A Contempory Philosophy

Tethered by reality;

• There is the ongoing cause of all that is.

• There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.

• There is the adversary to every life.

• And there is you.. an instance of life.

The rest is just noise…

_____________________________________________

Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.

_____________________________________________

Coming up next;
THE Unified Field Theory/Law and Grand Unified Theory/Law - Theory/Law of Everything
– The now proven and demonstrable law/s that govern ALL noise.

James S Saint wrote:

Tethered by reality;

• There is the ongoing cause of all that is.

• There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.

• There is the adversary to every life.

• And there is you.. an instance of life.

The rest is just noise…

_____________________________________________

Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.

_____________________________________________

Coming up next;
THE Unified Field Theory/Law and Grand Unified Theory/Law - Theory/Law of Everything
– The now proven and demonstrable law/s that govern ALL noise.

I often think on the "noise" in life, the chaos embedded perhaps most saliently within human relations. "Every human chaotically impacts the humans it comes into contact with". This is the starting-point for a new direction of exploration in the vein of implications steming from the further explication of value-ontology. To reduce human interaction to this level of, at best, controlled chaos brings about many possibilities.... "Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise." This is undeniably true, and beautifully stated.

How should we seek to introduce order into this chaos, and to what extent is this chaos required even? To side entirely with order would certainly be folly, but we can neither condone the present state of things as they are. What is the unconsciousness of man, his mere animalistic automatism and reactionism, but unordered (or rather insufficiently ordered) chaos? This chaotic being impacts the beings of others that it comes into contact with, creating a largely unstable field of effects and outcomes.

Is it wise to seek the "proven and demonstrable law/s that govern all noise"? Is this a power that can be placed into the hands of those chaotic beings for whom such a law would prove so aptly descriptive? The APPLICATION of such knowledge is a thing entirely different from the knowledge itself, and I fear not even a ToE can cross this intermedial divide spanning theory and practice.

Should we be focusing instead on a truly contemporary philosophy and the possibilities for and of it, rather than on delivering man into the practical-applied means of "ordering" the total expanse of his "chaos"? Even granted that this ordering would not reach inward down into the more essential "spiritual" elements of the human consciousness and its generative-sustaining conditions and possibilities, which I affirm it would not necessarily do (although it may), the risk of explicating a ToE without much prior work on developing and spreading the ground of a philosophical basis for such a theory could prove catastrophic.

Capable wrote:

and I fear not even a ToE can cross this intermedial divide spanning theory and practice.

Only the exact right one can..
..and does.

..all else is but more noise with unpredictable amplitude and vector.


So sayeth the LoE

Don't fail to understand from atop which mountain I speak.

James S Saint wrote:

Capable wrote:

and I fear not even a ToE can cross this intermedial divide spanning theory and practice.

Only the exact right one can..
..and does.

..all else is but more noise with unpredictable amplitude and vector.


So sayeth the LoE

Don't fail to understand from atop which mountain I speak.

It is not only a question of whether the ToE can, in itself, serve as such an intermedial principle, but also and more importantly if we can reasonably expect even such a "perfect" theoretical knowledge system to be utilized in an equally perfect manner by the modern human ape...

If you think this latter issue is a given or does not necessarily inspire serious doubts, I would hazard that the implications of your 'ToE' have not very well been thought out to their conclusions or that these are at least somewhat mired in an utopian sort of idealism and hopeful fantasy. I would strongly argue that there is little if no evidence that humans today, as they are, are capable of weilding the sort of power which a ToE would present.

If the ToE doesn't account even for its use by morons, then it isn't an LoE, but merely a high ideal, more noise, not that which governs it.

James S Saint wrote:

If the ToE doesn't account even for its use by morons, then it isn't an LoE, but merely a high ideal, more noise, not that which governs it.

So you claim that the LoE also includes perfect means to inscribe its perfect application of perfect theory upon a now-perfect world?

Forgive me if I point out the entirely fanciful nature of such a presumption. The world, including especially humans (our thought/theory as well as deed/practice) are, by definition, highly imperfect. Which is to say, prone to unpredictability, chaos, uncertainty. To be imperfect is to exist, to be a conditioned/contingent entity, emergent-generated by a vast and largely (from the human perspective) contingent collection of conditions which it has by definition not-total control over. The human is a particularly notable example of this.

The LoE as you describe seems nothing more than a bringing back of God as the form of an appeal to a supposed 'universal science'. You give no reason for us to assume that a LoE could even in theory possibly act as a universal science, you give no basis for concluding that such is even possible. A simple analysis and understanding of ontology and epistemology cannot help but see clear examples of the discontinuity and disunity between idea and world, between what we perceive-experience and what exists outside of this, which also includes of course that which conditions and gives rise to our perceptions/experiences... thus the vicious circle of the human being, the human being as result of what it can never know-understand-derive.

Your claim that a LoE would surpass this issue because it is able to understand "particle formation" is... unjustified, to say the least. Not that I am discounting the utility of what you propose, but until you can even demonstrate that such a LoE is even possible, or better yet give us this LoE itself, I see no reason to continue discussion of the utilities of such a discovery where such discussion, on your end, fails to take into consideration the idea that even a supposed LoE is still subject to the manner in which it is applied by the humans who wield it.

No theoretical model, especially a scientific as opposed to ideological one, is going to circumvent the 'human, all too human' processes of consciousness which give rise to unpredictability, error, and falling prey to the drives/instincts which underlie the human being. As I have noted here, and unfortunately which it seems you have declined to address, is that such an overcoming of the integral conditions of consciousness with respect to human judgment and experience could only be done through the method of philosophy, which is to say direct inner-experiential exposition-creation of the sphere/s of human conscious experiencing. No "outer model" no matter how accurate it is in deriving conditions of particle formation or behavior will ever be able to accomplish that. Or at least you have given us no reason to think it might, other than a seemingly religious-like appeal to the "definition of the LoE" which merely STATES that "by definition the LoE tells us what to do with it, therefore the LoE is immune to the problems/inconsistencies of application at the hands of fallible humans".

Certainly you can understand why such a mere definition does nothing in the way of actual demonstration.

Capable wrote:

James S Saint wrote:

If the ToE doesn't account even for its use by morons, then it isn't an LoE, but merely a high ideal, more noise, not that which governs it.

So you claim that the LoE also includes perfect means to inscribe its perfect application of perfect theory upon a now-[im]perfect world?

That all but defines an LoE.

It isn't a Law/theory for only what is already perfected. It is a Law concerning how ALL things work "Everything".

Capable wrote:

The LoE as you describe seems nothing more than a bringing back of God as the form of an appeal to a supposed 'universal science'. You give no reason for us to assume that a LoE could even in theory possibly act as a universal science, you give no basis for concluding that such is even possible.

Well, I assumed that you knew what a "ToE" is.
If it isn't a theory concerned with the governing principles of EVERYTHING, then it isn't what we have been talking about.

Capable wrote:

Your claim that a LoE would surpass this issue because it is able to understand "particle formation" is... unjustified, to say the least.

I specifically pointed out, that it wasn't because it explained particles, but because it was formed through metaphysics and thus pertained to any and all behaviors of anything.

Capable wrote:

No theoretical model, especially a scientific as opposed to ideological one, is going to circumvent the 'human, all too human' processes of consciousness which give rise to unpredictability, error, and falling prey to the drives/instincts which underlie the human being.

And such is Your theory, belief, and faith.
Am I supposed to take your word for it? I haven't seen your proof or evidence that something that has never been in human history, can never be in human future.

But until you understand what a ToE actually is, yes, this discussion has been a waste and will be.
..merely more noise.

Forgive me if I feel obliged to continue to inquire, but it is only because this problem seems so glaringly obvious: do you not understand that this claim "the [insert ToE or LoE] explains everything and therefore is immune to any and every problem/s of unknowability, unpredictability or imperfect application" is merely a definition and does nothing to actually explain what a ToE/LoE is/would be in fact, or, less even so, whether such is even conceivably possible, and why or why not?

A brief interjection. First: James, I've overcome my lack of patience with you. I will await, along with everyone else, your exposition of this T/LoE. Until then, we have little to discuss -- for as Capable now knows, discussion is fruitless when you constantly allude to your perfect knowledge of everything, a perfect knowledge that you still haven't yet demonstrated for us. So, please: do demonstrate. If you're hesitant to "give your ideas away," then you may as well stop posting until you've published them. Second: Capable, it isn't worth the effort. James built up quite the reputation over at ILP for his stubbornness. I lost my patience with him there many times. I'd hate to see such wasted debates become the norm here as well. The air here is finer, the space less crowded -- let us keep it that way.

I do not consider this a waste of time at all, despite the absence of the actual T/LoE itself it becomes very important to nonetheless discuss this T/LoE in terms of what it might be, how it might be, and its possible implications. I am certainly willing to posit the possibility of such a T/LoE, but where I seem to differ from James is that I do not think that merely because such a T/LoE has been discovered we therefore "know everything" and are entirely immune to error or unknowability.

The problem is this: having derived reality, which is to say particle formation and the laws/logics governing this and all subsequent material construction and interaction, would give us a set of equations and conceptual understandings that are "true" in how they explain our reality and its genesis. However, this is absolutely NOT the same as saying "we now know everything". For one thing, pushing variables through the equations is what yields precise data regarding "what is" or "what happens" or "how/why it happens", etc. The equations themselves do not tell us this, it is plugging in the data and then churning out the results which gives us the actual content.

Does a T/LoE by itself tell us the content/s of reality, including of our human being? No, of course not! This would require, even assuming we have a perfect T/LoE set of mathematical formulae, that we measure out the sum of ourselves as "data points", numerically quantify ourselves, and then plug all this data into the formulae-simulation to create a result, a sub- or meta-reality. As James himself has noted, knowing the mathematics and equations involved doesn't yield results, what yields results is taking his "200,000" data points or however they are described and feeding them into these equations in order to produce something measurable, an outcome.

Even with a perfect T/LoE are we actually to believe that such simulation-computation is possible with respect to an entity to vastly compelx as a human being? Can we somehow measure every part of the human being in order to extract the "data points" to feed into the T/LoE in order to derive ourselves? How?

Here we come to the problem of application, which IS very much a problem even for a perfect T/LoE: that simulating 200,000 data points into particular formation is entirely different from trying to derive human behavior. You simply cannot ever measure enough of the human being's internal substance to allow for such a simulation to occur - and even if theoretically it were possible to measure the human like this, what sort of computer would be able to process so much data in order to simulate a result? And the problems do not stop here. What about the human embeddedness within its situations, its environmental influences? These would need to be measured and taken into account within the data fed into the T/LoE simulation, else the model emerging would be inaccurate or unrealistic. And this would need to be done right up to the active present moment conditions, including the effects of the simulation itself.

So we have a very clear problem that is two-fold: 1) the impossibility of quantifying the human being in terms of measuring its inner substance, the reasons for why it does what it does and is what it is (this problem includes the further complication of measuring environmental influences, spanning the entirety of its past and up to and including the present moment), and 2) the impossibility of being able to actually process such a near-infinite amount of data to churn out a result based on this data passing through the equations of the T/LoE.

The simple truth is that deriving particle formation, while very interesting and perhaps useful in all the ways previously mentioned (e.g. weapons development, advanced technologies, effects on religion and social forms) is entirely different than trying to derive the human being in all its vast complexity and unknowability (which is to say, unmeasurability). Having a T/LoE set of formulae that perfectly explain the genesis of material reality and the physical laws of this reality, even completely perfectly, is NOT at all the same as saying "we now know everything, we are totally immune to error, fallability or imperfection in thought, word or deed."

One last note to cast into the noise;

Rational Metaphysics led to the paradigm of reality being defined in terms of an infinite series wherein each element was another infinite series of the same form. Then an infinite number of those are placed into a matrix, a "box". Then an infinite number of those comprise the unbound universe.

So I had the situation of infinity raised to infinity raised to infinity raised to infinity.. ad infinitum, multiplied by infinity, and multiplied by infinity again.

Reality = Inf * Inf * (Inf^Inf)^Inf

Contemporary mathematics doesn't handle infinity very well at times, so I had to come up with a new form of mathematics that could handle such an extreme case. I ended up with "Afflate Analysis", a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis. The result allowed for me to express the extreme infinite chaos in a mathematical manner. And then from that number of concerns, physical reality unfolds as order emerges.

I find it a bit humorous that you would presume that your mystical consciousness with merely "nearly an infinite number of concerns" wouldn't fit into that box. But such is your hope and faith.

Alright then, let us assume your infinity raised to infinite infinities idea of reality is correct, and let us further assume that your mathematics is able to quantifiably capture this reality so as to be able to derive (parts of) it e.g. particles-matter construction and interaction.

On what basis do you propose that any sort of computer modeling/processing/simulating could ever manage to build up to a derivation of even basic life, let alone a human being? As I also mentioned, this would need to methodically-computationally, in terms of your mathematical functions, include analysis of conditions from environmental influences, which in the case of living entities is immeasurably greater than that for particles. Ultimately this leads to the obvious need for infinite computing power to derive, via your equations-functions, anything but the barest beginning of particle formation.

My point is that your math, even if correct, does not unlock or disclose the already-existent human being. At best it gives us a theoretical frame to begin ex post facto playing with the material conditions of the reality we already find ourselves within and conditioned by.



Most specifically: HOW does your having the T/LoE give you "perfect understanding of everything"?

You have greatly exaggerated the things that I have said.

To know the entirety of the laws by which the universe functions is extremely different than knowing "everything".

The particular situation that the universe is in at in one moment is an entirely different issue than merely knowing by what laws it perpetuates to the next situation. Knowing ALL of the fundamental rules of mathematics does NOT mean that you know how to use Eigenvalues, Gaussian laws, or Afflate Analysis.

There is a huge difference in knowing God and being God.

James S Saint wrote:

You have greatly exaggerated the things that I have said.

To know the entirety of the laws by which the universe functions is extremely different than knowing "everything".

The particular situation that the universe is in at in one moment is an entirely different issue than merely knowing by what laws it perpetuates to the next situation. Knowing ALL of the fundamental rules of mathematics does NOT mean that you know how to use Eigenvalues, Gaussian laws, or Afflate Analysis.

There is a huge difference in knowing God and being God.

It has not been my intention to exaggerate at all. What I am trying to do is understand what you are claiming. This has been a surprisingly difficult thing to discern, since you say, on the one hand, "If it isn't a theory concerned with the governing principles of EVERYTHING, then it isn't what we have been talking about", but then on the other hand, "To know the entirety of the laws by which the universe functions is extremely different than knowing "everything"."

This is what I am trying to get at, this difference, what you are actually claiming. Because when you resisted my claim that even a T/LoE is subject to imperfect human application you did so by invoking the first above-quoted line, and stating that human practical application (of the T/LoE) will be perfect or not subject to unpredictability-error. How can you make this claim while also acknowledging that, " Knowing ALL of the fundamental rules of mathematics does NOT mean that you know how to use Eigenvalues, Gaussian laws, or Afflate Analysis"? How can the L/ToE be immune to problems of practical application when you acknowledge that even knowing the L/ToE does not yield the "perfect knowedge" that I initially thought you were claiming it did?

I would still like you to answer my question, let me again continue to make it more precise as I get a better view of what you are really claiming (and what you are not claiming): HOW does knowing the L/ToE itself lead to us humans knowing how to use/apply it? In other words, how is the L/ToE itself immune to problems of unpredictable and imperfect application? Don't just claim it is, show my how this is the case.

Remember, it was you who said, "If the ToE doesn't account even for its use by morons, then it isn't an LoE, but merely a high ideal, more noise, not that which governs it."

Now, this question of practical human application is very important, because what it implies is that we need to examine the rationale, the ethics or justifiability of the L/ToE itself, whether or not we should seek and find it. This was the point of my assuming for the sake of argument here that the L/ToE is indeed possible to be found - we can "derive reality", know the mathematics/quantifiability of its most fundamental processes/relations. But when we assume this, we are immediately confronted with the question: what would the implications of finding such a L/ToE be? And of course this touches directly on, should we perhaps be a bit more hesitant to even open this Pandora's Box?

Man-o-man...

I had just typed out a long detailed response to your question, and naturally just before the last line, the browser crashed and lost the entire thing.

And these things seriously need an "undo" for the text editor.

Trying to iron out the confusions of another person, especially online, can be rather burdensome, but let me see what I can do (over)...

First let me point out that the act of NOT seeking the LoE so as to be able to follow it pretty much defines "the moron" because the alternative to doing what actually works, ie. "the Law", is to do merely what does NOT work, hence "moronic". How could you imagine that you could discern what you should or should not do until you know what works and what doesn't, ie. "The Law".

But lets say that the Law (not merely a Theory), is given in clear language to a typical homosapian moron.

The moron reads it and perceives that, "if I push button A, I will get result B." Now the moron desires B and being a moron, doesn't look further before he has already pressed the button. I already gave a rather terse speech concerning this expected behavior of homosapian.

The Law had clearly stated to "NEVER EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THIS PARTICULAR TREE", which just happens to be button A. But being a moron, he didn't think it really mattered as long as no one was looking. Of course the Law isn't about some authority figure watching you and punishing you for bad behavior. It is a statement of what actually works and doesn't work, regardless of anyone watching, but again, we are dealing with a moron here who thinks only in terms of trying to slip by authority figures so as to obtain his desires (typical homosapian).

The Law happens to clearly state that anyone who presses button A SHALL perish. The moron ignores that warning. So what do you think happens? If the Law is real and actual, then obviously the moron perishes and the Law continues on. The Law already takes into account the fact that morons run about the planet making their "noise". The Law happens to be about the governing of noise. So the Law has dispatched the noise exactly as it had stated (again assuming it was the real Law).

Now the question I think you really wanted to ask is, "how can anyone ensure that THEY are not being a moron and trying to utilize the Law?" Well, it just so happens that the Law already states clearly how to do that. But you must first be humble enough (not lusting for your prearranged desires) to read that far before pressing any buttons. Learn how to press that little peddle down there called "the brake" BEFORE you learn how to turn the key and press the accelerator peddle. The order of learning is a part of the Law.

The Law happens to state that "ALL is the balance of ALL, no more and no less, ever". And thus it is critical to ensure that any hopeful action you take is in consideration of the true balance of ALL relevant concerns, else you are not actually following the Law but being a moron. So the first clue as to whether you are a moron dealing with something that you cannot handle lies in the issue of whether you are capable of actually considering all relevant concerns. If you don't know, then your question is answered.

But since even genius homosapians have trouble ensuring that they are actually considering all relevant concerns, the Law clearly states that nothing can ever occur without taking time to do so. This gives the less moronic homosapian a clue as to how to proceed, "Take it a little at a time and VERIFY that any action you take actually produces exactly what the Law (as you understood it) inferred. If it doesn't, then you know to back off and reconsider.

So in order;
A) Clarify the entirety of what your situation is (ensure that you know the entire Law and your surrounding situation)
B) Verify the entirety of each tiny step you take. That is the actual and only purpose of Science for Man.

The Law also states something very critical that I don't want to go into right now, but it results in the requirement;
C) Remember/Document every step you take and the results you got.

But again, you actually asked "how does the moron handle the situation of having the Law". The real answer is that if he actually has enough sense to reasonably follow just that much of the Law that has already been pointed out, he will soon no longer be a moron. Following those steps carefully and slowly is what raises the low intelligence and wisdom of a creature to a higher intelligence in a recursive fashion. Recursion of affect is a fundamental property within the Law itself.

The loose lustful moron becomes a "particle", stable and reliable, being able to discern when to act and when to nap.

Thus, much like the Bible is written, the Law separates the less-ons from the more-ons. If you don't properly understand the lessons, well.. it must have worked.

That's about all I can reveal concerning the details at this point, I think. I guess the bottom line is that actually KNOWING the Law, prevents one from remaining a moron trying to use it either by eliminating him, or by raising him up. Always seek what actually works, but realize that you must seek it slowly, not always doing what doesn't work merely to see if you can get what you thought you wanted without being patient, verifying, and attending to Reality.

Man as a whole, is being processed by the Law. Some have come to think of it as “Evolution”, but such a poor and sloppy imitation.

The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.

James S Saint wrote:

Trying to iron out the confusions of another person, especially online, can be rather burdensome, but let me see what I can do (over)...

First let me point out that the act of NOT seeking the LoE so as to be able to follow it pretty much defines "the moron" because the alternative to doing what actually works, ie. "the Law", is to do merely what does NOT work, hence "moronic". How could you imagine that you could discern what you should or should not do until you know what works and what doesn't, ie. "The Law".

But lets say that the Law (not merely a Theory), is given in clear language to a typical homosapian moron.

The moron reads it and perceives that, "if I push button A, I will get result B." Now the moron desires B and being a moron, doesn't look further before he has already pressed the button. I already gave a rather terse speech concerning this expected behavior of homosapian.

The Law had clearly stated to "NEVER EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THIS PARTICULAR TREE", which just happens to be button A. But being a moron, he didn't think it really mattered as long as no one was looking. Of course the Law isn't about some authority figure watching you and punishing you for bad behavior. It is a statement of what actually works and doesn't work, regardless of anyone watching, but again, we are dealing with a moron here who thinks only in terms of trying to slip by authority figures so as to obtain his desires (typical homosapian).

The Law happens to clearly state that anyone who presses button A SHALL perish. The moron ignores that warning. So what do you think happens? If the Law is real and actual, then obviously the moron perishes and the Law continues on. The Law already takes into account the fact that morons run about the planet making their "noise". The Law happens to be about the governing of noise. So the Law has dispatched the noise exactly as it had stated (again assuming it was the real Law).

Now the question I think you really wanted to ask is, "how can anyone ensure that THEY are not being a moron and trying to utilize the Law?" Well, it just so happens that the Law already states clearly how to do that. But you must first be humble enough (not lusting for your prearranged desires) to read that far before pressing any buttons. Learn how to press that little peddle down there called "the brake" BEFORE you learn how to turn the key and press the accelerator peddle. The order of learning is a part of the Law.

The Law happens to state that "ALL is the balance of ALL, no more and no less, ever". And thus it is critical to ensure that any hopeful action you take is in consideration of the true balance of ALL relevant concerns, else you are not actually following the Law but being a moron. So the first clue as to whether you are a moron dealing with something that you cannot handle lies in the issue of whether you are capable of actually considering all relevant concerns. If you don't know, then your question is answered.

But since even genius homosapians have trouble ensuring that they are actually considering all relevant concerns, the Law clearly states that nothing can ever occur without taking time to do so. This gives the less moronic homosapian a clue as to how to proceed, "Take it a little at a time and VERIFY that any action you take actually produces exactly what the Law (as you understood it) inferred. If it doesn't, then you know to back off and reconsider.

So in order;
A) Clarify the entirety of what your situation is (ensure that you know the entire Law and your surrounding situation)
B) Verify the entirety of each tiny step you take. That is the actual and only purpose of Science for Man.

The Law also states something very critical that I don't want to go into right now, but it results in the requirement;
C) Remember/Document every step you take and the results you got.

But again, you actually asked "how does the moron handle the situation of having the Law". The real answer is that if he actually has enough sense to reasonably follow just that much of the Law that has already been pointed out, he will soon no longer be a moron. Following those steps carefully and slowly is what raises the low intelligence and wisdom of a creature to a higher intelligence in a recursive fashion. Recursion of affect is a fundamental property within the Law itself.

The loose lustful moron becomes a "particle", stable and reliable, being able to discern when to act and when to nap.

Thus, much like the Bible is written, the Law separates the less-ons from the more-ons. If you don't properly understand the lessons, well.. it must have worked.

That's about all I can reveal concerning the details at this point, I think. I guess the bottom line is that actually KNOWING the Law, prevents one from remaining a moron trying to use it either by eliminating him, or by raising him up. Always seek what actually works, but realize that you must seek it slowly, not always doing what doesn't work merely to see if you can get what you thought you wanted without being patient, verifying, and attending to Reality.

Man as a whole, is being processed by the Law. Some have come to think of it as “Evolution”, but such a poor and sloppy imitation.

The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.

Why does it need to be intelligent?

So can tell if the "voices in your head" are yours.


..actually, I don't know what you are referring to with your "it"...?

James S Saint wrote:

So can tell if the "voices in your head" are yours.


..actually, I don't know what you are referring to with your "it"...?

I was referring to man as that includes both females and males i figured it was best to refer to it as it...I guess

Quote :

raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.

Why is man being raised from the moronic chaos to be an intelligent sentient being...?

Abstract wrote:

James S Saint wrote:

So can tell if the "voices in your head" are yours.


..actually, I don't know what you are referring to with your "it"...?

I was referring to man as that includes both females and males i figured it was best to refer to it as it...I guess

Quote :

raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.

Why is man being raised from the moronic chaos to be an intelligent sentient being...?

Well, that is a bit like asking, "Why am I not a bird?"
"Because if you were the bird, you wouldn't be asking the question, the human would."

And I specified "Man", not "man" or "human" (hue of Man).

James S Saint wrote:

And I specified "Man", not "man" or "human" (hue of Man).

what do you mean? Man and not man do you mean you specified mankind... or what? (and it was at the start of a sentence so capitalization would have been expected for that reason...)

Quote :

Well, that is a bit like asking, "Why am I not a bird?"
"Because if you were the bird, you wouldn't be asking the question, the human would."

A bit like asking but not completely? My point here is to suggest that it may not be the point of the law to raise man out of the moronic chaos... it may just be a result of the law that is meant to achieve something else entirely... or the law is not 'meant' to achieve anything...

"Man" as in "(Man)ifestation"

And could you point out where I said, "point of the Law" or "Law is meant to"?

Quote :

The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.

Here the use of "Man" is indicated as mankind considering the following remark of raising "sentient being"s...

You say "the Law is all about..." which is synonymous with (especially in this context) to "being meant to" raise... All about as in that is the primary significance of the Law... I would ask then again what makes you think that the significance of The Law is to create order, or raise an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos? Considering the existence of chaos it may be that any increase in order is only their to provide a later increase in disorder by means of destruction of the order created... or the purpose or significance or all-about-ness is simply things vibrating from order to disorder... change... variance... for with perfect order what is their to change, and without change how is their difference, and without any of these things what is their to think about, why would their be thought (for example)...

Abstract wrote:

Quote :

The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.

Here the use of "Man" is indicated as mankind considering the following remark of raising "sentient being"s...

You say "the Law is all about..." which is synonymous with (especially in this context) to "being meant to" raise...

You are projecting.
I neither said nor implied intent or purpose. I am talking about occurrence, with or without intent, purpose, or meaning.

Abstract wrote:

All about as in that is the primary significance of the Law... I would ask then again what makes you think that the significance of The Law is to create order, or raise an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos?

Because Order, Chaos, and "the moron" were the subjects being discussed.

Abstract wrote:

Considering the existence of chaos it may be that any increase in order is only their to provide a later increase in disorder by means of destruction of the order created... or the purpose or significance or all-about-ness is simply things vibrating from order to disorder... change... variance... for with perfect order what is their to change, and without change how is their difference, and without any of these things what is their to think about, why would their be thought (for example)...

I don't dictate to natural laws how they are to behave. I just seek them out and observe.

James S Saint wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Quote :

The Law is all about raising the turbulent noise to a solid orderly particle, raising Man from the dust, raising an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos.

Here the use of "Man" is indicated as mankind considering the following remark of raising "sentient being"s...

You say "the Law is all about..." which is synonymous with (especially in this context) to "being meant to" raise...

You are projecting.
I neither said nor implied intent or purpose. I am talking about occurrence, with or without intent, purpose, or meaning.

That is why I asked why is it that you think that the significance of the law is or regarldless of what you meant by the word "about" why is it that you think the law is about what you suggested it is about?

Quote :

Abstract wrote:

All about as in that is the primary significance of the Law... I would ask then again what makes you think that the significance of The Law is to create order, or raise an intelligent sentient being from the moronic chaos?

Because Order, Chaos, and "the moron" were the subjects being discussed.

Of course you talked about what you talked about because you were talking about it... this is an absurd attempt to avoid answering what my question really is rather then whay you perhaps want to think it is (what you are projecting on my question), or so it seems, it is of course quite possibly not...

Quote :

Abstract wrote:

Considering the existence of chaos it may be that any increase in order is only their to provide a later increase in disorder by means of destruction of the order created... or the purpose or significance or all-about-ness is simply things vibrating from order to disorder... change... variance... for with perfect order what is their to change, and without change how is their difference, and without any of these things what is their to think about, why would their be thought (for example)...

I don't dictate to natural laws how they are to behave. I just seek them out and observe.

TO be honest I feel that you are avoiding answering my question... So lets start anew regardless of what was said... What do you think is what is occurring as a result of the law... is it ordering or is it also disordering?

Do you think there is a purpose of the law?