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.
