How I see reality and existence

[Polymirize]

Actually, the idea that something and nothing are a duality is somewhat absurd, because the concept of 'nothing' is absurd. There is no such thing as 'nothing'. If nothing did exist, it would then be something, and therefore is negated by sheer paradox. I think 'nothing' is just a concept that we use, and nothing more than that.

You're sort of just spinning words there though. I could just as easily say that nothing doesn't exist. So everything must exist. And the sum of everything must include nothing, or else it wouldn't be everything. So nothing must exist.

But it's not really that convincing is it?

Nonetheless, I think there's better evidence in favor of nothing than of something.

[peacetrain]

nothing/something...light/dark....we define one by the other. So they must both be there....?

[Jimmicrackedcorn]

Murderer's and rapist's still do what they do, an ultimate reality will and does incorporate these things, perfectly, without disruption, in to it's existance. A belief is just that, and is driven by the same primal urges that control your want to fuck, fight and eat, maybe not with the same initial intensity, but they are inextricably linked by your brain, to seperate yourself from your thought processes, your urges, and then your resulting identity, you find your most natural state of being? A state where everything is the same, although the ability of choice for man is different from beast.
If you want to strip the barrier of physical reality, definitions of matter, things we can actually see and interact with, then surely you won't be able to even begin laying down a framework, in more/less productive actions, emotions, opinions, of peope.

I personally think that the "ultimate reality" (the thing that encompasses all motions of masses, with the passage of time, relative to each and every microsopic/macroscopic body), has got it covered, mine, or anybody else's choices are subsidiary effects, of the ultimate realities working, as, no matter what, nothing (including celestial bodies, different states of matter, different environments, and organisms) has ever been able to throw any type of monkeywrench in to, and "catch out" the ultimate reality, you could kill everybody on earth single handedly, each time coming up with more and more elaborate and undignifying ways of killing them, and no force will come and stop you, then at the end, the earth will keep on spinning, and going around the sun, the cosmos certainly won't give out a cry of love and understanding.

I suppose theres no single thing or force that drives us, every1's different, some people are passive/aggressive, dominant/recessive, and theres no changing that, people never really change, certain things that become apparent to them along life, will change there behaviour, but there is no ultimate truth, as opinion is relative, one person could flip out at the revelations that have brought another contentment. If different schools of thought can co-exist, and things are not bounded by any force that prohibits anybody in acting in any way possible, then wouldn't sitting on either side of the fence when it comes to detached definition of that which is truly real, be paradoxical to your original thought of a boundless universe?

Tramadol's very nice isn't it? Especially with weed and a lil bit of liquor, gave me a bit of trouble taking a shit for about a day afterwards, so I didn't much take it recreationally after a few higher than medical dose attempts, never really topped Kratom though...........even for medicinal value, oh man........did I used to ramble my bollox off about science and its implications when I was floating around on that stuff......kinda get carried away don't ya?

[JunkYard]

I'd have to say I agree about most of what you said, particularly about the separation between something and nothing being an illusion. I think most opposites are an illusion, really; Take light and darkness, for example. These aren't two seperate substances -- the darkness is incidental, because there is light. Darkness is a product OF light. In a similar way, nothing (or what we percieve as nothing) is a product of something. Saying that light and darkness are a duality is like saying the side of a tree which you are looking at is an opposite entity from the side of the tree facing away from you which you can't see. It is one's own perception that creates these concepts of 'light' and 'darkness' in the mind, and likewise something and nothing are concepts.
Actually, the idea that something and nothing are a duality is somewhat absurd, because the concept of 'nothing' is absurd. There is no such thing as 'nothing'. If nothing did exist, it would then be something, and therefore is negated by sheer paradox. I think 'nothing' is just a concept that we use, and nothing more than that.

You should read the kabalion by three initiates. it's hermetic philosophy, and there is much in it pertaining to your thought here.. ..


Junk~

[afghooey]

"You're sort of just spinning words there though. I could just as easily say that nothing doesn't exist. So everything must exist. And the sum of everything must include nothing, or else it wouldn't be everything. So nothing must exist."

That might be convincing if nothing were the opposite of something, but it isn't. If nothing was the opposite of something, then it would be true that something can't exist without nothing. But something does exist without nothing, because nothing doesn't exist as anything but a concept. It's a symbol that points to itself.

I'm also curious as to what you mean by "I think there's better evidence in favor of nothing than of something." We're here, we're something That's evidence that something exists. Where is nothing? When we use the word, we usually don't mean it in a literal sense. "What's in that box?" "Nothing." But there is something in the box, if only air. Even vaccuums can't be perfectly empty, there's always something there.

Ah, and thanks Junkyard. Gotta return some books to the library tomorrow, I'll see if I can't find it.

[cannabis=freedom]

mrdevious, i agree with absolutely everything you've said.

[ate]

You're right mrdevious.

[2600HERTZ]

Very well, I see my ideas arent' going to be met with much acceptance. But these are just my ideas nontheless. Whether or not they'll prove true or false, I hope I'll get to find out some day. I don't see the reason for all the hostility toward my ideas (from everyone) though; these aren't even theories, just some interesting ideas that seem to make sense to me. I make no claim to their validity beyond some toying with concepts.




I think you misunderstand me. I know that aggression, competition, dominance, all these things are natural. They are some key elements to the evolutionary process. But what I'm talking about isn't the complex natural drives that control most organisms, I'm talking about the natural and final state of reality. What I mean to say is that through extinction of our primal, instinctive nature, through extinction of the ego and sense of separation, we can see the most natural state of being there is, perfect harmony with the ultimate. That, in my humble opinion, is the most natural state of all because it is the basis of our existence. The primal drives that direct organism behavior is the considerably more complex result of this base nature.




I'm very stoned on tramadol (legally through prescription) and weed, it's not always easy to piece together ones thoughts.





I disagree. As I was trying to convey, the separation is a result of more complex systems creating new forms for reality to take. Which I suppose may be responsible for the rules in relativity, but I'm no expert in that field.



I'm not familiar with Michio Kaku and only partially familar with Hawking's works. I didn't intend to state these as absolute beliefs, just ideas, a hypothesis from certain observations.

I forgot about this thread, but I wanted to say awhile back: sorry for being such an asshole up there, it was a bad day and I had to tell someone off. So I am sorry man.