This does make some sense to me RP so I hope my question doesn't sound critical. For me thinking in this way causes a massive amount of difficulty, as it sounds like immutable truths, so I have to translate away the language to get glints of my own thinking through. We could easily call my predicament not seeing the forest for the trees, and that would be a fitting if not limited statement. In my mind I prefer to start with the will representing laws of nature which are dynamic, and work more along an opportunistic heuristic. For me it is obvious that some people talk about an n-dimensional entity, but n is an aspect of scope in one's perspective. If n is potentially infinite, then the truths may have strength but are more optimizations than static ontology. I am wondering if there is some useful perspective that can be used in my situation, or perhaps it is a hopeless case. Perhaps you have something to help me?
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Neil , there is no difference. The universe is not nature but a > manifestation of Nature or God. It is unconscious but not dead, as > that would have meant no life , further it has to be unconscious as > the conscious is always bound to certain limits and is dual. > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> That's a little bit different - and I'm in agreement. Some scientists >> have suggested we could make a universe with life conditions in the >> laboratory - still leaving us with issues about beginnings. Science >> fiction wise one can imagine making such universes in order to travel >> in time in them to discover more on how we were made - by occupying >> earlier stages of them. I tend to think of the unconscious as what >> isn't in rational consciousness, but I know this is inadequate as much >> human consciousness in action is not known to the participants >> rationally. >> >> On Mar 5, 2:59 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Life had to come from somewhere , why not from an unconscious Nature >>> which would explain the presence of Laws behind every action and >>> inaction. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > That doesn't help RP. Why this rather than a host of alternatives? >>> >>> > On Mar 4, 4:28 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> God is not made of fire , air , earth , water , ether and consciousness , >>> >> rather all these emanate from Him. God is unconscious and without >>> >> attributes. >>> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote: >>> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation which >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have choice , >>> >> > but >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory of the >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound by laws >>> >> > and >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God". >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote: >>> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation which >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have choice , >>> >> > but >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory of the >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound by laws >>> >> > and >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God".
