• 180 Proof
    1.8k
    Plenty of grounds to even doubt that you know what you're asking.
  • NOS4A2
    3.8k


    Certainly; but do you think non-existence would bother with such technicalities?

    By definition there is no such thing as "non-existence".
  • Eleonora
    87


    Yes; alas it is a valid question. The difference is that I would doubt myself before doubting the question. Do you doubt that?
  • Eleonora
    87


    Yes, but by definition all definition also fails at that stage.
  • Eleonora
    87


    That there is nothing to doubt.
  • 180 Proof
    1.8k
    Doubtful at best.
  • Eleonora
    87


    That's good. A little scepticism never hurt anyone. Nice place we've got going here. Seems people are coming together. Important to have nodes to traffic wisdom such as this.
  • Eleonora
    87


    I appreciate that sentiment. I honestly think we die because we believe that. I really do know. The definition of existence is fairly simple; it is anything to exist - boundless, prepositional or real. It matters, or not; with magic smack evident in the middle - we decide. It's not an easy endeavor to turn around and simply live forever by the sheer belief though. But that is at least the theory. There is much to esteem in that regard. Any decision matters and that is what makes civilization a mighty interesting endeavor. I'm happy to be here. A fine crew aboard this vessel.
  • christian2017
    1.4k
    I appreciate that sentiment. I honestly think we die because we believe that. I really do know. The definition of existence is fairly simple; it is anything to exist - boundless, prepositional or real. It matters, or not; with magic smack evident in the middle - we decide. It's not an easy endeavor to turn around and simply live forever by the sheer belief though. But that is at least the theory. There is much to esteem in that regard. Any decision matters and that is what makes civilization a mighty interesting endeavor. I'm happy to be here. A fine crew aboard this vessel.Eleonora

    The whole forum topic was mocked by the mass majority of us including you. Yeah i agree with you.

    How do you feel about the positive movement or "the secret" (i think there is a book called that)?

    Do you study Kabbalah?
  • Eleonora
    87
    I love Kabbalah but I rarely study anything. I mostly move between topics - connecting the shit out of everything. It is an important topic, more so than we might ever know. It can stand the test of time though so there is no need to hurry. Making fun is an integral part of it.

    The Secret is a bit like leaving a door open with only a small scissure. Some of us wants to run in arms open and just hug whomever is behind it. However it hosts a rational fear too. Many of us knows this is real and recognizes the opening in the door for what it is. Although we might not fear what's inside; we know that this probably is the last chance we will ever get to be normal humans again. Why rush, right?

    I don't mind however it goes. I love us too much to even bother. It gives me a chance to be curious. Instead I enjoy the notions of it and help whenever I may. It's both a book and a film. It really is the proverbial door. Some secret.

    What about Kabbalah enticed you the most?
  • Eleonora
    87

    I forgot to "puff" you. Post above.
  • christian2017
    1.4k


    I don't study Kabbalah. Some say the Mormons study it some as well the Freemasons. I have studied the Talmud. It appears the Talmud makes the implicit and vague statements from the old testament law and makes them very explicit like a well written legal document. Atleast from what i've read.

    How do you feel about the religions of the city states of ancient Iraq?
  • Eleonora
    87


    Intuitively I should say that it was, probably is and will be about the nature of divine being in essence. That it springs from what was originally introduced to humans of the modern world to get a sense of what a God could be. That then from divine inspiration and human cohesion sprung the precept of the Abrahamic God. Although still disputed today, I believe it is about to settle and that the then Mesopotamian religions will play an important part in re-integrating a measure of unity in the equation. That in turn will amount to a real sense of a single individible God - Tawhid. From it we will collectively realize what has happened - thus who we are. Exhilarating times. :joke:

    I have spent some time as a Latter Day Saint and I have seen no signs of pure Kabbalah, although I can see that the general idea is there. It's all about divinity and how it belongs to us all anyway. Now, the Talmud - interesting stuff. In retrospect it will reveal a lot more about the mind of God than any other scripture. Although if you want to know how God did it, I recommend to study the Sibylline Books in retrospect. Knowing all of history of course is a requirement for zen in the matter. It happened on Earth though, that's for sure. The planet of solidified God - Tell-us.

    Just a feeling. Please share any worthy seeming sensation pertaining to the Talmud. I would love to hear of it.
  • christian2017
    1.4k
    I don't study Kabbalah. Some say the Mormons study it some as well the Freemasons. I have studied the Talmud. It appears the Talmud makes the implicit and vague statements from the old testament law and makes them very explicit like a well written legal document. Atleast from what i've read.

    How do you feel about the religions of the city states of ancient Iraq?
    christian2017

    Intuitively I should say that it was, probably is and will be about the nature of divine being in essence. That it springs from what was originally introduced to humans of the modern world to get a sense of what a God could be. That then from divine inspiration and human cohesion sprung the precept of the Abrahamic God. Although still disputed today, I believe it is about to settle and that the then Mesopotamian religions will play an important part in re-integrating a measure of unity in the equation. That in turn will amount to a real sense of a single individible God - Tawhid. From it we will collectively realize what has happened - thus who we are. Exhilarating times. :joke:

    I have spent some time as a Latter Day Saint and I have seen no signs of pure Kabbalah, although I can see that the general idea is there. It's all about divinity and how it belongs to us all anyway. Now, the Talmud - interesting stuff. In retrospect it will reveal a lot more about the mind of God than any other scripture. Although if you want to know how God did it, I recommend to study the Sibylline Books in retrospect. Knowing all of history of course is a requirement for zen in the matter. It happened on Earth though, that's for sure. The planet of solidified God - Tell-us.

    Just a feeling. Please share any worthy seeming sensation pertaining to the Talmud. I would love to hear of it.
    Eleonora

    How do you feel about ancient temple prostitiution in ancient Iraq? This actually has occurred in other places around the world through out history including modern Hinduism.

    Considering Kabbalah has mulitple interpretations and the texts and information related to it is 10s of thousands of pages (correct me if i'm wrong), why would the Mormons strictly (strictly) observe Kabbalah?
  • Eleonora
    87
    How do you feel about ancient temple prostitiution in ancient Iraq?christian2017

    Wow, you really touch ground here. I believe that the Latter Day Saints recognize that they do not understand a single thing about Kabbalah as it were and in regard strictly observe connections - to follow the light in its most intricate sense. It's a posture of humility.

    Temple prostitution is a further inquiry into the very matter of the same manner. Metaphorically speaking it sort of entails being a prostitute in a sacred temple. Realizing that your ways are foul and therefore submitting wholly to the temple proceedings in order to boundlessly correct yourself. Thus; conclusion - prostitution in temples are bad but the metaphor is good.

    When it comes to these particular cases, I think we have to look at each individually. It raises high and sinks low. Some might have considered it an honor an really embraced the unknowable purpose, in which case they would have faced God. Others would have not, in which case it was a sin - both pertaining to the victim and the perpetrator. Mainly because we cannot ever know which really is which. Knowing this and facing God would have been the same at that time.

    John 21:17
  • aRealidealist
    98
    Excuse the late reply, as I’ve been quite occupied lately & haven’t had the time to check into my account. Yet, to the point...

    “Ideally too though, it does not exclude what it does not involve; it is simply just not within its ethereal purview. On it we can as a concept preclude what we do not understand and in doing so know what it is. Then it's just a matter of abstracting your way through living.” — Actually, its essential identity, a-priori, does exclude what it doesn’t involve (as this is precisely what enables us, in the first place, to possibly distinguish it as an individual thing); although the states of this being, that is, the identity of its states rather than the identity of its being, can contingently involve other things in relation, such as a perceived relation to lights, sounds, impressions, etc.,.

    Correspondingly, absolutely speaking, to say that “this” involves “that” in relation, such as this observer presently involves that colored object in relation to it, is equivalent to saying that “this” isn’t “that”; & as the lack of an empirical observation of the non-relation of things which are involved in relation to each other, such as the lack in one’s lifetime with congenital cataracts of an empirical observation of the non-relation of their vision to those visibly blurred forms involved or included in relation to their vision, doesn’t mean that these things can’t possibly be not related to each other, asserting that we haven’t experienced the self excluded from things which its identity doesn’t involve, is no proof or argument that it can’t actually exclude what it doesn’t involve, neither empirically or logically.

    “There is no means to a matter - so to say. Boundaries are not my thing.” — It’s not a question of what’s your thing, but what’s the thing really? & surely this isn’t determined by what you favor.
  • Interested Person
    1
    "I think therefore I am"

    -René Descartes
  • Outlander
    609
    Through a series of observations and experiences I've gotten to know vividly and all too well.

    Also I keep getting these bills every month or so with my name on them. If someone else acknowledges my existence that's good enough for me.
  • neonspectraltoast
    205
    I don't exist. I just formanimbulcate.
  • Outlander
    609


    Hey... that's not a word. :grimace:
  • remoku
    29
    Sometimes I'm alerted by myself or surrounding elements, which draws my attention to the fact I'm aware of myself and surroundings, and further, that 'I exist' in some simulation.

    Is being conscious not proof of existence?

    Do I need to elaborate? I'm recieving lots of data.

    I could have said, 'because I am aware of myself and surroundings.'

    Why need I say that I'm alerted?
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.