similarminds.com

somnium · Member Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 25

everything and anything can be proven. it is the intent/will to seek the rational answer, that provides the answer we are looking for. if it is an answer we are looking for. but who, or why, are we looking to prove anything is the question. standing within infinity leaves no uestion, it only leaves the answer, and so what do your own eyes look for? the answer, or solution, or to the problem, and in this case are you surprised you find a problem when your eyes ae looking for one?

Kyle · Advanced Member Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 2210

somnium · Member Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 25

Rasputin · Advanced Member Joined: 27 Dec 2007 Posts: 1358

Rasputin · Advanced Member Joined: 27 Dec 2007 Posts: 1358

somnium · Member Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 25

well yes, people , or atleast some of them, have accepted finite beliefs. what goes up must come down, etc etc etc. endless finite 'laws' created that guide many people, or rather limit them. and so man's unlimited potential has been used to create a system of finite order. however this order still exists within the infinite. i could say that the average world exists like one room in a house with infinite rooms. however even the room that some people 'congregate in, is existing at the same point in time and space as endless other rooms, with endless other values. it brings us to twin realities, or dimensions, coexisting off of this moment. like a branch, or endless forks off of this very moment, running off of ths moment's perceived conitinuim. pecieving the infinite, or gaving into infinity, or perhaps some call connecting directly to divinity, shows our choices, acceptances within infinity. after one see infinity there is no longer a question, there is only what is known, and the fact that we can know anything and everything. the possibilities are endless. when someone goes out the door and walks to the grocery store what tells them where they are going and what they will see, is an expectatation sustained by their experiences, and their knowingness. someone who is open to the unknown, or open to other knowledges in the world can decide to see more, or step out their door to go somewhere else. the trick is learning more, and being open to more. just as yhe grocery store was pointed out to us, we can have many other things pointed out to us too.

the collective. there are many worlds here, existing within the moment right now, worlds that exist in the same point is space and time. many worlds have collectives, meaing that what they know in that world sustains that world, the 'common will', the common knowing, aligns that world into perception. many many many of them. to lack the reasoning system of 'commen man' is to be deemed insane, however the rationality system of another world is common place in that world. but what is 'man' is the real question. as far as i can see they are merely an interpretation i have built and accepted, also the many other interpretations i have built of them. seeing is believeing, experiencing. man is many many things. a form built out of the quintessential source of everything, raw potential, or unformed will. everythign is a constructed form. i dont know much of the string theory, but i see that the world is a bunch of strings, atleast some worlds are, and these strings form everything. i can't prove another exists either, that is outside of my own eyes, my own idea, because when i change my idea of what man is, they change in my eyes. the world i knew before dissappears and i am in what i call a twin world, or ven further than that. ultimately i am all alone, fo ri cannot hold to any other common will, or collective, because when i go somewhere else, i leave and am there. there are worlds all alone, and i see this uis what it is, where i am the only one, seeing myself, my own synchronicity all around me. even if i am percieving that i am seeing others, it is still my choice, and my idea that has changes to allow this, and that same other is also so many other things, fluxuating with my own idea, or interpretation. my idea meets the source, and constructs the form from my idea. i could say the strings of the world are aware of me and what i am projecting, as they surely are, and thus form themselves accordingly. perhaps in this instance i could say that i am living my judgements, but am not bound to them. for the 'universe' is always in motion. i can observe a different way, and have that way meet me, in my eyes and experience. building sandcastles. once the unknown possibilities began to be met, one gains power, and confidence in infinity, they become alone, and free to experiene new horizons. the world in this case, becomes a traveling vessel of awareness.

somnium · Member Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 25

somnium · Member Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 25

it has been said as this -

God, purely one, wanted to experience himself, touch himself, see himself, love himself. and so he seperated himself into the world, for the purpose of experiencing 'himself'. he gave form to his raw energy, his awareness, to become aware of itself. then God comes again together to unite again, and fall apart again, and again and again. he comes togather, to the flame of pure awareness, its light so bright that it burns away all other knowledges, to the awareness of what is, the awareness of what it all is. giving again choice, again. the universe expands again, and comes together in the blink of an eternal eye.

in this way we expand and grow, perpetuating awareness of ourselves, into infinity. as we have and do, always.

Kyle · Advanced Member Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 2210

somnium · Member Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 25

"His blind creation.."

did 'God' create you blindly, or did you fall blind thru your choices?

somnium · Member Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 25

Rasputin · Advanced Member Joined: 27 Dec 2007 Posts: 1358

Somnium, the idea that when we peel back the layers of the ego, we reveal infinity, holds true, for me, to the extent that we discover we are a part of something infinite. But I don't see that we are infinite unto ourselves. You speak of unlimited potential. I agree that we have a great deal of potential, but to say infinite potential I find going a bit far. I have the potential to accoplish anything I want to, but not everything in the world. That, right there, is a limitation. We have to focus our lives on goals that are meaningful to us. And we always have to work toward them, and if the goals are sufficiently worthy of our attention, we have to sweat and labor over them. When we finally attain that goal, we relish it because we know how hard we worked for it, pushing against our own repressed potential, funneling it out as we progress. But there is never a point where, all of a sudden, we have reached a point of realizing infinite potential, finding ourselves Gods, being infinite in all our qualities, in our power, knowledge, mental and motor abilities. If we were not a part of God, I don't see that we would have nearly the potential we would have. Our abilities would be limited to this world, our ideals, goals, and ambitions would hold nothing beyong this physical reality. But since they do, I reason we must be fashioned of something beyond this universe, and the closer I get to myself, the closer I get to the source of my essential substance, the more centered I become within something greater than myself. I am great in that I am a part of an infinite being, but I am low because my finite nature reveals to me my distinct limitations in the face of infinity.

You seem to be speaking about knowledge in a difference sense than I am. I'm talking about knowledge in the empirical sense, saying that we know something when it is the most probably conclusion. Granted, that does not really fit the criteria for knowledge, because it does not remove doubt. This seems to be where your usage of the word comes in, in reference to a direct apprehension of something, independent of our ability to verify our conclusion to others. Now that we are clear on this, I agree with you on what I think you are saying: That we have knowledge of God's existence due to our direct apprehension of Him. When you go a step farther, and say that we have knowledge of everything, that we can prove everything, that is where I'm not with you. If we are a part of God, that enables the possibility of gnosis, thus knowledge of God. If everything is a part of God, maybe we know that due to the information about God's nature that is imparted to us through this gnosis. But what about the particulars of this world? You seem to take a very Heideggerian line of argument by saying that we can perform a phenomenological reduction, of sorts, and experience ourselves existing in the matrix of space and time, seeing that a part of our very essence is a being-in-the-world, thus the world must exist. In your terms, it seems we are seeing that as part of our essence is a being-in-God, or being-as-God, thus God must exist. If the world if part of God, then the world must exist. How, though, do we know that the table in front of me, the computer I am typing on, the computer you typed on in your last message, the floor beneath my feet, the sky above my head, the particulat formation of clouds within that sky at this moment, how do we know that all these things exist? We may know that the world that contains them exists, but where do we draw the line between the hallucinations of a schizophrenic, the blurred vision of someone who is very tired, the misrepresentation that a sound as the bark of a dog down the street when really it was the bark of my own dog, the accurate assessment of molecular position in a molucule under the microscope? It seems that, to make such discrimitions, we are in need of some form of empirical verifiablity. It surprises me, I'm used to arguing with people that we are in need of some level of rationalism, that the world isn't the only thing that exists. This is a refreshing change of pace, but that doesn't mean I agree with you on everything.

Ironically, it seems we have knowledge of God more so than we do of the world, which is just the opposite of what modern popular culture asserts.
_________________
ENTJ 1w9 sp/so scOE[I]
s(54%) c(66%) o(74%) e(84%) i(88%)