The Law of Context

Let's take a moment and stretch our logical muscles, for we should warm up before playing with the words we love.

Everything is Everything

Only one entity, one occurrence, one thing exists. It is 'Everything'—or that which is composed of all things. We call it Reality. Truth. Every universe, every phenomena, every object, every thing, every thought and word. Wherever we can and cannot see. Whenever; however; whatever. Everything is what is true.

Everything is everything. We'll call this Reality.

If Reality is everything, everything within it must exist as something, as a part of this everything. If this is the case—if all things within Reality exist as something—and the law of noncontradiction stands firm, it would be easier to understand how things exist or what something is if we admit how it exists within the context of reality. (Am I losing you yet?)

Love is Only 'Love'

Let’s consider ‘Love,’ a highly enigmatic word. The way it is used as an abstract noun may confuse one into thinking it exists as something it doesn't. What do we know for certain about it in regards to its context? We know for certain that within the context of reality ‘love’ is a word. People apply the word ‘love’ on the various sensations, ideas, and acts of affection they have experienced. Since each experience is subjectively remembered through ones own viewpoint, each definition of love is, by necessity, different. Therefore we know that in the context of reality, love isn’t anything but a word, a language tool, a name, a contrivance. There is nothing that implies there is a force we can call ‘love,’ no feeling we can call ‘love,’ only ideas on which we can bestow the name.

Luckily, how much we refuse the context in favour of the idea itself! How much we love ‘love.’ How much we love ‘infinity.’ How much we love ‘God.’ Every beautiful word holds a special place in our dear ‘hearts’ as ideals, the ideas we desire to be true, or whatever would be sufficient if we were to have our way with the universe, if we were God. We platonic romantics, always taking the nothings out of our very ideas and turning them into somethings. We should admire such creativity. We should admire such faith in grammar... But I digress.

Something Must Be Something

If everything is everything, and all things as a part of that everything are something, then something cannot not exist (pedantic I know). Something not existing is a contradiction and always false. If we admit and realize that everything indeed exists—in fact, the only thing that does exist—it allows us to have greater control over our own language and reason.

For instance: both the proposition “God exists” and “God does not exist” are both false and incomplete. Remember, only one thing can exist—everything, reality—and something cannot not exist. Therefore, ‘God,’ the subject of our proposition, must exist, even if only as a subject in a proposition. We must therefore complete the proposition by deciding what God does or does not exist as within the context of reality. What do we know for certain? We know logically and empirically that ‘God’ is an ideal, a word, and will remain nothing but until proven otherwise.

Absolutely Everything

Absolutely everything is absolute context which is absolute truth. Only the absolute can attain the absolute. But the more context we apply to our everyday language, the more honest we are, the more truth we speak and the closer to absolute we become.

“the only routes of inquiry there are for thinking:
the one that it is and that it cannot not be
is the path of Persuasion (for it attends upon truth)
the other, that it is not and that it is right that it not be,
this I point out to you is a path wholly inscrutable
for you could not know what is not (for it is not to be accomplished)
nor could you point it out… For the same thing is for thinking and for being”

Parmenides

Loved this specially the paragraph on 'Something Must Be Something'.

However I think love is overrated.
SnF

Something and Nothing, they both have a single non-form origin that does not have a name but could be called "The Way" for the sake of reference.

"Love" is "Love" and "Hate" is "Hate", but even when you hate it is because you care about something, right? Otherwise you would be neutral.

The way can be told, but it is not the usually told way.

The name can be given, but it is not the usually given name.

It can be called absence, since it is before the start of the universe; it can be called presence, since it is the mother of all things.

Therefore, from the view of absence, it is possible to figure out its secrets. From the view of presence, it is possible to view its traces.

Presence and absence say different things, but are both from the same origin. This sameness is called the occult.

If we momentarily zoom our personal telescopes out all the way, of course, One Entity is all that is, whatever name one wants to give it.

However, in that context, individuality is nothing more than a subjective illusion caused by a less-than-permanent (inherently - the crest of the wave will dissipate before the wave itself) coherent awareness.

I suppose the way through that is to invoke concepts of fractal consciousness. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it, though. (hahah)

Originally posted by Son of Will
If we momentarily zoom our personal telescopes out all the way, of course, One Entity is all that is, whatever name one wants to give it.

However, in that context, individuality is nothing more than a subjective illusion caused by a less-than-permanent (inherently - the crest of the wave will dissipate before the wave itself) coherent awareness.

I suppose the way through that is to invoke concepts of fractal consciousness. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it, though. (hahah)

edit on 6-1-2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)

I don't quite understand what you mean by less-than-permanent coherent awareness. All living entities are aware in one way or another. 'Awareness' and 'consciousness' are more abstract nouns we should be weary about, for their usage makes one think that there is actually some thing called 'awareness' or 'consciousness, which just isn't the case. They are non-entities. Within the context of reality, they are words that do not point to anything except ideas.

For the individuals sake, yes he is a part of that everything, but that is the only connection shared between himself and other things. He is entirely different than everything else in that everything.

reply to post by arpgme

Something and Nothing, they both have a single non-form origin that does not have a name but could be called "The Way" for the sake of reference.

"Love" is "Love" and "Hate" is "Hate", but even when you hate it is because you care about something, right? Otherwise you would be neutral.

I would have to agree with this. Love and Hate are fully intertwined concepts. One could not be without the other. Indeed, they are probably the same frenzy of emotions and sensations manifested in different ways..

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Do you recognize that the term ' love' could be related to certain feelings and actions between humans?

How do you think civilization would change if whatever feelings and actions associated with the term 'love' were removed from earth and humans?

if civilization and the potential of humans would change, doesnt it follow that 'love' does have some "power" or "force"?

I relate to the concept of wholeness in each moment....which is why I always frustrate people in saying that everything is relative.

On love, I use that word to describe the consciousness of oneness. The experience or awareness underlying the appearences, that you and I, or this and that, are actually not separate.

For me, being aware of that reality means I don't need to search for it, preach it, try to create it, make it happen.... it IS. NOW.


That said, I have nothing against the experience of separation and individual being-ness, and enjoy it even with that "love" as the backdrop.....I don't see that level of reality as something I need to try to "wipe away". I incarnated to play the game and enjoy it, I am no "prisoner against my will" of duality.

reply to post by ImaFungi


I was only using love as an example. Within the context of reality, we see that it is a word or a concept applied subjectively by whomever would use it. Love to you is different than what I would call love because we've come to our own conclusions on what it is. Objectively we know what it actually is—namely, a word—but we usually fail to admit that and sometimes wrongfully consider it something more than what it is.

reply to post by Bluesma

That said, I have nothing against the experience of separation and individual being-ness, and enjoy it even with that "love" as the backdrop.....I don't see that level of reality as something I need to try to "wipe away". I incarnated to play the game and enjoy it, I am no "prisoner against my will" of duality.

Nicely put, Bluesma. We should enjoy the creativity we have in these regards.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I was only using love as an example. Within the context of reality, we see that it is a word or a concept applied subjectively by whomever would use it. Love to you is different than what I would call love because we've come to our own conclusions on what it is. Objectively we know what it actually is—namely, a word—but we usually fail to admit that and sometimes wrongfully consider it something more than what it is.

ugh.., I was trying to ask.. do you not think the word 'love' relates to anything more then the word,, does the word describe real things? did you really not get my example? who care if anything is used subjectively.. is it a real phenomenon... for some reason you say no, it is not, it is only a meaningless word describing a non existing nothingness... I dont know your motive or proof in believing this, i tried to ask with my example.. but you seem to have your conclusion.

Does happiness exist? sadness? Do feelings exist? I know you will say yes, subjectively feelings exist... but i will say... those feelings are real products of chemicals and objective reality, therefore feelings exist, as objectively as a rock or a star... as there is a phenomenon of rock, there is a physical phenomenon of feelings... of course it is a complex area, and of course you can suppress,ignore, eliminate your feelings.. but that does not mean "feelings" no longer exist in the universe, just because youve spocked yourself.

I think that in reality if your parents had not loved each other, you would not have been born.

You are suggesting you understand Love and that this impression is absolute.

What is your basis???

Any thoughts?

reply to post by ImaFungi

ugh.., I was trying to ask.. do you not think the word 'love' relates to anything more then the word,, does the word describe real things? did you really not get my example? who care if anything is used subjectively.. is it a real phenomenon... for some reason you say no, it is not, it is only a meaningless word describing a non existing nothingness... I dont know your motive or proof in believing this, i tried to ask with my example.. but you seem to have your conclusion.

Does happiness exist? sadness? Do feelings exist? I know you will say yes, subjectively feelings exist... but i will say... those feelings are real products of chemicals and objective reality, therefore feelings exist, as objectively as a rock or a star... as there is a phenomenon of rock, there is a physical phenomenon of feelings... of course it is a complex area, and of course you can suppress,ignore, eliminate your feelings.. but that does not mean "feelings" no longer exist in the universe, just because youve spocked yourself.

What I was getting at was that our ideas of love are different; but despite this difference, we can both agree that at the very least, or at the very most, 'love' is a word. That is my only point. I am not trying to refute love, or what you call feelings.

It isn't my hope to persuade you or take any meaning away from your words—that's the beauty and power of language—but here is my opinion on the 'feelings' you mention:

You said it yourself, 'feelings' are the result of chemical processes accompanied by sensations and stimulus from reality. Those chemical process, sensations and stimulus do indeed exist. But they don't produce a product called a 'feeling,' they develop an idea about what was perceived.

By associating those sensations, stimulus, and chemical processes with the perceived cause and effect, we form an idea, and call those ideas love, happiness, anger, etc. When we feel 'love,' we're not perceiving something called love, we're conceiving it. We're only perceiving the stimulus, sensations, chemical reactions, causes—those, and the idea of love are what are real.

If you want to abstract all those processes into some magical property called love and make it profound, by all means, I'm not going to stop you. Everyone has their own idea about what love is.

But aside from abstractions and by operating within the context of reality, love is a word connoting an idea. This cannot be denied and is objective and doesn't rely on lyrical abstraction. We can agree on this by looking up the word in the dictionary.

reply to post by Kashai

I think that in reality if your parents had not loved each other, you would not have been born.

You are suggesting you understand Love and that this impression is absolute.

What is your basis???

Any thoughts?

I agree. Love is a good word to use to connote the entirety of my parent's relationship. But to say something called Love is the reason I am here, and not the intercourse, the sensations, the chemical reactions, the bodily processes, would be absolutely foolish assertion.

I am saying the only thing we can understand about such abstract terms is that they are words. This we must agree on. My basis is I can pick up any dictionary and prove, by pointing, that love exists only there. And you would not be able to find anything called love to show me otherwise.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

ugh.., I was trying to ask.. do you not think the word 'love' relates to anything more then the word,, does the word describe real things? did you really not get my example? who care if anything is used subjectively.. is it a real phenomenon... for some reason you say no, it is not, it is only a meaningless word describing a non existing nothingness... I dont know your motive or proof in believing this, i tried to ask with my example.. but you seem to have your conclusion.

Does happiness exist? sadness? Do feelings exist? I know you will say yes, subjectively feelings exist... but i will say... those feelings are real products of chemicals and objective reality, therefore feelings exist, as objectively as a rock or a star... as there is a phenomenon of rock, there is a physical phenomenon of feelings... of course it is a complex area, and of course you can suppress,ignore, eliminate your feelings.. but that does not mean "feelings" no longer exist in the universe, just because youve spocked yourself.

What I was getting at was that our ideas of love are different; but despite this difference, we can both agree that at the very least, or at the very most, 'love' is a word. That is my only point. I am not trying to refute love, or what you call feelings.

It isn't my hope to persuade you or take any meaning away from your words—that's the beauty and power of language—but here is my opinion on the 'feelings' you mention:

You said it yourself, 'feelings' are the result of chemical processes accompanied by sensations and stimulus from reality. Those chemical process, sensations and stimulus do indeed exist. But they don't produce a product called a 'feeling,' they develop an idea about what was perceived.

By associating those sensations, stimulus, and chemical processes with the perceived cause and effect, we form an idea, and call those ideas love, happiness, anger, etc. When we feel 'love,' we're not perceiving something called love, we're conceiving it. We're only perceiving the stimulus, sensations, chemical reactions, causes—those, and the idea of love are what are real.

If you want to abstract all those processes into some magical property called love and make it profound, by all means, I'm not going to stop you. Everyone has their own idea about what love is.

But aside from abstractions and by operating within the context of reality, love is a word connoting an idea. This cannot be denied and is objective and doesn't rely on lyrical abstraction. We can agree on this by looking up the word in the dictionary.

the reasons words exist and are different, are to describe different things.....

the chemical reactions that produce the feeling of love, "feel" different then that of anger or hate.... so the word love directly relates to a real experience. The word is meaningless, the realness of the feeling comes first.

Im sure at some point a human or animal has some overriding sense of "love" for their offspring... they can also have at a time a sense of anger at their offspring..do you not think these senses or feelings are different in measurements, causes, effects, chemicals, situations from one another, resulting in two separate words and classifications; are you saying there is only one feeling, we can call it, feeling., and the words we use to describe love and anger are pointlessly different words, because there is no difference between the feelings of love and anger? We could just say, im alive, im feeling. making no distinction between things that are distinct, which is what language and labeling is for?

Thanks for the post subversive, its a good one. It could be an interesting conversation, so I will share my perspective as well. In the context of both being part of everything, the diversity should prove enlightening if you would be so kind as to help broaden my horizons.

To expand on this further, where do you classify the "nothing" which gives definition to the "everything?"

In our dualistic based perspective, this "nothing" would seemingly be formless, without definition. Or at least, outside of our realm of being able to define it. However, it might not necessitate a paradox in the grand scheme of things. This nothing, in this context, all of a sudden becomes some thing in the same way that the everything becomes a some thing. The sum of it could be called "All Things."

On the topic of love, specifically unconditional love, we can compare it to the same behavior exhibited by the base forces in the universe (gravity, magnetism). Essentially, it brings things together and changes them. Strengthens them with the right variables, destroys them with different variables. We see the same thing happen when one has unconditional love for another. They will want to spend time with them, just like Jupiter pulls things into its orbit. When it brings things together in a specific way, it can create life. We see this with the Earth (rocks being pulled together over time, etc) and we see this with the human couple becoming more of a single unit in many ways, as well as creating life through pregnancy.

There is a chance that although we experience it in a chemical interpretation (inevitably), that it has roots that reach beyond just our bodies chemical reaction. It may be based on a driving behavior for the very formation of most (if not all) objects in the universe. Bring things together and change them.

reply to post by ImaFungi

the reasons words exist and are different, are to describe different things.....

Not necessarily.

There's a difference between abstract and concrete nouns. This is something people often fail to realize. Concrete nouns are particular things that we perceive through our senses. Abstract nouns are concepts, ideals and thoughts—these exist only in the memory. Grammatically however, they can be used interchangeably, sometimes wrongfully implying that they somehow exist as real exterior objects.

Abstract nouns are not separate or different things, they are the same thing: the memory to which we constantly refer to. Love, anger, joy, sadness—they are the same things: ideas derived from the memory and the recollection of a physical reaction and sensual experience. Combined with other aspects, ie. cause-effect, situation, context, position in space-time, the memory of the context from which the experience was derived becomes conceptualized into something edible, an idea.

How can one can feel anger at his significant other, yet still call that 'love?' Because the context was similar. Not enough was different to call it something else.

One can cry in experiences of joy and sadness. But because it happens in a context that is in no way similar, they are named differently, ie. joy or sadness.

Concepts such as Love are nothing but memories of an experience. When we have a similar experience, we can refer to our memory and we can re-use the concept. Ideas, ideals, memories, are not separate things but the same thing, the memory, something we periodically rename depending on whereabouts upon it we focus.

Love, happiness, hate etc. are memories of the context, that is it. They are not a force or something tangible. Within the context of reality they exist as linguistic conveniences to help us understand the context better.

This is really complicated and pedantic stuff, but I think it's true; and I think concepts such as love, God, freedom, consciousness etc. are just that—concepts—and nothing more. Sometimes we find it in our mind to kill or die for these 'things,' these non-entities, these nothings. It sickens me.

reply to post by Serdgiam

On the topic of love, specifically unconditional love, we can compare it to the same behavior exhibited by the base forces in the universe (gravity, magnetism). Essentially, it brings things together and changes them. Strengthens them with the right variables, destroys them with different variables. We see the same thing happen when one has unconditional love for another. They will want to spend time with them, just like Jupiter pulls things into its orbit. When it brings things together in a specific way, it can create life. We see this with the Earth (rocks being pulled together over time, etc) and we see this with the human couple becoming more of a single unit in many ways, as well as creating life through pregnancy.

There is a chance that although we experience it in a chemical interpretation (inevitably), that it has roots that reach beyond just our bodies chemical reaction. It may be based on a driving behavior for the very formation of most (if not all) objects in the universe. Bring things together and change them.

I do not think so. Love is nothing like magnetism. There is no love field or any force to which we can apply the word. It can only be applied to ideas and memories. Love doesn't have the tangibility to bring anything together nor change anything whatsoever. It's just not true. Love, as a thing, is incorporeal, intangible, non-existent.

Thank you for reading.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne


Love, happiness, hate etc. are memories of the context, that is it. They are not a force or something tangible. Within the context of reality they exist as linguistic conveniences to help us understand the context better.

I think you are wrong... I think if you erased the word 'love' from all vocabularies and dictionaries.. and the concet of love, the word and meaning from the minds of all humans.... love would still be a thing that exists in the universe

reply to post by ImaFungi

I think you are wrong... I think if you erased the word 'love' from all vocabularies and dictionaries.. and the concet of love, the word and meaning from the minds of all humans.... love would still be a thing that exists in the universe

Except there is a difference between you thinking I'm wrong, and me actually being wrong.

So far, to prove love you've pointed at a couple chemical reactions and called them feelings. All I ask is for you to show me one drop of love, one ounce of it, but you never could. Luckily, it's common for people to believe in things that aren't there.