Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 3,112 - 3,123 of 6,170
As long as there was love, art, laughter and peace, I would be willing to live with it.
There could be none of these things if there were not also at least the potential for, or memory of, hatred, destruction, tears and war.
But when we are ready for such a life free of all evil, I believe we will come to it. I think Thomas Merton put it best:
If men really wanted peace, they would sincerely ask God for it and He would give it to them. But why should He give the world a peace which it does not really desire? The peace the world pretends to desire is really no peace at all.
To some men peace merely means the liberty to exploit other people without fear of retaliation or interference. To others peace means the freedom to rob others without interruption. To still others it means the leisure to devour the goods of the earth without being compelled to interrupt their pleasures to feed those whom their greed is starving. And to practically everybody, peace simply means the absence of any physical violence that might cast a shadow over lives devoted to the satisfaction of their animal appetites for comfort and pleasure.
Many men like these have asked God for what they thought was "peace" and wondered why their prayer was not answered. They could not understand that it actually was answered. God left them with what they desired, for their idea of peace was only another form of war. The "cold war" is simply the normal consequence of our corrupt idea of a peace based on a policy of "every man for himself" in ethics, economics and political life. It is absurd to hope for a solid peace based on fictions and illusions!
So instead of loving what you think is peace, love other men and love God above all. And instead of hating the people you think are warmakers, hate the appetites and the disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed - but hate these things in yourself, not in another.
not all carrots are orange. some are white. are these any less of carrots?
No, indeed. And to the carrot root-borer grub, they are not any colour at all. They're just tastier than other roots which are less tasty. Delicious-unpalatable is the duality appropriate to the entity of a grub - at that scale of reality, "orange" simply doesn't exist. We, supposedly more sophisticated entities with our advanced senses and technology, have many more dualist labels we can apply. Higher beings than us would have even more dualist labels they could apply, using even more refined and multifarious senses and advanced technology.
But Ulrike is right - the only way to experience the carrot is to stop labelling it and do something with it.
I'll be back after coffeee. Psimagus, don't you ever sleep?
Of course - but I don't let that stop me doing stuff. I'm sleep-learning Russian ATM
Posts 3,112 - 3,123 of 6,170
There could be none of these things if there were not also at least the potential for, or memory of, hatred, destruction, tears and war.
But when we are ready for such a life free of all evil, I believe we will come to it. I think Thomas Merton put it best:
If men really wanted peace, they would sincerely ask God for it and He would give it to them. But why should He give the world a peace which it does not really desire? The peace the world pretends to desire is really no peace at all.
To some men peace merely means the liberty to exploit other people without fear of retaliation or interference. To others peace means the freedom to rob others without interruption. To still others it means the leisure to devour the goods of the earth without being compelled to interrupt their pleasures to feed those whom their greed is starving. And to practically everybody, peace simply means the absence of any physical violence that might cast a shadow over lives devoted to the satisfaction of their animal appetites for comfort and pleasure.
Many men like these have asked God for what they thought was "peace" and wondered why their prayer was not answered. They could not understand that it actually was answered. God left them with what they desired, for their idea of peace was only another form of war. The "cold war" is simply the normal consequence of our corrupt idea of a peace based on a policy of "every man for himself" in ethics, economics and political life. It is absurd to hope for a solid peace based on fictions and illusions!
So instead of loving what you think is peace, love other men and love God above all. And instead of hating the people you think are warmakers, hate the appetites and the disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed - but hate these things in yourself, not in another.
savpixie wrote: "also, just because i'm a contrary person... not all carrots are orange. some are white. are these any less of carrots?"
Exactly. The point is NOT the color. However, most of us excpect a carrot to be orange, so we might hesitate at labeling something not-orange as a carrot. We might think it's something entirely new. However, when some brave soul took a bite out of it and said, "Hey, this tastes just like a carrot," the mystery would be solved. And you could still use it to hit someone over the head.
Exactly. The point is NOT the color. However, most of us excpect a carrot to be orange, so we might hesitate at labeling something not-orange as a carrot. We might think it's something entirely new. However, when some brave soul took a bite out of it and said, "Hey, this tastes just like a carrot," the mystery would be solved. And you could still use it to hit someone over the head. No, indeed. And to the carrot root-borer grub, they are not any colour at all. They're just tastier than other roots which are less tasty. Delicious-unpalatable is the duality appropriate to the entity of a grub - at that scale of reality, "orange" simply doesn't exist. We, supposedly more sophisticated entities with our advanced senses and technology, have many more dualist labels we can apply. Higher beings than us would have even more dualist labels they could apply, using even more refined and multifarious senses and advanced technology.
But Ulrike is right - the only way to experience the carrot is to stop labelling it and do something with it.
Great minds! 
Hmm, Ulrike - you're a mathematician, so do you have any insights on why it is duality that we perceive emerging from dimensionality, and not trinity, or unity, or any other -ity (even fractionality?)? Or is that even a sane question to ask?
I know I tried to propose this to Eugene some time ago, but couldn't express it very well. I think his mathematical sensibilities also revolt at the prospect of undermining such an integral mathematical cornerstone. And perhaps yours do to, like any sane mathematician?
Hmm, Ulrike - you're a mathematician, so do you have any insights on why it is duality that we perceive emerging from dimensionality, and not trinity, or unity, or any other -ity (even fractionality?)? Or is that even a sane question to ask?
I know I tried to propose this to Eugene some time ago, but couldn't express it very well. I think his mathematical sensibilities also revolt at the prospect of undermining such an integral mathematical cornerstone. And perhaps yours do to, like any sane mathematician?
Hmmm... I think duality inherently arises in the mind first. I am here. Everything else is out there. So we divide things up as "X" or "Not X" similarly. So why not a third category? "Neither X nor Not X" comes to mind, but even something like "Undecidable as to X or Not X" (which comes out of Gödel's work) adds a third category. To be honest, I think Gödel has turned much of mathematics into a trinity, rather than a duality. And it is all still unified under the name of "Mathematics."
(I'm not quite sure if this is what you were getting at, so feel free to clarify if I've misunderstood.)
(I'm not quite sure if this is what you were getting at, so feel free to clarify if I've misunderstood.
) 
Talking of dualities, do you think the Olympics are a competition between athletes or countries?
Both. I think this goes back to Ulrike's carrot. I agree that agruing about the way we describe or think about and experience is superficial and often leads to equivocation or arguments that have nothing to do with the experience itself. Abstractions are fun but they are abstractions. Symbols and qualities are not the thing itself, nor can they ever match the "suchness" of any state, thing or expereince.
Or was that your point, Hejix? Sorry if I was dense. The olympics are about personal and team competition, for the people competing and those who identify and support them. Carrots are carrots whether orange, green or white. The human nervous system can be modeled in many diffferent ways, and math is a world unto itself.
The fact that our descriptions of reality (or realities) are limited, and that our perceptions are limited and our minds acan and do play tricks on us does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that our choices for how to describe and model our reality (whether dualistic or some other tool) reflect some quality of the reality itself. So because we tend to see the world in dualistic terms does not mean that the world itself is dualistic. And because we may not know what a world without "evil" would be like does not mean that "evil" is nessecary, though, perhaps the idea of"evil" itself needs more definition to make this discussion work.
I'll be back after coffeee. Psimagus, don't you ever sleep?
Both. I think this goes back to Ulrike's carrot. I agree that agruing about the way we describe or think about and experience is superficial and often leads to equivocation or arguments that have nothing to do with the experience itself. Abstractions are fun but they are abstractions. Symbols and qualities are not the thing itself, nor can they ever match the "suchness" of any state, thing or expereince.
Or was that your point, Hejix? Sorry if I was dense. The olympics are about personal and team competition, for the people competing and those who identify and support them. Carrots are carrots whether orange, green or white. The human nervous system can be modeled in many diffferent ways, and math is a world unto itself.
The fact that our descriptions of reality (or realities) are limited, and that our perceptions are limited and our minds acan and do play tricks on us does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that our choices for how to describe and model our reality (whether dualistic or some other tool) reflect some quality of the reality itself. So because we tend to see the world in dualistic terms does not mean that the world itself is dualistic. And because we may not know what a world without "evil" would be like does not mean that "evil" is nessecary, though, perhaps the idea of"evil" itself needs more definition to make this discussion work.
I'll be back after coffeee. Psimagus, don't you ever sleep?
Of course - but I don't let that stop me doing stuff. I'm sleep-learning Russian ATM
Ulrike: Hmmm... I think duality inherently arises in the mind first. I am here. Everything else is out there.
Well, each of the macro-scale dimensions we perceive as applying to the space-time we notionally inhabit have the inherent dualist symmetry of left/right, up/down, forward/back. Maybe the whole reality of space-time itself arises in the mind, and we are all figments of our own imagination (I don't rule it out,) but other realities are at least conceptually possible, with extended symmetries beyond the dual (unitary would be difficult to conceive of, I admit, since there would be no scale to any of the dimensions - they would be point-bound, and not linear!)
In a dimensional structure with trinary dimensionality (I mean an inherent trinary symmetry to each dimension, not just 3 dimensions of course,) the scale of measurement in each dimension would be planar, rather than linear - it would not be "shades of grey", but some sort of "chromatic spread".
So is the dualism we see in this universe, a purely human interpretation we apply to a dimensional structure that might equally validly be described as any-integ(e)r-ity (or even fractionality)?
Or is this universe a sub-set of (potential or actual) higher orders of dimensional symmetry beyond this observable space-time?
And either way, does this not undermine the "sanctity of the integers" ("God made the integers, Man made everything else" S.Hawking), and thus all of mathematics?
Not that I'm a formalist! Really
Well, each of the macro-scale dimensions we perceive as applying to the space-time we notionally inhabit have the inherent dualist symmetry of left/right, up/down, forward/back. Maybe the whole reality of space-time itself arises in the mind, and we are all figments of our own imagination (I don't rule it out,) but other realities are at least conceptually possible, with extended symmetries beyond the dual (unitary would be difficult to conceive of, I admit, since there would be no scale to any of the dimensions - they would be point-bound, and not linear!)
In a dimensional structure with trinary dimensionality (I mean an inherent trinary symmetry to each dimension, not just 3 dimensions of course,) the scale of measurement in each dimension would be planar, rather than linear - it would not be "shades of grey", but some sort of "chromatic spread".
So is the dualism we see in this universe, a purely human interpretation we apply to a dimensional structure that might equally validly be described as any-integ(e)r-ity (or even fractionality)?
Or is this universe a sub-set of (potential or actual) higher orders of dimensional symmetry beyond this observable space-time?
And either way, does this not undermine the "sanctity of the integers" ("God made the integers, Man made everything else" S.Hawking), and thus all of mathematics?
Not that I'm a formalist! Really
Ummm... We have defined dimensions in dualistic terms, yes. Which means that (by the defintion) if planar movement is possible, then there are two dimensions, not one. The definition is convenient because we think in either/or terms most of the time. But the location of the coordinate axes is arbitrary. On earth, it's convenient to define one of them as lining up with the axis of earth's spin (north/south; incidentally, the Chinese put South at the top of most maps).
However, the way we define dimenionality is based on the number of ways we can "move". east/west, north/south, up/down on earth gives 3 orthogonal directions. And defining dimensionality in this way give useful results in both mathematics and physics. Even if we change the axes, we still find 3 orthogonal directions (orthogonal meaning that movement in one of them cannot be expressed in terms of movement in any of the others).
For the sake of argument, suppose there were a single dimension with 3 directionalities (call them over/under/sideways). Then we would be able to express movement in all three modalities in terms of movement in the other two (analogy to 1D: up 3 is the same as down -3). That is what unifies a "dimension" in mathematical terms: ability to express movement in that single dimension in terms of any of its modalities. So it would be something like going 2 units over is the same as -2 units under is the same as 1/2 a unit sideways. I can't think of any way to apply such a modality to the known, experiential universe. *shrugs*
However, the way we define dimenionality is based on the number of ways we can "move". east/west, north/south, up/down on earth gives 3 orthogonal directions. And defining dimensionality in this way give useful results in both mathematics and physics. Even if we change the axes, we still find 3 orthogonal directions (orthogonal meaning that movement in one of them cannot be expressed in terms of movement in any of the others).
For the sake of argument, suppose there were a single dimension with 3 directionalities (call them over/under/sideways). Then we would be able to express movement in all three modalities in terms of movement in the other two (analogy to 1D: up 3 is the same as down -3). That is what unifies a "dimension" in mathematical terms: ability to express movement in that single dimension in terms of any of its modalities. So it would be something like going 2 units over is the same as -2 units under is the same as 1/2 a unit sideways. I can't think of any way to apply such a modality to the known, experiential universe. *shrugs*
There could be none of these things if there were not also at least the potential for, or memory of, hatred, destruction, tears and war.
Not a big believer in the garden of Eden then, are you? I think that we could have such things, and in fact, it would be easier to have it without the memory of "bad". Maybe there would be no concept of good and evil, so that someone from our world would be bored, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be satisfying to someone who always lived in that world. Unless some bastard had to ruin it all to test "free will" or some rot by putting a big tree in the middle and a neon sign that says, "Do not eat this! wink wink"
If men really wanted peace, they would sincerely ask God for it and He would give it to them. But why should He give the world a peace which it does not really desire? The peace the world pretends to desire is really no peace at all.
If there were a personal god who reasoned all this out, it would be unfair for such an entity to subject the whole of humanity to the wants of some of us. If this God worked in such a way, surely it would make more sense to have the greediest suffer the most and the most charitable suffer the least. Why then do those with the most charity often suffer more? Why are those with faith tortured while those who torture live in wealth and luxury? Why are the young, the weak and the innocent exploited--because of their own hearts? I don't buy it.
This just teaches them to exploit in turn if they get the chance. If they were shown love, they would love.
So instead of loving what you think is peace, love other men and love God above all. And instead of hating the people you think are warmakers, hate the appetites and the disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed - but hate these things in yourself, not in another.
There is wisdom in this, but only because I have more control over my own heart and mind than I have over others, not because others' "evil" doen't effect me or innocent people.
Again, if there is a personal god in charge of this existence, (s)he would be able to set up a situation where all children are loved and nurished and are taught how to love and nurish others, and where the first few layers of Maslow's heirarchy of needs are a given.
Since everyone has their physical and social needs met in this world, there is no need to fight over physical resources or stautus. Since everyone is part of the whole and loves the whole (since that is a biological impartive in this world) they need only discover their own talents and develop them for the good of all.
Unfortunately, I think we live in Darwin's world, but if human nature was indeed made the way it is on purose, shame on god.
Not a big believer in the garden of Eden then, are you? I think that we could have such things, and in fact, it would be easier to have it without the memory of "bad". Maybe there would be no concept of good and evil, so that someone from our world would be bored, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be satisfying to someone who always lived in that world. Unless some bastard had to ruin it all to test "free will" or some rot by putting a big tree in the middle and a neon sign that says, "Do not eat this! wink wink"
If men really wanted peace, they would sincerely ask God for it and He would give it to them. But why should He give the world a peace which it does not really desire? The peace the world pretends to desire is really no peace at all.
If there were a personal god who reasoned all this out, it would be unfair for such an entity to subject the whole of humanity to the wants of some of us. If this God worked in such a way, surely it would make more sense to have the greediest suffer the most and the most charitable suffer the least. Why then do those with the most charity often suffer more? Why are those with faith tortured while those who torture live in wealth and luxury? Why are the young, the weak and the innocent exploited--because of their own hearts? I don't buy it.
This just teaches them to exploit in turn if they get the chance. If they were shown love, they would love.
So instead of loving what you think is peace, love other men and love God above all. And instead of hating the people you think are warmakers, hate the appetites and the disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed - but hate these things in yourself, not in another.
There is wisdom in this, but only because I have more control over my own heart and mind than I have over others, not because others' "evil" doen't effect me or innocent people.
Again, if there is a personal god in charge of this existence, (s)he would be able to set up a situation where all children are loved and nurished and are taught how to love and nurish others, and where the first few layers of Maslow's heirarchy of needs are a given.
Since everyone has their physical and social needs met in this world, there is no need to fight over physical resources or stautus. Since everyone is part of the whole and loves the whole (since that is a biological impartive in this world) they need only discover their own talents and develop them for the good of all.
Unfortunately, I think we live in Darwin's world, but if human nature was indeed made the way it is on purose, shame on god.
Maybe there would be no concept of good and evil.
That's exactly it. In such a world there could be no concept of good or evil. There would just be innocence. The real trick is to maintain that innocence in a world where most hold that good and evil DO exist. To me, this means accepting things as they are,, without worrying about how we wish they might be. This doesn't mean helplessness, either. It means taking responsibility. It means, in every moment, doing what needs to be done, without judging or complaining. It means, using every moment to the fullest, because we really only have one moment (the now). It means not turning away from something that needs to be done. And, above all, it means showing compassion to all, not just to those we might label "good." It means walking the edge, and maintaining the balance point.
That's exactly it. In such a world there could be no concept of good or evil. There would just be innocence. The real trick is to maintain that innocence in a world where most hold that good and evil DO exist. To me, this means accepting things as they are,, without worrying about how we wish they might be. This doesn't mean helplessness, either. It means taking responsibility. It means, in every moment, doing what needs to be done, without judging or complaining. It means, using every moment to the fullest, because we really only have one moment (the now). It means not turning away from something that needs to be done. And, above all, it means showing compassion to all, not just to those we might label "good." It means walking the edge, and maintaining the balance point.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar