The Whole Story

[Atla]

What is going on is we are Creating.

'We' are here to bear witness to this beauty we are Creating.

Yes that's what many clueless people believe.

[Atla]

I missed the bit about non-dualism. Did y'all even read it?

The Whole Story is compatibalist and it explains why and how the ordinary understandings of dualism, non-dualism, and compatibalism go wrong. I know it's badly formatted atm, but that's why i'm here, to clear it up, not to refute things it's already explained fully. It cannot be less explanatory than non-dualism because it utterly subsumes non-dualism.

This (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) is the foundation of both ontology/metaphysics and epistemology, which are the foundations of everything else, and clears all those dualist questions easily, that being the point.

We don't have to read much of it to be able to tell that you probably don't understand nondualism, and probably confuse it with something else like monism or who knows what. Especially when you write stuff like this:

Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am.) This proves fundamental duality. The thinker and the thought are different kinds of things. The things which exist must exist as pattern because only pattern allows both for the physical (thinker), and non-physical ("spiritual", thought) to be real, as they must be. Physical patterns are given words which are bounded by our common understandings of the pattern they represent. This, plus the patterns that we put them together in, is language. Internal patterns are also given words but those words describe experience or relationships between things rather than things themselves. Love is one example, math is another.

[surreptitious57]

But what created the egg ?

biology created the egg - chemistry created biology
physics created chemistry - nothing created physics

[surreptitious57]

How could two words have ALL the answers ?

The Universe is but two words yet it has all the answers
As there is absolutely no where else they can come from

[Advocate]

I can't see how a ToE is possible without a skeleton of our universe begining with the source outside of time and space. Levels of reality or hierarchies of intention comprise the body of God within the source. In short, you cannot have a grasp of wholeness by debating its parts. Rather than beginning with inductive reason a seeker of truth seeks the skeleton which makes deductive reason from the whole into the parts possible

It is normal to consider the purpose of our universe by results oriented inductive reason. But what if the purpose of our universe isn't found in the results of the interactions of laws but in the process itself? Purpose is in the process.

Consider our bodies as mini universes. What does the body do? It transforms substances. Objectively it is what our senses do. subjectively we live by results but objectively our bodies transform substances through our bodily processes.

IMO it is the same with the universe or the body of God. It is a living machine which transforms substances for the needs of our Source or the ONE described by Plotinus.

The universe isn't here to serve us. Rather life exists to serve the great living machine in the many ways it was designed to do. Man is unique since it can serve the universe as a mechanical necessity or as a conscious being; a higher quality of being Man has the potential to awaken to and evolve towards..

Beginning with something outside our experience makes the entire experiment arbitrary.

[Nick_A]

I can't see how a ToE is possible without a skeleton of our universe begining with the source outside of time and space. Levels of reality or hierarchies of intention comprise the body of God within the source. In short, you cannot have a grasp of wholeness by debating its parts. Rather than beginning with inductive reason a seeker of truth seeks the skeleton which makes deductive reason from the whole into the parts possible

It is normal to consider the purpose of our universe by results oriented inductive reason. But what if the purpose of our universe isn't found in the results of the interactions of laws but in the process itself? Purpose is in the process.

Consider our bodies as mini universes. What does the body do? It transforms substances. Objectively it is what our senses do. subjectively we live by results but objectively our bodies transform substances through our bodily processes.

IMO it is the same with the universe or the body of God. It is a living machine which transforms substances for the needs of our Source or the ONE described by Plotinus.

The universe isn't here to serve us. Rather life exists to serve the great living machine in the many ways it was designed to do. Man is unique since it can serve the universe as a mechanical necessity or as a conscious being; a higher quality of being Man has the potential to awaken to and evolve towards..

Beginning with something outside our experience makes the entire experiment arbitrary.

To know thyself or having the experience of ourselves begins with a hypothesis. If true then there is a self to be known by what is beyond our senses

[Advocate]

>To know thyself or having the experience of ourselves begins with a hypothesis. If true then there is a self to be known by what is beyond our senses

Nick, The Cogito gives us the existence itself, the easiest possible thing to prove and the most certain thing we can know as a prerequisite for all other possible knowledge. Our experience is of two kinds, one is sensory. That which we access through our senses is material reality, by definition. Even if it's an illusion, it acts identically to what we experience as reality and we have no other rational choice but to accept it as such until some unseen transcendent barrier is broken and shows things to be otherwise than our consensus experience.

[Age]

I missed the bit about non-dualism. Did y'all even read it?

The Whole Story is compatibalist and it explains why and how the ordinary understandings of dualism, non-dualism, and compatibalism go wrong. I know it's badly formatted atm, but that's why i'm here, to clear it up, not to refute things it's already explained fully. It cannot be less explanatory than non-dualism because it utterly subsumes non-dualism.

This (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) is the foundation of both ontology/metaphysics and epistemology, which are the foundations of everything else, and clears all those dualist questions easily, that being the point.

Your link is so badly formatted that I would not even know where to begin to start to clear it up. I have absolutely NO idea what relates to what in that link.

Would you like to clear this up, somewhat?

The link you're responding to here is as well formatted as it can be, it's a bloody spreadsheet.

But as I said: I have absolutely NO idea what relates to what in that link [spreadsheet].

What is in that spreadsheet is formatted, granted. But it is formatted in such a way, badly, that I have absolutely NO idea at all what any of it has to do with absolutely ANY thing.

Absolutely ANY thing can be formatted within a spreadsheet. BUT, if what is in the spreadsheet does NOT make sense to any one other than the one who formatted it that way, then what is the "bloody" use of the "bloody spreadsheet", especially when the contents of the spreadsheet are WANTED to be SHARED with "others"?

If you're referencing the original, that's the point of this post. Your response to my post asking for help clearing it up comes to "Would you like to clear this up?" Well, derp.

But I was NOT referencing your 'other work'. I was referencing your work in that link, which I quoted and responded to. And, as I made clear; I would not even know where to begin to start to clear up your work in that spreadsheet. Hopefully, this is now clear, to you.

<insert less snarky response here (shut up, it's 6 in the morning)> I'm working on it, but that doesn't resolve the issue that apparently none of the most prevalent responders here have actually engaged with the document in question in a meaningful way.

What do you mean by 'in a meaningful way'?

Obviously you are going to get people tell you that " 'this' or 'that' part is wrong ", and then explain to you why. But then, just as obviously, you will disagree with what they have to say. This is because if you, or they, changed 'that' part, then that disrupts another part of your document, which you claim is The Whole Story. Is this what you are referring to when you say most respondents here have apparently not actually engaged with that document "in a meaningful way"?

By the way, ONLY YOU can clear up what you have written/your thoughts. No one else can clear up your own thoughts and writings. And the best way you can CLEAR UP your own thoughts/writings is done by and through you just answering Honestly ALL of the clarifying questions posed to you.

For example, in the first paragraph, of your original document, [of which you did NOT provide a link to], you wrote:
"As a story, it is one of many."

To me, this means that 'your' story is just one of 'many' stories, which would mean that only ALL stories together would The, actual, Whole Story.

So, can you clear up, for me, WHY you think or believe that YOUR own personal story is The Whole Story?

In the second paragraph you claim that:
"This particular story [of yours] is the best understanding of our universe and our place in it that has ever been written… so far."

Now I am not sure if you are yet aware but speaking like this turns some people away from reading anymore. If you were not yet aware, then now you are.

Do you actually believe your statement here?

If yes, then what exactly are you basing this statement on exactly?

Until you have cleared this up, for me at least, then I take this as you being a 'self-centered individual' who is NOT really open to anything else other than your own views of things.

To make the claim that the thoughts and views within that one individual body is the BEST understanding of "our" Universe [whatever that even actually means, to you?] and our place in It "that has EVER been written" is a pretty BIG claim, which most people would doubt is even remotely true, let alone actually true. So, from the outset you have a HUGE claim to PROVE is true.

Now, your claim here might be true. But what I suggest is; BEFORE you make ANY claim, you at least have some thing which backs up and supports PRIOR to making the claim. So, again, what exactly are you basing this statement of yours on, EXACTLY?

If you can NOT or do NOT 'clear this up' about what actually supports this claim as being true, then from just about the very beginning what is it exactly that would lead me to consider that you would be able to back up and support the rest of your claims?

See, without any actual EVIDENCE nor PROOF for your claims, then what you say and claim is true is nothing more than just your unsubstantiated beliefs. Which in all honesty I am bored and disinterested in unsubstantiated beliefs. There are just far to many of them.

Even your claim that; " 'your story'/'your' 'theory of everything' is a theory of everything as far as ANY theory can be " is just a 'self-centered individual's' BELIEF, which is such an extremely one-sided and narrowed view of things that I find it completely absurd and laughable.

You CLAIMING that forever more there could NEVER be ANY theory that could reveal more or provide more insight than your OWN theory does, just turns people away BEFORE they even begin to start reading 'your story/theory'.

If you seriously WANT "others" to take what you are saying and/or claiming in a Truly meaningful way, then I suggest you do NOT come across as though the thoughts and views within that body override other thoughts and views.

If you want to participate with "others" in a Truly meaningful way, then just express and respond in a Truly Honest and OPEN way.

Questions of dualism are metaphysical and that, being the starting point, is what the entire metaphysical section is about.

Okay, if this is really the, so called, "starting point", then let us start here.

If "questions of dualism are metaphysical" and this is what the metaphysical section of YOUR story/theory is about, then;

Firstly, What does the word 'metaphysical' mean, to you?

Then;

What does "questions of dualism are metaphysical" mean, to you?

And then;

What questions are there "of dualism"?

See, what my view of these things are might be VERY different to your views. So, until you CLARIFY, then in all Honesty I do NOT actually KNOW what your views are.

The link above expands without expounding on that central concept.

It may well do this, for 'you', but it certainly does NOT do this, for 'me'. Understood?

The link above expands on absolutely NOTHING to me. This is because I have absolutely NO idea at all what is in that link is actually referring to.

It's a long, well-curated list of various dualities which revolve around the same point of distinction, between the material and the metaphorical.

You can claim whatever you like. But if I have absolutely NO idea what you are actually saying and claiming, like here now for example, then there really is NO use in saying it all, well to me anyway.

Now, if ANY one has ANY idea what this sentence actually pertains to or means, then please let me know.

From the first six words I can tell that this statement is alleging and claiming that the one who put words in that link this very highly of them self, but as for the rest I REALLY do have absolutely NO idea what 'it' is that is being referenced here.

[Advocate]

Ok, the spreadsheet. There is a fundamental duality between that which is on the side of sensory experience and that which is metaphorical - an internal model of that external reality, plus emotions, priorities, etc. I call that "spiritual". The list is of concepts which exist relative to each other across that divide. Understanding the yin/yang relationship of those ideas clarifies a whole universe of philosophical questions. Each thing on one side is material (for example) and each thing on the other side is metaphorical (for example). There are probably any number of philosophers besides the ones listed there, who have ideas about the same idea, but i don't care much for academics so i don't know of them.

[Age]

>The reason I do NOT agree with what you said is because 'theories', essentially, are only an assumption or a guess about what COULD BE true, right, and correct.

>I much prefer to just look at and discuss what IS only actually True, Right, and Correct, instead.

There are two distinct definitions of theory and the scientific one, the one most philosophers use, means that which Best explains the available evidence. If you want to conflate it with "guess", please realize, that's why we have different words. A theory is an evidenced guess. How well-evidenced is a different question.

But, if you are yet aware, 'evidence' is only 'of' 'some thing'. What 'that' is evidence 'of' is JUST a GUESS. For example, what the results of the hafele-keating exiperiment is evidence 'for' or 'of' EXACTLY is JUST A GUESS. Just like what red-shift is actual evidence 'for' or 'of' is JUST A GUESS.

To me, 'a guess' is still just a guess. You may like to call it an 'evidenced guess' as though this gives it more weight or more support, but, it is, as I previously noted, essentially, only an assumption, or just a guess.

You can 'guess/theorize' for as long as you like about what COULD BE true. But, as I pointed out, I much prefer to actually just LOOK AT and DISCUSS what is ACTUALLY only True, instead.

In case you are unaware; What "Best" explains the available evidence could be ACTUALLY completely and utterly WRONG. But, OBVIOUSLY, what is ACTUALLY True can NOT be wrong in ANY way, shape, nor form. This is WHY I much prefer to ONLY look at what is actually True, instead.

Moreover, you cannot look at only what is actually true, etc. without starting with theory in order to get to Know what's true, etc.

Do you BELIEVE this is true?

If yes, then what "theory" did you start with in order to get to Know that this is true?

And, when, and IF, you are Truly Honest, then you will find out how this statement of yours is NOT true at all.

This is the same problem as "justified true belief".

Do NOT bring in other, so called, "problems" or issues and conflate them with what I say, AND MEAN, as though they have any relevance at all.

You will ONLY EVER KNOW what I am actually MEANING through asking me CLARIFYING questions.

If see and have some problem with some thing, then that does NOT mean that I do.

What will be discovered is that to me absolutely EVERY thing is extremely SIMPLE and EASY. So, to me, there are NO 'problems' at all, as you see there are.

The justification is a pointer to the truth. You can't know truth without justification - there is no truth that stands alone. You're putting the cart before the horse. If you want to talk about only what is true, you have to talk about the evidence that supports that truth.

But as I have already pointed out, and alluded to; evidence is only for or of some 'thing'. Evidence does NOT actually support truth. What supports truth is PROOF, itself. Proof and evidence are two different 'things'. We have and use different words for different 'things'. Please realize that this is WHY we have different words.

The Whole Story is all about what is true by logical necessity and useful by pragmatic application.

If you want something more than that, it's going to have to start with a Theory of why The Whole Story is insufficient, and that theory is going to have to be backed by evidence that can be refuted. My starting point is that TWS is complete and perfect (other than presentation issues). A contention that i'm wrong is a naked contention, what's the evidence that supports it?

>When I say; I do NOT do 'theories', then this means that I have NO 'theories'.

Bullshit.

So, here in lies the ACTUAL problems and issues that you are going to occur.

You are going to say some thing. Others are going to CLAIM "bullshit", and that will be the end of it.

Without NONE of 'you' EVER even considering 'what does the "other" ACTUALLY MEAN? Therefore, NO clarifying questions will be asked, and BOTH just discrediting and dismissing the "other" as being nonsensical and/or absurd. End of story.

Your theory (contention supported by evidence but not yet tested to completion) is that the common understanding of theories is insufficiently certain to be epistemologically relevant.

Well this is CERTAINLY, and OBVIOUSLY by PROOF, NOT my theory at all.

This is just YOUR ASSUMPTION made, WITHOUT ANY CLARIFICATION being sort or made FIRST.

To just start with I do NOT know what the, so called, "common understanding" of theories is. So, your ASSUMPTION is completely and utterly WRONG from the outset, without having to produce any of the other proofs.

>Creation AND evolution play equal parts in Life. There is NO "one or the other" here. Every thing is created AND every thing evolves.

Those words don't make sense in that order.

Do you actually MEAN; "Those words do not make sense in that order, to you", or, "Those words do not make sense in that order, to some thing else"?

If it is the former, then I agree.

However, if it is the latter, then what is that 'thing'?

>Nature AND nurture play equal parts in Life. There is NO "one or the other" here. Human beings are made up of two parts; The thinking part, which is affected by nurture AND the physical part, which is effected by nature.

Equal my ass. Nature comes first and sets the limits for what it's possible for nurture to accomplish. Nurture is always subject to the constraints of nurture, but the opposite can only occur with technology.

Okay.

So, here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one individual BELIEVING that they KNOW what thee actual Truth IS, BEFORE they even gave ANY consideration at all about what 'it' is the "other" is ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING.

>Free will AND determinism play equal parts in Life. There is NO "one or the other" here. Every person is free to choose whatever they like but the choices, which they have to choose from, are limited AND determined by previous factors.

Bullshit again. Free will isn't even potentially a real thing, just off the top. Using the term to mean the Experience of freedom has some purchase but there's no possibility of them being equal, or anything remotely close. Determinism is real. Freedom is an illusion. Free will is an experience of freedom, not freedom in some sense that can be verified by logic or empirical measurement - there is no such freedom.

If you have NO freedom at all to choose to say that or not. Then I have NO freedom at all to choose to point out just how WRONG 'your', so called, "The Whole Story", REALLY IS. Which WILL BE proven to be True, by ALL of the DISAGREEMENT you are going to receive through LOGICAL NECESSITY.

Also, if you can NOT even begin to consider what "another" is actually saying and meaning, then 'your' whole story FALLS TO PIECES.

The Big or WHOLE Picture is ONLY seen through the perspectives of ALL "others".

[Age]

But I do NOT agree with this. I really wish you would STOP making 'assumptions' in regards to 'me'.

Okay. Clearly I have no idea what you're talking about.

Okay, agreed.

And without ANY clarifying questions, then you may NEVER will.

[Age]

I can't see how a ToE is possible without a skeleton of our universe begining with the source outside of time and space.

Is it possible that your view of 'time' and/or 'space' are not necessarily absolutely true, and so your view now that a TOE is not possible without a "skeleton" of THEE Universe [WHY is there such a fixation to call 'the' Universe 'our' Universe? anyway], beginning with some supposed source outside of time and space is just plain WRONG?

If this is possible, then I could very easily show you how a theory of Everything is possible.

Levels of reality or hierarchies of intention comprise the body of God within the source. In short, you cannot have a grasp of wholeness by debating its parts.

You also can NEVER grasp the "others" point of view by 'debating'.

'Debating', itself, is one the main actual causes of ALL of the conflicts in the world.

If ANY one wants to grasp WHOLENESS, Itself, then all they have to really essentially do is just LOOK AT ALL of Its parts. This is very simple and really very easy, actually.

Rather than beginning with inductive reason a seeker of truth seeks the skeleton which makes deductive reason from the whole into the parts possible

Seems rather complex. Why not just LOOK AT what is ACTUALLY true instead?

It is normal to consider the purpose of our universe by results oriented inductive reason. But what if the purpose of our universe isn't found in the results of the interactions of laws but in the process itself? Purpose is in the process.

'Purpose' is just found or uncovered just in and through the LOOKING of things Honestly and OPENLY, while seriously just Wanting to change, for the better.

Consider our bodies as mini universes.

Why?

Why not just LOOK AT what is ACTUALLY true, instead?

What does the body do? It transforms substances. Objectively it is what our senses do. subjectively we live by results but objectively our bodies transform substances through our bodily processes.

IMO it is the same with the universe or the body of God. It is a living machine which transforms substances for the needs of our Source or the ONE described by Plotinus.

And, what is the supposed 'need' of that One?

The universe isn't here to serve us. Rather life exists to serve the great living machine in the many ways it was designed to do.

But who and/or what designed and created the so called, "great living machine"?

Man is unique since it can serve the universe as a mechanical necessity or as a conscious being; a higher quality of being Man has the potential to awaken to and evolve towards..

Why do you call 'human beings' "man"?

How can human beings serve the Universe, Itself, as conscious beings? [I already KNOW what thee answer is. I am just curious to see what your reply might be].

Why do you refer to human beings as a 'mechanical necessity'? What is 'mechanical' about being a human being?

As EVERY thing evolves, so to has the human being evolved. They evolved from other previous things, and they will continue to evolve into the very 'thing', which evolution has been evolving towards.

Why do you say "has the 'potential' to awaken to and evolve towards" as though 'It' "has the potential to"?

What IS going to happen IS HAPPENING. It is not as though " it 'has the potential to' ". There is NO other way.

The next stage of evolution, past the human being stage, is ALREADY HAPPENING. This stage of Knowing thy 'Self' has already occurred and is continuing to occur more and more, for more and more human beings.

[Age]

What is going on is we are Creating.

'We' are here to bear witness to this beauty we are Creating.

Yes that's what many clueless people believe.

Well I do NOT believe this. So, your remark and claim has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with 'me'.

Also, do not forget who the Truly clueless ones are. They are the ones who still do NOT YET KNOW 'why they are here', and still do NOT YET KNOW, 'what is going on'. This is PROVEN by the very FACT that they still ask these questions.

[Age]

But what created the egg ?

biology created the egg

What was the thing called, which laid the actual egg from which a chicken hatched?

- chemistry created biology
physics created chemistry - nothing created physics

What you are essentially saying here can be summed up in the one word 'evolution', correct?

Also, but there is a 'thing', which, in a sense, creates physical things. This is because without this 'thing', then there could not be physical things.

And, if you want to 'argue' and logically reason the way you are here, then you will have to agree that the Universe came from nothing, correct?

By the way; I really wish you would just copy and paste and quote me instead of re-writing what I say, differently. This makes it so much easier to refer back to our previous discussions. Also, what I have ACTUALLY SAID cannot be so easily MISTAKEN.

[Age]

I can't see how a ToE is possible without a skeleton of our universe begining with the source outside of time and space. Levels of reality or hierarchies of intention comprise the body of God within the source. In short, you cannot have a grasp of wholeness by debating its parts. Rather than beginning with inductive reason a seeker of truth seeks the skeleton which makes deductive reason from the whole into the parts possible

It is normal to consider the purpose of our universe by results oriented inductive reason. But what if the purpose of our universe isn't found in the results of the interactions of laws but in the process itself? Purpose is in the process.

Consider our bodies as mini universes. What does the body do? It transforms substances. Objectively it is what our senses do. subjectively we live by results but objectively our bodies transform substances through our bodily processes.

IMO it is the same with the universe or the body of God. It is a living machine which transforms substances for the needs of our Source or the ONE described by Plotinus.

The universe isn't here to serve us. Rather life exists to serve the great living machine in the many ways it was designed to do. Man is unique since it can serve the universe as a mechanical necessity or as a conscious being; a higher quality of being Man has the potential to awaken to and evolve towards..

Beginning with something outside our experience makes the entire experiment arbitrary.

To know thyself or having the experience of ourselves begins with a hypothesis.

It does NOT logically necessarily 'have to'.

If true then there is a self to be known by what is beyond our senses

Who and/or what is the 'our', EXACTLY, which you are referring to here?

Once thy 'Self' is known, then 'you' will be able to answer this clarifying question, accurately, and thus properly.