The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Gulnara
Posts: 493
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 7:02 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gulnara » November 3rd, 2017, 5:25 pm

The conclusion can be that Universe belongs behind bars! Ha ha.
However, exuse me my optimizm (:)) but Universe is self contained in its eternal and infinite form. It can only create something, say, people, if it destroys, changes or deformes something else in itself. It's like sculptor who has only one piace of clay, he creates a face, then in order to create farther, he has to destroy this face and make another and so on. Also, Universe does not have to, but it is cretaive by its nature, because it only operates with matter it is made of, this matter is unstable, it keeps moving and changing, not without certain laws. Anytime something or someone is destroyed, something or someone is created in Universe.
Hiumans should understand that it is highly inprobable for Universe to create so many live creatures on Earth or other planets and give each only one single chance on life. If it was true, if it was that purposeful, ecah person would have sricktly 100 years to live. There'd be no variations. Even more, each year newborns would be born on one and the same date. That sort of idea about " having one time to live" is even mathematically, statistically , etc . totally wrong. Even lottery balls once in many years can produce the same winning combination they did before. But it's lottery, few dozen balls turning. Just think, how much bigger is Universe! It has, it can not not have, a mechanizm of recreating life over and over and over. Humans should realize that we never die, that we live on and on and on, just at certain frequency. The moment of not living, which we call being dead, is not what we think, it is just downward curve of the wave of frequency of our never ending existence. We just exist each next time as someone similar, or dissimilar, or the same, but we do exist. When we are recreated, born again, we do not have mechanizm of comparizon to our previous self, or recollection of previous lives. If we'd have recollection, we'd have to have brains the size of the Sun, which is impractical. :)
whe we go to sleep every night, we close our eyes, then open them in a morning without recollection of what went on in life during the night. Yet, we do not call it death. Sleep is necessity of life. The same way, when we change from lively form to what we call corpse, we enter phase necessary for our lives to be repeated eternally. Why eternally? Because Universe is eternal, and slef contained, it can not loose matter that comprise us, the matter remains and is, and will beused again to make us into live creatutes. When conscioussness is absent, it does not matter how long do we wait until we are back and living. Point is we are back and living and will forever and ever.
People who comit suicide, can not escape repetition of life, one can not fall of the Universe, can not not to be living someday again and google times after. What we have to do is emprace human experience, because it will vary. We aeare to live in the body of each and every creature there is. So, do not kick a dog, love your family, be very guarded about animosity. Another time around you'll be in someone else's shoes.

-- Updated Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:31 pm to add the following --

The conclusion can be that Universe belongs behind bars! Ha ha.
However, exuse me my optimizm (:)) but Universe is self contained in its eternal and infinite form. It can only create something, say, people, if it destroys, changes or deformes something else in itself. It's like sculptor who has only one piace of clay, he creates a face, then in order to create farther, he has to destroy this face and make another and so on. Also, Universe does not have to, but it is cretaive by its nature, because it only operates with matter it is made of, this matter is unstable, it keeps moving and changing, not without certain laws. Anytime something or someone is destroyed, something or someone is created in Universe.
Hiumans should understand that it is highly inprobable for Universe to create so many live creatures on Earth or other planets and give each only one single chance on life. If it was true, if it was that purposeful, ecah person would have sricktly 100 years to live. There'd be no variations. Even more, each year newborns would be born on one and the same date. That sort of idea about " having one time to live" is even mathematically, statistically , etc . totally wrong. Even lottery balls once in many years can produce the same winning combination they did before. But it's lottery, few dozen balls turning. Just think, how much bigger is Universe! It has, it can not not have, a mechanizm of recreating life over and over and over. Humans should realize that we never die, that we live on and on and on, just at certain frequency. The moment of not living, which we call being dead, is not what we think, it is just downward curve of the wave of frequency of our never ending existence. We just exist each next time as someone similar, or dissimilar, or the same, but we do exist. When we are recreated, born again, we do not have mechanizm of comparizon to our previous self, or recollection of previous lives. If we'd have recollection, we'd have to have brains the size of the Sun, which is impractical. :)
whe we go to sleep every night, we close our eyes, then open them in a morning without recollection of what went on in life during the night. Yet, we do not call it death. Sleep is necessity of life. The same way, when we change from lively form to what we call corpse, we enter phase necessary for our lives to be repeated eternally. Why eternally? Because Universe is eternal, and slef contained, it can not loose matter that comprise us, the matter remains and is, and will beused again to make us into live creatutes. When conscioussness is absent, it does not matter how long do we wait until we are back and living. Point is we are back and living and will forever and ever.
People who comit suicide, can not escape repetition of life, one can not fall of the Universe, can not not to be living someday again and google times after. What we have to do is emprace human experience, because it will vary. We aeare to live in the body of each and every creature there is. So, do not kick a dog, love your family, be very guarded about animosity. Another time around you'll be in someone else's shoes.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 4th, 2017, 6:15 am

When we sleep we know what time it is. We, or many of us, wake up exactly when we know we have to. Moreover, we are "unconscious" of much that surrounds us even as we are awake. Sartre claimed there is no such thing as the unconscious, by which he meant that reason is deliberative, and that any supposedly hidden urges are no excuse. But the enigma of consciousness is easily resolved if we recognized that the terms of our conscious deliberations are not wholly our own, and that the engine of those terms is precisely that recognition, in the mode of our changing mind. But who then are we? even convinced there is something unchanging we suppose we are, it is a dynamic in that conviction, the character of change our rational deliberations engender, that evinces who we are. And if that change is to any degree the response to recognition that we do not completely share the same terms, then the completest term of our character is the drama of our engaging in those deliberations together. Terms change, even the structure of our reasoning and of reality itself, alters. alters in the character of our recognizing each other in it. But if this is real, death, too, is real. And the belief that there is some constancy to our being that survives our time is but a conceit that keeps us from recognizing, and even from being, who we are. This fact, of course, suits the dogmatists.

In the movie Cloud Atlas, the central character has the line "I am not genomed to alter reality." But, by the end of the movie, we see she does. By dying. What could be more complete? Death is the only completed term of time. The rest is conceit.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 4th, 2017, 4:11 pm

Steve3007 wrote:BlindedWantsToSee:
Being able to do absolutely anything that does not injure or infringe upon the rights of other living beings would be good for people, I think.
You're advocating an extreme and impossible form of Libertarianism here, I think. For one thing, you have to define what those "rights" are and why you think people have them. Are they naturally occurring or are they given to those people/living things by other people/living things? If so, what have they done to earn those rights? Does every right come with a corresponding obligation?
I believe the rights of all living beings are naturally occurring, do not have to be earned, but do come with the obligation of respecting other's rights, if our own rights are to be respected. I have posted, in the Ethics section, a theory I have regarding this subject. It is called "The Universal Moral Code". You are welcome to read it, if you have the time. Here is an excerpt that briefly defines the rights of all life, universally:

I claim that... the moral code that follows describes, with a high degree of accuracy, true righteousness and justice. This moral code applies to everybody and everything, everywhere, universally, and without exception. The simple Universal Moral Code to be observed has only 4 major premises, as follows:

1. Each living being belongs only to itself; and each has full rights over its own life.

2. All life has equal rights. Each living being is equal in value or importance to every other living being. No living being or group of beings has any rights, including the rights to exploit, or abuse, or force their own will, upon any other living being or group of beings, unless all beings involved are willing participants...
Steve3007 wrote:And next, you have to face the fact that it's physically impossible to live without infringing on the rights of other people/living things.
You are right on target when you say that what I'm proposing is impossible. This is actually my point. To me, the only moral difference among all the things or entities that exist in the universe is whether those things are sentient (are alive, have a will, have feelings) or not sentient. To me, justice = fairness or equality. Righteousness = conforming to justice. Based on the previous, living a truly righteous and just life is impossible for us, as long as our nature is what it is, because it's physically impossible to live without infringing on the rights of other people/living things. Therefore, life itself is of an unrighteous, unjust, hurtful, evil nature.
Steve3007 wrote:
Does society, or individuals, really have the right to bring new members of society whose nature is such that they have to be enslaved (when this enslavement will create much suffering to their lives) in order for society to be safe and orderly? I don't believe so.
What form does this suffering that you speak of take?
Well, I speak of human suffering in general. Since birth, people suffer. Babies cry, sometimes for days or even weeks at a time; they are suffering. Kids have destructive tendencies, so parents must control them; but that's creating a form of suffering in kids. People are susceptible to illnesses, both physical and mental; that's suffering. Some people go to sleep hungry and cold, without a roof over their heads, while they see others have extreme abundance; that's suffering. People suffer emotional and physical traumas or injuries against their will; that's suffering. People are forced to take jobs they do not like so that they can support their families; that's suffering (someone can say 'let him get another job'... well, most times it does not work out that way in real life, and all the while people are suffering). Some people must accept that bombs will drop on them or their families at any time without notice; that's suffering. Feel free to add to this list anything you may have seen in the news that happens to people that is unpleasant, violent, or destructive; that's suffering. Other, more subtle, forms of suffering human beings are forced to endure are their own negative emotions, their ignorance, their lack of foresight, etc.

In summary, I believe that individuals, and society as a whole, should not bring new souls to this world, because in all likelihood, those new souls will have to suffer much as a result (I don't believe human suffering is only limited to poor people or to 3rd world countries; even rich people are know to suffer much).
Steve3007 wrote:
Society and especially the rulers of society are exploiting the members of society (to their detriment), and we are none the wiser. This is wrong. We should not bring new slaves to this world. I don't have kids, as you might guess from what I just said.
This is a common refrain. As many people do, you seem to give the rulers of our societies more organisational credit than they deserve.

The main reason I asked why you have kids is because my experience of raising them is that people don't function well if they're taught from an early age that they can do anything they want whenever they want. They ultimately harm themselves and others. One of the basic lessons we teach our children is deferred gratification - eating that big pile of Trick Or Treat candy may seem like a great idea now, but with the benefit of hindsight you'll come to regret it. That kind of thing (on a more sophisticated level) applies to us all.
I totally agree with you on this. This is probably the only way that we can make society work; but this creates (indirectly, as in a chain reaction) the world that I described above. That cannot be good or right. That's why I'm saying that being part of society, even though it works, is evil or morally wrong.
Steve3007 wrote:
To me the fact that human beings do not have what they want in terms of their bodies, their mental abilities, their health, their surroundings, their jobs, and in almost all other aspects of their lives is hurtful to people. For the most part human beings live a life (or life experiences) they would prefer not to have to experience (even if they can change their conditions later, they are being forced to experience their current conditions against their will). This is slavery, and every human being that is produced is condemned to it. We should not do this to our children. We should not give them life and force them to experience the above, in all likelihood.
Since you've got no real way of knowing that human beings do not have what they want in the way you describe here, I suspect you're really just talking about yourself. You are unhappy with your own life and are projecting that unhappiness onto the human race in general.
I admit I don't know everybody, but I'm talking about those people that do, at least partially, match the description above. I know for sure that I am not the only person unhappy with the way life works out to be, because I have family, friends, co-workers; I see people on the streets; I see the news sometimes. This is how I know about other people. I see people that go through medical procedures to become younger, slimmer, more attractive, etc. This tells me they are not happy with their bodies. My own mental abilities are inadequate in my own view. I demand more of myself, but I'm trapped in the prison of my limitations. I had a friend who died of stomach cancer a few months ago. He did not want his health to be what it was, and he was forced to go through the horrible experience of battling and losing against cancer. I have friends who live in poor countries, where the crime rate is high, and the pollution is everywhere, and their salaries do not cover all their needs. Those people are not happy with their surroundings; I assure you. I have co-workers who hate their jobs and can't wait to retire, but they are in a situation where they cannot do anything else (they could but they would be worse off). So they suffer their jobs until they are able to retire. This cannot be good. Human suffering is real, and is global, and is the norm (not the exception); everybody seems to just be used to it, and they have surrendered to the claim that this is the way things are, and there is nothing that can be done, and there is nothing wrong with that picture.

Not me; that's why I said "To me the fact that human beings do not have what they want in terms of their bodies, their mental abilities, their health, their surroundings, their jobs, and in almost all other aspects of their lives is hurtful to people... This is slavery, and every human being that is produced is condemned to it..." Maybe slavery is not the right word to be used here, but I use it as a figure of speech, to mean a condition in which a person is not free to live the experiences they prefer to live, but they are instead forced or bound to experience what they do not prefer.

User avatar
Gulnara
Posts: 493
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 7:02 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gulnara » November 4th, 2017, 6:13 pm

Somehow I doubt that in some prehistoric tribe in Africa one of the members said something like that: I want to eat, but it is such suffering to kill an antelope. I'd rather die. No, he learned the skill by watching his father and became good at it, so his family do not go hungry. I want to make love to my woman, but I have to fight a lion so we stay alive, I will skip it since it is so dangerous. No, he cared for a woman, feuture mother of his children, his lover and friend, ne went and killed the lion. I want my tribe to grow so we have plenty of men to go hunting and plenty of women to take care of children and elderly, but it is so tiring and dangerous to chaise herds of animals along safari. No, he went with his comrades an brought home plenty of food and was praised and cherished by his community. At times to survive required heroizm.
My tribe prides itself in having great fishermen, but how hard it is to chop the boat out of a tree. No, he invented better tools, used fire to ease the job. He keeps easing the jobs and conditions by creating wheel, cars, airplanes, computers, mobile phones. He is not the one to wine and talk nunsence. He is human being, he holds the temple of life strong and growing. His wisdom and perseverence are incredible. I applaud people who are pro–life.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 5th, 2017, 4:00 am

Gulnara wrote:.... The same way, when we change from lively form to what we call corpse, we enter phase necessary for our lives to be repeated eternally. Why eternally? Because Universe is eternal, and slef contained, it can not loose matter that comprise us, the matter remains and is, and will beused again to make us into live creatutes. When conscioussness is absent, it does not matter how long do we wait until we are back and living. Point is we are back and living and will forever and ever.
People who comit suicide, can not escape repetition of life, one can not fall of the Universe, can not not to be living someday again and google times after. What we have to do is emprace human experience, because it will vary. We aeare to live in the body of each and every creature there is. So, do not kick a dog, love your family, be very guarded about animosity. Another time around you'll be in someone else's shoes.
What you are saying denies that the universe or Universal Consciousness possesses free will. It implies that the universe is bound to, MUST, do what it has been doing, and it has no choice but to do what it has been doing. I agree the universe is eternal, but it does not follow that it must eternally do the same it has been doing previously (repeatedly take the form of living beings), if it decides that what it has been doing is not what it wants to do any longer. The universe could take the form of rocks or other inanimate objects if it wants. You said that the universe is not bound, which is true. Pure consciousness is not bound. There is nothing outside of it that could bind it or force it to do anything. It does what it wants to do. There are no rules it must follow. Who could impose rules/laws to the universe? Who could enforce them on It? It imposes the rules on itself, and It enforces them, as It pleases.

We are individual units or shavings of that Universal Consciousness. In a way, we are the universe. The belief that we must reincarnate is the universe auto-imposing a rule that says it must reincarnate, so it reincarnates. But the rule can be changed at will. The universe can say: I have an option to reincarnate or not (or I have the option of creating live beings only, or inanimate objects only, or a mix of both); or It can say: 'I will do this no longer'. The whole universe can choose to die. This is scientifically called "heat death of the universe", a universal state in which life cannot be supported and only inanimate objects remain. Therefore, we, as individual consciousnesses, can choose to die as well when we are out of our body (we can turn ourselves off and become something other than conscious beings).

Here is paragraph taken from http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae181.cfm

The 'heat-death' of the universe is when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. This happens when all available energy (such as from a hot source) has moved to places of less energy (such as a colder source). Once this has happened, no more work can be extracted from the universe. Since heat ceases to flow, no more work can be acquired from heat transfer. This same kind of equilibrium state will also happen with all other forms of energy (mechanical, electrical, etc.). Since no more work can be extracted from the universe at that point, it is effectively dead, especially for the purposes of humankind.

Thank you for reading my theory about the nature of life and for your comment.

Steve3007
Posts: 5835
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Steve3007 » November 5th, 2017, 6:04 am

Gary_M_Washburn:
“Nasty brutish and short”? Actually, subsistence cultures are largely and surprisingly healthy and well fed. Much of the scarcity humans experience is the result of 'a bunch of people' creating privation so that some can have more than others. Hobbes was flatly wrong, and quite prejudicial, in his famous treatise.
I don't know about that. In the absence of modern medicine, dieing in infancy was the norm, wasn't it? Kids not named until they are 10 days old. That kind of thing.
And I suppose that is why I had you pegged as something of a “neo-liberal”.
I had to look that up to make sure I was clear what it means. Apparently it means a belief in laissez-faire economics - unfettered free markets. As I said to BlindedWantsToSee, GE Morton and others, I don't believe in unfettered free markets. Politically, I'd say I'm very slightly left of centre (although I guess that might no mean much because the position of the centre varies from place to place and time to time). I think the free market is a useful tool for generating wealth and innovation in a lot of circumstances. But it's not a panacea, and shouldn't be raised to the status of an ideology. It's just a tool. Clearly the word "free" there is sometimes a misnomer. For example, very few people have the luxury to be able to treat their own labour as a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. There are various reasons why labour is not entirely freely trade-able.
And your remark after the one above conjured up a “spare-the-rod” mentality, though on second reading that impression may be too harsh. I seem, too, to remember a remark about getting all sorts of free, undeserved, stuff.
No, I don't think I said anything about deserverdness. I think my only remarks that might be interpreted like this were to point out that (in my view) the concept of "Rights" is not a naturally occurring thing, like gravity or something. Rights and Obligations are conferred on human beings by other human beings. They are parts of our social structures. Only "naturally occurring" in the sense that human laws, and other human constructs, are naturally occurring.
Fact is, most of what is undeserved in most modern societies is in the hands of those who have so much more than others this inhibits the prosperity of nations as a whole. It's certainly true here in America, and I suspect it's true in England too.
Possibly true. In which case the question is: what would you or I do about it if we were in a position of political power? What ought we to do about it now? What legislation would you seek to pass to make the society in which you live more closely resemble the society you would like it to be? Higher taxes? Lower taxes? Differently targeted taxes? Different laws regulating the behaviour of companies? Different laws regulating individuals' behaviour? etc.

It's easy to rail against the system and those nasty old fat cats with all their power and wealth and their sinister agenda to keep all us proles in slavery. You can hear it from the guy propping up the bar in the local pub any day of the week. The hard part is saying what individual people (whether those individual people are you, me or a president) are going to do about it.


BlindedWantsToSee:
I believe the rights of all living beings are naturally occurring, do not have to be earned, but do come with the obligation of respecting other's rights, if our own rights are to be respected.
I disagree. I believe that Rights are invented by human beings. If I decide that every living thing has the right to be left alone, and that consequently I am violating the rights of the cold virus that I'm currently fighting off, then the concept of rights is meaningless.
You are right on target when you say that what I'm proposing is impossible. This is actually my point. To me, the only moral difference among all the things or entities that exist in the universe is whether those things are sentient (are alive, have a will, have feelings) or not sentient. To me, justice = fairness or equality. Righteousness = conforming to justice. Based on the previous, living a truly righteous and just life is impossible for us, as long as our nature is what it is, because it's physically impossible to live without infringing on the rights of other people/living things. Therefore, life itself is of an unrighteous, unjust, hurtful, evil nature.
I think that in order to mean anything, words must distinguish one thing from another. If all existence is slavery and everything is evil then those two words are drained of their meaning. You no longer have a word to describe genuine slavery and genuine evil.
Well, I speak of human suffering in general. Since birth, people suffer. Babies cry, sometimes for days or even weeks at a time; they are suffering...
...In summary, I believe that individuals, and society as a whole, should not bring new souls to this world, because in all likelihood, those new souls will have to suffer much as a result (I don't believe human suffering is only limited to poor people or to 3rd world countries; even rich people are know to suffer much).
You seem to believe that the existence of suffering in the world means that all life should cease. If we can't have what you regard as a perfect world, we should have nothing. I disagree.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 5th, 2017, 12:00 pm

Steve,
I could quibble about a number of your replies, but it would be more fruitful to concentrate on the question of rights, which you argue are not fundamental in the sense of the laws of physics or arithmetic (or logic?). What does it mean to earn or merit? How do we regulate the ability to satisfy need or desire? Especially in a system where it is so clearly possible for some sectors to claim their desires trump others' needs? What's in it for the society as a whole to bring moral sensibilities into play here? Aside, that is, from the obvious responsibility of government to redress particular crimes by one individual against another, it can be difficult to find any such social requirement where the effects and the causes cannot be so easily identified.

In Adam Smith's famous (or notorious) book, an investor can only lose as much as risked in a venture, but there is no limit upon what can be won by it. Whereas the absolute best the worker can expect is 'subsistence' (Smith's word). But this is a perversion of the meaning of merit and worth. Modern economists depict the barter system as clumsy and unworkable measure of equivalent value, but this is never what it was, and the confusion stems from the function of capital to bring the exchange to a conclusion. The barter system was never intended to do this. It was an ongoing exchange of favor for favor invested its participants in each others' lives as an unending concern for each others' survival and well-being. What the introduction of the quantifier (money) does is to divide the community between those who still engage in each others' lives and those who bring all exchanges to a conclusion without appeal. In today's capital economy employees engage in work expected to bring that unending concern to their employer, while the employer is free to wash his hands of the needs of the employee with the payment of a wage. It is an inherently and fundamentally asymmetric relation.

Yes, some members of an admittedly capitalist system have done great things to mitigate that fundamental injustice. But it would be a fallacy to thereby suppose that the motive of one is as meritorious as the motive of the other. And if one motive actually undermines the other, as invention is so often undermined by our markets (that is, our creative and inventive sectors are so often robbed and so discouraged by financial sectors) it is very much in the interest of the community as a whole to mitigate this.

But much more fundamentally, if humanity is the creation of a way of resolving the minute increments of worth and meaning to the completest term of time only death is, then it is just as fundamental to any meaningful social institutions to assure that resolution, that that investment in each other, remains the vital life of our society.

I'm not a Utopian. My interest to understand how something of such magnitude as the reality we think we know can be as real as it is in the most unrecognized minuteness of our part in it. This implies a critique of the status quo without prejudicing what might be. I have no solution to particular social ills beyond arguing for recognition of as much as I have the vision to see for myself and wit to engender in others.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 5th, 2017, 12:43 pm

Steve3007 wrote:As I've said, I haven't seen any of the actual words that were used by these Sumerians. I'd be interested if you could quote some here. Then we can assess whether it seems likely that they possessed some knowledge that they couldn't have worked out for themselves and for which the most likely explanation is extraterrestrial help. Again, I suspect that the desire to believe such things stems from personal unhappiness. A longing for the extraordinary to combat the mundanity of life.
Hey guys, here is a free copy of THE LOST BOOK OF ENKI, by S. Sitchin, in PDF format. This is a fascinating (but long) story, even if you find little value in it from a philosophical point of view, you might find it entertaining. The 6th tablet was of particular interest to me because it describes how the creation of the human race took place, but I enjoyed all of it.

http://www.place4free.com
/Downloads/Books
/Interesting
/LBoE.pdf

(you must assemble the URL address above. All four lines should be just one line, no spaces in between any of the parts of the URL, and in the same order left to right) if I don't separate the address into several lines, the address is displayed incomplete here, I'm not sure why, see below:

http://www.place4free.com/Downloads/Boo ... g/LBoE.pdf

-- Updated November 5th, 2017, 5:46 pm to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote: You seem to believe that the existence of suffering in the world means that all life should cease. If we can't have what you regard as a perfect world, we should have nothing. I disagree.
Although we have different opinions, I understand where you are coming from, and I respect your opinion. In my treatise I gave my opinion. I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer here. I think it is a matter of personal preference. I seek to make people more aware of what they are choosing, so that they can make deliberate decisions from which they can learn, and hopefully, they can start producing more of the life experiences they want to have and less of the ones they do not want to have.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 5th, 2017, 4:28 pm

Nibiru? Is that what this is all about? The great disaster that, once again, did not take place as planned?

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Count Lucanor » November 5th, 2017, 11:29 pm

BlindedWantsToSee wrote: Evidence can be found for everything I say,
BlindedWantsToSee wrote:CHAPTER 1: The Evil Nature of the Source
There is a single source from which everything emanates. This Universal Source gives rise to everything: what is alive and not alive, real and imaginary, good and evil, matter and spirit, etc.
Where's the evidence of this?

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 6th, 2017, 4:12 am

SIBILE, SI EMGO,
FORTIBUS ES IN ERO.
O NOBILE, DEMIS TRUX,
SI VATIS ENIM,
CAUSAN DUX.

The mysteries of ancient texts are dark indeed, until we open our eyes and see!

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 7th, 2017, 11:46 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
BlindedWantsToSee wrote: Evidence can be found for everything I say,
BlindedWantsToSee wrote:CHAPTER 1: The Evil Nature of the Source
There is a single source from which everything emanates. This Universal Source gives rise to everything: what is alive and not alive, real and imaginary, good and evil, matter and spirit, etc.
Where's the evidence of this?
One form of evidence is the Big Bang Theory and all of the evidence that supports it. This is, basically, an extrapolation made from the observation that everything and everybody (no exception) on this planet came from a source, and each of those sources also arises from another source that produced it. If we trace back the sources, we see that most materials and life on earth came from earth, earth came from the sun, the solar system came from the galaxy, and so forth back to the Big Bang (which is actually still happening because the universe is still expanding as a consequence of that initial expanding force acting upon itself to produce the universe we see).

Another form of evidence for this claim comes from the field of Quantum Physics; which has proven that the seemingly solid material world with all its seemingly different objects and elements, is not really solid at all, but mostly empty space, and the elements all consist of the same things: mostly fields of energy and tiny particles, or waves of matter, or strings; all of which seem to be conscious because they all react to consciousness. Everything is just one type of thing: conscious energy. This conscious or intelligent energy is the source of all forms, including: us, what we see around us, the states each and all forms take, and the changes in those states, which also require the action of energy to take place.

Everything comes from this one source. Some people call it The Big Bang, others call it God, others call it energy and matter, I call it The Universal Source.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 8th, 2017, 3:26 am

How many is one? I think you'll find that the electromotive force is very palpably solid indeed! And more often defies, rather than follows, consciousness. Causality repudiates its unity in its numbers and its numbers in its unity. If all is one, which one is which? If there is only one, what of all the others? How many turtles go all the way down? To one? Which one? How many is one?

User avatar
Gulnara
Posts: 493
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 7:02 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gulnara » November 8th, 2017, 4:31 pm

One is infinity.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 9th, 2017, 1:41 am

I concur with the above answer. I would also add that one is too many to count. One is every single, separate, individual, object or entity. I also want to clarify that I am not denying individuality with my previous statement. What it means is that all the separate, individual, life forms or things are made of the same one fundamental substance, as described previously on this post. The validation of, and respect for, every individual is key to living a moral life and the only hope for peace in life.

Post Reply