Occidental and Oriental Philosophies

[ironcross]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- I honestly don’t know the answer to your first couple of questions in a way I can describe.

Fair enough regarding the last part. Thanks for engaging me.[/quote]

Well, is it a force or a thing?..Sorry I kinda dropped this. I got sick as a dog so my mind wasn’t into deep things.[/quote]

I see it as more of a law or a pattern. Sometimes laws of nature cause forces to occur in the interaction of matter, but they aren’t forces, nor are they exactly the things that the forces are acting on. But because those things and forces are a part of the universe where the law exists, they interact accordingly.[/quote]

Let’s go with law, that would make more sense. It’s a law that all that exists is subject to, or just material existence?
I take it by “part of the universe” you mean ‘substance’ rather than geographic location, right? I know it sounds like splitting hairs but is a necessary distinction.

[Edit]: Do you see ‘it’ as part of the universe, or something the universe is subject to?

I know it may go against the grain of the whole ‘Tao’ thing, but I am seeking to identify what it is subscribing to or drawing from. It may not be terribly important to identify ‘it’ but I think it can be done, I don’t think that is left field thinking.[/quote]

It’s a pattern that everything possesses, although traditionally you can’t pass accurate information of the experience of it through writing or speech. You can only confer limited, imperfect analogy through language. It’s especially difficult because we’re talking about it in English, which doesn’t have some of the same terms that Chinese does, and I don’t speak Chinese, so I can’t even know if I’m telling you this right.

The more I talk about this, the more I want to learn Chinese.

[pat]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- I honestly don’t know the answer to your first couple of questions in a way I can describe.

Fair enough regarding the last part. Thanks for engaging me.[/quote]

Well, is it a force or a thing?..Sorry I kinda dropped this. I got sick as a dog so my mind wasn’t into deep things.[/quote]

I see it as more of a law or a pattern. Sometimes laws of nature cause forces to occur in the interaction of matter, but they aren’t forces, nor are they exactly the things that the forces are acting on. But because those things and forces are a part of the universe where the law exists, they interact accordingly.[/quote]

Let’s go with law, that would make more sense. It’s a law that all that exists is subject to, or just material existence?
I take it by “part of the universe” you mean ‘substance’ rather than geographic location, right? I know it sounds like splitting hairs but is a necessary distinction.

[Edit]: Do you see ‘it’ as part of the universe, or something the universe is subject to?

I know it may go against the grain of the whole ‘Tao’ thing, but I am seeking to identify what it is subscribing to or drawing from. It may not be terribly important to identify ‘it’ but I think it can be done, I don’t think that is left field thinking.[/quote]

It’s a pattern that everything possesses, although traditionally you can’t pass accurate information of the experience of it through writing or speech. You can only confer limited, imperfect analogy through language. It’s especially difficult because we’re talking about it in English, which doesn’t have some of the same terms that Chinese does, and I don’t speak Chinese, so I can’t even know if I’m telling you this right.

The more I talk about this, the more I want to learn Chinese.[/quote]

Everything material or both material and metaphysical?

[ironcross]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- I honestly don’t know the answer to your first couple of questions in a way I can describe.

Fair enough regarding the last part. Thanks for engaging me.[/quote]

Well, is it a force or a thing?..Sorry I kinda dropped this. I got sick as a dog so my mind wasn’t into deep things.[/quote]

I see it as more of a law or a pattern. Sometimes laws of nature cause forces to occur in the interaction of matter, but they aren’t forces, nor are they exactly the things that the forces are acting on. But because those things and forces are a part of the universe where the law exists, they interact accordingly.[/quote]

Let’s go with law, that would make more sense. It’s a law that all that exists is subject to, or just material existence?
I take it by “part of the universe” you mean ‘substance’ rather than geographic location, right? I know it sounds like splitting hairs but is a necessary distinction.

[Edit]: Do you see ‘it’ as part of the universe, or something the universe is subject to?

I know it may go against the grain of the whole ‘Tao’ thing, but I am seeking to identify what it is subscribing to or drawing from. It may not be terribly important to identify ‘it’ but I think it can be done, I don’t think that is left field thinking.[/quote]

It’s a pattern that everything possesses, although traditionally you can’t pass accurate information of the experience of it through writing or speech. You can only confer limited, imperfect analogy through language. It’s especially difficult because we’re talking about it in English, which doesn’t have some of the same terms that Chinese does, and I don’t speak Chinese, so I can’t even know if I’m telling you this right.

The more I talk about this, the more I want to learn Chinese.[/quote]

Everything material or both material and metaphysical?[/quote]

I don’t really know how you’d separate the two considering that we’re assuming no discontinuation, just an area that human senses can’t penetrate.

[pat]

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- I honestly don’t know the answer to your first couple of questions in a way I can describe.

Fair enough regarding the last part. Thanks for engaging me.[/quote]

Well, is it a force or a thing?..Sorry I kinda dropped this. I got sick as a dog so my mind wasn’t into deep things.[/quote]

I see it as more of a law or a pattern. Sometimes laws of nature cause forces to occur in the interaction of matter, but they aren’t forces, nor are they exactly the things that the forces are acting on. But because those things and forces are a part of the universe where the law exists, they interact accordingly.[/quote]

Let’s go with law, that would make more sense. It’s a law that all that exists is subject to, or just material existence?
I take it by “part of the universe” you mean ‘substance’ rather than geographic location, right? I know it sounds like splitting hairs but is a necessary distinction.

[Edit]: Do you see ‘it’ as part of the universe, or something the universe is subject to?

I know it may go against the grain of the whole ‘Tao’ thing, but I am seeking to identify what it is subscribing to or drawing from. It may not be terribly important to identify ‘it’ but I think it can be done, I don’t think that is left field thinking.[/quote]

It’s a pattern that everything possesses, although traditionally you can’t pass accurate information of the experience of it through writing or speech. You can only confer limited, imperfect analogy through language. It’s especially difficult because we’re talking about it in English, which doesn’t have some of the same terms that Chinese does, and I don’t speak Chinese, so I can’t even know if I’m telling you this right.

The more I talk about this, the more I want to learn Chinese.[/quote]

Everything material or both material and metaphysical?[/quote]

I don’t really know how you’d separate the two considering that we’re assuming no discontinuation, just an area that human senses can’t penetrate.[/quote]

Assuming your following a ‘Things exist model’ which we have to to carry on this conversation. Correct, senses are not able to discern metaphysical things, but they don’t really have to. We know there is a difference between material and non-material things, particularly mass.
You are correct in that things get fuzzy as you climb up the causal chain, but material and immaterial existences are distinct outside of their ability to be sensed.

We can already know certain things about this ‘it’, we know it has a unifying property, we know it sits in the causal chain, we know existence dependent upon it, and we know all things have ‘it’ in common.

Now to be clear, I like to take the universe out of the equation, and use existence instead, that at least proposes that this universe may not all that is, but any thing else that exists must also have the property of existence.