natural/supernatural :: feet/gods
- a few simple statements: I can do no other
There is no god: there is no spiritual hierarchy or spiritual apparatchiks, no minor gods, no angels, demons, devils, hell, or any of the other hidden ghost-like apparatus, usually invoked as regulating the affairs and consequences of human action. Incidentally, there is no heaven. None.
There are no absolute values in nature, good and bad sanctioned or banned, by any non-human authority.
There is no inherent purpose, intention or meaning in, and for, existence.
The past is just that, past. It is no longer. We find traces and interpret.
There is no future. There will be (they hoped) — but not now.
Material things are not actually material; deep truth is only a coincidence.
Just as we cannot go back and undo what has been done, we cannot go forward to experience the result of an action we are now doing: the reasons are the same in both cases — there is no past and there is no future. Even allowing for an enduring present, the past and the present are only mental phenomena — one remembered, one imagined: of course, they could both be imagined.
It is not mysticism. It is a great mystery. CERN is not the answer. Searching without is not the answer. Searching within is not the answer. There is no right way to search. The concept of a right way is false prophet.
Life is not an I illusion.
Reality is not an illusion.
Wake up! You bet there is everything!
What is the question?
So, you have your primary concept. The primary concept is the baseline to which all, or almost all, other concepts ultimately would be referred in what we would normally call an explanation of given phenomena.
The primary concept of course is highly variable and changes by circumstance, by category, by general phenomena, by physicality, by science, domain, by curiosity, by emotional stability, by social interests, by a variety of biases in propaganda, etc.
When stated like this, it seems that there could not possibly be one primary concept for everything as the ground of explanations. Personally, that strikes me as highly likely.
That is to say, that for all explanations, there is minimally one, and maximally, an indefinitely large number of primaries.
But, as the saying goes, what do I know? Depending on a number of circumstances, and often vague, slippery, and facile or hazy presuppositions — explanations and giving accounts of things is enigmatic, but also, often clear, and simple. When patterns of thought or perspectives on issues are not fully consciously grasped, the presuppositions and understandings of an individual, a group, a large assembly, a small village, larger town or city, a province, state, country, and/or society and nation, may all hold different ways of talking/thinking/acting with reason, in the giving of explanations for things which are deemed as satisfactory and acceptable to many, if not most. Not an easy world for cohabitation for sure.
I think that many people desire to know how many things tie together, even to the point where we set out to form links from an individual event to a much larger picture, such as humanity itself, humanity inside nature, nature inside the world, the world inside the universe, the universe as one small phase of existence.
I personally do not find that an odd paragraph. That doesn’t mean that it is not.
We normally think of people like philosophers, are trying to find out what that ground is that might accommodate the widest, most diverse, and most extensive and complex explanations that seems possible. Because so many of us regular people do not think of ourselves as philosophers, we imagine thinking of really big picture explanations is beyond us. But, lots of people want to know what’s going on with respect to an incredible diversity of items and situations in our daily lives and in the world. And why not?
Up to now, reductionist physics is not fulfilling the task. We are human, after all, non?