 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| DavidT wrote: |
Anthony actually the opposite is true. That's how hard it is and how bad I am at writing I guess.  |
I guess I just got it wrong - but I love and appreciate your humility David |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DavidT
Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 47
Location: US
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
McGuffey that WHOLE thing is exactly what I am attacking since that as far as I can tell is "normal". LOL... Oh gosh this is more difficult to articulate than I imagined. I'll have to think a lot on how I am articulating if what you think I am saying is what you described. I am actually attacking that tendency in religion and science in how it does exactly this at the same time. There is a connection between math and language but it's most certainly NOT like you just described as some Greeks and kabahalists understand it. I am trying to break that tendency rather than support it. Conceptually that leads to Astrology but heck astrology is normal even in science itself.
The cosmology model we lived with since 1965 to the more recent present of a the self creating self destroying, self recreating self destroying universe of modern cosmology is astrology itself. We went from a 7 spheres cosmology in ancient Greece, to a modern smurf ball model of cosmology in modernity. HA!!!! Too funny actually. Which one is dumber, pick they appear equally as dumb to me. Not that intelligent design is any better either. Life is just plain weird to me to say the least as an artist. i'm sticking to Gardening, permaculture, Thermal mass buildings, and drawing. I'll hurt my head trying to articulate with clarity .
Hmmm interesting to say the least but it does give me food for thought thanks. Writing is dangerous for sure drawing is much better... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidT
Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 47
Location: US
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ANTHONY YOU ROCK!!!!!!
I read just a portion and now have no time to read but what small portion I read I totally agree with. I'll write later.
What I am striking against is on full display in this article on David Deutche's "The beginning of infinity"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/books/review/the-beginning-of-infinity-by-david-deutsch-book-review.html
Scientism=Conceptual Detachment or disembodiment from that which is being discussed that is aspergers. It started in what we call religion and simply manifested into what we call science. Language itself, in it's fundamental level of being informal points to the problem of Deutche's point of view. Deutche and other's practice a type of numeracy that the kaballahist like to practice, Or in antiquity he would have been in the middle of the discussion "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". I don't see any of this in the NT at all, so I have to ask what the heck is going on exactly neurologically. There is certainly a trend in thinking amongst many in science of hard emergence which gives them a real sense that they "REALLY KNOW" what is going on now completely detached from the term evolution itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems to me he's mistaking a clear view of *experience* with a clear view of *reality*. It is true that one does not truly experience the past and the future, but only distorts the present by obsessing over past and fu8ture. It is not true that experience is a full or accurate representation of reality. On the contrary, it is a staggeringly incomplete and inaccurate representation. We humans are nothing if not limited.
Beyond that he won't stick with his own re-definition of infinity, and uses that confusion to bolster his argument. Early on he insists on separating the concept of infinity from the concepts of time and space. From those redefinitions he comes to the conclusion that "there is something about you that is truly eternal, immortal." Sorry, Dziuban, you already said eternity has nothing to do with time, in fact that time does not exist in reality. If time does not exists, concepts like eternal and immortal have no meaning, either.
The same switcheroo is used, often unintentionally I think, with my old pet peeve, the religious use of upper-case "Truth" in a completely different way than plain old vanilla "truth", or "that which is the case." If you use "Truth" to mean "of ultimate value" or "very, very good," you have to remember that at every stage of your argument, and not assume that everything which is of ultimate value, is actually true, is actually the case. The one does not follow from the other.
David, words are used in different ways, with different meanings, all the time. If we're going to avoid confusion in the simplest conversations, we can't pretend that the word "infinite" always means precisely the same thing in every context. That simply isn't the way language works.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: |
| It seems to me he's mistaking a clear view of *experience* with a clear view of *reality*. It is true that one does not truly experience the past and the future, but only distorts the present by obsessing over past and fu8ture. It is not true that experience is a full or accurate representation of reality. On the contrary, it is a staggeringly incomplete and inaccurate representation. |
James, I agree with the first few lines of the above but considering that we don't know what is reality then it can't be an 'inaccurate representation' of it. We can experience our own reality but ultimate 'reality' is something we may not be capable of knowing anything about because it is not within our senses to grasp it.
| james wrote: |
| We humans are nothing if not limited. |
I suggest this is what Dziuan is saying: that our limited senses are not able to grasp infinity from the finite.
| james wrote: |
| Beyond that he won't stick with his own re-definition of infinity, and uses that confusion to bolster his argument. Early on he insists on separating the concept of infinity from the concepts of time and space. |
Infinity cannot be grasped by the mind or concepts of time and space.
| james wrote: |
| From those redefinitions he comes to the conclusion that "there is something about you that is truly eternal, immortal." Sorry, Dziuban, you already said eternity has nothing to do with time, in fact that time does not exist in reality. If time does not exists, concepts like eternal and immortal have no meaning, either. |
Yes, they do, but they are outside of a human concept of time therefore timeless - eternity, immortality or infinity are not subject to time.
| james wrote: |
| The same switcheroo is used, often unintentionally I think, with my old pet peeve, the religious use of upper-case "Truth" in a completely different way than plain old vanilla "truth", or "that which is the case." If you use "Truth" to mean "of ultimate value" or "very, very good," you have to remember that at every stage of your argument, and not assume that everything which is of ultimate value, is actually true, is actually the case. The one does not follow from the other. |
When I use the upper case Truth I do so to indicate that which is not subject to the finite or the 'very good' or 'ultimate value' but to that which is always true because it cannot be otherwise - it is not lower case finite truth but the Truth that is not devisable, measurable or understandable by finite values or concepts.
| james wrote: |
| David, words are used in different ways, with different meanings, all the time. If we're going to avoid confusion in the simplest conversations, we can't pretend that the word "infinite" always means precisely the same thing in every context. That simply isn't the way language works. |
The concept of infinity may have a different application within the finite concepts of our world experience but there is an infinity that is not of human understanding or measurement.
James, I think you are right to say that words mean different things in different contexts but that is only on the finite level that attempts to measure and reduce infinity to the level of the finite.
The problem with how 'language works' is that language or words are always insufficient and limited. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidT
Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 47
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'll have to agree with Anthony infinity can mean different things in different contexts but that is not infinity itself. I"m very curious about the so called Relgion/science split. Hmm, I wonder where it "really" is... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DavidT wrote: |
| Infinity can mean different things in different contexts but that is not infinity itself. |
This is the whole point.
| DavidT wrote: |
| I"m very curious about the so called Relgion/science split. Hmm, I wonder where it "really" is... |
Taking into consideration that religion is of the finite, the form of our endeavour to have a relationship with the infinite and is only symbolic and conceptual is this 'split' between the Newtonian and Quantum understanding of physics: between the measurable, predictable and quantifiable and that which is not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DavidT wrote: |
| I'll have to agree with Anthony infinity can mean different things in different contexts but that is not infinity itself. I"m very curious about the so called Relgion/science split. Hmm, I wonder where it "really" is... |
So, the word infinity has multiple meanings, but when you append the word "itself" it has only one meaning? Again, it seems to me that's not how language works. A word like infinity does not refer to one and only one entity that exists. To coherently speak of "infinity itself" you have to know what you mean by "infinity," among all the various possible meanings. And even then your coherence is limited by the clarity of your definition. Words in general are slippery, but infinity is particularly so.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidT
Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 47
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So, the word infinity has multiple meanings, but when you append the word "itself" it has only one meaning? Again, it seems to me that's not how language works. A word like infinity does not refer to one and only one entity that exists. |
In the beginning was the logos.....
James, I'm a naturalist, nature informs me to the meaning of that word "word".;D Lao Tzu catches this nicely in the Tao Te Ching.
"Word" is that a that which can describe itself? Words can have a variety of meanings but how about the word 'Word" what exactly is that? A word is sounds? A word is letters? a word is meaning? A word is description? What is the word "Word" though. Is it self descriptive? Circular. Is it self meaning? Circular. Is it sound creating? Circular Is is self organizing? Circular. So which circular logic idea do you have as to the word, "WORD" in "how language works"?. If we were perfectly clear on "how language works" there wouldn't be 38,000 denominations. Can we create a group of words to describe "word" and have that literally be true and be nothing but circular? Don't think so.
Funny John 1:1,2 is written very clearly as non circular progression, but it's read in circular self reference by the general church where the ending defines the beginning. HA!!!! What do you think the writers are stupid? HA!!!!! It is true because the ending is the beginning in loop de loop fashion you see. MAGIC....I believe it to be true therefore It is true because I believe it to be true. HA!!!!!! If that is really what John meant the entire bible is a farce written by a bunch of illiterate confused dimwitted nut jobs. That I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT hold to be true.
Pay close attention in how I have parced my words. I only hold John's feet to the fire, not any reader at all. One could imply that i mean readers, but I only mean John. Because if John is misguided, he's culpable for of all being wrong afterwards they are not culpable because they "Trust" John. That trust is NOT misplaced regardless of how that verse is read out because it is meant to be read in two distinctly different ways. One gives insight into the text, the other way traps the believer into the text through Trust. THAT is profound to me and that is deep. Even when misread the entirety of the text guides and tempers the individual's heart and mind irregardless. That is a fact I have seen over and over in people's lives that is a fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: |
A word like infinity does not refer to one and only one entity that exists. |
James, may I ask what you define as an 'entity' in this discussion? You seem to be saying that infinity does not exist without other entities by which it may be understood, measured and applied.
You seem to be unable to acknowledge or understand the argument that is partly based on my previous statement: 'The concept of infinity may have a different application within the finite concepts of our world experience but there is an infinity that is not of human understanding or measurement.'
I have referred to the concept of infinity within a finite perception, understanding or application and infinity that is not constrained by such boundaries. The finite concept of infinity to which you refer is that which is measurable or quantifiable according to the Newtonion physics, a science that cannot measure, replicate or quantify infinity unless it is physical, material or conceptual.
I find, James, that you are unable to accept, even in principle, the issue under discussion, not because of language or fact but because you cannot fundamentally accept any proposal that suggests a transcendent possibility be this God, spirituality, continuing consciousness, or transcendent infinity. This is not a fault but I find that at times it does colour your arguments to the exclusion of reasonableness. The truth of a fact is not changed by the inadequate use of words or language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| james wrote: |
A word like infinity does not refer to one and only one entity that exists. |
James, may I ask what you define as an 'entity' in this discussion? |
Anything that actually exists.
It seems to me you are characterizing me according to your presumptions about me rather than according to anything I said. I did not promote or reject any particular understanding of infinity. I merely pointed out that the word means different things in different contexts, and quietly shifting meanings in the middle of a conversation leads to confusion. It is not legitimate to define the word in a way that explicitly is not related to time or measure, in fact which denies the *reality* of time and measure, and from that foundation draw conclusions that explicitly *are* related to time or measure.
The idea of a sort of infinity that is not about time but about the timelessness of being in the present moment, is interesting and may have some validity. It's rather Buddhist and I'm somewhat drawn to it, if not quite fully convinced. To use that, however, as Dziuban does, to suggest that a person's life does not conclude with death, strikes me as slippery.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidT
Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 47
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
James I understand where you are coming from now WAY better, maybe. You are right, decoupling language is a huge problem.
I think you just made me an even harsher empiricist... Keep it up and I am going back to engineering school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: |
| Anything that actually exists. |
How do we know that infinity exists?
I have claimed that infinity simply is and any attempt to measure or actualise it is of the finite and thereby reduces it to three dimensional perception.
''As to your proof, I must protest most vehemently against your use of the infinite as something consumated, as this is never permitted in mathematics. The infinite is but a figure of speech . . . ." (Karl Friederich Gauss)
| james wrote: |
| It seems to me you are characterizing me according to your presumptions about me rather than according to anything I said. |
Friend James, I have been reading and corresponding with you on this board since 2004 - how long does it take to recognise someone's thought processes?
| james wrote: |
| I did not promote or reject any particular understanding of infinity. |
No, not explicitly but if you didn't imply a rejection of a concept of infinity that is not definable, measurable, bounded or dependent by and on the finite we would not be having this discussion. No one is disagreeing that there are several concepts and approaches toward infinity but these are not actual infinity.
| james wrote: |
| It is not legitimate to define the word in a way that explicitly is not related to time or measure, in fact which denies the *reality* of time and measure, and from that foundation draw conclusions that explicitly *are* related to time or measure. |
I still don't think you get it James! Time and measure are of the three dimensional, conceptual, symbolic, and the illusory, perceptual world. Infinity cannot be constrained or bounded by time that does not actually exist except as a devise for measuring movement and transition. Ultimately, time is an illusory experience that is psychological; there may be phenomenal movement - the mundane or heavenly, but this is not conceptual time that would cease to be actual if there were no longer human beings.
The only reality that exists within the linear passage of time is the instant between the past and the future. The rest does not exist except as a concept and device for co-ordinated living.
| james wrote: |
| The idea of a sort of infinity that is not about time but about the timelessness of being in the present moment, is interesting and may have some validity. It's rather Buddhist and I'm somewhat drawn to it, if not quite fully convinced. To use that, however, as Dziuban does, to suggest that a person's life does not conclude with death, strikes me as slippery. |
James, you have run rings round me for years and then end up agreeing in principle. This idea is not just Buddhist - I am not a Buddhist - I didn't know that Dziuban existed until a couple of days ago, and yet I had formed the same opinion and conclusions.
Slippery...err...the suggestion is this physical world is illusory, a dream world, and that time enables this illusion to be perpetuated by fixing us in its passage from past, present and future. We even have different experiences of time: there is actual time, psychological time and dream time. We can dream in a second what would take hours in 'real' time. (Does anyone remember Star Trek's Captain Kirk who was unconscious and dreamt a whole lifetime with a wife and children only to awaken and find that only minutes had elapsed?)
The instant is the only true existence that is free of the conditioning of the past and the fear of the future, it is only when time is stopped in the instant that consciousness is truly free. My apologies for repeating myself but this is demonstrated when we realise that the instant is not subject to the laws of this world, there is no pain in the instant - pain is experienced after the event. Additionally, when one is suddenly brought to an abrupt halt in the instant, space, movement and time changes. The person who is involved in a serious accident and witnesses the inevitable collision will often tell of it happening in slow motion. In the instant time stands still - it is not part of whatever is happening - time is suspended - infinity is on the threshold.
It is through the portal of the instant where the numinous will be found - out of linear time and into freedom. The sages, mystics and holy men of the ages have known this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidT
Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 47
Location: US
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is through the portal of the instant where the numinous will be found - out of linear time and into freedom. The sages, mystics and holy men of the ages have known this.
Yes but never do we become detached from the physical.
Nice conversation, not sure if it really went anywhere. I felt my two posting's belonged in this forum more than the permaculture forum but in certain ways maybe not. I think the concept of the numinous is something I might find useful later on so thanks for bringing that back up Anthony. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
