So, where is my teddy bear?
I thought you were a big teddy bear, so I didn't think you needed one. Now altogether, say ar!
I am not here to win anything. Actually, I prefer to lose, because when I lose I win, by learning something new of from seeing things from a new perspective.
If this intelligence has not itself been the product of blind chance and not the product of another intelligence, then it is possible to have complexity without either intelligence nor blind chance.
Unless blind chance/luck/randomness don't really exist and are only words we use to describe things we see, like Newton’s mechanical universe, which worked well until they went deeper.... hint, hint.
Of course if that is the case, you will ask, How then did this intelligence arise then?
Some say that, 'What-Is', is unchanging, and to some degree I must comply with that. In its fundamental essence, it must be. For example, water is still water even when it moves or is still, or crashes onto rocks (when she is in a bad mood no doubt). But it can change. There has to be that element of change or how do we stand here now.
I have no problem once the Image of the Source arises, as then we have consciousness and all things happen within Image (feminine) and not Source. It is before that is the problem, as you know.
But perhaps the problem is not in what it does but our understanding of it. We must consider that the Existence was all there was and so was not confined by law (that is what Genesis and the law shows us, there was a time before law).
So can we say that this Existence changes without need for either intelligence/blind chance etc (as you said) but later does? How then does it change? By following its own Self.
If that is excepted for now, why then does the Image then have to have consciousness to evolve. Now, this is a neat answer: because the Image is consciousness! She is the feminine (wisdom of Isaiah). Now we also see the Gnostic idea of the logos. Thus the logos emanated out of the source and became all other things.
Now this is a fascinating thought. It would imply that the Source has nothing to do with conscious thought. In other words, as I have said, it just 'Is'. (But it would also leave serious ramifications, and that is, everything turned out this way as it could turn out no other and that within Image... so where then is the luck?)
I think then the difference in Source and Image is S is awareness and I is consciousness. It is similar to a baby or an adult. We might consider a baby to be aware but not be thinking too deeply about anything.
Image then has the ability to change what is around it rather than just be aware of it. But that is part of the error, because thoughts die, sleep, are forgotten - hence the reason we die, as that is what we are, consciousness, memory expressed in matter, matter that doesn't really exist, in atoms that aren't really solid, from the dust of stars that represent a God.
But if we go back to Source, 'following its own nose' along its travels, is that blind chance? Still I am left with the problem. I can only answer it by saying that the law did not then exist (back to the baby again) so the same rules did not apply. It implies something completely different to what we know- which would be in line with scripture.
But I still feel, however, that you will say it is blind chance - a blind chance I will say does not exist in the first place. That is a dilemma is it not? You will use such a term as you don't think intelligence is involved and yet I can't because it doesn't.
So if it is not blind chance and not intelligence, what is it? If we say awareness, where is that from? Do I have a get out clause and say it always existed? I am not sure. These are murky waters.
Especially if the evolving process of said intelligence has not been guided and it is not random.
And if it is the case that complexity and order (of this intelligence) can arise from unguided and not random processes, then yes, this intelligence is superfluous and we can do without. That does not exclude it, but it does not necessitate it either. And, if Occam Razor is a reliable methods to find truths (at least when used carefully), then the simpler explanation should be preferred.
To a degree, I should be happy, as all things follow what has gone before (there is nothing new under the sun said the wise man) it all follows a print, a print of thoughts already spent. So I should expect to see this paradox of an answer shouldn't I. And in doing that, you may in your worldly wisdom, pick up the dominos you want and run off with them whilst I worry about those that disappear out of the door. And so the scripture is true then, 'The righteous shall live by faith'.
Someone said on this forum, perhaps there were two beginnings. I don't think so. I find it hard to find two beginnings, two first pages of a book, two first numbers, two first births. There has to be a singularity and that must change. Then we have the duality of self, the mirror, the masculine feminine, the binary, fractal algorithm that will create all other things. There must ultimately be one malleable one, singular, that then changes.
This leads me to think this: the binary is seen in man (the representation of Yhvh) being two seeds, masculine/feminine. But the singularity is seen in the beginning of life and also the big bang. What then do we see? That before consciousness existed, things still evolved. Does that lead to your argument again?
[/QUOTE]
It is not me, but my husband told me she looks astonishingly like me
. Maybe he is too kind.
Water represents the feminine consciousness? I doubt it, it always dresses the same way.
Ciao
- viole[/QUOTE]
That is the "water above the water" of Genesis one - not just the blue sky blue sea.
