In my understanding gods and goddesses are ‘projections’, there is a world out there projecting itself in a similar way to how we do. In other words I think the world is creating the vision of itself [a ‘gameworld’], just like the brain is doing for us. As we are ‘projections’ of ourselves in our own minds, gods and goddesses are projections of the infinite mind [Caugant], or aspects thereof.
The monotheistic notion of a single God, is a noble attempt to gather everything up into one. Yet it has no divine feminine and hence no Tao, and isn’t androgynous, nor is it considered to in any other way contain femininity within it. Ergo it fails to fulfil the task; ‘describe the divine infinite’.
Basically God is also a projection, and nearly all ancient cultures had creator gods or father time - the god of the stones, and what have you.
What does one gain from monotheism and what do you loose? hint; the biggest political issues around the world and between the sexes, has derived from the duality input from the failure to include the divine infinite.
Are all books representative, given the god they purport to believe in is? So one religion IS as good as another! That doesn’t mean they don’t all have faults, and that humanity itself hasn’t been moving along anyhow. For example, I think Christianity happened when history called for it. Equally modern philosophy and science would make mincemeat of any religion, the same as it did Christianity. So we’d still be here.
Is it just relative? God looks human only because the creator is human, and so on and so forth with other beings. Reality itself as a projection is interesting, because of the issue of what the projection’s derived from.
When we use the cosmic blender [to arrive at everythingness] it will contain all forms & that will include human. So we could say we are made in the visage of the god, that is, if ‘being human’ makes any sense in a oneness, & if that wouldn’t also be true about everything in nature. my guess is that 'it’ is everything and more [as a lot of stuff hasn’t happened yet, or is in the distant past], and anything I describe will be a description of something else.
I think what you’re saying is that because the human image isn’t necessarily before anything, and perhaps able to be post anything, there’s no issue in God being the human image; I think that is logical, because this cosmic blender just existing would have to mean no chronology, otherwise it’s reason of existence is invalid.
Is it logical, for the source to possess no chronology (in which case any life form is of equal value to any other life form)?
Well the ancients depicted some deities as having animal heads with human bodies, and I think this is because they thought animals were humans in different shape. If we imagine that ancient shape-shifters could take animal or bird form, then as far as they were concerned animals were exactly that. This is the same for Hindus as Coptic egyptians and pretty much world over.
It gets a bit more interesting when you put the whole thing under the modern microscope, so now we go from animals being like people, to smaller creatures, insects, then bacteria. I’d keep going… the chemicals and their configurations are also the same mutable ‘spirit’ [oneness in the blender], as us too. I look down at the ‘kenneth’ ~ the silvery sheen on the waters surface [Celtic], and see a small whirlpool, whereby noticing that its repeated motion has carved a shape in the mud, I see nature literally as a lathe. …a machine. Then the whole river surface is a complexity of never ending changing patterns and machines. In a way, it is not so far to imagine that as having a similar complexity to brains, it isn’t that, but that’s the degree of complexity it has.
Is it so hard to imagine that what is in us is also in all of nature! That river is ‘alive’ [to be – to exist] and even space is. The whole thing is literally connected by information [as if we are all transparent], which can be carried by any medium, which is cool because almost all cells in all living things produce light. As we all know, light isn’t a set of disparate entities [particles in the Newtonian sense], but is one thing. …and it ‘carries’ information too.
a bit different to the bleak picture physics paints eh!
_
When you reference antiquity, I immediately think that the people living then were identical to ILP users: which explains why ILP exists 1,000’s of years later - ILP had to first exist before it could be reflected.
God won’t be the image of any life form (even those 10,000 years from now), but will be something totally not relative to existence.
The discrepancy though is the ability to reflect: if homo sapiens represent the continuum of reality, just like a shark does, is it an obstacle to the continuum that homo sapiens have the ability to reflect?
Can the continuum even be obstructed?
The resolution of reality being reflection must mean that bias is the means to the resolution, and so bias in of itself is the ultimate representation.
That is true, but the strange thing is that it is equally the opposite. It is all those forms and across time ~ as well as being something indefinable. So my next question is what can supersede humans?..
Indeed I concur that the continuum cannot be obstructed. Ergo humanity is the natural apex of that, or at least as what nature has arrived at to date. It is possible that there are more advanced species out there, but marginally so. The humanoid is the most expedient x dextrous form, as far as existence is concerned. It may be possible to construct light beings or some such thing in the future, and certainly humanoid robots with greater thinking power. Something e.g. with tentacles probably couldn’t coordinate actions like humans can, in Octupi for example, the tentacles are semi-autominous [each tentacle has a mind of its own], but move in union with the will of the brain. That’s a bit more like a collection working as a team, but when we construct precision instruments, we are right in there with it – so to say. In fact an artist or Taoist would tell us that there is a symbiotic relationship between them and their work.
Can you think of a superior shape?
That’s some good thinking there. So we could visualise that as like we have a personal sphere [of influence and of being] within the universal sphere, which is defined by the balance denoted by the bias betwixt the two and of all things.
I do think some humans are a bit like animals though lol, so maybe we have yet to fully take shape?
That’s some good thinking there. So we could visualise that as like we have a personal sphere [of influence and of being] within the universal sphere, which is defined by the balance denoted by the bias betwixt the two and of all things.
I do think some humans are a bit like animals though lol, so maybe we have yet to fully take shape?
[/quote]
Bias registers to me because of personal research, but there is a deep logic as well: the personal and universal sphere is impossibly to imagine without division, and so bias makes sense.
I see the importance of image, but I actually think image is not the solution as far as the end goal is concerned; image instantly means no oneness, and so the resolution must mean the inability to see.
Observation has always been with life. It’s always been a means to an end. And so if the actual end is reflection, the question is why were the means to the end valid in the first place if the end is just the equality of means and ends?
That’s why I’m convinced that bias is somehow involved in the resolution of reality.
I like it because it is softer, more edgeless~ like reality really is. The idea doesn’t seek oneness but instead accepts that both it and duality are let us say, present. Even if one could in theory interchange any and all aspects of the world and self, personality and traits etc, there remain ‘that which denotes or otherwise agrees the bias’. All circles return.
Well if things ‘fall together’ in a certain way, and we are therefore an arrangement of biases and also ‘fall together’ in a certain way, then we may be some representation of our actual image [i.e. of the sahu/soul]? Some people are not let us say - heavenly featured aesthetically, but I can usually see [I think] something about an individual I think is coming through.
Good question. An individualised entity has to preserve itself, and has perspective/subjectivity [is an observer]. A river or maintain has no perspective, so cannot see the individualistic concern. The brain is the means to telling an observer what the world is from its perspective. For example; if you look at the golden sunset cast across a river, you see that and those photons are acting in that way, but only because an observer [or camera] is focussing them in that manner. The world wouldn’t see that reflection as it would be 3D world in a computer, and not a single perspective based world. [the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas] the world wouldn’t see the significance of a hungry lion charging at you.
I don’t think that’s a validation, in the sense that there is something spiritual or an eternal principle at root, because nature and the universe probably doesn’t require such things. This because it doesn’t have perspective.
I believe that reality does have a principle, and that it’s perfection being unknowable.
I can’t help but be thoughtful about your sentiment that all life can appear as life’s meaning.
The effort people make on forums applies to any life form (including the clergy in Rome, 600 years ago, or Lindsay Schoneweis), therefore making an effort on any forum is God’s image: so God’s image can be to make an effort, as it can a rollercoaster, or a query to a literary agent.
The problem with any of these possibilities is prejudice (what I spoke of earlier); not everyone will be the author, or the visitor to a theme park, or a forum user.
If God’s image is meant to exist, it has to be something free of prejudice, and therefore not relative to any life form (so nothing about life forms a million years from now will have anything to do with the identity of reality).
Here’s the next problem: if progression is informed by Lindsay Schoneweis or the clergy from 600 years ago or the theme park (which relative to the source is real), that’s 100% an error.
Based off of this deductive reasoning, I’d posit that the intended destination of the source is an identity because of principle (meaning the literal expression of the principle).
Whenever I hear the “such public”, or the “fans of such”, or the “employees of ?”, or this or that security chief, I now always think along the lines of the justification of identity: why should someone be referred to as an extra in a movie, or a member of a political party, or a staff member, when any of those people can be this discussion about God’s image, or about the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, or about if art is separate from story, or if every consciousness is different, or if reflection needs bias?
Why should there be American or British voters, when anyone of either group can be the analysis of Plato’s philosophy, or of any painting or film?
Indeed, like the real philosophers stone. if we image the whole of existence to be a single stretchy substance transforming into others, then instead of seeing lots of things, we’d see only one thing. Ergo knowable things can only represent aspects of that, and the whole is in shape and form unknowable.
I don’t see how we can put an image [of god] to that though? Secondly, how can there be [or it be] a creator god, if there can be no creation principle [in an infinite beginning-less reality] at the heart of it? That notion places creation strictly outside of the divine centre [Caugant [Celtic]] or root.
Do you mean that an individual is manifesting their own continuum and not a third party[informant]? Problem is that our timeline continuum’s would clash, where e.g. ones persons wants and needs trespass upon another’s, are exploited or what have you. You kind of end up with the same mash-up?
When you observe a rainbow, its like exist specifically to your perspective. If a group of people observe the rainbow, then the world’s own and all those other’s perspectives are being drawn together. It then follows perhaps that; it is true that we are not e.g. ‘fans of x,y,z,’ and it is true that we are [there is individual and group identity]. I do see what you mean though, I often wonder why shop workers say the things they have been informed to say, and worse, they seem to buy into by association.
To your last sentiment; Perhaps reflection = bias? I am just wondering e.g. that an observer is the object in another observes eye [and vice-versa], the first act of observation denotes the act of establishing identity ~ as well as perspective? So it goes: observation - establishing a mirror [recognition e.g. of mother human etc] – the forming of identity between observers ~ all in a single behaviour pattern. The relative values of the observations between observes would denote the bias e.g. between size of objects.
When you observe a rainbow, its like exist specifically to your perspective. If a group of people observe the rainbow, then the world’s own and all those other’s perspectives are being drawn together. It then follows perhaps that; it is true that we are not e.g. ‘fans of x,y,z,’ and it is true that we are [there is individual and group identity]. I do see what you mean though, I often wonder why shop workers say the things they have been informed to say, and worse, they seem to buy into by association.
To your last sentiment; Perhaps reflection = bias? I am just wondering e.g. that an observer is the object in another observes eye [and vice-versa], the first act of observation denotes the act of establishing identity ~ as well as perspective? So it goes: observation - establishing a mirror [recognition e.g. of mother human etc] – the forming of identity between observers ~ all in a single behaviour pattern. The relative values of the observations between observes would denote the bias e.g. between size of objects.
[/quote]
The validity of perspective or understanding is reflection, but what follows from reflection? If life form V represents higher value than life form S, yet V is meant to project themselves onto S, what is the point of the circle?
Circles of course represent logic, but there’s the dual need of an outside observer of the circle and resolution between the outside force and the circle.
Life in the universe will always be part of the circle, never transcending it because that violates the ability of the outside force, but the outside force needing the circle to represent something means that life in the universe has a value that the outside force doesn’t.
If all parties were camcorders then they would be filming a scene from different angles, and there are no lesser/higher values. In such sense nature is equivalent. What we value ourselves as, is something of an afterthought.
Exactly. To manifest the world reality has to take all observer perspectives including that of the worlds together, at once. Everything is being redrawn in a continuum, there is entropy and also creation [expansion, acceleration], but it all functions together as a communicative whole.
The way I see it is that, there isn’t anything limiting it at base. That which [ultimately] has no beginnings can have no end. All that Christian based philosophy seeing some kind of rule maker, a set of principles, a creator, falls at the last hurdle; infinity!
