Those are my thoughts 🙂

Thank you John,
I had to think about this for a while because a few times I would have given completely different responses.
The area that caught me was if it was the same cup and form. Are they the same at all?

We may think of something commonly known, say the ‘statue of Liberty’. When I think of it and when anyone else thinks of it, is it the same thing? I know physically it can be answered, of course it is the same one, but the thought is a representation of something. Indeed is the Statue of Liberty I know the one you know?

It is like, do I see ‘blue’ the same as you. Is the same? The cells reacting to the frequency in the eye and transmitting that to the visual cortex may actually do it in totally different ways physically, totally different pathways, connections and ultimately the connection to what we see. The cells maybe aged differently, have different compositions, may suffer filtering of light in that very frequency and the brain compensate only by selecting what is familiar to others and calling it ‘blue’.
When I see ‘blue’ in my mind’s eye, is it the same ‘blue’ that another sees. It seems not…

I need some philosophy lessons I think, I have promised myself one day to really delve into the subject… but the connection between the thing and the perception of it by the ‘self’ is fascinating me at the moment.

No I didn’t. In fact it seemed as soon as I jumped onto the idea I went totally the wrong way, in fact doing the opposite. The last few years have been spent learning a lot of lessons.

But I am not giving up with the challenge. I will be jumping back onto this in the next or following year.

I have another bit to add to this idea later too – a kind of twist on ‘pay it forward’. It seems that life has taught me that if you actually want something, then if you work out ways in which to give it to someone else it comes to you faster.

It is comfortable doing that but you find that people have an inbuilt definition of what the source, the one etc is that gets corrupted by what they are told – ie religion. Although I am comfortable myself reaching out for God and seeing a perfect God this will be seen differently by different people. The problem it is not different at all, there is only one source. ‘There can be only one!’. What that is is way beyond any religion or belief system – it IS! That in itself being the most fascinating part of it all – and we belong to it – that is wonderful in itself. How we became separate from the one thing is a complete mystery to me but I feel we should embrace whatever we are and be all that we can be. Mainly because whatever we are, we are driven by, whatever the one thing is within us, so whatever we wish – we should actually be.
You see where all that goes … you cannot avoid God with some people, you cannot avoid mortality with others and I don’t wish to change anyone’s view there – just find out for myself what is REAL.

Ergo sum is so fascinating…

Sean. I think I can further your everything is perfect point. The problem from a purely philosophical perspective is that perfection seems to be one half of a binary concept. However, if you can find a unique unitary entity that only exists and cannot ‘not exist’ then that changes. You can argue that since it is the only one of its kind and it must exist it definitively is the perfect example of itself.

To apply this to your argument, there is such a unique unitary entity thing and that is the universe. The universe is one of of a kind. It cannot not exist. It is therefore the perfect example of  itself – there is no other, so it is perfect. Since the universe is perfect and the universe is, by definition, the entirety of all things. All things must therefore be perfect.

Ergo sum. Everything is perfect.

I never studied Philosophy but always wish I had. I feel a future OU degree coming on should time and money allow 🙂

Never worry about debate – I am happy to do it until I have the idea honed down to mathematical precision. I have always appreciated Peter taking time out and challenging me way back on the Beyond One World ideas and I must admit I always did enjoy them. Always left with the desire to learn or understand more and that is never a bad thing – is it?

I still feel as if I am way off the mark still here though as I think through it over night.

I know what I wish to convey – the idea that gives one the highest ideals and the best to reach for at any time in life. The lack of which appears to be the cause of all problems. I used ‘Everything is Perfect’ as the ultimate stake in the ground, the ultimate destination of thought, whereas maybe I should only think of direction (not destination)…
 

That’s good. Philopsophy has been an interest of mine since I studied it at A’Level and I enjoy the mental stimulation of it. I wouldn’t want my enjoyment of reasoning and the ‘art of debate’ to undermine your thinking or be construed as anything other than my enjoyment of debating philosophy.

I really don’t mind being ripped apart on this David. I really want to make sure I am not mistaken in what I can see and make sure I define it all properly.

I liked argument 1 but it does collapse meaning – so I should move on.

Argument 2 – I can only sustain it if Everything is a singularity. I cannot figure that one out, so thrown out.

Argument 3 has some possibility if I borrow from the other two.

The world is not a sphere – this is a smaller view of the scale, a sphere is a mathematical construct. It does not mean the world is imperfect, it means that its definition is different. This has always been a problem of misconceptions, not using the right concept in describing reality. When you look at the scale then things are only perfect in their ultimate forms, any view less than that gives rise to imperfection (though only in the mind thinking of it – not the reality). So the reality as the extreme end of the scale of everything is perfect. Imperfection is only a misuse of not seeing the full case or misconception.

OK – I am feeling more certain now. I need more stones…