I sold tons of weed and smoked it for years. But 25 years ago I put it down out of respect for myself and everyone around me. — Joe Mello

In the OP you mention being in a monastery for five years 40 years ago. God didn’t teach you to respect yourself or those around you?

you haven't really read through the thread, have you? — Joe Mello

Yes I have. Your accusation is false.

Even you came to this thread and looked at me instead of the principle. — Joe Mello

On the contrary, both you and your principle are right there in the thread title. And I have addressed both.

Are you backing off from your claim that love is the greatest? You do not engage, sir. You do not respond. I ask again, where in all this long thread is your love? It appears from your posting that your god is miserable self-obsessed bully incapable of a friendly engagement. If the God that is love has been with you and speaking to you, why are we not feeling it but only your arrogance and contempt?

don't think this is true. I think lots of people experience God. That doesn't mean I agree with Joe Mello on the things he's written. — T Clark

I think that all God-related experiences are fingers pointing at the moon. Not the moon itself. Just enough to get a fragrance of the thing.

I told you that I have spent decades experiencing God, and you replied that “no one experiences God”. — Joe Mello

So what were your God experiences then? Your thoughts? Sensations? Émotions?

@Janus

Janus, a critical examination of my posts would reveal that I came here writing about a metaphysical principle and not about revelation, and that my subsequent posts about revelation were in response to questions that demanded such a response.

To claim to have critical thinking skills is the first claim of every skeptic, not a proven reality from simply dismissing everything that can’t be mathematically or visually confirmed.

Qanon’s mantra is “do the research”.

You have gravitated towards revelation in my posts for personal reasons, not because your critical thinking skills demanded it.

A basic metaphysical principle would be that “No two contradictory statements in the same sentence can both be true”.

Scientists couldn’t function without it.

But there are many more logical principles of ever-increasing elegance. A truly disciplined and talented intellect would be on the search for them, and would step by step from the most basic to the most elegant discover them.

When G. K. Chesterton became a scholastically trained academic, he said that doing so did not teach him what to think but how to think.

Today’s thinkers don’t even know the difference.

And until a person firstly does a line by line disciplined and talented walkthrough of Aristotle’s “Metaphysics”, that person will not have taken even the first step towards a true ability to think from the most basic to the most high levels.

Today’s “critical thinkers” don’t even talk a good game.

@emancipate

emancipate, to ask a question that has already been answered is kinda dumb.

Did you not read my long post about a “Baptism of Tears”?

If you’re truly interested in the quality of my experiences of God, starting there would be a better place than spurting out questions off the top of your head.

@unenlightened

unenlightened, “love” is not the greatest thing when there is a chance to disarm someone pointing a gun at your head.

Singing kumbaya all day is not what a great lover does.

Laying down her life for another is.

@praxis

praxis, when I went into the monastery I threw in the garbage years of drawings and writings that I had done stoned.

But after stopping every passion for seven years, I left the monastery when I experienced what John of the Cross called “The Dark Night of the Soul”, came home, and began a normal life again.

Over time, my spirit rejuvenated and God drew close again. And then I realized that my time in the monastery was focused on me, not God and others.

Today I am successfully becoming more and more fully alive from the journey away from self-love and towards love of God and others.

And this journey is not a simple and easy one, or everyone would take it and get nothing from it.

Our life becomes as great as our experiences, not as we think it to be.

And it is the balancing of Yin and Yang that improves us, not the experience of one of them.

I'll try a different approach.

You propose a hierarchy of existence: light is lesser than material elements; material elements are lesser than living things; living things are lesser than God.

Taking physical elements and adding to them a lesser thing, such as light, to create a living being would be an absurdity.

Taking physical elements and adding to them an equal thing, such as other elements, to create a living being would be an impossibility.

Taking physical elements and adding to them a greater thing, such as a living being, to create a living being would be a redundancy.

But taking physical elements and adding to them a greater thing than a living being, such as an omnipotent being, to create a living being would be a metaphysical possibility. — Joe Mello

Your principle relates the levels of this hierarchy:

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

It is possible to create a thing of level $n$ out of things of level $n-1$, but only by adding something of level $n+1$. The canonical example of this is God creating living things out of non-living matter.

Are there any other possibilities? Can living things create matter out of light? If there were something less than light, could matter create light out of it? Could there be a higher level of divinity that could create God (or gods) out of living things?

I'm asking in all seriousness, because your principle is explicitly stated in these hierarchical terms, "greater" and "lesser". Are there any other examples of how the levels are related?

One more question. I assume the hierarchy goes something like this:

1. impossible that it be living (light);
2. possible that it be living but not necessary (matter);
3. necessary that it be living (god).

And then we can subdivide (2):

2a. capable of living but not living (objects, let's say);
2b. living.

Have I understood you correctly?

MU, I explained the principle step by step showing that I understand it very well. You ignored these steps, Now you’re accusing me of just repeating it from someone else. — Joe Mello

You did not explain yourself. You just kept insisting that this is "greater" than that, without stating your criteria for greatness, and when I asked for it, to justify your statement, you acted as if it is somehow self-evident that this is greater than that, implying that I'm an imbecile for asking.

And, no, the last thing I expect is you to readily understand such an elegant principle. You have given me no reason to, no matter how many questions you ask and consider on point when they’re not. — Joe Mello

Elegance is an aesthetic principle, beauty, appealing to the senses rather than to the intellect. That your principle is elegant does not make it intelligible. This is a philosophy forum, and in philosophy we try to judge principles by their intelligibility. You have presented what you believe to be an elegant piece of art. However, you want to pass it off as a Metaphysical Principle. To move from the former category to latter requires justification. Beauty does not require justification, principles do.

Your questions haven’t been about the principle but about your ideas.

Be honest. You didn’t ponder it at all, but simply rushed into the first thoughts off the top of your head. — Joe Mello

Joe! Where is your head at? I looked at your "elegant principle", and realized instantaneously that I have no idea what you mean by "greater". One could spend an eternity pondering 'what does Joe mean by greater', approaching an infinity of possibilities. I chose a more appropriate action, ask Joe what he means by "greater". Your replies indicate Joe does not know what he means by "greater", and he reacts to my questioning in a defensive way, trying to make me feel like the uneducated one.

I provided you a metaphysical principle and claimed it is extremely important in understanding the evolution we know took place on our planet. — Joe Mello

You did not provide a metaphysical principle Joe. By your own admittance you have given us something elegant, something you believe to be a beautiful piece of art. A metaphysical principle requires justification, something you appear to be unable to give us. Therefore you have not provided a metaphysical principle.

And I ended with that I was looking forward to further discussions. — Joe Mello

The "further discussions" you requested, could have been your justification of your principle. However, you seem to think that the statement is self-justifying without any indication as to what "greater" means.

If it makes you happy Joe, as you seem to be truly miserable and I would be delighted to cheer you up, I'll provide an analysis of your "principle" for you:

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

Look, it's obvious that a combination of lesser things does produce a greater thing, always without fail. That's how "lesser" and "greater" are commonly defined, such that a complexity is greater than a simplicity. The more lesser things you add, the greater the complexity becomes. The idea that a "greater thing" needs to be added to the lesser things is unwarranted because the act of "adding" itself, is what creates the greater thing from the lesser things. And you cannot say that the act of "adding" is the greater thing because it is already categorically separated from "greater and lesser".

emancipate, to ask a question that has already been answered is kinda dumb.

Did you not read my long post about a “Baptism of Tears”?

If you’re truly interested in the quality of my experiences of God, starting there would be a better place than spurting out questions off the top of your head. — Joe Mello

The only thing you have done so far in this thread is reply with petty remarks and a bad attitude. This is not philosophy and neither does it make anyone want to engage with you seriously. Do not assume that I (and others here) have not spent many years thinking about such topics; and by that I wish to suggest to you that the questions asked were not "off the top of my head". You are not the first to think deeply, so get off your high horse old man.

Joe! Where is your head at? I looked at your "elegant principle", and realized instantaneously that I have no idea what you mean by "greater". One could spend an eternity pondering 'what does Joe mean by greater', approaching an infinity of possibilities. I chose a more appropriate action, ask Joe what he means by "greater". Your replies indicate Joe does not know what he means by "greater", and he reacts to my questioning in a defensive way, trying to make me feel like the uneducated one. — Metaphysician Undercover

There were multiple posters in the thread who wanted clarification on what exactly Joe means by 'greater'. It is apparently something so vague and vacuous as to be meaningless.

I think that all God-related experiences are fingers pointing at the moon. — emancipate

I don't think experiencing God is any different from any other experience, keeping in mind, of course, that I never have had that experience.

A basic metaphysical principle would be that “No two contradictory statements in the same sentence can both be true”.

Light is a wave phenomenon and light is a particle phenomenon.

Okay, let me clarify what makes a thing "greater" than another thing. And this clarification is not my clarification, but something known for centuries by all the greatest thinkers humanity has produced.

First, one must have in his or her mind an integral understanding of what makes up a thing -- its elements. And I don't mean its atomic number.

A living thing and a material object both have matter and take up space. But a living thing has an extra element, and not simply a quantitatively extra element but a qualitatively extra element. A living thing is alive. So, when we place a living thing and a material object before us, and as the only spokespersons for reality, we can proclaim with absolute certitude that a living thing is greater than a material object.

Light and matter both emit electromagnetic waves. But matter has the extra element of mass. So, we can also proclaim with absolute certitude that matter is greater than light.

And so on ...

And ...

When something is "more complex" than another thing, but actually the same thing with no extra element to it, it is not a "greater" thing than its simpler counterpart.

I apologize for being "vague" about lesser and greater things. But I was so because I took for granted that people on a philosophy forum had learned and incorporated into his or her thinking this basic tenet of philosophy.

You know, today's thinkers are very unclever when they throw out the past and endorse modern skepticism without the firm foundation under their thinking that great thinkers before them have erected.

Ignorance of our past is just that -- ignorance.

I apologize for being "vague" about lesser and greater things. But I was so because I took for granted that people on a philosophy forum had learned and incorporated into his or her thinking this basic tenet of philosophy. — Joe Mello

Defining terms is one of the first things that should happen in philosophical discourse. You're trying to claim that there is a generally accepted definition of 'greater' used amongst philosophers. That is obviously false.

Ignorance of our past is just that -- ignorance. — Joe Mello

Yeah we are ignorant of whatever meaning you have in your mind. Aka not mind readers.

Light and matter both emit electromagnetic waves. But matter has the extra element of mass. So, we can also proclaim with absolute certitude that matter is greater than light. — Joe Mello

Isn't mass quantitative?

@emancipate

Light has zero mass.

Matter has mass.

How much mass matter has doesn't matter when judging it to be greater than light.

That matter has mass and light doesn't is a "qualitative" difference.

T Clark, a photon "particle" has no mass.

That matter has mass and light doesn't is a "qualitative" difference. — Joe Mello

So for you 'greater' is something in subjective experience? Mass is quantitatively measured.

Isn't mass quantitative? — emancipate

As Einstein told us; mass and energy, e.g. electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light; are equivalent. Light doesn't have mass, but it has momentum.

@emancipate

For only me?

Who is the spokesperson for reality?

My dog Luna?

Hello Joe, and welcome to the forums!

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

This is a conclusion, but where are your premises? I don't think you have to write a massively long text, but how can we conclude this ourselves? What are lesser things? What is a greater thing?

Off the top of my head, I have a few counters to that counters to that conclusion. Isn't a molecule made up of atoms? But molecules do not make up atoms. Isn't a society made up of people? But a society does not create people.

Light doesn't have mass, but it has momentum. — T Clark

relativistic mass -- mass when an object is in motion, as opposed to at rest

This is what light has. Has no rest mass, but has energy which has mass, and a consequential impact on both matter and space. So, still open to quantitative measurement and such. Little bit of both, in other words, Mr. Clark.

Laying down her life for another is. — Joe Mello

Evil defined. The sacrifice of the Human Consciousness for the sake of another's. Humanity must be a ceremonial animal for you. Loving someone is fighting to protect the consciousness that is constituted in that someone, not ending your own in some paroxysm of absurd emotion. Protection and preservation require the active implementation of the abilities of consciousness, not their negation. This is primitive, tribal, witchdoctor ethics.

@Srap Tasmaner

Your post demands a lot of thought.

See if some of my recent answers answered some of your questions.

I’ll get back to you when I can do it well enough.

But you should remember that perhaps there are not many these days who have the ears and eyes or disposition to be moved by revelation, or even to recognize its existence. — Janus

Brilliantly asserted, my astude friend. And most true, indeed. To claim an immaterial reality, is to claim a contradictory assertion. One must have evidence, and not just logical validity, to assert a claim of correspondence.

First, one must have in his or her mind an integral understanding of what makes up a thing -- its elements. And I don't mean its atomic number.

A living thing and a material object both have matter and take up space. But a living thing has an extra element, and not simply a quantitatively extra element but a qualitatively extra element. A living thing is alive. So, when we place a living thing and a material object before us, and as the only spokespersons for reality, we can proclaim with absolute certitude that a living thing is greater than a material object. — Joe Mello

Can I say that a thing's elements are its parts? If so, then we have to consider that there is more to a thing than just its element, there is whatever it is that produces the unity of parts. In my mind, this is what makes a thing greater than the sum of its parts. Whatever it is which unifies the thing's parts is something other than the thing itself, as a cause of the thing, and is also something other than all its parts.

So when we come to the distinction between a living thing, and an inanimate thing, they are, each one of them, a composition of parts. Therefore both have this facet which is the cause of their unity, and so they each have something "greater" than each one's individual and separate parts.

Your claim is that a living thing is greater than an inanimate thing, but I don't see your principle. To me, the earth looks greater than any living thing, the sun looks greater than the earth, a galaxy looks greater than the sun, and a black hole might be even greater than a galaxy.

You seem to think that it is obvious that a living thing is greater than an inanimate thing, but I don't see why you think this. Living things have an extremely short life span, after which they decay and the parts are no longer unified. But some inanimate things exist in unity for millions or even billions of years. Doesn't a longer period of existence, therefore unity of its parts, constitute a greater being to you?

@Philosophim

Thanks for the welcome.

The answers to your questions are right on this last page.

And atoms and molecules are made of the same stuff. There is nothing in a molecule that is an extra element from an atom, like ice cubes are not greater than water, just frozen water.

But the first ancient bacteria was greater than the dead primordial soup it was swimming in because it possessed the quality of being a living being, which is not simply a more complex dead object.

@Garrett Travers

So "Human Consciousness" is equal to the physical brain that dies at our death?

A thought is simply a chemical reaction?

The love we feel for our family is just a physical phenomenon?

A person born with a brain injury and never understands themselves or anything else is just a shit-out-of-luck person?

A human being at his or her death is the same thing as the snuffing out of a candle?

All the people throughout the history of humanity who have claimed to know and love God were absolutely delusional?

And you know all this because you are a truly amazing fellow who is highly respected and who inspires everyone by his example to become another amazing human being like yourself?

Or are you just an opinionated bigmouth in love with the thoughts bouncing off the top of his own head?

So "Human Consciousness" is equal to the physical brain that dies at our death? — Joe Mello

As far as what all of the current data suggests, which is a vast payload, yes. Not a single scrap of evidence exists to suggest otherwise, and no number of gaps in knowledge are an argument for something else.

A thought is simply a chemical reaction? — Joe Mello

Reductionism: the belief that any complex set of phenomena can be defined or explained in terms of a relatively few simple or primitive ones.

No, I'm saying thought is the computation of the most complex system of interconnected structures, pathways, functions, chemicals, electromagnetic forces, and evolutionary adaptations contained within a single system that the human being has ever attempted to analyze.

The love we feel for our family is just a physical phenomenon? — Joe Mello

Just? There is no "just" physical phenomenon. You live in a reality of complexity beyond comprehension. And love is an aspect of that complexity the same as everything else.

All the people throughout the history of humanity who have claimed to know and love God were absolutely delusional? — Joe Mello

Delusional, or confused? Ignorance breeds a great deal of elaborate explanations, and always has. Delusion is when no amount evidence that is presented to you that contradicts such explanations, has any effect upon your views. That is delusion.

A human being at his or her death is the same thing as the snuffing out of a candle? — Joe Mello

Reductionism is the belief that any complex set of phenomena can be defined or explained in terms of a relatively few simple or primitive ones.

No.

A person born with a brain injury and never understands themselves or anything else is just a shit-out-of-luck person? — Joe Mello

Yes.

And you know all this because you are a truly amazing fellow who is highly respected and who inspires everyone by his example to become another amazing human being like yourself? — Joe Mello

Non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

I know only what the evidence tells me, not what I imagine it doesn't. Respect and inspiration have no relavence.

Or are you just an opinionated bigmouth in love with the thoughts bouncing off the top of his own head? — Joe Mello

Ad hominem: This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person.

It's looking like you're the big mouth, with a head swimming in numerous fallacies, that I know as a philosophy student that you were trained specifically not employ. So, stop it.

@Metaphysician Undercover

You have held up quantitative as equal to or better than qualitative. I don't think it can be.

We have different notions of what it is to have being, which is one of Philosophy's oldest debates.

Plato said that being is the quality and shape of a thing.

I have always held that the quality of a thing is the best way to judge a thing.

Using your example, for a thing to exist for a long time and not experience that it is existing for a long time is far less of an existence than for a thing to live for a moment and experience that it is living for only a moment.

The equaling of quantitative with qualitative seems to be a modern phenomenon.

We live on a beautiful blue and green planet teeming with an amazing biosphere. Earth is a living miracle set within a lifeless and uninhabitable universe.

But so many of today's "thinkers" are more in awe of the vast size of our universe, even calling Earth a small insignificant planet that is probably one of many living planets.

I don't see how the quantity of a thing is anything else than more of the same thing.

And atoms and molecules are made of the same stuff. There is nothing in a molecule that is an extra element from an atom, like ice cubes are not greater than water, just frozen water.

But the first ancient bacteria was greater than the dead primordial soup it was swimming in because it possessed the quality of being a living being, which is not simply a more complex dead object. — Joe Mello

Aren't these two statements contradictory? Living things are made out of atoms and molecules. We are made up out of a complex interaction of "dead" objects. Atoms, molecules, cells, etc.

First, one must have in his or her mind an integral understanding of what makes up a thing -- its elements. And I don't mean its atomic number.

A living thing and a material object both have matter and take up space. But a living thing has an extra element, and not simply a quantitatively extra element but a qualitatively extra element. A living thing is alive. So, when we place a living thing and a material object before us, and as the only spokespersons for reality, we can proclaim with absolute certitude that a living thing is greater than a material object. — Joe Mello

All you've provided for the definition of elements is a descriptor. Elements are often thought to be fundamentals. But according to your original statement:

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

So my guess is that life is the greater thing, but needs to be added to the lesser elements to create itself? I'm not stating that life is not greater than non-life, but how do you know this? This is important, because this will, I assume, take the premise that God is greater than life, and life needs God to exist. But how do we know God is greater? And is there something that is greater than God that is needed to create God?

I apologize for being "vague" about lesser and greater things. But I was so because I took for granted that people on a philosophy forum had learned and incorporated into his or her thinking this basic tenet of philosophy. — Joe Mello

I would work to avoid such language. It is tempting to believe we are intellectually superior to others for our own satisfaction. But that is all it is for, our own satisfaction. If that becomes the goal instead of a conversation about truth and discovery, truth and discovery will always take a back seat.

You have to put yourself in people's shoes. There are hundreds of people who post ideas monthly. Each has their own background and meaning for words. We need you to define what you personally mean before we can properly assess. In your case, you're going for a "classical" sense of greatness, but in many other posts, it could mean many different things.

People here will not rag on you if you keep an open mind, listen to their thoughts, and address them politely. Well, some people still will, but they aren't worth spending any time on. :D