 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
4.1.4 The simplest model of existence
From all the definitions and all the various qualities attributed to the concept, the simplest model of existence is (1) an observer and (2) a thing observed .
The observer observes the object and so validates the existence of the object. The observed object exists so validates the existence of the observer.
My thinking returns to the observation that something and nothing are two things.
In other words the very first thing is nothing, and then something in addition to nothing is the second thing, not the first thing, because something can obviously be compared to whatever was before something arrived. Again the concept of time becomes a factor added to nothing, and then (time), something.
So nothingness, or nothing at all anywhere in any form, can be seen as always (time) which is, and remains, until something else, anything else, exists, and then there is a second thing existing, not the first thing existing.
Perhaps that is a way of confessing that human perception is severely limited?
I am lost at the point at which the symbols are offered by Frank.
In the context of the English text offered by Frank I am at a point where perception exists. I am at that point. Perception exists. I know this, at least this, that there is at least one thing that does exist, and this one thing that does exist is perception.
So perception can then perceive perception.
Those are just words arranged as a sentence in English. The actual process happens. The observer, in this case I am the observer, observes the process of observing that I can observe. I observe that I observe.
Does that somehow equate to an idea about an idea?
So my thinking then returns to the existence of 2 things, not 1 thing, as 1 thing would be nothing; going back to the concept of absolute timeless eternity BEING something, and then, in time, there is at least one other thing, and the one other thing is perception.
That clearly points to two things, not one thing.
1. Eternal nothingness (absence of anything including the absence of perception and the absence of time)
2. Perception
That does not clearly point out three things; meaning that those 2 things do not clearly point out any other thing such as time, or something other than perception that can be perceived.
Perception of nothing is what?
So a third thing is somehow added to those 2 things.
1. Nothing
2. Perception
3. Perception of something other than Perception and Nothing
Time, for example, could appear, displacing, interrupting, refuting, replacing NOTHING.
So perception begins because time begins, but the quality of perception (Nothing but Nothing for a span of time stops and there begins a time of "quality") begins when there is a fourth thing.
1. Nothing
2. Perception
3. Time
4. Something other than Nothing/Perception/Time
Now there is space at the moment that there is something to observe, some matter, some thing, a particle, whatever, because the emergence in time of something replaces the space that is now occupied by the new thing, this new whatever, this thing that is very small and this thing that begins to build larger things, and more complex things.
1. Nothing
2. Perception
3. Time
4. Space
5. The first thing that occupies space
The confession for me is the part where the only thing I can know for certain to be true, to me it is absolutely true, is that perception arrives at some point in time and space, and perception replaces nothingness for an absolute certainty because it matters not that perception may not have ever existed anywhere, it does now, so now is certainly the end of nothing anywhere.