Archive for May, 2010
What is the loop of creation? How is it something out of nothing?
Despite the fact that it is impossible to prove that nothing exists beyond perception, because every such evidence would be the perception (I observed concern, I have heard, I thought I have loaded, etc.) deals with science “objective reality” out there “beyond the perception of professing to describe the nature of the target (eg when an individual or reality outside his own perception). The shocking effect of the matrix is precisely the valid possibility that what we thought should be the reality, but our performance, but it was showing a real reality, where reality is perceived a computer simulation was presented. Many of those who play with the idea, perhaps, yes, we are computer simulations, questions about how to create software and type of material would need to differ for these performances. Although such questions assumes that our perception of reality, but also require clear that the existence of a deterministic objective world “out there” that must still be responsible for how we perceive our reality. It’sa big mistake to try the technology and algorithms focus instead of discovering the nature of reality and the structure of creation. As discussed below, the paradigm shift required of the “perception of reality in our objective world is fixed,” the perception “of reality is no reason the necessity of an objective world” out there ” is “a dynamic logical structure. The logic Holophanic loop is responsible for a worldview consistent and comprehensive not only describes but also creates what may be perceived or experienced.
The claim that it is impossible to prove the existence of something beyond the perception is that there is nothing on the perception that only if there is anything which is then Undetermined. One could argue that the existence of laws of physics, the overall perception that the apple falls to the ground is evidence of an objective reality. However, this general agreement, is also our perception. It could be argued that if we do not decide what to do, and everybody feels the same physical reality, there may be some regularity, as shown and dictating what might be outside of legitimate perception. But this law, as we shall see later, the law specifies that the collection, process definition, which does not produce the external perception (This process creates the perception and the observer, which then gives meaning to what process – a loop – but more on that later). It could be argued that our knees hit the table – if we believe in the table or not – is injured. The table is out of our bodies, but not on our perception. So what is perception? It is a process of definition, the definition and, making what was perceived useful.
What is this process of definition? It can be done, within what limits the performance gains importance. The word “definition” comes from the Latin Finish, which means that defined or limited. In Hebrew, is the definition HAGDARA (הגדרה), which is at the border. Any definition necessarily implies that the definition is not, or otherwise, a sense of what is always defined explicitly, the meaning of implication, nothing else. Therefore, identify resources to be defined within borders rather than create something beyond the standard definition. What is something beyond the senses? The implication excludes all others, or in other words, the indefinite. The importance of the inclusion of the undefined logic in a coherent structure can not be overestimated. The indefinite is itself a paradox, incorporating it into Holophanic logical structure generates loop creation, where is the dynamic structure of the paradoxes of the creative power of both the existence and also demonstrates the need existence.
To better understand the dynamics of creation, we look at the indefinite and paradoxes. What is “Unlimited” mean? Everything as it is not specified (not defined), anything that appears inside and outside the boundaries of the definition and thus make the borders redundant, that is not limits, no definition. However, if we try to define the term “unlimited”, then it is a paradox, because if we succeed, then it is defined that their meaning – in contrast to its vagueness – and the word “permanent” means it can not be determined. This is an example of a paradox that in essence means that if what he is, he is not what it is, if she does not know what it is, it is what it is . A paradox is a creature composed of a structure (as defined, the dynamic process for the stabilization), which is stabilized against the object (that is, each). What characterizes a paradox, is the movement between their structure and meaning, if the structure implies that its meaning is contrary to its structure and vice versa.
Another example of a paradox would be “whole”. Completeness (all, infinite, without limits) can not be together if we define a way so that it encompasses everything, and it is nothing behind. If we define the completeness, however, do have meaning, it must be adjacent to the interior walls of the definition, which means that there is something beyond this limit, in this case it is not afford full. Or in more formal language, complete fullness is that if it is not the fullness, which is a contradiction. If we are satisfied, we completed the definition of integrity. However, if we try to define the earliest, according to our definition, within the limits of our next attempt, completeness, then we gain a new definition of integrity, who created the structure created by the process of defining a new addition. In this case, the entire process of definition will be consistent, but incomplete, and the fullness remains undetermined.
When you look at the paradox of creation, creation myth ancient Egyptian mind springs, the myth of self-creation of the god Amon (or Amun). Amun masturbated and swallowed his semen, after spitting in the form of a sphere, the impregnation of his mother, the sky. And only after birth. Sun Amun was his own father. Those pious illustrated version of this myth felted discovery at Karnak erect phallus of the god Amun, and with it the story of creation into oblivion. The creation model Holophanic could be assessed for this Egyptian myth Amun retromorphously himself created. I invented the word to mean retromorphous, the definition in hindsight, turn non-being in the potential of another, independent observation, ie, the creation of this past, which makes the source of the result, which is the basis of the complexity associated with the logic loop. In other words, was born after Amun, it can give meaning to his mother, whose potential, he went out and process it (represented by masturbation and incest), where he was born created. Of course, neither heaven nor Amon masturbation seems to have importance to the creation of de facto and Amon. I find this attractive presentation of the fundamental paradox of life.
How, then it may be something there? What is “nothing?” Nothing not to do in the potential of something. If there is something out of nothing, then nothing would happen in the potential of something, because if we ask how it is not something we ask for something, ask if something exists already. If we take a deeper look to “take nothing” we, “nothing to do” is a paradox. Each definition is something that if we have defined as “nothing” then it became something that essence of being “nothing contrary.” Another way to see “anything” it would be something that makes no sense. This means that “nothing” may be something that does not concern and that nothing and nobody cares. That is, if it was something completely alone in the universe, then nothing, but it is unnecessary. If they exist, its existence is beyond our perception, and As such, the “nothing” would be indefinite.
We have said that something could be indefinite as it is not specified (not defined) is. But if we’re still “nothing” (the indefinite), then we would get to define? Since “nothing” is not defined, it is transparent, as the object of our investigation. So if we try to define everything that we have what we bring, what is the process of definition. “There was” nothing we do not define the process of qualifying as an explicit definition. “Nothing,” is gaining in significance if we fail to define, but we tried, we are a bonus, which is our process definition of “nothing.” Creating something from nothing is not a function to define what, but to define a function of the essay: “Nothing.” And if that process of definition – is already looking existence – from its origins, when this process examines the definition of its own creation story, then see that? “It goes. He sees the process of defining – self-reference.
If there is nothing related to external perception, then this process of definition of fullness in all, the creator of meaning, if it can, themselves. But to be meaningful, the process definition must be defined, it would be a self-referential definition of quasi-infinite and continues to set the borders that open borders create the fuzzy sets also limits … This means that to create the unit would not even define continuous and eternal, while the next to define something – something other than itself.
Of course, the highly developed and are quite vague concepts that are not idealized to the logic loop Holophanic, they can be found in nature. The total would be completely indeterminate meaningless, the kind of non-being, which can not be penetrated, because if we think this would be something. On the other hand, there is no definition is total. I have the notion of equality used to describe the uncertainty of the logical impossibility of the full definition. A person can set say, have won equality – the same thing themselves – which means it is, it exists as something definite, regardless of the setting is. But no sooner had our goal of achieving equality as the uncertainty of equality raises its ugly head. Could it be defined differently? Yes, of course. Could there other parameters? Yes, of course. Could it have been better defined? Yes, of course. This uncertainty of the wave is equal in the definition, that is the product of tools, including the definition of definition. Since “a” can be defined as “a” meaning only if it “does not imply a ‘(the vague boundaries of the definition), and as” a “can not” make sense “because things differently is all the rest (the rest is unlimited beyond the limit is too “meaning there is a ‘), the meaning of” a “block” not-a “.
If the meaning of something depends on the indefinite, to which our object is not defined, this is necessarily indefinite included in the process of definition. The logical implication that the perception of the senses is possible if and only if it is indefinite contained in the perception of why the 19 century dream of a system of axioms consistent and complete with only well-defined (explicit) was not an empty string (see more about that in my article, The logic loop). Despite the fact that logic is the basis of algorithms and computer science, he had neither the right nor the ability to be connected to the real world, simply because their rates were so weak on meaning. In an effort to wave any reference to exclude logical conclusion is a binary nature of the world limited right and wrong and no connection with life and experience. However, even the vague definition makes the process of not only the logical loop, the foundation of existence, but determines the necessity of existence. With the birth of Holophany, the issue of Heidegger: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Not relevant. The existence of the relationship, and perception and perception is the process of defining, then the whole existence of the law, the legality of the process of defining isomorphic – loop creation. What is seen, which is stabilized, leading to the importance of the amorphous substance of indefinite duration is placed depends rules of nonlinear complex interactions. Thus, the logic loop emphasizes the creation of beings, rather than their interactions.
Is there any law that every existence? An electron and a dog are very different creatures, so that the invisible is legally responsible for the existence of both? What kind of meeting the legality of these claims would be? The answer is, isomorphism – the same internal logic structure of a representation completely different. Whether an electron, a dog or time, everyone could be a different realization of the internal logic structure. Creating something is the creation of meaning, which is an act of definition. The act of definition seeks to define itself, is consciousness. Sun or the consciousness of the soul, if you want is not a blind copy of our body, our identity, but the legality of creating a qualitative nature of our individual expression. Sure, he was always being told that we are of God, that we belong to God, and other similar expressions. This is true, but fundamentally true in the sense that God is the legality of the creation that takes place, and this law is in all creation, including its creatures. Arguably one soul, one person more than simple definitions and understanding. If this logic is the logic of this and that, then you should be able to define the logical structure of experience as well. Indeed.
All that makes sense to define, somewhere on the scale between continuous and discrete locations between the indefinite and the definite. The undefined, more continuous, infinite in the sense of meaning, while useful at best unclear. The experiment will attempt to define the process of indefinite duration. If we try to collect on an experiment in the description, we are defining our attempt to define the undefined. The experiment is continuing while his description is the definition of discrete. How can we define integrity, we are never to define the experience. Any description, any definition is inherently discrete, while the experience net permanently. Thus, when we experience or perception, and we realized that experience, then give a feel of what we are. In this way, we create a discrete simulation of the experience nor the experience remains constant and can not be defined, not discretization. The experience is related to learning. The person encounters something new. How can we know when something is new? Because it is inconsistent with our system. Thus, when we interact with it, we must integrate in order to assimilate into our system. If we have something that was not new, the system responds, then our system recognize as part of themselves. If recognition does not occur, the system is interacting with something new. Is the effect. The system adapts to the new – which is the change in question. One of selfhood is the way of changes to our own experience.
Our knowledge of the experience – whatever we do – do it for us. One could say, you only if you are to experience conscious experiences. How do we know that we are aware something to do? From experience, we experience the awareness of the experience. In this sense, experience and awareness of the experience, which raises awareness of the experience, to experience conscious awareness of experience, etc. still an infinite chain, which defines what the experience is not (in interpreting a particular experience, but experience in its general sense). And the definition of experience: an endless loop, the process of awareness.
If “nothing” is the border between two completely unknown and completely defined, so it’s something like a circle going from nothing to something for nothing, etc. The “we” here means perception. “Nothing” is just a term meaning, if she has seen, has indeed a paradox. If there really “nothing”, then it can be defined, and therefore it makes no sense. But if I say, it’s something. So when I say “nothing” when I say, creating something from nothing, “nothing” feel, so it is important – it is something like all the other bits. In other words, the structure of the “Nothing” is the same structure as something. In essence, something no education, no creation, because nothing is something. Then, what is creativity? The creation is rather creating something from nothing, because creation is the process of definition, and if we define, we create a wave on the definition, which is at its limit of anything, and only then we can make something from nothing. .. Oh yes, the loop. A loop is true that this kind if it contains its own sources. If nothing is displayed on the existence of external perception, then the logical loop, and there is a logical necessity of the closed loop.
Including the indefinite in the process of definition has profound consequences. This means that the tools of the definition are not necessarily included in the definition. This means that the meaning can only occur when both definition and experience. This means that consciousness (whether defined or not) must be a part of science, or so-called objective business succeed. This means that all perception includes experience. The interaction with the indefinite, the experience is what gives the sense defined. Perception, definition of meaning, can be very flexible in the complex system which may occur to learn and grow. The difference between us and an electron which fixed the relationship only, and therefore limited interactions. An electron always manages to define, or would it say correctly, it can interact with what he succeeds in the definition. When he encounters the fluid, it is a superposition state.
Where is God in the loop of creation? If we wanted to define God, all we could not define God, as if by the act of definition, we create the future world beyond what God, which contradicts all of God. Therefore, no definition of God would do justice to God, and such a definition would have cut the fullness of God. If God is indefinable, then God is indefinite. When God is unlimited, then I create the implication of God through the act of definition – the definition, because any definition also creates unlimited beyond the limits of the definition. In this sense, is the statement I make to God through my perception (definition). This does not mean that I see God, but my perception of the existence of the indefinite (God) means. This means that when I see a dog that needs this perception of the existence of God. When I see that I perceive, then implies the existence of God. If I see dust, a table, an idea, whatsoever, implies the existence of God. If I know then that implies the existence of God. This is because each existence implies the existence of God. And because all existence is one that relates or if it is related if it makes sense, if only partially, it was defined what it means, its simple definition of the undefined beyond limits of the definition suggests, it involves the indefinable God. So we can not directly perceive God (perhaps, why the Bible was found that no one is there to see the face of God and live = – “Nobody can see me and live .. . – Exodus 33: 20) but God only knows implicitly the meaning is the implication of the indefinite – God – what attributes exist no sense.
But “God” is not equal to “vague”, but the process involves the existence of the indefinite is what you might say to God, because it is the creative process. It is the process of creation, something that both the presence creates, and nothing that indefinitely. Therefore, this logic is a loop
Many people have the idea that enlightenment is a state. Many think that when it is reached, one person is always in this state.
What follows is not a definitive article on this subject. It is only an expression of my own thoughts.
My opinion is that enlightenment is not only a state but a progressive and gradual creation of states of consciousness.
I myself have not reached the end of the road. But years on a spiritual quest, I can say that enlightenment occurs in a series or stages of self-achievement and self-discovery.
Usually there is a difference between an awareness of initial and subsequent stabilization of this stage, what happens in practice or experience. The original clocks were new discoveries about the dynamics of consciousness, while the stabilization is the assimilation of what is found in life experience. Sometimes a completely new discovery may rule more or amend an earlier version on.
Almost all stages of enlightenment can be regarded as associated with the presence. However, the presence is illuminating to varying degrees of intensity and clarity. The degree of intensity is directly dependent on the depth and clarity of sound, and its structures / discoveries.
Then, as one progresses along the connection or connections to the universe itself and existence as a whole is becoming clearer.
The following briefly illustrates the progressive nature and the basic stage of enlightenment:
When you first begin meditation, we can first experience the ubiquitous presence. This presence is known when the thoughts are often temporarily suspended. This presence that exists in the eternal present moment is our true self.
However, in such an experience can not be classified as an awakening to the true independence .. which is non-self. Because, after meditation, the presence seems to have disappeared. Unable to understand and find the connection of the presence in our daily lives. Therefore, we will have trouble re-acquiring the Presence. And it takes many steps and a series of achievements in understanding the relationship of the presence in the phenomenal world. We can say that the prolonged presence depends on the depth and implementation stages.
Thus, during the early stages, we can be confused with another state of pure presence. For example, you can fool ‘I am’ of the pure presence. This is because the thinking mind has created a mirror image of the pure presence. This reflection of the absolute is “I am”.
Usually, in order to pass through the “phase I AM”, the person must move to deeper understanding. These agreements can include realizing that his personality is not the doer. This step may take some time before the person realizes the illusion of division between subject and object. This step involves recognizing the hypnotic feel of the existence of an observer and the observed-being. This is where we begin to see through the illusory nature of our phenomenal world.
I can not comment on the steps before me as they are beyond me. Nevertheless, one can still see the above description that enlightenment is not so straight-forward, after all
For your necessary discernment. Thank you for reading.
The preservation of human life is the highest value, a pillar of ethics and the foundation of all morality. This was the case in most cultures and societies throughout history.
At first glance, the last sentence sounds patently incorrect. We all know the collective rights, human life is regarded as essential, which has killed and tortured, that cleansed and annihilated whole populations in recurrent genocides. Admittedly, this challenge this statement?
Liberal philosophies claim that human life was considered the best value over the centuries. Authoritarian regimes are no longer deny riding importance of this value. Life is sacred and precious to be maintained and preserved. However, in totalitarian societies, may be carried forward to be included, be subject to higher goals, quantized, and therefore be used with differential severity in the following cases:
.. Quantitative 1 – when a lesser evil to prevent greater. Sacrificing the lives of the minority that is the life of more than a principle established and integrated into activities such as war and store medical supplies. All cultures accept whatever impregnated (or root) in the liberal tradition, he said. They all send soldiers to die to save as many civilians. Doctors victim lived every day to save others.
It is preferred to a quantitative assessment (the ratio between the saved and those sacrificed “), and issues of quality (” there, save their life or the conservation value of the sacrifice of the lives of others? “) And Evaluation (Nobody can predict the results of these moral dilemmas – life will be saved as a result of the victim?).
2 .. In time – when sacrificing life (voluntarily or not) in the presence of a better life for the other guarantees in the future. These future life does not need much more numerous than the lives sacrificed. A life in the future immediately acquires the connotation of youth needs protection. It is the ancient sacrifices for the benefit of the new trade in a compromise between those who already share their lives – and those who do not. This is equivalent to a savings plan bloody power consumption grows to the future.
The mirror image of time that argument belongs to the third group (see next section), the qualitative. He preferred to sacrifice a life in the present, while another life, even in the present, continue to exist in the future. Abortion is an example of this approach: the child’s life is sacrificed to ensure the future welfare of the mother. In Judaism, it is forbidden to kill a female bird. Better to kill their child. The mother has the potential of this loss of life by moving to compensate for the birth of other chicks.
3 .. Qualitative – It is a particularly malignant variant, because it aims to give ideas and visions’ subjective “scientific” objectivity. People are considered to belong to different qualitative groups (divided by race, color, sex, age, wealth, or any other parameter). The result of this taxonomy is immoral that the life of the small “mark of the population are considered less” serious “and worthy than the lives of the upper classes of mankind. The first are sacrificed to the last. The Jews in Nazi Europe, and the black slaves in America, the Aborigines of Australia are three examples of such pernicious thinking.
4 .. Use – If the victim brings a life of others or other tangible benefits. This is the thinking (and action), indicates psychopaths and sociopathic criminals, for example. For them, life is a tradable commodity and can be exchanged against inanimate goods and services. Money and drugs are exchanged for life.
I’ve always been someone who felt sorry for me, I did not compared to my friends how much of a struggle my life seemed lost in a comparative context. I was caught in a web of negativity and needed someone or something to help me escape.
During an afternoon at work one day to 21 years, a colleague, I worked started talking to me. What he said was quite annoying and disturbing, however, would be a profound impact on my future. He said
“Your person very depressed, is not it?”
“Am I?”
As I said in a voice, how shocked I’m no different from anyone else. He continued:
“Yes, you are. You smile, very often, you’re negative on most issues, and you always seem to have the world on your shoulders. ”
This man was about 53 years and added:
“I am to be like you and then I got some advice that I am now, as you relay. If you feel depressed or angry for you to read the newspapers or television news. You can remember when you are indeed one of the lucky ones. ”
I listened and thought about what he had said. I have never had much of a reader or observer news, but decided to start. The board was absolutely correct, the news from around the world and even my own country is quite shocking. I realized that the concern I had actually been quite commonplace and I needed to enjoy life and start looking on the bright side of life.
