Defining the Undefinable?

[Mysticcal]

I am so sorry anyone accused you of that hun. I have seen many of your posts and no way have you ever tried to force anyone to think anything. I looked at this as a thread to really get us thinking, and stretching what we think a bit....and somehow I fail to see how that is bad in anyway.

Please don't stop just cause someone was so narrow minded and insecure in their own beliefs that discussing them is viewed as an attack.

Hugs for you (((((((((((kiki))))))))))))

 

[bashfull]

Evenin' ya'll.

How about defining something by it absence? E.g. Define Evil. Perhaps define Evil as the absence of good? Or a window by the absence of a wall.

 

[kikmosa]

Evenin' ya'll.

How about defining something by it absence? E.g. Define Evil. Perhaps define Evil as the absence of good? Or a window by the absence of a wall.

But you just limited evil. By saying that evil can never do or be good your limiting it and evil knows no bounds.If evil can do greater harm by doing a small good, then wouldn't it? Therefore wouldn't evil then contain a small bit of good? And wouldn't that small bit of good then become evil? Then doesn't good contain a bit of evil? And again, how do you define evil if evil is as limitless as the bible says it is. Just as there is infinate good, there is infinate evil. Infinate by its own definition is limitless.
And A window is still a wall. Of glass yes but still a wall in that it stands between one thing and another. There is no such thing as no wall whatever. Even the air is a wall of one type in that it stands between us and vacuum. An item can never be defined by what it is not because all things are part of one another in at least one way.

(Thank you Mystical. Your right. I can't let one person's problems stop me from being who I am.)

 

[TantaLiza]

Wow, Kiki... You are on a roll!!! I'm gonna have to think some of this over before I take a stab at stating anything...

BTW... I, for one, appreciate you makin me use my brain for more than just a blurt... stimulation is what keeps us going!!!

Help me with this one... what makes our brains deliver such weird thoughts and actions in our dreams?? Is it what we eat before bed as some have said? Or maybe it's what we've read, seen or listened to during our day?? Tell me what your theory is and I'll check up on ya tomorrow...


Blowin extra kisses!!

LizA

 

[kikmosa]

Wow, Kiki... You are on a roll!!! I'm gonna have to think some of this over before I take a stab at stating anything...

BTW... I, for one, appreciate you makin me use my brain for more than just a blurt... stimulation is what keeps us going!!!

Help me with this one... what makes our brains deliver such weird thoughts and actions in our dreams?? Is it what we eat before bed as some have said? Or maybe it's what we've read, seen or listened to during our day?? Tell me what your theory is and I'll check up on ya tomorrow...


Blowin extra kisses!!

LizA

Lol, ok, how about this? It's both plus more. Yes what you eat can influence your dreams and thoughts while you sleep. Digestion is a chemical reaction and your brain runs on chemicals. Every tiny flux in your body affects how you think and act.
It's also what you've seen and done during the day. Even the things that you see without realizing it, are stored in your brain until they can be dealt with. Sounds you heard and ones that were there but you didn't consiously hear. Smells you paid no attention to, flickers of this and that. Your mind deals with all of these things when it can spare the energy. That's usually when your asleep or so relaxed that it can take the time to deal.
Also every problem and choice you've made that day has to be reconciled. And all of this has to be fitted in with everything you've ever known or done.
And even though a dream seems to take a long time to go through, it's usually only really a few seconds. 15 seconds seems to be an average. Your mind is very fast when it has nothing else to worry about. When your awake it has to deal with too many varibles to go that fast. Like trying to get your computer to deal with 50 problems at one time. It's slower because it's splitting it's energy into all of them at once. If you ask it to do just one thing it's very fast.
And your mind has to decide which bits of information it wants to put in permanent memory, which in short term storage and which to simply trash. Dreams are your way of sorting it out. You probably have quite a few dreams in one night but you'll only remember bits and pieces of each. That's why it's so mixed up.

 

[kikmosa]

Wow, Kiki... You are on a roll!!! I'm gonna have to think some of this over before I take a stab at stating anything...

BTW... I, for one, appreciate you makin me use my brain for more than just a blurt... stimulation is what keeps us going!!!

Help me with this one... what makes our brains deliver such weird thoughts and actions in our dreams?? Is it what we eat before bed as some have said? Or maybe it's what we've read, seen or listened to during our day?? Tell me what your theory is and I'll check up on ya tomorrow...


Blowin extra kisses!!

LizA

Another thing about dreaming, what you are dreaming may not seem to have anything to do with anything that happened to you during the day. In a way, your mind is creating an asociation to something it already knows. About 99% of the people in the world think in images even if they don't realize it. Your mind simply works that way. So when it's sorting, or defining, lol, everything, it puts it into images so that it can deal with it. Your mind also, many times, asociates a color or a sound or a smell with an image that it already has stored. Like, gingerbread. If your grandmother baked you gengerbread as a child, then the image of your grandmother is asociated with that smell in your mind. If you smell gingerbread during the day, even if it's only in the back of your mind, then your mind may insert the image of your grandmother into your dream. It may not make sense to you awake but it does to you asleep. Or a sound, say a loud bang from a backfiring car, may startle you at anytime during the day and then you'll forget it. But your mind will try to figure out WHY it startled you and may use it with a lot of different images in your dreams until it figures it out. It may decide that it reminded you of a gunshot that frightened you as a child or a door slamming the caught your hand or foot and hurt you. Or even you dropping something that broke and upset you. It could be anything. But your mind will seek the answer until it finds it.

 

[Alas Poor Yorick]

But you just limited evil. By saying that evil can never do or be good your limiting it and evil knows no bounds.If evil can do greater harm by doing a small good, then wouldn't it? Therefore wouldn't evil then contain a small bit of good? And wouldn't that small bit of good then become evil? Then doesn't good contain a bit of evil? And again, how do you define evil if evil is as limitless as the bible says it is. Just as there is infinate good, there is infinate evil. Infinate by its own definition is limitless.
And A window is still a wall. Of glass yes but still a wall in that it stands between one thing and another. There is no such thing as no wall whatever. Even the air is a wall of one type in that it stands between us and vacuum. An item can never be defined by what it is not because all things are part of one another in at least one way.

(Thank you Mystical. Your right. I can't let one person's problems stop me from being who I am.)

Kikmosa, I think here is where you go astray. When you try and define possible evil as having small goods, or goods having small evils attached. Those are moral judgments, so rather take a look at them as just acts. As a Buddist might say, there are no good things no bad things, there are just things. Whether they positivaly or negativaly effect a person's life is a moral judgment. Once you place a moral value on an act you become linked with that act or event and are no longer objective in your viewpoint. I am not saying that True evil cannot and does not exist, I am just saying that rather than looking for a deffinition try and grasp it from a conceptual point. I'll give you an example: The detination of a Nuclear weapon on Japan in 1945. Was this an evil act? No. It ended the war and caused the cesation of killing that could have lead to the annalation of the japanese people and their home land. Was it a good act? No. Because of the detination over 100000 people lost their lives and millions more were scared inwardly and outwardly by radiation poisoning, as well as leading to the proliferation of Nuclear Arms during the 1950s to the present day. To look at both sides and not make a judgment as to their intrinsic value is the key, at least that is how I look at it.

 

[kikmosa]

Kikmosa, I think here is where you go astray. When you try and define possible evil as having small goods, or goods having small evils attached. Those are moral judgments, so rather take a look at them as just acts. As a Buddist might say, there are no good things no bad things, there are just things. Whether they positivaly or negativaly effect a person's life is a moral judgment. Once you place a moral value on an act you become linked with that act or event and are no longer objective in your viewpoint. I am not saying that True evil cannot and does not exist, I am just saying that rather than looking for a deffinition try and grasp it from a conceptual point. I'll give you an example: The detination of a Nuclear weapon on Japan in 1945. Was this an evil act? No. It ended the war and caused the cesation of killing that could have lead to the annalation of the japanese people and their home land. Was it a good act? No. Because of the detination over 100000 people lost their lives and millions more were scared inwardly and outwardly by radiation poisoning, as well as leading to the proliferation of Nuclear Arms during the 1950s to the present day. To look at both sides and not make a judgment as to their intrinsic value is the key, at least that is how I look at it.

But Yorick, I'm not trying to define evil or good. What I'm saying is that you can't define something like this. Any definition we place on it would be wrong because the definition would change, limit, the very thing we're defining. Yet man still insists on defining everything. Our minds cannot concieve of a thing with out definition. But we negate it by defining it. And a persons morals are molded by the definitions he or she have made in their lives.
As for the bomb, there was both good and evil in that choice. I make no judgement on that one. I was not there to decide to drop or not drop it and cannot know what definitions were made by the ones that were. I can only define the results.

 

[Alas Poor Yorick]

But Yorick, I'm not trying to define evil or good. What I'm saying is that you can't define something like this. Any definition we place on it would be wrong because the definition would change, limit, the very thing we're defining. Yet man still insists on defining everything. Our minds cannot concieve of a thing with out definition. But we negate it by defining it. And a persons morals are molded by the definitions he or she have made in their lives.
As for the bomb, there was both good and evil in that choice. I make no judgement on that one. I was not there to decide to drop or not drop it and cannot know what definitions were made by the ones that were. I can only define the results.

First, even the results are questionable. Ask a Japanese person if it was a good thing, then as a Marine who's job it would have been to take the island. But enough on that. When it comes to definition I think you are right, but there is no other way to think. Humans are, by our very nature, creatures of language. Without language our thoughts are formless and unfocused. Even in our childhood we gave the universe we knew form and shape trough language...certian sounds meant certian desires or needs, even body movements were meant to produce a result such as Milk or Hug. I go to the story of Helen Keller...in her deaf and mute world even she, before her work with Annie Sulivan, created definition of things for herself. She had one hand movement that was used as a call to her mother. It is not in definition that we limit something, it is in practice. If your definition of a being, of an Other, is without an ability to grow and change, then yes you are limiting it, but if you can change your definition, to change your perception of reality, then you have removed the preimplied limits.

 

[kikmosa]

First, even the results are questionable. Ask a Japanese person if it was a good thing, then as a Marine who's job it would have been to take the island. But enough on that. When it comes to definition I think you are right, but there is no other way to think. Humans are, by our very nature, creatures of language. Without language our thoughts are formless and unfocused. Even in our childhood we gave the universe we knew form and shape trough language...certian sounds meant certian desires or needs, even body movements were meant to produce a result such as Milk or Hug. I go to the story of Helen Keller...in her deaf and mute world even she, before her work with Annie Sulivan, created definition of things for herself. She had one hand movement that was used as a call to her mother. It is not in definition that we limit something, it is in practice. If your definition of a being, of an Other, is without an ability to grow and change, then yes you are limiting it, but if you can change your definition, to change your perception of reality, then you have removed the preimplied limits.

Even if we change our definition we still impose limits. Take a flower. First we have a seed. Ok, small, probably hard, nothing to look at. Then plant it. Water it. it swells, ok, no longer hard. Then it splits and send out a rootlet. Ok, no longer a seed, it's a sprout. My definition changed. Then leaves appear, ok, a plant. Again changed. Then a stem appears, then a bud. Before long the first petal unfolds. Bit by bit my definition changes until it becomes 'flower'. Yet I'm still limiting it to my definition. It's more then a flower. It's a creater, makes seeds. It's a feeder, makes necter. It's death, most plants die after blooming. It's a fragrance maker, a joy to the eye, a gift to a friend, life to the bees and butterflies. Yet it's more then all of these. Each name I give it defines it and limits it. Yet there is always more then we define. Simply by giving something a name, we define it as what we named and no more. Yet there is always more. So how can we define something that cannot be defined. We can't. In all truth, everything we know, is nothing.

 

[Alas Poor Yorick]

Again I'm going to have to disagree. I know you know something about a flower so I'll use that example again. if you want a definition of flower then you list off all its characteristics, like you did, but to understand the reality of a flower you must simply allow the flower to just BE. A definition is not a limiting, but rather just a way of quantifing...quantification does not negate the flower's essential flowerness. But our reality is not the reality of the flower...we must allow ourselves to first be before we can accept the exisitence of an other, in this case the other we are accepting is the flower. For the flower to be to us we must accept the reality that the flower exists. so our saying that this living or dying thing is a flower is our first step towards accpetence of its reality. It is interesting that you choose a living thing as your example, because in Taoism it might be argued that while the flower is true and does exist, you do not.

 

[kikmosa]

Again I'm going to have to disagree. I know you know something about a flower so I'll use that example again. if you want a definition of flower then you list off all its characteristics, like you did, but to understand the reality of a flower you must simply allow the flower to just BE. A definition is not a limiting, but rather just a way of quantifing...quantification does not negate the flower's essential flowerness. But our reality is not the reality of the flower...we must allow ourselves to first be before we can accept the exisitence of an other, in this case the other we are accepting is the flower. For the flower to be to us we must accept the reality that the flower exists. so our saying that this living or dying thing is a flower is our first step towards accpetence of its reality. It is interesting that you choose a living thing as your example, because in Taoism it might be argued that while the flower is true and does exist, you do not.

But do I exist? Am I real or am I but a figment of your imagination? Or is this all but a dream you're having?
Yes, you must allow the flower to be. And in what way is quantifing different then defining? In both you're setting a limit. Yes, it's a flower... or is it? What is a flower? It could be argued that a woman is a flower. She has a smell that will intise some men and repel others. She carries the seed needed to start a new life, requiring only the right pollen. Her appearence will attract some and not others. The same quilities that are said of flowers. So is a woman a flower? No, because she doesn't meet the definition of a flower that is accepted by us. In saying that it is a flower, we define it. We can't change that. But does the flower truly exist as we see it. A bee doesn't see it as we do but it is still the same thing. A dog sees it in yet another way, yet it is still a flower. I accept the reality that the flower exists, I'm simply not accepting that it's a flower.

 

[kikmosa]

After a couple of hours sleep that makes no sense even to me, lol. Or does it? Heh heh heh

 

[Alas Poor Yorick]

I was getting tired to and nothing was making sense. I couldn't have formed a good argument in my mind other than: I like monkeys and flowers. So I gave up and when to bed.

 

[kikmosa]

I was getting tired to and nothing was making sense. I couldn't have formed a good argument in my mind other than: I like monkeys and flowers. So I gave up and when to bed.

Lol, I figure when my computer starts to talk to me and it's argueing then it's time to get some sleep.

Ok, here's a new one. Is there a question to which there can never be an answer to which the same question cannot be applied over and over for all eternaty?

 

[Alas Poor Yorick]

Lol, I figure when my computer starts to talk to me and it's argueing then it's time to get some sleep.

Ok, here's a new one. Is there a question to which there can never be an answer to which the same question cannot be applied over and over for all eternaty?

Yes. here is an example of two:
Does God exist?
Do We exist?

You can never positivly say yes or no to either question because to answer them is a negation of your own existence...so in death, in our own non-being, then we can ask those questions.

 

[kikmosa]

Yes. here is an example of two:
Does God exist?
Do We exist?

You can never positivly say yes or no to either question because to answer them is a negation of your own existence...so in death, in our own non-being, then we can ask those questions.

But those are questions that once answer, even with an 'Idon't know', the same question cannot be applied to the answer.
What I'm looking for is a question that once answered, the same question can be asked of the answer, and so on and soforth, for eternity and you will never find an answer that you can't apply that same question to.

 

[Alas Poor Yorick]

So you want a cicular answer/question paragime? There is none that I know of...I think that it would be a paradox, a question whose answer negates the question. It is a difficult concept to bring to furition.

 

[kikmosa]

So you want a cicular answer/question paragime? There is none that I know of...I think that it would be a paradox, a question whose answer negates the question. It is a difficult concept to bring to furition.

To above statement...WHY?

 

[Alas Poor Yorick]

To above statement...WHY?

because the nature of a question is to have an answer, whether it is positive or negative is of no matter. Even no answer is an answer in and of itself.

 

[kikmosa]

because the nature of a question is to have an answer, whether it is positive or negative is of no matter. Even no answer is an answer in and of itself.

WHY?

 

[Mysticcal]

(Thank you Mystical. Your right. I can't let one person's problems stop me from being who I am.)

Wtg hun, and I am so glad you are posting......hugs and kisses my friend

 

[TantaLiza]

Yeah! Why??

 

[kikmosa]

Yeah! Why??

If you really think about it, no matter what he answers, You can always ask WHY? The question can always be asked of it's own answer. A perfect circle. You could even start with Why? Most people would then ask why what? You then ask why? and so on and so forth. Most people will get mad before long though and quit.

 

[kikmosa]

Wtg hun, and I am so glad you are posting......hugs and kisses my friend

Thank you for making me think about it.
Hugs and kisses.