Still, if he’s making a categorical definition of “all that is,” then including “occupied space” and leaving out “unoccupied space” leaves out a very large part of “what is.”
Unoccupied space is the same as emptiness. (Or else, if you insist, the “metric” of space that defines it also occupies it. But that would mean that all of space is “occupied” and thus the adjective is unnecessary, like saying “Real rational numbers.” Redundant since all rational numbers are real numbers.)
If “occupied” has a meaning at all, then you need to accept “unoccupied” as meaningful also, and both, together, are required to span the definition of UniVerse. (Please imagine the V as colored a soft sky blue.)
But why would they bother? You’re starting off by defining terms, and, yeah, some folks are trying to figure out what you mean by them – but isn’t the real point of “starting off by defining terms” that you then go on to do something with them?
It feels like you’re building up to “…and therefore, God exists.” Or building up to something, anything: “and thus, we have proven that moral obligations are real.” Maybe there’s an impending “we can deduce the following about the afterlife.”
I don’t know where you’re going with this – but it’s going somewhere, right? That’s maybe when you’ll get an argument. But you’re not done yet, are you?
Space and emptiness are not the same thing. This is evident because space has properties.
And if you don’t understand what he is talking about, why are you responding to the thread? And why try to make fun of him? Are you some kind of bully?
He’s a crackpot who has been spreading this exact nonsense across the internet for years without ever trying to communicate with others. His words do not correspond to the meanings assigned to them by others and his science-y sounding stuff is truly laughable.
If he wants to discuss his ideas, he has all the opportunity in the world to do so, in exactly the same way that anybody else can, by patiently laying out his meaning and explaining his system.
Instead he drops his word shit and then declares that nobody else is as smart as him. If anybody is the bully, it’s him.
And I use he and him deliberately. The odds are a million trillion to one that ebuc76 is male. I don’t understand what there is about the male brain that leads to this type of crackpottery, but I know of literally no examples of females spewing similar conceptual vomit.
A good idea. For instance, the whole of “universal thinker” includes “thinker” as well as “universal”. In order to be a universal thinker, it is first necessary that one must think. You might want to start there.
That spiritualforums Web site is a real rabbit hole. Some of the threads the OP has started over there make this one look like Plato’s fucking Republic.
Stoneburg, it appear to me that our the only person to with moral and intellectual integrity to reply.
First off what I posted is cosmic heirarchy and not a matrix.
If by expanded, you mean more subcatagories, I agree, and have laid out those catagories many times elsewhere over the year.
So as the opening statement lays out this is heirarchy is a top to bottom outline/list.
Irrespective of whatever it is you may think you mean the heirarcyhy is valid as stated.
If Ken has something info that invalidates what Ive stated, then please share.
I agree, that, macro-infinite, non-occupied space is, for most part, irrelevant to our finite, occupied space Universe.
If a human believes we live in finite, occupied space, Universe, then it is rational, logical common sense conclusion, that, macro-infinite non-occupied space exists ergo, a part of a wholistic concepctual scenario and heirarchy.
This outline/list is not meant to confuse, it is meant to clarify. Those who remain confused will need to seek guidance. This is a part growing process to harvest information, sort it and make those eureka aha! moment discoveries.
R. Bucky Fuller recommended always starting with the whole, that way, all parts are included and none are left out.
"U"niverse is my most inclusive( wholistic ) terminology ergo;
…1a macro-infinite non-occupied space( embraces finite occupied space UniVerse,
…1b metaphysical-1( mind/intellect/concept ),
…1c finite, occupied space UniVerse.
metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept
…ex concept of a God outside of finite Universe, holding Universe in its hands…
…2a) absolutes truths–cosmic laws/principles, etc
…2b) relative truths
3)** Uni**Verse = finite occupied space aka physical/energy
…3a) fermions, bosons and any collective aggregate thereof
…3b) gravity and dark energy odd-bird-out bosons
None here offer an alternative cosmic heiracrhy and if they do, it will not be as comprehensively inclusive, concise and accurate. imho
I ask againrespectfullu-- foregin concept to most here —that those lacking moral and intellectual integrity to please refrain unnecessary, insignificant, irrelevant ego-based, brain-iac-brain-babble. Thx
Only comments that address specific comments of my hierarchy are to be posted in this thread.
I take exception to that; my comment was entirely in earnest; I genuinely want to know why you’re starting off by defining terms, and anticipating arguments, while apparently skipping the step of doing something with those defined terms.
It looks like you’re laying the groundwork for drawing a conclusion, and then you instead – just declare that you’re ready for someone to dispute you.
Why bother to define terms and then do nothing with them?
What is the significance of the colors you have chosen? Why are certain terms in color and others are not? Why is UniVerse in three colors? Why is the f in fermions not in the same color as the rest of the word? Why are Uni and gravity and erse and dark energy in the same colors?
Why does the word color start looking weird if you write it too many times?
When I said matrix I wasn’t referring to the content (which is a hierarchy as you say) but rather to the presentation, which to me took the form of a matrix.
I guess I have two objections to what you present, which may or may not be valid depending on your taste and what you are going for.
The first one is that I don’t think that the physical and meta-physical should be sorted in the same hierarchy, since one is based on the external/objective and the other is internal/subjective.
The other argument I am less sure about but it basically boils down to the idea that you can not have a “whole” that is not at the same time part of another whole, transfinitely. And if you do suppose a superior whole that is not a part of a bigger transcending whole, you end up with what is called a dominator or oppressive holon. That is what I think happens if you claim that Universe (for example) is the “ultimate whole”. And the result in this case was that it then becomes dominant towards the meta-physical whole which is now relegated to serving the universe.
Basically if you take a holistic perspective, where everything is a holon (i.e. both and always a whole/part) that should hold true in all directions infinitely. This also seems to have been verified by math such as Gödels incompleteness theorem, if I understand it correctly. Basically it is impossible to find an end-point or “final” whole since the system keeps expanding infinitely. Basically there is no top floor or bottom floor to the building, it just keeps going in both directions, and by designating a top or bottom you are making the system unhealthy. A bit of a nitpick maybe, I don’t know. Ken has chosen to use the term “the All” rather than “the whole” to avoid this and he explains it in detail in his book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.
Look, you can either chose to enter into a conversation with the intent of engaging and increasing the value content of the conversation, or you can enter it with a destructive agenda. I prefer to enter into all conversations with intellectual honesty, trying to understand the perspectives of the others, and trying to add value by contributing whatever new perspectives, information or insights I possess. Making sarcastic comments that lack humor does not add value, quite the contrary. If you think a person is a crackpot or whatnot you can simply ignore him/her. It might be (as in this case) that someone else finds the topic interesting, and trying to shut people down amounts to nothing more than bullying.
Going for truth not taste. Something this forum is not into in any significant way.
Agreed only insofar as, metaphsical-1 mind/intellect/concept is not a space, as is non-occupied and occupied spaces are, rather, metaphysical-1 is a only concept of space.
I may not have made that clear in this outline/list. 3 catagories and only two are space oriented.
However, were beginning with the wholistic viewpoint ergo metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept is inherently part of "U"niverse wholistic scenario/concept.
For you to exclude metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept is an error on your part, since metaphyscial-1 is inherently related to our using this forum and communicating our concepts/scenarios.
Where do you see me seperating any two of my given three as not part of the other. It is you, above, that who try to make metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept as not a part of the other two spaces.
I’'m inclusive of all three in comprehensively wholistic set, your approach is less wholistic and less comprehensive. You dont appear to recognize that, yet.
Not superior as you define, not me.
I did not state “ultimate”. Most comprehensively wholistic. Your appraach is not. imho
I belive we live in a finite occupied space Universe. You apparrently do not. You have to make clear where you stand regarding infinite vs finite first and foremost or this disscussion is meaningless.
Godel is about math. Math is metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ergo infinitely is a concept only, except for the macro-infinite, non-occcupied space, that, embraces our finite Universe.
So you origianally say a aggree but now your true self shows that, your not even close to aggreeing a basic premise in my cosmic heirarchy.
You do not agree with my #2, that we live in a finite Universe. We can disscuss rationality of both viewpoints. You will have none for infinite occupied space Universe scenario, I will have some for my finite occupied space Universe.
This forum is (unfortunately) exclusively modern/post-modern and as such very aggressive towards post-post-modern, integral or trans-rational ideas. It also consistently falls for the pre-/trans fallacy, meaning that they can’t separate between pre-rational and trans-rational concepts.
You may want to clarify your model then because I thought you were arguing that the Universe contains the Noosphere. I’d consider using the word Kosmos (original Greek) if you want to use a word that represents ”the All” and contains both the physical and meta-physical. The success of a model is not just based on its accuracy but also by how easy it is to understand, and I think your model the way you present it is a bit hard to grasp, as evidenced by almost nobody in this thread understanding what you are getting at.
Regarding the last point I don’t see how I excluded what you claim I did.
Some points:
I don’t think the Noosphere or metaphysical is part of the other two spaces.
By making it so you are not making a system more wholistic, you are simply forcing one independent universe into another, which is reductionist, not wholistic.
It’s not ”my” approach, it is simply ”an” approach. I don’t have any approach that I consider mine. The model I was proposing is the Integral Theory model of the universe presented in the AQAL map.
To me there is not much difference between ultimate and ”most comprehensively wholistic”, that’s just semantics. To me that is easily adjusted by switching ”most” for ”more”. We are looking for ”more” comprehensive models. And once again, none of the approaches are mine, I’m simply responding by proposing alternatives, no need to make it personal.
I don’t need to have a position of my own in order to have a conversation. I am perfectly comfortable switching between different perspectives, opinions and world views without exclusively associating with any of them. If your idea is that a conversation is meaningless unless all parties agree to exclusively associate themselves with a particular set of views I would suggest that you would benefit from learning to hold multiple perspectives at the same time. The universe is not personal, and there is no need to attach a persona to a worldview in order to make it so.
Whether the universe is considered finite or infinite seems to depend very much on the definition of the word universe. I have no strong feeling either way and can entertain the idea that it is either or both.
My true self is a witnessing presence and has nothing to do with any opinions expressed. You seem unnecessarily antagonistic about this, which I think will be a net negative if we’re supposed to have an intellectual discussion. If you simply want to try and convert people to your cosmological hierarchy, that’s fine, but as I have explained I am not personally attached to ideas or systems so I would make a poor convert. If your system has value or is interesting, I will entertain it, but it will not be used to form some kind of identity around.
I think it is a superior method to be able to entertain both and not associate exclusively with either. I see no added value arising from being personally attached to one particular model. And as far as I can tell (and I may be wrong) the AQAL holarchy does a similar if not better job than the model you are presenting, and lays it out in a manner that is more easy to understand.