Comments

  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    Well if the person who preached stuff like that ends up drinking themselves to death it does sorta poke holes in his "insights" since he clearly didn't believe it. I've read his stuff before but he gets a lot wrong because people don't know better. He's not a teacher either.Darkneos

    If his life is some sort of stumbling block for you then forget Alan Watts. Throw that sucker in the garbage, and be done with him. Moving on...

    That sounds like an excuse.Darkneos

    Ok, then i'll say we both have excuses.

    Well you haven't really explained it like that.Darkneos

    I'm not going to do something i know won't work. I just know it won't.

    Choice is an illusion. That said the onus on the one making the argument for why people should care. You can make people care, thats what words are for.Darkneos

    Probably true, but i would need to really understand where you're coming from to make any headway. Although its not my job to make you care, and i don't care if you care or not. I'm simply entertaining myself.

    Well the problem is that people don't see it like that. People are "objects" but they aren't static. I mean we are made up of things after all and those things engage in processes, hence why I said both. To consider something static isn't for it to be inanimate, and they'd still feel pain. But to write it off as a process just makes it seem like it's not a human being, an entity, or a thing. It's nothing, because processes involve things but aren't things themselves.Darkneos

    Fine, so what is the fundamental static substance on which these processes run and operate? Is it like little solid balls or objects like the atoms of Democritus?
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    Yeah but then what's the difference if they're both just processes? What makes one human and the other not?Darkneos

    There are different kinds of processes involved in higher states of complexity. A rock, for example, is part of geological, mineral, and atomic processes, but does not include cellular or biological processes. Beyond biological processes, there are mental and psychological processes, and further up, there are cultural and social processes. A human has all of these processes happening at once. The rock has only a fraction of these processes, which do not include the biological, psychological, or socio-cultural processes. The difference lies in the types of processes that are occurring.

    Well according to that other user apparently not. Apparently we're just robots, not that I have much issue with that.Darkneos

    Robots are imitations of biological processes; this does not contradict what i'm saying. They are just much simpler than the processes they are trying to mimic or imitate in biological systems.

    I think nature and "Cares" don't really align, nature appears to be indifferent.Darkneos

    Right. It is not nature's job to align with you; it is your job to align with it. Misalignment with the principles of nature leads to eventual destruction.

    I care just because I wanna know since some other guy I knew believed in it but when I look at it I just see treating things as events and processes as cold and heartless. Reminds me of Buddhism and "no self".Darkneos

    Then why do you think Buddhists are so focused on compassion for all beings? Some of them go to the extreme of not washing in an effort not to kill bacteria. It appears to me, at least, that these Buddhists can have more compassion and love for other entities than you and i combined. Maybe look into why they think this way even while they believe there is no self. Apparently, it doesn't mean to them what you think it means. Why is that?

    It's also kind hard to see living things as events because that just turns them into things with no "life" or "Soul" for me and so I stop caring.Darkneos

    It does not. You interpret it that way because that's how you define it. In fact, i don't understand how seeing a person as a process or as a static object would make this kind of difference, really. If i love my girlfriend/wife without knowing if she is a process or not, then why would my love change just because i now think she's a process? Nothing should change in that regard. You're just confusing yourself with words.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Hania Rani - Live at the Faculty of Science, Paris (2022)
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    On some level I understand what it means, that since things are dynamic it makes more sense to label them as events instead of things. But on the other hand they are pretty solid and do endure, unlike events, so maybe it's somewhere in between.Darkneos

    That's good. At least you see the dynamism involved. Have you looked into the physics of why things feel solid?

    I wouldn't cite Alan Watts though, the guy drank himself to death, which sorta led me to believe he didn't buy what he was selling.Darkneos

    This is only a problem if one believes in authoritative figures. For me, Alan Watts is a human with faults and flaws like any one of us, but he is also a very insightful individual. This is what counts in the context of philosophy. I don't judge the messenger. If it wasn't Alan Watts, would you give it more weight? That doesn't sound very robust.

    It's not my job to make your argument.Darkneos

    It's your job to ask the right question. It's not an excuse, it's a reason.

    It's like Einstein would say (to paraphrase) "if you really understood something you could explain it to a 5 year old". Don't make excuses.Darkneos

    If i tried to explain it to you like a 5-year-old, you'd tell me that it's more complicated than that, and that i'm oversimplifying. Isn't that right?

    And obviously the next question philosophers would ask for such a ontology is "what does it mean and how does it apply to our lives and world". That's sorta the whole point of the pursuit, why does this matter and why should one care?Darkneos

    That's an individual choice, i suppose. I don't think i, or anyone else, can make you care. You've got to see it for yourself as to why you should care. Some people just don't care about anything, and some people care about too much. You already seem to at least care somewhat.

    I'm thinking you might be taking for granted what it means to see living things as individuals versus processes. To me it harkens back to all the times humans degraded their opposition as just "monsters" or inanimate to make it easier to kill or persecute them. Pretty sure black people were regarded as less than animals and felt no pain.

    So to just write humans off as just processes is cold, ice cold.
    Darkneos

    This is my own sentiment but in reverse. For me, to consider a person a static object is to consider them almost inanimate. You could burn thousands of people in an incinerator and it would be no big deal because they are static objects (as if already dead), with no process of feeling pain or suffering. I would not intentionally ever hurt anyone precisely because i know they are a process that can feel and suffer due to the processes in every one of them.

    Writing humans off as just static objects is cold, ice cold. If regarding people as processes is considered cold in your view, then i would not like to be the one to change your mind about that. It is probably better that you keep it the way it is, at least for now.
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    You realize the irony of quoting Einstein for process philosophy right?Darkneos

    No, i don't. Explain.

    Well no, if it's a process then it doesn't live or die so it doesn't matter.Darkneos

    Another assertion without an explanation as to why you think so. Then for you it is as you say it is.

    It's like saying running can feel hunger, that burning flame gets lonely, or that packing toys can care. It's a process and therefor has no emotions or needs. If it's an individual then it does. Static and living isn't a contradiction. You haven't really explained your reasoning, you just keep insisting it is so without showing it.Darkneos

    How can an individual be considered a static entity? You seem to be asserting that because an individual is static, they must have emotions. Please explain how an emotion is not a process.

    Running is a process an individual performs that burns energy, and that process is what causes hunger. Hunger is a biological process that compels you to seek food, which is another process. When you have acquired food, the process of eating begins, which includes the process of digestion.

    Burning flames are exothermic processes releasing energy that was stored there by another process. Why would you try to apply a human emotion to a non-human entity like fire? But if you insist, then we can talk about the slow-burning fire that is in every cell in your body, which we call metabolism. Without this inner fire, you would not be alive to feel lonely.

    Just because you're not understanding the reasoning doesn't mean i haven't provided any. The problem is that i don't know what your issue is. I've asked so that i can focus on the actual issue instead of taking stabs in the dark, but you refuse to answer any of my questions with any precision.

    Please reproduce or point out for me where i simply insisted that something is so without at least attempting to give some account as to why or how.

    Static and living isn't a contradiction.Darkneos

    Yes it is.

    Static:
    • Refers to something fixed, stationary, or unchanging
    • Implies a lack of movement or progress

    Living:
    • Describes something alive, growing, or evolving
    • Implies change, development, and adaptation

    Never mind that our ethics focuses on individuals not processes.Darkneos

    Well, what i've been trying to tell you is that an individual is a process. You can't have an individual that is not a process. Even things that are not individuals are processes.

    Nature doesn't care about philosophy either so it's a moot point. Philosophy only matters in how it affects what we care about, whatever that may be. That's pretty much why people did it in the first place.Darkneos

    You seem to care about process philosophy, or you wouldn't be asking these questions. Why do you want to know? Nature doesn't care what you know or don't know, but it's a good idea to know what nature "cares" about. That is the point of philosophy: so that you may align yourself with it.
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?


    It appears that you're trying to understand this from an incompatible perspective. You have certain definitions you're reluctant to refine for this purpose. You seem stuck with your initial impressions and can't yet see a way around them. It's not that you're incapable; you just haven't done it yet. Understanding this perspective doesn't automatically validate process philosophy, but it will provide you with an additional lens through which to view the world. If it truly doesn't make sense to you now, set it aside and revisit it later. Don't stress over it, and maintain your curiosity.

    The World is one Process - Alan Watts
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    I feel like process just needlessly complicates it.Darkneos

    It's not needless if it helps you understand what you're trying to comprehend.

    "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein

    Well from an ethics and morality view, if stuff is just processes then it doesn't really matter since nothing lives or dies.Darkneos

    No, the point is that it's a living (biological) process, and even if it's not alive, it's still a non-living (non-biological) process. I would put it like this: 'If everything were just static, nothing would really matter since nothing would live or die.' Alternatively, 'If everything consists of processes, then everything matters because everything lives and dies.'

    Processes don't feel hunger, thirst, loneliness, etc. Only individuals do. If they're just processes then who really gives a shit?Darkneos

    Can you explain what you mean when you say that processes don't feel hunger, thirst, etc.? Why do you think that? Please explain how a 'static living object' (which is a contradiction in terms) could feel hunger, thirst, etc. i, for one, care deeply because of processes, and wouldn't care at all if everything were static. I've explained my reasoning; now, please explain yours.

    Makes less and less sense each time.Darkneos

    That's fine. Now, please explain how it makes sense the other way. Don't justify it based on what you care or don't care about, as that's purely subjective. Nature doesn't care about our personal preferences.
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?


    I read an earlier version of this back in the 90s, and it really helped me. I recommend that everyone read it. Although it's written for hackers, it is applicable in any field of interest.

    How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    Let me put it like this. The stuff I care about: my dogs, my family, a boyfriend/husband, my hobbies, working out, my interest in computers, what does it mean for all that and more that I love? What does it mean for human relationships and morality or ethics?Darkneos

    If your dog were merely a static object, you wouldn't need to feed it, give it water, or show it love, because it wouldn't require these things. All those actions only have meaning if your dog is a delicate living process with needs to keep that process going. This is the foundation of your ethics and morality. Static objects do not feel hunger, thirst, loneliness, etc..
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    Not exactly from what people have told me. It's more complicated than that.Darkneos

    Of course it is, but you have to start somewhere. Begin with the general idea and then work your way down to the details. Based on what you've been told, explain to me what contradicts the concept of process philosophy.

    I mean there are bodily processes sure. But as for the difference between dead and alive, that's a matter of perspective.Darkneos

    Is there a perspective from which it appears that there are no processes?

    From what I gather it's complicated. If I were taken apart I'd be dead and would cease to be.Darkneos

    Therefore, you are not a static object because you can be dismantled, at which point you would cease to exist. This indicates that you were constructed at some point through a process and can be deconstructed again through another process. The reason you would cease to exist is that the process that allows you to be would be utterly disrupted.
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    Some articles say “from things to events” and I’m left wondering what it means to see “things” as events.Darkneos

    At first sight, it is reasonable to assume that "things" are static objects. It is also easy to see that things interact with each other through events. All this is apparent at the macro scale we inhabit. If we leave it at that, we can conclude that events depend on things. However, if we peer deeply into matter, as i have already explained, we can see that atoms are not static and appear to be made of smaller components interacting with each other as well.

    We can continue this process, examining smaller and smaller scales. Eventually, we reach a point where we encounter entities that are not made of anything smaller. We could stop there and say that these fundamental particles have always existed, with a specific number of them that cannot increase or decrease. However, we know that these particles can annihilate with their antiparticles, so it doesn't seem like they are fundamentally "things" as we initially perceive "things" to be at first sight.

    If my brain was dead so would I because I’d be dead.Darkneos

    So, then what would be the difference between you dead and you alive? Don't you think there is some kind of process involved? How can one go from a state of not existing (pre-conception) to living, and back to not existing (death)?

    If I were to atomize you with my ray gun, would you still exist after that? If so, then how? If not, then why not? Yes, your atoms will still exist, but will you? How can static objects account for this kind of transience?
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    I can’t follow what I don’t even really understandDarkneos

    You are not ready to understand. It's not your time yet. It's okay, just keep at it. It's a process.
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    By definition no, but I’m doubting the existence of mind.Darkneos

    Ah, so then what is the difference between what a dead brain does and what a living one does? If your brain stopped processing (or living), what would happen to your autism? Would it remain the same?

    I couldn’t say, since no one has really been able to explain it or answer my questions.Darkneos

    Why are you depending so much on the understanding of others? Can you see the question in your own mind (or brain)? Can you identify what is keeping you from understanding? When you think about process philosophy and follow its mechanics, where do you feel you get stuck? That's where your question lies. Show me that question.
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    The mind is physical, it’s the brain.Darkneos

    Does a dead brain have a mind?


    Perhaps you don't agree with Whitehead's formulation of process philosophy, and that's fine. However, you write as if it's the only possible way to understand it. I don't particularly care what Whitehead said about process philosophy. Before i even knew who he was, i already had the idea that most, if not all things are processes of some sort occurring at different rates and scales. I try to think from a first principles perspective, not from the perspective of a particular scientist or philosopher. Consensus is not proof, or even evidence of anything. In fact consensus is a process that inevitably changes throughout history and time. Even your own understanding of this subject is a process of development regardless of what temporary conclusions you come to.

    If you know something that i don't, i'd like to know it as well. Can you tell me, from your own understanding, what your reasoning is against the idea of process philosophy? I also asked if you knew of anything that does not undergo some form of process, something static that does not change in any way?

    Maybe it would also help if you asked a specific and focused question. A question that addresses the exact crux of your issue with the general idea of process philosophy as you understand it.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Sneaker Pimps - SOS


    Sneaker Pimps - So Far Gone


    Sneaker Pimps - Spin Spin Sugar
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?

    That was excellent PoeticUniverse. Very good.. :smile: :100:
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?

    Although i agree with you, i'm not sure what to say or how to say it. I'm certain you already know this but, this scene from the "Little Buddha" came to mind:


    I didn't particularly like this film, but i did love this scene. It's just a reminder for those that know, and a lesson for those that don't.
  • What are you listening to right now?
    SEVDALIZA - SHAHMARAN


    SEVDALIZA - HUMAN
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    Really great post!PoeticUniverse

    Thank you, although i'm sure others might not agree. :smile:

    Do the one-third charges of quarks make them suspect of not being elemental/fundamental?PoeticUniverse

    For me, the existence of multiple "fundamental" particles, at least as presented in the Standard Model, suggests that none of them are truly fundamental in the strictest sense. I believe absolute fundamentality can only really be found in the void itself, as a property of space one might say.
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?

    Well, we know that everything is made of atoms, but what are atoms made of?

    We know that atoms are made of nucleons (neutrons and protons) and electrons. Focusing on the nucleons, we know that they are made up of quarks, but what are the quarks made of? Now things might get a little tricky. According to scientific consensus, quarks are considered fundamental particles, meaning they are not made of anything smaller. But if a quark is not made of anything (has no parts), then what is the substance of a quark? It can't be made up of infinite smaller things in an infinite regress.

    The substance of a quark is its properties. But then, what are these properties made of? We know that a property is a characteristic or attribute that describes or determines the nature and behavior of something. But what is it that has the property? A property is its own substance.

    The answer is that properties are what is fundamental, and thus it is the properties that have particles, not the particles that have properties. But what does that even mean?

    It means that this perspective is an inversion of the usual way we think about matter. Instead of particles having properties, it's more accurate to say that properties manifest as particles. In other words, quarks (and other fundamental particles) are the physical manifestation of these fundamental properties in the fabric of spacetime (the void).

    According to my current understanding of quantum mechanics, it is not possible for a fundamental particle to be completely static and motionless due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Even at temperatures close to absolute zero (which is unreachable in practice), particles retain a minimum amount of quantum energy. This energy manifests as small fluctuations or vibrations, preventing particles from being truly static. In quantum field theory particles are excitations of underlying quantum property fields rather than discrete, static objects.

    Is there anything that you know about which does not undergo some kind of process, or that is not in some kind of flux state?
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Rising Appalachia: Scale Down
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Reestar - Katatonija (Original Mix)
  • What are you listening to right now?
    Paolo Baldini DubFiles Song Embassy Medley #1
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?
    That seems kind of a stretch.Darkneos

    I admit it does take some stretching of the imagination, but one should expect to do so when learning new things. What part of my description do you take issue with, or is it the whole thing?
  • AI Films
    It's getting there...
  • What exactly is Process Philosophy?

    Essentially it means that all is flux, nothing is static. Everything moves, and is made of things that move, that are made of things that move, that are made of things that move. At the very bottom it's just space, or the vibrating void. If a thing were to truly stop moving, then it would simultaneously cease to exist, and it will no longer be a thing.
  • Where is AI heading?

    I've been curious to try it out, but i'm not comfortable with their privacy policy.

    • Extensive data collection, including personal information, user input, and device data.
    • Broad data sharing with service providers, business partners, and other entities.
    • Indefinite data retention period.
    • Storage of personal information on servers in China, which may have different data protection laws.
  • AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM
    I'm not sure what to say about this. I've already gone out on a limb a bit, being too definitive in rejecting your point of view. Maybe too rigid is a better way of saying it. It just sort of rubs me the wrong way, which I recognize is not much of an argument.T Clark

    I know that feeling. The only thing left to do then is to discover why it rubs you the wrong way. What you do with the result of that analysis is up to you. We can leave it alone for now if you like.
  • The Self-Negating Cosmos: Rational Genesis, and The Logical Foundations of the Quantum Vacuum
    So, how come there are only those few number of ways to make the stable particles? What underlies the perfect symmetry for the stable electron, proton, and photon?PoeticUniverse

    Remember, this is just what i think at this moment based on my own current understanding. On top of that, it's only one model of my own design, which is still incomplete and under construction. So put on your hard hat and watch your step. That being said...

    I'm not sure if this answers your question, but maybe it addresses something close to it. Any particle that has mass, spin, or charge is a result of one or more broken symmetries in the void.

    The void itself can be thought of as an energy-minimizing agent. All particles are products of at least three broken symmetries. These symmetry breaks manifest as particles with properties such as mass, charge, and spin. Each break contributes to one of these particle properties along with a certain measure of energy. The energy in these properties functions as the motivating force for unification with properties of opposite values in other particles.

    When a particle meets another particle with exactly opposite quantum numbers or values, the particles annihilate. If a particle with negative charge and spin up meets a particle with positive charge but the same spin up, they do not annihilate. These particles bond at the site that minimizes the symmetry break for charge.

    It is all about energy or symmetry break minimization. If the universe or the void ever had a purpose or goal, this would be it. The stability actually comes from being unable to minimize completely and perfectly, which keeps the particle literally in existence (un-annihilated and therefore stable in this sense).

    It must have to do with the nature of waves… such as charge could have to do with the wave amplitude being above or below the zero point of the something and the anti-something.PoeticUniverse

    Yes, this is one acceptable way of conceptualizing it.
  • The Self-Negating Cosmos: Rational Genesis, and The Logical Foundations of the Quantum Vacuum

    Hint: look into the I Ching trigrams together with the quark structure (color charges).
  • The Self-Negating Cosmos: Rational Genesis, and The Logical Foundations of the Quantum Vacuum
    In free space—the electron(-) and the proton(+),PoeticUniverse

    Into an electron and proton pair,PoeticUniverse

    Cool, except the anti-pair of the electron is the positron, not the proton. Just edit that. :up:
  • AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM
    Yes, it gave me goosebumps when i listened to it again. I hadn't seen it in a while, but the conversation reminded me of it. I'm glad you enjoyed it. :smile: :up:
  • AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM

    I like the way Alan Moore described magic.
  • AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM
    Hope you don't mind me chipping in on this point.Wayfarer

    You have always been welcome to do so dear Sir. :smile:

    But there's another dimension to consider, and that is the sense in which deep spiritual or existential enquiry is necessarily first person. There are states of being, or states of understanding, which can only be realised in the first person. They can be conveyed to another, only in the event that the other has realised or has had access to insights of a similar nature. So that kind of insight is non-conceptual or non-discursive, so to speak - beyond words, which is the meaning of ineffable. But real, and highly significant, regardless.Wayfarer

    I absolutely agree, and that is precisely why in these cases language must take on a new active function, as opposed to the passive function of merely transporting concepts. Other methods may also be incorporated, such as the esoteric initiations practiced by the ancients. Drugs ("sacred plants") can achieve this, as can art, theater, adventure, and more in the correct context. Language, as the ancients recognized, is a kind of magic. The real magic. Language can be used to affect consciousness, and even perception making you believe things, see things, and behave in certain ways. Thus, language is able to influence the first-person experience of another if used skillfully and with knowledge of the art (rhetoric). Hitler is an excellent example of this power, yet it can be used for good as well as for deception. It can make you see what is not there, or make you not see what is there. Everything has its active and passive form, including language.
  • AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM
    What is there to understanding a concept beyond understanding the words used to describe it? It seems to me that, in Taoism, conceptualizing something is the same as naming it, i.e. putting it into words.T Clark

    It would appear that way, but certain concepts are too big for words, apparently. When something is too vast, pointing at it becomes ambiguous. Some concepts are very mercurial and appear one way in a certain context, yet differently in another, much like how different colors appear to change depending on the surrounding and framing colors. Have you ever thought or felt something you couldn't say or even name? That is what is most interesting to me.

    Each appearance is given a name, but these names are just facets of one overarching concept. I think it is actually very simple, but the complexity arises from the cultural implications of the words we use. I believe everything of consequence can be expressed in one way or another, but it's not always easy. The correct approach, in my opinion, is to use words as containers of meaning that can be poured into other containers. Deep meaning must be triangulated with the assistance of other meanings to ascertain the ineffable. One will never be able to do it with a single word, just as you can't describe the universe with a single number. We should use all available perspectives to hone in on the source which has no name.

    I often say that there's only one world, so all the different philosophies and religions are describing the same thing in different words. I guess that means I agree with you.T Clark

    As i suspected. :smile: ... But my point is not really to get you to agree with me per say, but to help each other see more than we can by ourselves.

    But to greatly oversimplify, there is only one kind of thing - an apple - yet a multiplicity of ways to describe it. That doesn't mean there is something missing from our understanding of apples.T Clark

    Before we understood what cells were, we were not able to describe that aspect of an apple. Similarly, before we had the idea or concept of atoms and molecules, we were incapable of describing an apple in those terms. A person who has only ever seen a red apple will have an incomplete description compared to one who has seen both red and green apples. The fact that apples can be green is missing from the first person's apple model. There are many layers and levels of description, and each one adds to the completeness of the meaning.

    Each culture and tradition describes their experience of ultimate reality, but ultimate reality doesn't exist beyond those descriptions.T Clark

    Unless it is an attempt at fiction, i do not know what the point would be to describe anything that has no existence beyond the description itself. The real thing is what we are trying to describe, not the description. The description, like the name, is not the thing itself.
  • AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM
    Whether or not you capitalize "god" depends on whether you consider it a name or a description.T Clark

    We have a difference in the significance of "God" with a capital 'G' and "god" with a lowercase 'g'. For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source. The word "God" is not a name but a title, and the same applies to "god". Gods have names, just as the President of the United States has a name. "President" is not a name itself. God is not a name, but Jehovah is, and God is his title.
  • AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM
    You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence. — punos


    I don't understand.
    T Clark


    Words are imperfect tools for communication. True understanding comes from grasping the underlying concepts, not just the words used to describe them. Flexibility in interpreting language can lead to deeper comprehension. In essence, i am advocating for a more holistic approach to communication and understanding, one that prioritizes meaning over specific terminology.

    I don't see that there is an ultimate puzzle. Each understanding of ultimate reality stands on it's own. It can be interesting and enlightening to compare different religions and philosophies, but that doesn't mean something is missing.T Clark

    There is only one ultimate reality, not a multiplicity of ultimate realities. The structure and content of the diverse understandings throughout history are mostly the result of cross-pollination between different cultures. For example, Buddhism from India significantly influenced and contributed to Chinese philosophy and religion.

    Consider the parable of the blind men and the elephant. The parable illustrates the limitations of individual perception and the importance of considering multiple perspectives, including those from diverse cultures. The point is that no single person can perceive the totality of the elephant. However, if they were to come together and combine their perceptions, they would acquire a more complete understanding of what an elephant is, or more precisely, how an elephant is.
  • AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM
    Are you saying that the god of monotheistic religions is fundamentally different from the gods of multi-theistic ones? I don't see that. My, perhaps idiosyncratic, understanding is that, in Taoism, the Tao comes before God or the gods, whichever you like.T Clark

    Well, what would you say is the difference between a God and a god? (Uppercase 'G' vs. lowercase 'g')

    In Greek mythology, all the gods emerged from the primordial Chaos, personified as a female entity, just like the Taoists personified the Tao as the mother of all things and a void or chasm. In Greek mythology, there is no God, just gods. A monotheistic God is a unity, while the gods are a multiplicity.

    You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence.

    My way of looking at it is that all the historical attempts to describe this "thing" at the base of reality are partial explanations. Each culture or religion contains a piece of the ultimate puzzle to some degree, and the art is in recognizing which pieces go together and how. Different cultures had different lenses through which they attempted to see and describe it.

    I didn't understand your mathematical interpretation of ultimate reality the last time we discussed it and I don't understand it now.T Clark

    If you could understand Pythagoras, then you could understand what i'm trying to say. I can never really say it; i can only point at it, but everyone keeps looking at my finger instead of what i'm actually pointing at.

    quote-its-like-a-finger-pointing-away-to-the-moon-dont-concentrate-on-the-finger-or-you-will-bruce-lee-48-81-01.jpg
  • AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM
    The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao.T Clark

    God and gods are not the same thing. Native American tribes have a concept of the "Great Spirit", while Christians have the concept of the "Spirit of God" or the "Holy Spirit". The words "spirit" and "tao" can mean the same thing. They both signify "way", as in "the spirit of violence" or "the tao of violence", which means "the way of violence", Spirit, Logos, and Tao are all ways of saying "The Way".

    When one speaks of God, it refers to "The Way", whereas when one speaks of "god", it refers to "a way", as in "the god of violence". All ways partake in the way of The Way, or all gods have their place within the God Way. The gods emanate from God as the 10,000 things, and inherit a portion of The Way.

    Psalm 82:6 - "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'"

    The first gods were the pure whole numbers which emanated from zero (the Source). The very first numbers to emanate were the twin 1s (-1, +1), represented by Janus, who is the namesake for January, the first month of the year.

    The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
    Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!
    Tao Te Ching - Verse 4

    Some people just don't like the use of the word "God" or "gods", or even "spirit" because of certain associations, but it's just a name. A cigar by any other name is still a cigar, yet a cigar is still just a name.