You are nothing

[china]

:canada:

If you are freed from the goal of the "perfect" ,"godly", "truly religious" then that which is natural in man begins to express itself. Your religious and secular culture has placed before you the ideal man or woman, the perfect human being, and then tries to fit everybody into that mold. It is impossible. Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, whereas culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform to be "something" ;It is grotesque ,:canada:

 

[talloola]

:canada:

If you are freed from the goal of the "perfect" ,"godly", "truly religious" then that which is natural in man begins to express itself. Your religious and secular culture has placed before you the ideal man or woman, the perfect human being, and then tries to fit everybody into that mold. It is impossible. Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, whereas culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform to be "something" ;It is grotesque ,:canada:

with so many people in this world, it is necessary and good that most of us find a way to exist happily
together, and that means that we must conform 'to a point' and agree to go through this world in a way
that makes most feel comfortable.

we 'can't' all go our own way, and try to be different, but we can conform, be the same, and also be different, while doing that,
a task that is being done by humans, who can multi task quite efficiently and do their own thing, and also
fit together to make the world 'work'.

it is the few leaders of the world who try to push some of us down, make us do what they say, and work
against the grain of humanity, which causes much strife across the world, the masses are fine, the leaders
are screwing things up.

 

[L Gilbert]

:canada:

If you are freed from the goal of the "perfect" ,"godly", "truly religious" then that which is natural in man begins to express itself. Your religious and secular culture has placed before you the ideal man or woman, the perfect human being, and then tries to fit everybody into that mold. It is impossible. Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, whereas culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform to be "something" ;It is grotesque ,:canada:

Wrong. Societies and cultures are developed to allow similar-minded people to live in proximity while still allowing for individual traits.
You are nothing? A ludicrous comment.

 

[china]

Wrong. Societies and cultures are developed to allow similar-minded people to live in proximity while still allowing for individual traits.
You are nothing? A ludicrous comment.

Yes I am (the "I" who is typig this post) nothing ,who/what are you ?:canada:

 

[mentalfloss]

Hi China,

You are posting bits and pieces from existentialist and phenomenological philosophies, but you're not really giving a foundation for them or completing your arguments successfully. I would step in, because I know there is some validity to your statements - at least in the argument that consciousness is transcendent and made of nothingness - but beyond that I can't really help much more.

You should do some research and back up your arguments or you'll get nothing but ridicule in here.

 

[JLM]

I think China boy needs to go back and read one of the main laws of physical science, "matter has weight and occupies space". I fill that criteria, hence I can't be nothing because I am something, which is the opposite of nothing. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[mentalfloss]

I think China boy needs to go back and read one of the main laws of physical science, "matter has weight and occupies space". I fill that criteria, hence I can't be nothing because I am something, which is the opposite of nothing. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

The flesh that occupies the space in which you describe is most definitely something. "You", however, are based on a consciousness which can only be derived from nothingness. At least that's from what I remember of the early exi classes.

Also, the words "I", and "you" are instances reflective consciousness that we've automatically inferred ownership to. For instance, "I like cheese", is in actuality, "There is a consciousness which exists of the persona "I" which likes cheese." That consciousness is what truly exists, and the persona "I" is simply a visage or a mirror image created (which is fake).

A better example of the whole ownership deal is Sartre's criticism of Decarte's - "I think, therefore I am." This is a pretty cool one in that, he actually, legitimately shows that that statement is a fallacy.

He looked at Descartes's statement " I think, therefore I am" and realized, in his own words, "The consciousness that says "I am" is not the consciousness that thinks"

What did he mean by that? When you are aware that you are thinking, that awareness is not part of thinking. It is a different dimension of consciousness. And it is that awareness that says "I am." If there were nothing but thought in you, you wouldn't even know you are thinking. You would be like a dreamer who doesn't know he is dreaming. You would be as identified with every thought as the dreamer is with every image in the dream.

And that brings us back full circle in that we assume there is ownership in "I" and that that "I" exists as something because of this ownership, when instead, it is actually the nothingness of consciousness.

I might have some of that wrong, so anyone who would like to fact-check it please do so and correct it.

 

[Cliffy]

You might try using a colour that is legible. I had to highlight the text to read it.

The mistake most people make is to think that consciousness has something to do with their brains. It doesn't. Thought may originate in the brain, which is a super computer, but consciousness originates on another more ethereal plain. On that plain we are connected to all consciousness, say of the level of collective species consciousness. At this level we start using terms like soul or higher self because there are no words to describe the non-material realms, the realm of pure consciousness. It is at this level that we create the physical realms, but if we observe the physical from the point of view of quantum physics, there is not a whole lot of material to observe. So thought and our physical brains are but holographic constructs of our consciousness.

There really is no matter in physical matter, so what else can it be? What gives it weight? How is it that it can be affected by gravity? It is said that if we could compress the entire Universe into one lump of actual matter, we would end up with an object the size of a pea. So what are we seeing and what are we feeling in a material world? That is the question.

 

[AnnaG]

Yes I am (the "I" who is typig this post) nothing ,who/what are you ?:canada:

:roll: If you actually were nothing, you couldn't post anything.
For 1 thing, he is a husband. For another he is a father. Another: a grandfather.
There are loads more things he is if you actually think.

Hi China,

You are posting bits and pieces from existentialist and phenomenological philosophies, but you're not really giving a foundation for them or completing your arguments successfully. I would step in, because I know there is some validity to your statements - at least in the argument that consciousness is transcendent and made of nothingness - but beyond that I can't really help much more.

You should do some research and back up your arguments or you'll get nothing but ridicule in here.

Bump.

You might try using a colour that is legible. I had to highlight the text to read it.

The mistake most people make is to think that consciousness has something to do with their brains. It doesn't.

Try being conscious without a brain. I know some people may actually do a great rock impersonation, but they really do think a little bit.

 

[JLM]

:roll: If you actually were nothing, you couldn't post anything.

/QUOTE]


That's always been my understanding, but apparently I'm wrong. This new math confuses me to no end. :smile::smile:

 

[AnnaG]

:roll: If you actually were nothing, you couldn't post anything.

That's always been my understanding, but apparently I'm wrong. This new math confuses me to no end. :smile::smile:

lmao

 

[mentalfloss]

You might try using a colour that is legible. I had to highlight the text to read it.

oh my god, lol.. sorry, I've been using firefox with some special text/font settings so I had no idea.. here it is as it is supposed to be.
--


He looked at Descartes's statement " I think, therefore I am" and realized, in his own words, "The consciousness that says "I am" is not the consciousness that thinks"

What did he mean by that? When you are aware that you are thinking, that awareness is not part of thinking. It is a different dimension of consciousness. And it is that awareness that says "I am." If there were nothing but thought in you, you wouldn't even know you are thinking. You would be like a dreamer who doesn't know he is dreaming. You would be as identified with every thought as the dreamer is with every image in the dream.

And that brings us back full circle in that we assume there is ownership in "I" and that that "I" exists as something because of this ownership, when instead, it is actually the nothingness of consciousness.

I might have some of that wrong, so anyone who would like to fact-check it please do so and correct

 

[AnnaG]

Actually, Descartes said "Cogito ergo sum". It more closely means, "I think therefore I exist".
I think generally the concept is accurate to a point, but limited; it needs corollaries and qualifications. Obviously dead people and rocks do not think, but they exist. Existence is the opposite of nothing (as in no thing as in not anything). It is something. Something exists therefore it is not nothing and if an existence can think, then it is undoubtedly something.............


I think.

"I am" is a different ballgame. That implies self-awareness which may not be included in existence.

 

[china]

Thanks for the advice mentafloss but I would rather leave"the reasearch to back up my arguments" to the reader of the post.

Actualy I heve never felt ridiculed here in a forum ;rather little amazed .:flower:

 

[mentalfloss]

Actually, Descartes said "Cogito ergo sum". It more closely means, "I think therefore I exist".
I think generally the concept is accurate to a point, but limited; it needs corollaries and qualifications. Obviously dead people and rocks do not think, but they exist. Existence is the opposite of nothing (as in no thing as in not anything). It is something. Something exists therefore it is not nothing and if an existence can think, then it is undoubtedly something.............

So I have been beating my head over multiple sources on Sartre's stuff, and hopefully anything I say from this point is actually cohesive.

From what I understand, to say that 'existence' requires 'something' in order for the condition of existence to be true is not a correct statement. Something exists. Nothing exists. Both something and nothing exist.

While it may be argued that your physical being exists as something in the world, that physical being is not the definition of your ego - or what you would call "I". That ego is a separate entity that is defined by past experiences/actions and that may reflect some sort of personal identity.

That ego, is an object created by reflective consciousness of the past and possible future. Both past and future do not actually exist - they constitute as nothing as every moment passes and therefore, that ego - "you" - are nothing.

Thanks for the advice mentafloss but I would rather leave"the reasearch to back up my arguments" to the reader of the post.

Actualy I heve never felt ridiculed here in a forum ;rather little amazed .:flower:

Sorry china - am new to this forum which is very different than most others, in a good way.

 

[AnnaG]

So I have been beating my head over multiple sources on Sartre's stuff, and hopefully anything I say from this point is actually cohesive.

From what I understand, to say that 'existence' requires 'something' in order for the condition of existence to be true is not a correct statement. Something exists. Nothing exists. Both something and nothing exist.

While it may be argued that your physical being exists as something in the world, that physical being is not the definition of your ego - or what you would call "I". That ego is a separate entity that is defined by past experiences/actions and that may reflect some sort of personal identity.

That ego, is an object created by reflective consciousness of the past and possible future. Both past and future do not actually exist - they constitute as nothing as every moment passes and therefore, that ego - "you" - are nothing.

Then I as a nothing could not have influence over anything.

 

[Cliffy]

Then I as a nothing could not have influence over anything.

"You" only have influence over the illusion of your existence. Your reality is an construct of your consciousness which has no physical form. We are all jacked into the Matrix, which is "physical" reality but our place in the construct is determined by our individual perspective. Welcome to virtual reality.

 

[talloola]

Then I as a nothing could not have influence over anything.

maybe there isn't anything lol lol

 

[AnnaG]

"You" only have influence over the illusion of your existence. Your reality is an construct of your consciousness which has no physical form.

Speak for yourself. I have an influence over many things. If I decide to head up the hill and kill a tree, I've influenced an entire forest and the critters that used that tree, and the future tress that that tree would have spawned.

We are all jacked into the Matrix,

Speak for yourself. I thought it was kind of a stupid movie. Good for the producers and others, though. They made a lot of money off the series.

which is "physical" reality but our place in the construct is determined by our individual perspective. Welcome to virtual reality.

Yours may be virtual. Mine is not. I am tied to real reality and I am not illusioned about my existence. I may be relatively nothing in comparison to the universe, but I exist.

maybe there isn't anything lol lol

Actually anything is a word, therefore it is something.

 

[talloola]

Speak for yourself. I have an influence over many things. If I decide to head up the hill and kill a tree, I've influenced an entire forest and the critters that used that tree, and the future tress that that tree would have spawned. Speak for yourself. I thought it was kind of a stupid movie. Good for the producers and others, though. They made a lot of money off the series. Yours may be virtual. Mine is not. I am tied to real reality and I am not illusioned about my existence. I may be relatively nothing in comparison to the universe, but I exist.

Actually anything is a word, therefore it is something.

anything could be a lot of things, maybe a bunch of nothings. lol