What Of Your Essence?

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Re: What Of Your Essence?

Postby encode_decode » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:56 am

    gib

    I'm gonna cheat. I'm gonna look ahead to your response to Arc. You call it a "stem". You say that O is not only less than B but integrated into B. So maybe something like: if it's a dog, then it's an animal. And if it's an animal, then it's a life form.

    Awesome - you have highlighted that I need to write rules for these designer logix.

    I have moved some of our conversation over to a new thread called On Computing the Brain and Mind

    :D
    It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
    (Anomaly654 - 2017)

    But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
    - which is to say there is always meaning.

    (gib - 2017)

    Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
    (Myself - 2017)
    ______________________
    Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά
    User avatar
    encode_decode
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 1028
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
    Location: Metaspace

    Re: What Of Your Essence?

    Postby encode_decode » Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:38 pm

      Reformation . . .

      Based on the original logic . . . fuzzy at that, we have new symbols to work with:

      O <∫> B <∫> C

      <∫> = A stem

      The stem is made up of three symbols, the 'less than' sign, the 'Integral' sign, the 'greater than' sign. It just means that what ever is to the left is smaller than that which is to the right but they are integrated. A plant works the opposite way - the stem is larger than the branches - just an analogy.

      So O <∫> B <∫> C just means:

        C stems from B stems from O

        or

        O stems to B stems to C.
      Everybody is making sense in one way or another . . . and I am starting to wrap my head around this finally.

      There are many times when I agree with views that differ from each other. Sometimes the views are similar with slight differences and sometimes views are entirely different and all still make sense. The problem I have with what I just said comes down to contrast.

      Now back to my main point . . .

      So lets say we have the following definitions of slots:

        O = Our Origin - Never Changing
        B = Our Biological - Ever Changing
        C = Our Conscious - Ever Changing
      I still propose that we each have an origin(O) - a lot like the origin on a graph - except that we don't need any dimensions for the definition of our origin - it is purely a starting point of sorts. I further posit that each of us has a biological(B) which is easy for us to agree on. And lastly we should be able to agree on each of us having a conscious(C).

      Our O is never changing and everything after this point changes so we can say that:

        O <∫> B <∫> C
      In other words; O stems to B stems to C.

      Keep in mind that I am only using the '~' symbol as a separator to make it easier to read.

      Where does the essence fit into this logic?

        Is it ~ O or B or C?

        Else ~ Does it fit somewhere between one of these three slots?

        Or else ~ Is it a combination of all three?
      I still can not get this essence out of my mind. I was thinking that O(Our Origin) was our essence and is ethereal and eternal - allowing for life after death.
      Another way to look at it is that Our Origin is like a Seed to be planted into the Garden Of Life - and therefore our essence - in my mind anyway . . .

      Then WendyDarling jumps in and adds more factors to the equation:

      encode_decode wrote:O = Our Origin - Never Changing
      B = Our Biological - Ever Changing
      C = Our Conscious - Ever Changing

      Agreeing with all this except for one change that your consciousness has an unchanging aspect of O as well that occurs before it's placed/born in a physical body/shell so an OC, original consciousness, then the biological consciousness would be the BC, the changing aspect which comes after the O and the OC.

      Making the enumeration look like the following:

        OO = Our Origin - Never Changing
        OC = Original Consciousness - Never Changing?
        TB = The Brain - Ever Changing
        TM = The Mind - Ever Changing
      Obviously I have made a few changes to make things clearer. O is now OO, B is now TB and C is now TM

      I like WendyDarling's thoughts but I am still not sure where the essence fits in.

      Any more thoughts?

      :-k
      It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
      (Anomaly654 - 2017)

      But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
      - which is to say there is always meaning.

      (gib - 2017)

      Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
      (Myself - 2017)
      ______________________
      Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1028
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Metaspace

      Re: What Of Your Essence?

      Postby gib » Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:18 pm

      Encode,

      My only thought is something I arrived at while reading your most recent post: you point that O is never changing while B and C are ever changing. While I agree, I asked myself why--what differentiates O from B and C? And the only answer I could come up with is that O is an event in time. All events in time are "fixed" insofar as they are written in the tablet of the past. But B and C are regarded more as objects or entities (C being a more abstract entity), not events. And then I thought: that's ironic! It's the objects/entities, normally regarded as fixed or unchanging, which in the end turn out to be ever changing, while the event, normally regarded as necessarily going through change by definition, which in the end turns out to be fixed.
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
      Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
      - surreptitious75

      The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
      - encode_decode

      Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      resident exorcist
       
      Posts: 8506
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: What Of Your Essence?

      Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:39 pm

      encode_decode,

      I still can not get this essence out of my mind. I was thinking that O(Our Origin) was our essence and is ethereal and eternal - allowing for life after death.


      Well then, we can say that we PERHAPS have two different essences.
      One which belongs to the human side of us, universally speaking. Our human essence (as I said in another thread) belong to our origins would include the capacity toward evolution/evolving, the instinct toward survival, struggling, learning, imagining, wondering, et cetera.
      All of these are really wonderful when it comes to our human essence. Why are we so eager to discount them to get to what is ethereal and eternal and cannot ever be proven.

      I think that in a sense everything which comes about as a result of our human essence, for example, like the belief or intuition that we are eternal and that our consciousness survives after death, comes about as a result of the characteristics of that same human essence which we evolved into - for instance, the instinct for survival, which may possibly give us the will and longing for immortality and to be eternal.
      A trick of the mind perhaps. What we believe, we tend to see whether or not it's real.



      Another way to look at it is that Our Origin is like a Seed to be planted into the Garden Of Life - and therefore our essence - in my mind anyway . . .


      Or perhaps that it is human evolution itself which plants the seeds...
      But i can also see it your way too -- we are the seeds to be planted and human evolution is their gardeners, their caretakers. we must be nourished and nurtured...
      SAPERE AUDE!


      If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


      What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

      Thomas Nagel


      I learn as I write!
      User avatar
      Arcturus Descending
      Consciousness Seeker
       
      Posts: 14942
      Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
      Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

      Re: What Of Your Essence?

      Postby gib » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:52 pm

      Arcturus Descending wrote:Well then, we can say that we PERHAPS have two different essences.
      One which belongs to the human side of us, universally speaking. Our human essence (as I said in another thread) belong to our origins would include the capacity toward evolution/evolving, the instinct toward survival, struggling, learning, imagining, wondering, et cetera.


      So our essence is our DNA!

      Arcturus Descending wrote:I think that in a sense everything which comes about as a result of our human essence, for example, like the belief or intuition that we are eternal and that our consciousness survives after death, comes about as a result of the characteristics of that same human essence which we evolved into - for instance, the instinct for survival, which may possibly give us the will and longing for immortality and to be eternal.
      A trick of the mind perhaps. What we believe, we tend to see whether or not it's real.


      I think it also has to do with the fact that we can't imagine death. If you try to imagine yourself on your death bed, and you pass on, how do you imagine the nothingness that ensues? It gives the illusion (or maybe not an illusion) that our experience can never really end.

      PS - Arc, what made you choose such a sad avatar? :(
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
      Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
      - surreptitious75

      The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
      - encode_decode

      Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      resident exorcist
       
      Posts: 8506
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: What Of Your Essence?

      Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:50 pm

      gib

      Arcturus Descending"]
      Well then, we can say that we PERHAPS have two different essences.
      One which belongs to the human side of us, universally speaking. Our human essence (as I said in another thread) belong to our origins would include the capacity toward evolution/evolving, the instinct toward survival, struggling, learning, imagining, wondering, et cetera.

      gib wrote: So our essence is our DNA!


      Eureka. I think that this is true though I didn't think about it along those terms. Human essence would necessarily have to include our DNA among other things which make us physically human.

      Or is it all about DNA and genes and how we have so evolved? That is a question for you.

      I wonder why it is that we are so quick and so determined to see ourselves MORE about souls/spirits and less about the miracle which human beings have become through evolution.
      We look for miracles without seeing the one which we are.


      AD: I think that in a sense everything which comes about as a result of our human essence, for example, like the belief or intuition that we are eternal and that our consciousness survives after death, comes about as a result of the characteristics of that same human essence which we evolved into - for instance, the instinct for survival, which may possibly give us the will and longing for immortality and to be eternal.

      A trick of the mind perhaps. What we believe, we tend to see whether or not it's real.

      gib: I think it also has to do with the fact that we can't imagine death. If you try to imagine yourself on your death bed, and you pass on, how do you imagine the nothingness that ensues? It gives the illusion (or maybe not an illusion) that our experience can never really end.


      Hmmm :-k You may be partly right about that, gib. I think that it still comes down to the fact that we are so attached to this life, out of fear of losing self, the "I" which we are, fear of the unknown - after all, isn't the greatest unknown what happens after death? And we do not have the courage to live without knowing. We do not have the wisdom to see how Death can teach us to live the greatest life which we have, to live in the here and now.

      Isn't it such a waste of life and moments to live in a way where we gamble all on the possibility of their being a hereafter?

      PS - Arc, what made you choose such a sad avatar? :(


      :lol: There is just something about it that drew me in. What's wrong with being sad sometimes and what's wrong with lying on the wet ground while the rain is coming down? Try it sometimes, it's relaxing and freeing.
      I have had my moments where I cried while walking in the rain. What is wrong with that, gib? Clouds cry so why can't I?
      What's wrong with sometimes being a cloud? Just as the cloud needs its catharsis, so do we. Just call me nimbus...stratus.

      Besides, maybe it's the poetess in me that likes the drama and passion of it all. :evilfun:
      Last edited by Arcturus Descending on Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
      SAPERE AUDE!


      If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


      What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

      Thomas Nagel


      I learn as I write!
      User avatar
      Arcturus Descending
      Consciousness Seeker
       
      Posts: 14942
      Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
      Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

      Re: What Of Your Essence?

      Postby gib » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:14 am

      Arcturus Descending wrote:Or is it all about DNA and genes and how we have so evolved? That is a question for you.


      No, I don't think it's all about that. In fact, I question whether it's about DNA at all. As you know, I'm a subjectivist, which means I define and understand things from the point of view of my own subjective experiences. When I ask myself: what is my essence? I mean: who do I feel like I am in this moment? DNA, for me, is not the first thing that comes to mind. I don't subjectively feel my DNA. All I can come to in regards to the self I feel like I am is that it is a concept I am projecting onto myself.

      ^ You might help me out with this. What does it feel like to be you? What do you feel in yourself subjectively that you would say constitutes the core of "you"?

      Arcturus Descending wrote:I wonder why it is that we are so quick and so determined to see ourselves MORE about souls/spirits and less about the miracle which human beings have become through evolution.


      I blame Descartes. He's the one who convinced everyone that we are our souls and not our bodies. But I definitly think there is a spiritual aspect to our being--we're not just physical--but I agree that there's no reason to think we're MORE our spiritual side than our physical side. I guess it's because our spiritual side is thought to be "within" and therefore closer to our "core".

      Arcturus Descending wrote:Isn't it such a waste of life and moments to live in a way where we gamble all on the possibility of their being a hereafter?


      Well, it all depends on if the believers are right or not, of course. But I don't think anyone's ever come close to proving the existence of an afterlife. Gambling on an unknown can be an incredible waste. Though I don't think it's necessarily a waste to believe in an afterlife, just to put all one's eggs in that basket. The afterlife I envision is a huge unknown. It might be bliss, it might be hell, it might be an inconceivable experience, it might be nothing. I think that without anything to look forward to in the afterlife, one's focus remains here in this life.

      Arcturus Descending wrote:There is just something about it that drew me in. What's wrong with being sad sometimes and what's wrong with lying on the wet ground while the rain is coming down?


      Now, now, Arc, don't get defensive. :lol: There's abolutely nothing wrong with crying in the rain. ;)

      Arcturus Descending wrote:Try it sometimes, it's relaxing and freeing.


      Well, it is raining outside right now. Maybe I'll go out to the parking lot. Hope no one runs over me.

      Arcturus Descending wrote:I have had my moments where I cried while walking in the rain. What is wrong with that, gib? <-- Nothing, Arc, nothing! Clouds cry so why can't I?
      What's wrong with sometimes being a cloud? <-- Oh geez #-o Just as the cloud needs its catharsis, so do we. Just call me nimbus...stratus.


      Ok, Nimbus (or would you prefer Mrs. Stratus?). You're a cloud and you like to cry sometimes. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. ;) But one still wonders why someone cries. One wonders: is everything all right?
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
      Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
      - surreptitious75

      The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
      - encode_decode

      Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      resident exorcist
       
      Posts: 8506
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: What Of Your Essence?

      Postby encode_decode » Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:12 pm

        gib

        I have been thinking about this for long enough . . .

        gib wrote:Encode,

        My only thought is something I arrived at while reading your most recent post: you point that O is never changing while B and C are ever changing. While I agree, I asked myself why--what differentiates O from B and C? And the only answer I could come up with is that O is an event in time. All events in time are "fixed" insofar as they are written in the tablet of the past. But B and C are regarded more as objects or entities (C being a more abstract entity), not events. And then I thought: that's ironic! It's the objects/entities, normally regarded as fixed or unchanging, which in the end turn out to be ever changing, while the event, normally regarded as necessarily going through change by definition, which in the end turns out to be fixed.

        Even points in time seem to exert a butterfly effect that would go on forever.

        Thoughts?
        It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
        (Anomaly654 - 2017)

        But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
        - which is to say there is always meaning.

        (gib - 2017)

        Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
        (Myself - 2017)
        ______________________
        Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά
        User avatar
        encode_decode
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1028
        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
        Location: Metaspace

        Re: What Of Your Essence?

        Postby gib » Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:53 pm

        encode_decode wrote:Even points in time seem to exert a butterfly effect that would go on forever.

        Thoughts?


        They do?

        The trick to imagining events pinned to time and space is to imagine a map of time and space that's "static". I mean, if you're imagining things moving about on that spacetime map or things changing, you haven't imagined it right. It should be like a stock market graph--where the vertical axis is the value of the stocks and the horizontal is time. The value of the stocks naturally fluctuate (change) but we don't see any movement on the graph, just mountains.

        So imagining a butterfly effect emanating from an event on a spacetime graph would probably look like more events (perhaps smaller ones) that stretch out from the point in time of the original event into the future, leading to other larger events on the way. Is that how you would imagine it?
        My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

        It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
        Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
        - surreptitious75

        The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
        - encode_decode

        Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
        - Rick Sanchez
        User avatar
        gib
        resident exorcist
         
        Posts: 8506
        Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
        Location: lost (don't try to find me)

        Re: What Of Your Essence?

        Postby encode_decode » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:12 pm

          Hey gib, I need more time to think before I can give a definitive answer . ..

          gib wrote:
          encode_decode wrote:Even points in time seem to exert a butterfly effect that would go on forever.

          Thoughts?


          They do?

          The trick to imagining events pinned to time and space is to imagine a map of time and space that's "static". I mean, if you're imagining things moving about on that spacetime map or things changing, you haven't imagined it right. It should be like a stock market graph--where the vertical axis is the value of the stocks and the horizontal is time. The value of the stocks naturally fluctuate (change) but we don't see any movement on the graph, just mountains.

          So imagining a butterfly effect emanating from an event on a spacetime graph would probably look like more events (perhaps smaller ones) that stretch out from the point in time of the original event into the future, leading to other larger events on the way. Is that how you would imagine it?

          That is how I would imagine it. Fortunately or unfortunately.

          gib wrote:My only thought is something I arrived at while reading your most recent post: you point that O is never changing while B and C are ever changing. While I agree, I asked myself why--what differentiates O from B and C? And the only answer I could come up with is that O is an event in time. All events in time are "fixed" insofar as they are written in the tablet of the past. But B and C are regarded more as objects or entities (C being a more abstract entity), not events. And then I thought: that's ironic! It's the objects/entities, normally regarded as fixed or unchanging, which in the end turn out to be ever changing, while the event, normally regarded as necessarily going through change by definition, which in the end turns out to be fixed.

          To me an event in time is getting further away from us if it is a past event.

          I might be confusing myself man . . . either way I am sure we will arrive at some conclusion.

          :D
          It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
          (Anomaly654 - 2017)

          But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
          - which is to say there is always meaning.

          (gib - 2017)

          Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
          (Myself - 2017)
          ______________________
          Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά
          User avatar
          encode_decode
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1028
          Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
          Location: Metaspace

          Re: What Of Your Essence?

          Postby gib » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:04 pm

          You know, I had a discussion once with someone here on ILP (I think it was Artimus) in which I explained to him a sense of "change" that can happen without time:

          We can talk about the landscape changing. From the northern tip of North American to the southern tip, the landscape changes. It goes from snow and ice, to forest, to planes, to desert (sometimes mountains). But this is a change that happens "simultaneously".

          On a static graph, the only difference between a changing landscape and a changing event would be the direction (horizontal or vertical) in which we see the change occurring.

          Somehow (I forget how) this lead me to think: to talk about one's origins, one is talking about an event that is "done"--or "complete" for all intents and purposes--so on a static landscape of time and space, it can be represented as an object, something that spans a bit of time, but is complete, and so we can think of it as an unchanging object. One's biology and consciousness, on the other hand, are not yet complete. They continue to change as life goes on. So we are not in a position to think of them as "complete" objects. We are compelled to think of them as things which exist in the moment but are going through change. They continue to be with us at every moment, but become different at every moment because of the change they go through. The "object" remains here, in the moment, not stuck to a specific point in space and time. Perhaps in 100 years from now, my great grandchildren may speak of my life as a fixed event in the past, that though I went through change in my life, my life is now a complete story, written in the past, there to remain the same forever.
          My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

          It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
          Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
          - surreptitious75

          The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
          - encode_decode

          Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
          - Rick Sanchez
          User avatar
          gib
          resident exorcist
           
          Posts: 8506
          Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
          Location: lost (don't try to find me)

          Re: What Of Your Essence?

          Postby encode_decode » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:37 pm

            Are you metaphorically thinking out aloud gib?

            :D

            I have been hypnotized, and felt the sense that time had stopped but I had no doubt after that the world had continued and time had changed.

            :-k
              User avatar
              encode_decode
              Philosopher
               
              Posts: 1028
              Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
              Location: Metaspace

              Re: What Of Your Essence?

              Postby Jakob » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:00 pm

              It looks like most agree that triplicity = essence.
              All attempts at classifying an universal essence are threefold.

              I maintain it is monadic, and that all is the same, life, death - except that life works with subjective time and death with causal time only.

              In subjective time there can be the imagination that different things occupy the same space. Subjective time substitutes for space and causes imagination. Death-time merely conveys truth. The light at the ed of the tunnel; being stripped of all illusions, seeing the consequences of ones actions, karma.

              Of course it exists. There is no waste of energy only if there there is no compromise of the principle of structural integrity. When life dissolves, what automates life (principle) is consolidated threefold, drawn in from these three dimensions and that compressed piece of self-valuing just enters the atomic spheres (death) to be thrust into subjective time once another opportunity for such a type and degree of integrity to unfold and meet its fate or acquire wings and find destiny.

              I say unfold 5-fold.
              I say don't let the obvious catch up with you so easily. Beat nature to the curve. Set it for new generation to slide more easily into form and beauty and good plenty.

              Obvious is walking through a wall and it not working. Nothing that works is really obvious.
              Image
              For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
              User avatar
              Jakob
              ILP Legend
               
              Posts: 5715
              Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
              Location: look at my suit

              Re: What Of Your Essence?

              Postby encode_decode » Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:21 pm

                Jakob, what you have written in your post has given me much cause for thought.

                I just wanted to pop in and say thank you.

                Deep stuff.

                :D
                It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                - which is to say there is always meaning.

                (gib - 2017)

                Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                (Myself - 2017)
                ______________________
                Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά
                User avatar
                encode_decode
                Philosopher
                 
                Posts: 1028
                Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                Location: Metaspace

                Previous

                Return to The Sandbox



                Who is online

                Users browsing this forum: No registered users