Philosophy Now Forum

Everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything.

Everything can be simplified to ... all. I is the last thing you have before you lose it all.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:50 pm Everything can be simplified to ... all. I is the last thing you have before you lose it all.

"All" is not any one thing though.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:33 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:50 pm Everything can be simplified to ... all. I is the last thing you have before you lose it all.

"All" is not any one thing though.

One thing can be the center of all orbits.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 5:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:33 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:50 pm Everything can be simplified to ... all. I is the last thing you have before you lose it all.

"All" is not any one thing though.

One thing can be the center of all orbits.

Thus the one thing would have to orbit itself, if it is the center of 'all orbits', and this self-referentiality results in absurdity.

All has no need of reference for there is nothing outside itself.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:00 pm All has no need of reference for there is nothing outside itself.

Who says anything about "outside"?

ALL references everything inside itself.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:04 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:00 pm All has no need of reference for there is nothing outside itself.

Who says anything about "outside"?

ALL references everything inside itself.

Excellent point!! Part to part.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:11 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 5:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:33 pm

"All" is not any one thing though.

One thing can be the center of all orbits.

Thus the one thing would have to orbit itself, if it is the center of 'all orbits', and this self-referentiality results in absurdity.

No, as the last thing lost, I is unique. I, is the still, unmoving axis around which all things orbit ... and I is an inference associated with being, for the purpose of differentiation. This is because words don't determine reality, they reflect reality.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:11 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 5:22 am
One thing can be the center of all orbits.

Thus the one thing would have to orbit itself, if it is the center of 'all orbits', and this self-referentiality results in absurdity.

No, as the last thing lost, I is unique. I, is the still, unmoving axis around which all things orbit ... and I is an inference associated with being, for the purpose of differentiation. This is because words don't determine reality, they reflect reality.

The word is not the thing!

Are you a thing?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:37 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:11 pm

Thus the one thing would have to orbit itself, if it is the center of 'all orbits', and this self-referentiality results in absurdity.

No, as the last thing lost, I is unique. I, is the still, unmoving axis around which all things orbit ... and I is an inference associated with being, for the purpose of differentiation. This is because words don't determine reality, they reflect reality.

The word is not the thing!

How about … you are a compendium of qualities organized into a continuity of identity, a continuity which is defended by a separate sense of self and called “I,” an identity which in fact could be an interlocutor inhabiting consciousness with thought. However, we don’t know for sure because that’s an inference. It’s an inference because identity is so intertwined with consciousness, so inseparable with our ordering of the world, and because of identity folks may even sacrifice the body while protecting the arbitrary and temporal thought of identity, that the identification of what “I” represents in reality can confound the intellect with self-referential, circular reasoning. Thus, the advantage of non-conceptual meditation that leads to the stilling of mind, once the sensory gates have been closed via pratyahara. First close the portals to sensory motion, then the mind follows. Separation of intellectual associations and emotions from energy leaves awareness stripped of those adornments and fluid to the situation presented by elemental forces. This is the root reason why Thoreau noticed, upon self-reflection, that he could easily devour a woodchuck under the appropriate conditions, even though he was a pacifist.

(Now, don’t worry popeye. It’s just stream-of-consciousness (SOC) practice, quite spontaneous when caught in the stream of wu wei. It’s not a philosophical pronouncement presented as a monograph for easy vivisection. But the question still remains. Did Whimpy indeed settle up on Tuesday, for the burger he borrowed on Saturday? And what of Olive Oyl. Whatever became of her?)

Did you observe how all those thoughts and themes swirled around the still axis of Being and yet maintained the continuity of meaning, at the stillness of axis where the I thought has settled? It's an energetic thang.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:11 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 5:22 am
One thing can be the center of all orbits.

Thus the one thing would have to orbit itself, if it is the center of 'all orbits', and this self-referentiality results in absurdity.

No, as the last thing lost, I is unique. I, is the still, unmoving axis around which all things orbit ... and I is an inference associated with being, for the purpose of differentiation. This is because words don't determine reality, they reflect reality.

1. "I" repeats therefore is not wholly unique.
2. To reflect reality is to be a part of reality thus is reality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:36 am

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:11 pm

Thus the one thing would have to orbit itself, if it is the center of 'all orbits', and this self-referentiality results in absurdity.

No, as the last thing lost, I is unique. I, is the still, unmoving axis around which all things orbit ... and I is an inference associated with being, for the purpose of differentiation. This is because words don't determine reality, they reflect reality.

1. "I" repeats therefore is not wholly unique.
2. To reflect reality is to be a part of reality thus is reality.

Apparent reality, for apparent reality, is biological reactions to the energies of the cosmos as opposed to those energies we cannot sense/react to and as such are not manifested objects to us. Objects are not what is, they are the effect of what is upon our biological consciousness, they are biological reactions. The nature of apparent reality is in part due to the nature of one's biology, or apparent reality is relative to biology.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 1:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:36 am

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:22 pm
No, as the last thing lost, I is unique. I, is the still, unmoving axis around which all things orbit ... and I is an inference associated with being, for the purpose of differentiation. This is because words don't determine reality, they reflect reality.

1. "I" repeats therefore is not wholly unique.
2. To reflect reality is to be a part of reality thus is reality.

Apparent reality, for apparent reality, is biological reactions to the energies of the cosmos as opposed to those energies we cannot sense/react to and as such are not manifested objects to us. Objects are not what is, they are the effect of what is upon our biological consciousness, they are biological reactions. The nature of apparent reality is in part due to the nature of one's biology, or apparent reality is relative to biology.

Biology referencing biology leaves biology meaning anything.