A paradox exists. At its heart: God. Still concerned about the paradox?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

This is sort of a thought experiment to do with how you perceive problems, and in what way you look for a solution.

Say there exists a paradox. The paradox exists in a way that you can't get rid of it. At the heart of this paradox is God. God does not remove the paradox, but rather speaks to you through the paradox. You cannot get rid of the paradox, but you can talk to God through the paradox.

Are you still concerned about the paradox?

In what way does God being at the heart of the paradox, change your attitudes to the paradox?

The goal is to have some sort of meaningful relationship to the paradox, or to God in the midst of the paradox.

 

[Davian]

Am I concerned? No. I see no reason to be.

 

[Freodin]

I do, but only when I don't.

That is a paradox. Are you concerned?

 

[Paradoxum]

Well the paradox would still be an issue to consider.

 

[jacknife]

the loneliness is only missed when i am alone.

 

[Davian]

 

[True Scotsman]

Hi there,

This is sort of a thought experiment to do with how you perceive problems, and in what way you look for a solution.

Say there exists a paradox. The paradox exists in a way that you can't get rid of it. At the heart of this paradox is God. God does not remove the paradox, but rather speaks to you through the paradox. You cannot get rid of the paradox, but you can talk to God through the paradox.

Are you still concerned about the paradox?

In what way does God being at the heart of the paradox, change your attitudes to the paradox?

The goal is to have some sort of meaningful relationship to the paradox, or to God in the midst of the paradox.

I don't believe contradictions can exist.

 

[AlephBet]

Hi there,

This is sort of a thought experiment to do with how you perceive problems, and in what way you look for a solution.

Say there exists a paradox. The paradox exists in a way that you can't get rid of it. At the heart of this paradox is God. God does not remove the paradox, but rather speaks to you through the paradox. You cannot get rid of the paradox, but you can talk to God through the paradox.

Are you still concerned about the paradox?

In what way does God being at the heart of the paradox, change your attitudes to the paradox?

The goal is to have some sort of meaningful relationship to the paradox, or to God in the midst of the paradox.

A friend has an argument with his friend the train engineer. The friend argues that the whistle changes pitch as the train passes him each day. The Engineer says the whistle doesn't change. He hears it clearly and hears no change. Of course, the Engineer runs the train and already knew the answer. He just wanted the friend to figure it out on his own.

Who was right? When did the argument end? What did the friend discover about the train whistle and himself from the dispute? Were they still friends after? Why didn't he just tell him the answer to begin with?

 

[Gottservant]

A friend has an argument with his friend the train engineer. The friend argues that the whistle changes pitch as the train passes him each day. The Engineer says the whistle doesn't change. He hears it clearly and hears no change. Of course, the Engineer runs the train and already knew the answer. He just wanted the friend to figure it out on his own.

Who was right? When did the argument end? What did the friend discover about the train whistle and himself from the dispute? Were they still friends after? Why didn't he just tell him the answer to begin with?

Interesting train of thought (lol, pun not intended).

I find it challenging that relativity can separate so much, but not unite by the same strength around a common absolute - it is after all, it's own absolute. The Engineer knows there is a consistency to the whistle, but the context in which it is viewed as such, is more or less exclusive to the front of the train. The problem is that the Engineer will go on to remember that he made a point (about the whistle) but the friend will feel as though he could have made a point, but did not (because the constancy of the context in which the whistle was constant, was irrelevant to him).

There is a very legitimate sense in which the action of the absolute is what made relativity relative - but I don't know what that means to you...

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm reminded of "the mystery box".

A large crate with a question mark on it appears in a town overnight. As random townsfolk notice the large crate/box ... some people don't care, others take an interest. It's literally just a large box with a single question mark on it. Someone finally reports it to the police.

The police show up: the crate appears difficult to open, but not entirely impossible. Out of fear it may be some sort of terrorist device, the police began to scan it and perform protocols ... but apparently no useful data can be obtained that way. Considering ways to open the box, it looks as though it may risk damaging whatever may be inside. So the bottom line becomes: do we open the box ?

Some people want to open the box, some don't. Some think it's a sign from God, aliens, a media trick, it really is a terrorist threat, some don't care, etc. There is no consensus on whether or not to open the box.

Out of respect for those who want to keep the box unopened, for fear of damaging what is inside ... the local government decides to wait. Perhaps whoever is responsible for it will come back and explain it ? Maybe it's a matter of patience ? But others do not agree ... there are those whose curiosity has peaked, and HAVE to know what's in it. Then there are those who really do believe it's a threat, and the longer they wait the more likely a bomb will detonate or some such. So those who are most afraid, decide to try and open it by force. They show up ... with weapons. The police are called out, and now there is a situation. People are arrested. Unrest ensues.

Some wealthy individuals try to pay off officials to get to open it. But you also have a religious group taking up in arms concerning it, claiming that to open it would be to violate something sacred ... that the box is a sign. So they stir up unrest as well, and the politicians in the town are mixed. Upset the people ? Make a profit ? Who to offend and who not to offend ? Tensions rise, people galvanize ... all over a simple box, with unknown contents inside, with a question mark on it's side that showed up in town one day.

Thus, the primary function of the contents of the box boils down to being a reflection of the ones who are aware of the box. The ACTUAL contents of the box are secondary and almost irrelevant.

 

[Gottservant]

hilarious!

that is exactly what I meant

with the one small difference that "the box" I propose exists in relation to God in some way

is it limiting someone's freedom to suggest that a relationship should be there, if I do not force that person to adopt a particular relationship?

 

[AlephBet]

Interesting train of thought (lol, pun not intended).

I find it challenging that relativity can separate so much, but not unite by the same strength around a common absolute - it is after all, it's own absolute. The Engineer knows there is a consistency to the whistle, but the context in which it is viewed as such, is more or less exclusive to the front of the train. The problem is that the Engineer will go on to remember that he made a point (about the whistle) but the friend will feel as though he could have made a point, but did not (because the constancy of the context in which the whistle was constant, was irrelevant to him).

There is a very legitimate sense in which the action of the absolute is what made relativity relative - but I don't know what that means to you...

The answer to this is to know the Doppler Effect. Frame of reference determines perspective. For the engineer, the whistle does not change pitch since he is riding along with the source of the sound. No compression of waves is heard. For the friend, the train passes, coming and going (like time past to future). For him, the source appears to change states from low to high to low.

Much like reality appearing to rise and fall, there is a reason. We are seeing our source come and go. Many scriptures call this a visitation. Christ was with us 2000 years ago. We appear to decay, yet we know he is again approaching.

Perspective and frame of reference is only a mystery until you know the mystery.

 

[Gottservant]

Perspective and frame of reference is only a mystery until you know the mystery.

Yes, and at the moment the mystery is known, it is the universality of the absolute that makes it appealing not the relativity, because the potential of the relativity is expressed in the light of the absolute that consumes all - if you deny this, you can only be pointing to the weak or the strong for justice that does not exist in anyway in proportion to the absolute.

That really is my point, to know the absolute is paradoxically the key to every experience that seeks some kind of relativity for justice, justice which does not come when the absolute is abandoned as if it is subject to relativity (which it is not)

Curious to know whether you see my point, whether or not you prefer the absolute as an experience of truth over relativity.

 

[TillICollapse]

hilarious!

that is exactly what I meant

with the one small difference that "the box" I propose exists in relation to God in some way

There were people who assumed the box was related to God in some way as well.

is it limiting someone's freedom to suggest that a relationship should be there, if I do not force that person to adopt a particular relationship?

You are missing something more simple. It's not limiting freedom to suggest while not forcing ... but you are disrespecting someone's personal space if they didn't invite it in the first place. And secondarily, you may be cheapening the very thing you are suggesting depending on how you suggest it.

Let's say I have a picture of a hot girl that I once dated whom I claim I really did care about, who is now free to date and I have no qualms about "offering her" to others to suggest they date her. So I go around taking pics of her, telling everyone about her, suggesting they date her. Some would liken me to a pimp. Some would think I was completely disrespecting the girl. Some would be made very uncomfortable by what I was doing. Some might be fine with it for any number of reasons: they like pics of hot girls, they want a shot at her because they think she might be easy, whatever. But is this typically how a real, lasting, trust building and forming, significant relationship is formed with someone ? By someone pimping out another ? And also ... what does that say about me and the way I value the relationship I had with her, and the way I value women in general ? What does that suggest about her that she may have chosen to date me at some point ? See all the potential ramifications ?

However let's say I am actually the most generous and genuine and innocent person you could imagine, and this girl is sincere, caring, genuine too, etc. She really is a catch of a lifetime, and even though it looks like I'm completely devaluing and trivializing humanity and serious relationships by my actions ... for each person who passes the opportunity they are truly passing up an opportunity. Let's say someone figures this out, and decides to go for it. "Give me her number, I'll call her ..."

What happens if that person never gets her to answer her phone, call him back, return the texts, etc ? IOW ... for all intent and purposes, that person never sees one shred the girl even existed ? Should I keep telling him not to give up, she really is great ? Let's say this person begins to do some research ... and come to find out, there are a LOT of people who claim to have dated her. But also a lot of people who claim to have tried and never saw proof she was even real either. They are disappointed, angry, disillusioned ... they were lead on, only to be disappointed. Let's say some people even gave all they had in a leap of chance to make this girl their one in a million ... and they got nothing but broken hopes.

See some of the issues with playing matchmaker uninvited ? Are you limiting their freedom ? Not necessarily, they still have choices to respond to your marketing strategies. But will YOU take any responsibility when things fall through, or are you going to blame them or this girl who never seems to show her face to them ?

Now ... think back to someone you actually loved in your life. Someone you actually treasured, valued, cared for deeply and they you. I'm guessing you had intimacy on some level ... even if it wasn't physical, it could have been deeply personal and emotional. You connected in a way that the two of you shared things with each other because you trusted each other in certain ways. Through experience and time, you built a relationship, earning trust, finding common ground, exploring what it means to love and be loved. Now ... did you EVER treat this person like I described above ? Did you go around telling everyone their secrets, trying to force others to have relationships with them ? Did you run around showing pics of her naked, etc ? People that do that kinda thing, are typically more about bragging rights. Not someone they love, may be jealous over, etc. Typically. What it would say if you were casting those pearls like that ?

 

[Gottservant]

What it would say if you were casting those pearls like that ?

I read what you wrote, I want to think about it, until the subtlety of the difference between sharing the love of a father for his children and raping a woman of her dignity is clearer to me - I don't think its easy wisdom you have shared.

But this last statement particularly irritates me, a pearl is not completely cast until the conversation is over.

 

[Paradoxum]

Thus, the primary function of the contents of the box boils down to being a reflection of the ones who are aware of the box. The ACTUAL contents of the box are secondary and almost irrelevant.

That's only true if the contents of the box is actually unimportant. If opening or not opening the box makes a significant difference, then the contents could be extremely relevant.

Also if you care about truth, the contents is relevant in itself (if the issue is important).

 

[AlephBet]

Yes, and at the moment the mystery is known, it is the universality of the absolute that makes it appealing not the relativity, because the potential of the relativity is expressed in the light of the absolute that consumes all - if you deny this, you can only be pointing to the weak or the strong for justice that does not exist in anyway in proportion to the absolute.

That really is my point, to know the absolute is paradoxically the key to every experience that seeks some kind of relativity for justice, justice which does not come when the absolute is abandoned as if it is subject to relativity (which it is not)

Curious to know whether you see my point, whether or not you prefer the absolute as an experience of truth over relativity.

I suppose, but it takes a greater volume than the post above to show what you likely mean. Applied to all scripture, there is a key unifying all of them. As my last example of frame of reference and perspective, I showed the excluded middle of the argument (Doppler Effect). I used it in parallel to both your question and my analogy. Below, the broader answer to your question that cannot fit into this post.

The Upanishads outline the absolute in detail. The Gita shows why we fight for liberation from the Ego / Accuser. The Dhammapada outlines righteousness in relation to living by the one law of love. The Tao shows the proper way to rule with righteousness. From this, you comments could be highly refined. Returning to the Bible would then show you who the Lord (Ruling Ego) is in relation to Satan (Conscience).

The Absolute is seen clearly if you know the Son by his relationship to all that we know as the image. The Supreme Soul is both being and becoming. There is no paradox between invariant symmetry and translational symmetries. Translation does not change the nature of the absolute.

 

[AlephBet]

Now ... did you EVER treat this person like I described above ? Did you go around telling everyone their secrets, trying to force others to have relationships with them ? Did you run around showing pics of her naked, etc ? People that do that kinda thing, are typically more about bragging rights. Not someone they love, may be jealous over, etc. Typically. What it would say if you were casting those pearls like that ?

Casting pearls reveals more about the swine than the pearls themselves, or even the one casting them. In the case of truth, it is a double edged sword. It cuts both the person it hits and the one wielding the blade. Light reveals what it hits. In the case of Truth, invariance and symmetry has no shame to hide. This is the reason light illuminates what it hits. Darkness does not dispel light. It's the other way around.

In the case of the girl above, she may be modest. Truth is not modest. It is bold. It desires to be fully known. As for a girl, knowing her is a private matter. Knowing truth is public. Humility before truth is opposite of pride over truth. Truth can judge. This is for sure. A person can use truth to judge another. Also true. Revealing truth can be accomplished with humility.

As I said, casting the pearls reveals the person trampling them. It also rescues the one smart enough to pick them up off the ground.

Gospel of Philip

"When the pearl is cast down into the mud, it becomes greatly despised, nor if it is anointed with balsam oil will it become more precious. But it always has value in the eyes of its owner. Compare the Sons of God: wherever they may be, they still have value in the eyes of their Father."

The pearl always has the same value. No amount of mud changes it. We are the pearls in the mud by the way. Swine love mud. So did the prodigal Son. He learned from the swine. Opposites add value.

 

[TillICollapse]

That's only true if the contents of the box is actually unimportant. If opening or not opening the box makes a significant difference, then the contents could be extremely relevant.

Also if you care about truth, the contents is relevant in itself (if the issue is important).

But that's the point ... who decides what is important or unimportant ? Relevant verses irrelevant verses extremely relevant ? This is the galvanizing and revealing aspect of the mystery box ... what is important and relevant to one person, may not be to another. Concerning truth ... caring about truth in general verses caring about what's in the box are two different things.

 

[Paradoxum]

But that's the point ... who decides what is important or unimportant ? Relevant verses irrelevant verses extremely relevant ? This is the galvanizing and revealing aspect of the mystery box ... what is important and relevant to one person, may not be to another. Concerning truth ... caring about truth in general verses caring about what's in the box are two different things.

Well in personal life, people can decide for themselves what is important. In public life, the law has a duty to protect the public.

I'd say the mystery box is a public matter.

Also, just because people disagree doesn't mean some opinions aren't more reasonable than others.