Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't follow your thinking in the first paragraph...maybe in days...or weeks...but...
Consider your body as America or the Universe or God.
If you are a pedophile, your whole body is a pedophile.
Your hands is a pedophile, your legs are guilty, your eyeballs are guilty...otherwise there is no oneness.
Just my thought on that one question.
-
Well, you misunderstand the issue. The question we are discussing is the other way around (although what you referenced is its own logical fallacy).
At issue is Mystic's apparent contention that, at least under some perspective, since America is composed of human beings with a gender and a sexual orientation, the entire nation, taken as a whole, is a human being with a gender and a sexual orientation. Which of course seems nonsensical, but I am trying to get him to explain his rationale, in hopes of salvaging something interesting from it...
Now your example appears problematic as well.
Consider America, a nation which has the property of being able to form binding international treaties. You are a part of America, and yet you (Assuming your name is not Donald J Trump) do not share that property. So clearly simply being one part of a larger system does not confer upon each part all the properties of the whole.
This is not to say that a system cannot have qualities in common with its components, or that individuals show the same characteristics as a broader thing that they are part of, it just means that neither is guaranteed.
So if I understand you right only by viewing God from outside God ( an impossibility according to your theology) can one say anything meaningful about God? It seems like then God is, to use a circuits term, a "don't care". That is, from our perspective questions about God are unanswerable, and irrelevant, so we can ignore it and get on with life without trying to invent a thing that we cannot know the truth of...
-NoCapo
yes, people that don't need it, or care about it, can get on with their lives. Like my brother can get on with his life not knowing the Betelgeuse is pointing right at us.
" IF we use the perspective of a ONENESS to everything, then there are no separate systems and any attributes of any elements in the system are attributes of the ONE system as a whole."
So let me try to use the "oneness" of the automobile, and see if I can make sense of what you are saying.
if there are no individual parts of a car, just a car as an atomic and indivisible whole, then we categorically cannot speak of "separate system" or components. This would mean that the example looks like this:
1) Automobiles simply are what they are, they are one, and cannot be broken into separate systems or components.
2) ???
3) Therefore, Automobiles are made primarily of rubber.
I'm still not able to get to step 3), because as least if I understand what you are saying, in a "ONENESS" perspective there are no separate components of an automobile, so there is no way a tire can have a property of its own. Or if a tire does have its own attributes, it is when it is taken as a "ONENESS" independent of( having not been assembled into) a car. Once it becomes part of a car it can have no attributes because it's the car's "ONENESS" now.
I am starting to appreciate what you mean when you said you have a concrete mind. It seems to be a common trait on this forum. s. Since you believe our reality consists of separate things, you believe the fallacy applies. You keep harping on your silly automobile syllogism because of it. I would suggest you try to consider what the difference is when you consider the context of the blind men and the elephant.
Quote:
So am I misunderstanding this? Is there some other way to apply this oneness perspective and get the results one would expect were the fallacy of composition not to apply?
The fallacy of composition exists and it applies in all contexts where there are separate things. In such a perspective the elephant is a trunk, a tail, four legs, etc. all separate things. In a ONENESS perspective, the elephant is all those things. It is an elephant.
Quote:
Now I am really confused! Here you appear to be contradicting your initial assertion! You say that because we cannot view a system of which we are parts externally as a whole, a "ONENESS" if you will, we cannot assume that what we know about individual parts applies in any way to the whole.
Wrong. I have no idea how you would come to this conclusion but I am beginning to have my suspicions.
Quote:
But your initial premise was that we can assume, at least given some perspective or within some limitation, that everything we know about an individual part of a system applies to the entire system. This is what it means for the fallacy of composition to be incorrect!
You appear to have quite vigorously argued here that your initial premise is wrong!
Maybe you can spell out under what conditions or caveats you believe the fallacy of composition not to hold true, because once again you are not having much luck with analogies... I can tell you don't want to, but seriously, it would clean up your thinking or argument if you could either work in the context of the car example or explain clearly why it is inapplicable.
You are definitely confused and my suspicion is that you are conflating attributes with parts and the concept of Being. That was why I introduced the elephant. You assign the concept of Being to each and every separate part or characteristic that exists. But when they are merely parts that comprise a Being, they do NOT have their attributes or characteristics separately. Only the Being possesses the attributes or characteristics. That is why you mistakenly use "primarily" in your silly syllogism.
Quote:
So if I understand you right only by viewing God from outside God ( an impossibility according to your theology) can one say anything meaningful about God? It seems like then God is, to use a circuits term, a "don't care". That is, from our perspective questions about God are unanswerable, and irrelevant, so we can ignore it and get on with life without trying to invent a thing that we cannot know the truth of...
-NoCapo
Yes, YOU deal with Reality as composed of separate things that we can investigate and analyze to determine how they work and use that information to our advantage. That is why the composition fallacy applies. As you say, very useful. But you ignore what Reality IS and prefer to believe it doesn't matter which is the atheist default "we don't know and we don't care."
the property of the part doesn't have to be the property of the whole. But the whole's property is most certainly directly related to the properties of the pieces. its precisely because there is no separation.
My big toe doesn't have a headache, but I most certainly do. my big toe can't even conceive of a headache. that doesn't mean i don't have one. My big toe might not even care I have a headache. But its more valid to claim i have one than it is that i don't.
yeah, i agree mystic. when they claim "we don't care" it means exactly the same to me as when theist claim 'I care". both are equally meaningless to how the universe works.
Well, you misunderstand the issue. The question we are discussing is the other way around (although what you referenced is its own logical fallacy).
At issue is Mystic's apparent contention that, at least under some perspective, since America is composed of human beings with a gender and a sexual orientation, the entire nation, taken as a whole, is a human being with a gender and a sexual orientation. Which of course seems nonsensical, but I am trying to get him to explain his rationale, in hopes of salvaging something interesting from it...
Now your example appears problematic as well.
Consider America, a nation which has the property of being able to form binding international treaties. You are a part of America, and yet you (Assuming your name is not Donald J Trump) do not share that property. So clearly simply being one part of a larger system does not confer upon each part all the properties of the whole.
This is not to say that a system cannot have qualities in common with its components, or that individuals show the same characteristics as a broader thing that they are part of, it just means that neither is guaranteed.
-NoCapo
^ A people divided.
You don't see a problem with your world as it is. Fragmented to the core like some stone from the sky has shattered the feet of your picture. Stay the same...looking good...not your fault...nothing to do with you, and you love where you are at. Fine with me.
"So clearly simply being one part of a larger system does not confer upon each part all the properties of the whole." Just like a gallon of paint in your pond full of water, it does not confer upon each part all the properties of the whole. Do you fish there often? Something is very clear to me.
Shattered, fragmented, everyone out for their each and their own in some land that don't believe what goes around comes around; no united goal, ugly, sick,cancerous, bombs and guns from America to front doors worldwide and you are not connected? It's not you, you only support and pay for it. And your car...nothing to do with breathing...and the oil in car and seas no matter...Fukushima Radiation still not conferring, plastic here, plastic there, dying oceans, oil spills, gas spills, all still not conferring, all still not connected to you. each and all separate entities, everyone not connected to each other. Nothing to do with you. None of it is connects. You are a being separated and disconnected from the Whole Hole of all the bad. One innocent man. I get it. I really do.
Happy Hell with Bells.
-
Now this stuff is really scrambled and confusing.
The subconscious self is selfless. Attribute of, of course, the Universe and or God.
The Theory of Oneness
Can anyone figure this out?
A part of the universe is a part of the universe. [Truth or Lie?]
A part of a universe is a property of the universe. [Truth or Lie?]
A part of the universe is not a property of the universe. [Truth or Lie?]
A part of the universe is not a ________ of the universe. [Truth or Lie?] #4
What is not a part of the universe? Where did it go? Where could it go?
-
The only One true answer I found for #4 so far is this:
A part of the universe is not a nothing of the universe. [Truth or Lie?]
otherwise: Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie...All Lies.
-
Bizarre Zone?
And still no one answers:
If God is an Infinite Being existing in Infinity, could you exist with him?
Is it a possibility?
And what about that SpookyQ Entanglements?
A Strange Work?
An Unusual Work?
A Strange Act?
A Cornerstone in Zion
…Indeed, the bed is too short to stretch out on, and the blanket too small to wrap around you. For the LORD will rise up as at Mount Perazim. He will rouse Himself as in the valley of Gibeon, to do His work, His strange work, and to perform His task, His disturbing task. So now, do not mock, or your shackles will become heavier. Indeed, I have heard from the Lord GOD of Hosts a decree of destruction against the whole land.…
King James Bible
For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.
Berean Study Bible
For the LORD will rise up as at Mount Perazim. He will rouse Himself as in the valley of Gibeon, to do His work, His strange work, and to perform His task, His disturbing task.
English Standard Version
For the LORD will rise up as on Mount Perazim; as in the Valley of Gibeon he will be roused; to do his deed—strange is his deed! and to work his work—alien is his work!
New Living Translation
The LORD will come as he did against the Philistines at Mount Perazim and against the Amorites at Gibeon. He will come to do a strange thing; he will come to do an unusual deed:
Yesterday I was feeling so miserable because of me, existing as I am, where I am, amongst the peoples, I just hurt so bad I just wanted to die, to leave this place, and either exist as nothing nowhere, or exist with my God as one. And I was convinced, either one would would be better than this miserable place. And I hurt so bad, for what? Because of these peoples that surround me? Because of the things I’ve posted here? These postings? Why? What is it that I’ve done or said, or the reason? I asked God to let me die because life is pure hell on earth and I have no reason to be here. And I don’t want to be in this place. I just want out. Somewhere where the hurt can’t reach me.
And I fell asleep.
A few hours later, some fragmented disturbing dream with me running around trapped in some crazy senseless chaos just as miserable in my sleep or death, or whatever you want to call it, no better than this perverted reality I exist in, and it awakened me so I could escape that hell, being the same hell alive, awake or asleep or dead or with God…and I was refreshed, I’m fine, I feel fine…but I doubt it will last long. Why is that?
As I faded from my sleep into life again, I remember fading through some little process which I can’t remember exactly other than some veiled process that appeared as a process of shades, faded into awareness. And then I awoke…not a big bang from sleep as usual is the first thing I remembered. So I thought I’d better write it down before the thoughts faded from my mind.
And now, I feel just fine, I feel great, God refreshed me.
Here I am now with me and my God and nobody else around, and I just feel good.
I wonder where those bad dreams are coming from, but I know, my subconscious is just as troubled as I am.
I am in a state of oneness again. Refreshed.
But some big ball from a wrecking crew exists just outside my room. I have no desire to thread very far from behind my door.
Am I ashamed, am I crazy? I don’t care as long as I can hold on to my oneness with God.
But truth is, neither one of us likes to be here. Me nor my God seem to be able to exist peacefully with the peoples.
And for me, my only real home is with God together as one. One, the same as.
Misery in life, in sleep, and in death which doesn’t even exist as a nothing of universe. Where is that NOTHING in this place you seek to find or rest eternally? It doesn’t exist. Or maybe you think God is that “Nothing” where your toxicity flows?
Except for possibly God, “Nothing” is not a product universe, everything is related, you can’t get there from here, or anywhere I know of. So eventually, wickedness with the people causing it will just exist as some polluted smoke and ashes in some partition of the universe forever, eternally.
It should have happened last night, as far as I’m concerned.
So I post and run again. For the last time again, after the other last time, and the other before that...O Jeremiah.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) do not share that property. So clearly simply being one part of a larger system does not confer upon each part all the properties of the whole.
