Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote: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. Firstly, what does 'nothing' mean? It means having no name. Not being structured into a 'teleology'. What is, can't go to nothing if there's an observer with teleological concepts. A namer. What is, has no observer, because if it had one then the observer would will to change it. An apt term would perhaps be 'singularity'. Where do names come from? It's like asking how language develops. Names come from the will to power along the evolution of intelligent systems. Nothing - no thing. My question was simple and is based on what you've said.If 'what is' can neither be created nor destroyed but came from nothing,can it go back to nothing? Observation is not dependent on the ability to change what is observed.But what if the observer has no ability to change or no desire to do so,how would you prove 'what is' has no observer? I'll rephrase the question,is a name an act of creation based on imagination?
|