by frankiespeakin 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Frankie,
Some people can't see (blind); some can't see and can't hear (deaf); some are blind, deaf and can't speak (mute), but if they can touch and taste, that would be sufficient for them to know that others exist.. I know of no one whose five senses don't exist all at one time. But even if there should be such cases, would they cease to exist?
Narkissos
In the beginning was the Word.And the Word was No.
Or was it YES?
It?s like a tap-dance
Or a new pink dress
A shit-naïve feeling
Saying Yes
Some say Good morning
Some say God bless
Some say possibly
Some say yes
Some say never
Some say unless
It?s stupid and lovely
To rush into yes
What can it mean?
It?s just like life
One thing to you
One to your wife
Some go local
Some go express
Some can?t wait
To answer Yes
Some complain
Of strain and stress
The answer may be
No for Yes
Some like failure
Some like success
Some like Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Open your eye
Dream but don?t guess
Your biggest surprise
Comes after Yes
Muriel Ruckeyser
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
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 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'.)
MAF:
Beautiful text.
Yet I feel every "yes" is articulated over against a possible (still often unconscious) "no".
I was thinking of the very "fact" of language. Which of course I can't do without language. "There is no metalanguage" (sayth Lacan).
We humans can question being because we have brought language into (or alongside) it. By naming each thing we actually overcome its absence. My knowledge of what a "horse" is (why do I think of a horse?) is not dependent anymore of the actual perception of any real horse. With language I can express memories of what and who is no longer there as well as invent things and characters which never were or will be. The possibility of lie, and fiction, is inherent to it. Moreover, any word means a thing because it is not the thing. In this sense too (which is just another way of saying the same thing) I can hear a "no" beneath every word I utter. This symbolical and potentially infinite mirror effect makes up what we call consciousness. Homo sapiens is ipso facto a Homo sapiens sapiens. This is well expressed by the question: "why is there something rather than nothing?", which many call the basic philosophical question. The core of it, however, is the human invention of "no". Which we may (provisionally) overcome with a joyful "yes", until the whole question and answer recede into the silence of being.
Perhaps it seems a little farfetched, but as a little boy I was already struggling with the same questions, wondering why words are what they are.
Theres no way of knowing either way.
Like Abaddon wrote all we have is our perceptions and pooling them together to construct a reality/existence. Now you can side with the notion that there is an actual objective reality and we're always approaching a better and clearer understanding of it by our prodding, questioning and experimenting...or you can say its all one mega dream or thought of another being. Neither can adequately answer SHOULD or SHOULDN'T.
Since we're all apparently sentient and can come up with concepts like justice/injustice and good/evil we may have the idea that if the capability is there, its in our hands to decide on what should and shouldn't be allowed to exist in the world. What kind of world are we shaping? Even if its all illusion aren't lucid happy dreams cooler than nightmares? (I've never been able to control my dreams darnnit!)
Narkissos
Agreed. Yes is always defined by no, if only for the practical reason that everything we say yes to involves saying no to something else, since we can't do everything. But I wonder if god-if-he-exists faces the same limitations. Perhaps god is definable as yes=no.
Perhaps it seems a little farfetched, but as a little boy I was already struggling with the same questions, wondering why words are what they are.Hey, me too. I remember as a little girl looking at the word "tree" and thinking, why that word? Is there treeness in the word "tree"? Now that I have to learn a foreign language, it all comes back to me. It seems quite ridiculous to me sometimes that these people have completely different words for things. Don't they know the right word? It's TREE, for heaven's sake.
MAF,
I don't know about God, but you'd love Lacan! -- of course you'd have to add a little French to your already supernumerary set of signifiers...
- every word (signifiant) points to a barred object (signifié): the signifié is not the object, but its absence or the lack of it;
- playing the symbolical game (language) requires accepting the inherent delusion of it: "les non-dupes errent" ("the non-dupe err", perhaps the most famous Lacanian pun for "les noms du Père", "the names of the Father").
Things exist. Something wanted us to exist. Otherwise we wouldn't exist.If there had been no turbulance, it would have stayed isotropic (the same in every direction), and there would be nothing. This doesn't work because if there was nothing, there could not be something to disturb nothing. Some one or something disturbed/messed w the primordial filament,Okay, if there was nothing, then there could not be something to mess with the primordial filament. Nothing can come out of nothing. 0 times 0 is still 0.
For me, this is the essence of the initial question. The assumption made is "nothing" existed first. Who says? Why couldn't there always have been something, and nothing NEVER existed. Based on the "something came from nothing" theory, the "something" is God. And to explain how this God (something) came from nothing, isn't explained. Its just stated that he "always" was. There was no beginning to this "something". So with either theory... nothing never really ever existed.
God frankie, you're worse than minimus!!!!
Whatever exists for you, exists for you. Whatever is outside your perception and experience, simply does not exist in any meaningful way. Perhaps (and most likely, imo) "it" (whatever "it" is) exists independently of your own being, but insofar as you do not perceive it, then it is nothing more, or less, than "dark matter": the unknown, and unknowable.
Such is the thrust of quantum mechanics (insofar as physical science is concerned), and such is the bane of finite being (insofar as existentialism in concerned)...and the source of endless and purposeless discussions about "reality."
For example, when and if "God" talks with me, then It will become a reality in my life. Otherwise, It's just a figment of my imagination {translate: a psychological product of my social upbringing and environment).
Bottom line: I will never know, and what's more, can never know.
And so now I do believe I will simply enjoy a latte (which I can taste), and look at the blue morning sky (which I can see), take a deep breath of fresh air (which I can experience), and give Kate a big hug (which I can feel)...and then off to work (which I can hate LOL).
Craig
