> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:44:49 -0500, John J wrote:

>>Art wrote:

>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:19:12 +0000, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

>

>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:48:20 -0700, A Situation wrote:

>

>>>>> Lots and lots of good blogs and comments here at the site page. This
>>>>> whole issue confuses me as I am constrained by my evolved brain. I
>>>>> consider this question from my engineering background, and immediately
>>>>> go critical and feel my limits. I refuse to personify the situation
>>>>> (putative "gods") as that is simply one of those evolved legacy methods.
>>>>> I then request special treatment (ala the beautiful brain guy, or the
>>>>> putative channelers), but so far, no go. The issues are always there,
>>>>> and I review them daily.

>>>> I refer to a earlier discussion on this NG...

>

>>>> Is concept of 'nothing' directly related to the absolute contained in the
>>>> number ZERO? I think so and I also believe this is a recent idea, or as
>>>> recent as mathematics.

>

>>First, I find ZerkonX's comments to be profound and I am led in a
>>similar direction and would deviate to suggest 'nothing', even the
>>fascination with the big bang, and the concept of the creation of time
>>is manifest in a neurological structure of the human mind.

>

>>But to move on...

>

>>> I disagree. I thnk the concept of "nothing" precedes the concept of
>>> number(s). Numbers were invented to count things. If there are no
>>> apples on the table, there are zero apples on the table. But "no
>>> apples" is a earlier or more primitive concept than "zero apples".

>

>>Am I correct with: IOW, there was no quantification of 'nothing' but the
>>concept existed, possibly in terms of hunger (no food), or sex (no
>>mate), or knowledge (nothing greater-than to help).

>
> Seems probable to me.
>
>
>
>
>

>>That resonates with what I think I know of the invention of a counting
>>system (or accounting system). It took humankind a long time to accept
>>that a symbolic representation of plurality had value. For example, when
>>they used a number of tokens in a 1:1 representations of a collection of
>>trade-ware such as livestock. Then they found the utility of placing the
>>tokens in a clay pot. But the pot or the contents were not value.
>>Eventually a mark would be made on a pot to denote the extent of the
>>collection inside, and finally the mark would replace the contents of
>>the pot, then the pot itself. Value was thereby invented and counting
>>developed further.

>

>>It would be impossible for many to imagine that simple counting is still
>>a questionable way to approach certain problems. We are still confounded
>>by the concept of nothingness!

>

>>> [...] We are souls as independent of matter, space and
>>> time as the Creator is.

>

>>I wonder and wonder when humankind first came to think that.

>
> Well, I wonder if the ancient (religious) myth of "the fall of man"
> isn't a collective memory buried in the subconscious of a time when
> man felt like he had fallen from a "loftier" condition as he became
> absorbed in materiality and pre-scientific rational thought. It might
> be that the psyche of very ancient man was highly intuitive and
> and spiritually oriented, and there was a feeling of "descent"
> involved as his rational mind developed. It might be than very
> early man _knew_ intuitively that he is a mind-body-spirit complex,
> and his consciousness continues after death of the physical  body.
>
> As his rational mind developed he invented opposites like "good versus
> evil", "sin", etc. But prior to that he was innocent ... a natural
> spiritual being.  
>
> Arthttp://home.ptd.net/~artnpeg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -