Misconceptions

[uniquemand]

There is no need for the creator to be eternal. One assumes he started existence before his creation.

I still find the factors the best explanation I know.

Also I've read several accounts of people who appear to recall
something like a universe creation. I have and one of my PCs did.
Lets just say its a little bit of evidence.

A step further, please. If the creator was not created, doesn't this make the creator eternal? If the creator was created, who was his creator? Were they also created?

 

[VaD]

One assumes he started existence before his creation.

Who "he"?

 

[Vinaire]

Sounds like the "THAT" you are referring to is what Korzybski referred to as "unspeakable", and what I would refer to as ineffable. Primary experience, absent considerations. Nothing prior to my existence could have been part of my primary experience, thus the "time before time" would be ineffable to me.

We could argue about whether I existed during that period. I would argue I didn't, people who think we have lived eternally would argue I did. If that was the case, we could make statements about that primary experience, but they would not convey the experience.

All experience is made of considerations.
All arguments are made of consideration.
There is no way out of considerations.
This is the rock bottom we are looking at.
.

 

[Student of Trinity]

I don't think time began at the start of the big bang. I don't think it is meaningful to say that time has a beginning or an end. You can mark off periods of time in arbitrary units, but this shouldn't be taken to mean that there was nothing going on before or after.

The Big Bang theory could certainly be wrong, at least about the very, very beginning. (It's much less likely to be wrong about most of subsequent history, with things expanding and cooling. It's hard to see how so much data that supports this could all be wrong or misleading.) But according to the BB theory, for whatever it's worth, time simply does begin at that point.

Our instincts and intuitions about time, which may tell us that time cannot possibly begin or end, are based on experience under vastly different circumstances from the earliest moments of the universe. General relativity provides a coherent theory that includes both the 'normal' behavior of time, that we expect from life on Earth, and various quite different behaviors under extreme circumstances, such as black holes and the Big Bang. GR might be wrong, but human intuitions and assumptions about time are not evidence against it.

 

[Gadfly]

Good point.

The mathematical relevance is that since everything is a consideration we cannot know THAT which is beyond consideration. We are forever trapped in a bubble of consideration. We may speculate about how that bubble came to be but that would be a consideration too, and part of the bubble.

See the trap!

But, yes, consierations of that bubble have differences, similarities and identities among themselves. We may evaluate them for consistency and inconsistency. The bubble of considerations would appear complex to the degree it contains inconsistencies.

The fact that we will always exist in a framework or some arbitrary set of considerations describes a PROCESS.

You will consider, and have considerations. Forever probably. What you consider, when pushed for correlation, at some point, will always disconnect from the things and events the consideration describes or defines.

"Consistency and inconsistency" is an arbitrary, non-essential, and personally chosen yardstick of measurement. It matters ONLY if YOU have the consideration that it matters. Geez, now we have gotten to a point where we are talking about considerations about the judging of the "logic" about considerations!

Instead of this endless "think" about considerations, just recognize some healthy set of values, and CONSIDER (postulate) positive, nice, wonderful things along those lines. In the end you are MAKING IT ALL UP (for yourself) anyway, and then acting all surprised when you experience it, so forget about trying to "figure it all out", and simply MAKE UP SOMETHING ELSE that aligns with wonderful beautiful, joyous and grand things! You MAKE IT ALL UP ANYWAY (meaning for and about yourself, and meaning for things "out there"), so take the initiative, break loose of "what is" (as you accept and agree it to be), and create wonderfully in the face of its opposite!

Key points.

Who gives a shit if you, or anybody, "knows"? About all this deep, largely invisible stuff? Meaning why should YOU really suffer from this delusion that first, you actually do "know anything", and second that it is actually "important" to know? Or, at least, imagine that you know, or trick yourself into believing that you "know".

Why use the word "trapped" at all? That says more about the person making the statement than it does about any inherent way or manner the universe is constructed. That is YOUR consideration. You imagine that it creates a trap, and so you experience it. Is there really this "trap of considerations"? Well, if you say so (for you). In fact, as I see it, considerations (as postulates) are the primary basic unit of CREATION. Considerations, as postulates, can CREATE, wheaeas consdirations, as agreements, hold in place already existing things. Peoiple feel trapped when they AGREE to much. People feel less trapped when they CREATE. Again, forget thinking, and simply CREATE. It is way more fun, and therepeutic!

There are experiences and observations, and then there are all your THOUGHTS and IDEAS about these many experiences and observations. There will always be a "wall" between the IDEAS and the things and events the IDEAS try or claim to "model" (define, describe, delineate, label). The conceptual universe of notions, ideas, and concepts will ALWAYS only be some approximation, and really, always incompete and wrong.

Note: Below the realm of your own personal thoughts about the interactions and events of life and the universe possibly lies a deeper realm, where BASIC considerations (as postulates) hold in place the "hardware" (physical and energy universe). If THAT is true, and I have no idea whether it is (just a theory), then the person who entertains ideas of "maps" about the "terrain", may actually also be THAT WHICH CREATES OR HOLDS IN PLACE THE "TERRAIN" ITSELF!

But honestly, now that is REALLY getting into the realm of total pretend and guessing (that at times masquerades as more than it actually is).

So, again, why bother? Just know that, forget about it, and MOCK UP great things in as many ways as you can, in alignment with your current value system (which needs to be examined if you aren't aware of it).

Spending endless time and effort examining the DETAILS of any universe of considerations simply involves poorly-directed time and effort. The details will always come up lacking, so KNOW THAT, and let all that thinking-about-thinking GO. End cycle! Jettison all of that excess baggage.

The best anyone should strive for is to DEMAND (of self) that the "models" in your head (ideas) do NOT distort, exagerrate, alter, misrepresent or confuse the events, situations, and things that the "models" in your head define and describe. The ONLY consistency to try for is to be brutally demanding in that the mental models well correspond to the things they purport to label and define (the "terrain"). In other words, the aim is to bring ones personal universe of IDEAS into the best alignment possible with the "terrain" that the ideas relate to.

One can get to a point, after sufficient internal examination, where you realize that while you can demand a high degree of alignment beween the "map" and the "terrain", they will NEVER become one and the same! One needs to gain this degree of familiarity with all of that, and become fully aware of the nature of "maps" and "terrains", and how they relate. You can only really get to KNOW this, up close and personal, by looking closely at the only one you can actually experience - your own. Reading about this stuff in books is necessary, but just tossing around the ideas will get you nowhere. You need to apply the ideas to your own mind. This doesn't happen in a few minutes or even overnight.

The ONLY place I know that deals with this well are the theories of General Semantics. Recommended reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-Hayakawa/dp/0156482401 (good introduction)

As I see it, as long as you care AT ALL about some detail of some significance (as an IDEA), then you haven't applied the data completely enough to successfully pull out and away from ones own conceptual universe (filled up with considerations about all sorts of things).

This is only one of MANY things that gets addressed in removing the arbitraries from self that BLOCK a clearer awareness and perception as Self.

Lastly, only MINDS demand "consistency". While consistency exists for varying durations for some part of the physical universe, at some time, in the end, all things change. Nothing remains consistent. Evaluating according to consistency is a VERY ARBITRARY criteria. Why that instead of something else? There is nothing inherent in the universe that would make "consistency" a senior value. This again involves a MIND, mocking up and agreeing with some value and considering something as important (self-created choice), and then judging according to that self-created value. Any value is also a consideration. :confused2:

This sort of internal dialog and thinkingness, if carried on for too long, past a point of ridiculousness, and possibly becoming obsessive, acts to replace THINKING instead of LIVING. Too often people deal with the "thoughts of things" instead of the things themselves. Some may say that is impossible to deal with the things themselves. That may be true, and possibly one can never fully "know" anything, BUT you can deal with life and LIVE without a parade of endless & unnecessary thoughts about it all. As I see it, it is NOT impossible. Though it may be difficult.

That is opinion at this moment. I will probably now forget about it and go do something else for a few hours!

+++++++++++

 

[uniquemand]

All experience is made of considerations.
All arguments are made of consideration.
There is no way out of considerations.
This is the rock bottom we are looking at.
.

It's turtles all the way down?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

A step further, please. If the creator was not created, doesn't this make the creator eternal? If the creator was created, who was his creator? Were they also created?

"Eternal" and "infinite" are two different things.

 

[VaD]

All experience is made of considerations.
All arguments are made of consideration.
There is no way out of considerations.
This is the rock bottom we are looking at.
.

Which definition(s) do you refer to, Vinaire?

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featu...ryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=consideration

con·sid·er·a·tion [ kən sìddə ráysh'n ] (plural con·sid·er·a·tions)
noun
Definition:

1. careful thought: careful thought or deliberation
Your application will be given the fullest consideration.
The proposal is currently under consideration.

2. mindfulness of others: thoughtful concern for or sensitivity toward the feelings of others

3. relevant factor in assessing something: something to be taken into account when weighing the pros and cons of a situation before making a decision
Value for money is one of the most important considerations for our customers.

4. detailed examination: detailed discussion or scrutiny
The issue for consideration on today's show is cosmetic surgery.

5. payment: a payment or fee in return for a service ( formal )

6. respect: high regard ( formal )
She has always been held in great consideration by this congregation.

7. something making contract binding: something done by one of the parties as part of a contractual arrangement that makes it binding, e.g. the payment of the price in a sales agreement

 

[justsayin']

It's turtles all the way down?

i don't know what that means, but it sounds pretty hilarious! silly question... why do you guys really need to know where we came from?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

i don't know what that means, but it sounds pretty hilarious! silly question... why do you guys really need to know where we came from?

Sometimes philosophizing can be fun.

 

[VaD]

i don't know what that means, but it sounds pretty hilarious! silly question... why do you guys really need to know where we came from?

That's what I wonder, too! (about their likings to know)

Another branch of misconception(s)?

 

[justsayin']

That's what I wonder, too! (about their likings to know)

Another branch of misconception(s)?

i have enough trouble just trying to figure out where i'm GOING! never mind where i came FROM!

 

[SpecialFrog]

The mathematical relevance is that since everything is a consideration we cannot know THAT which is beyond consideration.

I'm kind of failing to see how this is mathematical.

 

[VaD]

...

 

[justsayin']

I'm kind of failing to see how this is mathematical.

because you don't have his via.

 

[SpecialFrog]

why do you guys really need to know where we came from?

Some of us already know that.

 

[justsayin']

Some of us already know that.

good one! not to derail yet again, but a psychic once told me that all people with "Mar" names come from mars. she also said they were passive/aggressive. i don't know about the first part, but the second part sounded right to me.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The Big Bang theory could certainly be wrong, at least about the very, very beginning. (It's much less likely to be wrong about most of subsequent history, with things expanding and cooling. It's hard to see how so much data that supports this could all be wrong or misleading.)

However it is easy to see how little is actually known about the physical universe. The 'sample sizes' are actually pretty small. New data could conceivably call for significant rewrites of existing interpretations. One example: more complete data on the character of dark matter/energy could force a complete revisiting of the entirety of physics. So far the data possessed is remarkably consistent. However, the region under observation and the tools used for conducting measurement are still remarkably limited.

An interesting thing about mathematical models is how radically they can be altered by the introduction of new criteria.

But according to the BB theory, for whatever it's worth, time simply does begin at that point.

More exactly 'time' as it relates to physical phenomena in the physical universe appears to have that 'point' as an origin, although even that has been disputed. This is of course also with respect to the manner in which we relate the measurement of 'time' in terms of physical quantities. Such need not be the only consideration about 'time' applicable to a conscious mind.

All the tools of the physical sciences can at best shed light only about that which we experience as a part of the physical universe. That is a great achievement, no doubt. But it is a huge & unwarranted assumption to extend achievement to the conclusion that that is all which can be known. A mind's capacity for experience & knowledge is apparently not limited in the same degree that the physical sciences are.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

It's turtles all the way down?

As above, so below.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Caliwog]

Could you please remind me of that assignment once again.

Dev-t. Go back and read. But you did read to the end of this post, so that's progress.

The mathematical relevance is that since everything is a consideration

Says who?

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com