We do not necessarily have to see the terms "limited" amd "infinite" as mutually exclusive. Fractals are a good example; the Mandelbrot set is a good starting point(s!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set
Francis On 12 Feb., 17:27, RichardM <[email protected]> wrote: > As Hamlet says, "I could be bounded in a nutshell/And count myself a > king of infinite space." Although we are limited by our physical > nature and the intellectual tools available to us at any time, our > ability to explore with the tools available to us is not limited, nor > is our ability to forge new tools for more powerful explorations. > > On Feb 11, 7:01 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > "i saw a leaf floating on the water. it travelled softly down the current, > > stopping now and then, but continuing. the leaf floated until it was > > swallowed by the water and then another leaf floated by" it is finite > > physically and infinite universal motion. i want to concentrate on that one > > thought so that i don't get caught up worrying about the 'small stops'. it > > takes a lot of my energy to stay focused. i wish it were easier. > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > One of the things I hear is that we are infinite in the sense that the > > > universe is physically infinite. Whether it is infinite or finite and > > > unbounded is a valid question but I think the infinity that > > > Shakespeare is referring to is not infinite in that sense of the word. > > > It's not infinite in the sense of "big without bound". > > > > The term infinite is a negation but it is a negation of boundaries. > > > The "finis" in the second part of the word is roughly "boundaries". > > > Infinite then becomes without boundaries with the usual meaning a > > > special case. In mathematics the concept of infinity has been > > > separated from the concept of "without boundary" and there are finite > > > and unbounded sets. But here we are speaking in the traditional - pre- > > > topological - sense. > > > > One then learns that the process of establishing boundaries is > > > critical in the experience of experience as a space in which there are > > > things. In fact "raising the object from the background" requires that > > > we establish that part of experience that "is" or at least "is > > > something" from that which "is nothing". The boundary is that surface > > > where being ends and nothing begins (or at least another being). That > > > which is not is space - a complete vacuum. This occurs when one > > > interjects nothingness into ones experience. This is why the vacuum is > > > - exactly - nothing. Even though modern physics has moved beyond these > > > concepts superficially it still maintains them albeit in modified > > > form. After all when we proclaim the presence of the so-called vacuum > > > energy we are distinguishing it from a "true" vacuum in the pre- > > > quantum sense. > > > > The cessation of that interpretation, and the transcendence beyond > > > space (and time) found fleetingly in mystical experience is the > > > foundation of our immortality, our infinity, and our likeness to god. > > > When space and time cease one experiences the truth that the universe > > > is not distinct from us and in fact, in a sense we include it in us as > > > much as it includes us in it, and one experiences god. > > > > Kierkegaard's reference is particularly fascinating. His cataloging of > > > the various modes of despair associated with the various possible > > > relationships of infinity to the finite in us presumes a kind of > > > identity that unifies the infinite and the finite in a sense. As the > > > proverb says: "At first I saw a tree and it was a tree, then I saw a > > > tree and it was the Tao, then I saw the tree and it was a tree." > > > Ultimately, we are who we are with all of the finite limitations of > > > our biology. We are a particular person with particular talents and > > > capabilities. Yet we have this capacity to interpret our life in a > > > sacred and not profane way. Kierkegaard's analysis of despair as sin, > > > especially his analysis of what he calls demonic despair, the despair > > > that is lucid and deliberate is most interesting. It would have been > > > interesting to be a fly on the wall of Hitler's mind to see if his > > > "banality" was superficial and to find out whether in fact he was not > > > completely aware but so totally in despair that he deliberately caused > > > such suffering. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that he choose the > > > Jews as the object of his hatred. Perhaps, at root it was hatred of > > > god. Perhaps he wanted to be chosen and felt he was not. His relative > > > asceticism, as compared to the orgy of indulgence in some of his > > > supporters, seems to indicate that his soul was aware at some level. > > > Ultimately it is not for us to judge but it would be interesting to > > > know. It would have been equally interesting to be in Martin Luther > > > King's mind when he went through his own motel-room Gethsemane. I > > > wonder how he overcame his own despair and went on living the life he > > > did when he could have just quit and had fun with the women around him > > > instead of accepting the bullet. > > > > So I think this issue is at heart the issue of an interpretation of > > > our experience and when the ratio of those who have been enlightened > > > to those who have not becomes high enough (if it ever does) perhaps we > > > will then be able to face the real questions and not waste time > > > quibbling over fundamentalist interpretations. > > > > The real issue is not which fundamentalist interpretation is correct > > > but whether the alternative to them is viable. > > > > n Feb 10, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "Give me my robe, put on my crown; I have Immortal longings in me," > > > > Shakespeare instructs us. But do we? Is there a part of us that is > > > > infinite, or is immortality just a longing? There are at least parts > > > > of our beings that are infinite, according to Shakespeare: "What a > > > > piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in > > > > faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how > > > > like an angel, in apprehension how like a god." > > > > > Our infinite nature is not just fodder for the poets. Einstein came > > > > to the conclusion that "the infinite nature of man includes the > > > > universe." Kierkegaard explained our existence in this way: "Man is a > > > > synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the > > > > eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short a synthesis. A synthesis > > > > is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a > > > > self." > > > > > What do YOU think? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
