The universe cannot be said to be amoral

[nameless]

Answering nameless :

understand what you are saying. How close, do you think, does your 'convenient (metaphorical?) concept' 'represent/reflect' an actual 'eternity'? Do you think that the 'eternal' can be reflected in the 'temporal' (no matter the conceptual conveniences) mind?

I can never know how close. It is ultimately a matter of faith,

And hence unavailable for logico-rational discussion.

i.e. an expression of who one is, or even who one is from moment to moment.My ability to reflect eternity can be polished up a bit the freer I am to be a rational thinker. I think it is not all or nothing but relative to the sovereignty of reason.

'Sovereignty of reason'? Are there Sunday meetings to discuss this?
Perhaps, like Spinoza, you too have an unjustified 'faith' in 'rationality' and 'thought'. Unjustified from 'this' Perspective. Perhaps it is, according to 'your' Perspective, quite justified.

So much 'rationality/logic/reason' is based on the (now refuted) 'law' of identity, now merely a 'local' phenomenon, and not 'universal'. That knocks some serious legs out from beneath that 'law'. And relegates all 'knowledge' to a limited and 'tentative' status.

But the mirror can't be actuality.The sign can't be the thing itself.

If you accept the notion of a "thing in itself".
I have never seen any evidence of such a 'thing'. Even the 'source of things' isn't a 'thing'.
Perhaps the 'reflection' is all there is of the 'thing'? Existence is manifested by Perception alone, for that Perspective.

Sounds a bit 'presumptuous' to speak from "the view from eternity". As there is no, nor can there be any, physical/existential evidence of an 'eternity', the positing of such can only exist in the 'realm' of 'belief'.

I have failed Spinoza if what I said come across as presumptuous. I suppose that Spinoza was a product of his time and place(17th century Amsterdam ex-Portuguese Jew) and perhaps he had , for a post modern perspective , an unjustifiable faith in reason.

Taking an 'unjustifiable faith in reason' and positing that one has a, or can imagine a, "view from eternity" just seems rather presumptuous to me. Like the Xtians who imagine that they know what 'god' thinks and says and wants and needs... egoically pridefully presumptuous.

Eternity(I have to call it that :? ) does not exist, because 'exist ' is too small a word to encompass the big everything world without end. The theist God is often thought of as existing and is often said to exist.

'Big everything world without end'? Sounds like a hymn... "world without end, amen."
'Existence' is often (misunderstood) locally interpreted from 'appearances'. As I see it, and has not yet been 'refuted', is that every'thing' exists. Period.
Existence is contextual/definitional/dual. If something has context (duality), it exists. Whatever you can imagine, whatever 'qualities', exists, whether in your mind, or wherever, it 'exists'.
If a word is hollow, has no 'concept/context', it has no existence but as a 'hollow word' existing in the mind. It is 'faith' that imagines it to have 'guts'/meaning, but rationally, the concept remains nebulous and empty (in our own minds), and impossible to convey to another (as we don't understand the concept ourselves).
You see what happens when people try to convey their 'concepts' of a 'god'; conflict, paradox.

Causal connections is just some 'fact' that I have faith in. I may at any time have a crisis of faith. So be it. :lol:

If it really were some 'fact', it wouldn't need 'faith' for support. The mind works like that, it sees 'patterns' and imagines 'reasons' and 'cause'. It is as 'real' for you as you see it that way, otherwise, it is simply an artifact of Perspective. It does seem to 'work' for us, pragmatically... a 'local' tool, at best. Works great when playing chess, for instance. Or when playing 'life'...

[Belinda]

i.e. an expression of who one is, or even who one is from moment to moment.My ability to reflect eternity can be polished up a bit the freer I am to be a rational thinker. I think it is not all or nothing but relative to the sovereignty of reason.

(is what Belinda wrote previously.)

I reckon that reason, which by my book includes not only formal logic but also empirical evidence is the best available way to understand Perspectives that are either other people's , or one's own former Perspectives.

One's own former Perspectives can be accessed through psychonalysis and can be used as empirical explanations of dissonance in present Perspective.

Other people's Perspectives can be accessed through empirical reasoning as for instance when a trained historian provides evidence for the world views of people long dead. Or when a trained anthropologist provides evidence of the world views of peoples who hold to a culture unlike that of the anthropologist's culture.

This is why I think that reason, including empirical reasoning , is the way to approach more closely the sum of the integers , to make use of your good metaphor.

Now, as for your apparent objection to my 'world without end' phrase; I may without compunction use any Biblical or churchy phrase if it serves my purpose, because Biblical phrases are so embedded in secular literature,even if not in everyday talk, that it is simply silly to object to them because one is an atheist.

Quote:( Belinda said it first)
But the mirror can't be actuality.The sign can't be the thing itself.

If you accept the notion of a "thing in itself".
I have never seen any evidence of such a 'thing'. Even the 'source of things' isn't a 'thing'.
Perhaps the 'reflection' is all there is of the 'thing'? Existence is manifested by Perception alone, for that Perspective.

(said by nameless)

I have not decided about this one. I do not know how I possibly could decide. Do you? I now understand that to refer to the sum of all the integers or as I call it, ' eternity', is a bad and confused choice of words. Eternity is substance itself, and not one of the many ways in which substance itself is manifested.
Perhaps as you suggest, reflection is all there is of a thing, however I find it difficult to imagine that there is nothing outside of , beyond, consciousness, even if the substance is energy manifesting in different modes of energy.

The EPR hypothesis seems to imply that consciousness and the energy substance are one, or anyway that they are intimately connected.

[nameless]

i.e. an expression of who one is, or even who one is from moment to moment.My ability to reflect eternity can be polished up a bit the freer I am to be a rational thinker. I think it is not all or nothing but relative to the sovereignty of reason.

From here, I recognise no "sovereignty of reason". "Reason" is a locally limited pragmatic tool.
I can understand seeing it as such, though.

I reckon that reason, which by my book includes not only formal logic but also empirical evidence is the best available way to understand Perspectives that are either other people's , or one's own former Perspectives.

Understood.

One's own former Perspectives can be accessed through psychonalysis and can be used as empirical explanations of dissonance in present Perspective.

Every and all Perspectives (us every moment) are unique. Seeking 'inconsistencies' to highlight that fact, seems rather tautological. Seeking what must be inconsistency to demonstrate 'inconsistency' in order to 'judge' it (dissonance?), seems a 'personal' thing.

Other people's Perspectives can be accessed through empirical reasoning as for instance when a trained historian provides evidence for the world views of people long dead.

To the extent, perhaps, that one can 'taste' the food by the odors surrounding the restaurant that you are passing. Perhaps you might have an 'inkling', but no more, no 'empathic' (complete and true 'Oneness') connection. Finding 'evidence' of a bit of someone's momentary 'world view' (that you must interpret) does not access 'who they are' as Perspective.

Or when a trained anthropologist provides evidence of the world views of peoples who hold to a culture unlike that of the anthropologist's culture.

Same response. The only way to really 'know' another Perspective, is to BE that Perspective. Otherwise, it is all a matter of 'your' interpretations, 'your' Perspective.

This is why I think that reason, including empirical reasoning , is the way to approach more closely the sum of the integers , to make use of your good metaphor.

Understood. (You have obviously not yet received the 'critical update pack' regarding the fall of 'empiricism' from it's heretofore 'universal' status/heights.)

Now, as for your apparent objection to my 'world without end' phrase; I may without compunction use any Biblical or churchy phrase if it serves my purpose, because Biblical phrases are so embedded in secular literature,even if not in everyday talk, that it is simply silly to object to them because one is an atheist.

There are many beautiful poetic passages in the book, all available for 'reference and quote'. I don't accept anything in a book as any kind of 'authority', though.
Though, I can certainly 'object' to any passage that rationally, logically, fails, as I see it.

Quote:( Belinda said it first)
But the mirror can't be actuality.The sign can't be the thing itself.

If you accept the notion of a "thing in itself".
I have never seen any evidence of such a 'thing'. Even the 'source of things' isn't a 'thing'.
Perhaps the 'reflection' is all there is of the 'thing'? Existence is manifested by Perception alone, for that Perspective.

I have not decided about this one. I do not know how I possibly could decide. Do you?

'Decide' about what?

Eternity is substance itself,

Have you redefined 'eternity' (which has no real definition) or 'substance'? What 'substance' does not (appear to) 'change' (not be 'eternal')?
Could you send me a bit of 'eternal substance'?
I'd love to see your 'rational and empirical' foundation of such a claim!
Perhaps it transcends 'rationality and empiricism' and is a 'belief'?

Perhaps as you suggest, reflection is all there is of a thing,

"...is all there is", period. There is no'thing'.

however I find it difficult to imagine that there is nothing outside of , beyond, consciousness, even if the substance is energy manifesting in different modes of energy.

There is nothing 'beyond' Consciousness. All existence is 'within' Consciousness ("the Ground of All Being!" -QM interpretation).
It is difficult to imagine, as we are still thinking in medieval concepts with medieval language/world-views. 'Naive realism' has been refuted. Sometimes, 'critical updates' are very slow in downloading, due to 'clutter'.

And how far have we wandered from the OP of 'morality' and 'amorality'?

[willowtreeme]

Belinda said:

Eternity is substance itself,

nameless said:

Have you redefined 'eternity' (which has no real definition) or 'substance'?
What substance' does not (appear to) 'change' (not be 'eternal')?
Could you send me a bit of 'eternal substance'? I'd love to see your 'rational and empirical' foundation of such a claim! Perhaps it transcends 'rationality and empiricism' and is a 'belief'?

I feel that it is difficult to define a “word” whose very beginnings, so to speak, come from the Psyche, or Soul. To define “God” or the “Soul” in words can only really get in the way. Eternity and Soul you can say are hypotheses in the workings. At the same time, to even say that can be a contradiction in terms. Anything that has to do with the Psyche/Soul and Eternity, cannot be proved, by their very nature, but only experienced and it is only through experiencing them, that one can arrive at awareness of their Truth.

This is why discussions or arguments on one’s personal religion, God, etc. can become so heated. Should something so Important be argued over. Isn’t it better just to share one’s experience of this or that, nothing more, nothing less.

Peace, wtm

[Belinda]

Thank you willowtreeme. My idea about eternity sounds religious, I know, but it is not a theistic idea, in fact some would say it was am atheistic idea.I am happy to discuss any of my ideas because I want to understand as much as I can, and this happens when my ideas are refined and sometimes are thrown away.It feels pleasant when agreement comes along, but it is even better when the agreement comes after a struggle to find understanding

[nameless]

To define “God” or the “Soul” in words can only really get in the way.

I wouldn't try to define the undefinable, the ineffable, but I would offer 'Conscious Perspective' as a working definition of 'Soul'. But, like 'god', 'Soul' has so much 'baggage' attached that there will be argument with my definition, but can be no 'refutation'. That does seem to be the 'larger set'.
Nothing to be 'proven'.

[willowtreeme]

Hi Belinda:

You said:

“Thank you willowtreeme. My idea about eternity sounds religious, I know, but it is not a theistic idea, in fact some would say it was am atheistic idea.I am happy to discuss any of my ideas because I want to understand as much as I can, and this happens when my ideas are refined and sometimes are thrown away.It feels pleasant when agreement comes along, but it is even better when the agreement comes after a struggle to find understanding.”

Point taken and understood, Belinda. And thank you. (take a smile from me).I don't know how to work these smiley faces.Obviosuly takes more than a click

Okay, i went up and reread what Iihad said and, to a certain extent, was referring to what was being said above that. At the same time, within the very last paragraph of what i wrote –

“This is why discussions or arguments on one’s personal religion, God, etc. can become so heated. Should something so Important be argued over. Isn’t it better just to share one’s experience of this or that, nothing more, nothing less.” ---

is my “personal” perspective of what happens so often “on the outside” of this forum, as in discussions on religion, politics, the raising of one’s children and ad infinitum. And as just my “personal feeling”, it need not be felt by anyone else.

Peace,
wtm