Awww Barry, were you having a bad day? (Sorry, I tend to skip around when scanning information.) Your subsequent posts were significantly better.
________________________________ From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:29 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness is creativity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. > > > > If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any > > > > existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, > > > > IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, > > > > length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of > > > > time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be > > > > similar to an empty box and nothing else. > > > > > > But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are > > > simpler ways to get the universe going without recourse to > > > anything mystical. > > > > Not to mention the concept of an eternal, never-created > > universe. I know from past interactions that John is > > incapable of entertaining even the thought of this, but > > since you're new here I thought I'd see if you could > > swing behind this idea. > > Barry, > > You are actually a closet theist and don't even know it. And you're a terrified little boy who needs to believe that there is a Big Daddy In The Sky to sleep well at night. Which would be merely pitiable if you didn't have a similar need to debate others about the fairy tales you believe in to try to convince them they're something more than fairy tales. There. Now we've both gotten what we really think of each other out of our systems. :-) > Since you believe the universe is eternal and never-created, > you then believe that the universe is the Knower, the Process > of Knowing, and the Known by Itself. Bzzzzzzt. Does not compute. I believe *nothing* about those three made-up concepts you just spouted. And even if I did they would have nothing to do with the nature of the universe. They're just silly ideas, opinions spouted by silly humans. > IOW, It knows and maintains the dimensions of space and time. "It," meaning the universe, neither "knows" nor "maintains" diddelysquat. I don't believe that the universe is sentient; that's YOUR fantasy. :-) It's just an eternal machine that was never created and has no purpose. In that sense, if the universe *were* sentient (it's not, as far as I can tell), its lack of purpose would put it several notches above puny humans who feel that *their* purpose was to understand the universe's, which doesn't exist. :-) > As such, It is a Being, albeit an impersonal one. So, you > actually believe in an Impersonal Eternal Being. John, I suggest that you keep your dualist fantasies to yourself, and try not to embarrass yourself by trying to convince others that they're more than fantasies. The universe is not a being of any kind. It's an It. What happens within that It just happens; there is no Plan behind it, and no intelligence guiding it. Shit just happens. Some of us are comfortable with that. Others (like yourself) seem to feel that they need a fantasy god or being who runs things to explain shit just happening. Cool, I guess, if that makes you feel better. But don't expect others to pretend that your fantasies are real just because you do.
