 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Thus the contemporary meanings and usage of reason and rationale significantly strengthen the bivalent (black or white) approach.
The past, static, memory, non-living (non-loving?), fixed, record, noun, thing, perceived/possessed, as if held by power of will unmoving, obedient, following, instructed, orderly, repetitive, looping, sameness, conserving, preserving - opposes - in stark contrast to current, moving, seeking, living (loving?), adapting, recording, verb, action, produced/employed, as if moved by the power of will, directed, leading, instructing, adaptive, inventive, discovering, creative, investing, producing.
A form of action is digital, or either/or, or ones or zeros, or individual movement from A, no longer A, moving to B; while at the same time a form of action may also be A being B at the same time that A is not B.
So to say that all things are either digital (bivalent) or non-digital (multivalent) is an example of a perspective that things are digital (bivalent)?
Is-not is defined as the primary and absolute non-idea that defines the boundary of IS and itself. Anything that is, is and must necessarily exist within the bounds of IS. IS-NOT shall always remain a non-idea, for if it were to be realised, then IS-NOT would then by definition become part of IS, by virtue of being an idea. -->IS
Nothing (if nothing WAS/IS/Will be), to my way of thinking (time based) had to be first, before there was anything at all, anywhere, since the concept of there being anything, such as perception (an absolute undeniable fact ----->perception), removes the condition knowable as nothing.
As soon as there is something, there is no longer nothing.
But my idea, or my dream, or my perception qualifies my above communicated perception with the perception that my perception is severely limited to a point at which it is not possible for me to know nothing, certainly not from something, so if nothing IS, it is entirely possible, according to my perception of limits to my perception, that nothing exists while something exists.
For practical purposes of me perceiving me being alive, nothing is not possible, since something (perception) exists. What good is it for me to entertain the notion that nothing can exist while I perceive? Wishful thinking? Fear?
A belief or assertion that states A = not-A to some degree, thereby resulting in the inability for a statement to be made that is 100% true or false.
I see that as being an argument (possibly) for the sake of argument. I have no trouble perceiving perception as being 100% absolutely true, so long as I perceive, so it IS true 100% (perception IS) while it is true, to that degree, and when it is no longer true, I won't know it, so of what use is the argument?
Perception IS
How can that not be 100%, absolutely true, to the degree determined by perception existing as it exists?
I don't see the argument that requires either/or 100% true, absolutely, or not, since perception IS while it is, and if perception ends, then it does, but then so does any argument that may claim that it does not exists by any "degree".
This is not the same thing as a machinist ordering a part that is of a size being plus or minus a certain range of tolerance. Of course the part is not going to be absolutely, perfectly, 100% exactly, precisely, the size ordered. The idea size IS within the range ordered, not larger, and not smaller, than the range. But absolutely, 100%, the part ordered cannot be out of the range, because the part will fail to fit, to work if the part is out of range.
To me there may be a range of perception from the perception perceived by a hydrogen proton on along the range up to the perception perceived by the creator of the hydrogen proton. I don't know either. I do not see, perceive, from those ranges of perception. I do perceive.
I perceive.
How can that be anything other than 100% absolutely true?
A semantics argument?
I see no argument.
I perceive.
There is no point in arguing against what IS, while it IS, it IS.
I perceive.
There is a range of perception, certainly, and perhaps that is the point of the intended message.
A belief or assertion that states A = not-A to some degree, thereby resulting in the inability for a statement to be made that is 100% true or false.
I perceive within the range of perception? <------ while I do that IS perception or that IS what it IS even if I use a different label other than perception, or the range IS.
(7) Once something is created, nothing is uncreated
If time existed as a linear progression from a beginning to an end of time (which is not accurately measurable by me within my limits of perception) the concept of nothing being nothing could fall into a range of time that is very large compared to the range of time whereby something was created (and therefore there is no longer nothing or "nothing is uncreated" at that time) and then that range of time between nothing an now is a time span.
Like this:
Time span for there being nothing is [................................................................]
Then the time span when nothing ends and things begin to be created is [.]
So nothing lasts for a very long time, supposedly, or imaginably, and then for a mere spark of very small time, relatively speaking, there is the age of things.
We human beings are measuring the time span, the range of time, whereby things exist, and to us this range of time is relatively a long time.
What if the range of time for nothing is vastly longer than the infinitesimally small range of time of things?
What if there is nothing after this range of time where things were created?
To illustrate the concept of time span it may help to suggest that the range of time whereby nothing is anywhere could be compared to the whole known existence of time compared to the time it takes light to travel the distance between a hydrogen proton and a hydrogen electron.
In other words, the difference between the entire span of time whereby all known (perceived to be known by human perception) matter exists is compared to the small fraction of time that it takes for light to travel a very short distance is a similar relative difference between the time that nothing exists and the time that we know as the time that matter exists.
Range appears to be subject to perspective as time can be well out of range for a human being to know, other than by creative imagination, since human perception is subjected to the limits of human time. One human experience may last the time it takes to be shocked by a static electricity spark. The entire length of time between the existence of anything (however long that may last) and the next time when something replaces nothing could be a very long time?
I think that my imagination is suggesting is something along the lines of "awareness loves life" or "the value of things" since it may be, in some way imaginable, that awareness of nothing is in some way possible, along the lines of "missing" those rare moments when something interrupts the seemingly eternal vacuum of nothingness.
Along the lines of awareness cherishing the slightest flicker of the smallest thing, even to the degree, in that range, whereby the mere hint of an idea becomes, by relative measure, a monumental accomplishment.