Hi Yen - interesting ideas you have - would like to understand why you are saying intelligence is infinite ? Is it maybe because there is infinite possible ideas the mind can conjure up ?
Yes, also. The present is infinite, since it never has 'started'. It is timeless, so it cannot end. Most people are (most of the 'time' busy with thoughts.). They think about the future (idea) and the past (idea) with all its objects and defined patterns and are hence 'moving' in finiteness which they have determined by themselves. To come closer to what I say one needs to move away the attention from 'thoughts' to that what really is now. It can work for instance when one has a calm mind and is watching the night sky with all the stars. (Try it). One 'feels' the infinity. And one 'feels' as soon one 'determines' an object one restricts that what actually IS with an idea (definition). This is also because of the fact that nothing can be 'outside' of the mind. Let's say one watches the sky. And one determines an 'end of the universe 1'. With this idea the one has limited universe 1, AND created the room 'outside of universe1'. But this 'outside' is always inside of the mind and hence just another object. The question : What is next to universe 1 comes up at once. This game has no end. And this game can only by played by an intelligence which is infinite, which is NOW. This 'game' is played whenever one determines an object. This infinity also 'goes' the other way. Not with an expanding view, but which an contracting view. We have expanded the view by going 'outside' to the sky. Now when going inside (the body). Lets say one has a microscope and magnifies more and more. The one never reaches 'an end of space'. So here we have no end also. And as soon one determines 'an end', then also the question comes up what is even 'smaller'? Edit: So one can say : An individual is an restricted idea which is constantly restricted by the mind 'thoughts of definition'. It's actually infinite intelligence which tries to determine itself. As long as this happens individual and (god= anything one doesn't get) are separate ideas in the linear progressive time. When one stops with that stupid, then one lives this intelligence NOW without any idea of it. One never can get oneself. Who should get whom? And one has no life (idea), one IS this life. One can also say: The real self (this infinite intelligence) is the cause that allows a separation of that what one gets (an idea of oneself) and that what one doesn't 'get', some use the term god for it. But whilst busy with that idea they do not feel that they are that what makes that idea possible at all. The real self which 'itself' is ever now and has no cause.
Hi Yen - looking at the sky certainly speaks volumes about infinity and that for me is a power sign about an infinite force or higher being that is my God. But each his or her own
Next 'step' is to figure if 'you' are separated from 'your' god or if there is a feeling of unity (for instance when watching the sky). A calm mind reveals the truth.... Watching the night sky whilst lying in the meadow (on a lounger) in a warm summernight, no words.... more people should do that....
Well if we really want to go into that I'm separated from my God because of sin, but I contain the life force he breathed into me and one day I will go to Him in a wonderful place not possible to fully comprehend with our currents minds after my life on this earth has ended, because I believe in Jesus that died for our sins - part of history same as we believe that Newton & others existed although we have not been there at the time with them. I made up my mind and this is what I want and would like to share this with others what ever they believe or not believe
I thank you for your open words. I figured that many terms have got a bad reputation during their history. God and original sin are 2 popular examples. One needs to free the terms from their historical ballast. They had been abused by many egos.... The NT had been written in Greek. And the original meaning of sin is 'to miss' Just like an arrow misses its target. Humans are born with a basic misjudgment (original sin). This misjudgment lets them live in the time with suffer. Each of us needs to figure how to resolve it. When one is able to recognize religious terms in their original meaning, they are neither contrary to other religions nor to science. Science covers one thing: Object-consciousness. And 'religions' are trying to cover what's missing: being-consciousness. We all are experiencing now what is happening with the world when only object-consciousness resides in 'us'.....we consume, we tie us to time (stress), we harm us, other humans and the world..... We tie us to some-thing. And all things are temporary. We have an identity (lat: idem= the same) with objects which will vanish (object-consciousness). We know that and we are living with that basic fear. We consume to distract us from this....science fails here also. And western Philosophy above all is no help either and fails actualy its main job. Btw: Concerning separation Luke 17:21 might help you find an answer...
Yes many things was and still is being done in the name of all religions , but then again we are all grown ups with free will and it is the choices we made and continue to make that will define us - we can be helping one another or kill one another, all are capable to become better & better, the choice is ours I love science and to discuss what is possible one day or not , but it is always good to have a well balanced approach using Science & Religion The Bible and other teachings is very interesting and needs to be very carefully researched as to not loose the original intentions it was written for. Thank you for being respectful to others, even if we don't all agree about the finer details we are all just different stars looking at the same sun from different angles/perspectives, some are closer and some are more distant.
I urge you to qualify your words, so your limitations in the area don't get to bite you in the arse...
Why worried about my limitations? The entire Philosophy is a limitation. You yourself know best what your Philosophy study means to your life and what it is worth. Especally in hard times. And the repeatings of your ego in mind declaring it to be great will not change its real value. The same is with my studied science. It is the same as with any studied matters.... My opinion is just my opinion: If humans don't have a radical change in consciousness (object-consciousness) then we are heading for disaster after disaster. Philosophy and science have no effect without that change. Without that change history will repeat always the same way wearing different clothes...ego related 'issues' will become enhanced....mine and yours, my object, yours; my land, yours; my money, yours; my god, yours; my oil, yours ....identification with objects.... What happens if actually a noble idea becomes realized, but the consciousness is actually not ready for it (has not changed)... history showed that at the rise and fall of Sozialism. I can't see any actions of current Philosophers / Philosophy out there which would change the current situation (consciousness). In that aspect it is as bad, better said as dormant as science / technology. Philosophy has no right idea of ego. And science / technology feeds ego. I don't know about western Philosophy declaring the ego what it actually is: A mental disease, an illusion. One only finds that at eastern Philosophy / Hinduism. I blame today's Philosophy for doing nothing active, there is no public voice.....and I blame today's science for doing ego enhancing developments... I am able to reflect science serious. And I am mature to say Philosophy: Nobody notices about what's going on there today (except those who are studied). Descartes is to me like dark age and nowadays without any benefit for humankind. He's like Newton. Good for classics and to study basics.
Errrmmmm, no, Science is (very) limited by its subject and method - not Philosophy, sorry... So, all the rest falters like a caste made of sand...
It seems to me that science is limited to the study of the tangeable. (i.e. theories are either proved or disproved) A concept starts as a hypothesis (either based in part in math or science) and is studied, coalesced into a sensible theory which can be proven by experiment, and ultimately turned into something real. Philosophy does not appear to offer that same feeling of tangeability (at least not to me)
The Science of Philosophy or the Philosophy of Science are ideas my mind can play with and find their connection to each other however at those brief moments for me when the veil is lifted the mind (expanded) has no apparent purpose/need for any such definition or construct .. I know that is my true home and where all that is real exists .. My ego is well practiced on pouring over countless thoughts/ideas that serve but one purpose to delay my return home ..
http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/what-is-enlightenment.txt IMMANUEL KANT An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?" Konigsberg in Prussia, 30th September, 1784. This is more than just "tangible" - this is the stuff of (Bourgeois) Revolution, opening us up to self-grounding, rather than being grounded in a clan, tribe, nation, religion, money etc. - i.e. something external (as already Aristotle warned!)! Take suicide bombers, for instance, as a "pure" example. His/her life is not their own, as it is used by others, as a pawn in a chess game. But those individuals are not Modern Subjects. Only objects. I.e. having the capacity to reason but immediately, as (if) one found it, one abdicates one's Reason in favour of bowing or even kneeling to the "unknown" and "unknowable" is... well, pre-modern... On the other hand, Science is, as I said, limited by two parameters: it's subject matter (object) and method (of research). It's subject matter is always and will always be a small cut-out of reality - there is no escape out of this. Ergo, a part of Truth but not Truth as such. That goes with Philosophy. Once a Scientist asks these questions, s/he stops being a Scientist. Read Bohr-Heisenberg dialogues on their walkabouts together and you will see that they concern themselves with questions like "what is Matter" etc. And this is par excellence a Philosophical question. And they are fully aware of it! Philosophy as such, as indicated, does not have these limitations. As opposed to Science, which always investigates a sphere of reality, a small portion of "Truth", Philosophy is concerned with Truth as such. Critically so, I would say. "No stone unturned", since we left the Dark Ages. And it also takes the same principle in its critical approach to anything, Science included. We do not need a new religion ("scientism"), where one (for instance) objectifies "facts" and "thinks" that somehow - jumping from one fact to another - one will arrive at laws/principles/methods etc. Hegel laughed at it, rather loudly, long time ago (see his History of Philosophy, esp. the chapter on Newton, whom he calls an "inductive donkey", not being able to figure out the basics, from Aristotle onwards, at the very least, that when one says "This is a tree", one already has "general" and not just "particular" in mind. "This particular - is general". We can not think or say it in any other way but having both in mind at the same time! It is not possible to "just go from one fact to another and suddenly arrive at a law or principle"... Ridiculous! Modern Science is a little bit more aware of these "little" problems with such primitive Positivist approach to Science. That, however, does not mean that most people, especially if they are not well educated in Philosophy or best of Modern Science, would be aware of this...
Gorski your little monolog illustrates perfectly why current Philosophy is not able to change awareness to being-consciousness. One still is playing with objects even in an ego-childish way trying to generate tensions between Philosophy and science. What is the goal, other than ego satisfaction? I said science and Philosophy are NOT able to.....they both objectify any-thing. This could be an explanation why science has a bigger public. One can do experiments at home and science delivers big pictures. (Orbs of the universe. Electron-scan microscope). Science delivers products one can use and are functional. Science arouses interest for the question who are we. Far more than current Philosophy. The Philosophers have no public voice I had already written, so science has actually to do their job. If good or bad that is another question. “It seems to me that science is limited to the study of the tangeable.” It is an issue of the mind…to objectify. Even ‘nothing’ is an object in Physics. And you can see how science is struggling when it comes to Quantum Physics and wave/ particle model. Even there where something meets nothing….This is also reflected in Homeopathy. It is a mind issue. Redroad exactly expresses it. He has being-consciousness. This is ‘knowledge’ without somebody who ever could have got ‘it’. And no Philosophy and no science is needed for it. Hard to digest for a studied ego. Studied people firstly went into the ‘other’ direction whilst studying. To study addresses the mind and the object-consciousness. A study acts there, is useful there where object-consciousness has its place. Being-consciousness cannot be studied and is not ego related. But science / Philosophy can point out that it is missing. Inflation and deflation of object-consciousness, without being-consciousness is the individual’s sickness. One is born with no object-consciousness. Then a kid ‘learns’. Inflation. Tree, flower, cat, ball, car….. Then it identifies itself with them. My car, my ball, my cuddly toy. Later it studies. And identifies itself with: My study, my house, my profession, my science, my well esteemed friends, my right, my kids, my wife,. My family. I am somebody now! But what is it actually? An identification with objects! One plays a role and is identified with it. This has nothing to do with wisdom or growth! Accumulation. The inflation has reached its top. The ‘sin’ has reached its top level. Since identified with objects anything is treated like an object. The resources, yes mother nature herself. No wonder that our environment is polluted, it is just an object and it is mine. I can do what I want with it. Anything becomes serious, hard, well determined, impenetrable, non-transparent, it becomes Newton. Matter consists of more than 99% of free space where it is no mass located….but to the Newton’s it is determined matter. Then when getting older deflation starts. Friends are dying, goods vanish. Skin is getting older, movements are getting harder. In a high tech consume society one starts to become unwanted, just an old man. (In other cultures age is highly esteemed, there is being-consciousness) Fear appears. The error to be identified with objects… and ‘suddenly’ they vanish. ‘One’ vanishes, how horrifying. One sooner or later, when suffering has reached a top level, one is forced to change its consciousness. Some are realizing it only then when their form (appearance) has reached the time where it stops its function. I am not any object. I am. Being-consciousness is not objectify able. One cannot determine oneself. One is already that what one is, there is nothing missing. One has to be to experience being-consciousness, not to make an object (to think) of/about it. After all. One can ‘determine’ the real value of Philosophy by determining the amount of suffering / relief of. The same applies to science.
Nothing else I have said. Thank god I am... not science (only). I have studied organic Chemistry and added to my object-consciousness. THERE it has its sense. I hope that you understand that all is not about the efforts of study. I know the effort of study and hence I respect your study, too. We don't need to discuss (here) about which study can perform 'more', do we? The only difference is that you expect much more form your study than I do from mine. I hope you don't become disappointed later in life. From what I can see now neither science nor Philosophy can initiate the radical change in consciousness that is needed to awake. It are more and more individuals who do. Studied or not. (This is actually evidence enough that study is not needed to awake.) If I should be wrong and Philosophy / Philosophers should be able to change everything to the better then I have no problems to show my respect. IMHO this does not work without the influence of eastern Philosophy, though.
No, you think it's about more. I know it's "different"... And as for "eastern" so called Philosophy - we can all imagine things... So, dream on...
Ok, I agree, your comments were in reference to science producing results. It requires validation against the external world to be successful while philosophical concepts only really need to validate themselves according to their internal logic. A lot of the ridicule directed towards philosophy seems to center around the notion that much of philosophy is theoretical navel-gazing which is unconnected to the real world, and therefore provides no useful knowledge or insights. Feeling that the purpose of philosophy is to do that is an actual philosophical position (the name of it escapes me at the moment), so one is engaging in philosophy when/while doing so.
@sid_16: True. And neither science nor philosophy is "better" or more important than the other. Each has its' place, and each is designed to describe and understand a different class of problems. And being able to recognize what tool is necessary to perform a task is just as important as being able to use that tool.