About words and other words, including the whole.

[mikkel_the_dane]

So here is one way to understand the idea of the whole as all that is going on.

All words as it stands right now requires a brain, an understanding in a brain and a referent.

For the different non-believers and believers some of them share a general belief.
Only that as independent of brains matter either as God or objective reality. The problem is that the referent of what matters as matters is not independent of brains.

Just as I can't point to God, I can't point to the whole as all that is going on as pointing outside of me, because some of it, is in me. Not all of it, but neither nothing.

How ever indirect they do it, they always in effect do the same. What really matters is independent of humans, but they can't show that it matters as independent of humans.

 

[Estro Felino]

In my opinion we need to distinguish that not all atheists are the same.
We see it in the history of Western Philosophy.

There are atheists who have always distinguished between good and evil. Feuerbach, Marx, (and also Plato was probably an non-theist) for example.

And there are atheists who intend to annihilate the distinction between good and evil, and by using the non-existence of good and evil as demonstration that God doesn't exist.

The fact that the existence of an invisible and immaterial deity cannot be demonstrated does not imply good and evil as energies, as forces do not exist. It is a false syllogism, in my humble and personal opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In my opinion we need to distinguish that not all atheists are the same.
We see it in the history of Western Philosophy.

There are atheists who have always distinguished between good and evil. Feuerbach, Marx, (and also Plato was probably an non-theist) for example.

And there are atheists who intend to annihilate the distinction between good and evil, and by using the non-existence of good and evil as demonstration that God doesn't exist.

The fact that the existence of an invisible and immaterial deity cannot be demonstrated does not imply good and evil as energies, as forces do not exist. It is a false syllogism, in my humble and personal opinion.

Well, good and evil exists. The question is how. That is where we always end between in effect we and them. And you and do we, them, good and evil differently.

 

[Brian2]

That was a bit hard to understand.
Has it got anything to do with the "If a tree falls and no one is around......" thread by Xavier Graham.
As in, "is it all real or just a product of our brains?"
That could come down to "Are we all biased and not able to look past what our brain tells us?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That was a bit hard to understand.
Has it got anything to do with the "If a tree falls and no one is around......" thread by Xavier Graham.
As in, "is it all real or just a product of our brains?"
That could come down to "Are we all biased and not able to look past what our brain tells us?"

Well, yes. But the trick is not to avoid biases, but to learn that we all have them. We just do them differently in some cases.

 

[Brian2]

Well, yes. But the trick is not to avoid biases, but to learn that we all have them. We just do them differently in some cases.

We certainly do do them differently and how we do them would depend on our biases, beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We certainly do do them differently and how we do them would depend on our biases, beliefs.

And on ways to learn that is, thatv"we" differs for us all depending on different beliefs.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And on ways to learn that is, thatv"we" differs for us all depending on different beliefs.

I rather think that “we” is the one coherent reality, whereas “I” is an illusion created by our subjective paradigm. There is of course, an inherent paradox in this statement, in that “our” perspective refers to my perspective, and yours, which we each experience separately.

In the Monist perspective, the only coherent reality is the reality of the whole. There are parts of the whole, but there are no whole parts; we each are fragments of a greater reality, experiencing life subjectively. If an objective reality exists, and I certainly believe it does, it is not given to us, in this life anyway, to catch any more than the rarest glimpses of it. An objective view must, by definition, be a God’s eye view.

And yes, we are in the world looking out, while holding various overlapping models of it within our minds, which I think is what you are saying in your OP? In this way is our perspective framed, and limited - though some of these limitations can, I believe, be transcended.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I rather think that “we” is the one coherent reality, whereas “I” is an illusion created by our subjective paradigm. There is of course, an inherent paradox in this statement, in that “our” perspective refers to my perspective, and yours, which we each experience separately.

In the Monist perspective, the only coherent reality is the reality of the whole. There are parts of the whole, but there are no whole parts; we each are fragments of a greater reality, experiencing life subjectively. If an objective reality exists, and I certainly believe it does, it is not given to us, in this life anyway, to catch any more than the rarest glimpses of it. An objective view must, by definition, be a God’s eye view.

And yes, we are in the world looking out, while holding various overlapping models of it within our minds, which I think is what you are saying in your OP? In this way is our perspective framed, and limited - though some of these limitations can, I believe, be transcended.

I am not going to nitpick it, because it also works for me, though I also can do differently.

 

[PureX]

So here is one way to understand the idea of the whole as all that is going on.

All words as it stands right now requires a brain, an understanding in a brain and a referent.

For the different non-believers and believers some of them share a general belief.
Only that as independent of brains matter either as God or objective reality. The problem is that the referent of what matters as matters is not independent of brains.

Just as I can't point to God, I can't point to the whole as all that is going on as pointing outside of me, because some of it, is in me. Not all of it, but neither nothing.

How ever indirect they do it, they always in effect do the same. What really matters is independent of humans, but they can't show that it matters as independent of humans.

Not to mention that what "matters" is totally dependent on humans.

 

[MikeF]

Not to mention that what "matters" is totally dependent on humans.

Unfortunately, what "matters" is not a fixed constant. It is mutable and varies between individuals. The trick for any society is how to manage the differences and conflicts between its members.

 

[Brian2]

And on ways to learn that is, thatv"we" differs for us all depending on different beliefs.

Yes if we look we can see our own biases towards our own beliefs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or at least some of them.