OK.
take a seat; we are within existence agreed?
OK — provisionally — you're assuming a lot, as the nature of existence is not a given, but assumed. How we come to exist is a matter of prior inquiry. How we come to know we exist is another line of prior enquiry. Why do we exist? How do we exist? What caused us to exist? How do I know I exist? How do I know this is not all a projecxtion of my mind?
'Existence' is an abstract concept, describing a state of 'is-ness', but it does not answer these prior questions.
If a thing is, it exists, if a thing is not, it does not exist (although it might have, and perhaps it will, but not presently) 'Existence' itself is not a power, nor a presence, nor even a medium ... in fact 'nothing' can exist as equally as 'something' ... Existence then is not a thing, it has no attributes of itself ...
We experience and convey by learned words and previous ideas used to share thoughts of mind. And back in history many ideas and questions were asked.
OK.
Questions such as; what is life? what is that hot red thing in the sky?, as well, why didn't our dad wake up?
OK.
Certain phenomenon were held as from God or the 'great one' or how ever one wishes to define, that something, someone, or some 'other' was controlling what we don't know.
OK.
Then communities developed, rules of association as well conflicts and wars occurred.
OK. Great art was made. Great science was done ... let's not be all negative ...
Rules were usually based in compassion. And then often since rules were broken questions may have arrised such as who sets the rules? Well some may say, "the same He who turns the red hot thing in the sky and takes bites out of the white thing of the coming dark sky. He is that HE.. "
Well ... OK ... but I would say rules were first based on utility and pragmatism, rather than compassion, that came later ... but I nit-pick ...
As time passes, the White thing in the sky is called the moon and the 'bites out of it' are the shadow from the earth.
OK.
Knowledge evolved, both changing the comprehension, feelings and understanding of the people but thereby the people can experience more interrelation from the knowledge of the past. meaning the only way you and I know about the moon is by the words left from the previous generations learning, reasoning and innert intent to know.
OK. So they refine their argument and their questions about God.
so that progression is a part of consciousness;
Is it? I would say consciousness is apart from and prior to knowledge ... you're mixing a qualitative and quantitative distinction ... Your also putting a narrow and artificial value on things according to your own measure ... the cleverest man in the world crashes into the jungle, is injured, and is found and cured by an 'ignorant' and 'superstitious' native ... what value all your learning now? We know more material facts about the moon, but there might well be poetry written about the moon millenia ago, that's never been bettered ...
... and I notice wisdom is absent in your schemata ... I'd trade all the knowledge in the world for a spoonful of wisdom, and I bet the world would be a better place for it.
but I digress ... and this still allows for man to ask questions about the nature of God.
in recognizing the care to comprehend and then share. We associate the knowledge with words to what we experience. So in a sense, entangling more mass.
OK. But what do you mean by mass? Knowledge has no 'mass' in any objective sense? Or like the man who thought so much, in the end he didn't know what to think ... ?
Than to follow any pattern of progression... i.e... the golden ratio... eventually the pinnacle of mankind is to know what makes it exist.
OK. BVut you won't find the answer in your line of questioning can you, because you've accepted existence as a kind of limit on what can be known?
Now realize if we be nothing but monkey see monkey do kind, than never could a child mix 2 colors and make a new shade, unique to their experience.
OK.
Meaning mankind can 'create' in many fashions;
OK.
in the physical (see airplanes) as well in associations create a response ( a lie ) as it is true, that words are the 'creation' of mankind within existence.
OK. What you're saying is 'language' is a means of communication between sentient beings ... and furthermore language can encompass empirical data, and intellectual speculation. But because man can lie does not mean he does not tell the truth ...
so the last phase is simple; the equality of mind is when the knowledge of understanding enables mankind to comprehend its life upon mass all within their ability to create.
Sorry ... that sentence doesn't make sense to me.
I can understand a notion of 'perfection' as understanding that is equal to its object — ie the truth of a thing can be known — if what you're saying is once you understand aerodynamics you can make aeroplanes that fly, then OK.
That is when existence understands itself ...
No ... that's a jump which does not logically follow? I can understand that the more man learns about the world, the more he understands himself as an existing being in the world ... but for 'existence to understand itself' you're implying existence has its own individual and rational nature ... which you have not demonstrated? And you'rew also suggesting that existence can be known, therefore contained, therefore has limits ... you still haven't answered the question of God, a God which is not contained within the existing order.
which enables the collective conscious to beget the beginning, and that hasn't happed yet.
What do you mean by 'beget'?
+++
You seem to follow a strictly 'Bishadi' line of argument and ignore anything that doesn't fit within your schemata.
The Greek philosophers, for example, question the very nature of existence, of being itself, and there are philosophies which refute the idea of knowing objective reality with any objective certainty ... so if you're talking about the evolution of knowledge, you must allow for the fact that some schools of knowledge would insist that you cannot posit your system as the only system ... and posit other possibilities, as today man posits the idea of multiple universes — multiple modes of existence. In philosophy there are over a score of arguments for the existence of a deity ... not proofs, but neither can they be answered satisfactorily in such manner as to rule out a deity.
Question: Existence itself has not been shown to be the cause anything, has it?
Thomas
