Re: Attributive Monism (ritual, beliefs, spiritual, worship, God)

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Essential as in "essense of".

Sorry. Okay. I would propose uniqueness, then, to be the sum of the particular set of characteristics that make a thing identifiable. As such, uniqueness *is* inherent and, ideally, the essence of a thing. On what grounds does the Monist propose that it is not? (Sorry if I'm making you repeat something.)

As you said, our understanding of it is perceptual: we perceive and identify things by their unique set of characteristics and traits. But things must exist before we can possibly perceive them; that is the nature of perception.

Originally Posted by mr.guy

What is "ignored" is a methodology of your making, not mine; what is "important" in reality is wholly arbitrary, thus difficult to truly evaluate as such because of a limited, deductive faculty. What hierarchy reality organizes is here presumed to be egalitarian, and to quantify the universe in no way closes any systems.

That "limited, deductive faculty" is us. Human beings, with our individual subjective perspectives on the world. We exist; we are the instigators of aribtariness, and, along with our "faculties", we are a part of reality.

Does the Monist ignore that, then, in order to look only at "reality's egalitarian hierarchy"?

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Why is distiguishment necessary for existence?

Because something that is indistinguishable from, for instance, the universe is the universe. There is no separating the thing being discussed, and hence no way to discuss it as a seperate thing.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Isolation of aspectative quality is futility.

One last question, then I'll leave it alone. What does the above mean?

[Comet]

[quote=Willamena]

That makes no sense.
I understand little of dualism. From what I have read, it seems to consider the immateial to be substance, material, which also makes no sense to me.

It takes a long time to explain to somebody who hasn't come across it before. Most seem to find it a completely forgien concept. It took a good 3 months for me to finally get one of my friends to the point that they understood it. Most don't have that kind of time or patience.

It is nothing; non-being does not have essence.

Just like anti-particles in physics, they exist but not to our own "reality". Nonbeing is not neccisarily not having essence.

There isn't only one; it is that fact that gives us individuality. We are not alone in existence. That which is "me" (spirit, self) exists only in contrast to everything "not-me". My physical body is "not-me", not spirit; my mind is "not-me"; but these things are what my conscious self-identity is constructed from in the context of my physical existence. In the same way, I have an identity constructed as a part of the other greater wholes (groupings) mentioned above. As long as the physical "not-me" world exists, and I am conscious in it (have a body/mind), I (spirit, self) have individuality, a unique perspective on the world.
At least, that's how I see it, and it is no doubt why I have trouble grasping this.

It doesn't matter. I don't have a working theory for that. I am, and that suffices.

From what I've heard of the Big Bang, it could have come from the collapse of a preceding universe.

There are many theories of it. Just one way I've found to beging to explain in terms to those who have no clue what it is I believe.

Well, we tried to explain it. Thanks for playing I guess, or thanks for asking anyway.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Comet

Just like anti-particles in physics, they exist but not to our own "reality". Nonbeing is not neccisarily not having essence.

But anti-particles in physics (in literature, anyway) are not nothing, they are something that has a negative charge... anyway, I'm ready to give up on trying to understand this. Thanks for trying.

[Comet]

Originally Posted by Willamena

But anti-particles in physics (in literature, anyway) are not nothing, they are something that has a negative charge... anyway, I'm ready to give up on trying to understand this. Thanks for trying.

Negative or neutral. Nevermind then.....

[Comet]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Ball

Argh!!!
I am sorry, I wanted to stop myself from being totally offtopic, but this isn't right. It is impossible to divide something by 0..

I should say, an infinite number of solutions depending on the relationship between any two given numbers in an equation. It is not impossible, it is more unacceptable or not understood.
From the Univerisy of Utah Math Department site:
The reason that the result of a division by zero is undefined is the fact that any attempt at a definition leads to a contradiction.
To begin with, how do we define division? The ratio r of two numbers a and b:
r=a/b is that number r that satisfies
a=r*b.Well, if b=0, i.e., we are trying to divide by zero, we have to find a number r such that
r*0=a. (1) But
r*0=0 for all numbers r, and so unless a=0 there is no solution of equation (1).
Now you could say that r=infinity satisfies (1). That's a common way of putting things, but what's infinity? It is not a number! Why not? Because if we treated it like a number we'd run into contradictions. Ask for example what we obtain when adding a number to infinity. The common perception is that infinity plus any number is still infinity. If that's so, then
infinity = infinity+1 = infinity + 2 which would imply that 1 equals 2 if infinity was a number. That in turn would imply that all integers are equal, for example, and our whole number system would collapse. What about 0/0?
I said above that we can't solve the equation (1) unless a=0. So, in that case, what does it mean to divide by zero?
Again, we run into contradictions if we attempt to assign any number to 0/0.
Let's call the result of 0/0, z, if it made sense. z would have to satisfy
z*0=0. (2) That's OK as far as it goes, any number z satisfies that equation. But it means that the result of 0/0 could be anything. We could argue that it's 1, or 2, and again we have a contradiction since 1 does not equal 2.
But perhaps there is a number z satisfying (2) that's somehow special and we just have not identified it? So here is a slightly more subtle approach. Division is a continuous process. Suppose b and c are both non-zero. Then, in a sense that can be made precise. the ratios a/b and a/c will be close if b and c are close. A similar statement applies to the numerator of a ratio (except that it may be zero.)
So now assume that 0/0 has some meaningful numerical value (whatever it may be - we don't know yet), and consider a situation where both a and b in the ratio a/b become smaller and smaller. As they do the ratio should become closer and closer to the unknown value of 0/0.
There are many ways in which we can choose a and b and let them become smaller. For example, suppose that a=b throughout the process. For example, we might pick
a=b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, .... Since

a=b, for all choices of a we get the ratio 1 every time! This suggests that 0/0 should equal 1. But we could just as well pick
b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, .... and let a be twice as large as b. Then the ratio is always 2! So 0/0 should equal 2. But we just said it should equal 1! In fact, by letting a be r times as large as b we could get any ratio r we please!
So again we run into contradictions, and therefore we are compelled to let 0/0 be undefined.

[Seyorni]

This whole mathematical analogy seems to have more obfuscated than clarified the concept.

Molecules of water vapor condense into cloud droplets, then into raindrops. these individuals then fall to earth and merge into the waters of lakes and rivers. The river water eventually merges with the sea.

The raindrop is no longer an individual. Its molecules are scattered throughout the whole. It has become one with Ocean.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by Willamena

I would propose uniqueness, then, to be the sum of the particular set of characteristics that make a thing identifiable. As such, uniqueness *is* inherent and, ideally, the essence of a thing. On what grounds does the Monist propose that it is not? (Sorry if I'm making you repeat something.)

No worries.

The monist may point to transience and the inevitable commonality as a breakdown of what is unique. There is really no dispute here to say that "nothing" is, but definite distinction between one thing and another seems false when we isolate one thing to the exception of all.

As you said, our understanding of it is perceptual: we perceive and identify things by their unique set of characteristics and traits. But things must exist before we can possibly perceive them; that is the nature of perception.

I'm not saying anything doesn't exist, but what is identifiable often says more of the vantage than the subject.

That "limited, deductive faculty" is us. Human beings, with our individual subjective perspectives on the world. We exist; we are the instigators of aribtariness, and, along with our "faculties", we are a part of reality.

Okay, then we agree.

Does the Monist ignore that, then, in order to look only at "reality's egalitarian hierarchy"?

I don't think so. The two aren't really at odds with each other.

Because something that is indistinguishable from, for instance, the universe is the universe. There is no separating the thing being discussed, and hence no way to discuss it as a seperate thing.

I'm not sure i understand how this relates.