GOD is omnipresent, immanently manifesting as anything and everything as GOD chooses. Furthermore, GOD's topological tree of manifestation is utterly beyond understanding by any awareness except GOD's own. GOD is not only stupendously stupefyingly parallel in GOD's manifestations, but also RECURSIVE, with GOD extending both up and down the TREE OF TREE OF..., acting upon GOD's predecessor and subsequent manifestations in a timely manner, so that GOD's foresight is infused with information from future versions of GOD, and also that GOD can plumb backwards into the depths of GOD's past iterative manifestations to obtain an ineffably utterly sharp snapshot in living color of any of GOD's past experiences, permitting GOD to RETROACTIVELY PREEMPT the occurrence of any situation which evolved unsatisfactorily according to GOD's OWN PLANNED DESIGNS...
One might well ask (understanding the above statement) "WHY IN GOD'S NAME?" is there so much strife turmoil anguish suffering unhappiness conflict etc etc etc upon MOTHER EARTH's sacred grounds? The answer is simple, and was presented long ago by William Shakespeare - "Life is but a STAGE..."... BTW SS - ATTABOY ATTABOY! Lonnie Courtney Clay On Sunday, May 1, 2011 11:00:31 PM UTC-7, the taoist shaman wrote: > > 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: episte...@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 <bry...@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 <bry...@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 <bry...@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 < > bry...@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 episte...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology...@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.
