Imagination is more important than knowledge,

'when that, that is imagined is shown to be true...chemistry table'

Thinking, does that mean that the imaginary labels are also true? What is true about any arbitrarily divided and labeled 'thing'? Now that physicists have come up with even smaller divisions - labels for them-'quarks' etc, what is the 'actual thing' with a definitive boundary? Before the microscope, there were no smaller divisions. But where does any one 'thing' end and another begin. All these divisions can never be the truth. From outside of the earth, there is no 'human', there is no 'cell' etc, etc. How can a perspective, inclusive of an observer (who always brings the observer bias/slant) ever be truth? Surely truth is something obvious and something we can all agree on.
 
onemoment said:
'when that, that is imagined is shown to be true...chemistry table'
Click to expand...

Thinking, does that mean that the imaginary labels are also true?
Click to expand...

no

since just purely imaginary labels that have no basis in reality



What is true about any arbitrarily divided and labeled 'thing'? Now that physicists have come up with even smaller divisions - labels for them-'quarks' etc, what is the 'actual thing' with a definitive boundary?
Click to expand...

three dimensional substance

which has breadth , depth and space



Before the microscope, there were no smaller divisions. But where does any one 'thing' end and another begin. All these divisions can never be the truth. From outside of the earth, there is no 'human', there is no 'cell' etc, etc. How can a perspective, inclusive of an observer (who always brings the observer bias/slant) ever be truth? Surely truth is something obvious and something we can all agree on.
Click to expand...

we can all agree on the fundamental neccesary properties of an object to manifest in the first place , ( above response ) , no matter how small ( for instance the infinity of a Zillon )
 
Thinking: 'we can all agree on the fundamental neccesary properties of an object to manifest in the first place'

All we can agree on is the names we give things - it's an agreement - but the words are all created in our imaginations. Do the imagined words really explain or capture the essence of these things? And doesn't everything - knowledge and imagination (if you insist on differentiating them) - rely on a consciousness and/or awareness to exist prior to all appearances that are named?

Could consciousness/awareness be the only reality, the only truth? Could we not all be this? And if so, what division is there in this awareness except for when we insist there is a 'me' and a thing outside of me that I name (imagination)? And isn't this division arbitrary? Does time, for example, exist only because we now have an arbitrary division of something? Did it not exist before we had named it because we had no notion of this smaller division that we all agreed existed? How can time be real?

Isn't awareness the only 'fundamental necessary property for all objects to manifest' in the first place? Isn't this something people all around the world, regardless of their belief system have in common and the only truth that we can all agree on?

What this awareness is, we can never know for certain unless we think that knowing is about naming something and agreeing that that is what it is - that is, that it is this name we have created for an arbitrary division (imagination or a dream).
 
Last edited:
onemoment said:
Thinking: 'we can all agree on the fundamental neccesary properties of an object to manifest in the first place'

All we can agree on is the names we give things - it's an agreement - but the words are all created in our imaginations. Do the imagined words really explain or capture the essence of these things?
Click to expand...

are they suppose to ?

names are given to things so as to avoid confusion

one calls something this and another calls it something different

hence confusion



And doesn't everything - knowledge and imagination (if you insist on differentiating them) - rely on a consciousness and/or awareness to exist prior to all appearances that are named?
Click to expand...

do you think you are , or any of us are , intelligent enough to do so ?

if so explain any object that you know nothing about in depth , beyond what we know of that object

Could consciousness/awareness be the only reality, the only truth? Could we not all be this? And if so, what division is there in this awareness except for when we insist there is a 'me' and a thing outside of me that I name (imagination)? And isn't this division arbitrary? Does time, for example, exist only because we now have an arbitrary division of something? Did it not exist before we had named it because we had no notion of this smaller division that we all agreed existed? How can time be real?
Click to expand...

to your first sentence NO

to your last , time is not real


Isn't awareness the only 'fundamental necessary property for all objects to manifest' in the first place? Isn't this something people all around the world, regardless of their belief system have in common and the only truth that we can all agree on?
Click to expand...

so what came first the Earth or you ?

Earth


What this awareness is, we can never know for certain unless we think that knowing is about naming something and agreeing that that is what it is - that is, that it is this name we have created for an arbitrary division (imagination or a dream).
Click to expand...

naming things is about clear communication between people

the object does not care about being " named " the object is what it is
Click to expand...
 
Thinking: the object does not care about being " named " the object is what it is

So what is the object if it is not the name? What is anything if it is not the name, except obviously consciousness - but again that is just another name - so really everything is, and what it is we cannot imagine, because imagination is words and we agreed that words are not what anything is. Check out the urban guru cafe site if you are starting to get my drift.
 
Swarm: 'a factual name'

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Does naming something an agreed word mean that the word is what the object REALLY is?

And just because I have named something, does it necessarily mean it is a 'something' separate from the whole? Is a cell separate from the body? And then is the body separate from the space it is in? It can certainly never exist outside of space just as a quark cannot exist outside of space.

Can't you see that just because we have a name for it, it doesn't mean that it really is a separate thing?

Who came up with these names anyway? Someone imagined them, because they did not exist as a separate part until they were named. And just because we can describe some apparent process, does it mean that this someone who named it named it from some point of truth? No, it is only when we all agree it is 'a factual name' that it becomes an accepted explanation of reality - knowledge (but it came from imagination) - and even then it is not accepted by everyone.

But don't we all have something in common regardless of the knowledge and imagination we appear to possess? No-one can deny another's consciousness, or livingness (if they are in a comma).

Imagination and knowledge (if you insist on discriminating between the two) must appear on the truth of what is most important, what we can all agree on - and consciousness is that broth or that container, that commonality. And someone does not need a name for that to know it exists - and what concrete substance doe it have?

In fact, there is no separation between consciousness and, the imagination and 'knowledge' - you couldn't slide the thinnest piece of paper in the gap between them. There is no gap - don't you always know that you are thinking, even before you have the thought 'I am thinking'? Why? Because that 'knowing' or consciousness is the 'knowing' prior to any translation of the the mind saying 'What a creative and imaginative thing I just thought'.

And what parts are there in consciousness? Only the parts that the mind (imagination) is naming - but even that is just a story in consciousness (I don't have to think 'I am thinking' to know thinking is happening. Thought is spontaneous and out of your control as is consciousness - one and the same).

Experience how imagination and knowledge have no experiential difference as they bubble up - they come from nowhere and disappear into nowhere to be recalled or imagined when they are recalled or imagined again. Both ethereal/elusive, as ethereal as consciousness and as ethereal as everything appearing in consciousness when consciousness is seen to be all there is.
 
Last edited:
onemoment said:
Swarm: 'a factual name'

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Does naming something an agreed word mean that the word is what the object REALLY is?

And just because I have named something, does it necessarily mean it is a 'something' separate from the whole? Is a cell separate from the body? And then is the body separate from the space it is in? It can certainly never exist outside of space just as a quark cannot exist outside of space.

Can't you see that just because we have a name for it, it doesn't mean that it really is a separate thing?

Who came up with these names anyway? Someone imagined them, because they did not exist as a separate part until they were named. And just because we can describe some apparent process, does it mean that this someone who named it named it from some point of truth? No, it is only when we all agree it is 'a factual name' that it becomes an accepted explanation of reality - knowledge (but it came from imagination) - and even then it is not accepted by everyone.

But don't we all have something in common regardless of the knowledge and imagination we appear to possess? No-one can deny another's consciousness, or livingness (if they are in a comma).

Imagination and knowledge (if you insist on discriminating between the two) must appear on the truth of what is most important, what we can all agree on - and consciousness is that broth or that container, that commonality. And someone does not need a name for that to know it exists - and what concrete substance doe it have?

In fact, there is no separation between consciousness and, the imagination and 'knowledge' - you couldn't slide the thinnest piece of paper in the gap between them. There is no gap - don't you always know that you are thinking, even before you have the thought 'I am thinking'? Why? Because that 'knowing' or consciousness is the 'knowing' prior to any translation of the the mind saying 'What a creative and imaginative thing I just thought'.

And what parts are there in consciousness? Only the parts that the mind (imagination) is naming - but even that is just a story in consciousness (I don't have to think 'I am thinking' to know thinking is happening. Thought is spontaneous and out of your control as is consciousness - one and the same).

Experience how imagination and knowledge have no experiential difference as they bubble up - they come from nowhere and disappear into nowhere to be recalled or imagined when they are recalled or imagined again. Both ethereal/elusive, as ethereal as consciousness and as ethereal as everything appearing in consciousness when consciousness is seen to be all there is.
Click to expand...

I disagree

actually experience is first > then knowledge > then comes imagination
Click to expand...
 
Thinking:actually experience is first > then knowledge > then comes imagination

Well, 'experience' is a translation of the moment, 'I had an experience', for example. The translation of that pure experiencing, to turn it into an experience, requires both knowledge (what you term 'knowledge') and imagination.

If you mean that the first thing is 'experiencing', then yes, I would agree. What is REALLY happening is happening, but anything we say about it turns it into an experience for someone, the 'me', a subject - 'me', and an object - 'sensation'. And can the object appear if there is no subject for it to appear to? No, they are both a part of the equation - they are part of the experiencing. So it does boil down to experiencing, just not an 'experiencer' and an 'experience' - for that is an interpretation relying on imagination and knowledge (and knowledge is nothing more than imagination we agree is now going to be considered 'factual' for communication's sake and there is no reality in that).
 
Last edited:
onemoment said:
Thinking:actually experience is first > then knowledge > then comes imagination

Well, 'experience' is a translation of the moment, 'I had an experience', for example. The translation of that pure experiencing, to turn it into an experience, requires both knowledge (what you term 'knowledge') and imagination.
Click to expand...

If you mean that the first thing is 'experiencing', then yes, I would agree. What is REALLY happening is happening, but anything we say about it turns it into an experience for someone, the 'me', a subject - 'me', and an object - 'sensation'.
Click to expand...

And can the object appear if there is no subject for it to appear to? No, they are both a part of the equation -
Click to expand...

so what came first the Earth or you ?
 
Thinking: so what came first the Earth or you ?

Consciousness is. It has no beginning and no end. The earth and 'me' appear in consciousness.
 
Wow, you two kept this thread a live for a decent amount of time (by you two..you know who I mean, to lazy to look back and copy your names).

Let's just go with, neither are worth anything without truth. Making this whole conversation a little frivolous, and me coming back to answer just as frivolous. Simply because words don't provide truth, which would also mean, you can't prove valid any of your knowledge OR anything you've conjured up in your imaginations.

Ps: Please don't respond what I just said could be a lie :cool:
 
ladicius, you said, to paraphrase, words don't provide truth...so... you can't prove valid (truth) any of your knowledge OR anything you've conjured up in your imaginations.

Lie or not, it is a brilliant summation (with my minor improvements in paraphrasing)!
 
onemoment said:
ladicius, you said, to paraphrase, words don't provide truth...so... you can't prove valid (truth) any of your knowledge OR anything you've conjured up in your imaginations.
Click to expand...

I disagree

words are the way we get to the truth

words evolve , language evolves

and they do because we want to be more precise in what we are trying to explain
 
Thinking, I have presented my point about words above. What does a belief prove? And what can you possible argue to substantiate this believed in thought of 'yours'.
 
thinking said:
that which no matter how you look at it , the reality of it can't be denied

for example the difference between being on land and being on water
Click to expand...

Haha, well humor me and put yourself in the situation of your parents and everyone else around you telling you that water is dry and hard while the earth is malliable and wet. If you were to tell them the opposite they'd deny it to the end of time. So please give me a more substantial definition of your truth.
 
Thinking: that which no matter how you look at it , the reality of it can't be denied for example the difference between being on land and being on water
Click to expand...

Yes, these are both experiences that we have and if we talk about them we can describe the differences but the differences we describe or the story we tell of this experiencing is not the 'truth', the experiencing is the truth.

The difference or similarities of these two is just a story we tell, and once again we cannot agree on the real story, but we cannot deny the experiencing of being on land or in water.

'Knowledge' is ever changing and no two people are going to agree on the differences inherent in being on land or in water - and yet no one can deny the experiencing of being on land or in water. The experiencing is the truth, not the story we tell about it.
 
Originally Posted by thinking
that which no matter how you look at it , the reality of it can't be denied

for example the difference between being on land and being on water
Click to expand...

Ladicius said:
Haha, well humor me and put yourself in the situation of your parents and everyone else around you telling you that water is dry and hard while the earth is malliable and wet. If you were to tell them the opposite they'd deny it to the end of time. So please give me a more substantial definition of your truth.
Click to expand...

and this is rational argument , against my example

hardly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top