I think there is something objective; that is, the things that we can perceive though our senses. Now, subjectivity enters the mix by trying to interpret what these stimuli mean. That is where our conscious mind takes hold.

These are complicate issues and I recognize my own faults, so I implore you to point faults in my assertions.

I mean of course it has been interpreted through some means of media, but I try and inform myself through non-mainstream sources. And this story was portrayed on both platforms. So, I believe this to be true.

What do you think about the state of the world and the state of the Middle East?

When you say it "would create the impression that if Jesus was resurrected, the laws of nature were transcended," it seems to me that that mainly points to our faulty understanding of the laws of nature.

Now, our faulty understanding of the laws of nature may also result in a misunderstanding of Jesus' resurrection, but I find that the two are intrinsically related; therefore, it would fall under option number 2.

I may be wrong, or I may not be understanding your statement correctly.

What do you think?

So, I understand my question is loaded and possibly poorly phrased for such a difficult concept; but, from what I conclude from your response, is it that you believe that the resurrection could be an actual experience perceived from the disciples and they recorded it down as such. But, they were maybe misperceiving or misinterpreting something that wasn't empirically factual, but rather superimposing their personal beliefs about Jesus dictate what they determined as actual fact.

I switched up some of the wording. Tell me if that helps with your answer.

When you're thinking in your head or writing something as I do now, are you not doing it one thought or word followed by another thought or word?

If I assume the panpsychist view, then my idea of soul is simply the notion of consciousness itself which we can never accurately define.

This does not contradict physics whatsoever. If all of the universe was born from the Big Bang, then so was consciousness; it was implanted within the original fabric of the universe and therefore since it arose within us and many other animals, it shows that consciousness is pervasive.

It is not limited to us alone and that is what the soul truly is: the nothing that we are all connected but somehow hold something unique that we have to share because we are just ever expanding an ever expanding universal whole.

This is very interesting and close to home. I don't think you should give up on someone who is an addict, but surely they are fighting their own battle.

There may be a genetic link to diabetes, but it is the individual's choice to pursue that knowledge and make the understanding of what that means.

Addiction is not easy. Life sucks in a lot of ways an we all cope differently.

The problem becomes the genetics,

But it also becomes the person themselves.

I have a genetic background for diabetes...

Can I say no to sugar?

Well, it is up to me.

It is always up to the individual no matter how much the genes play a factor.

I agree with you philosophically...but the problem is, no matter how hard I try, I am still stuck in this world of past and future. I think the revelation of present can only be conceived in specific moments of time.

I do see what you were saying and how what I said somewhat differed. I think these are hard concepts to transmit through language, but that is why I try to learn from others.

But the idea that everything as nothing is one I have pondered, because in a physics sense, nothingness does contain an essence of somethingness ( or, maybe our idea of somethingness is filled with holes of nothingness).

Regardless, my question remains:

Is there something that encapsulates all of somethingness and nothingness?

I think you may have hit on my point.

Wow, that is truly a great piece of philosophy. So, I think I agree with you, primarily based on your last line: "The fact that there is something to escape means the unity would never be in the possibility of existence being that there is already Other. "

If this is true, then 'Other' exists before our individualized self does. Therefore, our individual self may want to go back to Other, and it might be the origin from which it came, but it can never fully reach the land of Other until it gives up the idea of self.

I speculate, of course;

What do you think?

Everything we perceive is filtered through subjectivity. So, no matter how objective we want to become, there will always remain a remnant of subjectivity.

These are surely the great mysteries, and topics that can be discussed at great length. But, you're probably right that doing your homework is the more practical decision. :-}

Very interesting and a lot of food for thought! The idea of unity and the totality of all things is really what spurred me to post my question. I think that there could be a limitation to simply the words we assign to such grand or abstract concepts. I mean, after all, words are used to differentiate this from that.

But, there are some words so broad and inclusive that they become almost impossible to define. For instance, trying to define consciousness seems somewhat problematic to me because I am using consciousness to define it; therefore, implicitly within my definition of consciousness is consciousness which seems like a tautology to me.

Either way, I will have to read some about the axiomatic set theory as you mentioned. Your comment was extremely helpful and interesting!

I understand what your saying about the universal set and the idea of inside and outside was simply an example to illustrate a deeper point. I see the flaws you have pointed out in this example, but what I am trying to ask still remains.

I think my question comes back to the incompleteness theorem in a way and the notion that within any system there can be something that is true but unprovable.

My main point was if you get something that is all inclusive -whether all refers to the universal set or all refers to a specific subset that is just (I,O) - that word we use to define this all will only be definable by its parts.

And, if that is the case, this singular notion of all - universal or a subset - it really refers to something that is not singular. It in a sense becomes a failure of our language because if I was asked to define life?

The correct answer would be to include everything that I've ever had be a part of my life, I am asked to do so within the confines of language and all my words would fail me because I could never describe the entire human experience using simply words to express it.

So, it becomes somewhat of a meaningless question because no answer will suffice because any answer would require the use of words.