Why do you presume a first cause? That sounds like a preconception to me.
..and what is this mind without a brain? I would say it's probably the
ultimate oxymoron. (Anonymous)
Anonymous,
Lets start with an example: "1+2="...here we have a reality (one) and a
"recriprical" reality (two--though 2 is hardly the recripical of 1, really,
though this is as close to the recriprical idea that I can come for reasons
I'll try to go into later). Now we have a "belief" (the "belief" is the
reality and it's recriprocal; or as you said " In order to maintain
>the beliefs, you must [not] exclude the reciprocal realities" --though I
wonder why you use "belief" instead of truth and how you can have
"recriprocal reality" without a "reality", as prime...more on this too).
Going back to our example: Assuming that one is a dependent reality and 2
is a dependent reality--"dependent" in the sense that they are related but
not in the sense that they are derived from prime--and assuming that neither
arrises from the other (neither are prime, themself), that they are
distinct...though related?...we have an equation (I think) which defines
your view: A "belief" is formed from a reality and it's
recripricol..."1+2=". Now to answer your question above: "Why do you
presume a first cause?".
Even assuming that there is a belief (and no truth), and that there is a
reality and it's recriprocal (which are related but not through a prime
cause), there is an implied effect. The belief that "1+2= something" has a
3rd (imaginary... created... illusionary... contrived....?) value! There is
a benefit to having a stated sum, we derive order from it--3 is bigger than
2 or 1 by 2 and/or 1, "3 "restates the plus sign as a temporary symbol/it
shows the relationship as a process even if not as a product...3 would
change if 2 and 1 changed but the process would remain which is represented
by the plus sign ).* *and, the concrete nature of this example becomes
questionable if we use 1 (object) X 1 (symbolic representation) or if we say
that 3=3 (notwithstanding the fact that we didn't start with "3" but only 1
and 2)--what if we use the belief that 1X1=1 (more like your "reality +
recripricol = belief" idea..if you say that 1=1=1 but that 1 is not prime???)
Now, turning the equation around "3=2+1": We created a prime cause, "3"
(which is a "truth" referring to the "belief" that 2+1= something). Why
have" The" Prime Cause?: Because, it gives us a basis to create the idea of
an effect...and to check the effect aganst "a" prime cause. Or, we have a
prime example of existence so that we can come to an understanding (without
this possibility, logic breaks down). Even though the value of this prime
cause is temporary, the existence of a prime cause is a fact or else we
could not order things.
So, I assume a prime cause but not it's value; which is not a preconcieved
notion, it is a preconcieved process (which processes itself)...and
therefore, reality is a process--but not a chaotic one, it is ordered from
"beginning" to "end" even if the value for beginning and end are not fixed.
And related to the mind/brain question: Can you have a brain without mind?
(I'm assuming that you will say yes...which states that neither is dependent
on the other, mind can exist without brain if brain can exist without mind).
How? Mind is a process (brain is a product,,,can you have a process without
an end product)!
Finally, I won't deal with your psychological problems (your feelings of
religious persecution, your egocentrism, your feelings of hopelessness). I
can see them plainly in your refusal to accept certain beliefs for no stated
reason except "some things are and some things aren't unless it reflects
back to itself in a way that one can't question (a summation of your logic);
or "... It can be no other way (a direct quote and your delusion exerting
itself bluntly...saying don't look at me and don't question me)".
Brett
At 12:34 AM 9/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Ouch! Well! I certainly hit a nerve that time! It looks like you have
>a bad case of RCE (reciprocal cognitive exclusion). In order to maintain
>the beliefs, you must exclude the reciprocal realities.
>On what basis do you determine reality, or is reality relevant to you? How
>do you distinguish the real from the imagined? Do you think you can
>imagine a pretty picture and magically make it so? Do you have the "God"
>dream? Do you think that imagined ideals can be realized? The ones
>who take this path invariably are those without a clue as to the
>nature of factual existence or how it works.
>Why do you presume a first cause? That sounds like a preconception to me.
>..and what is this mind without a brain? I would say it's probably the
>ultimate oxymoron.
>As to this business of dichotomy, something isn't dichotomous unless it's
>dichotomous. However, there are a few things that are, such as existence.
>Either it does or it doesn't, either it is or it's not. Either she's
>pregnant or she's not.
>Some things aren't dichotomous, such as one's mentality. The things
>you think and the things you do reflect the ideas you have
>internalized. To the degree that these ideas reflect factual reality,
>you will be objectively rational. To the degree these ideas are
>delusional, you will exhibit mental pathology: ignorance in the
>area of every delusion, distorted reasoning, distorted perception,
>confusion, and an inability to accept or understand factual reality.
>Nature has absolute and understandable characteristics. Matter does what
>it is, and what it is...is what it does. Life lives on life. We all get
>eaten. Everything gets "eaten", one way or another. Everything
>degenerates. It can be no other way. Matter, at its most fundamental level,
>determines what can exist and that which cannot. You may not like it, but
>you cannot make it be otherwise.
>As to the enduring questions: Many of them were answered long ago, but
>the answers didn't fit human preconceptions. Eg, every religious
>argument will fall within about nine categories, depending upon how you
>organize them. Every category has been refuted, yet we still have
>religion. The religionist just pretends it didn't happen. There are a
>lot of areas to be filled in, but the fundamental questions have been
>answered. We now know that the fundamental controls and energies are
>all internal and reflect the nature of matter, itself, cycling and
>articulating movement. It can't be destroyed or attenuated. Existence
>is endless development and degeneration.
>If one closely examines the "hell" you refer to, it is seen, in every
>particular, as the result of cultural delusion, or the accommodation of
>delusion.
(Anonymous)
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Distress, n.:
A disease incurred by exposure to the prosperity of a
friend.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"