N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:


Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...


N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:



Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
news:xrKdnWzblYwdWFnanZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@comcast .com...
...



Mary Hogan wrote:



"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...




"Matter exists on the motion created by
Nothingness drawing Matter back into
the Nothingness from whence it came."

I am not qualified for any debate about
physics, and so I'm just thinking out loud.

Time is missing from this.

Time is a human construct.


You used the word "motion". Please define this
word, without using either "space" or "time".

The universe does not need human definitions in
order to run.


You post to a newsgroup, as if this was news.
This requires communication, an effort on the
part of two parties. You challeged "Mary Hogan"
to give reason to invoke "time", as if that was
some mysterious error on the part of Mankind.

Now define "motion", and "run" without invoking
"time" or "space". Please don't hide under
Buddhist mysticism this early.

Rub two sticks together, the motion involved is
not time dependent. Maybe you'd care to
explain how it is.


We can see "two sticks rubbing together", or at least physical
processes we recognize, and they appear to be moving more slowly
in the past. And their daughter products (such as radiant heat
from rubbing sticks together) are similarly reduced / slowed.

More to the point of my question, what is it about motion that
does not *require* a change in relationship between objects over
a period of time (whether or not you apply a metric to time
passage)?

If tow sticks srub together and there is no one around to observe them
are they still moving through time? Time is basically the eventuation
of the future and there is no measurement for that.



Perhaps you'd care to define time between past
and present then between present and future without reverting
to mysticism.


This was your assignment. When I care to "broad brush" cover all
of language, so that I can denigrate anything anyone might reply,
I'll be you. If you know you won't like the answer, why do you
ask?

Human definitions that don't invoke the mystic are mythical.

wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:50 am, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:


Philosophy, religion, science, logic or imagination can not accurately
describe Nothingness in the same way they are unable to systematically
describe Singularity. What I'm looking for is the cause that effects
the ongoing disappearance of matter/energy. In my mind, Nothingness
interacting with its opposite Somethingness seems to fit the bill. How
to accurately describe this activity is beyond human conceptual ability
yet activity between what is and what is not perceived is evident. It
doesn't matter whether or not I can affix the phenomena on a temporal
stake made of linguistic rigmarole. It is enough for me to know that
everything that is has a beginning and an end, with beginning and end
necessarily performing according to design. Else I'd do the
existentialist dreamy thing and go bye bye without hesitation.


Sounds like the old alchemical sublimation versus precipitation.
Freud of course used the term in a psychological context. We don't
have balanced opposites in physics right now, like gravity and
levity. It is probably a defect of the physics - the old categories
seem pretty solid and likely to be a better basis for the
establishment of truth. The divorce of science from philosophy was
painful for both, although materialists are in so much pain they can't
admit it.

I see science, philosophy and religion eating the same mythical stew
from the same primal plate.

Mary Hogan wrote:


"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..

Mary Hogan wrote:

I haven't studied this Ramban since 2004, Roy. There is so little
time in this life, and so much beauty to tap into.

Rabbi Nechunia ben Hakaneh, Sefer HaBahir.


Isn't it high time you stopped studying gnostic idolatry?



What I study is not Gnostic idolatry.

And you will never convince me that your path leads to anything but
hidden pomposity.

Sorry, Roy.

If you haven't concluded by now that kabbalah is idolatry there is
something missing in your studies.

Mary Hogan wrote:


"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:


Dear Roy Jose Lorr:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..
...


Mary Hogan wrote:


"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...



"Matter exists on the motion created by
Nothingness drawing Matter back into
the Nothingness from whence it came."


I am not qualified for any debate about
physics, and so I'm just thinking out loud.

Time is missing from this.


Time is a human construct.



You used the word "motion". Please define this
word, without using either "space" or "time".


The universe does not need human definitions in
order to run.



You post to a newsgroup, as if this was news. This requires
communication, an effort on the part of two parties. You challeged
"Mary Hogan" to give reason to invoke "time", as if that was some
mysterious error on the part of Mankind.

Now define "motion", and "run" without invoking "time" or "space".
Please don't hide under Buddhist mysticism this early.


Rub two sticks together, the motion involved is not time dependent.

Not if you're not there to witness it.



Why can't you see this? It take time to rub.

There is only the eventuating of the future.



Maybe you'd care to explain how it is. Perhaps you'd care to define
time between past and present then between present and future without
reverting to mysticism.


Try simultaneous. Boy you have really disappointed me, Roy.

If simultaneous there is no need for time.


You call it mysticism because you cannot wrap your mind around it.

It is mysticism if the mind can't wrap itself around it. What else
could it possibly be?

Mary Hogan wrote:


"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..

Immortalist wrote:

On Feb 26, 12:30 pm, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"Matter exists on the motion created by Nothingness drawing Matter back
into the Nothingness from whence it came."

Constructive comments in simple terms, pro and con will be appreciated.



We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing
of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym
of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the
present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is
the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But
this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no
individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the
germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or
foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited
possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no
law. It is boundless freedom.

Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested concept, highly
esteemed by writers of an existentialist tendency, but by most others
regarded with axiety, nausea, or panic. Nobody seems to know how to
deal with it (he would, of course), and plain persons generally are
reported to have little difficulty in saying, seeing, hearing, and
doing nothing. Philosophers, however, have never felt easy on the
matter. Ever since Parmenides laid it down that it is impossible to
speak of what is not, broke his own rule in the act of stating it, and
deduced himself into a world where all that ever happened was nothing,
the impression has persisted that the narrow path between sense and
nonsense on this subject is a difficult one to tread and that
altogether the less said of it the better.

This escape, however, is not so easy as it looks. Plato, in pursuing
it, reversed the Parmenidean dictum by insisting, in effect, that
anything a philosopher can find to talk about must somehow be there to
be discussed, and so let loose upon the world that unseemly rable of
centaurs and unicorns, carnivorous cows, republican monarchs and wife-
burdened bachelors, which has plagued ontology from that day to this.
Nothing (of which they are all aliases) can apparently get rid of
these absurdities, but for fairly obvious reasons has not been invited
to do so. Logic has attempted the task, but with sadly limited
success. Of some, though not all, nonentities, even a logician knows
that they do not exist, since their properties defy the law of
contradiction; the remainder, however, are not so readily dismissed.
Whatever Lord Russell may have said of it, the harmless if unnecessary
unicorn cannot be driven out of logic as it can out of zoology, unless
by desperate measures which exclude all manner of reputable entities
as well. Such remedies have been attempted, and their effects are
worse than the disease. Russell himself, in eliminating the present
King of France, inadvertently deposed the present Queen of England.
Quine, the sorcerer's apprentice, has contrived to liquidate both
Pegasus and President Truman in the same fell swoop. The old
logicians, who allowed all entities subsitence while conceding
existence, as wanted, to an accredited selection of them, at least
brought a certain tolerable inefficiency to their task. Of the new it
can only be said that solitudinem faciunt et pacem appellant--they
make a desert and call it peace. Whole realms of being have been
abolished without warning, at the mere nonquantifying of a variable.
The poetry of Earth has been parsed out of existence--and what has
become of its prose? There is little need for an answer. Writers to
whom nothing is sacred, and who accordingly stop thereat, have no
occasion for surprise on finding, at the end of their operations, that
nothing is all they have left.

The logicians, of course, will have nothing of all this. Nothing, they
say, is not a thing, nor is it the name of anything, being merely a
short way of saying of anything that it is not something else.
"Nothing" means "not-anything"; appearances to the contrary are due
merely to the error of supposing that a grammatical subject must
necessarily be a name. Asked, however, to prove that nothing is not
the name of anything, they fall back on the claim that nothing is the
name of anything (since according to them there are no names anyway).
Those who can make nothing of such an argument are welcome to the
attempt. When logic falls out with itself, honest men come into their
own, and it will take more than this to persuade them that there are
not better cures for this particular headache than the old and now
discredited method of cutting off the patient's head.

The friends of nothing may be divided into two distinct though not
exclusive classes: the know-nothings, who claim a phenomenological
acquaintance with nothing in particular, and the fear-nothings, who,
believing, with Macbeth, that "nothing is but what is not," are
thereby launched into dialectical encounter with nullity in general.
For the first, nothing, so far from being a mere grammatical illusion,
is a genuine, even positive, feature of experience. We are all
familiar with, and have a vocabulary for, holes and gaps, lacks and
losses, absenses, silences, impalpabilities, insipidities, and the
like. Voids and vacancies of one sort or another are sought after,
dealt in and advertised in the newspapers. And what are these, it is
asked, but perceived fragments of nothingness, experiential blanks,
which command, nonetheless, their share of attention and therefore
deserve recognition? Sartre, for one, has given currency to such
arguments, and so, in effect, have the upholders of "negative facts"--
an improvident sect, whose refrigerators are full of nonexistent
butter and cheese, absentee elephants and so on, which they claim to
detect therein. If existence indeed precedes essence, there is
certainly reason of a sort for maintaining that nonexistence is also
anterior to, and not a mere product of, the essentially parasitic
activity of negation; that the nothing precedes the not. But, verbal
refutations apart, the short answer to this view, as given, for
instance, by Bergson, is that these are but petty and partial
nothings, themselves parasitic on what already exists. Absence is a
mere privation, and a privation of something at that. A hole is always
a hole in something: take away the thing, and the hole goes too; more
precisely, it is replaced by a bigger if not better hole, itself
relative to its surroundings, and so tributary to something else.
Nothing, in short, is given only in relation to what is, and even the
idea of nothing requires a thinker to sustain it. If we want to
encounter it an sich, we have to try harder that that.

Better things, or rather nothings, are promised on the alternative
theory, whereby it is argued, so to speak, not that holes are in
things, but that things are in holes or, more generally, that
everything (and everybody) is in a hole. To be anything (or anybody)
is to be bounded, hemmed in, defined, and separated by a circumambient
fram of vacuity, and what is true of the individual is equally true of
the collective. The universe at large is fringed with nothingness,
from which indeed (how else?) it must have been created, if created it
was; and its beginning and end, like that of all change within it,
must similarly be viewed as a passage from one nothing to another,
with an interlude of being in between. Such thoughts, or others like
them, have haunted the speculations of nullophile metaphysicians from
Pythagoras to Pascal and from Hegel and his followers to Heidegger,
Tillich and Sartre. Being and non being, as they see it, are
complementary notions, dialectically entwined, and of equal status and
importance; although Heidegger alone has extended their symmetry to
the point of equipping Das Nichts with a correlative (if nugatory)
activity of noth-ing, or nihilating, whereby it produces Angst in its
votaries and untimely hilarity in those, such as Carnap and Ayer, who
have difficulty in parsing "nothing" as a present participle of the
verb "to noth."

Nothing, whether it noths or not, and whether or not the being of
anything entails it, clearly does not entail that anything should be.
Like Spinoza's substance, it is causa sui; nothing (except more of the
same) can come of it; ex nihilo, nihil fit. That conceded, it remains
a question to some why anything, rather than nothing, should exist.
This is either the deepest conunddrum in metaphysics or the most
childish, and though many must have felt the force of it at one time
or another, it is equally common to conclude, on reflection, that it
is no question at all. The hypothesis of theism may be said to take it
seriously and to offer a provisional answer. The alternative is to
argue that the dilemma is self-resolved in the mere possibility of
stating it. If nothing whatsoever existed, there would be no problem
and no answer, and the anxieties even of existential philosophers
would be permanently laid to rest. Since they are not, there is
evidently nothing to worry about. But that itself should be enough to
keep an existentialist happy. Unless the solution be, as some have
suspected, that it is not nothing that has been worrying them, but
they who have been worrying it.


Philosophy, religion, science, logic or imagination can not accurately
describe Nothingness in the same way they are unable to systematically
describe Singularity. What I'm looking for is the cause that effects
the ongoing disappearance of matter/energy. In my mind, Nothingness
interacting with its opposite Somethingness seems to fit the bill.
How to accurately describe this activity is beyond human conceptual
ability yet activity between what is and what is not perceived is
evident. It doesn't matter whether or not I can affix the phenomena
on a temporal stake made of linguistic rigmarole. It is enough for me
to know that everything that is has a beginning and an end, with
beginning and end necessarily performing according to design. Else
I'd do the existentialist dreamy thing and go bye bye without hesitation.


Maybe you should just wake up and see that you want to be a god and get
over the fact that you never will be, except in your own mind.

We all want to be God, Mary, that's the problem. Your studies should
have told you this, that is if you'd been paying attention.

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
news
Mary Hogan wrote:


"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
. ..

Mary Hogan wrote:

I haven't studied this Ramban since 2004, Roy. There is so little time
in this life, and so much beauty to tap into.

Rabbi Nechunia ben Hakaneh, Sefer HaBahir.


Isn't it high time you stopped studying gnostic idolatry?



What I study is not Gnostic idolatry.

And you will never convince me that your path leads to anything but
hidden pomposity.

Sorry, Roy.

If you haven't concluded by now that kabbalah is idolatry there is
something missing in your studies.

There is a lot missing in my studies, Roy. I have spent years in Ramchal,
Ramban I have at my right elbow and use primary after the intial deep study,
(3 months in 2004). You actually have ignited the desire to start Ramban
again.

I hope I was crude, by I do envision you and all Kohanim to return. You
were born a Kohen, but then so was Korach. Jocheved has has such high
hopes. Her immediately family was beyond awesome.

As far as Kabbalah, I learn as I go. I am not the brightest, but I am in
love with Ha Kodesh Baruch Hu, and I seek Him because He is the greatest
Treasure I could ever want.

On Feb 27, 10:33*am, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Mary Hogan wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...

It is regrettable how much of Written Torah you are prepared to ignore
in pursuit of rabbinical enlightenment.

I don't make a decision without Torah. *You don't understand the sense
of hunger that I have. *You don't understand the Talmud. I followed
blindly after a deadgod, and halfbaked lying teachers with an agenda the
size of the universe. *What I found in the Talmud are people also in
love with Ha Kodesh Baruch Hu, but people who have refined their
character to the point where there baser instinct has been put in its
rightful place.

What you find in talmud is the abandonment of Written Torah. *Sadly,
talmud is an appeal to baser desires and is part of the reason why Jews
remain in exile.

The only reason, the only honest reason you don't like Talmud, yeshiva
is because you would have to "give something up." *In truth you are
imprisoned in a cookie world who thinks it is "all that," but in truth
is just one lemming after another wasting his time.

Take time to think on why you accuse others of your own crimes.

I presume she means cookie-cutter world, and with that change, her
statement shows great insight. Indeed, the process ontology of
progressive actual entities of nature could be negatively
characterized in the way that she does. Indeed, however, it is the
clue to the answer of your query, Roy. You see, the Standard Model is
still very Einsteinian insofar as it suppresses the actual human
experience which necessarily involves the passage of time and the
present moment of time. It posits an actually existeing objective
world, indepenedent of human experience. Alfred North Whitehead
denies the existence of such a world. He declares the Reformed
Subjectivist Principle: Apart from the experience of subjects there
is nothing, nothing, nothing, bare nothingness! Whitehead's claim is
that there is something about the logic of human experience that
precludes the positing of an objectively existing world. Such an
imagined something does not and cannot exist and is therefore
nothing. Whitehead's philosophy is in fact fully consistent with the
Creatio ex Nihilo affirmed by the Jewish sages. So, again, Mary's
refusal is in fact just her ignorance of the very HaShem she
hypocritically professes.

In terms of physics, the upshot is that the world of protons,
neutrons, and electrons is quite unreal. It will be found to cancel
itself out. It will turn out that what does exist is a much more
subtle process involving the third family in an essential way that
provides the basis for subjective experience. This is concealed in
additive unification, but fully present in the scheme of radical
unification proposed by Heisenberg and Duerr.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 10:33 am, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Mary Hogan wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...

It is regrettable how much of Written Torah you are prepared to ignore
in pursuit of rabbinical enlightenment.

I don't make a decision without Torah. You don't understand the sense
of hunger that I have. You don't understand the Talmud. I followed
blindly after a deadgod, and halfbaked lying teachers with an agenda
the
size of the universe. What I found in the Talmud are people also in
love with Ha Kodesh Baruch Hu, but people who have refined their
character to the point where there baser instinct has been put in its
rightful place.

What you find in talmud is the abandonment of Written Torah. Sadly,
talmud is an appeal to baser desires and is part of the reason why Jews
remain in exile.

The only reason, the only honest reason you don't like Talmud, yeshiva
is because you would have to "give something up." In truth you are
imprisoned in a cookie world who thinks it is "all that," but in truth
is just one lemming after another wasting his time.

Take time to think on why you accuse others of your own crimes.

I presume she means cookie-cutter world, and with that change, her
statement shows great insight. Indeed, the process ontology of
progressive actual entities of nature could be negatively
characterized in the way that she does. Indeed, however, it is the
clue to the answer of your query, Roy. You see, the Standard Model is
still very Einsteinian insofar as it suppresses the actual human
experience which necessarily involves the passage of time and the
present moment of time. It posits an actually existeing objective
world, indepenedent of human experience. Alfred North Whitehead
denies the existence of such a world. He declares the Reformed
Subjectivist Principle: Apart from the experience of subjects there
is nothing, nothing, nothing, bare nothingness! Whitehead's claim is
that there is something about the logic of human experience that
precludes the positing of an objectively existing world. Such an
imagined something does not and cannot exist and is therefore
nothing. Whitehead's philosophy is in fact fully consistent with the
Creatio ex Nihilo affirmed by the Jewish sages. So, again, Mary's
refusal is in fact just her ignorance of the very HaShem she
hypocritically professes.

Its amazing what sort of crap people can come up with when they start
playing with philosophy. It must be so much fun not having to deal with the
real world and play games of make-believe instead.

On Feb 27, 2:37*pm, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Feb 27, 10:33 am, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Mary Hogan wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...

It is regrettable how much of Written Torah you are prepared to ignore
in pursuit of rabbinical enlightenment.

I don't make a decision without Torah. You don't understand the sense
of hunger that I have. You don't understand the Talmud. I followed
blindly after a deadgod, and halfbaked lying teachers with an agenda
the
size of the universe. What I found in the Talmud are people also in
love with Ha Kodesh Baruch Hu, but people who have refined their
character to the point where there baser instinct has been put in its
rightful place.

What you find in talmud is the abandonment of Written Torah. Sadly,
talmud is an appeal to baser desires and is part of the reason why Jews
remain in exile.

The only reason, the only honest reason you don't like Talmud, yeshiva
is because you would have to "give something up." In truth you are
imprisoned in a cookie world who thinks it is "all that," but in truth
is just one lemming after another wasting his time.

Take time to think on why you accuse others of your own crimes.

I presume she means cookie-cutter world, and with that change, her
statement shows great insight. *Indeed, the process ontology of
progressive actual entities of nature could be negatively
characterized in the way that she does. *Indeed, however, it is the
clue to the answer of your query, Roy. *You see, the Standard Model is
still very Einsteinian insofar as it suppresses the actual human
experience which necessarily involves the passage of time and the
present moment of time. *It posits an actually existeing objective
world, indepenedent of human experience. *Alfred North Whitehead
denies the existence of such a world. *He declares the Reformed
Subjectivist Principle: *Apart from the experience of subjects there
is nothing, nothing, nothing, bare nothingness! *Whitehead's claim is
that there is something about the logic of human experience that
precludes the positing of an objectively existing world. *Such an
imagined something does not and cannot exist and is therefore
nothing. *Whitehead's philosophy is in fact fully consistent with the
Creatio ex Nihilo affirmed by the Jewish sages. *So, again, Mary's
refusal is in fact just her ignorance of the very HaShem she
hypocritically professes.

Its amazing what sort of crap people can come up with when they start
playing with philosophy. *It must be so much fun not having to deal with the
real world and play games of make-believe instead.

Not at all. Speaking for my own speculations, these are the real
fruits of dealing with the real issues. You cats in your ivory towers
are the ones with too much time on your hands. You are so divided in
your thinking and commpartmentalization that you cannot even begin to
think clearly about anything.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 2:37 pm, "Artful" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Feb 27, 10:33 am, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Mary Hogan wrote:

"Roy Jose Lorr" wrote in message
...

It is regrettable how much of Written Torah you are prepared to
ignore
in pursuit of rabbinical enlightenment.

I don't make a decision without Torah. You don't understand the
sense
of hunger that I have. You don't understand the Talmud. I followed
blindly after a deadgod, and halfbaked lying teachers with an agenda
the
size of the universe. What I found in the Talmud are people also in
love with Ha Kodesh Baruch Hu, but people who have refined their
character to the point where there baser instinct has been put in
its
rightful place.

What you find in talmud is the abandonment of Written Torah. Sadly,
talmud is an appeal to baser desires and is part of the reason why
Jews
remain in exile.

The only reason, the only honest reason you don't like Talmud,
yeshiva
is because you would have to "give something up." In truth you are
imprisoned in a cookie world who thinks it is "all that," but in
truth
is just one lemming after another wasting his time.

Take time to think on why you accuse others of your own crimes.

I presume she means cookie-cutter world, and with that change, her
statement shows great insight. Indeed, the process ontology of
progressive actual entities of nature could be negatively
characterized in the way that she does. Indeed, however, it is the
clue to the answer of your query, Roy. You see, the Standard Model is
still very Einsteinian insofar as it suppresses the actual human
experience which necessarily involves the passage of time and the
present moment of time. It posits an actually existeing objective
world, indepenedent of human experience. Alfred North Whitehead
denies the existence of such a world. He declares the Reformed
Subjectivist Principle: Apart from the experience of subjects there
is nothing, nothing, nothing, bare nothingness! Whitehead's claim is
that there is something about the logic of human experience that
precludes the positing of an objectively existing world. Such an
imagined something does not and cannot exist and is therefore
nothing. Whitehead's philosophy is in fact fully consistent with the
Creatio ex Nihilo affirmed by the Jewish sages. So, again, Mary's
refusal is in fact just her ignorance of the very HaShem she
hypocritically professes.

Its amazing what sort of crap people can come up with when they start
playing with philosophy. It must be so much fun not having to deal with
the
real world and play games of make-believe instead.

Not at all. Speaking for my own speculations, these are the real
fruits of dealing with the real issues. You cats in your ivory towers
are the ones with too much time on your hands. You are so divided in
your thinking and commpartmentalization that you cannot even begin to
think clearly about anything.

Oh yeah .. speculating that the world doesn't exists and is just an illusion
is really worthwhile ... not.