originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: PansophicalSynthesis
Imagine you walk into a room made of play-dough objects and you get so close to one object that you cannot see anything because there is nothing
within sight to approximate with - nothing to draw correlations from.
Those are called points of reference.
And then you start to define what you see.
That is what you are doing.
Sort of. Not entirely. I am comparing and contrasting, but not using it to represent a location in space as one would to correlate the distance from
the Sun to the Earth. I am using concepts, one such concept that cannot be physically actualized as material, only realized as a definition. That
would be "nothingness" or "absence".
Eventually you might be able to see that everything is play-dough, even yourself, and that play-dough is the Holy Ghost / will and the one who
saw the first shape/image is Father / awareness / soul and by seeing he did create the Son / image / word / shapes / body.
I'm not going to entertain or create religious agendas out of my logical maxims. You will keep that to yourself, between you and I. That is not my
purpose for creating my philosophy. Obviously you possess an underlying Abrahamic religious agenda. The same could be said of all religions, just use
interchangeable words for Father and "Holy Ghost". Not interested in proselytic agendas.
Nothing is blindness. Willed blindness, or not, it is still the same.
I'm sorry, what? If you'd like to logically discuss the topic outside of religious dogma, I'd love to. I'm not religious and I do not have a
Nothing has a dual meaning. If "nothing is blindness", then everything is sight, but this doesn't mean that nothing can not be sight. Nothing is
also sight. No offense, but I'm the teacher here, not you.
As I mentioned above: everything we think of as an image is approximations and for that reason, math and science cannot work to truly
Well, that is your belief, held in place by no logic whatsoever. just loose words and empty assertions that I assume you'll never let go of. Math and
science are true sights within themselves. You continuously segregate forms of thought, you lack integration of them, and you place a hierarchy on
them. As if one is better than another.
e.g. What is the true image of one? Is it 1 or is it the image of a single apple? Which 1 is the true 1 in my sentences? The answer: They are
all 1... and their images are all based on approximations of their one will - their function. The function or will is what sets things apart. And it
is the function or will of eternity / will itself which is what you're "seeing" by looking at the unseen.
Right. Those things are one. I am one body. A singular apple is one apple. An atom is one atom. Just because a thing is thought of as singular,
doesn't mean it has no parts. Although some singular concepts have no physical parts.
I've never said otherwise. Why you keep claiming that, "eventually I'll be able to understand this and that", is very disturbing. It reveals that
1.) claim to know what I know and think before I tell you what I know and think. Which is impossible for you to do with me.
2.) have an ulterior motive to make it appear or seem as if you're teaching me all of this for the first time, and as if you're right without
providing any substantial proof, whether in the form of crisp and sound logic, visible evidence, or mathematical and scientific representation.
3.) attempt to steal my theory as your own through making both 1 and 2 appear to be true.
Sorry. Not having any of it, and not into discussing religious ideologies within a strictly logical theory.
If that's wha you want to continue to do, then I'll have to block you. I don't even want to read a single word of it.