, allegory is always easy to refute. My own fault for using it. 
But doesn't change the idea underlying the allegory, which is that I prefer to think that I'm not alone and that what I perceive as my interactions with others is not just spiritual masturbation. (If you'll excuse a little more allegory  )
There does seem to be this paradoxical thing. People tend to like to think of just one God. One Top Dog. Even the Greeks, who had many gods and goddesses still felt a need to have one Top Dog; Zeus. Christians insist on a monotheistic God. They have no problem giving God the 'three faces of Eve', and allowing him to be his own sacrifical lamb. For some reason that's acceptable for them. Even the pantheistic religions tend to like to believe that we all arise from a single source and return to that single source. Yet, when we think of it in terms of pure solipsism we frown on it as spiritual masturbation. It seems that we have no problem with God being the masturbater. We just want no parts of it.
It's funny how we can attribute to God characteristics that we find to be personally offensive. I do understand where you are coming from though. Intuitively I also think of the spirit world as being full of individual spirits. It makes it more inviting. Who wants to go to a spirit world and be the only one there. 
However, this may just be due to our limited human way of looking at things. Maybe when we become the all-conscious mind we don't have a problem with it, because from that point of view it all makes sense. It only appears to be a distasteful idea to our human way of thinking.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Plainome
on
Sat 09/13/08 02:32 PM
|
|
It's just that the "god is all and all is god" theory is just as disturbing to me as the pure atheistic theory, for pretty much the same reason - that self-determinism is ultimately meaningless. What would be meaningful? Would a multitude of 'individual' spirits be more meaningful than a single all-encompassing consciousness that is capable of "dividing" itself even if only by illusion? If so, why? Why would a multitude of spirits be more meaningful than one all-encompassing consciousness? Because of individuality and self-determinism. For purposes of growth and sharing and most importantly, acknowledgment. I exist because others acknowledge that I exist. If you were invisible, and no one could see you, how happy would you be? Where is the joy in being one? Where is the joy in being alone? 
JB One Al + one = Alone If all is one, then the one is alone. Quite the contrary in my thinking.........you would not be alone, as everything is there with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have never really studied the different kinds of solipsism but here is something I found on wiki:
Metaphysical solipsism
Main article: Metaphysical solipsism Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which maintains that the individual self of the solipsistic philosopher is the whole of reality and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self having no independent existence (Wood, 295). Okay this is basically saying that this reality is like a dream.... entirely created by the dreamer. Interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.
This reminds me of my own statement when I said all that I really know for certain is that I exist. I can't be sure about anything else. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite the contrary in my thinking.........you would not be alone, as everything is there with you.
Everything there? What is it? Is it you or something or someone else? If all is ONE, then it is just you. If it is just you then you are alone. If it is something or someone else, then it is not you, and if it is not you then all is not ONE. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite the contrary in my thinking.........you would not be alone, as everything is there with you.
Everything there? What is it? Is it you or something or someone else? If all is ONE, then it is just you. If it is just you then you are alone. If it is something or someone else, then it is not you, and if it is not you then all is not ONE. JB My point exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Plainome
on
Sat 09/13/08 02:52 PM
|
|
Quite the contrary in my thinking.........you would not be alone, as everything is there with you.
Everything there? What is it? Is it you or something or someone else? If all is ONE, then it is just you. If it is just you then you are alone. If it is something or someone else, then it is not you, and if it is not you then all is not ONE. JB Are you one?? Yet you yourself have different functions. Your body is one body, but it has different parts. When I say one, I suppose I mean a whole with different pieces. I'm not sure that it means anything, I just know I have experiences "wholeness" and peace......and there is no self. There is no want, no need, no desire to pet a dog, or to seek anything out. It very well may have been a figment of my imagination.........but It could be the wholeness or the one....... Why do we wish to make contact with others......possibly because we know/feel that they are a part of us. Why do some believe in Karma or the threefold path?? Because in essence what you do to others/put out there is being done to yourself as well. You can not spew out hatred, unless you hate something about yourself. I dunno. I mean, I see your point...........but I've also experienced a lack of "ego" or "self" where there were no boundaries.......and all I can call it is Perfect Peace. P.S. I know nothing of the original topic, I have no formal training, what I know/feel I know is based on my experiences.....which is very little, lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jess642
on
Sat 09/13/08 02:57 PM
|
|
All is one = alone???
Come on...human concepts to describe an energetic experience? I remember the explanation of this human experience being an arm of the all ... a spiritual being having a human experience. Identifying with this frame, this ego, this id, is not even remotely tangible when identifying with the all. Pick one... a spiritual part of the all having a human experience. Or a human being attempting to define the spiritual experience of all. It doesn't fit for me... it doesn't sit well at all... There is no attachment to the human who is being.... but an encompassing joy in the spirit/source experiencing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you one?? Yet you yourself have different functions. Your body is one body, but it has different parts. When I say one, I suppose I mean a whole with different pieces. As I've said before, my view on that is: the thing that I refer to when I say "I", does not have any "parts" or "components". It is not "made up of" anything. It is simply itself and nothing more. It is, for all practical purpose, not a "thing" at all, but more of a "potential" or an "ability". But even that is ascribing more to it than it actually is.
Just my viewpoint. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Plainome
on
Sat 09/13/08 03:20 PM
|
|
Are you one?? Yet you yourself have different functions. Your body is one body, but it has different parts. When I say one, I suppose I mean a whole with different pieces. As I've said before, my view on that is: the thing that I refer to when I say "I", does not have any "parts" or "components". It is not "made up of" anything. It is simply itself and nothing more. It is, for all practical purpose, not a "thing" at all, but more of a "potential" or an "ability". But even that is ascribing more to it than it actually is.
Just my viewpoint.
I'm even more confused, lol. Ok, so the "thing" isn't really a thing.......but you don't like the idea of being "one" because you would lose the "thing" that barely even exists?? I know I am probably way off what u are trying to say. To me, the One is like a family........it is all one family, being separate from it, doesn't make it not your family, you are still connected.............but you are much happier when the family is all together, and those lines are not there. I know not a good allegory, but it was the best I could think of. If everything is one, and all is there, there is nothing to be missed..........besides human attachment to things that do not truly exists OR wants for the same said things are what makes the "ego" (taking a break, I'm getting a headache) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just "got" the apostrophe in the thread title. Nice pun creativesoul!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 09/13/08 03:28 PM
|
|
Are you one?? Yet you yourself have different functions. Your body is one body, but it has different parts. When I say one, I suppose I mean a whole with different pieces. As I've said before, my view on that is: the thing that I refer to when I say "I", does not have any "parts" or "components". It is not "made up of" anything. It is simply itself and nothing more. It is, for all practical purpose, not a "thing" at all, but more of a "potential" or an "ability". But even that is ascribing more to it than it actually is.
Just my viewpoint.
I'm even more confused, lol. Ok, so the "thing" isn't really a thing.......but you don't like the idea of being "one" because you would lose the "thing" that barely even exists?? I know I am probably way off what u are trying to say. To me, the One is like a family........it is all one family, being separate from it, doesn't make it not your family, you are still connected.............but you are much happier when the family is all together, and those lines are not there. I know not a good allegory, but it was the best I could think of. If everything is one, and all is there, there is nothing to be missed..........besides human attachment to things that do not truly exists OR wants for the same said things are what makes the "ego" (taking a break, I'm getting a headache) Well first off, I can’t “lose” the “thing” because it is not a possession - I AM it. The reference to “the one” was in the pantheistic sense of “everything is god and god is everything”. So “the one” = “god” = “everything”. In that sense, there is “only one” and it is “everything”. However, I personally don’t think of myself as being “the one that is everything”. Maybe that’s where the confusion is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my view, u in and of urself are not everything, but part of what makes up everything.......which is only logical. I better just stop here, as I'm feeling like I'm talking in circles. We may very well see things the same, lol. I am not "everything" but am part of "everything". I have access to "all" and am connected to "all" and nothing within myself is lacking.
Ack, I just confused myself, lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 09/13/08 03:45 PM
|
|
In my view, u in and of urself are not everything, but part of what makes up everything.......which is only logical. I better just stop here, as I'm feeling like I'm talking in circles. We may very well see things the same, lol. I am not "everything" but am part of "everything". I have access to "all" and am connected to "all" and nothing within myself is lacking. Ack, I just confused myself, lol. My point was that lumping everything together and then giving that lump a label, does not do me any good. It doesn't assist in evaluating anything. There is nothing to compare it with - because, by definition, there IS nothing else. So "the all" has no use to me in any practical sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gotcha......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/13/08 04:10 PM
|
|
All is one = alone??? Come on...human concepts to describe an energetic experience? If there is only one "point of view" or only one observer, then that "one" is alone. I remember the explanation of this human experience being an arm of the all ... a spiritual being having a human experience. Identifying with this frame, this ego, this id, is not even remotely tangible when identifying with the all. Having a human experience is not "identifying with this frame or ego." Pick one... a spiritual part of the all having a human experience.
Or a human being attempting to define the spiritual experience of all. It doesn't fit for me... it doesn't sit well at all... There is no attachment to the human who is being.... but an encompassing joy in the spirit/source experiencing What doesn't fit? I am not understanding your take on this idea. Which doesn't fit? JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If everything is one, and all is there, there is nothing to be missed..........besides human attachment to things that do not truly exists OR wants for the same said things are what makes the "ego" Plainome... You are heard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Plainome
on
Sun 09/14/08 10:12 AM
|
|
All is one = alone??? Come on...human concepts to describe an energetic experience? If there is only one "point of view" or only one observer, then that "one" is alone.
If I may........the "one" is not "one point of view" but ALL points of view simultaneously. As we have already covered, at least I thought it had been covered.......depending on the "point of view" you are looking at you can see things differently.........so; therefore, any conclusion you come to is not a matter of fact, and will change just by thinking of it from a different angle. This "one" unlike our minds (though I think we can train them to be better at it) is able to "see" all things at once......there is no limitation as it is the "ego" and the "point of view" that we are viewing things from that limit us in the first place. BUT.....when that "point of view" or "ego" vision is not there..........you realize that NO conclusions can be drawn because no conclusion truly exists as it is based on a "point of view"........something you are no longer limited by. AND I CAN'T FIGURE OUT THESE DANG QUOTES!! (sorry, all better now, lol) |
|
|
|
|
