Ontological Inquiry

[TortoiseDream]

Commonly in discussions I have I point out the fact that things like the number "1" do not exist, or government does not exist, or "justice" does not exist. I say this because they have no physical manifestation, rather they are abstract concepts we as humans invent in our minds to explain phenomena. However, I'm finding that a deeper investigation into this premise reveals that nothing, in short, escapes abstraction.

For example, before I would have said that this book, say, on the table exist, and so does the table, because they have physical manifestation. A test of existence might be the "can you eat it" test. I cannot eat the number "1", but I can eat the book or the table. Or can I?

I certainly cannot eat the number "1", but what is meant by eating a "book". For "book" is another abstraction used to describe the combination of paper and markings into a compact statement. "Book" is a concept in my mind, not physical matter. It's a reflection of the human tendency to explain phenomena in the abstract, just like with the number "1". In the present discussion, books don't exist either! Neither does my body, since body is an abstraction of a conglomerate of bio-matter. But what is bio-matter? Since we can only communicate in language, we're going to be in an infinite regression.

I'm finding that all things that language describes are abstract. I'm sure this might have been obvious to others, but I am "The Tortoise" after all. This is a bit of a predicament, since now there needs to be another criterion for how something exists. I've considered the influence of a thing to constitute its existence, but how influence manifests itself is another puzzle in itself.

Anyone have any ideas on this topic?

[newbitech]

Ah yes metaphysics, a favorite subject of mine. Consciousness, the creative source of all things that exist. Do not try to bend the spoon. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there is no spoon.

The abstraction only exists because consciousness exists. Conciousness is self-aware. Language itself is abstract and is a symbol of existence. When I say or type the word "apple" the sound or combination of electricity and light sends a signal to your consciousness that queries your consciousness for an object that exists matching the pattern of the symbol. You become aware of a matching pattern and immediate recognize that the symbol is not the object. You are aware of the symbol and the matching pattern of the object stored in your consciousness.

Now if I quietly walked up to you and handed you an apple, you would recognize the pattern of the apple and quickly be aware that this is not only a symbol of an apple but an apple that exists. I do not have to speak the words or type the words, but you recognize the pattern. You distinguish between the symbol and the object the symbol represents because you now have the ability to examine the object without using symbols. You will quickly realize that by examining many of these types of objects that no two are ever exactly alike. This specification and fine layer of granularity approaching infinity is the evidence of existence.

Another layer of abstraction that I would add to this pattern matching symbolism that occurs is the concept of object properties which are defined through language based on similarities of patterns or, patterns of patterns. These properties that are passed on through layers of abstraction are also evidence of existence that are distinct from the symbols used to describe the objects. In your example both the book and the table as well as your body all have the element carbon. This element transcends the layers of abstraction. We recognize the pattern in the way the carbon organizes itself. We choose our symbol based on this pattern recognition. We also recognize the similarities of patterns in that the book, the table, and the human body all have properties of being a form of life. While the symbol life represents a layer of abstraction outward, the pattern of carbon is also recognized at a level "above" the layer on which the object exists.

Kind of hard to type because I feel like I am talking like Stephen Hawking. I feel like I am losing some symbolism of the concept that exists in my consciousness by not being able to free flow my thought thru my mouth.

[TortoiseDream]

Ah yes metaphysics, a favorite subject of mine. Consciousness, the creative source of all things that exist. Do not try to bend the spoon. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there is no spoon.

The abstraction only exists because consciousness exists. Consciousness is self-aware. Language itself is abstract and is a symbol of existence. When I say or type the word "apple" the sound or combination of electricity and light sends a signal to your consciousness that queries your consciousness for an object that exists matching the pattern of the symbol. You become aware of a matching pattern and immediate recognize that the symbol is not the object. You are aware of the symbol and the matching pattern of the object stored in your consciousness.

Now if I quietly walked up to you and handed you an apple, you would recognize the pattern of the apple and quickly be aware that this is not only a symbol of an apple but an apple that exists. I do not have to speak the words or type the words, but you recognize the pattern. You distinguish between the symbol and the object the symbol represents because you now have the ability to examine the object without using symbols. You will quickly realize that by examining many of these types of objects that no two are ever exactly alike. This specification and fine layer of granularity approaching infinity is the evidence of existence.

I think this is compatible with what I was getting at with influence. That is, the nature of existence is based on mutual influence which is, to humans, perceived as a conscious abstraction. I exist to the rock, for example, because I have touched the rock and the rock exists to me because I can feel it. Similarly, we require each other to exist. Of course it's possible this is all happening in the mind.

Assuming this is a correct description, then what is the nature of the conscience's own existence? This reminds me of...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201204

It seems that this relationship holds for a single entity even. I must perceive myself, thus I am perceived, to exist. It seems to suggest that the nature of existence is not in things but in actions and relations.

[GunnyFreedom]

Plato, in his theory of ideas, argued just the opposite, that it was not the physical or material representation -- but the ideal, or "form" which represents the highest sort of reality. Thus it was not the physical "chair" that was ultimately real, but the idea if 'chair-ness' which was taken by the artisan then to fabricate the chair.

If I pointed to the chair and asked Plato, "what is that?" Plato would respond, "that is wood," and certainly not "that is a chair," If pressed further, Plato would go on to say, "the wood has been fashioned into the form of a chair." And thus the "form" becomes the ultimate reality.

Plato would argue that the physical manifestations of any thing can shift, become mutated, altered, or destroyed. The idea, however, is immutable, and cannot be destroyed.

Thus the number "one" is more real than a single finger being held up. The finger can be destroyed, but the concept of "one-ness" remains.

The object, then merely mimics the idea, and thus the physical object only a shadow of the ideal reality.

You can remove all the wood from the chair and re-make it into a desk. The physical chair no longer exists, but the idea of a 'chair' remains unaffected. You can burn the wood to carbon ash. The physical wood no longer exists, but the idea of 'wood' is unaffected.

For every physical manifestation, there is a form. A form of human being. A form of a man, a form of a woman, a form of Glen Bradley, and a form of TortoiseDream. These forms are basically eternal, while the physical substance of the form is merely temporary. There is no describable thing or substance within the material realm that is not preceded by it's form, or idea. The substance of a thing is mutable and can be changed. The idea of a thing is immutable, and cannot be changed.

Substance became 'matter' and the ontological theory of matter then developed from this Platonic philosophy. The form/idea of a chair is placed into the matter/substance of wood. The result is the material shadow representing the immutable idea, of a chair.

Plato argued that there then represented two separate realms -- the temporal material realm (the physical world) and the atemporal realm of ideas (the universe of forms). He called them the world of forms, and the world of mimes. We, in the world of mimes are merely able to mimic the world of forms. These forms are not contained in the mind -- if they were then a "chair" would mean something entirely different to me than it does to you, they are outside of the mind and distinct unto themselves. When a human discovers an idea to make a chair, he has merely incorporated the atemporal idea into his own mind through discovery of a concept that has originated outside of himself.

So, perception is in flux. Material is in flux. Ideas, however, persist, and are fixed.

Plato also criticized his own conceptualization, lamenting the lack of any understanding as to how the world of forms interacted with the world of mimes. If, after all, the world of formes were capable of action - interaction - it would not be immutable. Likewise, if the world of mimes were able to reach into the world of forms, then the world of forms could not be atemporal.

This was actually the fundamental ontology of the Western world until the time of Aristotle, who basically married the two worlds and expanded "formality" over a broader context of objects. No longer was it one universal form of a chair, but this chair had the form of a barcalounger, and that chair had the form of diningroom chair, creating a deep hierarchy of forms that went back to the idea of matter itself.

Where Plato, for instance, did not consider "mud" to have a form or idea, Aristotle did, but distinguished between the ordered/intentional forms and the random/accidental forms. This works in Aristotle's ontology (where it did not in Plato's) because Aristotle considered the world of forms to be integral with the world of substance, where Plato held them entirely separate.

Plato's best shot at why we are able to conceive of forms though they are in an entirely different and unknowable realm, what that we remember the from when our own form was in that realm and prior to our physical manifestation. Aristotle, however, considered the formal realm to be integral with the material realm, and that it could be discovered though induction.

[newbitech]

I think this is compatible with what I was getting at with influence. That is, the nature of existence is based on mutual influence which is, to humans, perceived as a conscious abstraction. I exist to the rock, for example, because I have touched the rock and the rock exists to me because I can feel it. Similarly, we require each other to exist. Of course it's possible this is all happening in the mind.

Assuming this is a correct description, then what is the nature of the conscience's own existence? This reminds me of...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201204 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201204)

It seems that this relationship holds for a single entity even. I must perceive myself, thus I am perceived, to exist. It seems to suggest that the nature of existence is not in things but in actions and relations.

Well that is a fabulous question. I believe this to be a fundamental question in regards to existence. I read a book when I was growing up called "Consciousness Explained" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

This book just blew me away because it answered so many questions that I had about my "self".

I don't know if I would recommenced that book as any kind of authorative answer, but it was a great place for me when I was younger to start exploring my own existence. I absolutely agree that the nature of existence is found in the relationships and not in things.

As far as where I am at today regarding the nature of consciousness, I have been enjoying much of fringe philosophers, mystics, and plasma physicists like Michael Tsarion, David Wilcock, and David Talbott.

I believe consciousness is a creative force that has the ability to manifest itself on any level. I believe consciousness to be the foundation that all things, relationships, actions, and life is built on. Consciousness, I think, is an energy field that human beings are uniquely attached to not only electromagnetically through our brains, but chemically through DNA, physically thru our skeleton and muscles and organs, and spiritually thru our blood and emotions. Ultimately, I believe the energy field that we live in, this consciousness, is a type of energy that unifies all forces. I believe our appearance on the earth layer of abstraction is a passing part in our journey through collective self realization.

I think all conscious beings are eternal and attached to one another by this energy. My individual manifestation on the Earth plane is an opportunity to increase the awareness of the creative power of the consciousness as well as the necessary separation of the individual parts from the whole. The creativity along with the separation is the requisite lesson that I will need to carry on my self in harmony with the one at next plane of existence (there are 8 in the harmonic, as in music, light, and platonic solids) which would be the 4th plane. I need to experience the freedom of existence separate from the one in order to find my way back to the one.

I digress. I have always believe that I can think things into existence. Some scoff at this notion, because why don't I think up some gold, or cash right? I don't think consciousness works this way. Especially not in the material sense. I can however tap into the energy of the collective conscious and secure my wealth that is stored up in the next plane of existence. My "self" which sometimes hides within the unknown conscious or sub-conscious or unconscious just will not cooperate with the ego desires that are lower than my needs on this level of existence.

My relationship with my self is the most important relationship and defines my existence. I ultimately will exist as the highest level of consciousness possible at the point where all paradox originates. This is where the infinitely small becomes the infinitely large. This is where all subjective consciousness ends and pure unrestrained objective existence is born and reborn perpetually and without time. This is the well of life and all of creation. My self is on the journey one which I must guide and protect, teach and learn. This relationship between me, and myself is a symbol of the relationship you recognize as the pattern of the individual and whatever creative force you recognize.

Nice topic, now I am self-evaluating and I just remembered an idea that I had when I first started chatting on the BBS that I have yet to see hit the net. Ohh goody goody gumdrops!

[TortoiseDream]

Well that is a fabulous question. I believe this to be a fundamental question in regards to existence. I read a book when I was growing up called "Consciousness Explained" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

This book just blew me away because it answered so many questions that I had about my "self".

I don't know if I would recommenced that book as any kind of authorative answer, but it was a great place for me when I was younger to start exploring my own existence. I absolutely agree that the nature of existence is found in the relationships and not in things.

Cool book, I will check it out. Have you heard of the essay, "What is it like to be a bat?" by Thomas Nagel?

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html


As far as where I am at today regarding the nature of consciousness, I have been enjoying much of fringe philosophers, mystics, and plasma physicists like Michael Tsarion, David Wilcock, and David Talbott.

I believe consciousness is a creative force that has the ability to manifest itself on any level. I believe consciousness to be the foundation that all things, relationships, actions, and life is built on. Consciousness, I think, is an energy field that human beings are uniquely attached to not only electromagnetically through our brains, but chemically through DNA, physically thru our skeleton and muscles and organs, and spiritually thru our blood and emotions. Ultimately, I believe the energy field that we live in, this consciousness, is a type of energy that unifies all forces. I believe our appearance on the earth layer of abstraction is a passing part in our journey through collective self realization.

I think all conscious beings are eternal and attached to one another by this energy. My individual manifestation on the Earth plane is an opportunity to increase the awareness of the creative power of the consciousness as well as the necessary separation of the individual parts from the whole. The creativity along with the separation is the requisite lesson that I will need to carry on my self in harmony with the one at next plane of existence (there are 8 in the harmonic, as in music, light, and platonic solids) which would be the 4th plane. I need to experience the freedom of existence separate from the one in order to find my way back to the one.

I digress. I have always believe that I can think things into existence. Some scoff at this notion, because why don't I think up some gold, or cash right? I don't think consciousness works this way. Especially not in the material sense. I can however tap into the energy of the collective conscious and secure my wealth that is stored up in the next plane of existence. My "self" which sometimes hides within the unknown conscious or sub-conscious or unconscious just will not cooperate with the ego desires that are lower than my needs on this level of existence.

My relationship with my self is the most important relationship and defines my existence. I ultimately will exist as the highest level of consciousness possible at the point where all paradox originates. This is where the infinitely small becomes the infinitely large. This is where all subjective consciousness ends and pure unrestrained objective existence is born and reborn perpetually and without time. This is the well of life and all of creation. My self is on the journey one which I must guide and protect, teach and learn. This relationship between me, and myself is a symbol of the relationship you recognize as the pattern of the individual and whatever creative force you recognize.

Nice topic, now I am self-evaluating and I just remembered an idea that I had when I first started chatting on the BBS that I have yet to see hit the net. Ohh goody goody gumdrops!

There's no way I can digest all of what you just said right now haha. Lots of things you said, however, remind me of possible parallels I've considered as well. It is the formless, directionless, timeless mystery which permeates all things. I certainly, then, believe in a grand connection between all things animate or not. This is metaphorically understood, but also has a physical argument, for all things in the universe influence all other things via physical forces, even in the smallest ways.

[newbitech]

Cool book, I will check it out. Have you heard of the essay, "What is it like to be a bat?" by Thomas Nagel?

[/URL][URL]http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html)



There's no way I can digest all of what you just said right now haha. Lots of things you said, however, remind me of possible parallels I've considered as well. It is the formless, directionless, timeless mystery which permeates all things. I certainly, then, believe in a grand connection between all things animate or not. This is metaphorically understood, but also has a physical argument, for all things in the universe influence all other things via physical forces, even in the smallest ways.


well, the two, biggest things that you brought up that perked my attention and parallel where I am at is that of abstraction layers and the general idea of existence.

I think what I just said up there is that existence itself has layers of abstraction. I think we are moving thru a specific layer now, on the earth plane. We can have a symbol for this existence and attempt to explain it in words, but ultimately we are confronted with our own consciousness. We become self-aware and at this point, we are no longer dealing with the symbols but the actual object of existence. This object of existence is the self. And the self is traveling through the layers of consciousness.

The point where we are at now in this journey has the distinctive property of material. The material manifest at the interaction point between the self and the consciousness. I'd call this material manifestation self-consciousness. This is a unique feature of this layer of consciousness abstraction. I do not believe the material properties at this level of existence are objective. This would be like the idea of the table. We struggle on this level in our self-consciousness because we have yet to become fully self aware. We are separated from the pure consciousness. Even tho we have become self aware, our self has not learned to rise above the material layer of abstraction.

So, I take it that I should probably not get into embedded layers of consciousness. :p

Well, take a look at this link for some eye candy. Talk about layers of abstraction! This to me explains exactly the nature of consciousness as we know it in this material layer of abstraction.

I put up a couple of the neat pics to entice you to click the link.
http://www.miqel.com/jazz_music_heart/vibrational-truth.html

http://www.miqel.com/images_1/jazz_music_heart/standing-wave-patterns.gif

http://www.miqel.com/images_1/jazz_music_heart/embedded-waves.jpg

[TortoiseDream]

well, the two, biggest things that you brought up that perked my attention and parallel where I am at is that of abstraction layers and the general idea of existence.

I think what I just said up there is that existence itself has layers of abstraction. I think we are moving thru a specific layer now, on the earth plane. We can have a symbol for this existence and attempt to explain it in words, but ultimately we are confronted with our own consciousness. We become self-aware and at this point, we are no longer dealing with the symbols but the actual object of existence. This object of existence is the self. And the self is traveling through the layers of consciousness.

The point where we are at now in this journey has the distinctive property of material. The material manifest at the interaction point between the self and the consciousness. I'd call this material manifestation self-consciousness. This is a unique feature of this layer of consciousness abstraction. I do not believe the material properties at this level of existence are objective. This would be like the idea of the table. We struggle on this level in our self-consciousness because we have yet to become fully self aware. We are separated from the pure consciousness. Even tho we have become self aware, our self has not learned to rise above the material layer of abstraction.

So, I take it that I should probably not get into embedded layers of consciousness. :p

Well, take a look at this link for some eye candy. Talk about layers of abstraction! This to me explains exactly the nature of consciousness as we know it in this material layer of abstraction.

I put up a couple of the neat pics to entice you to click the link.
http://www.miqel.com/jazz_music_heart/vibrational-truth.html

http://www.miqel.com/images_1/jazz_music_heart/standing-wave-patterns.gif

http://www.miqel.com/images_1/jazz_music_heart/embedded-waves.jpg

haha you're talking to a theoretical physicist, I know all about standing waves (homework can be a killer sometime). I'm very attracted to the idea of wave phenomena, I think it encompasses all that I want to say and all that I believe. In particular I believe that the universe has a cyclic nature. More immediately we interact with the world ONLY through waves. For example everything we see is just electromagnetic waves. Everything we here is just sound waves. Particles can be viewed as waves in quantum mechanics. Gravity, on the large, in GR is viewed as waves in space time. The idea of harmonics fits nicely with this all too.

I will think about your spin on things, it is very interesting and reminds me a lot of meditation. When I meditate there is usually a near complete ego loss, which is similar to what I think you mean.

[tremendoustie]

Commonly in discussions I have I point out the fact that things like the number "1" do not exist, or government does not exist, or "justice" does not exist. I say this because they have no physical manifestation, rather they are abstract concepts we as humans invent in our minds to explain phenomena. However, I'm finding that a deeper investigation into this premise reveals that nothing, in short, escapes abstraction.

For example, before I would have said that this book, say, on the table exist, and so does the table, because they have physical manifestation. A test of existence might be the "can you eat it" test. I cannot eat the number "1", but I can eat the book or the table. Or can I?

I certainly cannot eat the number "1", but what is meant by eating a "book". For "book" is another abstraction used to describe the combination of paper and markings into a compact statement. "Book" is a concept in my mind, not physical matter. It's a reflection of the human tendency to explain phenomena in the abstract, just like with the number "1". In the present discussion, books don't exist either! Neither does my body, since body is an abstraction of a conglomerate of bio-matter. But what is bio-matter? Since we can only communicate in language, we're going to be in an infinite regression.

I'm finding that all things that language describes are abstract. I'm sure this might have been obvious to others, but I am "The Tortoise" after all. This is a bit of a predicament, since now there needs to be another criterion for how something exists. I've considered the influence of a thing to constitute its existence, but how influence manifests itself is another puzzle in itself.

Anyone have any ideas on this topic?

Words are a placeholder for the entity they describe. The word, or concept "book" cannot be eaten, but a particular entity to which it is used to refer can. Similarly, I believe words like "justice" refer to real entities (although those entities are not in the category "matter", and so can't be "eaten").

In other words, I believe justice, or morality in general, is objective in the same way matter is objective. Most of us observe the same basic things about material reality, and so we assume that it exists outside of ourselves. Similarly, most of us observe the same basic things about moral reality. The only reason people can argue about morality is because they believe there is objective moral truth. We can argue about the size of the universe, or the number of primes, only because we believe there are objective answers to these questions. That is, to have an argument implies you believe there is an objective reality. A subjective statement, like “I enjoy chocolate” is not arguable.

Reason itself, too, I believe exists the same way matter does, as does the number 1. It's just a different part of reality than matter. I think there is a fundamental moral, and logical nature to reality, and that the mind is the most fundamental entity of reality.

[GunnyFreedom]

My own ontology is akin to a kind of extended Superstring Theory. Fair warning -- I am a "Christian originalist" and much of my existential ontology is informed by my faith. A faith, mind you, which is markedly different from mainstream Christianity. I am attracted to the Platonic form, because it posits that that which is atemporal has a greater character of realness than that which is temporal. Unlike Aristotle, I do not need to marry the world of forms with the world of mimes, because my ontology allows for the very barrier that Plato perceived without the impossibility of interaction.

I posit that there are (at least) three layers, and that the physical realm is in the center layer. The subatomic realm, with its dimensions coiling under our own, and then our own four dimensional temporal/physical universe coiling under the eternal realm in the same manner. The three layers are thus eternal (which Plato called atemporal), temporal/material, and subatomic.

Modern superstring theory accounts for transcendent dimensions also, but gets hazy when transcendent to time. My ontology treats time-space as coiling under the "more-real" realm of eternity in the same manner that superstring theory posits the subatomic realm coiling under time-space. The realm of eternity, then, is roughly analogous to the Platonic world of forms.

Furthermore, it correlates the physical ontology observed by theorists, with the eternal ontology which I observe as a Christian.

Eternity is a realm that is transcendant to time.

I understand the relationship as being something like dimentions. Volume is transcendant to area, which is transcendant to length. We might even say that time is transcendant to space, and eternity is transcendant to time.

But unlike the relationship between area and volume, Eternity does not depend upon the existence of time. Therefore the dimention of our created (space/time) order is much more like string theory dimentions, as if our space/time realm were the 'quantum subdimentions' but underlying the realm of eternity as opposed to the quantum realm underlying space-time.

There has to be a link at some level. our created order was made out of and remains sustained from eternity. were there no created order, there would still be eternity. Were there no eternity, then the created order would never have been in the first place.

If the created order exists, then we know that eternity exists, for the creation was made from eternity. However, eternity will remain whether the creation continues to exist or not.

Notice the parallels here with the Platonic Form. Unlike Aristotle, who marries the formal realm with the material realm, the underlying realm of space-time and the transcendent realm of eternity (given a similar relationship to quantum string theory's quantum realm vs space-time) the realms remain separate after the Platonic model, and yet connected after the model of quantum theory.

Quantum String Theory, or Supersting Theory, posits 10 dimensions. Three underlying quantum dimensions, four dimensions of space-time, and three more dimensions transcendent to space-time. I agree. In only really differ in my description of these three transcendent dimensions. I equate the dimension of time with the dimension of eternal length. If we say that quantum dimensions underly POINTS in space-time, then I would say that space-time dimensions underly LINES in eternity.

Therefore, following the superstring model we can say that dimensions 1 and 2 are quantum, dimension 3 are points in space-time. The 4th is length, the 5th is width, the 6th is depth, the 7th is time/eternal length the 8th is eternal width, the 9th is eternal depth, and the 10th is eternal progression (time).

This describes a tangible connection then between not only Plato's world of forms and world of mimes, but also between the Christian realms of time and eternity.

It further clarifies all kinds of relationships discussed in Christian literature, such as the efficacy of prophecy. While from within space-time events described as prophecy and fulfillment may be separated by 1000 years of progression (time) in the realm of eternity they occur in the same 'moment' separated only by distance, or length.

Thus when we describe a God who "sees the end from the beginning" it actually makes logical and rational sense in the same way as a human in space-time seing a shoelace laid out straight and being able to see the entire object from end to end all at the same moment.

God, then, can be described as "the existential impetus," or that from which existence (in space-time) itself arose. I AM THAT I AM was....oddly translated. More properly one should say, I AM THAT BEING IS, or even better, I AM THAT EXISTENCE IS.

God Is. The existential impetus.

"Being" thus arose out of God, not merely all of the things which are, but beingness in and of itself. For God did not only create the universe and the Earth, God created all of the heavens, and the Earth. The very heaven of God, being eternity, was likewise created by Him.

God created mankind in His own image, and thus they Were. Being also with God, who Is. "In His own image" being Father, Son and Spirit, which in us is in like manner mind, body, and soul. One God, of three aspects -- each of which described independently may be describes as encompassing of the whole character. If you refer only to the mind of a man, in a way you speak of the whole man. If you refer only to the body of a man, in a way you speak of the whole man. if you refer only to the soul of a man, in a way you speak of the whole man. And yet, no man is "whole" without all three of these aspects in union. Likewise thus we can speak of God, being of Father Son, and Spirit. Each independently can be said to encompass the whole, and yet cannot said to be 'complete' without understanding all three aspects in unison.

[GunnyFreedom]

well, the two, biggest things that you brought up that perked my attention and parallel where I am at is that of abstraction layers and the general idea of existence.

I think what I just said up there is that existence itself has layers of abstraction. I think we are moving thru a specific layer now, on the earth plane. We can have a symbol for this existence and attempt to explain it in words, but ultimately we are confronted with our own consciousness. We become self-aware and at this point, we are no longer dealing with the symbols but the actual object of existence. This object of existence is the self. And the self is traveling through the layers of consciousness.

The point where we are at now in this journey has the distinctive property of material. The material manifest at the interaction point between the self and the consciousness. I'd call this material manifestation self-consciousness. This is a unique feature of this layer of consciousness abstraction. I do not believe the material properties at this level of existence are objective. This would be like the idea of the table. We struggle on this level in our self-consciousness because we have yet to become fully self aware. We are separated from the pure consciousness. Even tho we have become self aware, our self has not learned to rise above the material layer of abstraction.

So, I take it that I should probably not get into embedded layers of consciousness. :p

Well, take a look at this link for some eye candy. Talk about layers of abstraction! This to me explains exactly the nature of consciousness as we know it in this material layer of abstraction.

I put up a couple of the neat pics to entice you to click the link.
http://www.miqel.com/jazz_music_heart/vibrational-truth.html

http://www.miqel.com/images_1/jazz_music_heart/standing-wave-patterns.gif

http://www.miqel.com/images_1/jazz_music_heart/embedded-waves.jpg

LOLZ -- this is more in synch with my perceptions of existence than you might think.

Along with describing "the seventh dimension" as a correlation of the dimension of "time" with the eternal dimension of "length" this turns the entirety of the space-time continuum (along with all of it's underlying dimensions) into a single string from the perspective of Platonic or eternal "reality"

Events that transpire (from our perspective, in "time") along that string take the form of multiplying correlated waveforms that "stack" exactly as described in the images above. So, this "string" (that we call space-time) is vibrating like a guitar string, only it's carrying these multiples and multiples of harmonic frequencies.

And so the "mystery" of prophecy and fulfillment is really more akin to one finger on the fretboard (future) and another finger strumming (past), making the entire string vibrate in a certain way to produce a given harmonic.

[TortoiseDream]

I think what I just said up there is that existence itself has layers of abstraction. I think we are moving thru a specific layer now, on the earth plane. We can have a symbol for this existence and attempt to explain it in words, but ultimately we are confronted with our own consciousness. We become self-aware and at this point, we are no longer dealing with the symbols but the actual object of existence. This object of existence is the self. And the self is traveling through the layers of consciousness.

The point where we are at now in this journey has the distinctive property of material. The material manifest at the interaction point between the self and the consciousness. I'd call this material manifestation self-consciousness. This is a unique feature of this layer of consciousness abstraction. I do not believe the material properties at this level of existence are objective. This would be like the idea of the table. We struggle on this level in our self-consciousness because we have yet to become fully self aware. We are separated from the pure consciousness. Even tho we have become self aware, our self has not learned to rise above the material layer of abstraction.

Hey newbitech. I've thought about what you said, and I have some ideas I'd like to share with you.

On the whole, I really like what you've said already. To keep with the lingo we're using here, I do think that our consciousness passes through levels of abstraction. I do think we are at a specific level right now. I also do think that my consciousness is at a level that distracts from a collective consciousness, an eternal force that I've described in my "faith" thread in the religion section.

However I did come to conclude a slight difference in what you've expressed. Correct me if I am wrong at any time, but you seemed to say that we are on journeys to a certain "enlightenment", if you will, as we pass through levels of consciousness that are progressively more "aware" of the eternal one. In contrast I think that this journey is rather cyclic. When I die my body will decompose and spread through the air, the water, the ground to other life, and create life anew once more. Thus "I" am conscious once more, recalling that when I mention "I" that I really mean an image of God, the eternal, formless, collective consciousness. I am the water and the container, form without form. This is, in itself, a specific case as well. For the earth has not existed for eternity in a physical sense.

However the idea of scale breaks down. People often think of the Big Bang as the "starting point" of the universe, when I really think it's just a local minimum in a sine curve, which is endless. I think the Big Bang cyclic as well. It works on small scales as well. Quantum fluctuations in vacuua actually create particles out of thin air (!). They exist via borrowed energy from space time, and then decompose and return the energy to the cosmos in nanoseconds time. The nature of this existence is also cyclic. The same can be applied to stars. A key, and beautiful similarly, to point out is the cyclic nature of borrowed energy as well. For as humans we borrow energy in the form of form, water, air, etc. We return it as living beings (as we all know well), and when we die. Our very physical manifestation, is a result of borrowing energy, and then returning it. The same with stars, which borrow surrounding clouds of gas, and then expel it in a final death explosion.

I've gotten a little off topic, and I think we share a lot in common. The main difference is that, as far as I can tell, you seem to think of the journey as linear where I see it more akin to the circle.