Originally Posted by godoten
When you understand anything you may need to use the words as a medium if
you want to help other to understand also. But the understanding is by "the
fact" not "by words". If you are a linux expert, with so much of knowledge on
the subject, you know that to help a novice to understand anything by words
is very difficult unless the novice could pick up your showing with examples?
Your understanding is without words. It is because the concepts to be
understood are not words nor their names but the facts of the reality. Calling
names never get the novice to understand anything. The concept the name
represents to be understood that novice does not know yet?
Then you can see that how the God's child-self of our awareness is "perfect
and complete self-knowledge without a word", no language no nationality?
Fair or unfair are not words but the concepts your child-self knew at the first
place? Because It is the God's wish you to be fair? "Being fair" is an English
expression. The concept has many differing expressions of many nationalities
but all means the same thing. Everyone knew we are supposed to be fair?
Everyone should understand own dependency, as the fact of own reality, to
the God's forever present efforts just to existing and functioning as
everything else of this world. Then there, never would be murderous criminally
selfish ones nor head blown out of proportion megalomaniacs. They have been
dying because they failed to recognise the God and the God's best wish the
child-self. They seem to have been calling it "soul" in European world. But
knowing the names and pronouncing the names, the God or soul or whatever,
did not mean they understood the concepts. In decorative costumes they have
been pretending and lying as if they knew what they are calling by the names.
The child-self knew that one should not lie nor pretend to deceive other?
God doesn't need to connect dots; the points that the dots represent are
enough for Him. Mathematics teaches us that. In mathematics, anything
beyond a single point is an abstraction. The math of complex systems
shows us that there will always be outlier points outside of that
"normal" abstract, and that those points are just as much a part of that
system as anything along the normal. With any one point, certainty can
be absolute, yet even still, outside of any one point, certainty is
always relative. God doesn't seem to like to deal in lines; that may be
why He created us. We are the ones who need to connect the dots. We are
the ones who percieve and think about lines. That's why, as we've
discovered, our "objective" reality is so tenuous, and in the scope of
the universe, turns out to be relative at best.
You see, God has a lot more in common with a point than a line. A point
is forever the same, and yet it can move. While remaining unchanged, a
point in motion can define, or create, as many different or similar
lines as it chooses. Whilst doing so, even the movement of the point and
the lines that it creates can only be accurately described relative to
the original point itself, which, regardless of its instantateous motion
at any one given time is, in and of itself, completely stateless.
Indeed, the line-creating motion is completely relative, and you could
both say that the point is moving to create the lines or that the lines
are moving around and across the point in order to be created and be
equally correct and incorrect in both statements.
We need to connect dots and see lines because our lives are lines. We
start at one point and move in one direction, and then, one way or
another, we reach the other point at the end of the line. The beauty of
it is that, at any one instant in our travel across our own individual
line, we are a dot. The further we move along the line, the more points
our line intersects. Those points may have seemed like chaotic,
destructive, or incomprehensible things in and of themselves, but the
further we travel, the clearer it becomes that our line needed those
points to be the line that it is, and the relationships between the
individual points across the line become more important than any of
those points in and of themselves.
Perhaps this is why, as we've discussed, it turns out that what we do
now is so much more important than where we have been or even where are
going: only right now, where we are, doing what we are doing, are we a
point. At any one point we are in the image of God, regardless of the
line being traced over the course of our lifes.
Let me tell you about a small part of the future that I believe that I
can see. Keep in mind that I can take absolutely no credit for any part
of this vision; it is composed entirely of things that other far more
intellegent people have created. Like dominos falling, I've watched
these creations come along one after another in my life, setting up and
leading into one another. I am still far from clever enough to be able
to tell you exactly how the next domino will fall, but what I believe
that I now CAN tell you is in what direction in general these dominos
are and have been headed.
I am, let's say, a man from the future. I live fifty years from now, at
a time when many of us, including the "real" me, still hope to be alive,
although we will be very old by then.
Being a man in the future, let me tell you a little bit about the way
that I live. Keep in mind that I am not any different from you in any
real way. Even the technology which I posess is no different from yours.
What I have is just what you have, simply having progressed a bit more
and gotten smaller, faster, and easier to use over the coming fifty
years, just as yours has over the past fifty years.
You walk around with what you call a "smart phone"; an internetworked
computer with a slick interface. You also have something you call a
"personal computer," which is only a slightly more powerful computer,
also internetworked these days, that sits in one place, where you use it
with a somewhat more powerful and somewhat more clunky interface.
I walk around with petaflops of computing power and exobytes of storage
with me at all times, in a package smaller than you could ever imagine
and with an interface so slick, it would blow your mind. More than that,
I am connected to "the Internet" whenever and however I want to be,
effortlessly, and without thinking about it. Everyone is. I communicate,
I "internetwork" with other human beings nearly effortlessly. Everyone
does. Like the tools of language, writing, mathematics, and symbolism
from which they derive, the tools of mechanical computing and
internetworking have become fully-integrated parts of our human culture,
our "way of being," our "way of doing things."
This may sound frightening to you. I'll admit that, for a brief moment,
when I first realized that this was our collective future, I was
frightened as well. However, once the implications of this state of
affairs are fully considered and discussed, the wonder of this new
cultural state begins to take hold.
The first thing that people in the future learn about computers is this:
"What's the best thing about a computer? You can always turn it off." We
all teach our children that a mankind internetworked with computers,
never turning them off is called "the Borg." At the same time, a mankind
internetworked which never turns their computers on is called "the Mob."
In case you were wondering, you and I in the present, from my point of
view in the future, are "the Mob." We've developed lots of fairly clever
technologies and conventions which allow us to be amazingly productive
and socially secure for a mob, but we're a mob nonetheless, and now that
we can internetwork with computers, these institutions are unneeded,
wheather we realize it yet or not. Indeed, they are in fact now
vestigial impediments, and are quickly shrinking and/or disappearing as
we need them less and less. For me, in the future, and for all of my
brothers and sisters, these institutions which seem so indespensible to
you and me in the present are mostly gone, or have morphed into a shape
that we would not easily recognize.
You see, as mankind has advanced, we've had to invent institutions to
protect us from the onset of chaos, as well as many other things that we
fear. Over time, we start to look around at these institutions:
governments, churches, municipalities, clubs, banks, secret societies,
and the like, and they start to seem "evil." As an institution ages, we
increasingly focus on the ways in which it hampers our individuality and
not the ways in which it safeguards it. The evil that we see in any one
institution, however pronounced, is an illusion as much as it is real.
It's not that our institutions decay and become "bad" things. They're
just as "good" as they ever were. In fact, like us, they are neither
good nor evil; they are flawed. Unlike us, however, their creator is
also flawed. As we, the human species, improve and grow and become
smarter and more interconnected, the institutions which we have built up
around us do not grow, but remain the same. These things may appear to
decay and become less useful, but in reality we simply need them less
and less, and our increasing lack of need for them grows more quickly
than our ability to change or abolish them in many cases. After all, the
primary thing which we all fear, as we've discussed, is our fellow man,
and so one thing we build into most of our institutions is the quality
of being difficult to circumvent.