Spida wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 10:33 am
Yes, I understand what you are describing. You are describing a sort of static infinite record that contains all possibilities, but in lieu of this concept existing in actuality, does it not make more sense and seem more reasonable that it should instead exist in potentiality?
The past and the present are not potentiality. And the negations of the past and the present are not potentiality. Hopefully we can agree here?
What was, What is, What wasn't, and What isn't, are not potential.
That leaves future events some of which are "locked in", and some of them are not.
In actuality contemporary cosmology states that space and time had a beginning, so, in the absence of those the question becomes what 'existences' are possible? I believe that consciousness(or God) can exist in the absence of space(a singularity) but cannot exist in the absence of time - nothing can(paradoxical).
The author is outside the time-line of the book they are composing.
Consciousness may formulate things in the absence of space. Do your thoughts require space or create space? A lesser reflection of the way in which the primordial consciousness creates space is in the way our own consciousness subconsciously creates a dimensional dreamscape - same idea lesser power.
I agree 100%, and more
Empty Space Isn't Empty, And Quantum Researchers Now Have Direct Evidence - discovery.com
https://www.discovery.com/science/Empty ... t-Evidence
My ideology does tend to continue evolving over time and perhaps it is possible that I do not have a general resolution to all things(and none) as I might think, but it seems as though you might be putting the cart before the horse here.
My method was, as you wrote. I started with a theory. A common theological position. The theory, like all theories is a model. It has merit if it has explanatory power. Over the years, applying the theory works, and explains a lot. When I say "works", I simply mean practical. Everyday common magic. Lifting a person's spirits. Listening to a person's problems and giving them good advice. Connecting with others on a deep meaningful level. Knowing oneself, understanding the world, the wisdom to predict potential problems and avoid them, etc...
When I first learned about the sephirot, the most immediate benefit was in my interpersonal relationships. As I explored further and deeper, in myself and others, there were some pitfalls. It wasn't all smooth sailing. One of the reasons for this, I think, is that these are foundational principles. As a person learns about them they are reflected everywhere. This can be overwhelming. It was extremely overwhelming for me. But I had an established religious practice and community which grounded me and supported me. I have let go of that religious practice at this point in my life for various reasons. It is an anchor. But looking back, that anchor was useful for staying grounded.
After having convinced myself that the theological model I had been taught had practical use, and over the course of decades not found any counter-examples which defeated it, I started exploring other traditions. I wanted to see if others had different methods of modeling reality. I had put down my religious anchor, and I wanted to explore. To learn, but not necessarily to do, if that makes sense. What I found didn't resonate deeply with me. Everything I found was already included in the model I had previously been working with.
And that's the way it's been going ever since. I keep learning and exploring, and I will happily adjust my point of view as new info is learned and new experiences are encountered. But everything so far has been congruent with the tradition I was taught. And more evidence supporting it seems to discovered all the time.
For example, in my tradition it's known, there is no "empty-space". I didn't officially know that it was "scientifiic" until this morning. I read your post. Then I searched, and poof. A list of articles all saying the same thing. This happens to me all the time. And it's been happening for decades. I admit, freely, that having confidence like this based on "I haven't encountered anything which defeats it" is silly if the source of the theory is traditional theology. But I'm also including the trend of consistently increasing evidence in support over a significant span of time. ( from my perspective )
I don't see how what you are describing can have any actual existence other than as a thought, and while the formulating of thoughts do not appear reliant upon any pre-existing space the same cannot be said of time.
Maybe it's possible your idea may have validity but it may be the placement in conjunction with the description that is inaccurate. These are just my own thoughts, and I'll continue perusing what you have written and continue to write here.
I agree. When considering the ultimate absolute source of all reality, there is very little that can be said about it. The hindu have a nice way of putting it into words when considering Brahman Nirguna: "neti-neti" "not-this-not-this". From my perspective, it's a little different. The "source" is "expressing itself". The expression can be known, the source cannot. But it can be understood, and this leads to wisdom. And that's why in the sephirot diagrams, daat is in a dotted circle.
Going back to the hindu model, this "expression" of it "Self" ( capital S ) is an emanation which is both transcendant and immanent simultaneously, and it is easiest to be conceptualized / comprehended in the human mind as the "thoughts of God". But when this "source" "thinks" something, it is creating and simultaneously uncreating.
It can be comprehended, but not apprehended. Understood, but not known. One can stalk it and follow the tracks, but will never capture it. The ancient trackers were deeply spritiual, brilliant individuals. Becoming a a tracker was the first step to becoming a shaman. Tracking is learning to apprreciate and trust syncopation. Believeing the unseen.
Since the only thing that can be known about the source is the expression, the way it is expressing it "Self", and these expressions are "thoughts", then it makes sense to describe it in terms of only existing in thought. And that''s precisely what you said.
"I don't see how what you are describing can have any actual existence other than
as a thought."