Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote: ...what is the new word or new label that you propose and that human beings are now going to use that satisfies the definition of 'ALL-THAT-IS'? What is the name of THIS PLACE, where all universes exist?

seeds wrote: The materialists would of course use the term “Multiverse” (as was pointed out by surreptitious57).

I, on the other hand, coming from a metaphysical (spiritual) perspective, have no specific name for it other than perhaps “True Reality.”

A similar problem of my inability to give a fitting name to the ineffable also arises when I attempt to reference God and end up using the unfortunate pronouns “he” or “him” (something that is quite irksome to our beloved Greta).

However, my true visualization of God sees “him” as a completely genderless entity.

In which case, if anyone can come up with a name for the genderless “wholeness of being” of God’s form (and indeed of our own ultimate form that I believe will be revealed to us at the moment of death), then let’s hear it.

ken wrote: What is wrong with just saying God, instead of "him", or any other word?

I have never used "him" or any thing else to describe God, and I have never had any trouble just saying God. I also usually ask people why they call God, "him"? Usually without a valid response?

So then, you say that you have never used “him” or anything else to describe God?

Let’s take a look at an excerpt from your very first post on the first page of this thread:

ken wrote: ...Could God show anger by consuming It's enemies with love?

You are questioning why humans persist in referring to God as a he, yet you think that a better alternative is the word “It”?

Would you call your mother an “it”?

If not, then do you actually think that something as cold and impersonal as the word “it” is appropriate and fitting for the living Creator of the universe?

However, after reading a few of your subsequent posts, I have come to realize that you do indeed view God as an impersonal entity.

You seem to treat the word “God” as a representation of something nebulous - something of which you have given the title of “Mind” to; something that appears to be some kind of living repository, or container, of all knowledge and of all things.

Furthermore, I could not help but notice that based on your following posts...

ken wrote: ...Human beings come to KNOW Me when they have been prepared and thus ready to.

ken 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 with...

...you seem to be “channeling” this “Mind” in a way that is reminiscent of J. Z. Knight (Ramtha), or Darryl Anka (Bashar), or the channeled collective know as “Abraham” through Esther & Jerry Hicks.

Is that how you wish to be perceived – as a “channeler” of something you refer to as “Mind”?

Do you see yourself as a “conduit” of something that presents itself through you in the form of that which you keep referring to as “Me” with the capital “M”?

Lastly, the whole point of bringing up the “he” subject in the first place was simply as an anecdotal example of the difficulty in trying to name that which is ineffable, such as the name of the alleged context or “Place” where all universes exist (something that you requested).

(By the way, and I apologize for being nitpicky here, but the possessive pronoun you used for God was “It’s,” which is a contraction of “It is.” The word you want is “its.” It’s a common mistake that you might want to make note of.) (I’ll add that to my “Pet Peeves” thread that no one liked. )

(Continued in next post)
_______

_______

(Continued from prior post)

ken wrote: The reason human beings use the word "him" in reference to God was because when books like the bible were written, usually by men, men were seen as the dominant ones. They described God as a "him", and sadly human beings just never got out of that bad habit.

Yes, that no doubt has something to do with it, as in:

“...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...” (KJV)

Now let’s take that passage and apply the pronoun that you used:

“...So God created man in Its own image, in the image of God created It him; male and female created It them...” (kv)

Sounds a bit awkward and impersonal, don’t you think?

Clearly, the language that humans employ requires some flexibility in our usage of nouns and pronouns. Hence my inquiry regarding the perfect “genderless” word to replace the word “he” or “she,” and especially “it.”

However, in your case, ken, because you do seem to view God as an “It”...

(again, as a nebulous form of “Mind” with no singular and “personal” identity)

...then why even use the misleading and “baggage-filled” word “God”?

Why not simply rely entirely on your word “It” as our go-to noun/pronoun?

Let’s see how well that works:

“...So It created man in Its own image, in the image of It created It him; male and female created It them...”

Extremely awkward.

Or how about:

“...My It, my It, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Yikes!
_______

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:30 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:03 pm Science can only report what it observes, science doesn't make up data to suit it's theories and principles like religion does.

Until science knows who or what is observing what's observed, then they'll have a whole different view on reality. Truth is, science does not know who or what is observing reality ..yet they claim to have a great knowledge of the stuff observed in reality, as if they are the sole source of their knowledge. Hence, the scientists are making up the data that they are confronted with to suit their own model of what they believe is ideal and are quite happy to go along with this ideal for as long as others are agreeing with it...but as soon as someone comes up with another idea, the previous idea/theory is tossed away which just proves that they are making it all up...So doc, why moan at the religious people when science is doing same.

What isn't made up is the overwhelming evidence of this silent empty present looker/perceiver that never moves or changes, it is always here, and cannot be tossed away/or rejected.

.

I know you do not agree, but I will say it again, who/what is observing what is observed is already known, and, can be explained.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:00 pm

ken wrote:
The emotional part of me feels frustration when it appears that what I am trying to convey is instantly dismissed as being wrong and I
am told some thing as though it is actual and true fact but I know if and when looked into much further it is not really that true at all

The emotional part of me does not feel frustration because I am not here to change anyones mind

The emotional part of me feels frustration again now. Again, for the same reason above, but also because of six things I hear you say, just in this very short statement.
1. By definition the emotional part of 'you' does feel. And, I am pretty sure feelings of frustration do appear within you.
2. Your assumption that I am here to change anyone's mind is totally incorrect. If you did not assume that, then why did you write that?
3. I am NOT here to change any thing. Change happens anyway, always and naturally, no matter what I do or do not do.
4. I am here to learn how to express better. How many times do I have to say some thing before it becomes accepted and known?
5. There is no such thing as anyone's mind. How many times do I have to say that there is only one Mind before clarification is asked for?
6. There is certainly no thing that owns that Mind.

Even AFTER I clearly expressed that I gain frustrating feelings when what I am trying to convey is instantly dismissed ..., the actual things that I have continually conveyed are still being completely dismissed, not heard, or not accepted.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:00 pmI just state my position and leave it at that and let others be free to think what ever they want to

That is great. But are you saying that you have NEVER felt frustration, when talking to other people and they are not listening to you, or when they are not hearing what it is that you are actually saying, nor when they do not believe you and/or will not accept what you are saying when you are expressing a truth?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:00 pmGetting frustrated over something that you have no real control over is a waste of mental energy

Is it really possible for a human being to not get emotional feelings?

I know human beings can block emotion feelings, but is it really a good idea to prevent emotional feelings from arising, or to stop getting emotional feelings over some thing? I found emotional feelings will arise no matter what and are a great signpost of what is actually happening around a human being. Emotions help show, when recognized when getting them, what actually needs to be changed.

I DO have full and real control over My life. So, I can have control over every thing that I say and do.

Getting an emotional feeling is NOT a waste of mental energy. Getting emotions will happen no matter is being thought. Although mental activity and emotions interact with each other and can change each other, they are still two distinctly different things.

i can NOT stop getting frustration feelings at times. Unless of course i remain 100% focused on only having thoughts that will stop the frustrating emotion from arising. Now, to Me, that would be a waste of mental energy. Putting all of one's mental energy on to trying to not get a feeling would deprive a human being a part of what actually makes a human being a 'human being'. To me, feeling frustrated means that there is some thing that i need to do, in order to change why i am getting and feeling frustrated. For example, "getting" frustrated from reading other's writings, in reply to Mine, means that I need to change the way I express. The more frustrated i feel means the more I have to learn in order to express better.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:11 pm

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
You appear to be very impatient with me but I am not as educated as you are

I was the one who first said that I was the most uneducated simple and slow one here

Yes you did but even when you did say it it was not true but no one knew that at the time

AGAIN, what I write is instantly dismissed. Even when what I wrote was ALL about me.

I am very simple and slow, and have admitted that many times already. I have yet to read another say that about them self here. So, it is true that I am the most simple and slow here. I also said that I am the most uneducated on here, which may or may not be true, and the actual truth of would be hard to verify, but as i never really learned any thing at school, which was being taught to me, i would not be surprised if i was the most uneducated one here. What human beings were trying to educated me to never really made much sense.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:11 pmYou are now the most intelligent member here and I am the least intelligent member here

How do you define 'intelligent' and 'educated'? To Me, the two really do not have much at all to do with each other. To Me, every person has the exact same amount of intelligence. If and how much they choose to use of that is another matter. How 'educated', from the generally accepted usage of that word in the days of when this is written, is related to 'intellect'. To Me, 'intellect' is the knowledge that has been learned and understood, and stored in the brain, whereas, 'intelligence' is the ability to learn, understand, and reason.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:25 pm

ken wrote:
This person desperately wants to learn how to express better and it is in the desperation that impatience appears

The problem is not with your expression but the failure of others like me in understanding what you are trying to say

I am positive it is Me who has a lot more to learn in how to express, communicate and being understood better.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:25 pmBecause my mind refuses to accept anything as true where it thinks such a thing cannot be true even though it may

Besides the words "my mind" not being actually accurate and would be better replaced with "the brain" refuses ..., the truth is "the brain" actually CAN accept things as true where "it" thinks such a thing can not be true. The beauty of thinking some thing is, or is not, true, leaves that person far more open then a person who is believing some thing is, or is not, true. I know this might appear as very subliminal and not really that important, but what we do say, to ourselves, has a far bigger bearing on us and is far more important than people realize yet. For example, look at the difference between, 'I REFUSE to accept ...' compared to, 'I CAN accept ...'. Even if you replace the 'I' here with 'my mind' or 'my thoughts' or even 'my brain' the example still works. What we say to ourselves has a very strong influence on how we then look at and see things.

Now not until you discover or learn and understand and know how to do some thing can you then be able to do it easily and simply. Until you discover or learn how to look for and find truth, then you are not really sure how to do it, and thus it would seem to be hard and difficult, on first glance. But when you do have and thus KNOW-how to do some thing, then you can do it.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:25 pmBeing open minded all of the time is very hard for me because I am human and cannot always think like a machine

Have you previously discovered or learned how to be open all the of the time? If not, then of course it would appear to be hard, at first glance, and even impossible if you have never experienced it before. Flying a helicopter might also appear hard, at first glance, especially if you had never discovered, learned, and/or had experience about how to fly one, but once you learn how to do it, and thus have the know-how, then you obviously CAN do it. This brings Me back to the matter about what we say to ourselves. If, for example, I asked you, "Can you fly a helicopter?" and if you never had before, then your answer would probably be some thing like, "No. I can not". Although this appears to be the truth, it actually is not. The truth is you CAN fly a helicopter, you just have not learned how to, YET. This 'what we say to ourselves' is very important. Take for example what you wrote just here, "Being open minded all of the time is very hard for me ...". How do you KNOW it is very hard if you have never discovered nor learned how to do it yet, and thus you have also never really tried it yet? The more knowledge or KNOW-how you gain of how to do some thing, then the more easier and simpler it gets or becomes. The other thing you said here is "I am a human and can not always think like a machine". A few things here;
1. If you do not yet know, for sure, what or who 'I' am, then it is only a presumption or assumption that the 'I' in the question Who am 'I'? is a human. And, a presumption or assumption CAN be wrong.
2. You are assuming that only machines can be, what you call, open "minded" all of the time.
3. I always pick up on when the word "mind" is written because if I was to ask you, What is the mind? What would your answer be and how sure are you that answer IS correct?

Writing what you did here would influence 'you' in a particular way, now imagine how you would be influenced if you instead said something similar to, "Being open all of the time sounds and appears to be very hard, it even seems impossible, but I wonder how I could do it? I might be a human being but if I look back at all the things human beings have done and achieved, so far, maybe we all can be more open more of the time." How do you think that would influence 'you' now? Also, if there was also another thought like, "How can I be open all of the time", then that thought might influence 'you' to ask Me a clarifying question like, "How can I be open all of the time?" To which I would reply.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:25 pmWere I a machine then I could be more open minded because I would only think logically and not also emotionally

But to Me, emotions do not necessarily close a person off at all. Emotions are only emotions. They do have an influence on how a person looks at things, but thoughts have much more control over how a person looks at things. For example if a person thinks some thing is true, then they are somewhat closed, but the biggest influence over people in keeping them closed or open is what they assume and believe to be already true.

The power of words and the influence this has over people, even on the most subliminal level, is far stronger then people yet realize.

Dontaskme wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Distance between events is actually one of the definitions of time
Also if time does not exist then why is there motion and entropy

There is motion because of the ageless stillness of this ever present silent presence that is
awareness observing. Motion and entropy is relative to the observer which never moves or ages

There cannot be no time if there is motion because motion is actually movement through time

ken wrote:
There is no such thing as anyones mind. How many times do I have to say that there is only one Mind before clarification is asked for

I do not accept either of these claims no matter how many times you make them. You may say I am being closed minded but without evidence
for a truth claim it cannot be accepted as true. And I see you yet again getting frustrated because no one is asking you any clarifying questions
However instead of waiting for them why not just provide clarifying answers any way. They may not be accepted but you will hopefully be less
frustrated because you will have explained your position more clearly

ken wrote:
Even AFTER I clearly expressed that I gain frustrating feelings when what I am trying to convey is
instantly dismissed the actual things that I have continually conveyed are still being completely dismissed

You have no control over how others react to your words but you do however have control over your own emotional reactions
So why then do you allow yourself to get frustrated when you could easily avoid it by not letting that emotion be experienced

ken wrote:
I DO have full and real control over My life

I can NOT stop getting frustration feelings at times

Full control over your life would stop you from experiencing any frustration at all
And so may be you do not have quite as much control over it as you think you do

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
I was the one who first said that I was the most uneducated simple and slow one here

Yes you did but even when you did say it it was not true but no one knew that at the time

AGAIN what I write is instantly dismissed Even when what I wrote was ALL about me

AGAIN allowing yourself to become frustrated over something beyond your control

ken wrote:
are you saying that you have NEVER felt frustration when talking to other people and they are not listening to you
or when they are not hearing what it is that you are actually saying nor when they do not believe you and / or will
not accept what you are saying when you are expressing a truth

I have felt frustration in the past but no longer do because I now realise that I have no influence over how any one else
thinks and so leave that to them and instead focus on what I think because that is something which is within my control

ken wrote:
To me feeling frustrated means that there is some thing that i need to do in order to change why i am getting and
feeling frustrated. For example getting frustrated from reading others writings in reply to Mine means that I need
to change the way I express. The more frustrated I feel means the more I have to learn in order to express better

Expressing better helps but it is no guarantee of not feeling frustrated as that can still happen
And so therefore focusing on reducing or eliminating the frustration would be the better option

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Because my mind refuses to accept anything as true where it thinks such a thing cannot be true even though it may

Besides the words my mind not being actually accurate and would be better replaced with the brain

Sometimes mind and brain are used synonymously but more accurately mind is a function of the brain

thedoc wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:02 am

ken wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:48 am

thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:18 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaxmEkVlOVs

It seems that there are quite a few videos on this subject. This seems to be one of the better ones.

Thanks for that link. It seems to confirm what I have said about things depend upon how they are being looked at or observed. Everything is after all relative to or depended upon the observer, and the way they are looking. When looking from the human being perspective only (that is from the brain only) at the larger things in Life then their life-span is much longer so they can appear dead. The opposite affect happens when looking at the smaller things in Life from the human or brain perspective only. The life-span of these things is much less, so they can appear to jumping into and out of existence randomly.

Another aspect of this is that every thing that is observed has already happened and in a sense has already disappeared and thus finished and gone. As obvious Leo was trying to explain, and which I had never thought of before, there is no actual thing space. This is in the sense that there is no distance between objects or matter in length. There however is a distance between events. Although it has to be noted here that there is no actual thing as time, itself, also.

What appears to be happening at any and all scales is relative to how one is looking. The truth can be a lot different from what seems to appear. That is looking from the Mind or from the brain influences what is actual seen, and thus known.

An alternate explanation is that there are parallel universes and the photons in one universe are interfering and reacting with the photons in the adjacent universe producing the pattern seen on the screen.

Yes that is one of many explanations, but highly unlikely. The relatively new idea of parallel, or multiple, universes just does not stack up if 'Universe' is going to be defined as something similar to ALL-THAT-IS.

Also, the size of this Universe is not yet known so It may in fact be infinite. This means there could never be another Universe, let alone a parallel one.

And, how is 'parallel universe' actually defined? Parallel to what exactly?