Existence...

Satyr wrote:

Projection....
I already have the concept of a circle in my mind. It is completed there.  

That example allows for the idea of expansion that can be conceptualized by anyone who cannot let go of past beliefs.  At this point, I am not ready to attack paradoxes.  

Exploding reality, like Mt. Vesuvius, makes no sense to me in terms of the overwhelming amount of visible ordered patterns.  What makes more sense is that everything but 1 point is organized, the it factor of progression.

Can the it factor of progression be a self sustaining pattern?

Because you are an organism that depends on order, values it, and can only think by ordering.

The universe you attempt to preserve is a tragic/comedy, a sadomasochistic farce.
You describe yourself as no more than a stone, no different than a grain of sand...only you are aware of your own impotence, for some reason.
If that what you want, then so be it.

Satyr wrote:

Because you are an organism that depends on order, values it, and can only think by ordering.

The universe you attempt to preserve is a tragic/comedy, a sadomasochistic farce.
You describe yourself as no more than a stone, no different than a grain of sand...only you are aware of your own impotence, for some reason.
If that what you want, then so be it.

Why so negative? Why do you keep pushing into territory yet to be covered?

Satyr wrote:

Because you are an organism that depends on order, values it, and can only think by ordering.

The universe you attempt to preserve is a tragic/comedy, a sadomasochistic farce.
You describe yourself as no more than a stone, no different than a grain of sand...only you are aware of your own impotence, for some reason.
If that what you want, then so be it.

Understanding is based on order. Would you rather stop using your brain to understand? So be it.

I'm describing the picture you are painting...I recognize a pattern.
I see the circle you are attempting to complete.

I'll have to wait until you actually do it, and admit it.
'Till then...

Satyr wrote:

Because you are an organism that depends on order, values it, and can only think by ordering.

The universe you attempt to preserve is a tragic/comedy, a sadomasochistic farce.
You describe yourself as no more than a stone, no different than a grain of sand...only you are aware of your own impotence, for some reason.
If that what you want, then so be it.

You are not an organism that depends on order, values it, and can only think by ordering? That's ironic humor at its finest.

Are you going to aid me work in working through all the logic and actually philosophize? Or do your usual creature of habit haranguing?

WendyDarling wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Because you are an organism that depends on order, values it, and can only think by ordering.

The universe you attempt to preserve is a tragic/comedy, a sadomasochistic farce.
You describe yourself as no more than a stone, no different than a grain of sand...only you are aware of your own impotence, for some reason.
If that what you want, then so be it.

You are not an organism that depends on order, values it, and can only think by ordering?  That's ironic humor at its finest.

Are you going to aid me work in working through all the logic and actually philosophize?  Or do your usual creature of habit haranguing?

Huh?

Oh shit.
Note to self:
Never use pronoun "you".
Choose, they, them, we, ze, he/him ...or "I"....
Triggers defensive reaction.

I am an organism, not you....I am such an organism.
Good point.

Satyr wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Because you are an organism that depends on order, values it, and can only think by ordering.

The universe you attempt to preserve is a tragic/comedy, a sadomasochistic farce.
You describe yourself as no more than a stone, no different than a grain of sand...only you are aware of your own impotence, for some reason.
If that what you want, then so be it.

You are not an organism that depends on order, values it, and can only think by ordering?  That's ironic humor at its finest.

Are you going to aid me work in working through all the logic and actually philosophize?  Or do your usual creature of habit haranguing?

Huh?

Oh shit.
Note to self:
Never use pronoun "you".
Choose, they, them, we, ze, he/him ...or "I"....
Triggers defensive reaction.

I am an organism, not you....I am such an organism.
Good point.

Can such an excellent point penetrate such a thick noggin? Will this be followed with another "huh?"

We will discipline ourselves accordingly, mistress.

It is I, I alone - singularity - which is addicted, obsessed with order.
Sorry for disturbing your Intellectual work.

I, we, will be here if we need to serve....in any way.

You may think you philosophize by reporting on reality. I think philosophy is more than reporting on what isn't questioned.  Philosophy is answering the big one's. How?  Why? Etc.


Not society.  Not politics.  Not economics. Not etc., etc., etc.

Are our understandings of philosophy so different that there is no middle ground in which to work?

May we ask for our excusing us, it is frightfully hot and we will be going to refresh ourselves at the public pool.
We may return later, if it so pleases us.

Satyr wrote:

May we ask for our excusing us, it is frightfully hot and we will be going to refresh ourselves to the public pool.
We may return later, if it so pleases us.

Sure. Bring us commentary on the nature of pool activities.

To reiterate for the contentious, "...and I'm all out of bubblegum." Bring it!

Speaking of Energy...and parasites - energy vampires.

Satyr wrote:

Speaking of Energy...and parasites - energy vampires.

Mind summing it up?

Conversing at sciforums.com, seeing whether or not I can bust through people’s misconceptions about reality. They are asking a lot of great questions.

This is the story of why I decided to examine the nature of reality and our human understanding of it. The world around me seems too chaotic and crazy right now, overwhelmed with fear and anger that exacerbates nihilism. Nihilism helps no one. So, due to not sleeping and having an abundance of mental energy, I began processing all the ins and outs, the quandaries, surrounding existence. These quandaries always end in a paradox, logical fallacies, or trippy infinite loops. I thought to myself, is understanding the immediate world around me and its order that messy?

No, I understand the order I find in my basic daily observations with most things being constant rather than inconsistent. With simple logic and reasoning, I can expect the sun to rise, a dog to bark, a chair to hold the seated, so where does understanding reality get so messy? Science. I despise reading and have never invested my understanding in the religion of science, so it was not a stumbling block for me to overcome the current beliefs it espouses.

Currently, I frequent two philosophy websites, ilovephilosophy.com and knowthyselforumotion.net, to expand my horizons regarding thought through the use of reasoning and the application of alternative perspectives.

The poster, Satyr, over at knowthyselforumotion.net hammered home the need for me to use my basic observations of reality, the actual, before my head goes up in the clouds of purely abstract ideas that have no concrete foundation, no verifiability. So I did just that and formulated a new understanding of reality, existence.

But where's the foundation underneath my comprehension? From daily observations, I understand the simple consistency or constant that existence provides.  I essentially know what to expect moment to moment by and large. I wondered could the simplicity of my expectations apply to the overarching umbrella that is known as existence?

Yes. It can.

Instead of spinning my wheels on paradoxes, logical fallacies, and the rest of the confusing nonsense, I decided to take a bold approach. Existence is...everything actual. No matter what galaxy or dimension or universe. No matter the form or size or shape of any actual thing, everything falls under the umbrella of existence as all that exists. That means there is only one, overarching existence.

Now I asked myself, I reasoned, if everything exists, how can anything not exist?

It can't. Non-existence denies the actual...existence. What?

Non-existence is purely an idea, a concept.  But non-existence is understandable for we use it to describe death.  

Many ideas and concepts are understandable, but that doesn't mean they make up actual existence in the traditionally understood way.  Unicorns are understandable, but do not actually exist.  Unicorns are another idea just as non-existence is an idea.  There is no non-existence of a unicorn because there was never any existence of an actual unicorn.  There are abstractions of unicorns, stuffies, cartoons representations, etc., but nothing actually living as the "animal" is understood.

But death is non-existence. What we are describing as death is change, not non-existence, not the becoming of nothing. I'll get into this more later. 

Can something become nothing?  

If something can become nothing, how would existence remain?  It wouldn't, it'd disappear completely.  So nothing and non-existence only exist as place holders in our daily lives but in the actuality of existence only occur as ideas in opposition to existence.

To Be Continued...

Bottom<>Up thinking.
Begin by connecting as many words with observable, falsifiable, phenomena.
Words will then refer to abstractions with an external referent.
You will connect with nature.

Satyr wrote:

Bottom<>Up thinking.
Begin by connecting as many words with observable, falsifiable, phenomena.
Words will then refer to abstractions with an external referent.
You will connect with nature.  

Existence has to be placed under the umbrella of the actual, all somethings, all things.  Too many to list.

What in your mind am I not connecting to the bottom?

I'm not making personal comments only offering generalities.

Satyr wrote:

I'm not making personal comments only offering generalities.

I need specifics, not generalities, so please be a dear and give me specifics. Or ask me questions about my assertions.

Words like god, morality, choice, male/female begins with the observable, the sensually perceived.
The word god cannot begin with an abstraction - an idea.
The word morality must begin with the observable not with a vague feeling, an ideal, a hypothetical.

Satyr wrote:

Words like god, morality, choice, male/female begins with the observable, the sensually perceived.
The word god cannot begin with an abstraction - an idea.
The word morality must begin with the observable not with a vague feeling, an ideal, a hypothetical.

Where have I used any of those words you mentioned?

I'm not talking to you specifically.
I'm generalizing to direct my views to anyone reading.
Describing my method.

I found it interesting how the ILP idiot casually slipped in the idea of universal consciousness, with a simple declarative matter-of-fact statement.

Who did what?

Satyr wrote:

gab wrote:

Yes, our consciousness is an extension of universal consciousness, just like a memory is an extension of our consciousness.

I haven't even gotten to all that stuff yet.

My dark horse is still at the starting gate without a competent jockey to lead my horse over the finish line. I need one who can ride full speed.

WendyDarling wrote:

Instead of spinning my wheels on paradoxes, logical fallacies, and the rest of the confusing nonsense, I decided to take a bold approach. Existence is...everything actual. No matter what galaxy or dimension or universe. No matter the form or size or shape of any actual thing, everything falls under the umbrella of existence as all that exists. That means there is only one, overarching existence.

Now I asked myself, I reasoned, if everything exists, how can anything not exist?

It can't. Non-existence denies the actual...existence. What?

Non-existence is purely an idea, a concept.  But non-existence is understandable for we use it to describe death.  

Many ideas and concepts are understandable, but that doesn't mean they make up actual existence in the traditionally understood way.  Unicorns are understandable, but do not actually exist.  Unicorns are another idea just as non-existence is an idea.  There is no non-existence of a unicorn because there was never any existence of an actual unicorn.  There are abstractions of unicorns, stuffies, cartoons representations, etc., but nothing actually living as the "animal" is understood.

The challenge is not to prove pure ideas of reason, because they cannot be proven. The challenge is to confront them as issues of consciousness and reason. The question is why do we have these immutable ideas? Why do we strive towards them? What purpose do they serve subjectively, pertaining to our needs, anxieties, or goals? Because absolute ideas cannot correlate to anything in the observable world, then they must tell us something about ourselves. Self-knowledge is the only way to attain a degree of balance where ideas have a chance to reflect properties of the natural world and to make our own existence more conducive to it. If we are more in harmony with the real, then we experience common feelings such as “happiness”, (ordered state). We are, after all, cogs of nature, and so must cooperate with it.

Metaphysics is the study of how noumena interact with phenomena. If an idea cannot reflect, or be congruent with nature, the experiential world, then it belongs in the realm of the abstract only, the imagination. A pure conception sets up what Kant refers to as a “transcendental boundary”; the limitation of how far an idea goes beyond appearance before it must fade into idealistic vagary. When that point is reached, and if we want to preserve the value of our ideas, then a self-examination must occur, so that one can return to the real once again and not remain trapped there. The fact that you always ended up in “paradoxes” or “trippy infinite loops” as you refer to them, is because rational methodology only goes so far before it breaks down, because no absolute form of knowledge can ever be reached. Hence, existence as the eternal recurrence, cyclical time, manifesting self again and again. This produces the anxiety and the need for it to STOP. And this is where the seduction of the immutable ideal comes in, it offers a state of rest, stasis, feelings of security. This is why many people settle down and ‘find peace’ when they give themselves over to the belief in God for example.

WendyDarling wrote:

My dark horse is still at the starting gate without a competent jockey to lead my horse over the finish line. I need one who can ride full speed.

There is no 'finish line'. There is only you and the horse sweeping you away.

Kvasir wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

Instead of spinning my wheels on paradoxes, logical fallacies, and the rest of the confusing nonsense, I decided to take a bold approach. Existence is...everything actual. No matter what galaxy or dimension or universe. No matter the form or size or shape of any actual thing, everything falls under the umbrella of existence as all that exists. That means there is only one, overarching existence.

Now I asked myself, I reasoned, if everything exists, how can anything not exist?

It can't. Non-existence denies the actual...existence. What?

Non-existence is purely an idea, a concept.  But non-existence is understandable for we use it to describe death.  

Many ideas and concepts are understandable, but that doesn't mean they make up actual existence in the traditionally understood way.  Unicorns are understandable, but do not actually exist.  Unicorns are another idea just as non-existence is an idea.  There is no non-existence of a unicorn because there was never any existence of an actual unicorn.  There are abstractions of unicorns, stuffies, cartoons representations, etc., but nothing actually living as the "animal" is understood.

The challenge is not to prove pure ideas of reason, because they cannot be proven. The challenge is to confront them as issues of consciousness and reason. The question is why do we have these immutable ideas? Why do we strive towards them? What purpose do they serve subjectively, pertaining to our needs, anxieties, or goals? Because absolute ideas cannot correlate to anything in the observable world, then they must tell us something about ourselves. Self-knowledge is the only way to attain a degree of balance where ideas have a chance to reflect properties of the natural world and to make our own existence more conducive to it. If we are more in harmony with the real, then we experience common feelings such as “happiness”, (ordered state). We are, after all, cogs of nature, and so must cooperate with it.

Metaphysics is the study of how noumena interact with phenomena. If an idea cannot reflect, or be congruent with nature, the experiential world, then it belongs in the realm of the abstract only, the imagination. A pure conception sets up what Kant refers to as a “transcendental boundary”; the limitation of how far an idea goes beyond appearance before it must fade into idealistic vagary. When that point is reached, and if we want to preserve the value of our ideas, then a self-examination must occur, so that one can return to the real once again and not remain trapped there. The fact that you always ended up in “paradoxes” or “trippy infinite loops” as you refer to them, is because rational methodology only goes so far before it breaks down, because no absolute form of knowledge can ever be reached. Hence, existence as the eternal recurrence, cyclical time, manifesting self again and again. This produces the anxiety and the need for it to STOP. And this is where the seduction of the immutable ideal comes in, it offers a state of rest, stasis, feelings of security. This is why many people settle down and ‘find peace’ when they give themselves over to the belief in God for example.

WendyDarling wrote:

My dark horse is still at the starting gate without a competent jockey to lead my horse over the finish line. I need one who can ride full speed.

There is no 'finish line'. There is only you and the horse sweeping you away.

Kindly, let's agree to disagree or you can prove me wrong. I could hug you for being so you, but you're still wrong.

Pure ideas of reason can be proven and I'm gonna stick to my guns until I'm shot dead.

Now what is wrong with the claim that the source of creation cannot create itself?

Not one observable thing can create itself. You can't create yourself. Storms can't create themselves. Plants can't create themselves. Nor rocks or anything from first atom to last. Creation creates. There are no independent creators. And it's a logical fallacy for something to create itself, anything to create itself. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong with something observable popping out of non-existence. Oh, and that's a trick demand since non-existence is only an idea. Everything we see and understand was created as a part of existence.

I am going to have an aneurism soon I'm certain.

WendyDarling wrote:

Pure ideas of reason can be proven

You're 6 pages in the thread, and so far you haven't succeeded. But, you have made passionate and valiant efforts at self-knowledge, and made worthwhile inquiries. I admire that. Please continue with that, it's more fruitful. Nature itself places checks on everything Wendy. This is why my idea of a purple dragon cannot become real, why pigs can't fly, and why a tree can live for thousands of years but not forever. Remember what i said? Ideas are tools to help us navigate the world. The challenge is to choose the right tools.

Creation is not a "consciousness". Satyr spent many many posts trying to explain this to you, so it would be absurd for me to do so myself.

Just know, i admire your passion and i want you to continue exploring.