Should Anything Exist????Says Who???Should Nothing Exist?? Says Who?

by frankiespeakin 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  poppers

  Hi Narkissos,

  As long as we seem to be in this physical body and in this physical universe we may as well as participate in it fully. I am not suggesting that being awake means to shun what is happening 'out there'. Rather, one can fully participate and enjoy all of the experiences that are available, but now without fear because what seems to happen can't harm the real you in any way. When it's known to be a play then there is a relaxation about everything that happens because You can't be swayed one way or another. Living becomes joyful and there is a sense of fullfillment that isn't dependent on anything outside You.

  The silence of awareness is always here, but that doesn't mean that being consciously aware of it keeps you apart from anything else which appears within it. If being awake makes one oblivious to what's happening then it isn't worth it. I assure you that it is. But don't just believe me, investigate for yourself; otherwise it just turns into another belief system. Accepting the idea of what I am attempting to describe will get you nowhere; one must find out directly. At a certain point one will be ripe to hear what is being said and actually do the investigation. Once that happens and it is followed through, nothing will really change but everything will seem different.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Nar,

  So You have had mystical knowledge?

  Believe it or not, I am not fighting at all against what you say. I "know" the wordless experience of "just being", of "being a part of it all", of what I call the real (which is however not reached by any word or concept). I "know" how shattering (to the imaginary self) and wonderful (per se) this experience may be. I "know" how it overcomes any feeling of separation, guilt, or death, and I hold it as the true core of any genuine mystical experience.

  Wow thats very interesting,,I would like to read some of your experiences as best as you could tell it I know it would be hard to put into words but could you say a few words about it good or bad.
• 

  Narkissos

  Frankie,

  Obviously I have already said too much...

  I'm quite sure everybody has the kind of experience I was referring to. Some hardly notice it, others drown into it, still others make a theory or a religion out of it. I am content with just letting it affect my connection to language and imagination in some measure. I for one can see some value in mediocritas.

  There is a further question I'd like to ask:

  I speak of real or being when Poppers speaks of awareness. Now, doesn't awareness always imply some difference, or otherness?

  I would not be aware of the earth's movement, as I am part of it, if I couldn't measure it against what is not part of it (the sun and the stars). I sure can interpret the phenomenon in several ways (is the sun or the earth moving?), but I wouldn't be aware of anything were I not given first the phenomenon of a movement, or change, resulting from difference, to perceive.

  In this sense, self-awareness sounds like an oxymoron. I am aware of myself because (necessary, not sufficient condition) I can measure against whatever is not me.

  Isn't my awareness of the real, of which I am a part, always dependent of my belonging also to the unreal "world" of symbolism and imagination?

  In other words, can awareness and language be separated?
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Narkis,

  Thanks for your reply.

  I'm quite sure everybody has the kind of experience I was referring to. Some hardly notice it, others drown into it, still others make a theory or a religion out of it. I am content with just letting it affect my connection to language and imagination in some measure. I for one can see some value in mediocritas.

  I think you are right, but I think many expereinces can be very temperarry and not so deep. For "I think",, I do not know,, but I would "think" that any real deep expereince would be as Poppers discribed,,in that they would leave the ego a minor role,,no more master and not to control any more than nessarry. In that sense I would look at it as a tweaking of the ego to be better or to evolve into a better tool. I think this would be good in dealling with our pain and fears in life for we would not be as terrified of it,,instead veiw it as a friend that guides us we would still feel pain and react but not over react because we know the body is not really us because their is really no us. I'm probably totally wrong because what do i know.

  There is a further question I'd like to ask: I speak of real or being when Poppers speaks of awareness. Now, doesn't awareness always imply some difference, or otherness?

  I would say paradoxically yes,,In the space time continuem. But if awareness or being or real or what ever you want to call it (I mean they are all metaphors that can't decribe it but only hint at it),if it is out side of time and space annd so cannot be accurately discribed but you can only use metaphors to talk about it. It is just like trying to tell somebody in 2 dimensional space what 3 or 5 dimenssional space is like and the things you can do in it. Most of the things you say to a 2 dimensional being are going to sound rediculous.

  I would not be aware of the earth's movement, as I am part of it, if I couldn't measure it against what is not part of it (the sun and the stars). I sure can interpret the phenomenon in several ways (is the sun or the earth moving?), but I wouldn't be aware of anything were I not given first the phenomenon of a movement, or change, resulting from difference, to perceive.

  In the space time continuim you have duality. Where there is transcendance of time then perhaps you have the eternal present of perhaps not even that but maybe it is a No-thing or nothing and that is what Oneness is I don't think Oneness is truth,, it is only as close to truth that you can get from human language and the faulty concepts of the mind.

  In this sense, self-awareness sounds like an oxymoron. I am aware of myself because (necessary, not sufficient condition) I can measure against whatever is not me.

  Yes I see the contradiction. That why I say any symbol you use to discribe it has limits of how close it is to truth.

  Isn't my awareness of the real, of which I am a part, always dependent of my belonging also to the unreal "world" of symbolism and imagination?

  Could be I don't know. Maybe time has an end just like it had a begining,,or maybe time has no end or begining because there is no time outside of time, sothat you can say:"this is the begining and latter here is the end". If there is no time then who's to say how awareness knows things inside and out of it.

  In other words, can awareness and language be separated?

  I think so,,You can be aware of pain and have no language to disciribe it. Even if you used langauage you still wouldn't be able to discribe it accurately,,words fail and so if you could let another person actually feel exactly what you felt then they would have an accurate awareness without words of what you felt.
• 

  Abaddon

  We perceive we exist. Perception is what we have to inform us of the nature of subjective reality. Obviously people have differing perceptions and different subjective realities, but one can build an objective reality by using the consensus of individual's subjective realities

  I don't think so because if if is all subjective and we use comparisions to find similarities in the subjective realities we have not found objective reality we have just found similarities. Sounds like the saying: "50 million Frenchmen can't all be wrong".

  I didn't say one could determine 'actual' reality, I said one could BUILD an objective reality (admittedly built on subjective interpretations of others' expressed subjective realities).

  It is for me a better option than wallowing in existensial bullshit.

  And to me, unless actual reality IS significantly removed from my perceived reality (I am being dreamt or am dreaming, for example), then indivdual subjective errors can be highlighted by accepting that actual reality is most probably deriviable from the consensus of subjective realities. Obviously it depends on the removal between actual reality (which is arguably undeterminable) and ones subjective reality, but at least it leaves you somewhere practical; there's a monkey in the White House, we could provide everyone on the planet with clean water soources if we didn't buy any new weapons for a year, etc..

  Other constructs are just too vauge and irrelevent to me, even if they can not be proven wrong.

  One can say within that context that obviously we exist so either things should exist as a matter of course (as they are here), or the 'dice of Universe formation' fell in a favourable way so that on this occasion things exist (but it might not always work out that way).

  I don't think we ever can say with certainty "Obviously we exist" we can only say "it seems Obviously we exist" of course existence can have many shades of meaning.

  The statement I made above, "obviously we exist" is built upon the previous paragraph which essentially as a simplification assumes it is most likely that objective reality is approximable by the consensus of subjective realities. Doesn't mean it is, but if it isn't then we have no hope what-so-ever of knowing what, if anything, is going on.

  And then we have to say there is no rule that autoratively states that nothing or something must exist.

  Is there? How do you know?

  There is no law maker god that can make such a statement.

  Is there? How do you know?

  The universe is the way it is not from following laws,,(humans make laws),, it just is,,maybe it is just pure consciousness taking different forms to explore the pure mystery of what it is from many different angles???,,experiencing what it's like to be a atom, a planet, a cat, a ocean, a human with contemplative powers and so on and so on,,that's a fanciful idea I know, and probably dead wrong,,but that is the nature of this existence thing.

  Maybe shmaybe. Essentially you are giving a very heavy consideration of everything NOT being as it seems, without anything to support the propostion. Wither Occams Razor? As there is no way we can really determine if things ARE as they seem or not, one can either wallow in fantasy land or decide that what we percive to be real is good enough to be getting on with.

  I don't think there's any data to support alternate conclusions, not that that stops people. Many people see the self-falsifying nature of an argument that runs 'something can't come from nothing so god had to do it'. Others ignore it, or pretend they have explained it (when their explanation is basically 'because I say so'.)

  I don't think there is any data to support any conclusion. At least not any concrete objective one.

  Which is why I am suspicious of the entire 'we may not exist' banter and spiel. It seems to be creating a new mythology of uncertainty and the unknowable... and god's ashes aren't even cold yet! It allows people to essentially do what the worst example of religionist has done for centuries under a superficially modern set of reasoning that is actually backwards and essentially supersticious in its nature, for all the ineffablness of it.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Ab,

  The statement I made above, "obviously we exist" is built upon the previous paragraph which essentially as a simplification assumes it is most likely that objective reality is approximable by the consensus of subjective realities. Doesn't mean it is, but if it isn't then we have no The statement I made above, "obviously we exist" is built upon the previous paragraph which essentially as a simplification assumes it is most likely that objective reality is approximable by the consensus of subjective realities. Doesn't mean it is, but if it isn't then we have no hope what-so-ever of knowing what, if anything, is going on.

  I'm sorry I took your use of obviously to mean your veiws was right and so it should be accepted as true, but i see now that was not what you meant by obviously,,but you meant it just in off hand kind of way,,the way people always say obviously to one another sort of like the way people use duh in a sentence here in the states.

  You may be right about "we have no hope what-so-ever of knowing what, if anything, is going on." I mean to find out what is really going on we can not use the mind it is too feable. Perhaps there is no purpose to know,, maybe we seek to find out for nothing. The mind wants to know through its senses but maybe thoughs senses are not enough.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I think I can rightly say that science will never be able to answer this question:

  Should Anything Exist?or Should Nothing Exist?

  Because to answer that question is impossible as far as human intellect is concerned (my opinion). Now I know my intellect is not very high in comparison to all the intellects that may grapple with this question,, but even with my limited intellect,, I intuitively feel it can not be answered by anyone.