Logic limits us

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by jerlands » February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am

Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
jerlands wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 11:32 pm

I don't understand this ratio of Self with "God" so if you could spell that out for me?
This is the mystical experience/Knowledge, throughout history.
Logically, if God is Omni-, then not anything can exist that is not God.
Thus it is fair dinkum to see God in all and everything, and that includes you and I (whatever 'we' are)!
This logic exists but we may not have incorporated all information. The fact is we're making assumptions about "God." The first assumption is we think we know the reason for creation. Another assumption is that all is part of "God" but is that real? Is it possible there is something that has removed itself from "God" through free-will (which you dismiss) and now opposes his will or possibly that "God" brought the other into existence simply so that it could be seen? These are the different possibilities in Biblical theology I see. I think we all have been witness to evil.
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
"God cannot know himself without me." - Meister Eckhart (Christian mystic)
What does this saying imply? Does "God" act through his creation?
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart
Seems here we're able to inhibit "God's" vision somewhat.
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
"All things are simply God to thee who seest only God in all things. Like one who looks long at the sun, he encounters the sun in whatever he afterwards looks at. If this is lacking, this looking for and seeing God in all and sundry, then thou lackest this birth." - Meister Eckhart
I could understand this from the point of view "God's" burden is my burden.
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
"What a man loves, he is. If he loves a stone he is that stone, if he loves a person he is that person, if he loves God - nay, I durst not say more; were I to say, he is God, he might stone me. I do but teach you the scriptures." - Meister Eckhart
And the all important issue of losing identity. I think we can reach "God" but I believe that requires balance.
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
There is no 'distinction/difference' between the Omni-God and anything perceived!
This is your interpretation. I would love to live in peace but "God" apparently is not at rest.
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
I understand that I have offered these quotes before, but we are always seeing with unique eyes.
And I am offering mine.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by Londoner » February 27th, 2018, 6:18 am

jerlands wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 5:08 pm

I think therefore I am. Logic is defined as reason and reason is the act of holding one thing in relation to another (ratio.) How this function arose in the human being is a discussion unto itself.
I am afraid I do not agree with your terms.

'I think therefore I am' is not a logical argument, rather it is an attempt at an a priori. As such it cannot be 'holding one thing in relation to another' because if it was that would mean I think therefore I am' was only only true in relation to something else, in which case it would only be contingently true. But Descartes is presenting it as something that cannot be doubted.

'Reason' is a vaguer term. I have reason to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but my belief is not derived from logic.

All logic can say that: if A then it is valid to infer B, but only 'valid', meaning you have correctly applied the rules. It doesn't say B is a fact. And your conclusion rests on that first 'if A' which is purely an assumption, you are equally free to assume 'not A'. So logic cannot justify a belief.
Number is really an abstract idea (metaphysical) but is manifest in everything.
But as far as it is manifest then it is not abstract. We can describe the world using numbers, but whether our description is correct depends on empirical observation. For example, I can give a formula for gravity and it is correct if it correctly describes the behaviour of objects, false if it doesn't. But '1+1=2' is correct irrespective of empirical observation.
The duke lemur center conducted a study on primates ability to recognize quantity. Basically they showed how quantity is recognized no matter the shape, size, color or type of object placed within the study confines. The mind always perceives quantity but our thought translates that to number.
Again, numbers do not designate a quantity of anything. If they did, then '1+1=2' would not necessarily be correct, because it would be a description of the world. We would only know if '1+1=2' was correct if we used our senses to verify that there were really 'two apples'.

As you say, our thoughts can translate quantity into a number, but only if we ignore shape, size, colour and everything else that we sense about the objects. And of course, once we do that, we are free to do calculations that are entirely abstract, for example ones that involve 'imaginary numbers', or 'irrational numbers', that we could not represent as quantities of objects.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by jerlands » February 27th, 2018, 8:44 am

Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 6:18 am
jerlands wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 5:08 pm

I think therefore I am. Logic is defined as reason and reason is the act of holding one thing in relation to another (ratio.) How this function arose in the human being is a discussion unto itself.
I am afraid I do not agree with your terms.

'I think therefore I am' is not a logical argument, rather it is an attempt at an a priori. As such it cannot be 'holding one thing in relation to another' because if it was that would mean I think therefore I am' was only only true in relation to something else, in which case it would only be contingently true. But Descartes is presenting it as something that cannot be doubted.
Think of light. It isn't manifest until it crosses something (our perception.) Thought is similar in that it needs something to bounce off from. The logic in "I think therefore I am" is idea held in relation to self.
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 6:18 am
'Reason' is a vaguer term. I have reason to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but my belief is not derived from logic.
No, It is derived from logic. Logic doesn't have to be fully formed to be logical. We never know that tomorrow will come, and one day it won't, but tomorrow still looks pretty good. Logic doesn't even need to prove true to be logical but only needs to follow reason and make good sense at the moment. The fact is logic can fail. An example of this is the proof electrons are particles failed even though the experiment was logically performed.
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 6:18 am
All logic can say that: if A then it is valid to infer B, but only 'valid', meaning you have correctly applied the rules. It doesn't say B is a fact. And your conclusion rests on that first 'if A' which is purely an assumption, you are equally free to assume 'not A'. So logic cannot justify a belief.
The rule you set up isn't valid under all circumstances and therefore isn't universal. It isn't applicable out of the context it was developed for.
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 6:18 am
Number is really an abstract idea (metaphysical) but is manifest in everything.
But as far as it is manifest then it is not abstract. We can describe the world using numbers, but whether our description is correct depends on empirical observation. For example, I can give a formula for gravity and it is correct if it correctly describes the behaviour of objects, false if it doesn't. But '1+1=2' is correct irrespective of empirical observation.
As above so below. Creative forces, expansion and contraction, multiplication and division, addition and subtraction, these things reverberate throughout nature but nothing alone expresses the whole completely but the whole.
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 6:18 am
The duke lemur center conducted a study on primates ability to recognize quantity. Basically they showed how quantity is recognized no matter the shape, size, color or type of object placed within the study confines. The mind always perceives quantity but our thought translates that to number.
Again, numbers do not designate a quantity of anything. If they did, then '1+1=2' would not necessarily be correct, because it would be a description of the world. We would only know if '1+1=2' was correct if we used our senses to verify that there were really 'two apples'.
Quantity implies number in that it literally means "how much." The notion of number is also related to growth, bigger, grander etc.,
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 6:18 am
As you say, our thoughts can translate quantity into a number, but only if we ignore shape, size, colour and everything else that we sense about the objects. And of course, once we do that, we are free to do calculations that are entirely abstract, for example ones that involve 'imaginary numbers', or 'irrational numbers', that we could not represent as quantities of objects.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by Londoner » February 27th, 2018, 10:59 am

jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 8:44 am
Think of light. It isn't manifest until it crosses something (our perception.) Thought is similar in that it needs something to bounce off from. The logic in "I think therefore I am" is idea held in relation to self.
To say the (visible) light is 'manifest' suggests it is there all the time, but only revealed when we perceive it. I would say that light in that sense only exists as a perception.

I do not read Descartes in the same way as you, but perhaps that should be a separate topic.
No, It is derived from logic. Logic doesn't have to be fully formed to be logical. We never know that tomorrow will come, and one day it won't, but tomorrow still looks pretty good. Logic doesn't even need to prove true to be logical but only needs to follow reason and make good sense at the moment. The fact is logic can fail. An example of this is the proof electrons are particles failed even though the experiment was logically performed.
I think we have quite different understandings of what logic is. To me, it is an entirely formal system. It isn't about things like sunrises and electrons. In logic you use symbols that stand for something that has a binary value. The symbol doesn't mean anything, any more than the number 1 means 'an apple'. Sunrises and electrons are not like that; it makes no sense to say 'electron is true' or 'sunrise is false'.

I do not understand what you mean by 'logically performed'.
The rule you set up isn't valid under all circumstances and therefore isn't universal. It isn't applicable out of the context it was developed for
.

I'd agree up to a point, but it is hard to imagine an alternative basis to the 'laws of thought'; for example if your system allowed something to be both true and false at the same time then it would preclude forming any system at all.
As above so below. Creative forces, expansion and contraction, multiplication and division, addition and subtraction, these things reverberate throughout nature but nothing alone expresses the whole completely but the whole.
Logic is very formal. Words like 'reverberate' and 'nature' and 'creative' are too complicated.

There have been many attempts to apply logic to statements in ordinary language but it cannot be done. Even the simplest words do not have a purely binary true/false nature but rather have complicated meanings, so that we cannot say exactly what they mean.
Quantity implies number in that it literally means "how much." The notion of number is also related to growth, bigger, grander etc.,
But 'how much' does not have an exact meaning. An apple and an orange can remain 'one apple' and 'one orange' or it can be 'two fruit'. Neither description is wrong. What is a pile of sand plus another pile of sand? If we have two equally sized boxes, one of which contains 100 apples and the other is empty, 'how much' is each box?

By contrast, the number '3' is simply itself; every 3 is like every other 3. It can be +3 or -3, just as logical symbols can be true or false - in either case we are not describing the world, minus 3 is not a description of a quantity of something, not-P is not saying 'this object is unreal' or 'that claim is a lie'.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by jerlands » February 27th, 2018, 6:17 pm

Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 10:59 am
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 8:44 am
Think of light. It isn't manifest until it crosses something (our perception.) Thought is similar in that it needs something to bounce off from. The logic in "I think therefore I am" is idea held in relation to self.
To say the (visible) light is 'manifest' suggests it is there all the time, but only revealed when we perceive it. I would say that light in that sense only exists as a perception.
The sun's energy does a lot of things but think about night and walking into the sphere of radiance from a campfire.
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 10:59 am
I do not read Descartes in the same way as you, but perhaps that should be a separate topic.
I don't know specifically what you're talking about.
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 10:59 am
No, It is derived from logic. Logic doesn't have to be fully formed to be logical. We never know that tomorrow will come, and one day it won't, but tomorrow still looks pretty good. Logic doesn't even need to prove true to be logical but only needs to follow reason and make good sense at the moment. The fact is logic can fail. An example of this is the proof electrons are particles failed even though the experiment was logically performed.
I think we have quite different understandings of what logic is. To me, it is an entirely formal system. It isn't about things like sunrises and electrons. In logic you use symbols that stand for something that has a binary value. The symbol doesn't mean anything, any more than the number 1 means 'an apple'. Sunrises and electrons are not like that; it makes no sense to say 'electron is true' or 'sunrise is false'.
Logic is expressed in math but that is not logic's entirety. I think the idea of logic was the word, to bring forth. We associate things and give them understanding.

Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 10:59 am
I do not understand what you mean by 'logically performed'.
When you apply logic to a model you say 'this plus that is going to result in the therefore.' sometimes that doesn't work out even if you follow known procedure and law.
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 10:59 am
The rule you set up isn't valid under all circumstances and therefore isn't universal. It isn't applicable out of the context it was developed for
.

I'd agree up to a point, but it is hard to imagine an alternative basis to the 'laws of thought'; for example if your system allowed something to be both true and false at the same time then it would preclude forming any system at all.
You implied logic can't be used to justify belief but belief is similar to saying 'I smell smoke so there must be a fire.' You don't know there's a fire but believe so based on something. Not all belief is justifiable though, that is a fact.
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 10:59 am
As above so below. Creative forces, expansion and contraction, multiplication and division, addition and subtraction, these things reverberate throughout nature but nothing alone expresses the whole completely but the whole.
Logic is very formal. Words like 'reverberate' and 'nature' and 'creative' are too complicated.

There have been many attempts to apply logic to statements in ordinary language but it cannot be done. Even the simplest words do not have a purely binary true/false nature but rather have complicated meanings, so that we cannot say exactly what they mean.
Logic, logos.. the word.
Londoner wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 10:59 am
Quantity implies number in that it literally means "how much." The notion of number is also related to growth, bigger, grander etc.,
But 'how much' does not have an exact meaning. An apple and an orange can remain 'one apple' and 'one orange' or it can be 'two fruit'. Neither description is wrong. What is a pile of sand plus another pile of sand? If we have two equally sized boxes, one of which contains 100 apples and the other is empty, 'how much' is each box?

By contrast, the number '3' is simply itself; every 3 is like every other 3. It can be +3 or -3, just as logical symbols can be true or false - in either case we are not describing the world, minus 3 is not a description of a quantity of something, not-P is not saying 'this object is unreal' or 'that claim is a lie'.
I've lost track how this line of thought developed but... numbers are symbols and every symbol has and holds meaning. I've heard the symbolic structure for our system originated from straight lines forming angles and the number of inside angles formed that number.
.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7120
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by Greta » February 27th, 2018, 8:46 pm

Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
jerlands wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 11:32 pm

I don't understand this ratio of Self with "God" so if you could spell that out for me?
This is the mystical experience/Knowledge, throughout history.
Logically, if God is Omni-, then not anything can exist that is not God.
Thus it is fair dinkum to see God in all and everything, and that includes you and I (whatever 'we' are)!
Read 'em and weep, jer 8)

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by jerlands » February 27th, 2018, 8:54 pm

Greta wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 8:46 pm
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am

This is the mystical experience/Knowledge, throughout history.
Logically, if God is Omni-, then not anything can exist that is not God.
Thus it is fair dinkum to see God in all and everything, and that includes you and I (whatever 'we' are)!
Read 'em and weep, jer 8)
I don't get it. What are you pointing out. Why don't you respond to my response on this rather than lead me in circles? Or didn't you read my response?
.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by Londoner » February 28th, 2018, 6:02 am

jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 6:17 pm

Me: To say the (visible) light is 'manifest' suggests it is there all the time, but only revealed when we perceive it. I would say that light in that sense only exists as a perception.

The sun's energy does a lot of things but think about night and walking into the sphere of radiance from a campfire.
I would say this is mixing two alternative ways of describing the world. To write of 'energy' is to take an impersonal, scientific approach. I do not experience 'energy' in that abstract sense. But 'walking into a sphere of radiance' is a subjective experience, so as such it is not a scientific description. That my eyes happen to be sensitive to some particular wavelengths is a fact about me, not about 'energy'. For somebody with different eyes there would be no 'sphere of radiance'. So if we were trying to describe 'energy' we would try to avoid subjective impressions.

But I'm not sure how this exchange relates to the OP.
Me: I do not read Descartes in the same way as you, but perhaps that should be a separate topic.

I don't know specifically what you're talking about.
You wrote 'The logic in "I think therefore I am" is idea held in relation to self'. I'm saying that that is not how I understand Descartes.
Logic is expressed in math but that is not logic's entirety. I think the idea of logic was the word, to bring forth. We associate things and give them understanding.
As I say, I do not think that is what is understood by logic now. That logic can be related to words reflects a simple view of language, that an individual word had a simple and direct relationship to a 'thing'. But language doesn't work like that. (Not even maths works like that, in that we cannot reconcile maths with logic).
When you apply logic to a model you say 'this plus that is going to result in the therefore.' sometimes that doesn't work out even if you follow known procedure and law.
I would call that the testing of a hypothesis.

The logic would be in the assumption of the axiom that P=P. If a situation is alike in every respect - then it is alike in every respect. If water froze once at this temperature then it will always do so - assuming that every factor remains exactly as it was before.

Science simply assumes that axiom is true. So, if things don't work out as expected we would say 'the hypothesis is wrong' or the test was flawed.

If we don't accept that axiom, then the world is random and so any form of knowledge would be impossible. (Whereas the OP suggests we could just construct an alternative form of knowledge).
Me: Logic is very formal. Words like 'reverberate' and 'nature' and 'creative' are too complicated.

There have been many attempts to apply logic to statements in ordinary language but it cannot be done. Even the simplest words do not have a purely binary true/false nature but rather have complicated meanings, so that we cannot say exactly what they mean.


Logic, logos.. the word.
I address that above. You cannot translate any ordinary language sentence into logic. There was a lot of work done on this by Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein and all that lot.
I've lost track how this line of thought developed but... numbers are symbols and every symbol has and holds meaning. I've heard the symbolic structure for our system originated from straight lines forming angles and the number of inside angles formed that number.
I agree that numbers are symbols, but like words they do not have a simple meaning. As you say, number can be a symbol for a physical quantity, but it can also express entirely abstract relationships; square roots of minus 1 and so on. (This crops up very early in geometry, when it was realised that you cannot express all ratios in whole numbers). As I wrote, the same applies to words, they do not have a simple meaning.

But the Ps and Qs in logic have to be simple, they have to have a purely binary nature. Plainly words like 'hot' and 'apple' are not simple; they only make sense in relation to something outside themselves (hot) or they are a bundle of simpler things (apple). And this seems to be the case with all words.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by jerlands » February 28th, 2018, 7:09 am

Londoner wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 6:02 am
There have been many attempts to apply logic to statements in ordinary language but it cannot be done. Even the simplest words do not have a purely binary true/false nature but rather have complicated meanings, so that we cannot say exactly what they mean.
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 6:17 pm
Logic, logos.. the word.
I address that above. You cannot translate any ordinary language sentence into logic. There was a lot of work done on this by Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein and all that lot.
This discussion is lost in the argument of what Logic is. So using wiki there is a definition.

You want to argue that logic can't be expressed through language when language is logic at its very core. The study of logic simply teaches people to recognize good reasoning from bad reasoning.

I believe the OP implies we can't reason the irrational and which I believe is false because light does illuminate.
.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by Londoner » February 28th, 2018, 12:11 pm

jerlands wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 7:09 am
You want to argue that logic can't be expressed through language when language is logic at its very core. The study of logic simply teaches people to recognize good reasoning from bad reasoning.
Indeed, I do want to argue that. I think that nowadays we see logic as a very technical subject, distinct from verbal reasoning.

I have found it interesting discussing this with you because you seem to represent classical philosophy, whereas I am more 'up to date'. I do not mean that as a criticism - I do not think philosophy advances all the time, so that earlier ideas must be superseded. Rather, it changes its perspective, or style, which can result in a loss as much as a gain.

For example, I cannot deny that part of the meaning of 'logic' is just what you say, and it still needs thinking about - even though if you pick up a modern textbook on Logic it seems to have nothing to do with 'reasoning' as it is normally understood.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by jerlands » February 28th, 2018, 1:53 pm

Londoner wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 12:11 pm
jerlands wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 7:09 am
You want to argue that logic can't be expressed through language when language is logic at its very core. The study of logic simply teaches people to recognize good reasoning from bad reasoning.
Indeed, I do want to argue that. I think that nowadays we see logic as a very technical subject, distinct from verbal reasoning.

I have found it interesting discussing this with you because you seem to represent classical philosophy, whereas I am more 'up to date'. I do not mean that as a criticism - I do not think philosophy advances all the time, so that earlier ideas must be superseded. Rather, it changes its perspective, or style, which can result in a loss as much as a gain.

For example, I cannot deny that part of the meaning of 'logic' is just what you say, and it still needs thinking about - even though if you pick up a modern textbook on Logic it seems to have nothing to do with 'reasoning' as it is normally understood.
Atheists demand proof of "God" but fail to recognize that can't be given them, it's something men find in themselves.
.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by jerlands » February 28th, 2018, 3:10 pm

Londoner wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 12:11 pm
jerlands wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 7:09 am
You want to argue that logic can't be expressed through language when language is logic at its very core. The study of logic simply teaches people to recognize good reasoning from bad reasoning.
Indeed, I do want to argue that. I think that nowadays we see logic as a very technical subject, distinct from verbal reasoning.
Do you think nowadays we have a clear understanding of what is and what is not? Technical is an application, it doesn't imply anything other than methodology. It's something specific to it's arena of interest and implies the technique used for development, discovery and expression. Science is one form of methodology in discovery that utilizes it's techniques, Art is another form of methodology in discovery that utilizes it's techniques, Language is another form of methodology that utilizes it's techniques and all these different forms have within them a common goal and that is expression of idea. Expression however needs to be formed and it's the laws that allow formation that govern all. We have to join things together to form something and the harmony of joining is what we call logic.
Londoner wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 12:11 pm
I have found it interesting discussing this with you because you seem to represent classical philosophy, whereas I am more 'up to date'. I do not mean that as a criticism - I do not think philosophy advances all the time, so that earlier ideas must be superseded. Rather, it changes its perspective, or style, which can result in a loss as much as a gain.
Logic lies functionally within man, it's source is something we can touch upon in self discovery.
Londoner wrote:
February 28th, 2018, 12:11 pm
For example, I cannot deny that part of the meaning of 'logic' is just what you say, and it still needs thinking about - even though if you pick up a modern textbook on Logic it seems to have nothing to do with 'reasoning' as it is normally understood.
What logic is.. this is essential in understanding it. Logic is Logos (the word) and the word is formation.
If you muck around in the mire long enough you might start thinking that's what everything is.
.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Logic limits us

Post by Namelesss » March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am

jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am

This is the mystical experience/Knowledge, throughout history.
Logically, if God is Omni-, then not anything can exist that is not God.
Thus it is fair dinkum to see God in all and everything, and that includes you and I (whatever 'we' are)!
This logic exists but we may not have incorporated all information.

Of no importance. 'We' do not need 'all information', we have access to all we might ever need, and all 'information/experience' is 'uploaded' into the same One Universal Consciousness, cumulatively, synchronously! All inclusive!
Any tiny unique Perspective (Soul) provides it's own momentary unique glimpse of Reality/God!
The fact is we're making assumptions about "God."

So, one could say that God is making assumptions about God.
You have a problem with that? *__-
The first assumption is we think we know the reason for creation.
Woah, cowboy, lest we forget, it is me all over the place asserting (mostly unchallenged) how 'creation/causality', as commonly understood, is impossible, scientifically, philosophically. Ring any bells?
I really don't think that it is me to whom you refer when you offered; "we think we know the reason for creation"!
Another assumption is that all is part of "God" but is that real? Is it possible there is something that has removed itself from "God" through free-will (which you dismiss) and now opposes his will or possibly that "God" brought the other into existence simply so that it could be seen?

Of course it is possible, in the fevered dreams of those who have identified with the childish behave or else tales! Our Beloved brothers and sisters who haven't the intellectual facility, due to belief infections (often the case), to understand the nature of metaphor.
I might talk of the little fellow in red spandex on your shoulder, with pitchfork and a tail and little horns, whispering sweet nothings into your ear, and it might be ten or twenty lifetimes before you might understand that the little fellow is 'thought/ego', and can stop glancing in every mirror for the literal culprit.
No, not anything can 'detach' from the Omni-. That is absurd.
Satan stories for naive children to behave themselves, and have someone convenient to blame when they don't!
I cannot accept that I am speaking to a fully functional (intellectually) adult who admits to a belief infection of a manipulative, crossroads dwelling, devil... literally. Who is a separate entity from God (thus completely diminishing God's Omni- nature, demoting Him/Us to some 'other' Godling...
Seems like blasphemy to believe like that.
I think we all have been witness to evil.
If you think that everything is 'evil', than whatever anyone witnesses, a kitty cat, for instance, you can claim that he witnessed 'evil'.
I have already explained all 'good' and all 'evil' exist in the (vain, sinful) judgmental thoughts/ego of the beholder.
Who see evil, it is Self/God that is being seen!

If you are saying that we all judge things/people as 'good/evil', then you are mistaken.
I have never thought in such terms.
People have been asssholes, dickwads, thieves, etc... but I was never so blinded by churchianity as to see/judge others as 'evil'.
And then I learned that it was all a mirror of bits of Self yet to be integrated, Loved!
Then the 'dickwads' tend to vanish.
All judgment is Self judgment; insanity, but, God is insane! *__-
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
"God cannot know himself without me." - Meister Eckhart (Christian mystic)
What does this saying imply?

Already explained.
Does "God" act through his creation?
No 'acting', no 'creation'.
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart
Seems here we're able to inhibit "God's" vision somewhat.
You stil have a problem with the "all inclusive" aspect of Omni-.
As I have already explained, We are God's moment of epiphany, where the Universe becomes Self Aware (through duality).
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
"What a man loves, he is. If he loves a stone he is that stone, if he loves a person he is that person, if he loves God - nay, I durst not say more; were I to say, he is God, he might stone me. I do but teach you the scriptures." - Meister Eckhart
And the all important issue of losing identity. I think we can reach "God" but I believe that requires balance.
"I think that we can reach water, said the fish, swimming faster, round and round, but I believe that requires balance!" *__-

Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
There is no 'distinction/difference' between the Omni-God and anything perceived!
This is your interpretation. I would love to live in peace but "God" apparently is not at rest.
There's that mirror, again.
How can God be the same, always, unchanging, and not be 'at rest'?
Perhaps the turmoil IS God's turmoil, in you.
There is turmoil and ignorance and spite and confusion and insanity and autism and, and, and,... all features of an Omni- ALL inclusive, unchanging... God/Self!

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by jerlands » March 1st, 2018, 4:09 am

Namelesss wrote:
March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
Namelesss wrote:
March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
This is the mystical experience/Knowledge, throughout history.
Logically, if God is Omni-, then not anything can exist that is not God.
Thus it is fair dinkum to see God in all and everything, and that includes you and I (whatever 'we' are)!
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
This logic exists but we may not have incorporated all information.

Of no importance. 'We' do not need 'all information', we have access to all we might ever need, and all 'information/experience' is 'uploaded' into the same One Universal Consciousness, cumulatively, synchronously! All inclusive!
Any tiny unique Perspective (Soul) provides it's own momentary unique glimpse of Reality/God!
We don't need all the information? Well I need some information to understand what you're saying. "God" is considered the creator and aside from that we're merely given attributes through his various names. The idea of "God" as Omni is man's impression, something man has given "God" outside of Biblical literature. The word Omni does not occur in the Bible! Aside from that.. the notion "God" knows all might be a little deceiving as if you were to think of a nature of "God" as a sieve and only certain things pass.
Namelesss wrote:
March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
The fact is we're making assumptions about "God."

So, one could say that God is making assumptions about God.
You have a problem with that? *__-
Man and "God" are not the same thing.
.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Logic limits us

Post by jerlands » March 1st, 2018, 6:18 am

Namelesss wrote:
March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
The first assumption is we think we know the reason for creation.
Woah, cowboy, lest we forget, it is me all over the place asserting (mostly unchallenged) how 'creation/causality', as commonly understood, is impossible, scientifically, philosophically. Ring any bells?
I really don't think that it is me to whom you refer when you offered; "we think we know the reason for creation"!
We assume things about "God" without knowing the reason for creation? That doesn't make sense to me. The fact is we are told reasons for creation but some things are left out. We're told Man was created to be in the image and likeness so that he (man) could experience creation and act within it (Adam and Eve.)
Namelesss wrote:
March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
Another assumption is that all is part of "God" but is that real? Is it possible there is something that has removed itself from "God" through free-will (which you dismiss) and now opposes his will or possibly that "God" brought the other into existence simply so that it could be seen?

Of course it is possible, in the fevered dreams of those who have identified with the childish behave or else tales! Our Beloved brothers and sisters who haven't the intellectual facility, due to belief infections (often the case), to understand the nature of metaphor.
I might talk of the little fellow in red spandex on your shoulder, with pitchfork and a tail and little horns, whispering sweet nothings into your ear, and it might be ten or twenty lifetimes before you might understand that the little fellow is 'thought/ego', and can stop glancing in every mirror for the literal culprit.
No, not anything can 'detach' from the Omni-. That is absurd.
Satan stories for naive children to behave themselves, and have someone convenient to blame when they don't!
I cannot accept that I am speaking to a fully functional (intellectually) adult who admits to a belief infection of a manipulative, crossroads dwelling, devil... literally. Who is a separate entity from God (thus completely diminishing God's Omni- nature, demoting Him/Us to some 'other' Godling...
Seems like blasphemy to believe like that.
The value of words, their symbolic inference, in the Old Testament is different than in the New Testament simply due to the language it's written in.
What the Old Testament relays subjectively to an individual is dependant upon the individual's capacity to read the script and also by the individual themselves simply by the nature of it.
Namelesss wrote:
March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
I think we all have been witness to evil.
If you think that everything is 'evil', than whatever anyone witnesses, a kitty cat, for instance, you can claim that he witnessed 'evil'.
I have already explained all 'good' and all 'evil' exist in the (vain, sinful) judgmental thoughts/ego of the beholder.
Who see evil, it is Self/God that is being seen!

If you are saying that we all judge things/people as 'good/evil', then you are mistaken.
I have never thought in such terms.
People have been asssholes, dickwads, thieves, etc... but I was never so blinded by churchianity as to see/judge others as 'evil'.
And then I learned that it was all a mirror of bits of Self yet to be integrated, Loved!
Then the 'dickwads' tend to vanish.
All judgment is Self judgment; insanity, but, God is insane! *__-
I said no such thing as everything is evil nor did I imply that. I simply mentioned the fact.
Jesus said he wasn't here to judge but then again it's said he cast Satan out of several people. Satan isn't my dream.. It's part of Christian teaching..
Namelesss wrote:
March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
Does "God" act through his creation?
No 'acting', no 'creation'.
Are you saying there is no creation or are you saying that there is no creation without acting?
Namelesss wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 2:54 am
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
Seems here we're able to inhibit "God's" vision somewhat.
You stil have a problem with the "all inclusive" aspect of Omni-.
As I have already explained, We are God's moment of epiphany, where the Universe becomes Self Aware (through duality).
I understand what you're saying as 'all inclusive' aspect of "God" (which you want to call Omni) but that is assumption not at all in line with Biblical teaching. There is something cast out that seems to exist.
Namelesss wrote:
March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
And the all important issue of losing identity. I think we can reach "God" but I believe that requires balance.
"I think that we can reach water, said the fish, swimming faster, round and round, but I believe that requires balance!" *__-
I replied in response to a quote but you've now taken it out of context.
Namelesss wrote:
March 1st, 2018, 3:38 am
jerlands wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 3:36 am
This is your interpretation. I would love to live in peace but "God" apparently is not at rest.
There's that mirror, again.
How can God be the same, always, unchanging, and not be 'at rest'?
Perhaps the turmoil IS God's turmoil, in you.
There is turmoil and ignorance and spite and confusion and insanity and autism and, and, and,... all features of an Omni- ALL inclusive, unchanging... God/Self!
Again, you take what I say out of context.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Post Reply