> On Jul 31, 3:44 am, Joseph Humming humanisation.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Jul 30, 1:52 am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>

>>> On Jul 30, 9:59 am, zinnic gate.net> wrote:

>

>>>> On Jul 27, 6:37 pm, Joseph Humming humanisation.org> wrote:

>

>>>>> On Jul 27, 11:40 pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:

>

>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:32 am, Joseph Humming humanisation.org> wrote:

>

>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:50 am,zinnicgate.net> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 4:11 pm, Joseph Humming humanisation.org> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>> On Jul 25, 2:31 pm, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:47:19 -0700, Joseph Humming wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> calibrated to produce said universe. Or  maybe it was just an accident
>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to happen.

>

>>>>>>>>>> difference being..?

>

>>>>>>>>> The first suggests that the universe was an inevitable outcome of
>>>>>>>>> whatever situation pertained before the universe. The second suggests
>>>>>>>>> the existence of forces, or conditions, that were capable of giving
>>>>>>>>> rise to the universe in certain circumstances - and did.
>>>>>>>>> I still cling to my intuitive notion that there had to be a pre-
>>>>>>>>> universe situation, whatever that was.

>

>>>>>>>> And what would give rise to the "existence of forces, or conditions,
>>>>>>>> that could give rise to your  "pre-universe situation"?
>>>>>>>> All you seem to be saying is --the universe is what it is because of
>>>>>>>> what it is. Marking time as it runs on the spot gets the universe (and
>>>>>>>> us) nowhere!

>

>>>>>>> Does something have to "give rise" to the forces that produced the
>>>>>>> universe? Could that not just be "the way things are"? I posit -
>>>>>>> without any evidence other than the bizarre symmetry of the universe
>>>>>>> eventually producing a creature who can know the universe - a force
>>>>>>> (for lack of a better word) at the heart of existence, a force, an
>>>>>>> energy, an intelligence, which gave rise to the universe we know. I
>>>>>>> don't for one second posit an "entity". I think we now are the bearers
>>>>>>> of this intelligence. I say - to general ridicule - that we are the
>>>>>>> mind of matter. I don't see this as mystical in any sense. I just see
>>>>>>> - or believe - that the force that produced the universe was riddled
>>>>>>> with something akin to intelligence - call it awareness, sentience, if
>>>>>>> you like - and that we have refined this intelligence to the point
>>>>>>> where we can discern the entire process.- Hide quoted text -

>

>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>>>>>> My problem with your post is that you ask "Could that not just be "the
>>>>>> way things are"?
>>>>>> The obvious answer is -not only could they be,  they are in fact  the
>>>>>> way they are!.
>>>>>> You then go on to claim  that "we have refined this intelligence to
>>>>>> the point
>>>>>>  where we can discern the entire process.".
>>>>>> I read science avidly, but somehow  missed out on discerning "the
>>>>>> entire process"!- Hide quoted text -

>

>>>>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>>>>> I have been criticised for my tortuous style because I try to qualify
>>>>> everything. So in a tortuous effort to please people I simplify
>>>>> everything - and then I get criticised again. No, you're right: we
>>>>> haven't "discerned everything". But we are on the way to so doing. We
>>>>> have the capacaity to so do. In the course of the last century we have
>>>>> discovered how the universe began; we have plotted its early
>>>>> development; we have charted the solar system of which we are a part;
>>>>> we have explained the origin of life and its evolution etc etc...so I
>>>>> think it's fair to say that we - uniquely - have the capacity to
>>>>> discern the nature of existence, even if that task hasn't yet been
>>>>> completed.- Hide quoted text -

>

>>>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>>>> We are part of the whole Universe. Do you claim that the we, a part,
>>>> can discern (encompass ) the whole. To do sowe e would have to  have a
>>>> standpoint (view) independent (outside) of the whole universe. How can
>>>> that be? In discerning the whole Universe (of which we are part) we
>>>> would have to be not part of the Universe!- Hide quoted text -

>

>>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>>> The universe, as is your body, is made of 'star stuff'. Matter
>>> vibrating as an 'effect' of life, not life itself.

>

>>> It can be detected and observed. LIfe cannot be. They eye cannot see
>>> itself, no "matter" how sophisticated optical instrumentation becomes.

>

>>> The universe comes and goes. Life does not.

>

>>> That reality at the core of all religious and philosophical
>>> contradictions and paradoxes.

>

>>> BOfL- Hide quoted text -

>

>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>> Hmmmm...have to think about this!

>

>> I don't pretend to understand fully what you're saying. Let me try...

>

>> Life is a process, a chemical continuity. Each individual is for some
>> time a participant in this process. For this period they are said to
>> be "alive" - but do not constitute life as such since this word is
>> reserved for the process itself.....?

>
> The process is the result of life, not life itself.

>
>
>

>> Nah! Your definition is too restrictive. The word "life" might equally
>> - and is equally - used to descrbe those who are part of the process.

>
> Thats where the interpretation is restrictive.
>

>> And why does life not "come and go"? Is it because as an abstract
>> process, a concept even, it is outside tiem?

>
> Yes. Only the effects 'come and go'. Who would have thought that even
> our cosmologists are now speculating that the universe is subject to
> ebb and flow.
> Of course, they are observing the universe, not the other way around.
>

>>And how is this the core
>> of all religion?

>
> The attempt at explaining life by looking at the effects.
> Occasionally advanced individuals come out with such statements as
> "Know Thyself And Know The Universe". Good as far as it goes, even
> though that is just another observation of the process.
>
> It is 'thyself' making the observation. You are 'life'.

>
> BOfL
>
>
>
>
>

>> Elucidation required, por favor.- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -