PHILOSOPHY PROJECT

 our.philosophy.top_

SCOPE:

To investigate the interface between physics and metaphysics

.

REFERENCES:

The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

Neti neti

.

OBSERVATIONS:

[OK, I am starting all over again using Buddha’s principle of seeing things as they are. I decided to define the scope of Physics and Metaphysics at the outset. I see Metaphysics much broader in scope and Physics to be part of that scope. Physics deals with manifestations. Metaphysics must deal with perception because there is nothing else there. I have been reading Aristotle. Metaphysics did not start out as the subject of perception, but it should have. That would have greatly simplified the subject of philosophy.]

ONE: There is looking and perceiving.

TWO: There is something to be looked at and perceived.

THREE: Thus there is manifestation and perception.

FOUR: Physics is a study of manifestation.

FIVE: Metaphysics is a study of perception.

.

PERCEPTION:

[It is PERCEPTION that gives rise to the ideas of SELF, SPACE and all the MANIFESTATIONS around us. Our perception is the starting point of it all. Later we would be investigating what perception is. But first I want to establish the starting point of this investigation.]

SIX: MANIFESTATION is thought to be there. It is what is perceived.

SEVEN: Perception is thought to involve a “perception point”. Thus there is the consideration of SELF.

EIGHT: Self is thought to be separate from manifestation. Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.

NINE: Perception, primarily, is thought to involve the considerations of MANIFESTATION, SELF, and SPACE.

TEN: Perception appears to be THOUGHT considering itself. 

.

EXISTENCE:

[Philosophy still hasn’t sorted out fully what EXISTENCE is. There are many different views about it. In other words, different philosophers mentally perceive existence differently. It all boils down to perception. The problem of existence sorts out nicely when we define it in terms of perception.]

ELEVEN: Manifestations, self, and space are thought to be present. Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.

TWELVE: Manifestation is what is perceived. Self is what perceives. Space makes perception possible.

THIRTEEN: That this is so is a consideration.

FOURTEEN: Existence is the sum total of considerations perceived.

FIFTEEN: Existence is relative and not absolute.

.

CRITERION OF INVESTIGATION:

[It is important to establish the first principle from the outset. It then acts as the criterion for rest of the investigation. Here we are using PERCEPTION as the first principle and the criterion. One may figure-figure whatever one wants, but unless it is there to be perceived, it would not meet the criterion of this investigation.]

SIXTEENAristotle called the subjects of metaphysics “first philosophy”. He called the study of nature, or physics, “second philosophy”. This is consistent with the fact that study of manifestation (second philosophy) is intrinsic to the study of perception (first philosophy).

SEVENTEEN: The implication from Aristotle is that the primary task of philosophy is to search for first principles. Aristotle seems to describe the first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known.”

EIGHTEEN: By definition, a first principle would be a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

NINETEEN: In this investigation we start with the first principle of PERCEPTION OF MANIFESTATION. It is something that is universally there. It spurs thinking and further looking.

TWENTY: Hence the criterion used in this investigation would be the determination of those thoughts and observations that are consistent with ‘PERCEPTION OF MANIFESTATION’. These things can be found when actually looked for.

.

FIRST CAUSE:

[“First Cause” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with the notion of “cause and effect”. “Cause and effect” denote a certain association between two events where the second event is looked upon as the outcome of the first event. “First Cause,” on the other hand, is the property, which makes a manifestation simply appear without association with anything else. It is interesting to observe that the property of “first cause” may be applied to all manifestations before applying the association of “cause and effect.”]

TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.

TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.

TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.

TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.

TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.

.

GOD:

[God cannot be a manifestation itself that can be perceived, and at the same time be the source of all other manifestations. That is highly inconsistent because it makes it possible for any manifestation to be considered God. Thus, if there is a God, then it can’t be manifested. It would be beyond perception. It would be part of speculation only.]

TWENTY-SIX: When God is viewed as a Being with the properties of holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality it qualifies as a manifestation. The property of “First Cause” applies to God just as it applies to any other manifestation.

TWENTY-SEVEN: The implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of that system for reference.

TWENTY-EIGHT: Therefore, God, viewed as a manifestation, cannot completely describe the presence of all other manifestations

TWENTY-NINE: Thus, God must be something that is beyond manifestation. It may be looked upon as the background against which manifestation, and even perception, appears.

THIRTY: Thus, God is THAT, which cannot be conceived or perceived. It is beyond desire, expectation and speculation.

.

CONSIDERATIONS AND KNOWLEDGE:

[The considerations form themselves into space. Disturbances in space travel as energy. Energy condenses as matter. The primary knowledge is perception of considerations, from which come experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, etc.]

THIRTY-ONE: Space separates manifestation from perception-point. Separation generates desire to know. Desire to know generates expectation. Expectation generates speculation. Speculation generates considerations.

THIRTY-TWO: Considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.) form the fabric of the mental space. Disturbance traveling through this fabric is what forms energy. This energy condenses and becomes fixed as matter.

THIRTY-THREE: The perception of these considerations forms the basis of knowledge. Knowledge gradually becomes more structured as it condenses into experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms.

THIRTY-FOUR: All considerations are relative and so is knowledge.

THIRTY-FIVE: There is no absolute consideration. There is no absolute knowledge.

.

NAME AND FORM:

[Name and form (nama-rupa in Sanskrit) is the crystallization of thoughts, at which point persistence enters into the picture. Name and form become the points of reference because they are persisting, even if for a fleeting moment. They can now interact and combine into more complex forms with new names.]

THIRTY-SIX: Considerations interact with each other.  For such interaction to take place, there must be persistence.

THIRTY-SEVEN: For considerations to persist they must acquire some form. A unique consideration will have a unique form or ‘name’.

THIRTY- EIGHT: The considerations, thus, interact and combine into more complex forms with new names.

THIRTY-NINE: When there are names and forms there is also considerations.

FORTY: “God,” “Prime Mover Unmoved” “Uncaused Cause,” “Supreme Being,” “Unconditioned Being,” etc. are all considerations.

.

.

[Further development of this project is in progress…]

.

.

.

 

.

SELF:

[As considerations acquire name and form they become fixed. From this come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. The perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF. Considerations give rise to judgments that seem to be coming from self.]

FORTY-ONE: As considerations acquire name and form they develop a structure and become relatively rigid or fixed. 

FORTY-TWOFrom this structure of considerations come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. Thus come about means for communication, such as, language.

FORTY-THREEAs these considerations become relatively rigid or fixed, the perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF.

FORTY-FOUR: The perception gets filtered through the structure of considerations that make up the SELF, before it reaches the perception point.

FORTY-FIVEThe filtered perception gives rise to judgments that seem to be coming from SELF. This determines the view of existence, the Universe and also the view of self.


.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

    These propositions are continually being added to.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM

    The concept of self has been eluding me for some time. The following appears to be counter-intuitive, but this is the best intuition I seem to have about self.

    FORTY-ONE: Manifestation is the same as its perceptibility, and it is its own perception point.

    FORTY-TWO: Perceptibility is altered with the separation of perception point from the manifestation.

    FORTY-THREE: With this separation LOOKING comes into play and so does SELF.

    FORTY-FOUR: Self gathers unto itself other considerations over time.

    FORTY-FIVE: Self then acts as the primary filter to looking.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On December 4, 2012 at 4:57 AM

    So there is no disappearance of considerations as the inconsistencies in them are “leveled.” Rather the ballooning sphere of considerations grows. The disharmony lessens but the amplitude if you will increases. This actually makes sense to me. Growth in harmony and growth in knowledge.

    • vinaire  On December 4, 2012 at 5:03 AM

      Yes, as long as there is separation and SELF, it seems.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On December 4, 2012 at 8:44 AM

        I don’t understand your reply. Please write more.

        • vinaire  On December 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

          (Consideration of manifestation) + (Consideration of separation from manifestation) = (Creation of perception-point and perception).

          Perception-point + perception of separation = self

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On December 4, 2012 at 5:00 AM

    Now we have found our “dark matter.” LOL

  • Chris Thompson  On December 4, 2012 at 5:08 AM

    This is for me a completely new direction. I am looking for some inconsistency but the only thing I am seeing is a leveling of the disharmony that I feel when this contrary data bumps into the old concept of dissolving and disappearing inconsistencies.

    I think you have really brought something out this time Vin. This physics is new to me but seems consistent with what little I already understand.

    We have kept looking.
    We have kept fully viewing.
    We can keep in “speaking out loud” as a device to enable the beginner to look at and say what he sees in his mind.

  • Chris Thompson  On December 4, 2012 at 5:10 AM

    I need some help with forty-three. This reads like you are proposing an “exteriorization” of a kind, which you haven’t previously held as valid.

  • vinaire  On December 4, 2012 at 5:42 AM

    This is reverse engineering of as-isness.
    Thus, looking comes into play.
    Thus, self is generated.

    This is not separation of self from the body.

    .

    • vinaire  On December 4, 2012 at 6:14 AM

      Body comes at FORTY-FOUR.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On December 4, 2012 at 8:40 AM

        Yes, but as-is is not what I thought. The universe is not shrinking. What will we do with that? How will it fit?

        Looking provides creation and tuning. What is reduced is not MEST but NOISE. What occurs is more MEST. Can this be true?

        • vinaire  On December 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM

          (1) Separation creates self.
          (2) Self creates considerations
          (3) Considerations evolve into MEST

          It is expansion.

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On December 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM

      Potato-Potahto. What do you say is separating? Self is identification with universe. We do not need body to have this identification.

      • vinaire  On December 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM

        Perception-point is separating from manifestation and turning into self. Self may do whatever after that.

        .

  • vinaire  On December 4, 2012 at 6:35 AM

    Additions for today:

    .

    FORTY-SIX: Pure objectivity is possible only with the elimination of self.

    FORTY-SEVEN: With self eliminated perceptibility remains but no self-consciousness.

    FORTY-EIGHT: Pure objectivity would be seeing without viewpoint. It would be seeing something for what it is.

    FORTY-NINE: Self and other considerations that are added to ‘what-is’ act as “filters.”

    FIFTY: Objectivity is characterized by absence of filters.

    .

    • Nia Simone  On January 31, 2013 at 7:06 PM

      Sorry, I liked your first 46. Thought it was brilliant.

      • vinaire  On January 31, 2013 at 7:38 PM

        Are you talking about

        FORTY-SIX: Pure objectivity is possible only with the elimination of self.

        or

        FORTY-SIX: There seems to be a level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

        I would rather use in the main post whatever communicates better.

        .

        • Nia Simone  On January 31, 2013 at 7:48 PM

          FORTY-SIX: There seems to be a level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

          I am not saying this is clear. I needs 46 sub 46es. 😉 But it is right.

        • vinaire  On February 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM

          I hope the recent revisions make it clearer.

          .

        • Nia Simone  On February 10, 2013 at 9:24 AM

          Hi Vinaire,

          What is the latest revision on 46?

          Thank you,

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM

          I deep-sixed 46 and whatever followed that. I have now rewritten the last three sections from 31 to 45.

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On December 4, 2012 at 8:44 AM

    I have to run to a meeting but this has been just great this morning. Thanks.

  • Bculkin  On December 4, 2012 at 10:02 PM

    So cool. I love reading you and Chris! So inspiring!!

    • vinaire  On December 4, 2012 at 10:08 PM

      Jump into the discussion, please. 🙂

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 6:53 AM

      Yes please Brian! Jump in! Vinaire is on some kind of 5 hour energy drink or something and his output recently has been enormous. The only thing is that his new job of working part time is cutting into his blogging time and we may have to have him quit the job!

  • vinaire  On December 4, 2012 at 10:17 PM

    Space is a filter.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 6:49 AM

      Wow! So obvious. The original one? Yet for all the time I’ve spent on space that hadn’t crossed my mind in just that way. Again, more so than a specific example, this feels like a harmony can occur from this… I will let you know what pops up.

      • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 7:26 AM

        Another way to write it is that I hadn’t looked at the characteristics of space as mental filters.

        This reveals; exploits some mental “partitioning” that I do. For instance, I look at my world in terms of my own perception of it. I am flipping between the subjective and objective, back and forth and having a separation there. There is a further cognition in that for me and I think it exemplifies your comment about space as a filter.

  • vinaire  On December 6, 2012 at 7:29 AM

    Space hides. Anything beyond which one cannot seem to look is fixating one’s attention.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 7:35 AM

      Just so. That is the nature of Nature. Time and space are welded. For me, my “time track” is also a way to hide; a way to not be present in the present.

    • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 7:36 AM

      Yes, and thus we have exploration — every type of exploration.

  • vinaire  On December 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM

    I am starting from scratch again.

    ONE: There is looking and perceiving.

    TWO: There is something to be looked at and perceived.

    THREE: Thus there is manifestation and perception.

    FOUR: There may be something “fundamental” underlying manifestation and perception.

    FIVE: That “fundamental” is neither manifested nor is perceivable. It may only be speculated upon.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:25 PM

      Great! Let’s get it on!

      • vinaire  On December 7, 2012 at 7:33 AM

        I am no longer looking at what is “beyond” physics. I am going back to Aristotle’s thoughts in metaphysics.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On December 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM

          I am with you. You know, if the TOE doesn’t pan out, we could still take our notes on the road as a stand-up comedy team . . . 🙂 hmmmm

        • vinaire  On December 7, 2012 at 12:44 PM

          That may be more like it!

          .

  • vinaire  On December 6, 2012 at 6:41 PM

    SIX: With the appearance of manifestation there is speculation of change in the “fundamental”.

    SEVEN: Thus comes about the consideration of CHANGE.

    EIGHT: With the appearance of perception there is speculation of a perception point separate from the manifestation.

    NINE: Thus comes about. the consideration of SEPARATION.

    TEN: And thus comes about the consideration of SELF.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 6, 2012 at 8:21 PM


    ELEVEN: Physics is a study of manifestation and perception.

    TWELVE: Metaphysics is a speculation on what is beyond manifestation and perception.

    THIRTEEN: Knowledge consists of physics and metaphysics.

    FOURTEEN: Knowledge of physics is the knowledge of existence.

    FIFTEEN: Knowledge of metaphysics is the knowledge of what could exist.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:08 PM

    Vin: “FIVE: That “fundamental” is neither manifested nor is perceivable. It may only be speculated upon.”

    Chris: You can speculate, no problem; However, that “fundamental” is not axiomatic. Either we should look at why you speculate there is nothing physical there or else I would like you to explain very simply to me why there is fundamentally something not physical underpinning the physical.

    • vinaire  On December 7, 2012 at 7:19 AM

      I got your point. I have taken it out of the line up for now.

      .

    • Brian  On December 15, 2012 at 8:31 PM

      Perhaps you are looking at this all backwards. LOL

      There is no “physical” anything. The physical is YOUR speculation (or illusion) and YOU are not physical 🙂

      Welcome to your dream

      • Chris Thompson  On February 1, 2013 at 10:33 PM

        Brian, I was just reviewing a few notes and spotted your comment here – didn’t mean to ignore it in December!

        Speaking for myself, I acknowledge your idea that trying to draw a hard line between fantasy and reality is difficult to do. If you look very closely, then it becomes even more difficult to do.

        I find myself working with whatever I’ve got at the moment and watching for paradoxes as I don’t believe in their validity and they routinely point toward the telling inconsistency that helps me focus a new understanding of some kind.

        The way you turned around the idea of physical and illusion, looking for a counterintuitive result is one of my favorite devices. I get a lot of mileage out of this counterintuitive method of solving problems.

        Back to you.

  • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:12 PM

    Vin: “”TWELVE: Metaphysics is a speculation on what is beyond manifestation and perception.

    Chris: The first speculation of metaphysics is that there is something beyond speculation.

    • vinaire  On December 7, 2012 at 7:25 AM

      TWELVE seems to be incorrect (see METAPHYSICS in Wikipedia) so I have taken it out.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:13 PM

    It is a beautiful speculation of mankind that there is something beyond beyond. I wonder why we do this.

    • vinaire  On December 7, 2012 at 7:27 AM

      Yes, that is a good question. What is unknown has always attracted attention.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:17 PM

    Vin: “THIRTEEN: Knowledge consists of physics and metaphysics.”

    Chris says: ” ‘Metaphysics’ reduces to physics through looking.” I don’t think there is a reduction of physics. I think there is only a ballooning sphere of considerations.

  • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:22 PM

    Vinaire: “FIFTEEN: Knowledge of metaphysics is the knowledge of what could exist.”

    Chris says: This is an interesting look and for me a new way of looking at the subject and definition of metaphysics. Therefore mental ideas; manifestations which haven’t yet reached a macro-size are metaphysics? We want to use metaphysics this way? Then as we reduce metaphysics; or should I say as we condense and expand! metaphysics, then we get physics? I can work with this and it is also counterintuitive to the status quo.

    • vinaire  On December 7, 2012 at 7:31 AM

      This may be a speculation on my part. I am going to study METAPHYSICS from Wikipedia.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:27 PM

    Let’s backward engineer Descarte, Nietsche, and Hubbard and anyone else.

    Is “I think; therefore, I am” consistent?

    • vinaire  On December 7, 2012 at 7:35 AM

      That’s a great idea about reverse engineering these philosophies.

      May be: “I think, therefore I am thought.” 🙂

      “I am” is a tautology and stops looking altogether.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On December 7, 2012 at 8:33 AM

        Yes! That is a better conclusion, more consistent, thought-to-thought.

        This is one of the reasons; one of the supports for my hypothesis that we live IN a “tautological universe.” I landed on this like as a joke; however, I am continuing to look at this, and (oddly-weirdly-sadly?) finding consistency to the idea. Or maybe we’ll call it the Ironical Universe. That doesn’t roll off the tongue too well, so I guess has no popularity in its future!

  • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:28 PM

    In the beginning was a cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect.

    • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:35 PM

      Was there an initial cause? It was not a cause until there was an effect, so therefore, the “initial” cause and effect have the same initial moment of creation. Oops. “Initial moment of creation” supposes another speculation. hehe.

      But wait, what we can observe is “an occurrence.” And then we can observe “an occurrence.” Bland, when I write it that way. Brian? Where’d you go? Time to jump in and help two old dopplegangers figure out things.

    • vinaire  On December 7, 2012 at 7:37 AM

      I wrote on Factor #1 on this blog. I shall be revisiting it.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:28 PM

    What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.

  • Chris Thompson  On December 6, 2012 at 10:36 PM

    Was the Big Bang an example of an initial cause and effect? Occurring simultaneously?

    There wasn’t space-time; then there was.

  • vinaire  On December 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM

    The implication from Aristotle is that the primary task of philosophy is to search for first principles. Aristotle seems to describe the first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known”.

    By definition, a first principle would be a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

    The implication from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of it as the reference point.

    The obvious first principle broadly appears to be PERCEPTION. We need to look at it more closely., I would like to see what other philosophers have to say.

    .

    • Nia Simone  On February 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM

      The big bang is first PERCEPTION?

      • vinaire  On February 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM

        I am not so sure about Big Bang. It seems like a conjecture that needs to be confirmed.

        .

        • Nia Simone  On February 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM

          Thank you, Vinaire! I’ll be contemplating this for awhile!

          And I want to go look at that post on Death again.

          I agree about Big Bang. You’re right. Forget that.

          This is good.

          Oh, one more thing: providing definitions right in the same post with the reasoning is hugely helpful to the reader. 😉

      • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 5:00 AM

        If there were a big bang it would be like the sudden appearance of a manifestation from nothing.

        .

  • vinaire  On December 8, 2012 at 6:44 PM

    CRITERION OF INVESTIGATION:

    SIXTEEN: Aristotle called the subjects of metaphysics “first philosophy”. He called the study of nature, or physics, “second philosophy”. This is consistent with the fact that study of manifestation is intrinsic to the study of perception.

    SEVENTEEN: The implication from Aristotle is that the primary task of philosophy is to search for first principles. Aristotle seems to describe the first principle as “the first basis from which a thing is known”.

    EIGHTEEN: By definition, a first principle would be a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

    NINETEEN: Here we start with the first principle of PERCEPTION. Perception involves thoughts, or considerations, about the experience of perception.

    TWENTY: Hence the criterion we shall be using here is CONSISTENCY with the experience of perception.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 8, 2012 at 7:55 PM

    FIRST CAUSE:

    TWENTY-ONE: We believe that events are caused, and we assume that a manifestation must be caused by another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.

    TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we may further assume a first cause that is not itself caused.

    TWENTY-THREE: However, the consideration of “a first cause that is not itself caused” violates the PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION. This principle states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

    TWENTY-FOUR: We must therefore accept that the notions of CAUSE and EFFECT indicate a logical association between manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear from our perception.

    TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, the belief that a manifestation must be caused by something else is inconsistent. Manifestations simply appear and disappear, There is no first cause.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 8, 2012 at 9:07 PM

    GOD:

    TWENTY-SIX: When God is viewed as a Being with the properties of holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality it qualifies as a manifestation.

    TWENTY-SEVEN: When “God” is looked upon as a Being, it gives rise to the inconsistency of the first cause. Thus, God cannot be thought of as a being with certain properties.

    TWENTY-EIGHT: The implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of it as the reference point.

    TWENTY-NINE: Thus, God, as an explanation of all existence, itself cannot be described in terms of what we perceive as existence.

    THIRTY: God is THAT, which cannot be imagined and perceived.

    .

    • Nia Simone  On January 31, 2013 at 6:48 PM

      This is your definition that I think nails it. God, that is.

  • vinaire  On December 9, 2012 at 7:15 AM

    “First Cause” seems to be a concept different from the concept of “cause.” Use of the same word in two different concepts seem to confuse the issue. I have therefore revised the following:

    TWENTY-ONE: We cut a tree; it falls. We strike a match; it lights up. Thus, we have a phenomenon that is a direct consequence of another phenomenon. This makes us believe that all phenomena are caused. We, thus, assume that a manifestation must be a consequence of another manifestation. This belief leads to an infinite causal series.

    TWENTY-TWO: To resolve this inconsistency, we assume a First Cause that is not itself caused. But this makes the First Cause different from the way all other causes are understood. It allows the possibility that a manifestation may simply appear.

    TWENTY-THREE: All manifestations simply appear as we perceive them. They disappear as we stop perceiving them. Thus, we may consider “First Cause” to be the property of all manifestations.

    TWENTY-FOUR: The notions of CAUSE and EFFECT seem to indicate an association between two manifestations, which otherwise simply appear and disappear as we perceive or not perceive them.

    TWENTY-FIVE: Hence, consistency with perception tells us that “First Cause” is a property that applies to all manifestations. On the other hand, “cause and effect” is a special sequence observed between two manifestations.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 9, 2012 at 7:16 AM

    I have revised the section on GOD as follows:

    TWENTY-SIX: When God is viewed as a Being with the properties of holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality it qualifies as a manifestation. The property of “First Cause” applies to God just as it applies to any other manifestation.

    TWENTY-SEVEN: The implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that no system can be described completely by using an aspect of that system for reference.

    TWENTY-EIGHT: Therefore, God, viewed as a manifestation, cannot completely describe the presence of all other manifestations

    TWENTY-NINE: Thus, God must be something that is beyond manifestation.

    THIRTY: God is THAT, which cannot be imagined and/or perceived.

    .

  • vinaire  On December 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM

    KNOWLEDGE:

    THIRTY-ONE: Knowledge comes from the recognition of “first cause” characteristics of manifestations.

    THIRTY-TWO: Further knowledge comes from understanding of “cause and effect” relationships among manifestations.

    THIRTY-THREE: All knowledge is relative to perception. There is no absolute knowledge in itself.

    THIRTY-FOUR: Unknown generates desire to know. Desire to know generates perception.

    THIRTY-FIVE: All knowledge is derived from perception.

    .

    • Nia Simone  On January 31, 2013 at 6:55 PM

      I agree with most of this but of course “first” doesn’t really exist. So then it’s moot. I don’t think you can really get at “first cause” because there is no before, there is no after, so there is no first. the universe exists in an expansive present. if we are to accept the illusion of time as a framework then we can have first. but it gets very difficult not to get confused when introducing an analogy. One starts to think the analogy is the thing. Unfortunately, it’s also nearly impossible to conceive of the actual thing without the analogy.

      In a logical sense, I think you have it right, with number 29 and 30.

      Those are my 2 cents! Like I said, I don’t really think I can improve upon what you are doing here. I agree with you that things appear and disappear and that we are the ones who assign the relationships of cause and effect to them. If we did not, we might all be insane, or else enlightened. 😉

      • Chris Thompson  On January 31, 2013 at 7:16 PM

        Nia: One starts to think the analogy is the thing.

        Chris: Yes. That is something I am prone to do.

        • Nia Simone  On January 31, 2013 at 7:22 PM

          Thanks. By the way I meant expansive present, not presence. Although presence also works, I did not mean it here.

        • vinaire  On January 31, 2013 at 7:41 PM

          Got it. Is it OK if I correct it in your original post?

      • vinaire  On January 31, 2013 at 7:30 PM

        LOL! I like your last comment.

        As I said “first cause” is a misnomer. It relates to the property that a manifestation simply appears. There is no “first” as such in a linear sense.

        To me TIME is a secondary manifestation. It is a measure of the condensation from SPACE (considerations) to ENERGY to MASS. The more something has condensed, the more durability it acquires. TIME is quite a mind twister indeed.

        I like what you write here. 🙂

        .

        • Nia Simone  On January 31, 2013 at 7:41 PM

          Okay, for some technical writing. This statement could be more clear. Not saying it’s wrong, but it could be more clear:

          To me TIME is a secondary manifestation. It is a “measure” of the condensation from SPACE (considerations) to ENERGY to MASS. The more something has condensed, the more “durability” it acquires.

          Introducing “durability” has the effect of losing me on a sharp curve. You are talking about time being a measure. Then leap to it having durability. What does durability have to do with measure? Suggest changing durability to an adjective-modified “measure”, inserting another sentence that bridges the two, or adding another sentence that explains the relationship of durability to measure.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM

          Wow!

        • vinaire  On January 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM

          Nia, you are hired!

          OK, let me modify that portion of my earlier post as follows:

          To me TIME is a secondary manifestation. It is a “measure” of the condensation of considerations from SPACE to ENERGY to MASS. The more a consideration has condensed (become more structured and inflexible), the more “durability” it acquires. “Durability” is.how long something lasts. Our sense of time is basically measured against infinite durability.

          Am I making sense?

          .

      • Nia Simone  On February 2, 2013 at 12:32 AM

        Hello Vinaire,

        Sorry for the delay; I didn’t get notified of follow-up posts. I checked the box this time.

        Yes, please correct my original post to “present.”

        To me, “from” is ambiguous. Do you mean that considerations condense space into energy and then into mass?

        I am going to assume that is what you mean. Then here’s how I understand the rest. I am going to put your words in regular case and mine in all caps.

        The more a consideration has condensed (become more structured and inflexible), the more “durability” it acquires. “Durability” is how long something lasts. MASS (FORM), AS A PRODUCT OF CONSIDERATIONS ACTING UPON SPACE AND ENERGY, IS CONDENSED AND HAS DURABILITY. CONSIDERATIONS (IDEAS) THEMSELVES ALSO CONDENSE AND THOUGH THEY ARE NOT MASS, THEY BEHAVE LIKE MASS IN THAT THEY HAVE DURABILITY. TIME IS A MEASURE OF DURABILITY, BOTH OF MASS (FORM) AND CONSIDERATIONS (IDEAS).

        I don’t understand the last sentence at all. If we can leave the last sentence out of the discussion for the moment, that would help. Please comment on my interpretation of your meaning. Is it what you mean?

        If I can understand this clearly, I think I could go further with this with you, but we have to agree on the basics here and I’m not 100% sure of all definitions. Hopefully my words will point out any lack of understanding on my part of your fundamental definitions and theorems.

      • vinaire  On February 2, 2013 at 6:58 AM

        Thanks Nia. I have corrected your previous post as requested.

        I look at SPACE, ENERGY and MASS to be three modes of CONSIDERATION, just like STEAM, WATER and ICE are three modes of H2O. These modes are related to each other by degree of condensation. So, one may refer to, “condensation of H2O from STEAM to WATER to ICE.”

        Here SPACE is least structured form of considerations, ENERGY is a more structured form of consideration and MASS is the most structured form of consideration.

        Thus, SPACE has the least “durability”, ENERGY has more “durability”, and MASS has the most “durability”. There are variations in “durability” in each of those categories as well.

        Thus, SPACE will appear and disappear more frequently than ENERGY, and ENERGY will appear and disappear more frequently than MASS.

        I see what you are looking at. I apologize for not being very clear. I am talking about mental SPACE, ENERGY and MASS. How mental relates to physical is whole another story. That is exactly where I am going with the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT. The scope of that project is “To investigate the interface between physics and metaphysics.” I am starting out with metaphysics. I am still struggling to understand the nature of the interface.to physics.

        Basically, we are talking about two separate strands of reality – mental and physical – that seem to be analogous. It could be that one is harmonic of the other, but in what way? I have no idea.

        The question in my mind is, “What is this attribute called ‘physical’?” “Does it exist independent of mental or not?” “If not, then how do mental and physical relate?”

        I somehow have the suspicion that ‘physical’ is ‘knowledge’ up to the formation of ‘self’, and ‘mental’ are the ‘considerations’ that come about after the formation of the self.

        ‘Self’ precipitates with attachment to considerations. ‘Logic’ precipitates with association among considerations. So, ‘Self’ and ‘mental’ are ‘logical’ but ‘physical’ is not logical. Now here I get lost.

        .

        • vinaire  On February 2, 2013 at 7:15 AM

          There seems to be a different kind of ‘logic’ among physical element, which is being discovered by the physicists through empirical means. Could that level of ‘logic’ also underlie the regular logic that we use?

          Is there a ‘logic’ that brings about the logic that we use?

          This is getting crazy.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2013 at 9:48 AM

          If we use the word and concept of sublimation we can account for the seeming disappearance of the dissonance within disturbing thoughts when we look closely at them.

          If we use the word and the concept of desublimation or deposition (from physics) we can account for the seeming magical appearance of thoughts and other more substantial matter from nothing.

          Written another way, we can use commonplace physics terminology to account for the seemingly metaphysical occurrences of which we are aware but for which we apparently have no explanation. We just need to know them and apply them.

        • Nia Simone  On February 2, 2013 at 1:08 PM

          Hello Vinaire,

          Excellent definitions. Now that I understand what you mean by the three terms and their relationships, I’ll contemplate. I feel you are very, very close to making the connection you seek. I’ll be back. This is exciting.

          Warm regards,

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM

          Well, your responses are encouraging. It is better to have three minds working on this problem instead of two.

          .

        • Nia Simone  On February 2, 2013 at 2:11 PM

          No

          They interrelate. This is the core question.

          No

          problem here is with the word “after”

          It is fun to play here. Thank you for inviting me.

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

          Oh! You can play all you want here. The more the merrier.

          By default, considerations would be those thoughts, ideas etc., that one is attached to.

          We may define “knowledge”as those considerations that one is not attached to at all.

          .

        • Nia Simone  On February 2, 2013 at 3:13 PM

          Chris, I like your physics concepts above. I will look at that.

          Vinaire,

          In that sense of knowledge, then yes, physical is knowledge. But not just.

          What else is knowledge?

          What else is physical? (What other things are physical, besides considerations?)

          And what other properties are there of physical? (Besides considerations?)

          Hint:

          desire

          becomes knowledge (and “experience”).

          But also, knowledge precedes desire. (Hence above problem with “after”.)

          (This is where you can go deeper into 46.)

          But back to this topic. What other property (besides springing from consideration) does knowledge itself have, having been created and also being creator?

        • vinaire  On February 2, 2013 at 10:09 PM

          Chris said: https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7699

          That is a good point.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2013 at 11:59 PM

          Thanks Vinaire. And written yet one more way, we may no longer need a nothing to understand our origins.

        • vinaire  On February 3, 2013 at 5:56 AM

          “Nothing” seems to have a gradient. 🙂

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM

          hehe, possibly yes, but maybe ultimately not a nothing!

        • vinaire  On February 2, 2013 at 10:24 PM

          Nia said: https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7709

          Yes those are good points to mcontemplate on.. Please note that we are dealing with layers like those of an onion. The analogy of a spherical shell may be used for a layer. On this surface of this layer there can be no “before” or “after” because each point is on a circle. There is nothing that is linear as required for “before” and “after”. Thus, a desire to know may lead to perception; and a perception may then lead to further desire to know.

          I don’t like using the words “created” and “creator”. The consideration here was sorted out in the section on “First cause.” I think that the knowledge portion simply appears per the “first cause” principle. It is later at the level of consideration that “cause-effect” relationships are affected.

          .

          Aha! this gives me a new idea… The attachment is not between some “self” and a consideration. The attachment is actually the “hooking” of considerations with each other into a rigid structure.

          🙂

        • Nia Simone  On February 2, 2013 at 11:16 PM

          My earlier response was bizarre. That’s because I quoted you using angle brackets which were read as html code and so they didn’t show up! I need to re-do that and then catch up here. I can’t believe it… talk about matter appearing and disappearing!

          Back later with complete text.

        • Nia Simone  On February 4, 2013 at 1:08 PM

          Hello Friends,

          I have much catching up to do here! I look forward to it very much but until I have time to do so, I am correcting this post of mine:

          https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7706

          VINAIRE: “What is this attribute called ‘physical’?” “Does it exist independent of mental or not?”
          NIA: No

          VINAIRE: “If not, then how do mental and physical relate?”
          NIA: They interrelate. This is the core question.

          VINAIRE “‘physical’ is ‘knowledge’”
          NIA: Yes (Note: Because of subsequent post by you, I changed my mind. In my first post, I thought No. Now I think Yes.)

          VINAIRE: “and ‘mental’ are the ‘considerations’ that come about after the formation of the self.”
          NIA: problem here is with the word “after”
          quoting VINAIRE: “THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.”
          NIA: Look at “starts” and “almost immediately.” (I like “almost immediately,” but I think:) Desire becomes knowledge. But also, knowledge precedes desire.

          (Note: You addressed the before and after issue with your shell comment. I will come back to this. I have a question the definition of sherical in that comment.
          You also addressed before and after with this comment: VINAIRE: “I don’t like using the words “created” and “creator”. The consideration here was sorted out in the section on “First cause.” I think that the knowledge portion simply appears per the “first cause” principle. It is later at the level of consideration that “cause-effect” relationships are affected.” NIA: I would like not to dance away so quickly here, to pause and contemplate more deeply. I need to reconsider your first cause principle. Then I would like to look very carefully at desire to know, trying not to be trapped by the trickery of time.)

          I will be back as soon as I can to look more into this, which I find most intriguing:

          VINAIRE: “‘Self’ precipitates with attachment to considerations. ‘Logic’ precipitates with association among considerations. So, ‘Self’ and ‘mental’ are ‘logical’ but ‘physical’ is not logical. Now here I get lost.”

          And also into the subsequent, very intriguing comments. (It’s going to take a moment to contemplate Nothing for example. I look forward to diving into that thread.)

          In the meantime, one question I have on one of your follow-on comments, Vinaire: I am not familiar with the term “sherical”. Do you refer to the striations that occur in the analogous shell, the lines that demarcate the shell’s development (over time)?

          Warm regards,

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

          Thanks for your feedback, Nia. You sure are showing your skills at this game of looking at things as they are, and not just as they seem to be.

          Yes, mental and physical interrelate. But how?

          It seems that physical are the “first cause” characteristics. These attributes simply appeared. There is no rhyme or reason underlying them. Mental are the considerations about the physical. Logic enters at this stage and with that enters the idea of cause and effect.

          Any interelated group pf considerations may be looked upon as a set of considerations. There is no separate self that gets attached to considerations. Self is simply the resultant of this set of considerations. So, I would have to redefine the old concept of ‘attachment’ from Eastern philosophy. Attachment would be the degree of tightness among the considerations in this set. This is another way of looking at condensation among considerations.

          The more tightness is there among a set of considerations, the more solid the resultant “self” would appear to be. The less tight they are, the lighter the self would appear. One may say that there is a gradient of self. It was inaccurate to use the words ‘before’ and ‘after’ in relation to self.

          “THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.”

          I wrote that because according to wikipedia, the exact perceptual content survives for a duration of few hundred milliseconds only before it fades away. Desire is the driving force underlying perception. Perception is knowledge, which becomes subject to consideration within a few hundred milliseconds of being perceived. Maybe, I should say,

          “THIRTY-SIX: Perception is driven by a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.”

          But looks like I have already revised the section on KNOWLEDGE. I now have:

          THIRTY-ONE: Separation generates the desire to know. The desire generates perception. The perception of ‘what-is’ is Knowledge.

          There is a typo in my shell comment, which seemed to have thrown you off. What I meant was “spherical shell” I missed typing the letter “p” in the word “spherical” so it appeared as “sherical”. Sorry about that.

          The “First Cause” principle is the sudden appearance of a manifestation. Here I get the picture of an “electron-positron” pair appearing from nothing. It is the opposite of electron and positron annhilating each other into nothing. In my view, what causes this sudden appearnce is some kind of “separation” because the union leads to annhilation. “Separation” is the essential characteristic of Space. So, the sudden appearance is accompanied by space. I mentioned this at

          EIGHT: All perception is thought to involve separation from manifestation.

          NINE: Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.

          Here I was looking at the sudden emergence of the “manifestation – perception point” pair. In other words, the manifestation and perception point appeared from nothing (or, unknowable) because of some kind of separation.

          In my view, TIME is something relative. It is one duration relative to another duration. And duration comes about due to condensation as we talked about it earlier. I don’t know how durable “first principle” characteristics are, but later considerations become durable by locking into each other. So, the more attachment there is the more solid and durable something becomes.

          Considerations do come about as a result of “attachment” to “first cause” characteristics. So the “first cause” characteristics may have no duration at all. And the considerations will have increasing duration as the attachment or condensation increases.

          So TIME is an illusion that comes about because of attachment.

          This seems to lead to the conclusion that all reality is persisting because of attachment to ‘physical’. If the attachment is not there, the physical will simply evaporate.

          This is new area for me. Thank you very much for your help, Nia.

          .

        • Nia Simone  On February 4, 2013 at 9:17 PM

          Vinaire,

          I think you nailed it. I find this thrilling.

          I am going to take a peek at your maths next.

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

          It is good to know that you think that way. I have been living and breathing this stuff for years, and I have hardly scratched the surface. It is thrilling indeed!

          My math stuff is mostly for children. Do you have children?

          Math is my first love. I still tutor math, and I do it on Skype too.

          .

        • Nia Simone  On February 4, 2013 at 9:50 PM

          Hello Vinaire,

          Oh, I see. No, I do not have children (directly) and so have not yet experienced being around little ones (was the youngest in my family, by a fair amount). But I will hopefully soon have grandchildren so your math will come in handy!

          I thought perhaps you had derived and induced the mathematics of your grand unified theory of all that is. But, not yet, then. 😉

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 4, 2013 at 10:04 PM

          Ha! You expect too much.

          Well, math is just another form of logic. Actually it is pure logic. It is a limited system to ensure consistency. I am all for consistency.

          But, like logic, the usefulness of math is to determine where to look. But it does not do the looking for you. The Philosophy Project is quite mathematical actually. But is not complicated enough yet to start using mathematical symbols. I would like to keep it simple. 🙂

          .

        • Nia Simone  On February 4, 2013 at 10:33 PM

          Well said. I agree.

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM

          Looks like we are not very much attached to the Higgs particle… 🙂

        • Nia Simone  On February 10, 2013 at 10:16 AM

          Hi Vinaire,

          What do you think of the term “consciousness?” Do you think it could be a synonym for “perception?”

          Thanks,

          Nia

        • Chris Thompson  On February 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM

          I would .

        • Nia Simone  On February 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM

          Thank you, Chris. That is a help.

          Nia

        • Nia Simone  On February 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM

          If perception point is the organizing principle of the gathered considerations,
          if consciousness is the organizing principle of a cluster of considerations,
          and if a weak cluster of considerations is faded
          and a strong cluster of considerations is solid,
          then what is the perception point when the fading fades to zero
          and the solid condenses back into itself as a black hole?

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM

          I see consciousness as having the awareness of input to the senses. It is then followed by perception. Perception brings about the specifics. Consciousness is more general.

          .

        • Nia Simone  On February 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM

          Vinaire: It seems that physical are the “first cause” characteristics. These attributes simply appeared. There is no rhyme or reason underlying them.
          Vinaire: THIRTY-ONE: Separation generates the desire to know. The desire generates perception. The perception of ‘what-is’ is Knowledge

          Nia: I think that physical springs from desire to know also. But I can’t provide a proof so handily as you; perhaps you can consider?

          Warm regards,

          Nia

  • vinaire  On December 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM

    I have modified and added the following to the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT.

    .

    SELF:

    [All perception ends as knowledge. Knowledge has many layers, such as, experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms. Considerations arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge. As considerations become fixed, the perception point becomes a “center of consideration” analogous to the concept of “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF.]

    THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.

    THIRTY-SEVEN: Over time, experience is converted into information. Information then leads to hypothesis. Hypothesis generates theory. From theory are derived principles. Principles are consolidated into axioms. Axioms are then condensed and incorporated as self.

    THIRTY-EIGHT: Thus, the spectrum of knowledge consists of experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, and axioms.

    THIRTY-NINE: Considerations arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge.

    FORTY: To the degree these considerations become fixed, the perception point becomes the “center of considerations” analogous to “center of mass” in Physics. This “center of considerations” is SELF.

    .

    CONSIDERATIONS:

    [When confronted with perception, the desire to know results in interpretation, speculation, conjecture, assumption, etc. These are considerations, which acquire name and form. This then gives rise to language and human knowledge.]

    FORTY-ONE: Considerations may be categorized as interpretation, speculation, conjecture, assumption, etc.

    FORTY-TWO: Considerations are generated by a desire to know.

    FORTY-THREE: “God,” “Prime Mover Unmoved” “Uncaused Cause,” “Supreme Being,” “Unconditioned Being,” etc. become considerations when they are given name and form.

    FORTY-FOUR: Thus, considerations come into existence as name and form.

    FORTY-FIVE: Thus there is language and human knowledge.

    .

  • Jack Mckennydy  On December 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM

    Amazing!!

  • Jack Mckennydy  On December 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM

    I will never think of the world the same

    • vinaire  On December 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

      Wonderful to have you on the same wave-length. Not many people will look at it the way you and I do. 🙂

  • vinaire  On December 28, 2012 at 7:44 AM

    I have added the following to the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT:

    FILTER:

    [There is manifestation. There is perception of that manifestation when the perception-point separates from the manifestation. Thus, space is introduced. Space consists of a layer of considerations generated with the perception-point. This layer of considerations acts as a filter through which perception takes place. The filtered perception becomes the UNIVERSE. This perception-point looking through the filter becomes SELF. The self develops individuality through the generation of unique considerations.]

    FORTY-SIX: There seems to be a level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

    FORTY-SEVEN: Then we have a level of considerations generated with SELF. This provides another level of knowledge.

    FORTY-EIGHT: The second layer is generated in reaction to the first layer of knowledge. It acts as an interpretative layer over the original knowledge.

    FORTY-NINE: Thus comes about a FILTER unique to the self, which modifies perception.

    FIFTY: This filter defines the SELF. It also defines the UNIVERSE for the self. It is made up of considerations generated with the self.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 31, 2013 at 9:20 PM

    The time of space-time seems no more a secondary manifestation than does the effect of cause-effect.

  • vinaire  On February 1, 2013 at 2:32 PM

    I am revising the last few sections. The section on KNOWLEDGE is revised as follows:

    KNOWLEDGE:

    [From separation comes the desire to know. From desire comes the perception of ‘what-is’. From perception comes knowledge. The separation is manifested as space, from which come manifestations of energy and matter. The primary knowledge is perception, from which come experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, etc.]

    THIRTY-ONE: Separation generates the desire to know. The desire generates perception. The perception of ‘what-is’ is Knowledge.

    THIRTY-TWO: What is primarily manifested is separation, or space. From space come transformations, such as, energy and matter.

    THIRTY-THREE: The perception of separation is the primary knowledge. From perception come transformations, such as, experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms.

    THIRTY-FOUR: All manifestations are relative and so is their knowledge.

    THIRTY-FIVE: There is no absolute manifestation. There is no absolute knowledge.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 1, 2013 at 2:59 PM

    The section on CONSIDERATIONS is revised as follows:

    CONSIDERATIONS:

    [As perception point interacts with knowledge thoughts arise. These thoughts may be classified as ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc. These are considerations that acquire name and form.]

    THIRTY-SIX: Considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.) arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge.

    THIRTY-SEVEN: Primary considerations come from the recognition of “first cause” characteristics of manifestations.

    THIRTY-EIGHT: Secondary considerations come from the understanding of “cause and effect” relationships among manifestations.

    THIRTY-NINE: “God,” “Prime Mover Unmoved” “Uncaused Cause,” “Supreme Being,” “Unconditioned Being,” etc. are considerations that are given name and form.

    FORTY: As they acquire name and form, the considerations come into general currency.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

    The section on SELF is revised as follows:

    SELF:

    [As considerations acquire name and form they become fixed. From this come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. The perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF. Considerations give rise to judgments that seem to be coming from self.]

    FORTY-ONE: As considerations acquire name and form they develop a structure and become relatively rigid or fixed.

    FORTY-TWO: From this structure of considerations come transformations, such as, symbols, pictures, feelings, emotions, impulses, etc. Thus come about means for communication, such as, language.

    FORTY-THREE: As these considerations become relatively rigid or fixed, the perception point appears to be the center of these considerations analogous to the “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF.

    FORTY-FOUR: The perception gets filtered through the structure of considerations that make up the SELF, before it reaches the perception point.

    FORTY-FIVE: The filtered perception gives rise to judgments that seem to be coming from SELF. This determines the view of existence, the Universe and also the view of self.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM

    I have eliminated the section on FILTER for now as it is addressed under the section on SELF.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On February 8, 2013 at 9:22 PM

    Vin, This comment that “Ego, self, or thetan is the resultant vector of a grouping of interconnected considerations. As long as there are interconnected considerations, which determine logic, there would also be ego” is the cleanest statement of the mechanic of the reactive mind that I remember. At least it is helpful to me and also dovetails with your statement “self” as the center of gravity for considerations.

    • vinaire  On February 8, 2013 at 9:49 PM

      Yes, the pieces are gradually falling into place. 🙂

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On February 8, 2013 at 10:56 PM

        I assume these pieces will be obsolete by the time the picture is complete? Heisenberg’s Uncertainty would tell us that by the time we locate that moment, it will have already passed.

        The nearly extant frame of reference should gradually become more consistent until that moment when it becomes obvious that it is incomplete being overshadowed by yet another more current frame of reference. The boulder will slip and roll back to the bottom of the hill and then we can begin rolling it back up again. And yet I wonder! I feel on the precipice of inspiration but not quite but almost.

        I am looking at shifting states, I will call it energy for lack of a better metaphor. When I am feeling inspiration, when it occurs, it occurs suddenly as though by a quantum leap. First it is here, and then it is just suddenly there.

        Above when I use the language of “overshadowed” I can see how that overshadowing is language to note the shifting energy state.

        Even when I refer to “King Sisyphus” it is clear to me the physics metaphor I have incorporated.

        • vinaire  On February 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM

          It is difficult to predict anything. Intuition is always a surprise.

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On February 8, 2013 at 10:58 PM

    Metaphor has become for me like a wakeful dream-state which points to the deeper underlying physicality that is trying to float up in my consciousness.

  • Chris Thompson  On February 8, 2013 at 11:00 PM

    Mindfulness has me seeing my environment as a seething mass of mechanics as though I were inside an intricate clock mechanism looking out.

  • vinaire  On February 9, 2013 at 5:24 AM

    Chris, what do you think of the KHTK exercises in Set 2?

    KHTK EXERCISE SET 2

    .

  • vinaire  On February 10, 2013 at 8:44 PM

    Consciousness is general awareness of the input. Recognizing that input is perception.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 10, 2013 at 9:00 PM

    Nia wrote: https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7850

    Vinaire: It seems that physical are the “first cause” characteristics. These attributes simply appeared. There is no rhyme or reason underlying them.

    Vinaire: THIRTY-ONE: Separation generates the desire to know. The desire generates perception. The perception of ‘what-is’ is Knowledge

    Nia: I think that physical springs from desire to know also. But I can’t provide a proof so handily as you; perhaps you can consider?

    Warm regards,
    Nia

    .

    Space seems to be the first thing to come about with separation. Simultaneously there is a desire to know. Thus, come about perception point and manifestations to be perceived, perception, etc. Interaction among these seems to produce physical energy and matter. At this stage there is no interconnection among these manifestations, and therefore, there is no logic and no self. This is level of the physical universe.

    Later, as the perception point considers these manifestations, and develops interconnection among these considerations, there comes about logic and self.

    This is what you seem to be saying Nia. Is that right? At the moment I would go along with that.

    Wram regards,
    Vinaire

  • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 5:10 AM

    https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7849

    Hi Vinaire, What do you think of the term “consciousness?” Do you think it could be a synonym for “perception?” Thanks,
    Nia

    .

    It seems that “consciousness” is general awareness of things, and “perception” is more specific recognition of ‘what-is’.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 11, 2013 at 5:35 AM

    https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/#comment-7855

    If perception point is the organizing principle of the gathered considerations,
    if consciousness is the organizing principle of a cluster of considerations,
    and if a weak cluster of considerations is faded
    and a strong cluster of considerations is solid,
    then what is the perception point when the fading fades to zero
    and the solid condenses back into itself as a black hole?
    Nia

    .

    Here are some musings:
    Perception-point = Symbolization of the desire to know and reunite.
    Consciousness = Awareness of something being there
    Attention = Directed consciousness
    Perception = More specific awareness of ‘what-is’
    Visualization = Conjecture about ‘what-is’
    Consideration = Hypothesis about ‘what-is’
    Cluster of considerations = Theory about ‘what-is’
    Cognition = Recognition of ‘what-is’

    It seems that cognition reduces a cluster of considerations to knowing a piece of a puzzle. The perception-point persists as long as the puzzle is not solved. When the puzzle is solved, union takes place. Space disappears and so does the perception-point.

    When no cognition is occurring, the cluster of consideration seems to become bigger, condensed and solid. It seems to develop its own reality. Thus, a new layer of onion comes about.

    SELF is the onion. The outer layer is that cluster of considerations that may either get dissolved with cognition, or become more solid as a new conviction or reality.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    My thoughts are going in the following direction:

    Something that can be perceived or imagined has separated from God.

    The separation creates a duality or two opposites like electron and positron.

    The primary duality is ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’. A reunion of the two may annihilate both back to the state of God.

    The separation between the two elements of duality manifests as SPACE. Space is not perceived for what it is. This prevents reunion.

    Thus, there is the desire to know so there can be reunion.

    The desire to know generates interpretation of what-is. Thus, considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.) come about.

    The more primary the considerations are, the more stable and ‘physical’ they become. The later the considerations are the more fluid and ‘mental/spiritual’ they appear.

    Science examines the primary considerations, which appear as the physical universe.

    .

    • Nia Simone  On February 17, 2013 at 4:35 PM

      This is great. I have some more thoughts too and will try to post them later today.

      Regards,

      Nia

    • vinaire  On February 17, 2013 at 4:49 PM

      Nia, I look forward to your thoughts on this subject of knowledge.

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On February 17, 2013 at 5:08 PM

      Vinaire;

      Something that can be perceived or imagined has separated from God. check The separation creates a duality or two opposites like electron and positron. check The primary duality is ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’. A reunion of the two may annihilate both back to the state of God. check The separation between the two elements of duality manifests as SPACE. Space is not perceived for what it is. This prevents reunion. ? Thus, there is the desire to know so there can be reunion. check The desire to know generates interpretation of what-is. Thus, considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.) come about. check The more primary the considerations are, the more stable and ‘physical’ they become. The later the considerations are the more changeable and ‘mental’ they appear. check Science examines the primary considerations, which appear as the physical universe. check

      Chris: I followed that pretty good and it seems plausible enough. I didn’t understand the 4th sentence. Throughout our explorations, it seems that we either see or try to equate condensation of manifestation and density to sequencing or “time ordering” of manifestations. Is that how you see it?

      • vinaire  On February 17, 2013 at 9:09 PM

        The 4th sentence is the necessary conjecture because if it is not there then as-isness will take place and everything will vanish back into God. That is the area I need to look at more closely.

        Time is a secondary manifestation. It would exist whenever there are events taking place sequentially. Only other alternative would be that those events do not take place sequentially but occur all at once. That is a possibility.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 17, 2013 at 11:21 PM

          I’m still not getting it. “Space not perceived for what it is.” What is it?

  • Nia Simone  On February 18, 2013 at 2:50 AM

    Hi Vinaire and Chris,

    This is a very long post and I’m sorry it’s not more worked out but I have gone as far as I can on it alone, so here it all is. Thank you, in advance, for your indulgence.

    These last posts are very rich in content; I have been working a different line of thought and I think it touches on one aspect of your post:

    Vinaire (original), [The primary duality is ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’. A reunion of the two may annihilate both back to the state of God.]

    Vinaire: The 4th sentence (2nd in the excerpt here) is the necessary conjecture because if it is not there then as-isness will take place and everything will vanish back into God. That is the area I need to look at more closely.

    Now, here are my musings:

    Clear statement of the problem: What is really happening when things disappear? When they annihilate and vanish back into God? What I referred to in this question:

    NIA: what is the perception point when the fading fades to zero?

    Restating definitions:

    (Of course, there is the huge question of what you mean, Vinaire, by symbolization (Perception-point definition)!! But I’d like just to accept that for now.)

    Vinaire: Perception-point = Symbolization of the desire to know and reunite. Nia: Accepted
    Vinaire: Consciousness = Awareness of something being there. Nia: Agreed
    Vinaire: Attention = Directed consciousness. Nia: Agreed
    Vinaire: Perception = More specific awareness of ‘what-is’. Nia: Agreed
    Vinaire: Visualization = Conjecture about ‘what-is’. Nia: Accepted.
    Vinaire: Consideration = Hypothesis about ‘what-is’. Nia: Agreed
    Vinaire: Cluster of considerations = Theory about ‘what-is’. Nia: Agreed.
    Vinaire: Cognition = Recognition of ‘what-is’. Agreed.

    Vinaire: When no cognition is occurring, the cluster of consideration seems to become bigger, condensed and solid. It seems to develop its own reality. Thus, a new layer of onion comes about.
    SELF is the onion. The outer layer is that cluster of considerations that may either get dissolved with cognition, or become more solid as a new conviction or reality.

    I had a problem with this part:

    VINAIRE: become more solid as a new conviction or reality

    This introduces a new one or two terms not defined in above list and represents a leap, I think. A new conviction or reality is neither a cluster of considerations nor cognition, so what is it? But setting that aside for a moment, using all your definitions and to go after the question of what is really happening when things disappear… When they annihilate and vanish back into God?

    This is such a confusing question and for some random reason I thought of the Laplace Transform from Mathematics, which I always thought was a brilliant technique for problem solving.

    Paraphrasing the Laplace Transform and abusing it for this purpose: If a problem is too difficult to solve, transform it into another space where it is soluble, then transform it back. Now you have the solution in your original space.

    Using that idea to explore my question, we could transform the problem into a space defined as having no time. Now we just have the onion (of SELF) in space, without time.

    This eliminates the confusion of the apparent sequencing of events in time. I think that time keeps getting in the way, so get rid of it long enough to explore the question without confusing ourselves. Vinaire, you have done an incredible job of keeping time out of the formal statements but I think it’s a paradigm issue that’s hard to avoid. Here you are thinking and I’ve capitalized the time issues:

    VINAIRE: The 4th sentence (2nd in the excerpt for this) is the necessary conjecture because if it is not there then as-isness WILL take place and everything WILL vanish back into God. That is the area I need to look at more closely.

    Borrowing from Mr. Laplace’s little bag of tricks, transform any number of problems into a space (in the sense of problem space, not the space we talk about here) without the time dimension and examine those problems there and then bring them back into the problem space that has the time dimension.

    The first thing I looked at in this time-less space was SELF. And also what really happens when things, considerations let’s say to be consistent in terminology, disappear?

    First, borrowing from your metaphor, Vinaire, SELF exists as an onion in this space.

    In this space, we have eliminated time, so each layer of SELF exists. (No layer dissolves from cognition, because without time, there can be no change.)

    All of the components in the list exist, statically except cognition:

    Perception-point
    Consciousness
    Attention
    Perception
    Visualization
    Consideration
    Cluster of considerations
    Cognition?

    Cognition might not exist without time. I’ll assume it doesn’t, for now, and leave it off the list.

    All considerations exist simultaneously.

    The Perception point (desire to know), exists.

    So, desire to know exists.

    Desire to know could arguably be at the center of the SELF onion. But set that aside for now.

    Bring the onion back to our problem space, which has time, and now the onion is in motion with cognition blowing away layers all the time until eventually the whole SELF onion reaches full cognition (at death) and merges back, disappears. MAYBE.

    But does desire to know also go away at that point?

    I don’t think so. Let’s go back to the timeless space. Take this new snapshot of the imaginary onion of SELF, right at the point when total cognition has occurred and transform it back to our space that has no time.

    Now the list looks like this (maybe):

    Perception-point GONE (so desire to know is gone)
    Consciousness GONE
    Attention GONE
    Perception GONE
    Visualization GONE
    Consideration GONE
    Cluster of considerations GONE
    Cognition? STILL THERE

    All that’s left is cognition.

    So, cognition exists after annihilation.

    Now, bring the only thing from the onion that still exists, cognition, back to the problem space that includes time.

    Cognition… what does it do next? It separates and desires to know.

    What I’m getting at, or trying to get at it, is something of the SELF persists, I think, and perhaps it is cognition. Perhaps our eternal, individual cognition moves through various perception points as it cycles through this process.

    Other thoughts I’m pondering:

    What composes the space? Is it consciousness? What is the atmosphere or space in which the onion exists?

    Thank you again, and warm regards,

    Nia

    • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 6:07 AM

      Hmmmmm! The first thought that came to me is I need to look up Laplace Transform. It is about time. The second thought is that Nia, you provide a new angle of looking. It is wonderful.

      Thanks.

      .

      • Nia Simone  On February 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM

        Hi Vinaire,

        Thank you! Like the new additions today too. Will contemplate.

        Have a nice day.

        Nia

    • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 6:18 AM

      Let me put the above sequence of definitions against the sequence in INCONSISTENCY

      Perception
      Experience
      Information
      Hypothesis
      Theory
      Principles
      Axioms
      Self

      I don’t know if it would lead to anything or not… but we’ll see because here we are looking at that onion too.

      .

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On February 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM

      Nia: This eliminates the confusion of the apparent sequencing of events in time.

      Chris: This sequencing is one of the enigmas that I wrestle. You see, when I look at this sequencing discretely, I have no particular feeling for what occurs at the beginning or the end of the frame, nor what then hooks the frames together – I have no intuition of what comprises the film strip tying the frames together. But if I look at it continuously, then I get a cyclical; rotating; spinning sensation to the sequencing of frames. I don’t think it has to be one or the other or neither or both – to the degree that we acquire paradox then I lean toward neither with possibly a bit of each plus something else going on.

      I’m not sure that taking time down to the zero helps me, though I do it too… Please tell me more where you are going with that thought.

      Oh, and the Laplace Transform? So over my head, although your description of taking a complicated problem to a simpler place to solve and then replacing it is very much how I naturally solve problems.

      • Nia Simone  On February 21, 2013 at 12:19 AM

        Hi Chris,

        That’s all I meant by the Laplace Transform, what you do naturally. It was a discontinuous leap of intuition though. It wasn’t an idea that developed from the step-by-step reasoning that led up to it. Differential equations is an area of Calculus that is built up step-by-step and gets to this point where all the preceding steps won’t solve the new problem. And this mathematician comes up with something totally out of the blue. That’s one point, and the other, the reason I brought up something so obscure, is that if you have solved a few differential equations (“Diffie Qs,” as we called them), then you are familiar with the feeling you get when you have changed the underlying assumptions upon which you are working the problems and as a result of that change the problem becomes easy. Then you transform it back, using the mathematical manipulation, into the place (as defined by underlying assumptions) you started. You bring back the problem and it is solved. It’s like a miracle.

        This was what I wanted to use here and which finally helped me to understand several gigantic pieces of the puzzle.

        One more note on Mr. Laplace: To even realize that underlying assumptions exist and that those might be limiting your ability to solve the problem, is amazing, and is applicable to what we’re doing here.

        CHRIS: I have no particular feeling for what occurs at the beginning or the end of the frame, nor what then hooks the frames together – I have no intuition of what comprises the film strip tying the frames together. But if I look at it continuously, then I get a cyclical; rotating; spinning sensation to the sequencing of frames. I don’t think it has to be one or the other or neither or both – to the degree that we acquire paradox then I lean toward neither with possibly a bit of each plus something else going on.
        I’m not sure that taking time down to the zero helps me, though I do it too… Please tell me more where you are going with that thought.

        NIA: Okay, the zero thing comes in handy here: Chris: have no particular feeling for what occurs at the beginning or the end of the frame, nor what then hooks the frames together – I have no intuition of what comprises the film strip tying the frames together.

        Yes, you are right, it’s a paradox, but let’s poke at it anyway. Who says you can’t poke at a paradox? It’s my favorite thing to do. What is it? What is tying the frames together? What happens between these frames? My answer is manifestation. The seemingly continuous nature of it is probably created by the perception point. I don’t think manifestation is in and of itself tied together in a cause-effect or sequential manner. I think there are manifestations and perception point organizes them according to its filters.

        CHRIS: continuously, then I get a cyclical; rotating; spinning sensation to the sequencing of frames.

        NIA: Yes!! Just trying to get myself out of the washing machine long enough to think…. that’s why I did the transform into a problem space without time. But yes, this sensation you have, I think it’s just right. Things (discrete manifestations) resolve so often to sine waves and other kinds of waves so often, in math, and when you are somebody who is observing reality so carefully as you are, perhaps when you relax your focus enough to let the discrete manifestations run together, you see a cyclical effect. The fact that you see this “rotating” and “cyclical”, which is described (graphed) in Calculus as waves, suggests you are seeing manifestations not just from the sharply focused perception point that most have. That relaxation of your focus to see the waves, is perhaps because you are seeing manifestations from multiple perception points or at least from a very relaxed, open, single perception point.

        Back to zero. And infinity. We can be assisted in seeing what’s happening on the margins of the frames by the idea of integration in Calculus. When you are looking very carefully at manifestation and trying to get to where it stopped being B and was first A, you are looking at the margin between manifestation A and manifestation B and you are slicing time as thinly as you possibly can as you approach the margin between the two manifestations.

        Integration is basically a Calculus definition or concept that involved a bit of a leap of faith. The idea is that you are cutting the curve (manifestation in our investigation) into smaller and smaller fractions as you’re trying to get closer and closer to the absolute beginning of the manifestation. You keep cutting the manifestation B in half. You’re getting as close to 0 as possible, to get to the start of Manifestation B. So you are making the slices smaller and smaller as you approach 0. 1/2 , 1/3, ¼, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7… Now the leap which gave us integral Calculus, what happens if you imagine the limit as when the denominator is infinity and the therefore the size is 0?

        In Calculus, this limit gets solved and used in formulas to figure out stuff in engineering and physics, etc. But for our purposes, let’s keep going, there is a point at which you can add up all of the slices under the curve and get pretty close to the actual curve. That’s called Simpsons Rule, the first guy who was adding up small slices under the curve so you could then use the curve itself in formulas. Already this was useful.

        Then, the inventors of Calculus made the leap with the concept of taking the limit of the function as the denominator approached infinity. Instead of adding up all the lines under the curve, as Simpson did, they smoothed it all the way by inventing this concept of the behavior of the function at the LIMIT just before the denominator reaches infinity.

        I apologize if this is old hat to you, but it is, I think, a useful concept from mathematics that can help.

        In summary, I think that manifestations are discreet and only resolve into continuity because of perception point looking at it through a set of filters. Our life experience I think of as a sort of soft focus because we remember things and build continuity of events in our memory, and we construct cause-and-effect, and we do all of this with our own considerations and the important filter of time.

        If you get rid of time, you could look at all of these manifestations sort of frozen out there in space with no relationship between them. It’s an interesting way to look at them. And you may discover new things. And then you can turn time back on (transform the thing you looked at back into the space that has time as a dimension or filter) and you will still be able to see whatever it is that you learned in the temporarily frozen experiment.

        One of the things I learned out there is that manifestations can actually be rearranged.

        And that Integral Calculus is just another filter that makes many things appear as waves, which is useful to us, just as having a sense of time, continuity and cause and effect are useful to us.

        But in actuality, we can see an event “before it happens,” if we go into that other space, because since there’s no time there, the event already exists. There is no “before it happens.”

        • Chris Thompson  On February 21, 2013 at 7:24 AM

          Nia: what happens if you imagine the limit as when the denominator is infinity and the therefore the size is 0?

          Chris: I got into this discussion on another blog whether .999… = 1. The opinions were split 1/2 and 1/2 right down the middle… among math guys. To me, discussing truth (consistency), I say no, it’s not equal. Of course, I’m not a math guy and it is equal for any practical purpose, Vinnie taught me that. And in your example of numerator being infinity, then I say the numerator must be infinity for the result to be zero. But practically? Sorry, I’m already out of steam this morning and thinking about the day’s work… I will put more time on this after while…

        • Chris Thompson  On February 21, 2013 at 7:26 AM

          Nia: I apologize if this is old hat to you, but it is, I think, a useful concept from mathematics that can help.

          Chris: Don’t apologize, this is not old hat for me. I’m going to spend more time on your post tonight.

      • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 5:41 AM

        Nia, this is an excellent explanation and a beautiful tie up between mathematics and philosophy.

        What comes to my mind here is a computer program. The transform is like getting out of the computer program (where one is subject to time) and looking at the source code of the computer program (where time is frozen).

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 21, 2013 at 8:27 AM

          Vin: What comes to my mind here is the source code of a computer program. The transform is like getting out of the computer program (where one is subject to time) and looking at the source code of the computer program (where time is frozen).

          Chris: Ah, now I get it.

        • Nia Simone  On February 21, 2013 at 7:01 PM

          Wow, I never would have thought about that! A great analogy, the source code! You and Chris always make me see things differently.

          Thank you for the compliment. 🙂

          Nia

  • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 7:38 AM

    Somehow I feel that to understand SPACE we need to look at the basic concepts in mathematics. I have started looking at them here:

    Concepts in Arithmetic (Numbers)

    .

  • vinaire  On February 19, 2013 at 6:32 AM

    I am looking at modifying the section on Perception as follows:

    SIX: MANIFESTATION is thought to be there. It is what is perceived.

    SEVEN: Perception is thought to involve a “perception point”. Thus there is the consideration of SELF.

    EIGHT: Self is thought to be separate from manifestation. Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.

    NINE: Perception, primarily, is thought to involve the considerations of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION.

    TEN: Perception appears to be THOUGHT considering itself. Consideration acts as a filter.

    What do you say?

    It introduces the new dimension of THOUGHT (unknowable or not!).

    .

  • Nia Simone  On February 19, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    Hi Vinaire,

    You have dropped the element of time! Bravo! The statements are all static now. It’s brilliant.

    It’s closer to your original, which I always liked. You have added thought to the original. It’s an enhancement to just “is”. An important one. It allows us to get a closer look at the “atmosphere” of existence.

    SIX: MANIFESTATION is thought to be there. It is what is perceived.
    Nia: Nice and static.

    SEVEN: Perception is thought to involve a “perception point”. Thus there is the consideration of SELF.
    Nia: Yes, outward looking. Perception point is the center of the self.

    EIGHT: Self is thought to be separate from manifestation. Thus there is the consideration of SPACE.
    Nia: Yes, perfect.

    NINE: Perception, primarily, is thought to involve the considerations of SELF, SPACE and MANIFESTATION.
    Nia: Yes, perfect.

    TEN: Perception appears to be THOUGHT considering itself. Consideration acts as a filter.
    Nia: Would leave off last sentence as filter isn’t defined until later.

  • vinaire  On February 20, 2013 at 11:02 PM

    I am looking at modifying the section on EXISTENCE as follows:

    ELEVEN: Manifestations, self, and space are thought to be present. Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.

    TWELVE: Perception implies existence. There can never be perception of what does not exist.

    THIRTEEN: Existence is perception of manifestation. In absence of perception existence cannot be determined.

    FOURTEEN: Existence continues with manifestations changing continually.

    FIFTEEN: Existence may appear to be permanent, but nothing that exists is permanent. And that is the actual reality.

    Please check this out carefully for any repetition.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On February 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM

      This is really good work as your statements seem to be getting cleaner and cleaner. A couple thoughts are:

      Existence can be perceived discretely or continuously and also as both. The paradoxical quality of these perceptions point to as yet unnamed quality.

      Existence can be perceived to begin and to end, but this is an apparency as what is before the beginning and after the ending is unknowable.

      Existence seems to be perceived from a distance and thus the sense of a viewpoint is born.

      The perception of this distance can change. The sense of this change in can be discrete or continuous. When this sense is discrete, location is born. When the sense is continuous, motion is born.

      The sense of motion and of location are antipathetic to one another.

      Motion, a continuous idea, is firmly attached to rate which is defined as a discrete unit of distance per discrete unit of time.

      Motion is always expressed as rate.

      Continuity is the imagination of: The unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time. Also the state of stability and the absence of disruption.

      Location can be thought of as here and there and also of continuously changing. But the perception point can never be other than discretely here.

      Vin, I dashed these off in 20 minutes but getting them out is a process which drains me. The longer I write, the slower I go. I don’t know how you have the energy for this like you do. I experience fatigue and not sure why. As you can see, my statements get weaker meaning less consistent as they continue. There is something basic at work in this observation and seems related to Godel’s incompleteness. I seem to be able to write a consistent statement. Then striving for; reaching for some type of completeness, I seem to stretch out over multiple points of view, hold them still, and become tired. The metaphor would be making a single brush stroke with a dipped paint brush until it runs out of paint. The dryness of the brush being my fatigue.

  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 2:22 PM

    Here is another attempt at looking at EXISTENCE:

    ELEVEN: Manifestations, self, and space are thought to be present. Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.

    TWELVE: When we try to view self, it becomes manifestation. And a new self seems to be created. Thus, neither manifestation nor self seems to be permanent.

    THIRTEEN: The only element that may seem to be permanent is separation or space. But space is there only as long as manifestation and self are there.

    FOURTEEN: Thus, existence is relative only. Existence is not absolute.

    FIFTEEN: Existence is perception. Hallucinations exist as hallucinations.

    I am trying to contemplate the fundamentals of existence.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 7:34 AM

    Alright, so what is Existence?

    FIFTEEN: Existence is the sum total of considerations..

    Now we need to look at considerations.

    .

    • Nia Simone  On February 22, 2013 at 8:16 AM

      Good. Another thing I’d like to look at is light.

      • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 8:33 AM

        To me, light is the disturbance in the fabric of space. Space is the consideration of separation between manifestation and self.

        Light appears to be a second degree function, whereas the first degree function is consideration. Light seems to be the consideration considering itself. It is the beginning of the journey down the rabbit hole. It is the beginning of the condensation of consideration into increasing solidity and endurance.

        .

        • Nia Simone  On February 22, 2013 at 9:44 AM

          NIA’s theory: Light = Consciousness = Awareness of something being there.
          VINAIRE: Light = the beginning of the condensation of consideration into increasing solidity and endurance.

          NIA’s alternative (contradictory) theory: Light is already there. Consciousness and light are there. Perception-point can occur because consciousness and light exist.

          Re sorting the list of definitions:

          Static definitions:
          Consciousness = Awareness of something being there.
          Light = Consciousness
          Manifestation = knowledge up to formation of self. It is thought to be there.

          Definitions that require change and therefore time:
          Self = Thought to be separate from manifestation.
          Perception-point = Symbolization of the desire to know and reunite.
          Attention = Directed consciousness.
          Perception = More specific awareness of ‘what-is’.
          Visualization = Conjecture about ‘what-is’.
          Consideration = Hypothesis about ‘what-is’.
          Cluster of considerations = Theory about ‘what-is’. Cognition = Recognition of ‘what-is’. (Cognition causes annihilation.)

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM

          Ahh! I was thinking of light in terms of the electromagnetic wave. That way it is something physical that aids perception.

          There also seems to be confusion between ‘what-is’ and ‘consideration.’

          The original confusion may be due to non-acceptance of NOTHING. Nothing is known about nothing. That is unacceptable, so something is assumed about nothing. This may be the original disturbance.

          This would be like the emergence of the ‘limit’ of a path or function as being discussed at Concepts in Arithmetic (Numbers). This becomes the ‘seed’. The ‘integral’ of this seed then unfolds as a path or function.

          Whether this ‘seed’ is a consideration or not, is not known. But once it is there and perceived, further considerations appear about it along the path of how it unfolds. This is where all the above definitions come in.

          There seems to be harmonics of those definitions coming into play as the unfolding takes place. This unfolding shoots out like a ray. Maybe that forms the light. I don’t know. This all is a conjecture.

          In this business, I am always ready to throw away whatever I have thought earlier. Ha, ha!

          .

        • Nia Simone  On February 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

          I like the new theorems. They seem right.

          But just for fun, I’d like to look at your first reply. https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/?replytocom=8125#comment-8125

          Very interesting about the “original disturbance.”

          I think there is light we don’t perceive. That our physical senses only perceive a small portion of the spectrum.

          I don’t think nothing really exists or that space is really empty.

          I think there is consciousness/light extent in “empty space.”

          I agree thought, the desire to reunite, perhaps as you say the inability to conceive of Nothing, creates space. Space is a joint effort of all thinkers though, not just one. Let’s say space is a collaborative result of all things extent. Instead of introducing “thinkers” let’s stick with “all things extent” or just all that is.

          All that is, is space, is embedded in every smallest particle of the universe, at the smallest scale. All that is, is light, of which we only perceive with our physical senses, a small bit but of which we can perceive more, with our inner senses and knowing. (That’s a leap, sorry, let’s put on hold for now.)

          VINAIRE: Whether this ‘seed’ is a consideration or not, is not known. But once it is there and perceived, further considerations appear about it along the path of how it unfolds. This is where all the above definitions come in.

          NIA: Okay, I think you are saying all the definitions are in one category instead of two, as I had proposed (separating that out among static and changing). Then Consciousness, Light, and Manifestation are considerations too and that I am incorrect, that the Nothing is inconceivable but does exist and the emergence of separation or the seed is inexplicable.

          Basically, I think we disagree about Nothing. (Now THAT is semantically tricky. LOL) I mean to say, I think Nothing is full of everything except time.

          I agree about the imbalance and resultant disturbance and the beginning of all considerations. That’s brilliant.

          That disturbance is the introduction of time. Then all the unfolding of considerations starting more considerations, is right, I think.

          I think light and consciousness exist, without time, in Zero or Nothing. That’s why when you approach zero, you shoot off to infinite, which is everything. But when you get to ZERO you lose TIME. Everything is static there, in ZERO, but light/consciousness exist there.

          I guess I’d move manifestation out of static into changing. Also I would redefine consciousness to support my theory better. 😉

          So the list would be:

          Static definitions:
          Consciousness = Awareness [DELETE: of something being there.]
          Light = Consciousness
          Nothing = Static, unchanging Consciousness (and Light)

          Definitions that require change and therefore time:

          Manifestation = knowledge up to formation of self. It is thought to be there.
          Self = Thought to be separate from manifestation.
          Perception-point = Symbolization of the desire to know and reunite.
          Attention = Directed consciousness.
          Perception = More specific awareness of ‘what-is’.
          Visualization = Conjecture about ‘what-is’.
          Consideration = Hypothesis about ‘what-is’.
          Cluster of considerations = Theory about ‘what-is’. Cognition = Recognition of ‘what-is’. (Cognition causes annihilation.)

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM

          The universe seems to come about because ‘nothing’ is an unacceptable or unstable state.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM

          Vin: The universe seems to come about because ‘nothing’ is an unacceptable or unstable state.

          Chris: Wildest conjecture today, but the day is still young.

        • Nia Simone  On February 22, 2013 at 2:33 PM

          And I’m conjecturing wildly instead of working on my novel. This Nothing is just too unstable and pulls for consideration more strongly than anything else!

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 2:42 PM

          Nia: And I’m conjecturing wildly instead of working on my novel. This Nothing is just too unstable and pulls for consideration more strongly than anything else!

          Chris: Yes it does. There seems to be a clue in that for me.

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM

          That is why good mystery novels really sell!

          .

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 2:08 PM

          How about ‘unknowable’ being unacceptable?

          Ha, ha.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 2:15 PM

          Vin: “How about ‘unknowable’ being unacceptable? Ha, ha.

          Chris: Totally. When you wife asks you what you’ve been up to today and you say “ohh, nuthinggg.” Then laugh at unknowable.

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 2:24 PM

          Oh! She already knows that I am good for nothing.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 2:38 PM

          Tell her she “can’t know that!” (OMG I hope she doesn’t read your blog!)

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 2:46 PM

          No, she doesn’t read my blog because it is good for nothing and I just waste my time.

          So, you are safe!

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 2:48 PM

          whew! what a relief. That has leveled an inconsistency for me… the inconsistency of being found out!

  • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM

    Here is another attempt:

    ELEVEN: Manifestations, self, and space are thought to be present. Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.

    TWELVE: Manifestation is what is perceived. Self is what perceives. Space makes perception possible.

    THIRTEEN: That this is so is a consideration.

    FOURTEEN: Existence is the sum total of considerations perceived.

    FIFTEEN: Existence is relative and not absolute.

    .

    I like it because it is simple, consistent and elegant.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM

      Interesting context, ” . . . considerations perceived.”

      I think I get it.

    • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 2:53 PM

      TWELVE: Manifestation is what is perceived. Self is what perceives. Space makes perception possible.

      3 in 1 — did you purposely group these three?

      • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 3:11 PM

        It just followed from what went earlier.

        Also, when you look at ‘self’ or ‘space’, they become manifestations. So, self and space cannot be perceived as such, only the consideration of it may be perceived.

        .

  • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM

    This is in response to Chris

    whew! what a relief. That has leveled an inconsistency for me… the inconsistency of being found out!

    .

    I know you are joking, but this reminds me of the concept of WITHHOLD from Scientology. Why do people withhold?

    I think that people WITHHOLD because they are uncertain of the outcome if certain information is known. Therefore, they imagine an outcome which is unacceptable to them, and this prevents them from releasing the information.

    That imagined outcome is probably justified by the circumstances in which that information would be released. So, the withhold is relative to the circumstance. It does not necessarily mean that what is being withheld is bad.

    It simply means that one should not blame oneself for withholding something. One simply has to adjust the parameters of circumstances in which to release the information. Part of this readjustment would be to learn from what one is withholding by sorting out all associated inconsistencies in one’s mind.

    .

  • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

    In response to Nia:

    It is obvious that we all have six senses: five are physical, and the sixth is mental. We just need to sharpen our senses and we would be able to perceive all that there is.

    We are intelligent enough to make instruments and combine it with looking (per KHTK) to pretty much perceive what we suspect to be there but don’t perceive with our physical senses. So, what kind of light you suspect to be there, which we do not perceive?

    Space is something; space is not nothing. Space is a medium that has certain properties, which determine the speed of light in space.

    There are electromagnetic waves in space, which I see as a disturbance in the fabric of space, similar to ripples that come about when a stone is dropped in a sill pond. I still have to ponder upon consciousness being an earlier harmonic of physical light.

    You bring up the point of “thinker”, which is interesting. What is a thinker? According to current KHTK model, a “thinker” would be a perception-point that is dissociated with considerations to some degree, and which is now examining those considerations for what they are. It is not making any logical associations. It is rather dissociating whatever associations there are to grasp the underlying layer of considerations.

    [To be continued…]

    • Nia Simone  On February 22, 2013 at 8:21 PM

      Hi Vinaire,

      You’re leading right into my next question with this:
      similar to ripples that come about when a stone is dropped in a sill pond.

      I will get back to you with thinker and light. I have had a sort of amazing breakthrough after this morning’s speculation here. Will be back to tell you.

      Cheers,

      Nia

      • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 9:09 PM

        Oh! I love a happy contributor to this blog. 🙂

        .

    • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 10:01 PM

      In response to Nia (continued):

      .

      So, the “thinker” is essentially the “desire to unite” that is looking beyond the “conditioned” associations of our thoughts (which act as filters). The “desire to unite” seems to be the tension created with separation. Maybe, after the union occurs, the “desire to unite” will swing to the other side and will become the desire to create (separation). This is just a thought from the model in my mind. Looks like the ultimate phenomenon is also wave-like.

      The prime illusion seems to be that of the “doughnut hole” or self. Even the “perception-point” is a “doughnut hole” where the doughnut is the “desire to unite”. So, let’s look at any idea resembling some kind of a “self” with caution. It is apparent only because of something else. There is no “Vinaire.” Vinaire is apparent only because of some tightly knit considerations in operation. This is easier to see when interacting on Internet, as the body is not there causing distraction.

      So, we’ll take your suggestion to not get distracted with the idea of thinkers, and look directly at the considerations.

      To me, the disturbance called light converts into photon as it tries to move faster than the “speed of light”. A photon is the resultant “shock”. Maybe there is similar reason behind the creation of other particles. The Higg’s field is basically another name given to the old concept of ether as the fabric of space.

      The disturbance is something of a higher degree that moves relative to whatever field acts as the fabric of space. It is internal to the structure of space. What is the structure of space? All particles seems to precipitate from space.

      Backing to earlier harmonics, a thought may be looked upon as a particle that precipitates from some kind of an earlier harmonic of space. What could that be, I have no idea. I am just going by the principle of harmonics.

      Both static and non-static are considerations. Time is also a consideration. I do see manifestations, perception-point (self), space, disturbance, light, etc., all as some kind of consideration. Consideration is being used in a very general sense. In actuality there is a very wide range of considerations similar to wide range of fgrequencies in an electromagnetic spectrum. Sorry, I am not being very precise. I am just trhrowing these ideas out. Some of them might stick.

      I am sure there are many categories of considerations, and we are going to run into them very soon, but at this stage the general idea of consideration might suffice.

      There is a lot to understand about Nothing. We may just be scratching the surface of it at the moment. There may be infinity of earlier harmonics of what we are calling considerations. These harmonics may be stretching back into Nothing but we have not uncovered them yet. Time may have harmonics too. All this makes the mind boggle. This is the effect of fractal whose structure is yet unknown.

      I am glad that you are keeping track of all those definitions. That is the organized author in you. Maybe you could make a mystery novel out all this deep abstraction that we are looking at.

      More power to you.

      Affectionately,
      Vinaire

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 11:04 PM

        Good synopsis.

      • Nia Simone  On February 23, 2013 at 10:03 AM

        Hi Vinaire,

        Well this is a very juicy post with lots of ideas I can’t wait to dig into!!

        Thank you for the idea of the mystery. I have a book idea that came to me in December. Then I had a breakthrough thought a couple weeks ago from what I’ve learned here (forgot to mention that, sorry) and it showed me the conceptual framework for that book. Genre… I was thinking romance (always!) with a sci-fi twist… I NEVER would have thought about a mystery! (They’ve always intimidated me, but maybe I could do it.) So thank you!

        I have a busy day but I will be back, probably Monday, to engage in these ideas and explain my two breakthroughs from what I learned here and how they helped me with my writing.

        Quickly, yes, the Internet makes it easier to engage mentally and what a miracle it is indeed. Here we’ve pondered many things separately in our lives but with the Internet… somehow Chris found my blog and here we are, bringing our different backgrounds (and talents) together in this exploration.

        Before, I thought I had it all figured out, at least all I needed to know. Now, I realize that by going into further depth and to the outer reaches, my life and my work expand greatly.

        Warmly,

        Nia

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2013 at 11:23 AM

          Nia: Before, I thought I had it all figured out, at least all I needed to know. Now, I realize that by going into further depth and to the outer reaches, my life and my work expand greatly.

          Chris: That is a paradox busting realization.

        • Nia Simone  On February 23, 2013 at 7:22 PM

          And paradigm busting too.

        • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2013 at 7:58 PM

          Oops… That’s actually what I really meant!

        • Nia Simone  On February 23, 2013 at 8:03 PM

          Okay, now I totally get it, and agree!

      • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM

        Ha! Now we have two happy participants of KHTK… Chris and Nia. We are expanding.

        Isn’t it amazing how different talents can harmonize so well with each other, when focus is placed on the subject and not on participants! All discussions go bust when one puts the attention on the “doughnut hole” and not on the doughnut as covered in Discussions and what needs to be avoided

        There should be no consideration (which is a part of the doughnut) so sacrosanct that it cannot be examined. If there is an inconsistency then one should be able to examine everything associated with it unconditionally. Even when one doesn’t voice it externally, one should be able to examine it internally. Why hide anything from oneself?

        I like romance. I like adventure. I like mystery. But all in good taste. I love clarity. I love consistency. I love beautiful minds. I love the essence of things. The outer layers can be beautiful but there is much more beauty and grace that goes deep.

        I would love to know, Nia, what these discussions inspire in you to write. Yes, it is amazing how we three happened to meet. Without Internet that would not have been possible. And you have been a wonderful participant.

        Chris has been a wnderful participant too. Three is company. Now I can look forward to expanding this KHTK group on Internet. The more the merrier.

        Warmly,
        Vinaire

  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM

    Buckminster Fuller said:

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

    .

    • Nia Simone  On February 23, 2013 at 9:15 PM

      Buckie! I haven’t heard from him in awhile! Thanks!

      By the way, more amazing things happened today. I explained my breakthrough to a new friend and fellow writer and her eyes sprang wide open and she practically ditched me at lunch to rush home and write and she’s going to tell her critique partner who also has problems with the blank page and she wants me to teach a workshop!

      And I didn’t think I could even explain it.

    • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 9:20 PM

      Ha! I love your enthusiasm! How did you explain it?

      .

      • Nia Simone  On February 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM

        I’m going to tell you all this as soon as I meet my 2 week writing goal. I have to report to my critique partners tomorrow and I’m way behind. Mostly due to returning changes to an editor who is interested in a story of mine. So that’s legit, but still, I have to earn the right to come out and play again. Monday at the latest.

      • vinaire  On February 24, 2013 at 5:17 AM

        OK. I am sure you’ll be able to manage it.

        .

        • Nia Simone  On February 25, 2013 at 12:53 PM

          Hello Vinaire and Chris,

          So, the last 2 weeks. Paradigms: when one falls, more seem to follow.

          But when a paradigm falls and we accept a new paradigm, we have the freedom to pick up the old paradigm and keep it. With knowledge there is the power of true choice.

          It’s going to take some time to go over your big post, Vinaire (https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/philosophy-project/?replytocom=8203#comment-8162). [It would be nice if you could format that into a tidy link, not sure how to do.]

          Today I’ll start with Thinker, hoping eventually to get to Harmonics and the ripples in the pond.

          Thinker: You abstract it to the point that I think we agree, but then, I am not sure. To be clear, I do not mean human being by Thinker. I think the smallest particle of the universe has consciousness, or in your terms, desire to know. Possibly we differ on this premise. It’s a hidden assumption that influences subsequent musings, so important to understand. When you think Thinker, do you think person, human?

          Now for the breakthroughs I have had from this engagement here on The Philosophy Project and Concepts in Arithmetic (Numbers):

          That the fertile imagination within our minds is like the fertile atmosphere that nurtures our existence. As life springs forth exuberantly with the purpose of fulfilling its greatest potential in an environment that nurtures the greatest degree of fulfillment of that potential, so too may our observations and perceptions enter the fertile and supportive atmosphere of a clear, attentive mind and give rise to new thoughts, ideas and creativity in never-ending, fulfillment of potential.

          That we, our bodies and minds project forth from the eternal source and so are of its nature, living extensions with unique ever-changing perspectives, highly focused and adding to the source behind, before and around us, and we do this just by being, and the more present and aware we are, the more sensitive and open we are, the more we are like it, the more we are our true selves and the more that which we create achieves our greatest potential.

          For when we align ourselves with an open and quiet mind, like tidepools, we are open to the waters of reality to fill us with the perfect expressions of a particular focus, with as much of the ocean-of-reality’s greatest potential as our pool will allow at that time and focus,. And that those waters are always changing, filling us with perfected potentials in an ever changing, fluid match to the shape our pool takes in that moment of focus.

          All that will be already exists and by looking at the transformed reality with time eliminated, we can see all that is, possible events and physical objects, for all are only possible, not predetermined, and we can choose and select from among them, transform ourselves back into a timeframe and align ourselves with those objects we have chosen, moment by moment, until, in time, they manifest themselves in our lives.

          For example, the completed book already exists and we just need to align ourselves with it, in an iterative and ever-closer approximation until it is fulfilled, like a sculptor chiseling away the stone until the ideal sculpture, the one chosen by the artist, of all possible completed forms, is realized and released.

          That when we align ourselves with our chosen, perfect fulfillments, resistance ceases to exist, the outer shell that separates us from perfection annihilates, and the perfection manifests.

          As ever, thank you for stimulating these exciting new realizations and co-exploring “…all experience [which] is an arch wherethro’/Gleams that untravell’d world whose margin fades/For ever and for ever when I move.” (Alfred Lord Tennyson, Ulysses, 1833)

          Warm regards,

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM

          Hi Nia, you can embed a long link under a phrase as follows (Note: I shall use ‘[‘ and ‘]’ in place of ” respectively):

          [a href=”long_link”]phrase[/a]

          Make sure you use ” where ‘[‘ and ‘]’ are used above.

          The ‘long_link’ shall be embedded under ‘phrase’.

          Check this out: Vinay’s link

          Now try doing this yourself.

          .

        • vinaire  On February 25, 2013 at 9:38 PM

          Nia, this is a lovely statement: “With knowledge there is the power of true choice.”

          To me, ‘thinker’ means the perception-point which symbolizes the ‘desire to know’. This perception point may attach itself to particles and considerations.

          When I think of perception point (which you refer to as thinker) I do not think of person or human. To me a person, or human, is made up of particles and considerations.

          Do particles and considerations have consciousness in themselves? I don’t know. These things are manifestations which are the flip side of perception point.

          Imagination seems to involve the process of separation by which manifestation, perception-point and space comes about. This is the fountain of life. This is the infinite potential manifesting itself. This is the BRAHMA of Hinduism.

          And then the perception-point observes the manifestations combine themselves in myriads of different ways creating all kind of complex patterns overlayed upon each other. This is the play of life as it courses forward. This is the VISHNU of Hinduism.

          And then the perception point reviews this labyrinth of complexity, looking for, discovering and dissolving inconsistencies. Out of all that complexity there emerges a beautiful and powerful simplicity. This is the SHIVA or MAHESH of Hinduism.

          Here we have the eternal cycle of ‘coming forth – moving forward on a playful course – and dissolving’ which repeats itself endlessly. This cycle was first expressed in the ancient VEDAS. Aren’t you looking at this very cycle in your own way?

          This can get very complicated as cycles pile up upon cycles. As we know from the FOURIER SERIES, you may end up with all kind of different forms and shapes with these cycles. Thus, one may create a beautiful existence, and you may have a beautiful story.

          What you write reminds me of the following from the essay THE NATURE OF THOUGHT:

          When a thought is consistent throughout it is like a laser beam that can penetrate anything.

          A creation that is consistent throughout has a power of its own. It may be soft like velvet and then hard like iron in the next moment, but there is a beautiful consistency to it. It is consistency that leads us to our true selves. That self is effortless. It is simply being.

          I am simply repeating what you wrote more beautifully. There is romance in the words you write, Nia. The sculptor chiseling away is a perfect rendition of the process of writing a book, and that quote from Tennyson is just right. I am so proud of you, Nia.

          Affectionately,
          Vinaire

        • Nia Simone  On February 26, 2013 at 10:18 PM

          Hello Vinaire,

          Your thoughts are like laser beams that can penetrate anything. They provide a consistent, logical foundation that allows me to fly and then come back to earth and remember where I was!

          You compared the discussions here to rays. It seems just like that to me. And so exciting.

          I am amazed how you relate what I say to Hinduism, which I have not studied. I was going to pop in today to say I think it’s interesting how we are able to develop so much thought together even with different philosophies. But now I see this post and even that statement seems like a paradoxical paradigm! (I thought our philosophies were different, but now I’m not sure we have philosophies at all.) But it is valid to say we have read different books, ;). And some of the same! I loved Fourier Series, though I’ve forgotten most of it. I need to look at series again.

          I am practicing making a link. I think you meant an angle bracket, based on inspecting the element of your example. I think you meant:
          open angle bracket a href=”long-link”phrase close angle bracket open angle bracket slash a close angle bracket.

          Hopefully, this won’t explode.

          I’ll be back on the rest of the “juicy post” and The Nature of Thought. Which is amazing.

          Warmly,

          Nia

        • vinaire  On February 27, 2013 at 5:31 AM

          Nia, Thanks for being here.

          You may embed the link as follows:

          Open angle bracket a href=”long-link” close angle bracket phrase open angle bracket slash a close angle bracket.

          This is slightly different from what you wrote.. It won’t explode. 🙂

          .

  • Nia Simone  On March 8, 2013 at 1:55 AM

    Hello Vinaire,

    It has been way too long. I can’t believe it was February 25 when I last posted. Tumbling paradigms have kept me busy with new opportunities.

    Vinaire: Whether this ‘seed’ is a consideration or not, is not known. But once it is there and perceived, further considerations appear about it along the path of how it unfolds. This is where all the above definitions come in.

    There seems to be harmonics of those definitions coming into play as the unfolding takes place. This unfolding shoots out like a ray. Maybe that forms the light. I don’t know. This all is a conjecture.

    Nia: I think it’s interesting that you have light and harmonics (usually associated with sound) here. I see, feel and hear a glowing, flowing ripple that when mindful, we sense and when thoughtful we help create (series) and define.

    Vinaire: Imagination seems to involve the process of separation by which manifestation, perception-point and space comes about. This is the fountain of life. This is the infinite potential manifesting itself. This is the BRAHMA of Hinduism.

    Nia: Well, then, we must add Imagination to the definition list!

    Imagination = the process of separation by which manifestation, perception-point and space comes about. The fountain of life.

    This is a very interesting thought:

    Vinaire: A creation that is consistent throughout has a power of its own. It may be soft like velvet and then hard like iron in the next moment, but there is a beautiful consistency to it. It is consistency that leads us to our true selves. That self is effortless. It is simply being.

    Nia: I’ve never thought of that.

    I’m not sure I agree completely, but I can see it in your work. There is a constant return to simplicity and consistency.

    Ah, here it is. Yes, a creation can only become consistent.

    Maybe the self is effortless. I can agree with that.

    And maybe a consistent thought leads back to the self. Okay.

    But on the way, the thought is not effortless. It is moving, desiring to build the creation outward, then, with a discipline of consistency, thoughts results can be added to the knowledge. Once knowledge, simplified and consistent, it is added to the self.

    This is how I see you work. You get a new “disturbance”. Then you think, explore it. There are new definitions, new thoughts tried on and there’s some chaos. Re-examine existing knowledge with new knowledge. Rewrite all that is necessary, reducing the existing to the simplest form, and expanding the knowledge base. Then the self is simply being again.

    It’s weird how the exploration that I thought was pushing the envelope out is turning the telescope back around to us. We are doing the very thing we are describing doing.

    Warm regards,

    Nia

  • Nia Simone  On March 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM

    Oh darn, I didn’t close an “em” tag. Sorry. They were supposed to be around the word “become” right up there where you see the italics start. That was an experiment. I’ve been getting pretty good with the hyper links but this was the first time I tried out a formatting code.

    • vinaire  On March 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM

      I am currently in India attending the 50th year reunion at my engineering alma mater. I shall be back in States on 18th. So, I have not been attending to my blog regularly.

      You seem to be doing great, experimenting with the formatting code, Nia. I have fixed what you pointed out. Your long post deserves a carefully considered answer. So, I shall answer it a bit later.

      .

  • Nia Simone  On March 8, 2013 at 11:23 AM

    Hello Vinaire,

    I hope you have a wonderful time in India. Enjoy.

    I will use the time to get caught up on the many threads of thought.

    Fondly,

    Nia

  • vinaire  On April 17, 2013 at 3:06 PM

    The eastern concept of Atman is incorrectly translated in English as soul. The two concepts are as different as a “doughnut hole” is different from “doughnut.”

    Let’s imagine a “doughnut” that is made up of considerations (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, expectations, suppositions, conjectures, speculations, etc.). Basically, we are looking at a “doughnut” made up of thought material. This is the concept of SOUL in western religions.

    Now let’s look at the “doughnut hole.” This hole is defined by the doughnut. If the doughnut is gone, the hole is gone too. But that hole has no substance. There is nothing there. This is the true concept of ATMAN in eastern religions.

    When there are no thoughts or considerations, there is no soul, and there is no atman either.

    Atman, being nothingness, is considered to merge into parmatman, the surrounding nothingness, when all thoughts and considerations are dissolved.. Parmatman cannot be described because there is nothing there to describe.

    On the other hand, soul of western religions cannot merge into God because God is considered to be something or someone, The concept of soul dissolving into nothing is not there in western religions. Soul is considered to be something that is held in some state after death.

    Atman is considered in Hinduism to be indestructible and indivisible. Bhagavad Gita says:

    O Bharata (Arjuna), all beings were unmanifest before they were born and will become unmanifest again when they are dead; they are manifest only in the intermediate stage. What is the point then for lamentation? (II-28)

    All this can be said about atman because it is not made up of any substance… not even thought.
    .
    .

    • Chris Thompson  On April 17, 2013 at 9:15 PM

      Vin: Parmatman cannot be described because there is nothing there to describe.

      Chris: I take your statements about your culture and religious experiences at face value since I have no education in these disciplines at all. Parmatman seems similar to the Islamic Allah. Possibly Mohammed had Eastern training as it is rumored that Jesus of Nazareth did as well. Muslims are particularly touchy about anyone creating graven images of their God. They seem to stop at calling it blaspheme although my guess is that the earlier reason for a rule like this is to enforce anyone away from describing unknowable — an art physically impossible to render. Thus they allow art to have geometric shapes which become quite organic and fractal.

      • vinaire  On April 18, 2013 at 4:25 AM

        There are plenty of idols and images in Hinduism. Their is no dearth of it,

        HINDU IDOLS

        Yet the concept of Parmatman or Brahma is there. All lesser gods represent considerations.

        .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: