So far I've heard of only theories in which everything has always existed/exists or nothing exists/existed. These are two opposite extremes of thinking and through my philosophy it is always a unification of the two that gives us truth. This is the principle of what I call a union of opposites, and is prevalent in our universe today. These two extremes could be called many things but in this case I will call them excess/deficient, I know Aristotle used them a lot to explain the balance of emotions, feelings, and habits which I consider all energy of some sort. For example; love is an energy because you can have an excess of it (pampering) or a deficient (neglect), each of which leads us out of the unified nature of the universe, and therefore out of life itself.

That said, everything that has an excess and a deficient can be considered energy. Because the universe we now know is an interplay of these opposites and no real extremes of these opposites exist(due to the presence of it's other), what came before the universe as we know it still had energy due to the law of conversation of energy, and it still had the principle of the union of opposites because energy existed. The picture I portray is an an empty yet infinite universe in which all of the various energies could only create through extremes and a union of opposites did not existed. Whatever the energy "God" was then (I have many reasons to believe it is thought) was the one that had unified these opposite extremes to create the universe.

The way "God unified these opposites remains a mystery, for if known I believe with the power of our thought we would be able to know and likewise become gods ourselves. Nonetheless, these opposites have an interplay between them like the inhalation and exhalation of the breath, or how our two feet walk( one always out competing the other) and this interplay allows events to unfold. For if these opposites were completely balanced then they would neutralize each other, which would stagnate all universal events. These opposites are henceforth not indifferent (for if they were it would be like they did not exist).

From my meditations when I walk my dog carrying a stick I realized that the most important thing to find the balance in my stick (and likewise in myself) is be using my feelings. This is where I think comes the advantage of being in a physical body, to be able to feel imbalances in your life for the body and mind are intrinsically connected (perhaps another union of opposites?). Being a massage therapist I know that whenever there is imbalances in the body the body dies, be it postural, functional, emotional, or habitual. And so I conclude that whenever we are out of touch with an interplay of these opposites and choose to use extremes in any aspect of our lives, we are, in truth, alienating ourselves from the essential nature of how the universe functions and so we suffer for it.

Thanks for informing me

My meditations on beauty has been this:
Beauty and perfection are synonymous with each other. So as is what is beautiful and perfect. All life is perfect because all life strives for its own perfection. Similarly we are all beautiful, but lose our beauty when we get out of touch with our own living nature and turn towards artificiality, which is devoid of life. Gods living creations are far more perfected than anything artificial man creates, for they are capable of being eternal through auto-genesis.
This living perfection, like God himself, knows no real limit. Supplementing and analyzing the perfect creations of God with artificial creations of Man, drains Man and his environment of beauty. In order to get closer to God Man should be like a god himself. By creating and perfecting the living creations of God, Man perfects himself too. Man becomes like a god in that he is a creator and perfect himself, for perfection in creation, in turn, perfects the creator. That is why it is so important to create beauty in every aspect of your life and, in turn, you yourself will become more beautiful, and live a beautiful life.

Honestly I see the possibility for both of these being correct pretty high. Perhaps your both right? or perhaps we can only guess which one is right and the other wrong.

True scientific knowledge has existed for a very long time, before the philosophers even. Science in itself (to know the properties of reality) is not a immoral or insane act. I think the main problem with science today and probably for the last hundred years, is that many of the research institutes are needing funding and only big corporations is able to fund the projects. If the corporations are the main funders for scientific knowledge, who says they wouldn't only do so if it was only for their own interests? Their interests are to feed the pyramid scheme that keeps their wealth and power working properly.

I agree with you and believe you. concepts even in spirituality are taught by many through analogies such as lotus flower and enlightenment concepts and is used mainly to get the correct images in your mind to conceive and memorize those ideas too.

I don't believe that is a very technical definition but I think I know what you are trying to get at. To keep it short, it sort of is like people are more motivated to do things out of fear rather than out of the positive effects of doing such an action.

Interesting, so the boy will associate his senses with the thoughts he is thinking about in that experience. So what if he is thinking of something of something like a "black hole" in which you can only perceive visually. I think in that case all he is left is to think of the image of a black hole. In other words the boy will associate certain thoughts with which he was able to perceive them with his senses or feelings, and at the base level you might only be left with images.

I'm afraid someone would say something like this. This simplicity of the question really can catch up to you. So, then, feelings would be the most basic way of communication. If so his thoughts wouldn't be words but also guided be feelings.

I can respect the man who gardens and bakes bread and helps his neighbors. I'm sure more than half of the men on this forum don't even think of doing something close to as wholesome as that. My generation really is lost in technology, it is like a hypnotic sleep.

that is called planned obsolescence.

I can't tell if you are joking or not

perhaps, have you heard Plato say that children are born into the world with all knowledge but have to remember the things they will forget throughout their lives. Some food for thought.

Maybe have a "don't buy shit" week in the month of January too.:yum:

How about trying something new then if you feel like you've answered all the questions of reality correctly.

And then there is the whole what demarcates science from 'pseudoscience', and there is no good answer to that, there are many observation-based logically consistent theories of the world that are labeled as pseudoscientific or non-scientific for no good reason, just to discredit them because they go against the mainstream power structure. — leo

That is a great problem, due to our lack of ability to change and always striving for truth. When you have been studying science for 40 years and all of the sudden your preconceived notions of what you thought reality and science for that matter is a joke, then I could imagine why it would be hard to accept newer views of reality.

It goes to show how important philosophy is even in this modern day and age. But the current worldview sees philosophy as a joke I am afraid.

Thank you for answering my question.

I can agree with you but also having people who have had a more privileged experience just adds another neat dynamic in life, so I try not to despise them.

so, then, what is your philosophy on philosophy?

What Husserl called Lebenswelt — the world of life — in fact, I think this concept is too timid, because Lebenswelt is the only world that exists, and I assure you: the world of scientific experience, considered in itself, does not exist. It only exists as a part of Lebenswelt, which you have decided to look at separately, you are distinguishing mentally, but you are not actually separating. This means that without an Ontology and an Epistemology based on the examination of real experience, no science is worth anything, they only acquire value if properly inserted into this general scheme of reality. — Rafaella Leon

That statement does go to show how important philosophy is so that we treat our experience of reality in the correct ways. Right now the current extremism line of thinking that bred our modern science from our modern philosophy does not seem the right way we should be treating our experience. Our global pollution crises for example. Therefore tracing the problem to its root, there needs to be a fundamental change of sciences worldview today. Similarly with many other subjects as well, such as philosophy and politics.

Whatever your philosophy is on the general subject of philosophy.

but the thinking is also continuously establishing new relations between the images (symbols) and committing them to memory. — Metaphysician Undercover

This does not give credit to humans' ability to conceptualize things. I believe that when someone says he thinks in words, he thinks in words. Early thoughts may have formed as images or imprints of sensory perceptions. But constant use of them and constant associating them to concepts and words made the associtations automatic, and eventually the associations squeezed out, so to speak, the purely sensory impressions. — god must be atheist

Exactly what I think. The words are associated to a certain image, and so are an overextended way of thinking rather than in the images themselves. If you knew only sign language you could associate a baby(noun) with the act of rocking something in your arms. If you had nothing to associate with what is spoken or written then you would come to the base layer of images (purer conceptualized thinking). If you could not think of the subject in any sort of image than it couldn't be conceptualized

exactly

Neither quantity nor quality (is there anything else?) does the trick. — TheMadFool

Perhaps the duality in the universe is less of the current "yin and yang" idea or polarity (qualities) and infinite and finite (quantities), but something that is in between these two(again with the unity of opposites). I propose the duality is simply existence and non-existence, mind and anti-mind, rationality and anti-rationality...ad infinitum and that the universe is created through a unity of these opposites.

I think in spoken words, but generally not in written words. I can think in written symbols to an extent, like numerals, but isn't this just a way of thinking in images? Come to think of it, isn't thinking in spoken words just a way of thinking in aural images? — Metaphysician Undercover

I absolutely agree that It would be cumbersome to think of the individual written words. I go back and forth between thinking in spoken word and images mostly when I think of concepts that are hard for myself to put into words. However without that spoken word thinking I would imagine you would only think in images.

paradox. If we didn't create our own reality then in no way does that knowledge serve us since we cannot leave the reality we live in. Potentially unless we die, but then that is disempowering us to live our lives right now. Therefore it should be believed and true that we create our experience as long as we cannot leave the reality we are in.

So it would appear that you are more concerned with a 'religious' or 'spiritual' or some such matters more than scientific problems. You don't have much confidence in science at all. So, one wonders, what is your interest in "the problems of science"? It would appear that you have more confidence in "seemingly universal intelligence". Believe what you want, but it would be better if you were more up-front from the get-go about what your position is. — Bitter Crank

I am giving you a point of view to debate for and against. Also, a lot of what you would call "spiritual" and "religious" is heavily backed up by the science in the more modern day, so try not to be too skeptical as old world-views are changing.

even if we use science and technology in positive way it would not be a perfect worldview that is beneficial to humans or the planet.
— Thinking

Is molecular biology not beneficial in having created vaccines for COVID? What about our much beloved smartphones? — magritte

The source and cause of COVID is controversial. I will say to not buy the major narrative media is giving the majority, and to not act out of the fear of it . Virus' for the most part are not a problem in nature and are very beneficial to organisms. Whenever a virus effects a population of deer for example, there is underlying causes that would for example affect the immune system of the subject or an overpopulation. Nature as a whole is very intelligent and has many ploys to restore itself to homeostasis or balance.

I hate to say it but it seems that we are more of a virus to this planet than COVID is a virus for us.

Unfortunately that is the case today. I will say that even if we use science and technology in positive way it would not be a perfect worldview that is beneficial to humans or the planet. It is inherent that all artificially created devices break down over time and are created from the broken parts of nature and the Earth. However the devices and entities of nature are eternal and are capable of recreating themselves through the phenomena of birth and are infinitely more perfect than any device we can create today. This is due to the fact that natures devices are created by a seemingly universal intelligence that is reflected in galaxies and beyond.

So in order to progress humans and their own inherent nature, along with the nature around them it is more important to find every creatures purpose that serves undoubtedly to benefit man. For everything we construct there will always exist a natural analog. An example is that we have created the calculator when most scholars hundreds of years ago were capable of mental calculations at an arguably greater speed than people today. As we perfect living, natural creations it will nonetheless perfect the creator.

If 2 People have the same philosophy or ~philosophy are they seen as the same tribe? — turkeyMan

The whole concept of separation as I see it leads us to the numerous problems we have today(on many levels of being, both political and scientific). Therefore I would like to think not that we are divided but united under one title "mankind"

Humorous. Is it because man started to take things apart and started analyzing it which leads to excavation, rather than elation of nature and life as it is? I think so.

yeah, in this case, though, I was really referring the idea that, in some people at least, something just clicks regarding a certain aspect of life. Someone gets a passion for something and there's no stopping them. Or, you notice something that should be complex but it all just makes sense for no apparent reason. — Whickwithy

It could be information from past lives or it could be thoughts themselves that already exist on another plane of being that is partially tapped into at a young age.

Paradigm-breakers. The worst thing in the world for me is paradigms. They blur our sentient perceptions. We get fed so many nonsensical paradigms as children before our critical thinking defenses kick in. Aaarrrggghhh! — Whickwithy

So then it must be true for if it wasn't then it would be paradoxical and therefore it couldn't exist.

I don't want to get too far off into the woods, but some of the discoveries in physics, like quantum entanglement, Heisenberg principle and the double slit experiment seem to indicate that we create our own reality to an extent that goes far beyond anything we dare believe. — Whickwithy

You've hit it right on the head with that statement, although not pertinent to the Tao directly I think that the knowledge of how we think shapes our experience is very empowering wisdom. Even if it wasn't true it would still empower us as human beings to make it true.

Your post was very informative. It is a little long and brings about several points that would be worth discussing, but is difficult due to the length and information involved. Again I appreciate your post but keeping it concise and to a singular point would be preferable and I think many others would agree with me too so that we can discuss things one step at a time.

Perhaps the entity that created the mutual relationship created the duality in the first place and therefore created the known Universe?

I view the Tao as obtainable somehow when you live your life in complete balance, and a union of opposites occur. As both you and the universe is comprised of a union of opposites. When you are increasingly out of balance in all the diverse parts of material living, you are actually increasingly more alienated from the natural order of the Universe until circumstances balance your being out.

1. The negative potential energy of gravity matches/cancels the positive kinetic energy of stuff.

2. Two matter particles in free space, oppositely charged (another balance), the electron and the proton, and their antiparticles (another balance). Note that neutrons in free space decay in about 12 minutes. One energy particle, the photon, which is its own antiparticle or one could say it has none. Only those number of ways to make them in this curious symmetry, due to…?

3. The net electric charge of the universe appears to be zero.

More? — PoeticUniverse

There are countless examples both physical, energetic, ethical, philosophical as both us humans and the universe is a formation of a union of opposites.

I do not think, however, it is a fine balance. Instead, I believe the Universe is always in a natural balance as a flowing river. At times, there may be disruption, such as a dam stopping there flow of water, but in time, the dam will be overcome, and ther natural balance returns. — MondoR

Nature itself when left alone (from our imbalanced actions that lead towards the non-existence or anti-rationality side of the spectrum), will eventually lead itself into homeostasis or a balance of energies.