jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (45 posts)

Exploring the Ism

  1. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    My work over the last two years has concentrated on pure philosophy regarding the House of Duality and the roof, recently fashioned called Quality. In fact, the book in progress is a total critique of it.

    Hence, would like to open a discussion -not debate (because a debate requires two politicians and a swing vote)- about how similar ya'll are. When I say ya'll I am referring directly to science & religion, as they are termed. We thinkers prefer to call you Classic & Romantic, Discovery & Sensation, Husband & Wife.

    Point 1.

    "Big Band v. And He Said"

    According to both sides, in the beginning there was nothing until something happened. One perspective of that happening was a Big Bang that set all the elements of light into motion. Not so coincidentally, your better half defines this event (long before the age of science) that this event occurred when "He said", thus from his mouth came the elements of light in motion.

    What I find even more noteworthy is that the classic side considers more outside of the present universe as does the romantic. One says there are many universes while the other says it is the remaining Entity -apart from His mouth.

    I would like to see your response to this -in at least some measure of intellect- versus the standard smiley, ridicule, mockery, tasteless jargon, generally associated with forum discord.

    James

    1. profile image0
      crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So, to clarify.  This discussion is on the complimentary nature of science and religion, and that they are not as contradictory as most believe?

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        correct.

      2. profile image69
        paarsurreyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hi friend crmhaske

        I agree with you. Science and Religion are complementary and not contradictory; being from on source the Creator-God Allah YHWH.

        Thanks

        I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

    2. Obscure Divine profile image55
      Obscure Divineposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The manifestations of one?  Unity of chaos?

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Also correct. "Valuable if not Recyclable chaos" as it were.

    3. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah - see? This is why I have never really embraced the big bang thing. Sounds too much like a scientific version of "In the beginning" to me.

      1. Obscure Divine profile image55
        Obscure Divineposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        ...Yes, it does sound similar - both are simple concepts without much depth.

    4. profile image0
      philip carey 61posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This reminds me of the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig. Have you read it? The concept of 'Quality' is explored. He basically tries to transcend the subject-object duality with some sort of mystical foundation that he calls "A Metaphysics of Quality".

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Philip, yes, I know it well. I sliced his concept against Blake, Hume, Kant and others -including Epicurus, etc. I came to see that some perceptions of the Duality fit the mould in some methods. His expressions on the extremely raw premise of Quality led me into some oldies but goodies of Philo. I have been comparing many a thesis against his claims -even though some supportive notions are acceptable.

        For instance the claim of Quality itself. Though naive in premise, give way to today's equation-sensation, in the form of quantum attraction, yogi, kabbalah, new age mysticism. As if a united duality has become answer -but by the standards of purity, a bastard child -quality of life, etc.

        the argument of Quality v Grace (Purity of Free Will) has been my writing over the last two years and nearly completed critque (if the publishers will have me)...

  2. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Point 2.

    Ice Age v Flood

    The classic view through various methods claims the planet post- Neanderthal, Reptilian (Dino) went into a freeze. During this time, it is believed that the planet was in a very tropical setting, which would support vast growth of vegetation and by some event, the planet went into a deep liquid torrent. The variable is the time line or longevity of it. The romantic side states it was an event of a melting the ice shield, thus causing a massive liquid flood from both above and below. It is also the romantic view that the land was very tropic, giving way to longevity of humans and lack of clothing necessity. Apart from a slight difference of the term ice, are these two events the same through varying perspectives? (Also noteworthy is after the romantic event, no mention of dinosaurs is evident).

    1. Jerami profile image75
      Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Imagine the sea level such as it was when the streight of Gibralter first broke open. What it must have looked like from the valley below.

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hey J.
        Yes, I can envision.
        There are many points that I am hard pressed to show that both sides are quite identical and supports my critique of Quality v Grace. Fun stuff.

    2. profile image0
      crmhaskeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This is a very interesting point, I've drawn historical parallels before, but never made the Ice Age-Flood connection.

  3. northweststarr profile image77
    northweststarrposted 7 years ago

    Hmmm... I feel slightly smarter now.  As an English-Lit major I have to ask, what makes you think the universe ever actually began? The seperation of "what was" and "what is" isn't a very distinct one in my mind.  Perhaps our reality has always been here, waiting for us. Another theory I'm starting to embrace is the TrumanShowBelief.  You are all just plants in the show of my life. wink

  4. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Finite Cohesive? Sounds like Quality.
    On the other hand, reality can be defined as energy opticĀ³ x necessity.

    1. northweststarr profile image77
      northweststarrposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'll pretend I understood what you meant just now. smile and nod. smile

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile

        hi, nice to meet you, nw starr. (fan of north western?)

        1. northweststarr profile image77
          northweststarrposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          My best friend is in the chemistry program there.  But, no I live in the northwest. smile

          1. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            right on.

            1. northweststarr profile image77
              northweststarrposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Love to hear more about energy optic X necessity! smile

  5. Jerami profile image75
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    I know what ya mean. It is hard to express what a picture in your mind looks like when ya gotta describe it one pixle at a time.

    1. northweststarr profile image77
      northweststarrposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      big_smile big_smile big_smile

  6. goldenpath profile image73
    goldenpathposted 7 years ago

    I don't believe all substance sprang from a Big Bang.  To me that narrows my perception of the universe, eternity and yes even God.  All creation is organized from materials already present in the universe.  So in my belief the process of creation and destruction has always been, is and will always be present in the universe.  Each creation holds the elements of some distant past destruction.  All creation is intelligently organized for the eternal benefit of man - man which has, does and will always populate many worlds.

    For me, to seek the "beginning" of all things is fruitless as far as absolutes are concerned.  Our mortal understanding and intelligence is barely in it's infancy.  Our knowledge of physics and what we term as "laws" (which are even now changing) derives from what we've discovered here, locally, and through the observations of what small percentage of the universe we have viewed and mapped.  Keeping a wide open mind is vital as we start to mature in science and phylosophy.  There is so much more out there to discover and so many more facets of humanity to explore.  These new degrees of wisdom will, undoubtedly, prove many of our current beliefs laughable.

    It's an exciting future! smile

    1. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hello GP, long time.
      I don't see how it negates the Ism's perspective of BigBang v And He said. If anything it supports the united agreement of both perspectives.
      I am with you on the bright future!

      1. goldenpath profile image73
        goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I totally agree.  Both are complementary to each other.  Were it not so there would be no reason for either to exist.

        Hope all is well on your end!  smile

        1. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          all good, so far.

          true, their very purpose and existence mandate they need each other to exist. The united Ism, under the roof of quality is one of my deeper concerns. As one of my critic friends put it: what kind of offspring is this couple going to produce and should we be excited or scared sh!teless. -Although, my buddy Morse tends to blurt things like that out after three lobster and two bottles of David Bruce. Gotta appreciate 2x phD historian from Berkley. lol

    2. ceciliabeltran profile image80
      ceciliabeltranposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I personally favor big bang...but just last night I read an article about black holes and wormholes. So it is highly possible there a chance this can still contend as a theory.

    3. Beelzedad profile image59
      Beelzedadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I do wish believers would stop offering their versions of how they "believe" science will somehow support their belief systems or how science only scrapes a portion of reality that doesn't include their gods. It's a form of lying and being deceitful, to themselves and to everyone else. smile

      1. goldenpath profile image73
        goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I refer you to the thread categories.  The acknowledging of God is proper and acceptable given the category.  I don't put science or religion on top of the other.  I view them as synonomous, equal and both existing in concert one with another. smile smile smile

        1. Beelzedad profile image59
          Beelzedadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Science tries to explain the world around us and our physical laws using observation and experimentation. Science has given you everything you have today.

          Religion tells us in absolutes about the world around us using myth and magic to break and violate physical laws with the mere will of our minds. Religion has given you false hopes.

          That would be a concert that would sound like bags of cats being hit with sticks. smile

          1. Jerami profile image75
            Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I can agree with ya on that.  But  ya gotta remember that "Religion" is the government type institution that attempts to legislate Faith.
               Faith doesn't allways but it can survive when exposed to religion. Thank God

          2. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            ahem, religion does no such thing. not once has it defended totality against science, not once. Yet, the masculine seems to think his wife has.
            I am amazed at the level of insecurity in the masculine hunter -science and how it tries to divide himself from his wife, her charms which you used ages ago to court her...

            Neither side has an absolute -not sensation or equation. So why the endless rhetoric? This is your wife man, religion. Without her, who would clap and faint at your discoveries? Who will take your kills and make them into comfortable statues, relics, novelties, museums and such for the pilgrims of the world to awe and admire? Seriously...

            Roger Moore was right, two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year...

            1. Beelzedad profile image59
              Beelzedadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              wtf???

              Roger Moore was a bad actor. You're referring to Roger Waters. Can't you get anything right?  roll

              1. profile image0
                Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                oops...thanks on the correction.

                yes to add a bit more flavor:

                both science & religion are fighting to keep their heads above, scrambling to avoid drowning in an otherwise empty pool.
                pity, because the answer to both the equation and sensation has been staring them in the face the whole time.
                i'd throw you a life jacket, but then you'd call it absolution.

                1. Beelzedad profile image59
                  Beelzedadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No need, science isn't drowning in anything other than the disdain and hypocrisy of religious believers.

                  Of course, science rises above and floats on such things.

                  But hey, keep trying, you might get something right someday.  smile

  7. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Starr,
    It is part of a theory I am working on which states that optic light is based on necessity, as opposed to chance/randomness. It shows a cohesive prim, codon, helix, pattern of either dominant, equal or submissive character, property and vibration at any and every given instance of the optic view. The varying perspectives of that view make it difficult to ascertain the interaction between two sub atomic units which 'give birth' to a completely different unit. The theory states that those units blend in and out of the X forming that optic expression. So ray & wave are the united optic.

    In relation to the human being (and even the Ism) it works the same. The spirit and body are the ray & wave, the mind the optic.


    Jerami said it, a pixel picture in a ultra subatomic picture pixel.

    1. northweststarr profile image77
      northweststarrposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I had to read really slowly, but I gotcha! smile

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        it's borderline madness. big_smile

        1. northweststarr profile image77
          northweststarrposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That's what makes it fun! big_smile

          1. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            cool indeed.

            1. northweststarr profile image77
              northweststarrposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Thanx for the follow, by the way.  I'll check out your hubs a bit later.  smile

  8. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Let's continue with our critique of the Ism.
    Without the Quality factor, viewing both sides, can it be said that there is a common thread from both ends lacking either their classic nature or romantic? If you could pinpoint those instances, what would you define them as?

    1. Obscure Divine profile image55
      Obscure Divineposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The molecules of consciousness constantly spread apart, with a perpetual resistance towards the ultimate unity; hence forth a universal chaos......and all that lies between.

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        obviously, OD. But universal chaos...

        Granted there are seemingly infinite expressions within the optic (consciousness), which is the Ism itself. But where is -if any- the dividing wall? Is it questionability or simply a lack of the sensitive-equative "balance"?

 
working