lonni, god does not exist in formlessness ? Serenity Smiles wrote: > GOD is still conceptualised thought only existent in form created from > emptiness > > From: Lonnie Clay > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:25 AM > To: epistemology@googlegroups.com > Subject: [epistemology 11971] Re: our current system or $ > > GOD knows no boundaries. GOD is limitlessly expanding. GOD's rate of > expansion is constantly increasing miraculously due to the huge number of > derivatives of velocity, acceleration, etc in GOD's rate of expansion. GOD > has achieved victory! Religion on the other hand is a fool's game. If there > is not a burst of pleasure at these statements, then I do not know what to > say! > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 11:47:36 PM UTC-7, the taoist shaman wrote: > what do u think of religion / god > > nominal9 wrote: > > Hi TS.... > > Don't get too involved in the links, if they bore or just confound > > you... it's something that anyone has to build up to, and you have to > > have an interest in the subjects...Anyway, as to Mind's Eye.... a > > fellow-friend of mine was from this Group... Chaz... was banned from > > Mind's Eye and although they didn't ban me... I left their group , > > then and there... I have this "thing" about censorship.... despise > > it... > > Anyway. nice making your acquaintance, anytime that you want to > > discuss any topic, I'd be glad to talk with you... I like politics a > > lot myself, and we appear to have the same "leanings"..... let's say > > NOT RIGHT WING..... > > nominal9 > > > > On Apr 27, 1:42 am, the taoist shaman <brya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > damn rigs was off hey lee > > > > > > the taoist shaman wrote: > > > > u seem like ur Not a dumb F , ill take the time to read the links u > > > > previously sent , the people of minds eye r children who love to > > > > hate , i tend to lean to the 2nd intention but realize it hase > > > > limitations , if not u end up w/ people like the kkk . my 2nt > > > > intention is more focused on nature in relation to society and > > > > personal relation as well as philosophy and religion , --- does the > > > > name riggs ring a bell for you ? > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > nominal9 wrote: > > > > > reliying on logic can be dangerous , things are unpridictable , to > > > > > know is delusion , to not know is ignorance / TS > > > > > > > > I agree... Empiricism is at the root of, at least, Realism and > > > > > Nominalism.... > > > > > > > > Idealism and Phenomeology tend more toward "logic"... although there > > > > > really isn't much sense to most of their so-called "logic"... > > > > > > > > W. of Ockham is probably best appreciated by me for FIRST making > "the" > > > > > distinction between the way the self-conscious mind understands > > > > > "reality" either through FIRST INTENTION or subsequently through > > > > > SECOND INTENTION > > > > >http://dictionary.die.net/first%20intention > > > > > > > > 5. (Logic) Any mental apprehension of an object. > > > > > > > > First intention (Logic), a conception of a thing formed by > > > > > the first or direct application of the mind to the > > > > > individual object; an idea or image; as, man, stone. > > > > > > > > Second intention (Logic), a conception generalized from > > > > > first intuition or apprehension already formed by the > > > > > mind; an abstract notion; especially, a classified notion, > > > > > as species, genus, whiteness. > > > > > > > > Anyway... FIRST INTENTION operates on what Ockham calls "intuition" > > > > > but nowadays is better understood as "Empirical Examination"... or > > > > > maybe direct "Factual Experimentation" on something... like > dissecting > > > > > a frog... or putting some bit of matter stuff through a mass > > > > > specrtometer.... etc. that is to say... the conscious mind > considers a > > > > > single and specific factual "thing"....or maybe even a mental thing, > > > > > off sorts, like the feeling of an emotion....but mental > considerations > > > > > are mostly of the other sort... below > > > > > > > > SECOND INTENTION, according to Ockham, is when the conscious mind > > > > > thinks about all sorts of things in its memory and starts making > > > > > possible connections of all sorts between them... the more common > ones > > > > > are like one man as distinguished from the generalized notion of all > > > > > men....Jim for example is different from Tom.... but they are alike > in > > > > > at least some ways... they are both (or all) "men....the distinction > > > > > between the individual... the species and the genus... etc. but also > > > > > consider other sorts of "abstract" thinking... like numbers and > doing > > > > > math... etc.... > > > > > > > > Anyway.... Ockham though this up... this separation between direct > > > > > empirical experience and abstracted "'thought" constructions.... > > > > > > > > Pretty fundamental stuff.... and really revolutionary, I think..... > > > > > but try to tell it to the strict Realists, Idealists or especially > the > > > > > Phenomenologists.... they either don't get it.... or don't WANT to > > > > > get it.... > > > > > > > > ignorance... sure is possible even for Nominalists.... sometimes the > > > > > specific conscious mind either doesn't have the "brains" to come up > > > > > with the right idea... or sometimes the "thing" just can't be > > > > > experimented on in the right way to understand it.... Pretty much a > > > > > state of constant agnostiicism (Don't- Know- Itedness)....But with > > > > > time and more brains and progress working at it.... more "stuff" if > > > > > learned about more and more things.... > > > > > > > > PS... most of the "techie" guys around here don't know crap about > this > > > > > stuff, either....HAR > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 10:13 am, the taoist shaman <brya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > reliying on logic can be dangerous , things are unpridictable , to > > > > > > know is delusion , to not know is ignorance > > > > > > > > > nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > Hi TS... nice to make your acquaintance....I guess you just > don't have > > > > > > > the interest, now.... but if you ever do, I suggest that you > try some > > > > > > > of the "classical" so-called philosophers... instead of taoist > shamans > > > > > > > or metaphysical quasi-religious sorts , like buddhists or > > > > > > > tanscendentalists and such as a way toward understanding > things... > > > > > > > folks like Plato ( beginning Idealism) or Aristotle (beginning > > > > > > > Realism) or Kant (beginning Phenomenology) or W.of Ockham > (beginning > > > > > > > Nominalism) ... then you can go to the ones (other > philosophers) who > > > > > > > took the original threads and carried them on in different > > > > > > > ways....Anyway, my own very general way of understanding it is > that > > > > > > > there's a basic division in Reality and a thinking being's > > > > > > > understanding of it... a sort of interplay between the thinking > brain > > > > > > > and the outside world it tries to understand (alog with self- > > > > > > > consciously understanding itself, of course)... the difference > is > > > > > > > basically one between the Idea and the Thing... otherwise put > as the > > > > > > > Concept and the Reference...Mind and Matter > > > > > > > > > > Idealists think that both the Idea and the Thing are subjective, > > > > > > > entirely dependent on what the self-conscious brain ultimately > thinks" > > > > > > > they (Concept and Reference) are... SUBJECTIVE > > > > > > > > > > Realists think that both the Idea and the Thing are objective, > > > > > > > entirely dependent on what the Thing forces the self-conscious > brain > > > > > > > to understand about them (Concept and Reference)... OBJECTIVE > > > > > > > > > > Nominalists think that there's a split in the way the > self-conscious > > > > > > > brain and the outside reality operate....The self -conscious > brain > > > > > > > operates subjectively as to its own Ideas (or Concept) but the > Thing > > > > > > > is completely separated or foreign from the self-conscious > brain and > > > > > > > the Thing (or Reference) is itself objectively controlled by > its own > > > > > > > ways and means of being and operation... SUBJECTIVE / OBJECTIVE > > > > > > > > > > Phenomenologists also think that there's a split in the way > the self- > > > > > > > conscious brain and the outside reality operate... but > > > > > > > Phenomenologists posit that the self-conscious brain operates > > > > > > > objectively and that the self conscious brain contains a > perfect Idea > > > > > > > (or Concept) of what the Template or "Essence" of all outside > reality > > > > > > > Things should be... the outside reality Things then become mere > > > > > > > subjective or imperfect manifestations of those perfect > > > > > > > Essences.....OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE > > > > > > > > > > Now, my guess is that as a self-described taoist shaman.... you > might > > > > > > > tend toward the Phenomenological view of ideas and things.... > > > > > > > > > > Whereas myself, I am a Nominalist leaning Person when it come > to my > > > > > > > view of ideas and things... > > > > > > > > > > Can You see that you and I would tend to think just the > opposite at a > > > > > > > very fundamental level? > > > > > > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 5:11 pm, the taoist shaman <brya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > thats way too much reading , and very confusing , im not > familiar w/ > > > > > > > > proper terms , am i a realist or a dreamer i think was the > subject of > > > > > > > > the reading , but i only skimmed it so , ? all dreamers see > themselves > > > > > > > > as realist or the dream would be dead. i am a defeated > dreamer , like > > > > > > > > the living dead u know ! > > > > > > > > > > > nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ever Hear of William of Ockham.... Nominalism... more as an > "empirical > > > > > > > > > way" to think rather that as the opinions that you or > anyone should > > > > > > > > > hold....? > > > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/ > > > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Nominalism > > > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/ > > > > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Idealism... Realism.... Phenomenology...Nominalism > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway... there's a lot of them... after a while... others > (and after > > > > > > > > > them me too) started to see "patterns" or threads between > them and > > > > > > > > > thought that most "philosophies" fall under one of the > above broad > > > > > > > > > headings.... and that they differ > > > > > > > > > logically one heading from the nextr.... anyway, I chose > > > > > > > > > nominalism.... you may want to consider decidiing or trying > to > > > > > > > > > understand which one you yourself prefer....I was about > your age when > > > > > > > > > I tried to make my choice decision judgment.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind's Eye.... > > > > > > > > > THAR be Censors THAR.... > > > > > > > > > Censors Be folks who thinks they knows it All... when they > really > > > > > > > > > don't know shit... > > > > > > > > > It's important to know shit, at least. HAR.... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 6:54 pm, the taoist shaman <brya...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > how long before all the welth is held by a small group , > and what > > > > > > > > > > happens to the rest of us ? is there a way to stop the > storm on the > > > > > > > > > > horizon , or is there no storm at all ? > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
