• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

For something to exist...

existentialcrisis

existentialcrisis

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
13
Location
Flanders Field
For something to be in existence, must it have a polar opposite?

Death - Life
Empty - Full
Large - Small

Or do you think it's just a play of words that can't actually describe the human experience? Perhaps abstract thinking has actually skewed our true sense of neutral, by masking our consciousness with concepts.
 
awareness in consciousness, outside of these masking concepts, comes in 2 forms: without intellect which is infant and with intellect which is a sage like consciousness. The sage like consciousness is able to deal with conditioned responses and concepts so emotions and such from them are more brief. does that make sense at all? tell me if not lol

edit: the fact that there is no individual doer does not mean that there is no doing, but after Self-realization, the ego continues to function merely as a witness of the non-doing instead of as a doer.
 
Last edited:
True - I like to use one & zero as a metaphor for this. It's certainly true for us as human beings, whether it holds true in other forms of consciousness I'm not sure.
I suspect it might not be a necessary requirement of existence in some form(s)
 
Aristotle said for something to exist it must A: be made of a substance B: have features/characteristics C: originate from somewhere and D: have a purpose.

Then again Aristotle also set the world back 100 years.
 
^ I don't know what you mean by that. But Aristotle is (one of) the greatest physicsts of western history and probably responsible for 75% of intellectual progress in western history. Newton, Einstein or Hawking are a joke compared to Aristotle -- contrary to what those fancy magazine pictures about black holes and relativity might suggest.
 
Last edited:
Psyduck said:
^ I don't know what you mean by that. But Aristotle is (one of) the greatest physicsts of western history and probably responsible for 75% of intellectual progress in western history. Newton, Einstein or Hawking are a joke compared to Aristotle -- contrary to what those fancy magazine pictures about black holes and relativity might suggest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he was wrong about a lot of things, and people continued to accept them as true.
 
Psyduck said:
^ I don't know what you mean by that. But Aristotle is (one of) the greatest physicsts of western history and probably responsible for 75% of intellectual progress in western history. Newton, Einstein or Hawking are a joke compared to Aristotle -- contrary to what those fancy magazine pictures about black holes and relativity might suggest.
Click to expand...

Newton and Einstein? SERIOUSLY?

Sorry man, I agree that Aristotle was historically important but I think the physical advancements made by Newton and Einstein were a lot more significant, in more practical ways...
 
fridgebuzz said:
Yeah, but he was wrong about a lot of things, and people continued to accept them as true.
Click to expand...

putting forward a hypothesis to test contributes much more than putting forward nothing. you could claim the same about any modern scientist, they're almost certainly wrong, but we'll accept what they do as probably approximating the truth until something better comes along and we've leaped forwards huge amounts due to their wrong theories.

i don't think for something to exist it needs a polar opposite- but most things need a complementary concept and this is often a polar opposite. but it's not always- the properties of being 'particle-like' and 'wave-like' are fundamentally complementary but not polar opposites. i can't think of such a concept for mass though.

and i wonder if some apparent polar opposites are an artefact of our language, whether its so easy to make a word for the opposite something, that we think it exists/has meaning when it doesn't. there are obvious cases where this fails 'non-blue' is not the opposite of blue, and coming up with an 'opposite' of blue requires a colour wheel etc and hence the other colours. i need to think about this example a bit more....

i'm not sure how qualia fit into this idea, 'the sensation of perceiving x' is not necessarily opposite to 'the sensation of perceiving not-x' and the concepts are complementary only in a very trivial way.
 
What I meant was people didn't have the strict, scrutinizing scientific method yet, and often times, if not all the time, people were just memorizers of authoritarian ideas. It wasn't until the 17th century that people really began to think for themselves and question the assertions previously laid down. People thought if Aristotle claims it to be true it must be. There weren't any rigorous and ongoing proofs of knowledge until the Renaissance.
 
I'm no physicist, but i'm pretty sure all particles have 'opposites' - proton/antiproton, electron/positron. So if the fundamental bits making up the universe are based on things that have complete opposites, surely everything built out of them would have opposites, too?

That said, i'm sure someone can think up a fancy philosophical explanation for matter asymmetry in the universe (good conquering evil or some BS)
 
whynaught said:
I think we are talking about our reality which we experience and is formed in our consciousness through concepts that exist in our realities. The light that reflects off matter is more of our reality than the matter itself.
Click to expand...

^QFT.

Also, I'd argue that polarity is indeed a facet of linguistic symbolism in expression of thought.

I put forth that the asymmetry of reality can be accounted for by the act of observation. There is both observed and observers in life, however no reality could be perceived were it not for the fact that an observer actually observes the observed.

Finally, light is the only real matter. This is due to the fact that our neurological processing of the stimuli that light provides evokes the associations necessary to construct a physical reality that our perceived self can interact with.
 
^A non-zebra. Easy.

I don't think that existence requires opposites. If you think about it, if night can only be defined by its apparent opposite (day) then day isn't really nights opposite after all- it becomes an intrinsic part of the quality of time we call night.

If existence did require opposites, probably nothing would exist. If A needs B to exist and B needs A, you'd be left with nothing.
 
Well, Pindar, I should think so.. One's grasping of spatial logistics is not greatly hindered by the inability to see. The mind's eye can visualize without sight, even in the blind I would imagine. And in this way, perhaps sight is not lost in the man who cannot see with his eyes.
 
but its complementary color is its opposite
just like the opposite sex is the complementary sex

if you want a something to counter balance a zebra you would have to make a circle of all things on earth, see what they use, what waste they produce, basically their influence in and out of their environment, its a circle of life and you could put all living things in there and you could find the opposite of a zebra, but we dont have the data to do that, we dont even have enough data to predict the weather correctly...

fullchain.gif


so the opposite of a zebra would be somewhere in between a lion and the grass those zebra likes to eat
it would be what gives what the zebra takes and what takes what the zebra gives
that would be what balance the zebra in that environment, well on earth in this case

the idea is that there is something that balance the effect of having a zebra in whatever environment it is in
thats how life maintain, organize, and sustain itself
nothing is created and nothing is lost, its a basic scientific notion that can be applied to biology and anything else
 
if you can center on something you can trace a line
you can then say thats right, thats left
and you can then say that left is opposite to right
but they are complimentary because one stand on the other to make sense
but you cant create both sides without first creating a center, which is your dividing line
one creates both
and you are a relative center and you have a center of gravity
you are in relation with reality and we do trace lines to divide reality but those lines are abstractions, we make then up, but we make then up in relation to our center
when we start life all we have to center ourself is our center of gravity in our body but we dont notice it if nothing moves, but gravity move things around so then we have time to deal with, the present moment is a center, before it you have the past and after it you have the future, and around your center of gravity you have x,y,z, you have 3-d, call that space, so you have time balancing it self with space, both have the same center but one is the abstraction of the other, you can feel time with your body and you can perceive time with your mind but they are one and the same, its a space time continuum, and you are one and the same, your mind is your brain which is your body, but we create lines, abstraction, divisions to make sense of the world
and as long as you are alive youll have a center, a reference point on which you dress up duality, and from that: triviality and from that: plurality and then it goes back to unity and ultimately to zero
duality is something we make up in reference to ourself



...so what is the opposite of duality ?
if you dont know you dont understand what ive just said ; )
 
Something dead is not alive; something alive is not dead
Something empty is not full; something full is not empty
Something large is not small; something small is not large, although relativity applies to this one

Something that exists does exist, something that doesn't does not.

It's semantic, self-fulfilling. Dualities are born of categorical observations based off lunguistic definitions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top