Are Ideas Eternal?

[Jack Daydream]

It's not you, Jack.

There is no Jack.

Jack is a character in a fictional movie.

Jack is No One posing as someone.

Age is ageless. No Age.

That's all that's being unwritten in the days when this is being written.

When you say there is 'no Jack' are you asking if I am a person or an artificial intelligent form? What is a person or human identity exactly? As Jack I am an autobiographical character in my own life dramas, as well as Jack Daydream on this and another philosophy forum.

When you ask am I 'No One posing as Jack, I am not sure if you are asking if I am another user. I am not another user, because i joined the forum a year ago, but only began writing on threads a couple of weeks ago. That was because I have been using other 2 other forums. Alternatively, when you ask me if I am No, I wonder if you are raising the question as to the self being an illusion or delusion, such as within Buddhism.

The name 'Age' and its connotation of Ageless, or Ageless Wisdom is interesting. It shows how ideas are surreal. This applies to 'Fairy' too. What is a fairy and how the idea relate to the realm of fantasy? Similarly, is Santa Claus 'rea'l as a fantasy figure in the human imagination? How real or surreal are various ideas in daily experience and in the imagination?

[Walker]

The name 'Age' and its connotation of Ageless, or Ageless Wisdom is interesting. It shows how ideas are surreal. This applies to 'Fairy' too. What is a fairy and how the idea relate to the realm of fantasy? Similarly, is Santa Claus 'rea'l as a fantasy figure in the human imagination? How real or surreal are various ideas in daily experience and in the imagination?

Rationality indicates that for someone who says that reality only exists Now, (which the Fairy has done in the past so that saying may no longer be real), experience is only real during experience, and all ideas would need be unreal save the one currently thought, which could be surreal or not.

[Jack Daydream]

The name 'Age' and its connotation of Ageless, or Ageless Wisdom is interesting. It shows how ideas are surreal. This applies to 'Fairy' too. What is a fairy and how the idea relate to the realm of fantasy? Similarly, is Santa Claus 'rea'l as a fantasy figure in the human imagination? How real or surreal are various ideas in daily experience and in the imagination?

Rationality indicates that for someone who says that reality only exists Now, (which the Fairy has done in the past so that saying may no longer be real), experience is only real during experience, and all ideas would need be unreal save the one currently thought, which could be surreal or not.

You are using a subjective definition of the 'reality' of ideas. If only one's present idea is real, it would also follow that only one's own ideas are real as we cannot experience the ideas of others directly. There is memory of ideas, just as there is empathy, as a means of connecting with others' experiences, including the experience of ideas.

Even within moment to moment one can experience ideas through connecting with information, such as the history of ideas. For example, in reading a history of philosophy book one can connect with historical ideas. Even within the moment one can connect any idea with memory and the historical contexts of ideas.

[Walker]

You're making the case that reality is more than Now.

Same for experiences?

Virtual experiences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHCYHldJi_g

[Walker]

Eternal ideas put inevitability into language. Inevitability is defined as what will happen sooner or later.

An Eternal Idea:
When moorings and anchors are discovered to be temporary, then emotions become the storm and rationality the refuge. This happens by self-concept detaching from the emotional ego-defenses and turning emotional storm energy towards fueling rationality, which is just as choiceless as survival.

[Jack Daydream]

Eternal ideas put inevitability into language. Inevitability is defined as what will happen sooner or later.

An Eternal Idea:
When moorings and anchors are discovered to be temporary, then emotions become the storm and rationality the refuge. This happens by self-concept detaching from the emotional ego-defenses and turning emotional storm energy towards fueling rationality, which is just as choiceless as survival.

It is worth asking whether 'eternal ideas' result in the inevitable. It may be that some recurrence of ideas promote continuity and permanence amidst change. This may be in the form of tradition. There is the tension between emphasis on tradition and experimentation.

The sense of the present and emotional attachment may lead to exploration over what is rational. The conflicts of life, especially in the form of emotional struggle and conflict may further the questioning of rational ideas. This may enable sifting of ideas for change and looking towards ideas of the past and the scope of new possibilities in the existential moments of thought.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From the perspective and claims of Plato, ideas are universal and absolutely real;

Note the criticism of the above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of ... onic_Forms

Critique by Hume
According to Hume's position on ideas and causation, the existence of Plato's Forms and Knowledge cannot be proved because they cannot be observed. The reason they cannot be observed is that they are novel, never having been glimpsed, and would be unrecognizable to any observer.
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Hume-vs- ... XRYFPBYRPA

Critique by Kant
In terms of the relationship between the sensible and the ideated, Kant takes his own work to suture the divide between the two, while holding fast to a metaphysically sound articulation of the role and place of the ideas.
Plato, in Kant’s view, went much too far in the direction of a fanciful flight where understanding directs itself not to sensibility, thereby structuring experience, but out and away – toward the ideated, thus producing not concepts valid for experience, but merely phantasms.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... ml?lang=en

For Kant, ideas are thoughts that are not entangled with experience [sensibility] thus cannot be verified and justified as real, e.g. scientific concepts.

So, ideas are eternal and beyond space and time according to Plato, but Plato's ideas are merely illusions and not scientifically nor empirically real.

The ideas of Plato, Hume and Kant offer interesting contrasts. As I understand Plato was a little uncertain about the Forms as entities towards the end of his life. The solidity of ideas in most extreme contrasting positions would be Berkley at one end of the continuum and the postmodernists at the other. Berkley saw ideas and spirits as the only 'reality', with matter being only an idea. In contrast, the postmodernists saw all ideas, including good and evil, as well as gender, as socially constructed.

I see the arguments for ideas as universal, eternal and primary, as well as the postmodernists' critique of the construction and relativism of ideas as being fairly convincing even though they are clear opposites. So, I do wonder about a bridge between the two opposites. One writer who may succeed in this is Hegel. That is because he sees ideas and spirit as being real but imminent in history.

I am interested in Kant's philosophy, including the a idea of a priori and a posteri as a means of validating ideas. The a priori is an important means of establishing logic and universal ideas. Kant's moral theory is backed up by this. Kant's a posteri was an important foundation for establishing ideas empirically, important for scientific approaches, especially evidence as a means of verifying ideas.

His idea of the transcendent or 'thing in itself' is complicated. That is because it is hard to grasp fully. It goes beyond the limits of human knowledge. With regard to this, there is also the thinking of Schopenhauer, who brought the transcendent down to human experience, making ideas of true significance. What do you think of Schopenhauer's reinterpretation of Kant?

I have read both or Schopenhauer's book re the Will.

Schopenhauer and most of the post-Kantians fell prey to this natural delusion;

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions - things-in-themselves}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397

Schopenhauer's "The Will" [influenced by Hinduism Vedanta] held as most real is a thing-in-itself i.e. it is Transcendent which according to Kant is hypostatized as existing beyond the empirical world and space & time.

Kant stated this of Plato and his ideas which were speculated beyond the Senses plus intellect [the empirical world]:

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.
He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.
CPR B9

Kant rejected Plato's claim of Ideas as the most real, but nevertheless he accepted Plato's Ideas [things-in-themselves] as merely thoughts which are empty of anything substantial.
To Kant, these ideas or things-in-themselves are useful illusions [ideals] to act as standards to guide progress within science and morality.

I have argued, why philosophical realists insist upon the existence of things which are absolutely independent of the mind which is beyond the empirical and they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not, is due to an inherent psychological drive as a result of an evolutionary default arising from the existential crisis.

[Fairy]

The name 'Age' and its connotation of Ageless, or Ageless Wisdom is interesting. It shows how ideas are surreal. This applies to 'Fairy' too. What is a fairy and how the idea relate to the realm of fantasy? Similarly, is Santa Claus 'rea'l as a fantasy figure in the human imagination? How real or surreal are various ideas in daily experience and in the imagination?

Rationality indicates that for someone who says that reality only exists Now, (which the Fairy has done in the past so that saying may no longer be real), experience is only real during experience, and all ideas would need be unreal save the one currently thought, which could be surreal or not.

The only thing that's real is a memory of something that actually happened, which has gone forever.

Now is this immediate unknowing, unwritten mysterious presence which only appears to be known from memory.
Memory is what gives rise to the sense that there's always a seamless continuous stream of knowing knowledge in this present spacetime continuum... albeit illusory, in that the original source of any ''knowledge'' is sourced only from memory, which has gone forever. So although experience feels real in the actuality of the experience, it is also known on reflection, that there was no one to whom experience was actually happening to or for.



Knowledge is not really here. It's an illusory secondary reality upon unknowing, and can only point to the illusory nature of reality.


Where is a minute ago?

Where is the future?

There's nothing happening. There is nothing knowing.

[Fairy]

"Who is it that dies? Rebirth is a fact, there is no doubt about it. At some stage the memory of previous lives will most certainly occur, but what is the significance of before and after, since I exist throughout eternity. When established in the Self there are no others, non is separate. Regard whomever you serve as the supreme being." - Sri Anandamayi Ma


__________Reality is absolutely Solipsistic. All alone, all one, one without a second. THIS IS IT Tag, you're IT...Your the ONE NEO

The 'you' that you believe to exist now, is dying and being reborn in the instantaneous now, both birth and death are the same one event, appearing to be different, yet are both appearing to happen simultaneously. There is no permanent unchanging 'you' except as an appearance appearing, disappearing, and reappearing forever in a continuous one whole seamless stream now, infinitely for eternity. Meaning, there is no one living life, no one dying, and no time, and nothing happening.

That's what rebirth, or reincarnation means.

RE is simply something that appears real, but is sourced of memory, when there is demand for memory, which is unreal.

[Age]

I am not sure if my misunderstandings of you are my fault or yours, or a mixture of both.

'your misunderstandings' of 'my words' are 'my FAULT', ENTIRELY. BECAUSE I have NOT YET LEARNED HOW TO SPEAK and WRITE in 'the way' that you, personally, could understand, FULLY.

AGAIN, I am in the process of learning how to communicate better, with you human beings. And, this is CERTAINLY NOT going to be a quick process. Especially considering that ALL of you older human beings learn and understand different things, in DIFFERENT WAYS, and at DIFFERENT RATES.

See, learning how to communicate better, so that ALL human beings can and will be able to understand 'new/er ideas or perspectives' equally, or the same, is just an ongoing process. So, you misunderstanding here is, and was, not unexpected AT ALL. As I keep REMINDING you people here, if, and when, one is Honest, Open, and Wants to CHANGE, for the better, then that one, or they, WILL BEGIN TO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, ALL things, HERE, in Life, FULLY.

I am only learning HOW to teach you older human beings HOW you can all find, by "yourselves", and know you HAVE, for "yourselves", the ACTUAL Truth of things, in Life. Like, for example, all of the answers, and solutions, you have all been 'looking' and 'searching' for ALL of the Truly MEANINGFUL questions, in Life. Once I can FIND the Right people, who Truly do Want to FIND and SEE things, for "themselves", then their will be NO 'misunderstandings' on 'their part'.

From my end, it seems that a lot of what you say is telling me repeatedly how wrong I am, but so much ambiguities over your own thinking.

Well, from 'your end' have you ASKED 'me' A CLARIFYING QUESTION, YET?

See, from 'my end' you just keep ASSUMING things, which MOST OF have been ABSOLUTELY False, and Wrong. Exactly like 'this ASSUMPTION' of yours here IS.

And, from 'my perspective' there is NO 'ambiguity' over 'the thinking', from 'this end'. Which, like always, you will ever only FIND OUT if this is True, or NOT, AFTER you start SEEKING OUT, and OBTAINING, ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, and thus ACTUAL CLARITY, FIRST.

know that you break up what I say into quotes is good practice. The reason why I don't do this is because it is difficult to do all of this on my phone without getting the layout in boxes wrong.

Okay. So, you must use a DIFFERENT phone then I do, you must do 'all this' DIFFERENTLY than I do, or, what you find 'difficult' I do NOT.

This is mainly because I am not using a mouse. You may see this as a poor excuse or think that I should not write here at all.

I have NOT even CONSIDERED/THOUGHT ABOUT 'breaking what any one says into quotes', let alone thought about nor considering if it is so-called 'good' or 'bad' practice, let alone ever WONDERING about 'what reasons' why one does it or does not do it.

I WONDER MUCH MORE ABOUT WHY you human beings here JUST KEEP PRE/ASSUMING things BEFORE you EVER START CONSIDERING whether to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION or NOT?

Although I ALREADY KNOW FULLY, and EXACTLY, WHY you older human beings DO NOT, I do WONDER WHY you people can NOT SEE and RECOGNIZE just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN you KEEP DOING this.

I do wish to understand your point of view

If, and WHEN, one, REALLY DOES WISH TO UNDERSTAND 'another', then 'that one' WILL JUST ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that they Truly DO WISH TO UNDERSTAND.

For example, if I wished to understand what 'it' is, exactly, that you are NOT, YET, 'understanding' in regards to 'my point of view', then 'I' would JUST ASK 'you', 'What is 'it', exactly', about 'my point of view' that you are not yet understanding?', or, 'What part or parts of 'my point of view' are you not yet understanding, exactly?'

Then, if you INFORMED 'me', exactly, what you are NOT YET understanding, then I could, and would, INFORM you.

But, see I, REALLY, do have to have A DESIRE, or WISH, 'to understand' 'you', and/or 'your point of view', BEFORE I would even BEGIN to CONSIDER to JUST ASK you CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, like those in the examples I just provided, for you, here.

and, if anything, think that you might be clearer to me if you wrote shorter answers and with more about your ideas.

I am NOT SURE how I could write 'shorter answers', if NO clarifying questions are being asked.

I could, obviously, write shorter 'responses', but just as obvious to be able to write 'shorter answers' I need to be asked 'questions'.

Also, writing on philosophy forums is quite complex because it a media site, communicating with other minds remotely.

1. There are, again, NO 'other minds'.

2. I am not sure how, just 'writing on a media site' is so-called 'quite complex'. Are you able to explain WHY just writing on media sites is 'quite complex', to you, exactly?

Books are read as opposed to face to face and it is also likely that people interpret them differently.

I am not sure WHY you would think it is 'also likely' that 'people interpret them differently', in books/reading compared to in person/hearing.

Absolutely ANY thing can, and usually is, interpreted DIFFERENTLY. And, this happens and occurs for the very reason/s I have provided, ALREADY.

And, AGAIN, it all comes down to the most basic fundamental reason, and if, and when, this is/was uncovered, then reducing ALL misunderstanding/s can, and did, Truly BEGIN.

However, as there is less open dialogue this may not be known between author and audience.

Okay.

But, are you AWARE that within forum like this one here, 'the audience' is ABLE TO ASK 'the author' CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, for CLARITY SAKE?

See, while 'the author' is, what is called, 'still alive', then what 'the author' Truly MEANT and Truly INTENDED can, actually, be FOUND OUT, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

But, and obviously, one has to have, FIRST, A True DESIRE, WISH, and WANT to Truly UNDERSTAND, 'the other'.

I was definitely aware that your responses were unusual.

'unusual' in respect of who and/or what, exactly?

At first, I thought that you were someone I knew in real life, playing games with me.

Okay. I am not sure of the significance of being informed of this, but again okay.

I don't know if you are generated by A1.

So, if you do not know some thing, and you, really, do wish to know, then what do you think is the best, quickest, simplest, and easiest way to find out, and know?

Are you claiming to being an entity who inspired the Bible.

What made you ask such a question as this?

Is there absolutely any thing that i have said and written here, which led you to ask this question?

If so, who are you and where do you come from? What do you think are the most important values and priorities in the world in the twentieth first century?

The EXACT SAME values and priorities that are in 'the world' ALWAYS.

[Age]

NOT 'perhaps'. It MUST OF BEEN UNCLEAR, and VERY UNCLEAR at that.


Once again, what 'we' can see here, VERY CLEARLY, is ANOTHER one who does not just seek out CLARIFICATION, and who prefers to just ASSUME or GUESS, AS WELL.

This, guessing and assuming what MIGHT BE true, instead of just seeking out and obtaining ACTUAL clarity was a very common habit of the adult human being, back in the days when this was being written.

Just so you become AWARE I was NEVER EVER suggesting ANYWHERE in this WHOLE forum that the relativity of 'truth' is the absolute, or objective one.

And, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE HOW you could have even STARTED to BEGIN ASSUMING ABSOLUTELY ANY thing like this, especially considering what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN above here.

There is, however, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in what I have said and written above that is even REMOTELY CLOSE to what you have claimed here.


ABSOLUTELY, NO.


Okay.

I am not sure if my misunderstandings of you are my fault or yours, or a mixture of both.

It's not you, Jack.

Perhaps it would help if you knew that when you are conversing with Age, you are talking to an ancient "entity" who claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible.

You can judge this for yourself by reading what he clearly stated a few years back under the moniker of "ken"...

ken [aka Age] wrote:
"...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things..."

In other words,...

(and he [she/it] will make a big stink about this)

What is the so-called 'big stink' in regards to, exactly, which you ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that I WILL make, here?

...when you are talking to Age, you are conversing with what appears to be a "channeled" (non-human) entity that, according to his own words above, is sharing things (irrefutable truths) with us by using a human that he (she/it) has "found."

Again, it's not you, Jack, and welcome to the PN asylum.
_______

This one has, once again, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED things, here.

[Atla]

This one has, once again, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED things, here.

Hey age, 'i' have a question that only 'you' here can answer. Do 'you' know what a corpus callosotomy is?

[Fairy]

When you say there is 'no Jack' are you asking if I am a person or an artificial intelligent form? What is a person or human identity exactly? As Jack I am an autobiographical character in my own life dramas, as well as Jack Daydream on this and another philosophy forum.

'Jack' is an idea. 'Jack' is a concept.

'Jack' is not ACTUALITY

ATUALITY is without concept, actuality is prior to concept, actuality is beyond the known that is imagined concept.

Unknowing is actuality, unknowing is the direct experience, which is actuality.

Actuality communicated, in the form of ideas, concepts or belief, is imagination... NOT actual.

ACTUALITY is not imagination, actuality is this immediate true pure direct experience without a concept, which is ALL THERE IS, while every thing else is imagination, concept, and belief.

[Jack Daydream]

When you say there is 'no Jack' are you asking if I am a person or an artificial intelligent form? What is a person or human identity exactly? As Jack I am an autobiographical character in my own life dramas, as well as Jack Daydream on this and another philosophy forum.

'Jack' is an idea. 'Jack' is a concept.

'Jack' is not ACTUALITY

ATUALITY is without concept, actuality is prior to concept, actuality is beyond the known that is imagined concept.

Unknowing is actuality, unknowing is the direct experience, which is actuality.

Actuality communicated, in the form of ideas, concepts or belief, is imagination... NOT actual.

ACTUALITY is not imagination, actuality is this immediate true pure direct experience without a concept, which is ALL THERE IS, while every thing else is imagination, concept, and belief.

To what extent is actuality more than other concepts, including the 'real'? It involves the distinction between existence and non-existence, as well as body/mind. Such dichotomies may blurry, including at a quantum level.

Regarding the idea of imagination and ideas, one idea which I was reading of recently is that of the akashic records. It involves ideas being stored in the 'ether' eternally and is from esoteric thought. The reason why I am thinking it may be importance is that it may be the basis on which information is transmitted, especially as the basis for information technology.

[Jack Daydream]

The ideas of Plato, Hume and Kant offer interesting contrasts. As I understand Plato was a little uncertain about the Forms as entities towards the end of his life. The solidity of ideas in most extreme contrasting positions would be Berkley at one end of the continuum and the postmodernists at the other. Berkley saw ideas and spirits as the only 'reality', with matter being only an idea. In contrast, the postmodernists saw all ideas, including good and evil, as well as gender, as socially constructed.

I see the arguments for ideas as universal, eternal and primary, as well as the postmodernists' critique of the construction and relativism of ideas as being fairly convincing even though they are clear opposites. So, I do wonder about a bridge between the two opposites. One writer who may succeed in this is Hegel. That is because he sees ideas and spirit as being real but imminent in history.

I am interested in Kant's philosophy, including the a idea of a priori and a posteri as a means of validating ideas. The a priori is an important means of establishing logic and universal ideas. Kant's moral theory is backed up by this. Kant's a posteri was an important foundation for establishing ideas empirically, important for scientific approaches, especially evidence as a means of verifying ideas.

His idea of the transcendent or 'thing in itself' is complicated. That is because it is hard to grasp fully. It goes beyond the limits of human knowledge. With regard to this, there is also the thinking of Schopenhauer, who brought the transcendent down to human experience, making ideas of true significance. What do you think of Schopenhauer's reinterpretation of Kant?

I have read both or Schopenhauer's book re the Will.

Schopenhauer and most of the post-Kantians fell prey to this natural delusion;

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions - things-in-themselves}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397

Schopenhauer's "The Will" [influenced by Hinduism Vedanta] held as most real is a thing-in-itself i.e. it is Transcendent which according to Kant is hypostatized as existing beyond the empirical world and space & time.

Kant stated this of Plato and his ideas which were speculated beyond the Senses plus intellect [the empirical world]:

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.
He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.
CPR B9

Kant rejected Plato's claim of Ideas as the most real, but nevertheless he accepted Plato's Ideas [things-in-themselves] as merely thoughts which are empty of anything substantial.
To Kant, these ideas or things-in-themselves are useful illusions [ideals] to act as standards to guide progress within science and morality.

I have argued, why philosophical realists insist upon the existence of things which are absolutely independent of the mind which is beyond the empirical and they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not, is due to an inherent psychological drive as a result of an evolutionary default arising from the existential crisis.

It is interesting to think how Schopenhauer's idea of the will is about the transcendent, influenced by Hinduism. I am aware of Schopenhauer's ideas being used to support materialism. His philosophy is probably like that of Spinoza which can be interpreted in line with materialism or idealism, or as inbetween.

Also, with many of these philosophers they were influenced by mainstream thinking, but also by esoteric traditions. Such ideas, especially in Eastern perceptions of reality are far more soft and have a far more fluid understanding of the way mind, body and spirit come together than in contemporary twentieth first century thought.