RE: WHAT IS REALITY? A SYSTEMIC VIEW OF LIFE - Part Two
Let me show you something interesting:
For me, each definition has a fundamental weakness: it excludes, it limits.
Therefore logical conclusion would be that:
a) Defining godlike being is an attempt to limit unlimited (which is quite absurd on its own) - should we call everything that has no limits God?
b) Being unlimited is also a limit, which then means (if, "The limitation is what makes it weak.") limitation and lack of it are both not desirable - that may explain why we usually see something in between and never corner solutions (some limits and some freedom)
Also 2 bonuses:
a) Waste is a relative word, to understand what I mean - Earth don't care about global warming
b) World strives for complexity and as complexity grows the fragility increases (imagine living without electricity - but it also applies to things like atoms)
Thank you, Sim.
a.) Yes, why not? We are having already a name for it, why change it? Anyway, this is not something which should be forced or determined. It will fade out anyway and new names will probably be invented.
b.) thank you for pointing that out. yes, and there where I personally want a limit and don't want one I have to stop my circulating and make up my mind. (at least made some rounds and looked at a "problem" from all kinds of directions and time-spaces)
People care about climate and such. And they should. But careful and not substituting one miserable solution with another miserable solution. I recommend reading the cradle to cradle concept.
Totally so! Complexity is linked to fragility.
a) I didn't mean to change it, I meant rather there are things that have no limitations and we don't call them God, for example mathematical infinity
I definitely agree that people should care about climate. What I was pointing out is that Earth is literally a rock and doesn't care about anything. People define what is waste and what is not - therefore should preserve habitable environments for their own sake.
Cheers :)
that makes me thinking ... a name for something which cannot be understood by nouns or definitions is hard to find. Name finding is defining and that is maybe the whole problem. From what I think actually, no human believes truly and intuitively in a personal God. But to be able to communicate the word is taken as if there is a person behind creation. I am all for skipping to find that out, why and how the universe came into being. We won't find out anyway so why bother? The mystery is unsolvable. It's only because we have so much leisure time to ponder those philosophical questions meanwhile the worldly tasks are getting neglected.
... ah well, I know you understand.