-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Forms and Contrast
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Treks
Well-Known Member
@SalixIncendium and @Vinayaka I'm very interested in your responses to this question, if it pleases you to participate.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Form is shape contrasted by what it is not in my eyes.
Form with efficient, successful and specific functionalities is evidence of intentionality in the makings of the form. The otherness of the same form signifies common relationship.
Form can be complementary, or contrasting.
Form with efficient, successful and specific functionalities is evidence of intentionality in the makings of the form. The otherness of the same form signifies common relationship.
Form can be complementary, or contrasting.
I suppose the answer would depend on how one perceives otherness.
If I were to take a trip to the west coast and fill a vessel with water from the Pacific ocean, bring it home with me to Ohio, and place it in the freezer, would that ice not still be water from the Pacific ocean?
If you were to come to visit, and I took the vessel from the freezer and held it in front of you and said, "Inside this vessel is the Pacific Ocean," would you perceive it to be the same same or would you perceive contrast? While the contents of the vessel appears to be a different form, if I were thaw it, bring it back to the west coast, and pour it back into the ocean, there would be no contrast to what is already presently resting in the ocean.
I would say no. Just as location can only be described relatively, form isn't there without the non-form. But I'm not really sure what we're talking about here, either.
i would have to disagree on one technicality. formless doesn't require otherness, or form. "all" forms, created things, pluralities require contrasts for differentiated purposes.
Formlessness is a negation, not a thing. This is an argument I've been making against fellow atheists since my arrival on the forums. Forms ("A") exist, negations ("not A") do not.
Or, to put it more simply, putting "not" in front of a thing doesn't make a new thing.
so no thing is ironically/paradoxically something unconditional and not new?
no, not necessarily even if it is addressed in platonism.
Form, as I understand it generally, gives definition to things by virtue of holding thought apart from an actual reality that it represents. We 'think' a thing's form with mental faculty, give it "being," which necessarily means that the world in all its forms is positive and that every form represents something we can put a word to. We also negate with a thought, albeit with the faculty of imagination. Just as easily as we can imagine a thing, hold it in our hand of imagination, turn it around to see it from different sides and perspectives, we can also imagine its lack. I don't imagine that "lack" to be unconditional, when it depends so much for its being on there being something lacking.
Yes, but you it may be difficult for you to notice it.
this isn't an explanation of how it can. it just a person claiming it can and that they can see but another can't. the truth isn't personal
I think he just meant that without contrast it just blends into the background. (It's humourous.)