Timeless existence

[lifegazer]

You are not a monist you are a gnostic!

Doesn't a gnostic rely upon intuition?
I only use reason when presenting an argument. Whatever I think has to make sense of existence. Feelings must proceed reason or they betray us.

 

[Atlas]

Originally posted by lifegazer on Vishnu
It's slightly vague.

Originally posted by lifegazer on lifegazer
I also think that Jesus (not Christianity) had the same philosophy as me. I was particularly awestruck by John's mystical testament.
I liked Isaiah, too.

It appears to me that a few religions have tried to portray God as the whole of existence, but that through time, mankind has contaminated those teachings. I cannot be a Christian, for example, even though I think Jesus was who he proclaimed to be.

My philosophy challenges the establishments of philosophy, science and religion.

Only God exists. You are God. Distance yourself from your sensations and know thyself.

Lifegazer, there is no doubt your vision is something beyond ordinary rational thought. When I get a chance to tease you about scientifistic language it's because you are speaking of visions whose truth is traditionally reserved for poets and mystics.

Said otherwise, if you wish to express the vision to unite mankind, you need to find less divisive avenues. If there is a scientific notation for the logic you employ, I don't know it. Your truth is best expressed some way beyond logic. People are more receptive to visionaries who charm with language rather than slice and dice it. To awaken others to your truth you will need more charm, although it's doubtful you will find any receptive audience in this forum.

As an example of charmlessness, this first sentence betrays your message. Even when you are articulate in the expression of it, reasonable men have chosen to differ. Is the fault entirely with them?

Originally posted by lifegazer a few posts back
... How can there be a real division between what is real and what isn't real?... I have used reason every step of the way here. Don't accuse me of preaching. I've tried my utmost to explain to you why there is no real division between God and the things within God's perception. How can there be any division when those things don't even exist?...

My Vishnu story is an example of what some people will embrace. Millions perhaps. Somewhere along the line you are going to need to dress up your vision and walk it around to the masses. To compress the thoughts of the last several posts I would word things this way. (I offer this only as an example of how to express your deeper insights.) It has a drawback in that it lifts the conversation outside of science and logic but something like this can give shape to your vision that a thousand words of logic will fail to.


Volition sleeps the sleep of God
And Volition dreams all things
In Volition's dream light, all things spin
And all things at once reflect Volition

 

[uruk]

Imagine a mermaid. How far beyond you is she? Where is the division between her and your awareness?

the mermaid is not real. but the process by which the mermaid is imagined is real. At least in humans, you can actually see the effects of imagining on the brain via positron scan and electroencephelograph and blood flow.

that which is imagined is not real. but the imagining is real. it is a process. you can not separate the mind from the process. especially if god is aware of the dream or imagination. if god is aware of the dream then there is change in god.

I've tried my utmost to explain to you why there is no real division between God and the things within God's perception.

Then there is no division between god and the imagination. therefore god is changing.

The ability to have thoughts is a trait of God. The eventuality of God having thoughts does not change God. It just changes what God is thinking about, if anything.

This doesn't negate what I have said.
If god is having thoughts then god is changing. There was god before he had a thight then there is god during his thought, then ther is god after his thought has passed.
You cannot separate the thought from god. otherwise it is not god that is having the thought.

Now, if you want to ask me how God creates a whole realm of imaginary things within a singularity of awareness, then I won't be able to answer. Only God itself (not lifegazer) can answer that.

If you do not how he does this, then you you have to admit to the possibility that you could be wrong about the unchanging aspect. because that means you have reached an impass in your reasoning.

It's a trait. It's not a part, and definitely not apart.

A trait is just a description of some characteristic of something. It does not negate that an ability implies change. An ability is the power to do something. If you are DOING something then there is change.

Nothing ever changes, except what's upon God's awareness.

Again if god is aware then there is change in god

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, there is no doubt your vision is something beyond ordinary rational thought.

Lots of [professional] philosophers and countless amateurs have applied reason to the concept of "God". So I'm not sure why you'd say this.

When I get a chance to tease you about scientifistic language it's because you are speaking of visions whose truth is traditionally reserved for poets and mystics.

Okay... fair enough... you have a point. But even though I am not a student of philosophy, I am aware of several famous philosophers who harped a similar tune to myself (if not note for note). Let's face it, if it wasn't for God, philosophy would have nothing to talk about. Science would have a monopoly on [the lack of] truth.

Said otherwise, if you wish to express the vision to unite mankind, you need to find less divisive avenues. If there is a scientific notation for the logic you employ, I don't know it.

How can there be? Science seeks to explain how the [illusory] order of the universe exists. So, if that order emanates from God,
whom (as it [let us assume] turns out) is the only entity in existence, then science needs some radical reformation before it can incorporate 'God' into its equations.

My philosophy is not anti-science. There is a perceived order within relative-existence... and half of the job of science is to recognise this order. The other half is to recognise its origins.

... My frustration with science is that it has been corrupted by materialistic philosophy. I.e., it is assumed that there is an external (to awareness) reality which exists without primal-cause. Why? Gawd knows. There's certainly no reason to assume those things, and if you question me enough I shall show you why.

Your truth is best expressed some way beyond logic.

You want the truth of God to be poetic/mystical because God is worthy of such romantic grandeur. And God is.
There are two problems here however:
(1) Writing like Shakespeare or name-your-poet is not my forte.
(2) Writing like those aforementioned characters means that my philosophy would be "vague". As I said to you earlier, such evocative literature of those ancient or poetic mystics is often difficult to decipher.

I'm talking to the "average Joe" here. My philosophy is for the common-man - everyone. I aim to make it as simple as can be. Lucky really, because I'm quite simple myself.
I think there's a beauty in that itself. I sometimes think that poets and philosophers often forget that their philosophy needs to relate to mankind as a whole before mankind as a whole can relate to it. In other words, philosophy for the elite will always be worthless in that the masses will never understand it.

People are more receptive to visionaries who charm with language rather than slice and dice it. To awaken others to your truth you will need more charm, although it's doubtful you will find any receptive audience in this forum.

I've been here for about 4 months. I'm well aware of this. But this is the best place to learn how to change the world, wouldn't you agree?

Somewhere along the line you are going to need to dress up your vision and walk it around to the masses.

I am sometimes guilty of [attemped] profundities. To be honest, I envy Shakespeare and the poets. But, to be honest, it is the simplicity of my philosophy which makes it so worthwhile. It's not difficult to understand and it can be read by everyone.
As it should be.

 

[lifegazer]

the mermaid is not real. but the process by which the mermaid is imagined is real. At least in humans, you can actually see the effects of imagining on the brain via positron scan and electroencephelograph and blood flow.

"Processes" seen within perception do not count to refute a philosophy which recants process as a reality. Does it?


I am growing weary of telling you that a singularity of God is unchangeable whilst what is perceived to change is an illusion = there is no real change.

Nothing really changes since only God exists. What God perceives to exist is ultimately irrelevant since it is illusory. At the end of the day, ONLY God exists regardless of what God perceives.

 

[RussDill]

"Processes" seen within perception do not count to refute a philosophy which recants process as a reality. Does it?

I am growing weary of telling you that a singularity of God is unchangeable whilst what is perceived to change is an illusion = there is no real change.

Nothing more than hand waving, you have explained nothing.

Nothing really changes since only God exists. What God perceives to exist is ultimately irrelevant since it is illusory. At the end of the day, ONLY God exists regardless of what God perceives.

You *still* apply logic differently to a universe with god, as a universe without god. If a universe without god exists, it does not change as a universe, because as a universe, time does not exist. Only within the universe do these "concepts" exist. Same with your mind/god thing.

 

[lifegazer]

Nothing more than hand waving, you have explained nothing.

Brainwashing, at its worse, turns the individual into what can only be described as an intellectual rat, who will parrot any nonsense to defend his/her core beliefs.
This sort of statement, by you, is indicative of what I am talking about. It just completely evades what I have discussed with others, thus avoiding the necessity to deal with it.
You haven't quite sunk to the intellectual abyss exhibited by your friend Scribble yet, but please be aware that it's a slippery slope you're treading.

You *still* apply logic differently to a universe with god, as a universe without god. If a universe without god exists, it does not change as a universe, because as a universe, time does not exist. Only within the universe do these "concepts" exist. Same with your mind/god thing.

What??
Time only exists as a concept, experienced by awareness within the universe? No kiddin!!!

 

[RussDill]

Brainwashing, at its worse, turns the individual into what can only be described as an intellectual rat, who will parrot any nonsense to defend his/her core beliefs.
This sort of statement, by you, is indicative of what I am talking about. It just completely evades what I have discussed with others, thus avoiding the necessity to deal with it.
You haven't quite sunk to the intellectual abyss exhibited by your friend Scribble yet, but please be aware that it's a slippery slope you're treading.

Insults, that responds perfectly and gains you all sorts of credibility. Sorry, no, throughout this thread, you have simply repeated your clearly illogical claims hoping that it would make them come true rather than responding to what people say.

What??
Time only exists as a concept, experienced by awareness within the universe? No kiddin!!!

I never said anything about awareness, note how you are putting "experience" and "awareness" on special pedistals when there is no reason to put them there.

 

[lifegazer]

Insults,

Insults? You've gotten off lightly George. Think of it more as another plea to up the quality of your responses. Get off that slope before you hit rock bottom.

Talk reason. Use it to support what you say. And say relevant things only.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Where's that irony meter?

 

[lifegazer]

Where's that irony meter?

Here's another parrot, using the same old tired cliche's because he doesn't have the brains to contribute towards a rational discussion. Bog off bozo, and hide your meter in a place where the sun don't shine.

 

[lifegazer]

In case you're all wondering - yes I am cheesed off.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Here's another parrot, using the same old tired cliche's because he doesn't have the brains to contribute towards a rational discussion. Bog off bozo, and hide your meter in a place where the sun don't shine.

Now I understand, you must have broken each and every one.

 

[Dancing David]

Lifegazer:

I will repeat it the last time, since I doubt we can reach accord on this, you have created a duality.

Reality/Illusion

I would say that the solution in monism is to say that the illusion is also part and parcel of god, and that the fact that the percieved part of god changes doesn't matter.

If god wants to change then god changes I don't understand why god must be unchanging, that is not a needful thing.

On the gnostic issue, you have created a dualism very similar to the gnostic tradition. gnosticism is a revealation based upon the fact that the god of jesus bears little resemblance to the god of the OT.

Therefore some hypotheized that the god in the OT is not the god jesus.

Also your stance that god's perceptions are part of god, yet somehow not part of god just smacks of gnosticism.

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer:

I will repeat it the last time, since I doubt we can reach accord on this, you have created a duality.

Well, there's no reasoning here - just assertion. There can be no real duality of existence between The Mind of God and the illusory things existing within that Mind's awareness.
There is just the single existence of that Mind. The non-existent things seen within awareness do not present another reality of existence. They present an illusion of another existence. The duality is an illusion. There is only God.

To have any credible argument here, relating to a duality, you have to present 'something' that has a separate yet real existence to God. You cannot do that. There is no duality.

 

[Atlas]

In case you're all wondering - yes I am cheesed off.

Lifegazer,

Ok, in an effort to cut the cheese (maybe I didn't say that very well), my own interest pertains to perspectives on soul. Permit me, as I often do, to condense your descriptions so that I may ask my question about Timeless Existence (even though I risk sending you off on another thread).

You postulate a deity with the boundless energy of Pure Idea or Big Idea, an aspect of which is the Dream of Reality, within which we are the players on the dream stage. Like any players in dreams we appear to have consciousness, which is an immaterial aspect of an objective reality we perceive this dream to be.

Within the layers of immateriality I see...

1) Volition (my name for your Pure Idea of God)
2) Volition's Awareness (The knowledge of Self and all indivisible aspects of Volition's immateriality like Time and Space
3) Volition's Dream (The Reality of the "Material" universe including me - and indivisible from Volition)

Now to the immateriality of Me...
Is it made up of similar layers and how do they fit into the big picture.

I propose that in your philosophy you will have constructs of the immateriality of Self - perhaps composed of "solids" and "fluids"
Example:

1) The Solid Immaterial aspect of Self is my body (This is the part that cuts the cheese)
2) First Fluid is Awareness - (Awareness knows there is a Solid Self and there are other immaterial things like cheese that also appear solid.
3) Second Fluid is Consciousness - (This is the part that directs Self and Awareness toward actions like cutting of cheeses
4) Third Fluid is Dream - ( The part that creates sub realities where cheeses appear to me as Green Bay Packers

Other fluids may be named unconscious, subconscious, causalbody, astralbody etc.... I guess I'm asking you lifegazer.

Now we get to Soul - In your philosophy how does this immaterial and ethereal essence participate in the Pure Idea and the Self. Does it act as a boundless capsule inside the littlesingularity of the body and containing all the "Fluids"? Is it an immateriality that is more eternal than the solid Self and closer to the frequency of pureness and the Pure Idea. If so, when it floats free back into the boundlessness of it's nature will it be in a place where it can have all the cheese it ever wanted? Will it remember? If it is punished will it be in a fondue forever. Do you take your understandings of the soul from the religious thoughts of others or is there a scientific, common man, and simple explanation.

I hope this cheeses you back on. It's 'food' for thought.

 

[lifegazer]

Atlas, your cheese post is full of holes.
Sorry, I can't stop cracking duff jokes today.
Err... I'm sure there's a few points worth answering in there. First, I have to work them out. LOL
You're a crazy dude Atlas.

 

[Atlas]

You're a crazy dude Atlas.

I'm Crazy!!??!!

 

[Upchurch]

uh-oh. Puns. I gouda done without it coming to puns.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, there's no reasoning here - just assertion. There can be no real duality of existence between The Mind of God and the illusory things existing within that Mind's awareness.
There is just the single existence of that Mind. The non-existent things seen within awareness do not present another reality of existence. They present an illusion of another existence. The duality is an illusion. There is only God.

To have any credible argument here, relating to a duality, you have to present 'something' that has a separate yet real existence to God. You cannot do that. There is no duality.

Mon frer,
the duality is in that they are both a part of god and that one is real and the other imaginary. they are both parts of god and bot real, I think the phrase would be static and intansient if they are both part of god.

There can be no real duality of existence between The Mind of God and the illusory things existing within that Mind's awareness.


There it is again the duality, by calling them illsuiory you make the duality. they are both real does away with the duality.

Is god hallucinationg?