What came first?

[Marblehead]

... so I laid out the solution ...

I'm glad you didn't try laying an egg.

 

Practical. Yes, this is key in my mind. Does the knowledge of the number of parts there are to make a car complete? None at all. Does it matter if the car will perform the function I want it to perform? Absolutely. And BTW: I will not buy a vehicle that does not have an ashtray and lighter in it. Some people don't need those two items.

 

But yes, labels are just labels. Nothing more than the finger pointing at the moon. The label is not the chicken and the finger is not the moon.

 

Regarding the chicken/egg question, I think that from an evolution point of view we could establish that the egg, with its mutations from the previous species, came first.

[Stosh]

Ok , if defining egg so that dinosaur eggs count , or if defining a chicken egg as that which becomes a chicken , rather than a thing that a chicken lays , but it doesnt fit so well if one describes that which are chickens and eggs as a continuing process, integral to its environment rather than the discrete elements of a conceptually sub-divided universe.

[Marblehead]

What?!?

[Stosh]

unbroken lineage , the ceaseless ebb and flow of the ten thousand things in a sea of potential .

Y'know, like circles , going round and round spiraling

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. Belly laughs.

 

He who has one foot nailed to the floor walks in circles.

 

I suppose that could apply to thinking as well. We try to go somewhere but end up right where we started.

[Stosh]

Yeah, its my solution to having nailed feet!

But more seriously , all I'm saying is that, because things are connected

by chains of cause and effect, things which are ordinarily

considered discrete ... are not.

A kid shares genetics with his parent and could be considered a link in the

Lineage rather than some thing that popped into existance

without those connections.

Arbitrarily one can lump a kid with his parents that grouping is called immediate family, you could lump them with extended family , clan, community , state country , region , race color , species genus ....on and on ones definition of that kid can be broadened or inversely narrowed eventually ...he is part of every thing. The only thing that separates him from his environment is the word definition used to describe him.

But but but someone says, he isn't literally part of the moon , that's just linguistic groupings!

No sir I say in response. It should be readily clear that the thing we call little Timmy, is constantly changing , hairs growing , food eaten , air breathed , wastes properly disposed ideas developed and forgotten . Even as the heavens rotate above his head he himself is everchanging interacting , bound by cause to effect.

This metaphorical river and Timmy the wader within it, cannot be defined for which they actually areor were or will be. UNLESS one uses artificial definitions which make erroneous but useful assumptions.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Okay. Now I understand what you were saying. Good job.

 

I do agree with your usage of "cause and effect" but I don't expect to be accepting the thought that Timmy is linked with the Moon. Of the same source? Sure. You know me and the Ten Thousand Things.

 

But sure, if Timmy goes wading in the river then Timmy is linked to the river, at least while he is in the river. He is effecting the river and the river is effecting him.

[Stosh]

Yep you've got my meaning, and if embraced , the idea has ramifications as solutions or escapes from negative mind sets. For instance, groupings by race nationality and color are bullshit. The environment both local and on larger scale have significance. Animals gain reason for respect regarding their minds.and various arguments of dubious value like abortion and evolution lose some false assumptions making it easier to reach concensus, rendering less confrontational the opposing opinions.How much blood and ill will has been issued because of the illusions of discreteness? How much destruction and alienation the direct consequence based on immunity and disconnect? If there was one thing from all the teachings of the east .. this perspective is tops on my list .

 

[Marblehead]

Great soap box presentation. I agree with it all. Now you need to find more people to listen to you.

 

The speaker came first fut if there are no listeners what purpose would the speaker serve?

 

Judge the individual according to the individual,

... etc.

 

Is the person a good person? Nothing else should matter.

 

Now where did we put the chicken egg?

[Stosh]

Thanks , but since there is always the sheer natural practicality of making the distinctions we do, the idea is overwhelmed and becomes just an oddity or a Cheech and Chong skit. Maybe in a hundred years the 'six degrees of Kevin bacon' game and 'spooky action at a distance' will be as broadly accepted as the- flick of a butterflies wings causing a typhoon in the pacific- thing.

Im sticking with 'there actually is no chicken egg" what is, is what is, and it cant be described in any name because there arent really distinctions around which a thing can be considered separate ,, is a good person a good one ? no theres just.... whatever they are

Edited November 27, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

I suppose that if you went out for a fried egg breakfast and the eggs served you were Platypus eggs you would become a bit more discriminating.

 

And just a reminder, I live in a dualistic world. So yes, there are good persons and there are bad persons (based on my useful/useless criteria).

[Stosh]

I suppose that if you went out for a fried egg breakfast and the eggs served you were Platypus eggs you would become a bit more discriminating.

 

And just a reminder, I live in a dualistic world. So yes, there are good persons and there are bad persons (based on my useful/useless criteria).

Well platypus eggs sound pretty good to me, Duck eggs are certainly more rich than mass production chicken eggs too.

We all live in a dualistic world ( might I suggest pluralistic as even more accurate,) some folks seem to think there is an imperative of some type that they must come to certain conclusions which I dont find as mandatory.. such as "if you think cows have emotions, you cant eat them" Untrue mon frere, I can eat cows whether or not they, in secret ,,play chess , listen to Jazz ,or pray to a cow god...

similarly, you, or I, or anyone else, can still come to conclusions about what we consider to be good, bad ,indifferent, legal, expedient wasteful ,disrespectful etc etc.. even if those ideas are subjective concoctions. The intellectual thing to note is that looking at these opinions from the perspective of indistinctness , merely undermines the idea that our subjective stances on right or wrong have some solid foundation that truly exists somewhere outside of our subjective opinions.

If a person said some lady was beautiful , that it was inarguably true,, he still knows another person might not think so. And so the saying goes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Continuing on, with an example ,to fill my lunch hour , there is some evidence the the attractiveness of people has a biological basis , things like symmetry come into play. But just because more thean one person comes to the conclusion that a thing is subjectively true,, is not evidence that it is objective truth,! it just does mean that more than one person came to the same conclusion each independently and still subjectively .

A person cannot really be denied their opinion, and I cant say its 'wrong' to have your opinion, logically,

if wrongness itself is just an illusion too.. and especially if its an expedient attitude.

[Marblehead]

Okay, you are back in the dualistic world. That's good.

 

And you even made distinctions. That too is good.

 

And speaking of cows:

 

 

 

 

And yes, the difference between the objective and subjective. Can't escape it.

 

And I agree, we all are allowed our opinions. You and I don't always agree but our disagreements as well as our agreements are based in our opinion even if were are discussing of objective reality.

[Stosh]

Okay, you are back in the dualistic world. That's good.

 

And you even made distinctions. That too is good.

 

And speaking of cows:

 

 

 

 

And yes, the difference between the objective and subjective. Can't escape it.

That clip was really terriffic , I laughed a lot even the refrains were creative ,, well well DONE.

 

And I agree, we all are allowed our opinions. You and I don't always agree but our disagreements as well as our agreements are based in our opinion even if were are discussing of objective reality.

True true , but though all concepts may be equal in the eyes of the law , some are more equal than others .

[Marblehead]

True true , but though all concepts may be equal in the eyes of the law , some are more equal than others .

Hehehe. That's the trick, deciding who to believe. To believe in no one is depressing. To believe everyone is dangerous.

 

Pick and choose. The more you know the further away from the truth you go. (That's not really how the saying goes but it will do for now.)

 

So yeah, it is better if we can back up our opinions with either logic or varifiable data. At least for ourself. It still might not be acceptable to others.

[Stosh]

Well said .

Conceptry certainly is a strange thing.

Its difficult to prove that something is true objectively

Yet somehow when folks are disabused of personal bias

It is often that they come to similar conclusions.

Everything being up for grabs as a logical consideration

Is surprisingly not the case!

Do you get what I am saying -though poorly on my part?

[Z3N]

The universe is all one animating force of reality.

 

The first multi celled organism is made from the same animating force as the egg.

 

The single celled organism is also made from the same animating force.

 

Still nothing has come or gone.

 

You might dig a hole in the ground, and yes there is a hole but also now there is a small mound and still the animating force remains the same, nothing has changed.

 

Not one jot.

 

Bio-diversity is all the same, it’s all biology nothing more nothing less so for argument sake yes its neither but chicken-egg will do.

 

Humans need to establish a tactical understanding of things in the frontal lobes in order to stimulate higher states of consciousness and therefore expanding awareness.

 

Dwelling on little single pieces without putting them back together collapses insight and the big picture.

 

Everything else is just fancy packaging and not the contents.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Z3N

[Marblehead]

Do you get what I am saying -though poorly on my part?

Yes, after reading it twice. Hehehe.

 

Conceptry certainly is a strange thing. Its difficult to prove that something is true objectively Yet somehow when folks are disabused of personal bias It is often that they come to similar conclusions. Everything being up for grabs as a logical consideration Is surprisingly not the case!

Yeah. Thing about the objective is that we need to keep it simple. I point to a tree and say "That is a tree."

 

Define tree. Tree definde. Yep, that is a tree. If we go any deeper than that we will be getting into subjective opinions. You could say it is an apple tree and I would say, no, it is a shade tree.

[Marblehead]

The universe is all one animating force of reality.

I have a saying I might have already posted somewhere else bu I will place it here as well.

 

"Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be. These things just take different form over time."

 

So to your total above post I am in agreement.

[Stosh]

But sir , it Is an apple tree! Since apple tree is more specific than a shade tree. The functional significance is that one doesn't park a car under fruit trees.

[Marblehead]

See? Hehehe.

 

Nor does one park their car under power lines where birds sit. (Yes, I spelled "sit" correctly but if one adds an "h" at the appropriate place one would have a more visual understanding.)

[RiverSnake]

What came first?...........the chicken or the egg??

 

There is an assumption of a linear nature of time and existence in this question.

 

My 2 cents, Peace

[Z3N]

There is an assumption of a linear nature of time and existence in this question. My 2 cents, Peace

 

Well assuming now that your assumption is an assumption and you are outside of all assumptions, because you gave me your 2 cents.

 

Well then tell me who is making the assumptions now?

[Stosh]

Time is linear , it is iust not uniform. It is actually a function of the distribution of mass and energy and a place in time is relative to the rest of the mass and energies in the universe. If time were running in reverse we wouldn't know it but the significance is moot even to us. The same is true if all events are simultaneous , which its not unless the mass and energies of t he universe all maintain the original point source distribution pattern.Energies could not be evident if there was no possibility of motion there would be no change, and we have plenty of evidence that change does happen.One cannot read this post before I write it , so even if I was one hundred percent wrong in my conclusions,, it still makes more sense to operate under the assumption that time is sequential..Chaos is a situation where one can make no valid assumptions regarding the sequence of events,, this is also clearly not the case.

Imo completely.

[RiverSnake]

My point is that in pretty much every single system of esoteric studies(as far as I know) time tends to be considered an illusion that only holds weight on this dense physical plane. In subtle reality time is supposedly not as big a factor and highly mutable. Do I know this as a fact....of course not. Do I utilize linear time in my everyday life, of course. Without such a construct I would not be able to function in our society....but not all societies use a linear time frame. So i was pointing out the assumption behind your question and that you are speaking from a specific cosmology which is not necessarily universal.

 

However, you asked what came first the chicken or the egg? What I am saying is from an esoteric perspective this is not really a valid question. An esotericist might say that the potential or archetype of the chicken and egg are always there and arise mutually when it is appropriate for them to manifest. They would not likely argue in a linear way when it came to the Macrocosm.

 

My 2 cents, Peace

Edited November 29, 2013 by OldChi