Originally Posted by
RaptorWizard
The Milkwalkee Bucks won the championship. That's for SolitaryWalker!!
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's What is Philosophy? thread:
A question of great importance would be to clarify and define a universal definition for philosophy. I believe philosophy at its heart to be a quest for wisdom, though what one man sees as wise may be deemed foolish by another man. Though I do agree with SolitaryWalker that we must be careful about our perception of wisdom, and that in this quest we seek to advance our understanding, he holds understanding is the sole purpose, and that using philosophy to some other end is incorrect. Philosophy should also be a means of achievement, that is, it should make us grow in greatness. He is right however when he further asserts how philosophy transcends the empirical nature of science, and that a metaphysical assumption must first be made before it can be empirically validated via experiment. Again though, SolitaryWalker incorrectly asserts that philosophy is purely about truth, rather than also accomplishing our inner desires, as he says how our prejudices (ironically from his own prejudice) pollute the truth. Some things however transcend truth, and that the ultimate meaning will be found within, with what is important to us and our beliefs, as reality is indeed shaped by our focus. He is gravely mistaken in asserting how philosophy does not keep in perspective any of our personal ends (the funny thing is though that he says personal growth follows from our inquiries, so in essence, he contradicts himself, since all along then it did indeed have a personal element). I do agree on his next point about forcefully dispelling ignorance being secondary to advancing ideas and offering the opportunity to learn. Again though, he aims to get solely at the truth, in rejection of all passions and inner desires. If anything, he needs to learn the critical distinction between passion and attachment, passion impelling us forward, and attachment restricting us, since passion is a vision of what we wish to be, but attachment is a lingering fog clouding our vision. Passion if used properly can be controlled, whereas attachment binds us by its strings and limits our personal freedom. His argument for philosophy and its power of explanation is indeed superior, as he correctly asserts, to the religious book of dogma. He then says how religion deals with questions incapable for rationalization, such as what happens when we die, which he claims cannot be reached by metaphysics. Again I am in disagreement, as if anything, nothing possesses greater power than the illumination reason can cast upon our world. All in all, SolitaryWalker has brought up some very interesting points, but we cannot accept any such assertions without a challenge.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Why I do not believe in God thread:
SolitaryWalker begins with an axiom about the Universe being infinite, and somehow links this with rendering the existence of God impossible independent of our world’s existence, and then defines infinity as the continuous, incessant flow of entities. He also thinks not all things in this world are continuous, in spite of facts and evidence to the contrary (Newton’s Laws of Motion, an elaborate cause-and-effect cycle from which everything must always follow from a previous state of being and necessarily transform into another state of being, a dynamic system always proven to “continuously” occur, these laws also very possibly applying in basic principle within the non-physical realm). This would, according to SolitaryWalker’s classifications, render all parts as comprising the same entity, and if so, it would follow that God exists in the infinity of all things within this world. At least SolitaryWalker detailed the implications of what God’s existence could mean, though because of his blunder regarding the continuum principle, he concluded (falsely) that God does not actually exist (and he is most likely right about a personal God being invalid, but he also rejects the existence of a God who manifests the infinite creative power of his mind within all things, even though his axiomatic reasoning described how such a God could exist). He says how a first cause that could have rendered our world’s existence possible must have been infinite, that is, it must have followed from the flow of a previous entity, and that entity another one, and so forth without arriving at an acceptable first cause (and if this entity is God, then we would ask who or what made God). But perhaps the point of greatest confusion would be to even arrive at a definition of what God is, whether he is a Creator, an infinite divine mind, or whatever else. SolitaryWalker says this world is an unconscious representation of the infinite realm, and that the finite limits of the human mind by which we are all designed translate the infinite into finite terms, that is, our minds only perceive a dim shadow of the much more luminous world above and beyond the current dimensions of our comprehension. SolitaryWalker says either God exists in this world, or not at all, and that no evidence in favor of his existence has been found, claiming it irreconcilable with the laws of nature. This philosophical world SolitaryWalker has created for himself contains restrictions of his own making, further evidenced in his assertion that the universe is a closed system of causation, which makes the laws of nature possible. Very interestingly though, he recognizes that this would mean if God existed, all things could be altered with his will, and then further says how the realm of the infinite could flow into the finite realm our minds perceive. Though SolitaryWalker concluded how the infinite intellect of God cannot exist outside of our known world, the conclusion I arrived at is inescapable – the higher levels of creation are liberated of all limitations.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's What I believe thread:
SolitaryWalker asks the question as to why people even ask big questions in the first place, such as, what is the meaning of life, what is truth, what is virtue? He postulates people do so to seek self-affirmation and comfort in a hostile world, and that everything we do is necessarily inspired by selfish motives. Surely though, the quest for enlightenment should transcend such things, as if life is just all about fulfilling our own comforts, then we would indeed be in a limited position. If anything, I would think we always need to be on the leading edge, as we push the artificial constraints our own minds have been contained by to the limit, the tenacious drive towards achieving complete self-mastery being far superior to seeking only mere satisfaction with our current conditions. SolitaryWalker claims whether it is a rationalist seeking truth, an artisan seeking entertainment, a guardian getting things done, or an idealist accommodating others, that it is all simply what makes them happy. I hold though that happiness is insufficient in advancing our own ends, since when we are happy, we are content with letting things be, without the motivation to change and transform our world into altered and improved states. But worse than anything so far said, SolitaryWalker arrogantly asserts how the artisan temperament only cares for energized entertainment and concrete activities without seeing what he perceives to be the big picture, and of course, he is wrong. Though, as a generalization, he is right about the interests of the artisan, his whole idea of such endeavors being inferior and short-sighted is a testament to his own ego, since he views what they do as unimportant and insignificant. All people play important roles in the progressive development of humanity, which SolitaryWalker would realize if he actually saw the big picture. Artisans are constant in their creations, just as guardians are dedicated to their duties, or how idealists are inscrutably awakening their imaginations, and the rationalists relentlessly focusing their reasoning, each of these feats coming together to produce the diverse and dynamic system of humanity, ever increasing in accomplishment towards the echelons of infinity. The next points risen however on our sense perceptions and how they present themselves in a finite way to the brain indeed seems to limit for us what can be experienced. Perhaps though there is an escape, as SolitaryWalker goes on to say that the internal world and its imaginative prowess may actually open the window to outside realms incapable for experience within the physical, and if so, it follows that only through intuition can the infinite be reached, as we look through the off limits zone behind the fence. I am in complete agreement with his conclusion on the meaning of life that it is the quest to achieve the highest degree of perfection possible. It is by perfecting our inner being that we will find full liberation from the finite world, perfection, to add my own opinion, consisting of a state without restrictions, as SolitaryWalker ends this section saying that our task in life is open-ended and aimed at infinity, and that this epic quest will never come to closure, as we strive for the unachievable.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's My Metaphysical System thread:
The pursuit of physics, as SolitaryWalker’s article says, should be able to solve the ultimate questions of cosmology, those being: what is the world, how does it work, who made the world, what is the purpose of the world, what is our purpose, what is the ultimate nature of reality, what is the mind, does it exist independently of the body, what is the ultimate stuff they are made of, and how does this fit into the larger cosmological framework? These questions could finally answer the mystery of what life is, what the universe is, how cosmology works, and how we are related to it. Clearly there is purpose to such questions, as they show that there is mystery in life, these things being currently incapable for reliable knowledge, and that these great life mysteries are identifiable, and although we do not know the nature of these mysteries, they can be speculated upon, even if reliable knowledge of them eludes us. These metaphysical questions could perhaps be experienced and understood within the realm of human imagination. Hence, there is epistemology, the study of knowledge, and metaphysics, the study of ultimate reality. We must have metaphysical beliefs in order to ask meaningful questions, which can be verified into epistemology by science. Though the ultimate reality may possess a changeless stability, there may be a mysterious, ever changing force trapped within the essence of things, constantly in motion. The ever-vibrating force of entities seems immune to change. In order to grasp the changeless then, one must have access to infinite and eternal vision. In our phenomenal world then, it seems we have a combination of change and changelessness, though a more sophisticated sight could consist in constant change. The way force vibrates could also be a diagram of how our minds that are within time tend to perceive what is changeless and outside of time. Perhaps materiality is just a construct of the way our minds perceive the ultimate reality of immateriality. Our real selves then may receive salvation with God in the kingdom of heaven as we break away from the phenomenal world and unite with our real beings. Through science man should find meaning.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Faith of a Rationalist thread:
People perceive the world as they see it through their confined perceptions, and as such, philosophers who dare to challenge the societal paradigms of their time, like Giordano Bruno (RaptorWizard’s favorite philosopher) or Benedict de Spinoza (SolitaryWalker’s favorite philosopher) were branded heretics, the first being burned at the stake, and the second receiving ridicule from the stupid multitudes. Our state of existence is so wretched that non-existence would be preferable to it, and as such, the world is by no means what Leibniz termed ‘the best of all possible worlds’. The unspeakable suffering of mankind cannot be denied. Mankind is ever in search for a life of paradise. We must then increase our perception on the problem of evil, the essence of knowledge and how salvation could possibly be achieved. I as of right now oppose the proposition that we see beauty everywhere in this world, incapable for our grasp. Perhaps perfection only exists in the heavens, a realm currently outside our comprehension. If we were to all enter paradise, surely its perfection would proliferate under the happiness we would all share together, rather than losing its perfection upon our entrance, as SolitaryWalker incorrectly asserts. SolitaryWalker says salvation comes only when the intellect takes primacy over the will, and that the will is in motion, the will being the foundation to all existence. He also thinks that not even the brightest of us will access full truth and knowledge, but if nothing is even true or false, understanding even to begin with could perhaps only be found in empiricism. Some would also hold enlightenment to be a vision of the world objective and independent of prejudice, and that we must not deem the world to be what we can accept via personal taste, the limits of our vision not indeed being the limits of the world. The real universe is outside our perception, the poverty of our imaginations perceiving the infinite existence as finite. Perhaps everything exists only in the way we with our vision perceive the thing to be, in accordance with our reasoning faculties. Matter as well as all things nonphysical may be manifestations of a fluctuating force, a will objectifying itself. Perhaps the point of greatest importance is that the way we perceive the world will always be finite as long as we impose restrictions upon it. Spinoza’s doctrine of salvation comes through contemplation. We must believe reason to be the light of the world, the ultimate end of philosophy.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's God, Public Morality and Evolution thread:
SolitaryWalker begins by asking perhaps the biggest question in existence: what is God? He says God by tradition is often seen as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being. Such extraordinary qualities however put God’s identity as a person into question. He also under his doctrine demands worship over personal achievement, but worse yet choosing the dark path of Satan. SolitaryWalker conceives human beings who show genuine compassion to often be incompetent in logical analysis and objectivity, and that the inner quest to perfect all things would be a heavy burden, like for a being who mastered light to also master darkness. Really though, I conceive it to be possible to achieve a perfect balance between such opposites, should we see things from all angles, reference points, and which from the contrast, we could divine our knowledge. God with all of his supreme knowledge is also commonly depicted as the symbol for supreme power, as infinite greatness is also often equated with a person of sublime power. I agree perfectly with SolitaryWalker on his point of how Carl Jung said that in our philosophical, scientific, and theological studies, we gain more insights into the workings of our minds rather than the workings of the world. We project ourselves onto what we see and in effect anthropomorphize all things. Plato argues the average man must be lied to in order to keep them from falling off the safe path, a tactic I for one would not subscribe to, for not only should the truth be free, but it should also set us free. SolitaryWalker is right in regards to God and the way we see him having been the cause for corruption all throughout human history, how manipulative people have twisted ideas in service of external agendas. SolitaryWalker in regards to God concludes that he is best defined as the primary essence of spirituality, or the other world, and then asks if it is possible for us to know the other world. He follows by asking what was the beginning of the universe, and that if A created B, asking what created A, rendering A incapable for a Creator, assuming that it could not have come from nothing. This may mean it has always existed, without beginning or end. This view of time could be defined as the infinite realm, a view from which all things could be seen.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Problem of religion thread:
Religion could be defined as an ethical doctrine, a world cosmology independent of empiricism, a spiritual eschatology, and fundamentalism. The fundamental beliefs religion harbors in these areas incapable for change could discourage critical thought, encouraging people to believe their views are unquestionable. Religion could thereby discourage people from being open-minded, which could compel them to only deem themselves and the sacred texts of their divine authority right. As such, they are caught completely off-guard when presented with critical opinions conflicting with their own. They so aggressively defend these irrational stances, despite facts and evidence as well as reasoning to the contrary, since if they do, the religion promises them greater reward to come. Such religious stances have and could continue to entail violence. We must instead follow the following:
1. The requirement is not to change the system, but rather the people.
2. The measure of man based on the state of our planet is pathetic. We need to change the nature of humanity to rise above and beyond.
3. The spread of information would help establish world peace, it resulting as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment vision.
4. When discussing global issues, we must put personal prejudice aside.
5. Individuality is a point of great importance independent of the environment.
6. The ancients were misguided due to lack of technology, though the world could become greater in our lifetime, despite doubters. We must achieve a perfect community stretching across the Earth with universal acceptance and individuality.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Typology as a philosophical discipline thread:
We must wonder whether typology is even a logically consistent enough of a system to accurately order people into set psychological categorizations to begin with, let alone adaptable enough to account for the vast diversity of people in the world. Due to external factors and conditioning, perhaps one could act contrary to their true nature, their true personality, and even test as such. After all, people can indeed act differently than their natural personality would dictate, based on adjusting to the environment. Due to this lack of behavioral consistency, one can conclude Keirsey’s typology to be incomplete, which is based solely on behavior. If even a fully self-mastered man were to accomplish qualities stereotypically associated with different types, the foundations would further fissure. Perhaps though, the psychological states of people and the patterns of their reasoning as well as thought dynamics could be greater concepts from which to construct a typology, founded from a philosophical framework. Philosophy could be defined as a primarily conceptual and abstract study of the world, asking such questions as follows:
1. Is it possible for the mind to divine free will, to control cause and effect?
2. What is the nature of consciousness, the ways in which we see and perceive things?
3. What is the ultimate nature of reality, the existential system designing all creation?
4. What are the foundations of thought, the forge from which the mind constructs?
These questions all address the mental makeup of an individual, and as such, these things are more difficult to directly detect. Typology is thereby a study of solidified patterns of thought, and one’s natural tendencies, not consistently contingent with environmental circumstances.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Universal Feel? thread:
SolitaryWalker asks whether a universal moral law should be imposed upon all people, termed universal feel. There are 3 different arguments we can approach this with: if we must correct those who act wrongly, if there is no choice but to correct them, of even if wrong choose not to do so. Perhaps certain experiences throughout a person’s life have shaped what these values and what violates them are. Some may even divert greater focus on well-reasoned thought-experiments rather than value centered-thought. We must then see how creative and idiosyncratic visionaries construct their worldviews. Certainly many mystics across the globe have already conceptualized what many may deem impossible. Many who see themselves as right often try to change other’s opinions to match their own. These people will tend to think negatively of those who disagree. The accumulation of such feelings may lead to hostility. Due to these possible contingent consequences, an established system of ethics may be a mistaken idea.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Theorem of Feel thread:
SolitaryWalker wonders how desirable it is for people to believe in things that are not supported by an argument. He begins by describing the process of logic, saying it deals with chains of reasoning. The formalities behind logic seem like mathematical operations, a much more abstract and theoretical discipline than the dynamic and transformative discipline of cosmology, in which case I support the latter discipline while SolitaryWalker seems to prefer the former. One thing that both disciplines have in common though is that when they show us our short-comings, few are able to do so without simultaneously losing self-respect. However, even the most disciplined among us will wish for a brighter future, perhaps putting too much faith in beliefs like karma. This feel method has been historically a consistent craft of manipulation of others to their delusion and detriment, even in service of altruistic causes.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's I am an atheist but... thread:
Do we really wish to destroy the popular myths of society in order to enlighten and awaken people? Although I believe the truth should be accessible to everyone, some may be disturbed by new discoveries, and their emotions may override their rationality. Perhaps one such belief that may be dangerous to dispel is the anthropomorphized view of God. If one were however to sufficiently handle the truth, it could result in inner peace and less mistakes, since we would have proper knowledge and beliefs by which we can direct ourselves, since if we take the right actions, then good consequences should follow. As such, false beliefs could lead in the wrong direction. As of now, man obeys the laws of nature (perhaps the progressive development of man could change that). If then we wish to control the laws of nature, every man must receive universal enlightenment.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Essence of Human nature thread:
Sartre says we are defined by the choices we make and how we deal with the consequences, and that bad faith is our restraint from improving our circumstances. It would follow that we could counter all adversity through pure resolution of will, which SolitaryWalker says cannot be the case due to the limits of human power. He says Sartre’s false belief could have sprung from his own overestimation of individual freedom, as Sartre says all choices spring from within. SolitaryWalker next defines human nature as unalterable dispositions that inhere within our psyche. He says the strongest of such tendencies is the will to feel good; making an axiom that feeling good is the foundation of human nature. This drive for well-being likely led to the evolution of our faculties enabling human survival, such as walking, breathing, or language. Machiavelli is quoted as saying that people are fickle by nature and will stand by you if you are winning, but once you cease to be winning, they shall abandon you. It follows that people will only employ positive sentiments to their advantage, more often than not. The greatest fear man possesses is annihilation, and as such, will commonly go further than necessary to preserve his well-being. As such, many believe God to be a means of attaining eternal life. Such potential divine reward will inspire many men to act positively.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Essence of Apriori thread:
SolitaryWalker asks if it is possible to have knowledge prior to experience. This could be possible if knowledge is innate, that is, if it is stored in our unconscious. If so, we could not only acquire knowledge, but also recover it. He defines knowledge as a true set of beliefs from which we can refer to choose. He also asks to ask to what degree one’s natural talents result from what is innate versus one’s influence from the external world. Newton saw the world as a dynamic machine of cause and effect, from which point A leads to B from which follows C to result in D and so forth. This view however cannot explain the source from which the first cause came, a question of how something could have come from nothing. Our minds translate the infinite realm into finite terms, which make such questions that impose limits incapable for explanation.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Origin of Feeling thread:
SolitaryWalker defines feeling as a cognitive faculty of emotive valuation, concerned with how we relate to the external environment, not how it is, thereby rendering feeling subjective. This could cause us to attach anthropomorphic qualities to things, a personal touch. This urge likely developed within man throughout our evolution as a means of self-preservation, to identify life-threatening dangers in the external environment. As a result our feeling has become stronger.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's On the virtues of passion thread:
SolitaryWalker says aesthetical judgments primarily reflect how we feel about things, which in turn he believes will effect who we are. As such, art could be seen as an expression of ourselves, an aesthetical reflection of our emotions and inner state. These emotionally charged impulses he claims are in complete opposition to analytical thinking. I disagree, as our thinking I believe should ultimately be a foundation from which our feelings can manifest and create a meaningful world for us, which is why thinking without feeling is like matter without energy. He further claims the wise and lofty will choose analytical subjects devoid of passion, such as mathematics, even though mathematics assigns limits to things, whereas passion breathes fire into the equations.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Popularization of Philosophy thread:
Rather than connecting the ideas developed by all the great philosophers into a greater whole, I would advise a less holistic point of view. Instead, we should at least be open to all those ideas, but we should also tenaciously chase those that fit our ideals in a radical and less balanced drive to fulfill our visions. Most importantly of all however, is to create our own individualized philosophy, and to walk the solitary paths of our own planning ahead.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's On the Human condition thread:
SolitaryWalker postulates that people are naturally driven towards self-affirmation; that we wish to feel good, doing what we believe leads to our well-being. I will say though that some things transcend immediate pleasures, and that some will make monumental sacrifices at the cost of their own well-being in this life to uplift the human condition. Also, those who choose not to be happy and content with the current state of things will have greater motivation to transform it for the better. He also criticizes others for seeking affirmation from the various people in their life, which I think is a misconception, since if a belief of ours gains greater universal acceptance, then it can be implemented on a global scale. Ideally, we should have a means by which we can all agree.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Utility of Philosophy thread:
Philosophy can be used as a model for science, the pure idea being tested and refined empirically. Science will give us the results of this process, and then philosophy can next synthesize the pieces together to form a greater product by constructing a blueprint of its unified design. This can help us solve the monumental problems of our future horizons, should we take the correct steps of action in our present position.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's How I think we ought to live our lives thread:
Religion is a means by which many find a life purpose and develop a cosmological map of the world as well as developing ethical systems and seeking what lies beyond this life. A critical weakness within religion however, is that all of these views are to be accepted on authority without question. SolitaryWalker defines this as faith which, according to believers, must be followed, lest the Gods unleash their divine wrath! He says that rather than blindly believing what we falsely perceive to be immortal wisdom, we must follow the liberating light of truth on a philosophical search for meaning. Meaning is found in independent thinking and letting our true self’s light shine.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's What is spirituality? thread:
SolitaryWalker defines spirituality as a quest for another world, which he thinks suggests that these experiences transform spiritual prophets from within. Perhaps this could mean minds that are guided by the stars above are filled with celestial light which they can reflect upon their creations and make them sparkle with incessant fluctuations of world form, that is, finding a greater life purpose can be a quest in which we ascend to the zenith, a position of perfection from which we would have a higher perspective from which our reality can be seen and shaped anew. God is the greatest possible good but, unlike SolitaryWalker says, good fables lead to God.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Problem of Religious bigotry thread:
We will fulfill much life purpose in the open-ended quest to construct our own worldviews. It will not be found as a gift to us from someone else of a simplistic design. Those who are content are in a state of rest, a static and unchanging position which resists the currents of change. Change is the only constant factor ever present within the world. It makes life grow and lets creation take shape. These incessant transformations are the driving force in the progressive development of civilization and mankind.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's What is God? thread:
God is the greatest possible good. Such a concept is beyond the anthropomorphized image of God most people of primitive times always tried to project upon the divine. SolitaryWalker thinks however that this renders revelation impossible, which assumes God cannot talk to people, but at least SolitaryWalker says perhaps prophets could translate their connection with the infinite realm. Revelation I believe could come from a non-anthropomorphized source, which could perhaps transform the unconscious mind from within. Such an example may be an all omnipresent living mind which sees everything and from which all things spring into being. Should this belief hold any realistic quality to it that exists in the world, it would imply a deep connection shared amongst every mind in the universe, and our universe with whatever other worlds may be. We could all be unified with the divine as agents of co-creation. Revelation could come from any mind in existence, should we tap into this inscrutable source and the power it may give to those who seek it on their journeys, as they strive to live with purpose. This source is not necessarily God, since not all of creation is good enough.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's In search for a better understanding thread:
In the search for understanding, 4 questions we tend to ask include the meaning of eschatology, death, immortality, and what the alpha and omega of all things shall be. In discovering the treasures such great questions have in store for us, we seem to consistently find the world is greater than previously conceived, from the round earth, to the solar system centered around the sun, to the universal expansion from the big bang, and next perhaps other universes or planes of existence outside our own. Our focus should not be to divide things into absolute qualities like true and false, but rather to open our minds and let our imaginations take shape. All things conceptualized by the mind may have a certain level of reality to them beyond existent and non-existent, the existent perhaps being the world of stability, and the non-existent maybe being the world of possibility. This is why our focus should unlock the transcendent power of the mind, lifted above and beyond the mundane limitations of this plane. SolitaryWalker believes the key to the world to come is this world first. As a starting point, we must not assign limits to a world larger than our present comprehension. SolitaryWalker then goes on a long rant about how traditionalist personality types thrive on secure boundaries in suspension of critical and rational analysis, implying he believes his own personality type (probably INTP) to be vastly wiser and superior. Such arrogance blinds the mind and restricts the alternate possibilities. He is right however in saying that we should never stop questioning what we believe, as our ideas can always be altered into higher forms. Perhaps if our wills became sufficiently powerful, they could transcend the system and become free forces.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's What is truth (split from post poll) thread:
SolitaryWalker says we impose our perceptions on the world, that we see illusions similar enough to one another that we each see relatively the same physical objects. He also postulates the world may hold codes for its design that could be symbolized with languages like mathematics, and although I side with him in his general codifications theory, I believe mathematics is too definitive and absolute in its measures to embrace the endless possibilities present in the world. He also defines truth as our perceptions aligning with the outside universe, which would imply the mind transcends truth, the mind possibly having a higher reality to it that perhaps could flow outwardly and become truth. This would, in a sense, make some truth subjective, as its creation may have sprung from our own visions and dreams, unlike SolitaryWalker says. He believes to the contrary, since he holds reality is just there and incompletely translated into an imperfect understanding, whereas I have faith that, should our wills reach the right heights in power, that we could at a much higher level of alteration create the very essence of our lives and what we experience as reality. For me the world holds infinite promise for us.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Way to inner peace thread:
As a means for finding inner peace, which SolitaryWalker thinks helps to find our true-self, we must have an introspective focus on the world inside the mind. He and Spinoza also believe we are all parts of God, so when we look within ourselves, we can see the timeless and infinite essence of the divine. He says though that we should not live for ourselves, but rather we should live for God. Instead, I believe in self-mastery, and that our ultimate purpose is to attempt the great and impossible.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Mephistopheles? thread:
If we go back to the Garden of Eden story, God commanded Adam and Eve not to partake of the Fruit of Knowledge. They ate of the fruit despite the warning, and then their eyes were opened. The cost however is that they would ultimately perish, and that to postpone this, they would have to work to survive and suffer against pitiless elements. The implications of this are very difficult to see clearly, but I will speculate that there could be some higher power that wants life, at least at this level of existence, to be obedient and toiling slaves to the natural order, or perhaps it could also be challenging life to become stronger on a journey through the eons, even if the means of its accomplishment leads to suffering. In each of these instances, knowledge would aid us in our progressive development to overcome these systems, since it could give us the power we need to rise above our lowly stations, but this resistance could also bounce back upon us with greater adversity. I know not how long we shall have to endure this pain, whether it will last for 1 lifetime on earth, or if we will continue to face it for many lives to come, but the question of how to transcend this could be discovered in the finality and annihilation of all things physical. This world may be corrupted beyond repair, so to heal it, ruin may have to be unleashed upon it, for by destroying the old world, new worlds could be spawned by the will of life, worlds with ideal designs. In this way the problem of evil potentially could be ended. I make no unalterable claim that this is the direction life needs to take in the eons to come, or that such a momentous feat is even achievable, though it remains clear that we are in desperate need of a global transformation that life creates.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Dreams? thread:
Perhaps dreams may be reflections of our true self, visions of something that is important to us inside. They could open our awareness to worlds separated from the physical, allowing us to see things from a higher perspective. Not only though would dreaming access the other dimensions of creation, but also might manifest new things into creation, springing from the will of the mind. This would imply a chaotic realm, in which things could be altered; vastly different from the physical world that follows natural laws. The dream world then possibly is limitless, which would render all things possible. Here then if a person wished to move mountains, they would tremble at the sound of voice and crack asunder at command. That though was a mundane example. A highly developed dream world may be vastly different from the physical world, not only in restrictions, but also in appearance. This is why fables have values we make real and live.
RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's My Religion thread:
My religion, should I invent a good one, will chart the course for eternal life, world peace, universal enlightenment, and ultimate power. I do not expect the ideal visions for these lofty goals to be fully accomplished while I am here. I have not even discovered the directions we should follow to walk the ways in search of our destiny. This time may prove to be the most critical moment in human history that there ever was or will be, as the actions we take now will effect whether we start the fires of our own destruction, or expand to spheres beyond the terrestrial in an epic ascension to the heavens. I will wish now for a future sparkling with stars and rainbows dancing and singing with life.
I cleave the heavens and soar to the infinite.
And while I rise from my own globe to others
And penetrate ever further through the eternal field,
That which others saw from afar, I leave far behind me.
Giordano Bruno (On the Infinite Universe and Worlds, 1584)
Reply With Quote
, and 107-113 was My Soul as Lugia. 94 is a Gengar ghost, and 113 is Chansey, which evolves into Blissey, and the opposite of that is Misdreavus. This was captured in My middle, Zarathustrian articles, where the word count said Togekiss, Red, and Yanmega. This was the Prophecy that I just would become Lugia, no matter what, a kissing Jynx oracle that married Me to Misdreavus, My Banette New Jersey Nets Bunny Pikachu doll. This was taken from the Philadelphia 76ers series in 2001, where 101-107 was Lugia's weight and measure at a height of 17'1, and 108-96 was rare Wartortle Fieldmarshal wisdom that with age makes Me wise enough to become Lugia. I used to be an Indiana Pacers 2000 Meganium before I became Lugia, which is like launching a Game, because when My very first articles said 692, or Clauncher, I was creating a missive multiplayer online Game called Star Wars Galaxies!!*
