Thought without limit

"Nature is a language can't you read?" ( Morrissey.)

 

thedope:

Doesn't work. Reality is local.

-


Tikoo to Airyfox:

Why? I can see how it would neglect to maintain one, though neglect would not be the right word. :-D

Any dependency is a limit. The physical is infinite.

 

No, it is indefinite.

 

You don't know if you are becoming or going, what doesn't work?
Again, the integer I used was (non-local + not remote.) My no is yes on both occasions.
Is reality local if it is three hundred light years away from this locale?

-

 

There is so much I could say here, but let me point out just a couple of things:

Western Man did not really begin to separate science from religion, until Kant set them apart in the late 1700's. It was probably another 100 years before atheism even became that fashionable. For example, Newton was simply trying to explain God's rules of the universe. Philosophy was essentialist (basing being on essence rather than existence) for close to a hundred years after Kant as well. Essence is a non-physical form, or entity.

Even Albert Einstein, who many assume was an atheist, had a spiritual side---and called the Lakota Medicine Man, Wallace Black Elk, the only true true teacher he has ever known.

On the contrary, history has shown that when a culture loses its metaverse, or unifying myth (which I call a unifying truth---because it is the truth from the perspective of that culture), that culture dies. What belief do you propose to take the place of religion, which has traditionally always supplied this unifying truth. After the enlightenment, and into the Modern Age, science tried to take its place. The history of the 20th Century is largely a history of the failure of science as a unifying truth.

What do you propose as a Unifying Truth that unites man, and gives meaning to his life, and will thus give life to Modern Culture, which is by the way, no longer American culture, but a global culture now?

 

As far as you can measure it. But your measure is, in your own words, redundant.
If you had to hazard a guess, not that you do, but hypothetically, or as a matter of 'mere' inference;
- would you honestly tell me it is neither finite nor infinite? :-D It's "ok" not to know you know! lol
If I say I know it's infinite, and I do, will you hold it against me that you don't?!

Your "equation".

And this is why it doesn't work: You say your no is yes on both occasions, where the equation will only work if it is no on the first, ie. Non-locality = nothing.

Yes, its locality is itself, no matter the distance you feel yourself separated from a particular part of it. Same old dialogue with you. It's what I get for my pseudonym! :-D Well, since we're now re-running it, where is reality not its locality?

 

Wolf:

Essence is existence.

Zarathustra proposed the superhuman. There is room in that proposition for all the 'mystic union' one could want! lol And not just one! Let all the so-called "non-physicalists" become as they believe! But I don't believe in them! I've never been anyones saving grace before, to my knowledge. :-D

 

Where and when did reality "state" that? Could it be your own imaginiation. I think so. You're out of touch with reality.

The whole concept of "supernatural" is problematic. The so-called "supernatural" may simply be a function of our faulty paradigms. But analytically it serves a useful purpose in distinguishing what fits neatly into those paradigms from that which doesn't. "I don't know" is an honest answer, but it can be a lazy one if coupled with "I don't care".. Fortunately those who didn't know didn't give up on their imaginations and kept using them to find answers. Meanwhile, they placed educated bets about the nature of reality, since ultimate physical realty may be beyond our grasp.

Actually, the species has survived for quite a while by relying on religions. That fact alone should suggest to you that religion has some powerful evolutionary supports going for it--especially the quest for meaning. That should make a reasonable person hesitate before trying to take a wrecking ball to it. Whatever "science" you purport to honor, it's obviously not ecology.

 

The OP sounds all well and logical, (except for the laborious anti-religious rhetoric yet once again ) but he tends to forget one very prominent feature of our known and observed universe that just fucks logic in the ass without so much as the courtesy of a reach around;
the paradox.
They exist in many facets of the observed universe, the dual property of light for a common example, and are an accepted part of "reality".

He also tends to forget that reality is actually consensual and a lot of what we process and perceive as "reality" are in fact constructs and process within the nervous system, which through peer conditioning are in part described by that consensus.

Tell me OP, have you ever actually touched a rock, or did you merely recieve a filtered, quantified, categorized, prioritized sequence of electrical impulses in conjunction with chemical reactions that you interpret as "rock"?

Where is the dividing line, and who is to say that my dividing line is the same as yours?

You also ignore the mountains of personal records and accounts of "supernatural" events over time that as such comprise a fair portion of our consensual reality.

Sorry Airyfox, but there is an incredible, holy shit-ton squared to the umpteenth power of facts and knowledge about the universe than we cannot even begin to fathom, and simply in light of that, your "proclamations" concerning reality are naive' and silly.

How old are you Airy and did you ever answer Okie's question about your education as a theological scholar?
I ask because while your ideas and concepts sound intriguing, they are on the whole rather shallow and naive' and makes me think you simply don't have much life experience in general.

 

The physical is indefinite by any measure except change.

You haven't addressed my equation yet.

There is no first or second there is both. There is one integer represented as a set, i. e. (non-local + not remote.)

In the idea of remoteness.
I am saying the same thing in different words because they relate to a process.
In programming language theory, a non-local variable is a variable that is not defined in the local scope.

Since you never got it the first time or ever evidently. To tell the difference between reality and fantasy, examine anything you can say about yourself, compared to those criteria.

For example does the statement, I am alone, reflect reality? The evidence can be convincing in your locale.

 

No shit, zarathustra speaking being a fictional account. To tell whether or not fantasy, apply suggested criteria. Superhuman is a vain construct. The satisfied human is an ephemeral being.

 

Only from a materialist perspective. Essence (esse) is being. Existence, comes from, ex, ‘out of,’ and, sistere, meaning to cause to stand. This implies that existence is something that stands out from the ground of being. It is something that manifests, or physically exists. Quoting from the Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter Angeles, existence is “…asserting that a thing is, in contrast with ESSENCE, which asserts what a thing is (what a thing truly is according to its inherent nature).”

Kant would have said that the essence is the thing-in-itself, which we cannot perceive. Through most of the long history of philosophy, essence was typically seen as the Platonic form.

I don’t see Nietzsche as being very pro-mystic-union. His superman was a true individual. In fact I think that hippies are the closest to Nietzsche’s super man that we have seen. They embraced the Dionysian, and were all about the individual. A unifying-myth however is not necessarily about mystical union, nor can it be something that moves a subculture. It must be something that provides meaning to the lives of the majority of the culture, and in that it serves as a unifying force that holds the culture together, gives it vibrancy, and life.

 

thedope:

Yes, but you said the physical is not infinite, as though its being indefinite meant it isn't!

The order is not important. Your equation isn't one, because you deny that non-locality = 0

No. Reality isn't 'non-local' in the idea of remoteness. No matter the terms one defines any process with, reality is always its locale.

lol You want to change the subject that much? To the difference between fantasy and reality? Reality is local. Sorry your "equation" doesn't work.

True, it is a reflection. Your conception is perjorative. No loss to the superhuman.

Wolf:

There is no perspective with which to view 'them' apart. Conceptual interdependency. The difference between being ( essence ) and becoming ( existence ) is manifestly absent. lol

Yes, the physicalists perceive essence is existence. Those who would wait upon what they don't know, that is, the "non-physical", shall, well... they'll wait!

Drinks! lol :-D

All-moving. The individual the bridge and goal. No secret rite. Extant before any cultural position as unifying principle. The dance! :-D

I wonder what thedope thinks of the dionysian these days.

 

I must say AiryFox, that is quite a speech you've got there. (I can see the fist pounding and everything...). Now, you were the one that talked about reading Science Fiction in the other thread to get an idea of potential futures, right?

I suppose then that we should applaud you on this attempt to carry us into just such a potential future. I mean, I assume that this would be part of a series of speeches you would give, before you unleash a National paramilitary group, perhaps the National Force to Encourage Rational Thinking, or more likely something a little more cryptically labeled, such as the National Socialization Agency, or the National intelligence Agency, or the Federal Bureau of Intelligence-----either way, they are really just a secret police force----a thought police. (Notice the double play on the word intelligence).

With the reach of today's technology, you could probably go much further in controlling how people think, than was achieved in the past---where in the government simply burned books to eliminate methods of thinking that would lead to dissension or simply pollute people's minds. Your thought police, for example, could probably remotely go into people's computers and actually delete files and writings in progress of any kind of religious pollution that would surely infect the citizen's naive minds. Though, to be truly effective, you would still have to resort to a good old fashioned book burning of all religious books.

Look at the old Soviet Union for example---after decades of religious repression, that poison, excuse me, that opiate of the masses continued to survive. Perhaps that was their mistake, no? They should have burned all of those old Russian Orthodox cathedrals and churches, and all the other churches, temples, and institutions. Do you suppose that such sentimentalities was their ultimate downfall? How could the mind of citizens truly advance to a new level when they are continuously reminded of such primitive superstitions, and emotional addictions. Yes----all the old religious institutions should be destroyed completely---burned to the ground, and all religious individuals shot dead.

Let me help you along in this process of creating a brave new world. 'The Doctrine of Fascism,' written by Benito Mussolini, has some great things to incorporate. For example, he wrote, "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception is for the State; it is for the individual only insofar as he coincides with the State, universal consciousness and will of man in his historic existence. ...Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the state as the only true expression of the individual. ...And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of the scarecrow invented by the individualistic Liberalism, then Fascism is for liberty."

Of course, you will need to change the word Mussolini uses---Fascism---that seems to have a bad connotation with people. Try---the New Rationalism, or perhaps, simply, Objectivism----yes that would be good. After all, some of your comments certainly mirror those of Ayn Rand and her Objectivism.

Or, wait, what was the term you used? Universal Diversity? Yes, that is a good one. If people embrace the idea of universal diversity, they will not be so focused on the fact that by destroying all religion---every last trace of it---you are in fact destroying the very foundations of culture that created such diversity we have today.

But it doesn't matter, because all of mankind will be free to follow a whole new force of divergent ways based on unlimited thought---so long as it is not deviant---you know---returning back to that addictive pollution of man's will that religion presents. But don't worry---your thought police will be able to weed out anyone that in the course of unlimited thinking, dares to turn to such evil deviance----they can be removed in the middle of the night, and eliminated by morning---before they have a chance to infect their families, friends, and surrounding populations.

And notice the coincidence here---Mussolini sought to achieve a universal consciousness that is truly the betterment of all mankind. While you have found the key---universal diversity that must also be the betterment of all mankind because it is unlimited thinking that is religion-free and therefore truly enables the progress of mankind.

Might I also point out that, while Western languages are very conscious-based and linear, there are many languages through out the world that are more subconscious-based and non-linear. They often have such primitive and outmoded grammatical features as post-particles (where for example, one would say, "store-to" instead of "to the store"). Many of these languages are perceived by their speakers to be spiritually-inspired, or filled with the magic of spirit. This includes major language groups such as Japanese and the Turkic languages. Obviously it is because these languages have an intimate relationship with the human subconscious--where many spiritual 'lies' are actually experienced. Clearly we would have to eliminate such languages. I suggest replacing all global language with the very linear, English language, or even German, which is very exacting and rational.

That brings up another point---the human subconscious----it is not rational at all. It is the source of such crazy things---continuously filled with all sorts of mythical and spiritual symbolism---such as dreams. Even when we don't realize it---these themes are seeping into our ego-conscious state from the subconscious. In order for man to enable unlimited thinking to truly achieve that progress you speak of---the universal diversity---that is free from the fetters and poisons of religion, we will have to certainly repress the subconscious mind. All you have to do is look to Jung to find all kinds of spiritual and religious archetypes that are manifested from birth in the human subconscious. Repress it----repress the subconscious!!!

Here again, we have to look to the past, and we see the key----conformity---that is how you repress, among other things (including deviance), the subconscious!! For one thing, you could require all people to wear a drab, I'd suggest grey---futuristic uniform. But be careful---in Sci Fi movies, the women are always portrayed in sexy uniforms. But I warn you, sex is a key subconscious drive. No, you want these uniforms to be as asexual as possible. In fact, in your drive to achieve Universal Diversity, you would probably need to have a special thought police that represses any kind of expression of sexuality---sorry, no porn----this would allow expression of subconscious impulses, and ultimately could lead to such deviance as religion. It is no coincidence that early man, at a global level, went through an early sexually explicit Goddess phase. Yes---it is perhaps no coincidence that you mention a 'clean' mind.

Yes---there is a lot of repression to be worked out, all kinds of forms of conformity, in order for man to achieve this unlimited religious-free thinking that would enable such amazing progress to a universal diversity of free thinking.

Once the Cultural Revolution is complete---this dystopic future would be so-----what is the word I am trying to think of...????

 

Religion is a touch more complicated than your little 2 bit logic lesson.

The truth is, the religious mechanism that drives a suicide bomber is the same mechanism that keeps my aunt chain smoking cigarettes until she drops dead. The delusion and ignorance that a supreme being is in control with a plan. A fantasy manifested by their superego's.

It's basic psychology, God is not so complex and beyond our comprehension that we should dismiss his evils. God is so fucked up because our subconscious superego's don't have a clue what's best for us half the damn time. We are here today because of a mixture of blind luck, skills and coping. Religion is the coping part. It also puts a cap on the level of society we can obtain with this behavior set.

 

You can measure a body but not definitely because it is constantly changing.

Not in my equation. In my equation there is no mention of reality equaling non-local at all!
Just as you can write 5+5=10 or you can write it 5+5= (1+9). 5+5 does not equal either 1 nor nine but it does equal (1+9).

There are no platypuses in the Stillaguamish River. They are not a local animal being not from around here.
How are we to interpret a sign that says;
ROAD CLOSED
LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY

Yes, it is perceived that way!

You have yet to deal with what I have said so you don't detect any change in subject on my part.

 

My conception is not perjorative, vain meaning lacking substance. Can't disapprove of something that doesn't exist.

 

Simple logic could straighten out those complications for you.

 

He is not justification for self denial.

 

LOL, that's a riot.
I'm not the one who needs straightening out. Nor am I the one programmed with all the convoluted logic override schemes. Seriously, it must be exhausting for the likes of youself and Okie to maintain such illogical beliefs.

-

Wind em' up and let em' go...