Bud Jetsun Posted August 28, 2015 I'm glad we all are still suffering. If you lived by your own forum signature, could you suffer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted August 28, 2015 Interesting,,, it directly suggests God is actually the cause of suffering by witholding joy in the universe of his own creation. Nice! lots to assume but much more to find out - we didn't start the fire but it sure is burning... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 28, 2015 We can only hope Brian joins the club....but I suppose at this time of day he is playing with the kids a game of solve the quadratic equasion. Yeah, perhaps Brian needs to suffer a little more? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 28, 2015 If you lived by your own forum signature, could you suffer? You know what? I never seriously considered that. Perhaps if I were constantly true to both it would be next to impossible to suffer. Without the fear of being wrong and without the need to cling to any ideals, how could my peace of mind be disturbed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 28, 2015 lots to assume but much more to find out - we didn't start the fire but it sure is burning... Oh, I think we started the fire. No need to put the blame on something that doesn't exist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted August 28, 2015 lots to assume but much more to find out - we didn't start the fire but it sure is burning... Sometimes we are forced to make assumptions, trying to make sense of it all, ,, like... Im not sure what you are indicating there. So , I think we should go ahead, and do so, but keep the final verdict suspended. To me theres no reason to figure some being is the creator. But I do understand its natural to make that assumption since all the creators we are familiar with are sentient ,,to a degree. Or it could be a couched declaration that its my fault youre angry. Or it could be both ,or it could be neither. BUt without my prompt , you put a blame on God for withholding joy, for a believer in a good god, thats pretty negative. For a non believer , its hocus pocus. And SO, without needing to come to an absolutely convicted position on the existance of the aforementioned superhuman, I can cover both bases and proceed anyway. If you want to hold to an idea of an evil creator , which intentionally causes misery for the universe, and only yeilds joy to a few folks out of millions, you may. But I see no possible benefit to that for anyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted August 28, 2015 Yeah, perhaps Brian needs to suffer a little more?Some people bring joy when they walk into a room and some when they leave. I seem to sometimes be in one of those categories... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted August 28, 2015 You know what? I never seriously considered that. Perhaps if I were constantly true to both it would be next to impossible to suffer. Without the fear of being wrong and without the need to cling to any ideals, how could my peace of mind be disturbed? By actually being wrong and finding out later by suffering the material consequences, or causing suffering to others you dont want suffering so much. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted August 28, 2015 If one believes math exists somewhere beyond the minds of humans, did math give rise to reality/God or reality/God give rise to math? Either way, why would math be at best a system of non-relative construct approximations rooted in human observation/perception? I would say that math is essentially a symbolic language created by mankind in an attempt to describe and model what we observe in reality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted August 28, 2015 Funnily enough I knew you were going to say that, or words to that effect. To simplify: Are you saying that mathematical constructs such as negative numbers are a reality ? as I understand it, even large numbers- it is said they are infinite, but no one ever counts to infinity so, in fact they are only infinite in theory, in reality they stop at whatever point the counting stops-always a number less than infinity. Does even zero does not exist ? we can count zero specific things, but not an ultimate zero. Nowhere is there nothing. Even geometry is carried out with perfect lines, angles and measurement.I have a book by someone who wanted to change maths so that zero was actually the largest number (the sum of all numbers). Might throw up some interesting answers to regular calculations."Reality"? How about "mathematical constructs reflect reality"? Negative numbers are valid, as are zero, infinity, imaginary numbers, transcendental numbers, etc. Interesting and true anecdote -- a number of years ago, the Tennessee State Legislature considered a bill to legally change the transcendental numbers we call "pi" to be "3" because that unending string was just too confusing and hard to work with. Fortunately, someone pointed out that the number wasn't just picked out of a hat... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) "Reality"? How about "mathematical constructs reflect reality"? Negative numbers are valid, as are zero, infinity, imaginary numbers, transcendental numbers, etc. Interesting and true anecdote -- a number of years ago, the Tennessee State Legislature considered a bill to legally change the transcendental numbers we call "pi" to be "3" because that unending string was just too confusing and hard to work with. Fortunately, someone pointed out that the number wasn't just picked out of a hat... Yet they don't always reflect reality. I'm quite open on this subject and its definition. It's kind of an inductive reasoning. A triangle that has sides x and angles y is said to have certain measurements. Yet no triangle exists with these perfect features.mwe can certainly utilise the propositions to build something of immense accuracy, but it won't conform to the exacting numbers of the original maths. Hence, on all mechanical drawings we have dimensional tolerances. It's the same with every facet of maths. Say we count a number of apples. The apples counted do not represent the total of all apples and neither could they, the number is constantly changing as apples are appearing and being consumed all the time. We can of course count apples in a bowl accurately. Look at gravity and we give Earths gravity as a constant, but it isn't a constant, it varies across the globe and it's exact number can never be known. Looking at grammar in comparison and we see that, in fact, maths has to be described grammatically and isn't independent from language. Nine represents the number 9 for instance and so we end up back where we started. If maths describes reality then so by inclusion grammar is the master of all concepts. As such we have to go back to the definition of concepts once again. I'm just starting here with thoughts, it's not a clear analysis by any means, just a stream of consciousness. I don't have a rigid comprehension, it just seems this way. We cannot hold the concept of zero or negative numbers. We never witness them in reality. We use them only in the sense of creating an opposition within calculation just as there is force and reaction, then we view some part of the equation from the negative viewpoint, but it isn't a negative reality. Edited August 28, 2015 by Karl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 28, 2015 Some people bring joy when they walk into a room and some when they leave. I seem to sometimes be in one of those categories... But you almost always present something that someone has something to say in response to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) By actually being wrong and finding out later by suffering the material consequences, or causing suffering to others you dont want suffering so much. That is a good point but then Chuang Tzu suggests that the Sage does not concern him/her self with right and wrong. If we act/react according to our true nature we will have done the right thing at the time under the given conditions. If we later determine we were wrong, so what? We can't undo anything from the past. No worry. Let it go. No suffering. Edit to add: And I think Nietzsche would agree with me here as well as he suggests we should be "beyond good and evil" which would be being beyond right and wrong. Edited August 28, 2015 by Marblehead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted August 28, 2015 Yet they don't always reflect reality. I'm quite open on this subject and its definition. It's kind of an inductive reasoning. A triangle that has sides x and angles y is said to have certain measurements. Yet no triangle exists with these perfect features.mwe can certainly utilise the propositions to build something of immense accuracy, but it won't conform to the exacting numbers of the original maths. Hence, on all mechanical drawings we have dimensional tolerances. It's the same with every facet of maths. Say we count a number of apples. The apples counted do not represent the total of all apples and neither could they, the number is constantly changing as apples are appearing and being consumed all the time. We can of course count apples in a bowl accurately. Look at gravity and we give Earths gravity as a constant, but it isn't a constant, it varies across the globe and it's exact number can never be known. Looking at grammar in comparison and we see that, in fact, maths has to be described grammatically and isn't independent from language. Nine represents the number 9 for instance and so we end up back where we started. If maths describes reality then so by inclusion grammar is the master of all concepts. As such we have to go back to the definition of concepts once again. I'm just starting here with thoughts, it's not a clear analysis by any means, just a stream of consciousness. I don't have a rigid comprehension, it just seems this way. We cannot hold the concept of zero or negative numbers. We never witness them in reality. We use them only in the sense of creating an opposition within calculation just as there is force and reaction, then we view some part of the equation from the negative viewpoint, but it isn't a negative reality. Read my response to Bud Jetsun preceding my response to you. Philosophic navel-gazing is fun and all but it is trumped by experience, isn't it? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 28, 2015 Philosophic navel-gazing is fun and all but it is trumped by experience, isn't it? In my opinion: You can bet your ass on that one. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Stosh, Digging deeper the assumptions and stereotypes begin with what the word "God" means to "us" and to "them" which I'd say ranges all over the map from a-z, even if I used a Bible context which still does not eliminate an a-z range of interpretation depending on if one is working from a fanatical or cosmic consciousness state..... I do like your statement along the lines about keeping the verdict suspended, which in many cases would probably be an honest option to apply to "us" and to "them" since most of "us" and "them" really don't have the experience or personal proof that satisfies 100% one way or the other. MH, As far as starting the "fire" that was meant to allude to going back to the cosmic "big bang" (if one will) which as far as can be ascertained no human being started that. Edited August 28, 2015 by 3bob 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 28, 2015 MH, As far as starting the "fire" that was meant to allude to going back to the cosmic "big bang" (if one will) which as far as can be ascertained no human being started that. Yeah, I pretty much figured that but you were responding to Stosh's post and he mentioned God so I just had to comment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted August 28, 2015 but it is trumped by experience, isn't it? Not according to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted August 28, 2015 Hey MH what happened to the rose? (although I also like King Kong) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted August 28, 2015 Not according to you. With respect, Karl, this illustrates how profoundly you misunderstand me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted August 28, 2015 That is a good point but then Chuang Tzu suggests that the Sage does not concern him/her self with right and wrong. If we act/react according to our true nature we will have done the right thing at the time under the given conditions. If we later determine we were wrong, so what? We can't undo anything from the past. No worry. Let it go. No suffering. Edit to add: And I think Nietzsche would agree with me here as well as he suggests we should be "beyond good and evil" which would be being beyond right and wrong. Youre probably right as usual Mh, but youre going more by brians definition of suffering and Im going more by Tibetan Ices. Im no sage and cant just say 'so what' If I was responsible. But yeah, everyone else is certainly one less thing to worry about , in any case. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted August 28, 2015 The insatiability is actually a craving for the Dao/God/Emptiness whatever you call it. Most people stumble from one object to another in search of something. It is actually an incomplete feeling that we seek to address. That is the reason for the insatiability...we call it "trishna" (thirst) in India. This trishna when channelized into a proper spiritual path will lead the individual back to overcoming it.I really like this post, dwai. No matter how suppressed, that spark within which "sees" that "whatever we call it" remains, waiting to be given an opportunity. Until that occurs, however, there is "something missing" and we unconsciously seek to fill that unrecognized incompleteness. The word "trishna" is new to me but is a marvelous term for it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 28, 2015 Hey MH what happened to the rose? (although I also like King Kong) It was suggested that my rose might have given some member the impression that I am gay so I immediately removed the rose and replaced it with King Kong. We already have enough misunderstandings around here. We didn't need this one possibility at all. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted August 28, 2015 ok, I never thought of that one - did you get any unexpected e-mails that you don't want to share ( ) lol.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 28, 2015 ok, I never thought of that one - did you get any unexpected e-mails that you don't want to share ( ) lol.... I can't speak to that but it did allow me a chuckle. Thanks. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
