Israel
BANNED
OK.
We've already come up hard against omniscience in some manner and some degree...or me at least.
But, have I given you a fair explanation in regards to it? The: "If any one thing can be known..."? Even if you don't accept it to yourself, do you concede the process?
Because we may have to go back a step (or two or 100)...at this point I am not sure. I don't know what we'll find in our exploration of this other thing, now likewise provoked.
For even if we do not agree to omniscience existing in reality but only as word describing concept (and who is to say concepts are not as real as anything else?...for by "concept" the twin towers were built...and by concept they came down...)
So this I also find in our discussion of "what's on the table". Is consciousness a real thing? And all the things that accrue to it, thought, right perception (although that matter of right in perception is surely up for grabs)...but just perception? Even concept. On what basis do we assume these things, if we do, to be real?
Here's a side note. I'm afraid, though that is hardly the right word...yet there is a something in me arguing for explanation against being misunderstood. I do not regard what "man knows" (even as discovered by a thing called science, or scientific method) in an obscene light. Though the limits of it may be perceived differently between us, or among us...all...personally, I find a pointing toward a something. As I was thinking of "us"...our relating, our discussions...and now our "years" in some way together the other day...my mind wandered to some of the "things" discovered...for want of a better word...by science. I thought of light as I "looked" at a leaf. I thought of touching.
Science tells me that on one level (might I say...state of being?) that what I might have concluded intuitively about touching...on a certain level is quite different than all my inferences. Were I to press myself "with all my might" the space between what I think is my matter and the matter of my wife...are vast. I get (what I think) is a sensation of touch, tells me we have "touched"...but on that certain level my perceptions (that previously led to conceptions) of what touch is, are shattered. We haven't...in any way, as thought previously...touched.
Now, that does not negate the sensation...it simply informs it. "what we experience as touch is really...blah blah blah...and that is why we get the feeling of touching."
Likewise with light. On one level I previously inferred a certain relationship of green to leaf. That somehow true substance of leaf and greenness were all of one. But "science" tells me that the green I see, and previously inferred as to somehow true substance of leaf...is actually the "part" of light not absorbed...by said leaf. The substance of leaf is not in greenness at all (in that sense) but of substance that "likes" (oh, how silly!)...all light...except green.
Now, again...science says...or perhaps does not say..."No, you are not wrong to perceive that leaf as green, because blah blah blah...is how light...works" Even to and in...your eyes!
But how much previous inference of substance and "true" nature is cracked, there...busted there.
This is to not even mention that all depends upon "the light" in which a thing is viewed...what is true light? When the sun is setting on certain days, a piece of white paper...(is it really...white?) suddenly takes on a golden hue. "well, in that light it would because...blah blah blah..."
We have been proceeding from a premise presented by one of us..."God is"...it matters not which of us...at all. In that I believe I have been as honest as one said to "do the best with what we've got". This does not mean I am being honest, at all...merely subscribing to a concept, that at least, to this point, I don't "feel"...sense, (and you may remember I didn't disagree with believing in "a" god...because of feelings that may have in one "sense" added impetus to our labors) an incursion against.
You can tell me, are surely free to tell me ( I also am not ready to abrogate "no restriction") that absolutely all, and I repeat, all, of my inferences through perceptions...are wrong. After all, it seems it is only you and I are left here...and without a hand to tip a balance for either of us...who could show themselves..."more right"? But why might that be of any import at all?
But then I would have to add.."science"...if anything (to me, by my perceptions...and yes...even leading to inferences) seems always to be telling me "nothing really is...as it seems".
And so, regardless...it points me. Also.
"God is..." was the premise. Perhaps in all of seems there is nothing more argued against. And this by what structures itself according to certain laws of "knowing" what is true, verifiable, repeatable. All the while (perhaps) oblivious that the in the assumption of laws it proceeds by, that of saying "the known can be further known"...the assumption of knowing anything at all also operates according to a law...a principle...."it will only know what it is allowed...to know".
"What is true light?"
In a certain light we may both be considered (I may be presumptuous) relatively...smart men. By a certain metric, we might even be able to show it. But, put us both in a room with a particular savant and ask all of us "what day was October 12 1604"...and two of us may find a fellowship of ignorance.
We've already come up hard against omniscience in some manner and some degree...or me at least.
But, have I given you a fair explanation in regards to it? The: "If any one thing can be known..."? Even if you don't accept it to yourself, do you concede the process?
Because we may have to go back a step (or two or 100)...at this point I am not sure. I don't know what we'll find in our exploration of this other thing, now likewise provoked.
For even if we do not agree to omniscience existing in reality but only as word describing concept (and who is to say concepts are not as real as anything else?...for by "concept" the twin towers were built...and by concept they came down...)
So this I also find in our discussion of "what's on the table". Is consciousness a real thing? And all the things that accrue to it, thought, right perception (although that matter of right in perception is surely up for grabs)...but just perception? Even concept. On what basis do we assume these things, if we do, to be real?
Here's a side note. I'm afraid, though that is hardly the right word...yet there is a something in me arguing for explanation against being misunderstood. I do not regard what "man knows" (even as discovered by a thing called science, or scientific method) in an obscene light. Though the limits of it may be perceived differently between us, or among us...all...personally, I find a pointing toward a something. As I was thinking of "us"...our relating, our discussions...and now our "years" in some way together the other day...my mind wandered to some of the "things" discovered...for want of a better word...by science. I thought of light as I "looked" at a leaf. I thought of touching.
Science tells me that on one level (might I say...state of being?) that what I might have concluded intuitively about touching...on a certain level is quite different than all my inferences. Were I to press myself "with all my might" the space between what I think is my matter and the matter of my wife...are vast. I get (what I think) is a sensation of touch, tells me we have "touched"...but on that certain level my perceptions (that previously led to conceptions) of what touch is, are shattered. We haven't...in any way, as thought previously...touched.
Now, that does not negate the sensation...it simply informs it. "what we experience as touch is really...blah blah blah...and that is why we get the feeling of touching."
Likewise with light. On one level I previously inferred a certain relationship of green to leaf. That somehow true substance of leaf and greenness were all of one. But "science" tells me that the green I see, and previously inferred as to somehow true substance of leaf...is actually the "part" of light not absorbed...by said leaf. The substance of leaf is not in greenness at all (in that sense) but of substance that "likes" (oh, how silly!)...all light...except green.
Now, again...science says...or perhaps does not say..."No, you are not wrong to perceive that leaf as green, because blah blah blah...is how light...works" Even to and in...your eyes!
But how much previous inference of substance and "true" nature is cracked, there...busted there.
This is to not even mention that all depends upon "the light" in which a thing is viewed...what is true light? When the sun is setting on certain days, a piece of white paper...(is it really...white?) suddenly takes on a golden hue. "well, in that light it would because...blah blah blah..."
We have been proceeding from a premise presented by one of us..."God is"...it matters not which of us...at all. In that I believe I have been as honest as one said to "do the best with what we've got". This does not mean I am being honest, at all...merely subscribing to a concept, that at least, to this point, I don't "feel"...sense, (and you may remember I didn't disagree with believing in "a" god...because of feelings that may have in one "sense" added impetus to our labors) an incursion against.
You can tell me, are surely free to tell me ( I also am not ready to abrogate "no restriction") that absolutely all, and I repeat, all, of my inferences through perceptions...are wrong. After all, it seems it is only you and I are left here...and without a hand to tip a balance for either of us...who could show themselves..."more right"? But why might that be of any import at all?
But then I would have to add.."science"...if anything (to me, by my perceptions...and yes...even leading to inferences) seems always to be telling me "nothing really is...as it seems".
And so, regardless...it points me. Also.
"God is..." was the premise. Perhaps in all of seems there is nothing more argued against. And this by what structures itself according to certain laws of "knowing" what is true, verifiable, repeatable. All the while (perhaps) oblivious that the in the assumption of laws it proceeds by, that of saying "the known can be further known"...the assumption of knowing anything at all also operates according to a law...a principle...."it will only know what it is allowed...to know".
"What is true light?"
In a certain light we may both be considered (I may be presumptuous) relatively...smart men. By a certain metric, we might even be able to show it. But, put us both in a room with a particular savant and ask all of us "what day was October 12 1604"...and two of us may find a fellowship of ignorance.