Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Dawood

discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

Recommended Posts

science is all fine and dandy until you ask what caused the big bang. or why animals decided to evolve and why they dont now.

 

occoms razor to the neck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

The truth is, that Sceince doesn't have to be divorced to religion or a beleif in God. The only way science would have to be divorced from God is if a person took every present day scientific theory and held them in absolute esteem without any chance of any part of it being incorrect. Which would never be possible because scientific theories change rapidly with new evidence and speculation.

 

As a matter of fact, the sceintific theories that attempt to cancel out God are in fact theories and not proven.

And one will say that a person who beleives in God is taking a leap of faith into the unknown. But similarly, the one who disbeleives in God is ALSO taking a leap of faith into the unknown. Except that the one who beleives in God is hopefully leaping toward the mercy of God. While the one who doesn't is leaping into a severe punishment. (that is....If God exists....according to non beleivers)

 

It seems to me that the leap of the non beleiver is much more risky than that of the beleiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but we could take the inverse of what you say and postulate that beliefing in an entity that created being is just as risky. I'd rather be safe...

 

 

 

and there is no truth, thats a concept created by a mammal in the primate order...

 

 

if you read the occam's razor thing, you will see its easier and more logical to conclude that all things are equal and in equilibruim instead of positing than some entity with mamalian characteristcs decided to "talk" to one particular individual within one particular species of mammals 2.5 billion yaers after what is called life came into being...hmmm...

 

 

 

and also remeber alchemy doesn't have to be divorced from chemistry or astrology divorced from cosmology and astronomy either...

 

using you logic, its safer to assume that being born during a certain month when stars are in a certain configuration in the northern hemisphere is safer than assuming that that idea is just a remnant of 2000 year old scientific knowledge of medditeraean peoples....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, no connection between God and astrology, except that he created the people who thought of it.

 

And how is believing in a creator risky? Do scientists tell you that you'll evlove back into a monkey if you beleive in God or something? Where's the risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

science isn't a religion...scientists aren't a cabel of people who TELL people stuff, unlike like those so-called sheiks you keep quoting......and we are not monkees..

 

 

 

and if we are created, why were we designed so bad relative to say sharks?

 

 

unintelligent8pj.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by MAR@Jan 31 2006, 12:05 PM

science is all fine and dandy until you ask what caused the big bang. or why animals decided to evolve and why they dont now.

 

occoms razor to the neck!

 

That is a rediculous statement. Science, as a mode of thinking, can not be broken down by specific questions like that. Those are the very questions that science is trying to answer . The intention of science is to deduce truth from the natural world as succintly and elegantly as possible. The questions that your using against science, we wouldn't even be able to ask if it were not for the pursuit of science itself. While we do not profess to know the answers, we strive for them.

 

 

and to respond to the recent discussion in the amount of time its taken me to finish and edit this post...

 

Yes, using occum's razor to show all things are equal is nice, but what we are finding is that the universe is not nice. I reference you to the slight discussion of qauntumm phenomena in this thread. I think you and I agree on science's validity Lonesome, but I don't agree with your dsimissal of ideas using occum's razor. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent with it.

 

And Dawood, I think that once again you are using some of the fundamental symantics in science as munitions against it. You state that all ideas in science are just theories, your right. The use of the word theory as the common classification for general accepted ideas in science is to provide us with a means to correct our mistakes. We realize we are fallible and ultimately incapable of a perfect act. To me, one of the largest differences in Religion and Science as philosophical/theological parallels is the infallibility that Religion requires and the acceptance of possible error that Science creates as an intrinsic part of itself. Thus, a "theory" is a living icdea, its abilities, implications and ingenuity are constantly up for revision or nullification. Religous ideals and concepts, especially presented in the forms of contemporary monotheism, can not exist with that flexibility. A person MUST accept religion as an infallible truth for them to be faithfull. It is this disparity in validation and its processes that is one of the main reasons I can not adhere or accept any form of religion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Lonesome Cowboy Bill@Feb 1 2006, 05:05 AM

science isn''t a religion...scientists aren''t a cabel of people who TELL people stuff, unlike like those so-called sheiks you keep quoting......and we are not monkees..

 

 

 

and if we are created, why were we designed so bad relative to say sharks?

 

 

 

 

Sharks were created too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by shape1369+Feb 1 2006, 05:12 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shape1369 - Feb 1 2006, 05:12 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-MAR@Jan 31 2006, 12:05 PM

science is all fine and dandy until you ask what caused the big bang. or why animals decided to evolve and why they dont now.

 

occoms razor to the neck!

 

That is a rediculous statement. Science, as a mode of thinking, can not be broken down by specific questions like that. Those are the very questions that science is trying to answer . The intention of science is to deduce truth from the natural world as succintly and elegantly as possible. The questions that your using against science, we wouldn't even be able to ask if it were not for the pursuit of science itself. While we do not profess to know the answers, we strive for them.

[/b]

 

Honestly, I agree with Dawood; science and religion can co-exist. I have read numerous books and attended lectures proving that they can. My point wasnt to say that science is wrong per say, rather that there are numerous holes in it that can be nicely tied together with G-d, and since that’s the case, Occum’s razor is useless because G-d holds as much validity as any other theory.

 

 

A person MUST accept religion as an infallible truth for them to be faithfull.

 

That is not the main point of a religion. The point is to gain a closeness to G-d, but acceptance is the first step.

 

In my religion (Judaism) we are encouraged to ask questions and delve deeper in to the religion. One should learn why they do the things they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that, nobody is perfect, I don't care who you are, you make mistakes and commit sins.

 

and the best of us is not the one who claims to be so perfect that he gets it right all the time and never screws up.

 

The best of us is the one who makes mistakes, commits sins and then returns to his Lord asking sincerely for forgiveness.

 

This shows humility. I've heard some of the people of knowledge say that if a person commits a sin out of desire then hope for him, but if he commits a sin out of arrogance then fear for him because to desire is human, although the best of us is the one who controls his desire and not the one who lets his desire control him.

But arrogance will burn up any good he has in him like a fire consumes a forest.

 

 

edited for MARS.

 

I've always seen that (G-D) in books of Judaism. Why do Jews do that? Just asking. I could probably google it, but it'll make for good conversation here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's out of respect. Writting G-d's name in vain is a sin, so to be extra careful not to transgress on the commandment some write it "G-d".

 

Edit: Some people will add dashes to their names if it contains the name of G-d, Which actually makes more sense than writting "G-d".

 

It is not a real issue being as "G-d" is not one of his true names (rather an English title for the concept of the Almighty) so I could write it normaly, but like I wrote, I don't out of respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by MAR@Feb 6 2006, 03:28 AM

It's out of respect. Writting G-d's name in vain is a sin, so to be extra careful not to transgress on the commandment some write it "G-d".

 

Edit: Some people will add dashes to their names if it contains the name of G-d, Which actually makes more sense than writting "G-d".

 

It is not a real issue being as "G-d" is not one of his true names (rather an English title for the concept of the Almighty) so I could write it normaly, but like I wrote, I don't out of respect.

 

 

Actually, that's true, I made this point one one of the pages on this thread.

 

God is an english word for the concept of the creator. None of the prophets in the bible or the torah or the Quran spoke english, so therefore the true name would be "Allah" in Arabic or "Yahweh" in hebrew.

Although, i don't think that mentioning the name "god" in a conversation is what was intended by "mentioning the lords name in vain"

From what i've always understood about that (maybe because I was raised christian before I became muslim) Is that you shouldn't mention the name of God while uttering lies or vain speech like "trash talk" or even by saying something like "By God ! I would never do that" while knowing you did it. Or in a belittling manner.

Because , as you said, God is not even an english word, so how could Moses have commanded people to put a dash between the G and the D? or maybe the rabbis came up with that, I don't know. Just my thoughts on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Dawood+Feb 6 2006, 12:37 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dawood - Feb 6 2006, 12:37 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-MAR@Feb 6 2006, 03:28 AM

It's out of respect. Writting G-d's name in vain is a sin, so to be extra careful not to transgress on the commandment some write it "G-d".

 

Edit: Some people will add dashes to their names if it contains the name of G-d, Which actually makes more sense than writting "G-d".

 

It is not a real issue being as "G-d" is not one of his true names (rather an English title for the concept of the Almighty) so I could write it normaly, but like I wrote, I don't out of respect.

 

 

Actually, that's true, I made this point one one of the pages on this thread.

 

God is an english word for the concept of the creator. None of the prophets in the bible or the torah or the Quran spoke english, so therefore the true name would be "Allah" in Arabic or "YKVK" in hebrew.

Although, i don't think that mentioning the name "god" in a conversation is what was intended by "mentioning the lords name in vain"

From what i've always understood about that (maybe because I was raised christian before I became muslim) Is that you shouldn't mention the name of God while uttering lies or vain speech like "trash talk" or even by saying something like "By God ! I would never do that" while knowing you did it. Or in a belittling manner.

Because , as you said, God is not even an english word, so how could Moses have commanded people to put a dash between the G and the D? or maybe the rabbis came up with that, I don't know. Just my thoughts on it.

[/b]

 

One is not supposed, in Judaism, to speak G-ds name fivolously, (outside of Torah learning, prayer, and the like.) When Jews refer to G-d the call Him HaShem, which means the name. G-d has many names according to Judaism, each one discribing a different atribute of the Almighty.

 

The most important name is the ineffable name of G-d which you wrote out above (and which I would ask that you not to do again). The name, which no one knows the pronounciation anymore, was said once a year on Yom Kippur, in the Holy of Holys (a room in the center of the Temple).

 

As a rule of thumb, Jews do not believe that Mose, our teacher, or any of our other prophets commanded us to do anything, rather that they were the vessels in which G-d communicated his will unto the Jewish people.

 

Anyways I explained above that its a formality to add the dash and not a commandment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Lonesome Cowboy Bill@Feb 5 2006, 11:54 PM

^^^and people wonder why our country is falling behind....

 

 

well if we reverted to hedonism I dont think we'd be better off. At the very least religion provides a structured lifestyle for people to exist in and a reason not to do things that would be viewed as "bad".

 

If I were atheist I would most definatly be robbing you right now, because I want stuff but work just doesnt appeal to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

robbing someone is a form of work though...if you really think about it robbing people doesn't really pay well and is dangerous. Working on a computer is funner and easier and pays WAYYYYYYYYYY bettter...

 

 

 

 

anyway the ancient Jews had two words for god:

 

Elohim and what we call yaweh...elohim is related to allah and was used in i ancient sreal (as opposed to ancient judah, which had the yawh tradition)

 

 

"Although, outside the Arab world, use of the word AllÄ?h is most often associated with Islam, it is not exclusive to that faith; Arab Christians and various Arabic-speaking Jews (including the Teimanim, several Mizrai communities and some Sephardim) also use it to refer to the monotheist deity. Arabic translations of the Bible also employ it, as do Roman Catholics in Malta (who pronounce it as "Alla"), Christians in Indonesia, who say "Allah Bapa" (Allah the Father) and Christians in the Middle East who use the Aramaic "AllÄ?ha".

 

It was used in pre-Islamic times by Pagans within the Arabian peninsula to signify the supreme creator. Pre-Islamic Jews referred to their supreme creator as Yahweh or Elohim. The pagan Arabs recognized "AllÄ?h" as the supreme God in their pantheon; along with Allah, however, the pre-Islamic Arabs believed in a host of other gods, such as Hubal and 'daughters of AllÄ?h' [the three daughters associated were al-LÄ?t, al-`Uzzah, and Manah]" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, "The Facts on File", ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:61). This view of Allah by the pre-Islamic pagans is viewed by Muslims as a latter development having arisen as a result of moving away from Abrahamic monotheism over time. Some of the names of these pagan gods are said to be derived from the descendants of Noah, whom latter generations firstly revered as saints, and then transformed into gods (although non-Muslims often view polytheism as having come before monotheism). The pagan Arabians also used the word "AllÄ?h" in the names of their children; Muhammad's father, who was born into pagan society, was named "`AbdullÄ?h", which translates "servant of AllÄ?h". "`AbdullÄ?h" is still used for names of Muslim and non-Muslim arabs.

 

The Hebrew word for deity, El (×?ל) or ElÅ?ah (×?לוה), was used as an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh (יהוה), which is the proper name for the Jewish God according to the Tanakh. The Aramaic word for God is alôh-ô (Syriac dialect) or elâhâ (Biblical dialect), which comes from the same Proto-Semitic word (*ilâh-) as the Arabic and Hebrew terms; Jesus is described in Mark 15:34 as having used the word on the cross, with the ending meaning "my", when saying, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (transliterated in Greek as elÅ?-i). One of the earliest surviving translations of the word into a foreign language is in a Greek translation of the Shahada, from 86-96 AH (705-715 AD), which translates it as ho theos monos[1], literally "the one god". Also the cognate Aramaic term appears in the Aramaic version of the New Testament, called the Pshitta (or Peshitta) as one of the words Jesus used to refer to God, e.g., in the sixth Beatitude, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see AlÄ?ha." And in the Arabic Bible the same words (Mt 5:8): "Ø·Ù?وبَى لأَنْقÙ?يَاءÙ? الْقَلْبÙ?ØŒ Ù?ÙŽØ¥Ù?نَّهÙ?مْ سَيَرَوْنَ الله"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

from wiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ever wrote that is very wrong when it comes to their Jewish research. In the Torah alone I can think of countless other names used for G-d.

 

As far as that article, I dont understand how people can be so calous to write out G-d's name (IN HEBREW!) seeing as that is a sin for Jews. That bothers me alot.

 

People are so ignorant these days...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's out of respect. Writting G-d's name in vain is a sin, so to be extra careful not to transgress on the commandment some write it "G-d".

 

Edit: Some people will add dashes to their names if it contains the name of G-d, Which actually makes more sense than writting "G-d".

 

It is not a real issue being as "G-d" is not one of his true names (rather an English title for the concept of the Almighty) so I could write it normaly, but like I wrote, I don't out of respect.

 

 

Actually, that's true, I made this point one one of the pages on this thread.

 

God is an english word for the concept of the creator. None of the prophets in the bible or the torah or the Quran spoke english, so therefore the true name would be "Allah" in Arabic or "YKVK" in hebrew.

Although, i don't think that mentioning the name "god" in a conversation is what was intended by "mentioning the lords name in vain"

From what i've always understood about that (maybe because I was raised christian before I became muslim) Is that you shouldn't mention the name of God while uttering lies or vain speech like "trash talk" or even by saying something like "By God ! I would never do that" while knowing you did it. Or in a belittling manner.

Because , as you said, God is not even an english word, so how could Moses have commanded people to put a dash between the G and the D? or maybe the rabbis came up with that, I don't know. Just my thoughts on it.

 

One is not supposed, in Judaism, to speak G-ds name fivolously, (outside of Torah learning, prayer, and the like.) When Jews refer to G-d the call Him HaShem, which means the name. G-d has many names according to Judaism, each one discribing a different atribute of the Almighty.

 

The most important name is the ineffable name of G-d which you wrote out above (and which I would ask that you not to do again). The name, which no one knows the pronounciation anymore, was said once a year on Yom Kippur, in the Holy of Holys (a room in the center of the Temple).

 

As a rule of thumb, Jews do not believe that Mose, our teacher, or any of our other prophets commanded us to do anything, rather that they were the vessels in which G-d communicated his will unto the Jewish people.

 

Anyways I explained above that its a formality to add the dash and not a commandment.

 

so why don't Jews say H-sh-m?

(not trying to be funny, just asking) And, MArs were you raised into Judaism or did you convert? In some (I beleive Hasidic) sects of Judaism people are not allowed to convert, correct? either you are a Jew from your mothers side or youre not, right? I read also, that the hasidic Jews do not even acknowledge the establishment of Isreal because they beleive that the state of Isreal should only be set up by the "coming" messiah, So therefore the present Isreal is not official in thier eyes because it was set up by secularist Jews.

 

(p.s. I don't really want to go too deep off into a Jewish/ christian / Muslim /athiest debate on politics and the state of Isreal and palestine, etc. etc. because the thread is really about the nature of the creator)

 

that being said: I'm going to post a few attributes of Allah going off what you said...

 

 

G-d has many names according to Judaism, each one discribing a different atribute of the Almighty.

 

Islam has this same concept. concerning his names and Attributes

 

Allaah: He is the One and Only Deity, the One Who is Worshipped and the One Who deserves to be worshipped by the whole of His creation due to the Perfect Godly Attributes that He is described with.

 

Al-Malik (The King), and al-Maalik (The Master and Owner), Alladhee lahu al-Mulk (the One to Whom belongs the dominion): He is described with the Attribute of The Master and Owner. These are Attributes of Grandeur, Majesty, Omnipotence and Regulation of the affairs of creation. The One Who directs all of the affairs to do with creation, command and recompense. To Him belongs the whole of Creation, all of it is subservient, owned and in continuous need of Him.

 

 

Al-Waahid, al-Ahad (The One): He is the One Who is singled out in all aspects of Perfection such that nothing else shares with Him in these. It is obligatory upon the servants to single Him out alone in belief, saying and action by acknowledging His unrestricted perfection, His uniqueness and singling Him out Alone for all types of worship

 

As-Samad (The Self-Sufficient): He is the One upon Whom the whole of creation relies upon in all of their needs, predicaments and necessities. This due to His unrestricted perfection with regards to His Essence, His Names, His Attributes and His Actions

 

this is only four of his names and attributes. there are many more. at least 99 names that we know of and more names that only Allah is aware of.

 

Judaism and Islam resemble eachother in many ways, even more than christianity, also, Muslims exalt Moses (peace be upon him) as being one of the best prophets of Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Dawood@Feb 6 2006, 09:58 AM

so why don't Jews say H-sh-m?

(not trying to be funny, just asking)

 

Jews dont write H-sh-m because it would be like abreviating an abreviation. Some people will write mas187-03.gif (the letter without the brackets) instead but its really just the same thing.

 

 

And, MArs were you raised into Judaism or did you convert?

I was born Jewish but at the age of 10 deviated secretly from my faith when I turned 13 I decided that I believe in G-d but I wasnt sure what religion to believe in. After doing research from christianinty to sintuism I realised that Judaism made the most sense to me. Whether it was because I realised it through research or it just felt right at the time I do not know. Some things have happened later in life that have solidified my belief.

 

In some (I beleive Hasidic) sects of Judaism people are not allowed to convert, correct?

 

Not really, you can convert but othodox Jews will give you a hard time. We dont want converts that decide they dont like being Jewish after two years. Thats why after a Rabbi says ok you have to study the bible until he is satified with your knowlage.

 

either you are a Jew from your mothers side or youre not, right?

 

Yes.

 

I read also, that the hasidic Jews do not even acknowledge the establishment of Isreal because they beleive that the state of Isreal should only be set up by the "coming" messiah, So therefore the present Isreal is not official in thier eyes because it was set up by secularist Jews.

 

There is a small sect of Hassidic Jews that feel that way. They are shunned by most Jews for thier extremist beliefs. Few Jews believe that the state is truly Jewish becase it is not run as outlined in the Torah.

 

(p.s. I don't really want to go too deep off into a Jewish/ christian / Muslim /athiest debate on politics and the state of Isreal and palestine, etc. etc. because the thread is really about the nature of the creator)

 

Yeh me too thats a whole other agument and I've been there too many times.

 

 

Judaism and Islam resemble eachother in many ways, even more than christianity, also, Muslims exalt Moses (peace be upon him) as being one of the best prophets of Allah.

 

Jews refer to Muslims as their cousins for that reason.

 

For Jews Moses was the greatest. He brought down the Torah and taught it to us all. As well as took us out of Egypt and lead us to Israel.

 

As a prophet none have matched him. He was able to speak to G-d directly. All other prophets spoke through angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

copied and pasted from a website, it describes enlightenment:

 

You are a perfect being...you are complete...you are lacking in nothing...You have everything you need, and there is no need to search for anything or anyone. Relax into the moment of your being, and observe the presence....relax into yourself and be completely still. Doors will open and the grace of pure consciousness emerges as the presence of your being...the only real thing in this world, your self...your eternal self. Not your ego, not your body, but your eternal self...your awareness. Simply be still and observe the essence of your self.

 

There is but one God...one consciousness that permeates everyone and everything...everywhere. There is but one being, and you are that. Through thought, one creates separation and the body...your bucket is half full with holes in it and the grace is leaking out. Let go of the thought and the attachments that go with it, and your bucket becomes full and overflowing with the grace of unconditional love.

 

It is very easy to know God, to become one with God. Only your thoughts separate you from your essential bliss. Know that you are pure consciousness, and that you are the Master...always and forever. You are that light of the universe that all of the great teachers have proclaimed unto you. In the silence of your soul, you will find a symphony in the stillness. A symphonic presence that can only be found when you are completely still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by KYU@Feb 7 2006, 02:10 AM

copied and pasted from a website, it describes enlightenment:

 

You are a perfect being...you are complete...you are lacking in nothing...You have everything you need, and there is no need to search for anything or anyone. Relax into the moment of your being, and observe the presence....relax into yourself and be completely still. Doors will open and the grace of pure consciousness emerges as the presence of your being...the only real thing in this world, your self...your eternal self. Not your ego, not your body, but your eternal self...your awareness. Simply be still and observe the essence of your self.

 

There is but one God...one consciousness that permeates everyone and everything...everywhere. There is but one being, and you are that. Through thought, one creates separation and the body...your bucket is half full with holes in it and the grace is leaking out. Let go of the thought and the attachments that go with it, and your bucket becomes full and overflowing with the grace of unconditional love.

 

It is very easy to know God, to become one with God. Only your thoughts separate you from your essential bliss. Know that you are pure consciousness, and that you are the Master...always and forever. You are that light of the universe that all of the great teachers have proclaimed unto you. In the silence of your soul, you will find a symphony in the stillness. A symphonic presence that can only be found when you are completely still.

 

sounds like the creed of the 5%ers to me

 

Peace God, what's todays mathematics ,son, youknowhatI'msayin'?

I'm god, son ALLAH in the flesh, na' mean? ARM-LEG-LEG-ARM-HEAD

 

The Maker, the owner, the cream of the Universe, God.

 

Just playing KYU, Just pointing out the similarities between what you posted and the 5 % nation of Gods and earths (who are not muslims by the way)

 

i still say there can't be a creation without a creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Haha I know bout that 5% shit... it's pretty intense.

 

 

I was sitting in class the other day thinking about Descarte and his view of immutable truth. A priori knowledge and such. More specifically, I was interested in the analogy he used to define this time of pure knowledge. Descarte felt that the concept of a triangle was pure. A triangle exists wether the outside world does or not. Someone in the class was having trouble understanding why he would choose such a thing as his base for knowledge and so I tried to come up with a way of explaining it differently. So I thought of something that I felt elucidated the concept a little better. Consider the reduction of a triangle into its parts; three points connected by three lines. Let us take a point as the main focus of this excersize. A point is pure knowledge in that it exists conceptually. A point can not exist as a physical thing because it would be paradoxical to think of a point having dimensions. Thus a point exists independently of the external world.

 

Sooooo. from this I started to think about the concept of knowledge and how it relates to the concept of a point in general. And it led me to this idea:

 

Pure knowledge can be thought of as a point, a moment, dimensionless and all encompassing. If this moment of pure knowledge were to actually occur, one can even explain conciousness in a manner conducive to this line of thinking. If there is a moment of pure knowledge one could look at that as the realization of an infinite set of possibilities. Our own conciousness is the mechanism of the realization of that infinite set. It is the process of that set that gives us the temporal aspect of experience as we know it. Thus all of our lives and existence is encapsulated in but a moment or point of pure knowledge.

 

While absolutely rediculous, it's a pretty cool thought excersize I think. I also feel like it is my interpretation of many eastern philosophies, such as buddhism and the idea if impermanence.

 

anywho, enjoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest imported_El Mamerro

Shape, have you ever read "El Aleph", by Jorge Luis Borges? Short story, somewhat related to what you're talking about. Borges crushes so hard it hurts. It's not quite the same when translated to English, but still awesome.

 

Excerpt:

 

"I arrive now at the ineffable core of my story. And here begins my despair as a writer. All language is a set of symbols whose use among its speakers assumes a shared past. How, then, can I translate into words the limitless Aleph, which my floundering mind can scarcely encompass? Mystics, faced with the same problem, fall back on symbols: to signify the godhead, one Persian speaks of a bird that somehow is all birds; Alanus de Insulis, of a sphere whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere; Ezekiel, of a four-faced angel who at one and the same time moves east and west, north and south. (Not in vain do I recall these inconceivable analogies; they bear some relation to the Aleph.) Perhaps the gods might grant me a similar metaphor, but then this account would become contaminated by literature, by fiction. Really, what I want to do is impossible, for any listing of an endless series is doomed to be infinitesimal. In that single gigantic instant I saw millions of acts both delightful and awful; not one of them occupied the same point in space, without overlapping or transparency. What my eyes beheld was simultaneous, but what I shall now write down will be successive, because language is successive. Nonetheless, I'll try to recollect what I can.

 

On the back part of the step, toward the right, I saw a small iridescent sphere of almost unbearable brilliance. At first I thought it was revolving; then I realised that this movement was an illusion created by the dizzying world it bounded. The Aleph's diameter was probably little more than an inch, but all space was there, actual and undiminished. Each thing (a mirror's face, let us say) was infinite things, since I distinctly saw it from every angle of the universe. I saw the teeming sea; I saw daybreak and nightfall; I saw the multitudes of America; I saw a silvery cobweb in the center of a black pyramid; I saw a splintered labyrinth (it was London); I saw, close up, unending eyes watching themselves in me as in a mirror; I saw all the mirrors on earth and none of them reflected me; I saw in a backyard of Soler Street the same tiles that thirty years before I'd seen in the entrance of a house in Fray Bentos; I saw bunches of grapes, snow, tobacco, lodes of metal, steam; I saw convex equatorial deserts and each one of their grains of sand; I saw a woman in Inverness whom I shall never forget; I saw her tangled hair, her tall figure, I saw the cancer in her breast; I saw a ring of baked mud in a sidewalk, where before there had been a tree; I saw a summer house in Adrogué and a copy of the first English translation of Pliny -- Philemon Holland's -- and all at the same time saw each letter on each page (as a boy, I used to marvel that the letters in a closed book did not get scrambled and lost overnight); I saw a sunset in Querétaro that seemed to reflect the colour of a rose in Bengal; I saw my empty bedroom; I saw in a closet in Alkmaar a terrestrial globe between two mirrors that multiplied it endlessly; I saw horses with flowing manes on a shore of the Caspian Sea at dawn; I saw the delicate bone structure of a hand; I saw the survivors of a battle sending out picture postcards; I saw in a showcase in Mirzapur a pack of Spanish playing cards; I saw the slanting shadows of ferns on a greenhouse floor; I saw tigers, pistons, bison, tides, and armies; I saw all the ants on the planet; I saw a Persian astrolabe; I saw in the drawer of a writing table (and the handwriting made me tremble) unbelievable, obscene, detailed letters, which Beatriz had written to Carlos Argentino; I saw a monument I worshipped in the Chacarita cemetery; I saw the rotted dust and bones that had once deliciously been Beatriz Viterbo; I saw the circulation of my own dark blood; I saw the coupling of love and the modification of death; I saw the Aleph from every point and angle, and in the Aleph I saw the earth and in the earth the Aleph and in the Aleph the earth; I saw my own face and my own bowels; I saw your face; and I felt dizzy and wept, for my eyes had seen that secret and conjectured object whose name is common to all men but which no man has looked upon -- the unimaginable universe. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats definitely some shit mams. Im gonna have to look it up at some point in the near future.

 

 

i have a response to this, but i have been up for two days now and its time to sleep...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...