Unum

I never said that it proved anything. I am unable to prove this very entity that I am talking about. If it is everything, anything that I say, write about or do adds to this entity, thereby changing it. It's like shooting at a target that is moving away from you at the same speed of thing you shot. You might be dead on center, yet you will never hit the target.

There very well may be, however if there are, this One entity that I speak of will then be that. The One entity is everything, anything else that is found is still a part of everything.

Peace,

Unum

K

Unum:

The One would also be not-conscious (if a rock is not conscious) and hurtfull to people (if a knife can hurt people).

Again, what is here that is new? I'm sure most people would agree that there are things in the universe that are conscious and not conscious and things that can help them and things that can hurt them.

Icarus

Unum,

Whatever this parent may be, it is not an entity for it fails to meet the definition you present. Any system that encompasses everything, thereby being everything, is neither 'seperate' nor 'distinct.' The universe you describe, encompassing all entities, cannot itself be considered as such.

To even speak of the universe as an objective whole to be observed and described, e.g., 'all-powerful,' is to assume a vantage point outside the universe, a point distinct from and inclusive of the universe.

It seems to me that whatever boundary entities are subject to is not quantifiable and certainly cannot be regarded as an entity itself.

Thoughts?

Icarus

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Icarus ]</p>

Guttersnipe

Semantics the culprit after all! Along with your squirrel response, it would seem that you are not trying to conjoin inconsistent properties of the particles which make up this One entity. (If you were, the One entity would encompass in his 'oneness' the essence of being a squirrel which is fatter than itself, rather than simply being two different squirrels with jointly inconsistent properties.) Rather, you've apparently renamed the universe. Unfortunately, the name 'the One entity' is slightly misleading here - I think the name 'the One system' or even 'the One meta-process' would be more descriptive, at least in my opinion.
Hmmm... Can I construct a logical argument proving that logic is logical... In one sense, logic can be thought of as the study of good reason. But it literally consists of a number of various criterion which we apply to arguments to determine their validity or expose fallacies. (Invalidity and fallacies are assumed to be obstructions to good reason, reducing the likelihood that an argument is true.)In what sense could logic be illogical? Perhaps if it failed in achieving its goal? No, it would have to be more than that -- logic, again is concerned with arguments, not efficiency or success. Unless you can think of a way to sum up logic into an argument, there isn't any way we can say that it is logical or illogical.

Jobar

Reality cannot be said to be rational.
" " " " " " irrational.
" " " " " " both rational and irrational.
" " " " " " neither rational nor irrational.

Take any pair of opposites and plug them in to the above negation. If Unum is (and I am) right, then all of the statements we can generate thereby are in a way true- and of course false.

Trouble is, looked at in this absolute way, all our language becomes absolutely meaningless. Few can live their lives with no meaning- the physical world and our physical bodies require that we reject that, and choose this.

When one does not know the Tao, mountains and trees are *just* mountains and trees.
While one is learning the Tao, mountains and trees are no longer mountains and trees.
When one has learned the Tao, mountains and trees are mountains and trees.

And, I might add, logic is logic, and fact is fact, and gods and dragons don't exist, and pink donkeys don't fly to the moon every Saturday.

Unum

If you believe that the One is not conscious, then it will not be conscious to you, nor will it be conscious of you. Yes, the One can be hurtful, but only if one believes it to be hurtful. It is our choice and our choices already made that determine our beliefs.

It's nothing new, in fact, it's the oldest thing there is. It has always been here, is here now, and will always be here. Many people point out the differences between things, I am here to point out the similarities.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

What is not distinct about it? Here are five definitions from dictionary.com for the word distinct:
1. Readily distinguishable from all others; discrete: on two distinct occasions.
2. Easily perceived by the senses or intellect; clear: a distinct flavor.
3. Clearly defined; unquestionable: at a distinct disadvantage.
4. Very likely; probable: There is a distinct possibility that she won't come.
5. Notable: a distinct honor and high privilege.

The One that I am talking about is both wholly outside of me and holy within me.

As a whole, I would agree that the boundary conditions are not quantifiable. But to make things easier for us and so that we can categorize things, we have chosen to break things into quantifiable pieces such as a plant, or a human, or a planet, etc.

Peace,

Unum

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Unum ]</p>

Unum

Huh? How have I done that?

I agree that the name I have chosen for it is misleading, but any name I choose for it will be misleading. It's not possible to name this thing that I am talking about, as any and every name would and could do. Like I said in an above post, this concept has been named many things by many different people. Here are just some of the names that people have called it: the universe, God, Allah, The Tao, YHWH, dharma, The Way, The unspeakable, Jehovah, absolute being, the supreme reality, infinite spirit, etc.

That's the best answer I've ever heard on this subject and I've asked this question to a number of people. Although, it opens up more questions for me. Is logic static? What I mean is, are all the laws of logic figured out? Or are there more out there that we haven't found or invented yet?

Peace,

Unum

Unum

I disagree. Our physical body doesn't require this, it wants this. In other words, there is nothing our body needs, but there is plenty that our body wants.

When someone thinks they have learned the Tao, the Tao has actually eluded them. By knowing nothing, we know everything.

Unfortunately you do not know this. The fact that you can use the term dragon and it conjures up an image in my mind means they most definitely exist. How would it be possible for something to not exist, yet have properties (such as they breath fire) and have the ability to cause an effect (thereby having energy and likewise power)? They may exist only in my mind, but as far as I know my mind is the thing that determines my reality.

Peace,

Unum

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Unum ]</p>

Guttersnipe

Unum: The debate, as I see it, is centered on whether or not the One entity possesses all of the characteristics and properties of its constituent parts. If it does not, then your idea is nothing particularly controversial. Instead it would be a creative, perhaps artistic, expression of a common belief. Namely, that there is a universe which contains a number of parts, which in turn contain their own parts, etc. This view would not attribute consciousness to the entire universe, as I initially thought you were trying to do. The One entity would not be conscious, though parts of it would be.
On the other hand, if we assert that the One entity does have all the properties and characteristics possessed by its parts, then we would need to deal with a problem of inconsistency. IE: There are circles. There are squares. Therefore, the One entity contains within its essence square-circles. This, of course, is a contradiction. While it is possible for circles and squares to exist, it is not possible for there to exist circles which are square.
I can see where the confusion might occur here. We might reason along the lines of: if a something (s) has property (p), and (s) is a part of the universe (u), then (u) should have (p) as well. While it would be perfectly fine to say that (u) contains (p), we don't want to say that (u) *is* (p). To illustrate by analogy: Unconscious cells may be contained within my being, but I am not an unconscious cell. This is why I got the impression that our disagreement boils down to semantic confusion.

There is debate among logicians concerning a number of issues. What exactly logic should be considered is one of them. Another problem is with justification of many basic tenants. There is still quite a bit of development left for logic -- though that shouldn't cast doubt on its reliability for determining validity/invalidity.

[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Guttersnipe ]</p>