The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

[kevin]

I love that picture. Where did you get it, are there more.

You may well then like William blake?
http://www.artofeurope.com/blake/thumbs.htm
Kevin

[StevenJay]

I love that picture. Where did you get it, are there more.

Heh - just a Photoshop quickie inspired purely by thread content (plus, this is how I've always perceived All-That-Is). And it wasn't long before all sorts of captions and such began to materialize in my, admittedly, very irreverent and incorrigible mind. . .

"Hmmm - HD touch-screen. Nice."
"I wonder what else is on?. . ."
"Cool - a mirror. Now what?. . . Oh, wait, I know! 'Narcissism!' "

[Grey Cloud]

Hi StevenJay,
Nice metaphysical metaphor with the mirror-image image.

[Antone]

Heh - just a Photoshop quickie inspired purely by thread content (plus, this is how I've always perceived All-That-Is).

Okay, I'm curious what your interpretation is of this perception of [All that is]. I assume that one of the images is [reality] and the other is [other than reality]. You mentioned a mirror, so I assume the image in the box is perhaps a mirror image?

But which image is reality?

My own opinion is that (whether you believe in God or not) it makes more sense to assume that what we perceive or understand as reality is the mirror image.

In terms of fitting my analogy, it would be nice if you could make it more obvious that the box is a mirror, then make the non-mirror image pixelated or in some other way less distinct and life-like.

Anyway, what's your take?

[StevenJay]

Okay, I'm curious what your interpretation is of this perception of [All that is]. I assume that one of the images is [reality] and the other is [other than reality].

Hi, Antone - Yeah, or put another way, the reflection (in this case) is the manifestation of that which is non-manifest.

But which image is reality?

The short answer: Both.

The longer, more nebulous answer: Since the consensus perception of "reality" has never been adequately defined beyond our five "physical" senses, I consider the question to be moot.

My own opinion is that [...] it makes more sense to assume that what we perceive or understand as reality is the mirror image.

Agreed.

it would be nice if you could make it more obvious that the box is a mirror, then make the non-mirror image pixelated or in some other way less distinct and life-like.

Actually, I realized after the fact that putting the mirror in a heavy black frame was a mistake. It could have been done in a far more subtle frameless, yet three-dimensional manner. Depicting extreme contrast between the reflection and that which is being reflected tends to promote various prevailing religious and philosophical notions of "separation." I view the reflection and the reflected as merely being two perspectives of the same thing, with the only difference being the point of observational focus.

That's my take, anyway.

[altonhare]

It's about whether a very specific premise that takes the general form "God can do something that apparently he can't do." is paradoxical or not.

Well, let's see.

The first part of the sentence:
Premise: God can do X

The second part of the sentence:
Premise: God can't do X

Now we ask:
Question: Can God do X?

Yes, you have set up, in your premises, the very definition of a contradiction.

[Antone]

Depicting extreme contrast between the reflection and that which is being reflected tends to promote various prevailing religious and philosophical notions of "separation." I view the reflection and the reflected as merely being two perspectives of the same thing, with the only difference being the point of observational focus.

Two perspectives of the same thing... is an interesting way to describe it.

I would say that it is two reciprocal perspectives. Making one the "negative" image of the other, so to speak.

Are you familiar with the field of cymatics? It is (more or less) the study of how sound affects matter. A simple example of an experiment is to spread some sand over the surface of a drum skin, then vibrate the skin at different rates of oscillation. When this is done, different patterns will appear in the sand. If you move slowly and smoothly from a slower rate of oscillation to a higher rate, the pattern in the sand will form a more or less static pattern for a short period then it will become a fluid and chaotic pattern, then reform into a new more or less static pattern again.

If you change parameters, such as the size of the drum skin, non-round shapes for the drum, other materials besides sand, etc. you can get some truly amazing features. For instance, iron shavings will stand up on end and sort of march across the surface, looking a bit like an army of underworld demons from a Tolkien book. Or at least that's the creative imagery my mind makes of it.

What I find most interesting--and pertinent to this discussion--is that the pattern that we see in the sand represents the areas of inactivity on the drum surface. Where the drum skin is moving the sand is shaken away, but it accumulates in the areas where the drum skin isn't moving.

In other words, where the energy is (with respect to the drum skin) is where no matter is (with regards to the sand). Notice the reciprocal aspects. [Energy] is the opposite of [matter]. For this case, the [drum skin] is the opposite of the [sand].
[Energy + drum skin] = [no matter + sand].
[no Energy + drum skin] = [matter + sand].

I think this is a fairly good analogy for the reciprocal nature of reality. What we perceive as reality on the manifest side, is the by-product of what is going on at the non-manifest side. But it is not the same reality--it is an inverted reality. And often the aspects which are reciprocal to one another have very little in common, and so are often not connected to one another.   and [time]... for example, have little if any similarity to one another, yet they are reciprocal aspects. Just as the drum skin and the sand have little in common. The [drum skin] is a single piece of matter, the [sand] is many pieces. The [drum skin] is thin and flat, the [sand] is round or square. etc.

That's my take on it.

[Antone]

It's about whether a very specific premise that takes the general form "God can do something that apparently he can't do." is paradoxical or not.

Yes, you have set up, in your premises, the very definition of a contradiction.

No, actually, I have not... the key word that prevents your assessment from being correct is the word apparently. It seems to us that God cannot do it--but we look more closely to discover that maybe--if we use the right philosophy and logic--he not only can but he necessarily has to be able to do what it "appears" he cannot do. That was obviously the whole point of my post--which, by the way, you have almost totally ignored in your "criticism".

But thanks for joining in anyway.