The meaning of meaning

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby ArturoDekko » Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:50 pm

Have been down with the lurgy and have legal stuff to attend to but will be back on track soon.

As a taster of what is further down the line of explanation:

The Merkarba explained as a hyper-tetrahedron (decahedron) as a geometric representation of the set of logics, including their relationship the the chinese five elements. The Merkaba is a 3-D projection of a 4-D object and the pentacle inside a pentagram is the 2-D projection of the same object. How this ties up with the five platonic solids. How the numerical representation of this is the golden mean. pascals triangle, fibonaci sequence ...

An entire language constructed out of the meaning of the 50 logical assertions with 50 distinct phonetic sounds.

First I need to describe the logics in basic detail. I will get there, it is a lot of work and only when I start to put it down do I realise how much I carry in my head.

AD :saint:
S E E F O R Y O U R S E L F

Know yourself and you shall know the truth. The truth shall set you free.
User avatar
ArturoDekko
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:17 am
Location: Carmarthenshire, Wales

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby jobsaboba » Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:02 pm

looking forward to it my friend, as a lover of harmonics and roulette !!!

jobs
I am not wise......I am otherwise !

its not my banking system... and i dont take credit for it !!
User avatar
jobsaboba
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:48 am
Location: Hastings, East Sussex

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby ArturoDekko » Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:02 pm

Before we go much further I would like to see if we have consensus on the following which is the kernel of the whole thing as seen on different dimensional levels:

1. There is existence.
2. There must be duality for otherwise there would be nothing to "recognise" existence. That is existence is self-reflexive.
3. There must be a similarity across that duality through which that "recognition" takes place.
4. There must be a difference otherwise all would be the same.
5. These four things form an inseparable unity, they must all exist together otherwise there is no existence.

AD :saint:
S E E F O R Y O U R S E L F

Know yourself and you shall know the truth. The truth shall set you free.
User avatar
ArturoDekko
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:17 am
Location: Carmarthenshire, Wales

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby ArturoDekko » Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:07 pm

Here is an overview of the sort of thing I mean when I talk about dimensions and dimensionality: Dimensionality

Dimensionality is a way of defining and manipulating reality in terms of it's dimensional complexity. Events of similar dimensional complexity will share similar mechanisms despite their differences. In other words, the mathematics used to describe similar dimensional objects or events will be similar even though the objects or events themselves are different.

A dimension refers to anything that is measurable:-  length, height, time, weight, frequency, amplitude, volume, etc. It is easiest to see dimensions when they are transcribed symbolically onto an imaginary perfect graph. Although we can draw a representative graph in the real world, it will not be perfect, but we can use our imagination or mathematics to perceive it so. A line drawn to represent one dimension will have a thickness which is another dimension, which need not be interpreted for our understanding of the one dimension. In the imaginary perfect graph, there is no thickness to the line, but in the real world, such a line would not be visible.

A single point on the imaginary perfect graph has no size, no length, breadth or height, and so has no dimensions. This is called a zero-dimensional point. Although the point must exist within the context of some higher dimensional reality, the point itself is dimensionless. The weight of an elephant can be transcribed as a single point onto a line representing weight. The line representing weight is the dimensional context of the zero-dimensional point. In the real world, the weight of the elephant can be measured to any degree of accuracy required, but will always represent a spectrum of weight, for example 2 tons plus or minus one ounce and so in reality should be represented by a short line. Also it is important to note that any precise measurement of weight can only be taken in a single moment in time, otherwise ingestion, respiration, perspiration, urination, and defecation, not to mention alighting flies, ticks and settling dust, would change the measurement. In measuring only the weight we have also ignored the elephants genetic heritage, its position, sex, time of measurement, colour, sound, texture, and many other factors. Each factor represents a separate dimension and would need a separate axis on any graph we might create. From this we can see that, although we consider this to be a 4-dimensional universe, we would need more than 4 dimensions to describe any real object to any degree of precision. Similar observations will apply to any dimensional measurement and we shall see that in any real life problem, we only need to consider a small proportion of the total dimensionality of the situation.

A single zero-dimensional point shall be referred to hereafter as mono-polar and can be described by 5 mono-polar logics and their 5 inverses.

A list of objects or events also forms a dimensional context. On a list of animals, for instance, one particular point may refer to an elephant. Also, since any string of letters can be converted to a numerical binary string, and by extension to a numerical string of any base, any description of anything can relate to a particular point on the number line. For example, the phrase 'An elephant eating a banana' can be converted to binary code, as a computer does automatically, and so that phrase can be symbolised as a particular number, meaning a single zero-dimensional point on the binary number line. Hence, although it would also contain many meaningless translations, an endless binary number line will contain all conceivable descriptions of everything that exists. Although this would seem to imply that all of reality could be synthesised onto a line of one dimension, we must recognise the number of other dimensions that would be necessary for this information to have meaning, not least of which is the complexity of the years of life experience necessary to interpret and understand the meaning of the information contained.

If, however, we create a separate dimension for each measurable factor, then any description, and even the totality of reality itself, becomes a single zero-dimensional point in a multi-dimensional imaginary perfect graph. If, further, there was a set of abstract logical axioms that could synthetically, but meaningfully, be used to extrapolate an understandable sequence of infinitely varied and complex dimensions that would define this multi-dimensional graph, then we can say that the totality of reality is inherent in that set of logical axioms. 'The Truth, QED' is such a set of logical axioms. These axioms are not created but can be found by stripping away all that is not absolute from reality. When all that is not absolute is stripped away from reality, the logical axioms appear, like an adamantine perfect crystal rising from the froth of confusion, manifesting from five undeniable and eternal truths. Although these truths exist independent of the reality we know, they are comprehensible from within the reality we find ourselves in. By expansion of these logical axioms we can create a multi-dimensional description which contains, as a subset, all other logical proposals and philosophical doctrines.

Because only five truths are necessary to generate the complexity that is our reality, this set of truths are genuinely quintessential and as they are the foundation of all that is, they are existential. Although we can perceive the axioms separately, they form an indivisible whole in which each is defined by and only exist in the context of the others and so there is really only one truth. Hence the name, 'The Truth as defined by Quintessential Existential Dimensionality' or 'The Truth, QED' which also translates as 'The Truth, Quod Erat Demonstrandum' which means 'The Truth, that which was to be proved'.

To further understand the nature of dimensions, since, so far, we have only defined, to any certainty, the zero-dimensional point, there follows more detailed descriptions of the basic dimensional realities from one to four. In what follows, 'graph' refers to the imaginary perfect graph and 'point' refers to a zero-dimensional point.

One Dimension

If we have two points, we can construct a line that passes through them. This is a one-dimensional line and we must have at least 2 points on it for it to have any meaning. One point on a line tells us nothing as we have no way of telling where on the line the point is. There must always be another point to act as a reference which is commonly referred to as the origin or zero. If there is an agreed scale then we can physically measure the distance between the points to establish meaning. The norm, however, is for there to be another point to establish the scale which would in most cases be the unit one. We can then repeat the distance from zero to one to establish a scale to give meaning to any measurement we have made. Take temperature as an example. There are three major scales of temperature, Celsius or centigrade, Fahrenheit and Kelvin. One degree of centigrade is the same as one degree of Kelvin but both are different from one degree of Fahrenheit. All three place their zero point at different temperatures, but as long as you know which one you are using, there is no confusion. Each temperature scale needs two points, zero and one degree to define the scale and a third point to mark a particular temperature. This means that, although we might consider the linear dimension to be one dimensional, since we need at least 3 points for it to be useful, it is really 2-dimensional.

Although a one-dimensional line is theoretically infinite, in reality, all lines have boundaries. The two points can be used to define the line, it's scale and it's boundaries simultaneously.

'One dimension' is what we normally mean when we talk of 'a dimension', and this shall be referred to here as the bi-polar dimension as it needs 2 points to define it and, as with mono-polar logics, there are five logics and their inverses that describe the interactions within a one-dimensional reality.

Two Dimensions

3 points define a plane, a 2-dimensional reality described by tri-polar logics. Of the three points, one must be the origin and one must denote scale, but for the other point, unlike in one-dimension, there is variation which becomes more complex with each increase in dimension. The third point can denote scale in a direction at right angles to the first, which gives us the standard graph that we know and love, it can denote scale at any other angle to the first, or it can denote the measurement of an angle, in which case a point is defined by a distance from the origin and the angle from some base-line. The type of information to be encoded defines the nature of the graph to be used. A one-dimensional graph seen through time is also a 2-dimensional reality, so seeing a point moving in a straight line is a 2-dimensional event.

In the same way as 2 points define a line but an extra point, even though on the same line, takes it to a higher dimension, so it is with 2 dimensions. This is because a label would be needed to say what the point means. The same information can often be depicted graphically in different ways, for example: say we measure the height of Jack and Jill, we can have a single line of measurement on which both their heights are labelled with their names, or we can have a 2-dimensional graph with one axis of measurement and the other axis a list of people, including Jack and Jill, or we can have one axis labelled "Jack's height" and the other axis labelled "Jill's height", in which case all the information is now depicted by a single point on a 2-dimensional plane. Likewise the measurement of n number of things can be depicted as a single point in n-dimensional space.

Three Dimensions

4 points define a three-dimensional space. If those three dimensions are spacial, then that defines a spacial volume. One of the dimensions, however, could be the temporal dimension, in which case we have a planar surface, a 2-dimensional plane, which is viewed through time. Such a surface might be a movie screen where, although the screen is flat, the movement makes it a 3-dimensional reality. This is different from our rather astonishing ability to perceive a 4-dimensional reality of a drama from a flat screen. Not only do we add or imagine extra dimensions but we also remove them. Life experience is so complex that we could not possibly consider every facet of reality in one go, so we filter out information that we currently do not need; when we are measuring Jack's height, we do not care and possibly do not notice what colour his trousers were, although we might notice if he was not wearing any. Each fresh piece of information is a new dimension and it would appear that one scale of intelligence might be graded on the number of dimensions one can comprehend simultaneously.

A 3-dimensional reality is defined by a suite of 5 quadra-polar logics and their inverses. A 3-dimensional graph can be composed of 3 linear axis, 2 linear and 1 angular axis or 1 linear and 2 angular axis as well as being any variety of 2-dimensional surface seen through time.

Four Dimensions

5 points define a 4-dimensional space which is described by 5 penta-polar logics and their inverses. It is normally considered that we live in a 4-dimensional reality, three of space (length) and one of time. This may be a convenient way to describe the fabric of reality upon which existence is imposed, but, as we have seen from above, for any real event, more than four dimensions are involved. An alternative view would be to consider reality to be composed of infinite dimensions and that each part of existence is a dimensional subset of that totality and that the four dimensions of the fabric of existence are the minimum contraction possible.

We would need four dimensions to locate a particular point in space and time. If the point is moving we need another four dimensions to define it's speed and direction. If it is accelerating we need another four dimensions to define the scale and direction of the acceleration. So something as simple as an orbiting body is at least a 12-dimensional reality and if we add to that, orientation, rotational velocity and acceleration, mass, volume, shape, composition, chemical interactions, colour, sound, etc. we can begin to achieve an idea of the complexity of dimensional reality.

Our most usual view of four dimensions, with three of length and one of time is not the only one. Although it is quite reasonable to have four linear dimensions, for most people, it is difficult to visualise these four dimensions together and we have to resort to looking at only three at a time. Higher dimensions are even more complex to imagine, but fortunately mathematics and computers do not have the same problems. Although mathematical formulae can only directly solve equations with a maximum of five variables, partial solutions can usually be found for higher numbers of variables. Fortunately, although reality has a high dimensional complexity, in real interactions, real events, we usually only need to pay attention to a smaller set of variables which makes most events calculable. Even though this planet is an amazingly complex place, we only need to know it's position, speed and acceleration to be able to calculate where it will be at a certain time.

Five and more dimensions

Many are so conditioned to this being a four-dimensional reality that more than four would seem esoteric and yet we continually experience more than four dimensions without any awareness that we do so. Each sense we use to experience reality has its own dimensionality, the dimension of time is common to all the senses:
Sight- each eye sees two dimensions and, as they are distant from each other in only one dimension, they collectively constitute the three dimensional view we have. Colour is received by three different types of retinal cell and so has three dimensions. It might be argued that as any given colour can be represented on a 2-dimensional spectrum, that colour is 2-dimensional, but the wriggly line that describes the spectrum of a specific colour is more than a one-dimensional line. The line itself is one-dimensional but its wriggling across a planar surface gives it another dimension. This means that the line is 2-dimensional. This gives sight, including time, seven dimensions.
Hearing- Sound can be located in the three dimensions of space and represented as a spectrum. As we saw with colour, the spectrum denotes a three-dimensional reality. So, hearing also requires seven dimensions.
With just these two senses we are experiencing in ten dimensions! They both share the dimensions of time and space. Adding to that the dimensional complexity of touch, smell and taste and we are over twenty dimensions.

If we move anything in space, there are always six dimensional possibilities. We can move in the three dimensions of space and we can also rotate in those three dimensions. Any given starting point requires those six dimensions to describe position and orientation. When something is moved, its direction and rotation require a further six dimensions. Add to that speed, acceleration and change of acceleration for both movement and rotation. and picking up a table fork becomes a eighteen dimensional endeavour. If there is food on the fork and we are smelling and tasting, whilst also experiencing the complexity of the environment through sight, sound and touch and we could be looking at forty to fifty dimensions. In human terms of experiencing everything in one go, there seems to be a limit of dimensional experience at about fifty dimensions. It is quite amazing that we can handle this complexity of information without hardly noticing.

Many common mistakes in thinking are due to the lack of understanding of the dimensional nature of the event and of not considering all the pertinent dimensions. An example of this would be an accountant dabbling with numbers on a page while being oblivious of the ramifications to the lives of the people those numbers represent. The second mistake would be not realising that different dimensional complexities require different logical frameworks to understand them. Once the logical context has been explained, you will see that we can define any problem and any solution as a distinct sets within the logical framework and that the logical assertions that connect these two sets are the path from the problem to the solution.

AD :saint:
S E E F O R Y O U R S E L F

Know yourself and you shall know the truth. The truth shall set you free.
User avatar
ArturoDekko
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:17 am
Location: Carmarthenshire, Wales

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby jobsaboba » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:17 am

AWESOME.......And very scary !!!

Can we expect in the near future to be able to experience in say 100+ dimensions all at once, or is it as i think, that we eventually become the point that selects the dimensions we choose to experience....... oh shit i just realised it.
thank you

we should meet up soon me thinks

jobs
I am not wise......I am otherwise !

its not my banking system... and i dont take credit for it !!
User avatar
jobsaboba
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:48 am
Location: Hastings, East Sussex

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby Phil: C » Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:38 pm

The unrecognised redefinition of words is a barrier to understanding, as we well know on this site. Arturo’s definition of the word “dimension” is not the commonly understood one. It’s ‘physicsese’, if I may coin a rather clumsy word. Surely most people (non-scientists) would understand it to refer to up/down, left/right, forward/backward and would not include time as a dimension?
(Aside: Is this redefining done deliberately to confuse and exclude, as in legalese?)
There is only one Universe, by definition. The proponents of theories utilising parallel, embedded, interlocking, or any other kinds of universes have simply redefined the word universe. Ditto multiverse, omniverse, megaverse etc.. The Universe is everything. It cannot be contained because there is nothing external to contain it. It is infinite in extent. There is no expansion or contraction, because there is no absolute against which to measure this. Entropy is not real, because where could the energy go?

As I wrote in an earlier post, innumerable writers have given us accounts of timeless epiphanies, in which they find themselves at one with the universe, omnipresent. Here’s one:
http://www.awakening.net/Epiphany.html
Jobs wrote: “Can we expect in the near future to be able to experience in say 100+ dimensions all at once”. I think this is exactly what is being described, however it’s not just 100 but ALL dimensions that are being experienced! Arturo wrote: “We are all the one thing looking through different eyes.” We seem to be starting from the same place. I believe this too. I AM All-That-Is as Phil. I know I exist. But I am not omnipotent - things happen that I have not foreseen. To explain this fact I can infer:
(i) that I am aware of only a part of myself, and nothing else exists, or
(ii) that one or more separate things exist and affect me, or
(iii) that I am aware of only a part of myself, and (ii) is also true.

Arturo, I will persevere in trying to understand your theory, but I fear your patience may run out before the light dawns! It’s fun trying though and I appreciate your efforts!

Phil.
_______________________________________Phil: C
"There's no saviours hanging around" The Oyster Band
"We are normal and we want our freedom" The Bonzo Dog Band
User avatar
Phil: C
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:24 pm
Location: Stafford

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby jobsaboba » Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:57 pm

nice call aravat......

if there is only you....... really everything is you..

then you are the creator......

who on earth would believe that, after all...... how could that be ?

kinda thing lol

regards

jobs
I am not wise......I am otherwise !

its not my banking system... and i dont take credit for it !!
User avatar
jobsaboba
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:48 am
Location: Hastings, East Sussex

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby ArturoDekko » Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:13 pm

Hi jobs, you make me smile :sun: Yes I would expect an expansion of dimensional awareness.

My travel is limited currently but if you are up to the journey, you are welcome here.

Aravat -
The unrecognised redefinition of words is a barrier to understanding, as we well know on this site. Arturo’s definition of the word “dimension” is not the commonly understood one. It’s ‘physicsese’, if I may coin a rather clumsy word. Surely most people (non-scientists) would understand it to refer to up/down, left/right, forward/backward and would not include time as a dimension?
(Aside: Is this redefining done deliberately to confuse and exclude, as in legalese?)



No deliberate confusion or exclusion intended, just my failure to express clearly. My typing is slow so I try to use words efficiently. Sometimes that may come over as being lazy in my explanation. Words are a problem in that each individual has their own unique perspective and when, as here, I am attempting something unique they often fall short of my desires.

Short of making up new words, which I would rather avoid if poss., I cannot think of a more suitable word than dimension, unless you know of one. When I mean spacial dimension I shall say so specifically. I was not clear enough in saying that, for me, these logical realities exist in an abstract mathematical space so, when I refer to dimension, I mean the number of axes necessary to portray the factors of a situation without contradiction. This could also equate to the number of members of a set, the scale of a matrix, the complexity of a data-base, the number of factors in an algebraic equation.

Example say we have a data- base of people by name along with their height, weight and running time over 100yds.. We would need 4 axes to portray all that information:-
1. Alphabetical list of people, 2. height, 3. weight, 4. speed. This information can be stored on a computer and projected as needed as a graph. You could have a graph just of names and speeds in 2-dimensions or height and speed or weight and speed or... or in 3-dimensions, you could have weight, height and speed or name, weight and height. In other words we can ignore the dimensions which are not useful to us in that moment and just choose those that are. This is something we do in our heads, instinctively and intuitively, which is why it may be difficult for some to realise they are doing it, it is part of our second nature to expand and contract our dimensional awareness at will, e.g. seeing moving 3-D reality on a flat TV screen. So, I you could say that I am talking most of the time of dimensions of information and that unless we know how many dimensions of information we are using, we cannot be clear on the logical processes we need to apply to gain higher understanding.

I am glad to have you to reflect off as it uncovers deficiencies in my explanation. If I am still not clear, I shall try and try again (I do come under the sign of Arachni in the 13 sign zodiac and feel that I came to the understanding I do have because I kept going back to the beginning again and again until I realised what the beginning was.) What I have done is recognised that there is an underlying logical pattern that applies to everything. For that reason there are an infinite number of perspectives for explaining the same thing. Most of what I have written here is merely laying the groundwork so that you have some chance of recognising the pattern too when I more specifically define the logical processes.

In anticipation, I will also say that my use of the word logic is unconventional. When I say "a logic" or "the logics", I am redefining the word. For the purposes of this discussion I would like your permission to use the word logic/logics to refer to a nugget of logical understanding which can be encapsulated as a mathematical/logical formula or Venn diagram or any other symbolic contraction. This is in keeping with Aristotolian Formal logic, Dialectic logic and Trialectic logic by Oscar Ichazo, which form a limited 3x3 subset within the 5x5 grid of logics that I propose.

I find all this much easier in person when I can wave my hands around and doodle on paper, but for the moment the frustrating pace of mere words will have to do.

There is only one Universe, by definition. The proponents of theories utilising parallel, embedded, interlocking, or any other kinds of universes have simply redefined the word universe. Ditto multiverse, omniverse, megaverse etc.. The Universe is everything. It cannot be contained because there is nothing external to contain it. It is infinite in extent. There is no expansion or contraction, because there is no absolute against which to measure this. Entropy is not real, because where could the energy go?
- I agree there is only One Song/Universe no matter how large or diverse anyone wants to make it. Entropy - a matter of perspective. Hopefully shall become clearer as explanation progresses.

As I wrote in an earlier post, innumerable writers have given us accounts of timeless epiphanies, in which they find themselves at one with the universe, omnipresent. Here’s one:
http://www.awakening.net/Epiphany.html
Jobs wrote: “Can we expect in the near future to be able to experience in say 100+ dimensions all at once”. I think this is exactly what is being described, however it’s not just 100 but ALL dimensions that are being experienced! Arturo wrote: “We are all the one thing looking through different eyes.” We seem to be starting from the same place. I believe this too. I AM All-That-Is as Phil. I know I exist. But I am not omnipotent [When you say omnipotent (all powerful), did you mean omniscient (all knowing)?] - things happen that I have not foreseen. To explain this fact I can infer:
(i) that I am aware of only a part of myself, and nothing else exists, or
(ii) that one or more separate things exist and affect me, or
(iii) that I am aware of only a part of myself, and (ii) is also true.



(i),(ii),(iii) are all true depending on perspective. In fact EVERYTHING is true depending on perspective EXCEPT the five fundamental truths from which all else arises. Later, I can show that truth must be at least a four-dimensional reality. Oh, hell, I will do it know while my fingers are smoking.

To portray truth we need a number of axes - 1. the axis of time to indicate the beginning and end of the time phase over which something can be said to be true. "I am thirsty" is true for me several times a day but is not a constant truth.
2. axes of space are needed to indicate the spacial nature of truth. "I saw the crime" can only refer to the portion of space in which the truth exists as true.
3. Axis indicating the proportion of the whole truth being told. "I did not take the sweets" ignoring "My friend put them in my pocket" would be a partial truth.
4. Axis indicating the proportion of what is being told that is true as opposed to how much is false. "I can drive a car, have green teeth and fly around by flapping my arms"
Seen this way, the majority of, so called, truths, when viewed on infinite axes, become almost indistinguishable from the origin of the graph, i.e. zero.

Arturo, I will persevere in trying to understand your theory, but I fear your patience may run out before the light dawns! It’s fun trying though and I appreciate your efforts!

Phil.



Thanks for that, I appreciate your efforts to understand my meagre bumblings.

Think I got confused trying to work out the quote mechanism, hope it makes sense. Do not have the time or energy to retype. edit - managed to sort the quote confusion.

AD :saint:
S E E F O R Y O U R S E L F

Know yourself and you shall know the truth. The truth shall set you free.
User avatar
ArturoDekko
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:17 am
Location: Carmarthenshire, Wales

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby ArturoDekko » Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:15 pm

jobsaboba wrote:nice call aravat......

if there is only you....... really everything is you..

then you are the creator......

who on earth would believe that, after all...... how could that be ?

kinda thing lol

regards

jobs


We are like twigs on a tree, each seeing the other twigs as different and separate but if we project our consciousness along the branch towards the trunk, we realise that there is only one tree and that we are all part of it. We are but different perspectives of the one creator inspecting itself.

AD :saint:
S E E F O R Y O U R S E L F

Know yourself and you shall know the truth. The truth shall set you free.
User avatar
ArturoDekko
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:17 am
Location: Carmarthenshire, Wales

Re: The meaning of meaning

Postby Phil: C » Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:40 pm

jobsaboba wrote:if there is only you....... really everything is you..

then you are the creator......It wasn't me guv, honest! :saint:

WE are all co-creators of our shared reality!
:grin:
_______________________________________Phil: C
"There's no saviours hanging around" The Oyster Band
"We are normal and we want our freedom" The Bonzo Dog Band
User avatar
Phil: C
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:24 pm
Location: Stafford

PreviousNext

Return to Soul & Spirit only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest