Kevin's Watch

Fist and Faith wrote:I love Bach. Would you tell me, "But that's only the part of you that understands such things. Your foot doesn't know or care."

Well, if you cut your foot off, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have any appreciation for Bach by itself...

--A

True enough. But until then, it is part of the unit that loves Bach. I don't say parts, or aspects, of me love Bach. We don't think about it that way. We view ourselves as a whole until parts are removed from the whole. So any parts of the universe that are removed from the universe may be considered to not know we exist.

I suppose at the end of the day all this is about [for me at least] what we can know. I tend to find that the deeper I dig, the less sure I become about anything - and that's not the same as becoming more accepting of 'creation based ideas' of how there comes to be something as opposed to nothing. I don't think it's just that I'm not up to the ideas that give you guys such confidence in your beliefs [bad word - sorry], but I admit it could be and if so there would be no shame in that either. At the end of the day alls I can say is 'I don't know'.

I'm reading A Very Short Introduction to the Bible along side my Bible Written as Literature book [again not because I find religion 'calling to me', but rather because I cannot judge the 'for's and against's' if I don't have at least some familiarity with the matereal - and also because I do love the rich literature therein]. A question that arises from a reading of the Old Testement [and I'm sure the New when I get there] is 'why would these people lie anout the things they say the saw, the things they say happened to them?' Is this just to simplistic a way of seeing the stories or was the human mind different then - did they have acess to 'alternate realities' that are now closed to us except in very special circumstances. If these were just stories - how did they survive. The bible itself is a puzzle that we often forget; we have the writings of those familiar with the oral traditions of the day, and they tell of an experience of life that is so adrift from our own that it must demand explanation.

peter wrote:A question that arises from a reading of the Old Testement [and I'm sure the New when I get there] is 'why would these people lie anout the things they say the saw, the things they say happened to them?' Is this just to simplistic a way of seeing the stories or was the human mind different then - did they have acess to 'alternate realities' that are now closed to us except in very special circumstances. If these were just stories - how did they survive. The bible itself is a puzzle that we often forget; we have the writings of those familiar with the oral traditions of the day, and they tell of an experience of life that is so adrift from our own that it must demand explanation.

Myths aren't necessarily lies. You might as well ask why Tolkien lied about the existence of Morgorth. Maybe the "alternate realities" they experienced aren't so mysterious after all ... maybe they simply knew a metaphor when they saw it. Maybe we're just assuming that they were literalists, when they actually understood what they were reading exactly how we understand the Chronicles: it's a cool story that touched people in a way that felt meaningful/spiritual to them. And so they passed it down to their children. And then after some time, people started taking it literally when it wasn't meant that way.

Zarathustra wrote:

peter wrote:A question that arises from a reading of the Old Testement [and I'm sure the New when I get there] is 'why would these people lie anout the things they say the saw, the things they say happened to them?' Is this just to simplistic a way of seeing the stories or was the human mind different then - did they have acess to 'alternate realities' that are now closed to us except in very special circumstances. If these were just stories - how did they survive. The bible itself is a puzzle that we often forget; we have the writings of those familiar with the oral traditions of the day, and they tell of an experience of life that is so adrift from our own that it must demand explanation.

Myths aren't necessarily lies. You might as well ask why Tolkien lied about the existence of Morgorth. Maybe the "alternate realities" they experienced aren't so mysterious after all ... maybe they simply knew a metaphor when they saw it. Maybe we're just assuming that they were literalists, when they actually understood what they were reading exactly how we understand the Chronicles: it's a cool story that touched people in a way that felt meaningful/spiritual to them. And so they passed it down to their children. And then after some time, people started taking it literally when it wasn't meant that way.

There's also the issue that very little of the Bible are actual "eye-witness" accounts. If you are lucky, the accounts are only written mere decades after the supposed event took place.

There are also plenty of "false" stories that have survived into the present day despite being fantastical: say, the Iliad of Homer? So long as there is a culture that will carry the stories, the stories will survive... no matter how wrong they are.

There's little to no archaeological evidence for Moses and the Exodus, Troy, or King Arthur... yet the stories still survive and people still believe these places and people existed and acted as shown through the stories.

Fist and Faith wrote:True enough. But until then, it is part of the unit that loves Bach. I don't say parts, or aspects, of me love Bach. We don't think about it that way. We view ourselves as a whole until parts are removed from the whole. So any parts of the universe that are removed from the universe may be considered to not know we exist.

But the only part of the whole that can love Bach is your brain. You could remove all the other bits and you would go on loving it. Only the bit that thinks, knows. Knowing something requires thinking. I don't think the universe can know anything.

--A

I do take the points you make about myths and metaphor and stories etc, but the Abrahamic experiences do not seem quite the same as 'standard mythology'. I'm not really taking seriously the ideas of 'burning bushes' talking and 'angels reaching out their hand' to stay the knife etc - but the nature of the tales, interwoven as they are in the historical story of the Jews does fascinate and puzzle me.

Interesting point that I've never considered before that has arisen in the last 24 hours is that at no point does the Bible atempt to describe a world/universe being born out of nothing. Rather the imagery is of the birth arising from 'chaos' or disorder [the very word 'nothing' has a distant echo of this; no-thing, and this is rather what the Bible describes as the 'birthing point' of the cosmos. Kaos [ie formlessness, not emptiness] meets Logos [form, knowledge, the Word] and Cosmos [beauty and order] is born. The ex nihilo creation of the Universe from nothing is apparently a much later idea.

I know what you mean, Av. I'm just trying to get across a way of viewing the universe. I've posted this before. Here's my definition of the universe: Me, you, the sun, Pluto, Jupiter and its moons, the Milky Way galaxy, the table this computer is on, each blade of grass, the star Rigel, the solar winds, the free hydrogen atoms everywhere between the stars, my dog, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Notice that you are the second thing on the list. (At least in my ordering.) You are part of the definition of the universe. In other words, if you never existed, the universe would be defined differently! You are just as much a part of this universe as any galaxy is. Sure, it might exist without any of us, or any star or galaxy or black hole. But it would not be the universe that we know. We are all part of the definition.

But there's more. The universe is not defined only by this moment. You are not defined by the single instant that you are experiencing right now. Should your entire childhood be ignored when defining yourself? Of course not. Every moment of your entire lifespan must be considered as part of the definition of you. Same goes for the universe. The universe's definition includes every instant of its huge lifespan. In 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, you are still a part of the definition of the universe.

And what's more, in the eyes of the unimaginably gigantic universe, the Andromeda galaxy is not much bigger than you are. Basically, you are equal to a galaxy. Not bad.

Anything we are doing, the universe is doing. Because we are a part of the universe. In fact, I would argue that we are the most important part. If any other part of it wants to argue the point, I'm all ears.

Fist and Faith wrote:
Anything we are doing, the universe is doing. Because we are a part of the universe. In fact, I would argue that we are the most important part. If any other part of it wants to argue the point, I'm all ears.

I fail to see the logic when you introduce the watchmaker, Mr. Simon Johnston. He lives at No.37 Eustice St., Teddington Lock, London. He's actually so insignificant as to warrant absolutely no effect on you or my life, whatsoever.

I once worked night shift for a large parcel delivery company, and there where times, in the very dead of night, while I was loading parcels onto a conveyor belt from the inside of a very large articulated lorry, and I'd see a familiar parcel, shaped like a human head, wrapped in brown paper and tied up with string. I'd pick up the parcel and wonder at the uncanny weight, and I'd shiver.
Then I'd think to myself, what a very, very, very, big, and strange world this is!
And how very, very, very, small the universe!

peter wrote:I do take the points you make about myths and metaphor and stories etc,[[snip]]but the nature of the tales, interwoven as they are in the historical story of the Jews does fascinate and puzzle me.

Kaos [ie formlessness, not emptiness] meets Logos [form, knowledge, the Word] and Cosmos [beauty and order] is born. The ex nihilo creation of the Universe from nothing is apparently a much later idea.

On the first...but you're giving it a coherence, consistency, integrity and identity that it doesn't actually have. Or, more accurately, didn't originally, literally, and factually have. Almost none of the stories...and particularly the big/important ones...originated with them.
They were taken from other places/cultures and adapted, altered, edited, re-written, remade, "rebooted," and only more-or-less faithful to the originals.
All of that work may well have made it into a better story...but also made it more "story."
It wasn't interwoven, they wove it in.

On the second...I'm not sure. I've seen people argue about it. There is little doubt about the Logos/Word part...
And formless and empty are not the same thing, of course...[if I recall my Milton correctly, he made a point of that distinction]...
But there is the problem of the "abyss" and "void." Last I knew, there was still some disagreement, and serious lack of evidence, on whether the emptiness was always part of it, or if, as you say, it came later [and perhaps just due to translation error or aesthetic/philosophical choice].

FnF wrote:In fact, I would argue that we are the most important part. If any other part of it wants to argue the point, I'm all ears.

Nice. I'd like to hear from them, too. Maybe go that next step---people were talking about "purpose." Well, the universe didn't/doesn't/can't have one by itself...but we GAVE it one. Which, in its way, relates to:

Vizi wrote: Then I'd think to myself, what a very, very, very, big, and strange world this is!
And how very, very, very, small the universe!

Which cracked me up. I like it.

peter wrote:
Interesting point that I've never considered before that has arisen in the last 24 hours is that at no point does the Bible atempt to describe a world/universe being born out of nothing. Rather the imagery is of the birth arising from 'chaos' or disorder [the very word 'nothing' has a distant echo of this; no-thing, and this is rather what the Bible describes as the 'birthing point' of the cosmos. Kaos [ie formlessness, not emptiness] meets Logos [form, knowledge, the Word] and Cosmos [beauty and order] is born. The ex nihilo creation of the Universe from nothing is apparently a much later idea.

Surely you must have heard of the Sacred Geometry. Which in basic terms can show how the mind of God could create something out of nothing. Although Genesis in the Holy Bible is a narrative the principles are still the same. It's said that Sacred Geometry predates the original Hebrew scrolls.

(Almost as if the Egyptian mystery schools were around even before God created the universe)

Fist and Faith wrote:Anything we are doing, the universe is doing. Because we are a part of the universe. In fact, I would argue that we are the most important part. If any other part of it wants to argue the point, I'm all ears.

Hahaha, well put. So because we know stuff, the universe knows it?

--A

Yes. The universe is made up of its parts, just as we are. If a mind knows something, then the universe knows it. Just as, if a mind knows something, then the human being knows it. Yes, that human being is made of a great many parts that, individually/separately, don't know anything. Same goes for the universe.

So the Universe must care because *we* care.

... and just when I thought I was getting to grips with this thread ...

Fist and Faith wrote:Yes. The universe is made up of its parts, just as we are. If a mind knows something, then the universe knows it. Just as, if a mind knows something, then the human being knows it. Yes, that human being is made of a great many parts that, individually/separately, don't know anything. Same goes for the universe.

But if a cell or organ knows something (say, how to split or produce bile) we do not necessarily know it. Just because various parts make a whole does not mean that all parts are the seat of consciousness.

Nevertheless, a part of us is splitting, or producing bile. I'm not saying I'm aware/conscious of everything that is a part of me.

peter wrote:So the Universe must care because *we* care.

We are the universe. At least a part of it. If we care, then a part of the universe cares. If my toe hurts, then a part of me hurts, neh?

Fist and Faith wrote:

peter wrote:So the Universe must care because *we* care.

We are the universe. At least a part of it. If we care, then a part of the universe cares. If my toe hurts, then a part of me hurts, neh?

And you claim you're not spiritual...

Nah, I've always considered myself to be spiritual. But not necessarily by the definition of the conversation of the moment.