gods image

[jackles]

According to the bible man and woman where made in gods image.well god is existance. Or if there is a god .god would be existance.so the universe came into being to express the meaning of will of that existance as a creation.mans existance then as the image is to have free will as to what he does in creation.good to follow the meaning of existance will .or evil to follow his own .away from the meaning of the word.

[Immanuel Can]

Interesting. Then would "the Fall" describe the idea of a severing from the human free will from the Divine Will, followed by an automatic moving away from the generative center of life itself (i.e. toward death)?

[jackles]

The fall would be falling from the meaning into false meaning.or from fact into fiction as fact.fiction as fact =suffering.as a result.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.











.....................................................












.

[Immanuel Can]

The fall would be falling from the meaning into false meaning.or from fact into fiction as fact.fiction as fact =suffering.as a result.

I think I see what you're trying to say, perhaps -- maybe you're saying, "Any time we depart from the facts of a situation we suffer." Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard to see why fictional beliefs should automatically entail suffering, unless you mean that fictional beliefs are punished by an angry Creator, or something like that. Otherwise, can't a fiction simply be a benign delusion?

More importantly, are not "fact" and "meaning" two distinct ideas? Facts are just things that happen. Whether they have meaning is a different question altogether. For example, it is a fact that people die; but it's a different question to ask, "Does that death have a meaning?" i.e. Is it merely a fact, or is it a fact that has special import of some kind?

I'm not yet convinced.

[jackles]

Man and woman is fiction in fact.or fiction in meaning.without the meaning fiction becomes a fallen state of consciousness .consciousness is lost to the event.conscience is over ridden by desire.selfishness or the beast then rules.the origonal event meaning is lost which is the true identity.identity is then taken from the event as being real.as in what are you.with out meaning you become an event object.

[Immanuel Can]

And from whence comes this "meaning"? If it is constructed by the man and woman, then it can be "constructed" in any way they wish, with no consquences. But if "meaning" is imminent in the reality around them, then there could be a bad consequence for ignoring it, since that would then be "unrealistic".

Is your position that "meaning" is objective and external, then? This seems to be what you imply when you speak of an "original event meaning."

Who's the "originator"?

[jackles]

No man and woman as a construct comes from evolution of forms.evolution of forms is the changing of forms around a central consiousness.or dna around consciousness.central to all form construct is consciousness .consciouness is meaning.nonlocal meaning is the common core of nature.local meaning or tradition with out nonlocal ethos.is meaning less tradition.religion with out nonlocal meaning is piffal.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't find the answer to my question in this madcap poetry of yours. I have no idea what "nonlocal" means to you, or what "dna around consciousness" is supposed to mean either.

Do you have a proposition to advance? Could you state it, so I could respond cogently?

[Ginkgo]

I can't find the answer to my question in this madcap poetry of yours. I have no idea what "nonlocal" means to you, or what "dna around consciousness" is supposed to mean either.

Do you have a proposition to advance? Could you state it, so I could respond cogently?

I think Jackles has a two ideas running at the same time. I think the first one is a type of reversal of the Platonic forms. In this case the Forms themselves are the things that change. The second line of though is to do with quantum non-locality. I'm not sure how these two ideas go together, other than the suggestion that at the deepest level of quantum reality exist the Platonic forms.

I think such a synthesis would require an awful lot of explanation, if indeed such an explanation is possible. Then again this may not be what Jackles is trying to say.

[jackles]

Yes quantum mechanics is an expression of platonic form with a nonlocal core.its the nonlocal core that is the central theme in all nature including d.n.a.there are no seperate bits of nature.science mathamatics are just expressions of the central core.man and woman is an expression of the central core.the core is platonic form whith out size or limit.it is beond platonic form it is no- thing.nonlocality is the formless sizeless creator of all existing things it is the inside and out side of every thing in existance.nonlocality is the existance where there is no beond.

[Immanuel Can]

Still no answer here.

Let me simplify:

Is the "meaning" to which you refer:

1. Objective

2. Subjective

These are genuine opposites with no excluded middle possibility, so you need to pick one.

So pick. Then say why.

[jackles]

The meaning would be absolute.so objective and subjective can not be applied.everything else in existance would be fictional with fact always applying to the absolute fact meaning .so all fictional facts would apply to the same core meaning.scientific facts would be only fictional facts.not objective facts in the normal scence.meaning creates.a created thing connot prove its creator by relative fictional facts.its would be like a robot trying to diffine consciousness.using robot facts.what i belive is that no -thing exists as an absolute fact.something is always fiction relative to that absolute fact.so facts in something are fictional facts.meaning is then no-thing.meaning is awareness.

[Immanuel Can]

"Absolute" means "objective," in this context: i.e. pre-existing our determination of "meaning." You're identifying yourself here as an objectivist about meaning.

Okay, if meaning is objective, who creates it? If human beings do, then it's subjective. If the Universe does, then you need to say how.

However, it's really hard to take any meaning from the sentences you write. For example, "everything else in existence would be fictional" is a phrase that makes no sense, because "in existence" means "is", and "fictional" means "is not." You're just contradicting yourself there. Then you do it again when you write, "meaning is then no-thing" and "meaning is awareness." Awareness is a thing.

Moreover, why would we think, as you put it, "a created thing cannot prove its creator"? That does not seem self evident to me. You'd need to show why that was true.

I think you're just playing with language. But if one looks at the content, there's not anything solid or propositional there, so far as I can see right now.

[jackles]

Yes i see what you are saying.i will re think and see if it can be put in any terms.but put in loose terms .it is you though .you pre existed your present state as a localised being.it is you .after this present state of your being .you will be existing in a formless nonlocolised state of your self.you will or will not realise that every person you new as a localised being in life.was you.no -thing will exist out side or in side of your own being.you will be part and parcel of the sizeless non moving thing.that moves all moving things.and caused moving things.you determine.take love there.survive.love survives.localised selfish being will not be at home in that place.