wazua Thu, May 7, 2026
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In

12 Pages«<9101112>
Defeating death
Options
Previous Topic · Next Topic
symbols
#101 Posted : Sunday, March 30, 2014 10:35:42 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/19/2013
Posts: 2,552
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
Muriel wrote:
tycho wrote:
What would happen if both knowledge and facts were relative and subjective? And that in such a case, knowledge of facts is possible?




You are late.

Danas and I have already agreed that facts and knowledge are different and that facts are absolutes. We have not left room for speculation.


I think you're both right but that presents a challenge.We can look at the same object from different sides and have facts and knowledge yet they both remain relative and subjective to our respective positions.The absolute would be the object.


Perhaps there's never a same object. What we have are 'similar' subjective experiences.

These similar subjective experiences then form a basis of action, a wall, 'absolute'.


But yet there is still an object.


noun
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is
relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or
action is directed: an object of medical
investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is
directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of
business.

Meaning number one doesn't apply.


Why doesn't it apply?


It doesn't apply because perception and knowledge are confronted with multiple dimensions and limited in focus.


Ah.Perception,dimension and focus brings almost everything to question but they are subject to the observer.Can we question that there is an observer?
Back to top
  |
symbols
#102 Posted : Sunday, March 30, 2014 10:39:25 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/19/2013
Posts: 2,552
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
Who can escape life?


You remind me of a haiku.

What are the clouds
but an excuse for the sky?
What is death,
but an escape from life?

P.s. @quicksand, am coming.


Death is something you encounter in life but who has escaped life?


Symbols, 'who' implies 'life'. So you're asking if life can escape from itself. It's not a question that you're asking.

But what is it?

No one can defeat life.


Even God?


Is God life?


God isn't life. He/it is at best an 'optimal' projection of life via the human mind.

Life in itself is unnameable.


How do we establish if man is projecting or trying to reflect?

Isn't God unnameable?The I Am.


No. God is the nameable. The I am not.


How so?
Back to top
  |
tycho
#103 Posted : Monday, March 31, 2014 4:36:23 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
The 'observer' is always the 'creator' and 'participator'. 'He' is subject to change. Where there's no name there's no 'observer'.

Jehovah isn't Allah; neither is any of these Obatala. If God was the unnameable then the difference wouldn't exist.
Back to top
  | | Edit by user: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:47 AM | Reason: Not specified
symbols
#104 Posted : Monday, March 31, 2014 6:34:28 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/19/2013
Posts: 2,552
tycho wrote:
The 'observer' is always the 'creator' and 'participator'. 'He' is subject to change. Where there's no name there's no 'observer'.

Jehovah isn't Allah; neither is any of these Obatala. If God was the unnameable then the difference wouldn't exist.


An observer participates in creating from what is already created.The observations might change but the observing nature remains the same.An observer can exist without a name but a name can't exist without an observer.Subjectivity speaks about the nature of an observer but doesn't question it.

God being the un/nameable doesn't mean we can't perceive it otherwise.
Back to top
  |
tycho
#105 Posted : Monday, March 31, 2014 9:40:13 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
The 'observer' is always the 'creator' and 'participator'. 'He' is subject to change. Where there's no name there's no 'observer'.

Jehovah isn't Allah; neither is any of these Obatala. If God was the unnameable then the difference wouldn't exist.


An observer participates in creating from what is already created.The observations might change but the observing nature remains the same.An observer can exist without a name but a name can't exist without an observer.Subjectivity speaks about the nature of an observer but doesn't question it.

God being the un/nameable doesn't mean we can't perceive it otherwise.


When you say, 'an observer participates' what do you mean? Participates with who, or what? Then there's the complication of you knowing that an other had already created something.

It's like you are avoiding the unnameable. And that is a very difficult position. All these things are in the domain of language, Man's tool for transforming energy. And we have the pitfalls of logic, as exemplified in your 'elusive ultimate'.
It's like 'no ultimate'. And if there's 'no ultimate' then how can language be useful? This is Nietzsche's abyss.

You also say that 'God the unnameable can be/is also God the nameable. Equivalence. Once again the abyss.
Back to top
  |
symbols
#106 Posted : Monday, March 31, 2014 5:55:53 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/19/2013
Posts: 2,552
tycho wrote:
symbols wrote:
tycho wrote:
The 'observer' is always the 'creator' and 'participator'. 'He' is subject to change. Where there's no name there's no 'observer'.

Jehovah isn't Allah; neither is any of these Obatala. If God was the unnameable then the difference wouldn't exist.


An observer participates in creating from what is already created.The observations might change but the observing nature remains the same.An observer can exist without a name but a name can't exist without an observer.Subjectivity speaks about the nature of an observer but doesn't question it.

God being the un/nameable doesn't mean we can't perceive it otherwise.


When you say, 'an observer participates' what do you mean? Participates with who, or what? Then there's the complication of you knowing that an other had already created something.

It's like you are avoiding the unnameable. And that is a very difficult position. All these things are in the domain of language, Man's tool for transforming energy. And we have the pitfalls of logic, as exemplified in your 'elusive ultimate'.
It's like 'no ultimate'. And if there's 'no ultimate' then how can language be useful? This is Nietzsche's abyss.

You also say that 'God the unnameable can be/is also God the nameable. Equivalence. Once again the abyss.







It isn't about avoiding complication to get a simple answer but understanding and simplifying complication.To deny another created is easy if you can explain creation.By participating I mean you can create anything in your mind but it's based on stimuli.With who or what,at this point it doesn't matter because there is something.

There is no ultimate.If that is what you are arguing then you are saying nothing for what would there be to say that isn't based on something and this also applies to language and perception.It is not the nature or form that is in question but the existence of it.

The "un/nameable" is left open to appreciate a difference is perspective not its equivalence.The abyss is presented by yourself.
Back to top
  |
tycho
#107 Posted : Tuesday, April 01, 2014 3:15:05 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Allow me to paraphrase what you're saying first @symbols.

1. 'We' are understanding and simplifying 'complication' is making something elaborate with many parts/dimensions less elaborate and with fewer dimensions. It's like a reduction to fit capacity, interest, or purpose.

2. One can deny a product (creation) if he/she can explain the act of creation (production).

3. One can make something new (create) in the mind out of perceiving stimuli.

4. Everything perceived and spoken is based on something and there's no conclusive point (ultimate).

5. The unperceivable (unnameable) is open to perception (simplification).

From these propositions then we can infer that;

1. The act of creation is that of perception and simplification.

2. The created isn't equivalent to what is.

3. Since there's no ultimate (conclusive point) but there's perception of stimuli creation is an activity of the perceiver and is limited to the perceived. And language is based on perception, interest, and purpose of the perceiver.

These propositions and conclusions agree with my initial post #103, and contradict your first proposition in post#104, and in extension the whole post#104.
Back to top
  |
symbols
#108 Posted : Tuesday, April 01, 2014 5:24:57 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/19/2013
Posts: 2,552
tycho wrote:

Then there's the complication of you knowing that an other had already created something.

symbols wrote:

It isn't about avoiding complication to get a simple answer but understanding and simplifying complication.

1.Your statement itself speaks of complication arising by considering other dimensions and parts.

2.A rock and a car.A rock is naturally occurring a car is not.Within those limits,can't we understand if there is a creator or not?

3.Yes.Imagination.

4.Stimuli is something as well as the one receiving it.

5.Perception is not simplification.Can you perceive that which is unperceivable?

Your inferences;

1.The act of creation is an act of awareness i.e. stimuli and also of perception.

2.The created is what it is.Perception determines what it is to you but it doesn't imply the creation changes due to it.

3.Stimuli is necessary for perception and an observer is necessary for perception.

The point is even as 'creator' and 'participator',there is stimuli and there is an observer which are irrefutable.Your post fails to address that before we were observers there was stimuli and that a name is an observation.
Back to top
  |
tycho
#109 Posted : Tuesday, April 01, 2014 9:18:58 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
@symbols, what is 'created' is created from what is. And 'what is' has no observer, and no name. It can neither be created nor destroyed.

To observe isn't necessarily to name. Naming is creating. A pig can't name, therefore it can't build a civilization. Yet can you say a pig isn't observant?

Imagination isn't creation. The creation is in the naming. So 'the question' can be rephrased 'can one name what's already named? Can one create what's already created? Creation is from nothing.

Allow me to illustrate. A goat will know it's way back home and the expected time of arrival. Does it have imagination? Does it name? Does it create out of nothing?
Back to top
  |
symbols
#110 Posted : Thursday, April 03, 2014 8:59:10 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/19/2013
Posts: 2,552
tycho wrote:
@symbols, what is 'created' is created from what is. And 'what is' has no observer, and no name. It can neither be created nor destroyed.

To observe isn't necessarily to name. Naming is creating. A pig can't name, therefore it can't build a civilization. Yet can you say a pig isn't observant?

Imagination isn't creation. The creation is in the naming. So 'the question' can be rephrased 'can one name what's already named? Can one create what's already created? Creation is from nothing.

Allow me to illustrate. A goat will know it's way back home and the expected time of arrival. Does it have imagination? Does it name? Does it create out of nothing?





How did you come to the conclusion 'what is' has no observer? If 'what is' came from nothing,why can't it go back to it?

Observation is different from memory,thinking or imagination.The capacity to observer is independent from the ability to name.

If imagination isn't creation,where do names come from? If naming is creating,then creation is a creation but 'nothing' can't name.
Back to top
  | | Edit by user: Thursday, April 03, 2014 9:00 PM | Reason: Not specified
12 Pages«<9101112>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Wazua Club SK Theme
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2009, Yet Another Forum.NET
Copyright © 2026 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.