Practice what you Preach...

Jestor wrote: Sure, welcome to the Party!

Thanks...it has been very enjoyable thus far.

Jestor wrote: The opposite of a house is an empty lot...

Was there a basement? So, should their be a hole, to show the negative space there?

The basement is a function of the house and as such is irrelevant to that analogy. If, however, you need there to be a basement, there can be. I would call the opposite of a basement an attic...but you can go with negative space if you like...in the end it makes no difference.

Jestor wrote: So, opposite of a house is an empty lot and an empty lot is the opposite of a house... What is the opposite of strip mall? An empty lot?

If it's zoned "commercial".

Jestor wrote: So and empty lot equals a house, and a strip mall? well, that doesnt sound very opposite....

All things do not need or necessarily have "unique" opposites. The opposite of over is under...but also around...

Jestor wrote: The opposite of "cardboard under a bridge" is "no cardboard under a bridge"?

You may choose to see it that way, but what I said was: the opposite of a pile of cardboard under a bridge is cleanliness under the bridge.

Jestor wrote: Well, as bridge was used as a part of the first equation, wouldnt you have to remove the bridge as well?

No, the bridge is necessary for equality...the purpose of an equation, after all, is to balance both sides.

Jestor wrote: What is the opposite of a quarter? (+1 to all who thought "an empty lot!)

You can nit-pick and ask for examples of opposites all day, and I can provide them, but I believe there are better uses for our time. We're passing academic discussion and running headlong into minutiae at this point. I think I have explained adequately enough for this thread.

Jestor wrote: Arent words fun? lol...

Absolutely they are!!

Jestor wrote: Yes, commonly things are thought to have opposites, but when you break something down to its exact definition, you find each thing is unique in its own right...

That is absolutely true, and does not have any bearing on the existence of their opposites.

Jestor wrote: Find out the opposite of cookies and have them destroyed![/i][/color]

LOL!!! If that's the route we're going here, then I vote brussel sprouts are the opposite of cookies

There are several opinions as to what the opposite of cookies are. Rutabagas, Haggis, Scrapple, Liver, Brussels sprouts and the list goes on. But the two most commonly agreed are Sauerkraut and Pickles. Seeing how I don’t particularly like either one… I’m good with destroying them! :evil:

One particularly cute response to the opposite of a cookie was a Trojan… or the anti-cookie! :silly: :lol: :woohoo:

PS: Brussels Sprouts were mentioned several times on that list and would be considered third!

I guess I'm just a freak, because I like both saur kraut and pickles

Alluvius wrote:

Jestor wrote: The opposite of a house is an empty lot...

Was there a basement? So, should their be a hole, to show the negative space there?

The basement is a function of the house and as such is irrelevant to that analogy. If, however, you need there to be a basement, there can be. I would call the opposite of a basement an attic...but you can go with negative space if you like...in the end it makes no difference.

Then, to find the opposite, maybe we should agree what a house is and not be vague...

See, to me a house has a basement... Now, this is not true as I mentall ask myself if a house has to have abasement, but, when you said the opposite, "polar opposite", opposite of a house, for me, a house at that moment had a basement... so to show me the opposite of the house I had mentally built, there had to be a space in the ground for the basement... It is not a flat peice of ground to me...

Im not trolling, I assure you, neither is ren...

We actually disagree with you and Phortis... And to have a discussion, one of us will say, well, I see what you mean, and while technically you are right..."

Had ren not got in here, I was going to answer Phortis as well...

It does sound silly.. The lengths we might be going to to show you what we mean... But, It is not sillier than what you are saying to us...

Yes, we accept that to carry on a discussion, we shortcut, and agree water and dryness are opposite, but, if we break it down far enough, I would show that this is not the case either...

Jestor wrote: So and empty lot equals a house, and a strip mall? well, that doesnt sound very opposite....

All things do not need or necessarily have "unique" opposites. The opposite of over is under...but also around...

Well, I would think that if a uniques object has an opposite, then its opposite ought to be unique...

So,if I said what is the opposite of around you would say over, or under? Not through?

Jestor wrote: Well, as bridge was used as a part of the first equation, wouldnt you have to remove the bridge as well?

No, the bridge is necessary for equality...the purpose of an equation, after all, is to balance both sides.

Yes and no...

I ask for "the opposite of a pile of cardboard under a bridge", not "the opposite of a pile of cardboard" under a bridge...

So because the pile of cardboard and the bridge are the objects, I was looking for the opposite of the equation....

Am I making sense, seriously...

Text environment sucks for good conversations...:woohoo:

Jestor wrote: What is the opposite of a quarter? (+1 to all who thought "an empty lot!)

can nit-pick and ask for examples of opposites all day, and I can provide them, but I believe there are better uses for our time. We're passing academic discussion and running headlong into minutiae at this point. I think I have explained adequately enough for this thread.

Ok, I wont ask for anymore examples, cause you are right...

My, and ren's, thing is, to claim all things have opposites, is a fallacy... When you get to the literal definitions...

However, in the broad sense of words and things, sure things have opposites...

These sematical differences are what people get all uptight about...

FraterDavid and I went around on a comment of mine, and in the end, I wanst exact enough for my declaration... (everything is an opinion was my declaration, and it is, and its not, depending on how far do you want to define the object... To surface imperfections?)

(what would you say is the opposite of a quarter?
honestly? Im trying to find something...

Would it be $1.25? or -25 cents?

Because a quarter is a 1/4th of a dollar, would it be the whole item plus quarter?

Or because the quarter is worth 25 cents, would the opposite be -25 cents?

Or, is the quarter the object in which case the absence of the quarter be the opposite?

Im still not trolling, I promise...

Im just frustrating... Huh ren?

quote="Jestor" post=77394]Yes, commonly things are thought to have opposites, but when you break something down to its exact definition, you find each thing is unique in its own right...

That is absolutely true, and does not have any bearing on the existence of their opposites.

As you can see, I think nothing has an opposite...

You cannot be detailed enough to show something has an opposite....

Ooooo, what about a reflection?

Jestor wrote: Then, to find the opposite, maybe we should agree what a house is and not be vague...

See, to me a house has a basement... Now, this is not true as I mentall ask myself if a house has to have abasement, but, when you said the opposite, "polar opposite", opposite of a house, for me, a house at that moment had a basement... so to show me the opposite of the house I had mentally built, there had to be a space in the ground for the basement... It is not a flat peice of ground to me...

I assure you it is unnecessary to fully define a thing to determine it's opposite. The basement remains as irrelevant to the conversation as whether or not the hypothetical house generality has a garage, and whether said garage is attached or separate, and how many bedrooms the house has, whether or not it has an attic, and/or how big any of the rooms are. The house is what it is, none of these details change the fact that it's a house...you're painting yourself into a corner with that train of thought. Also the lot is the opposite of the house only because it is land that is set aside to build a house on...it is an "un-house". Any old plot of empty, open land is not the opposite of a house. It is by relegating that section of land to a role that it gains relevance as a contrast to the house. If that were not the case then every square inch of dirt one which there were no structures would the in opposition to all structures...and that simply is not the case.

Jestor wrote: Im not trolling, I assure you, neither is ren...

Do not worry, if I perceived either of you as "trolling" I'd have stopped talking long ago...after all "don't feed the trolls" is one of my "online mantras"

Jestor wrote: We actually disagree with you and Phortis... And to have a discussion, one of us will say, well, I see what you mean, and while technically you are right..."

Had ren not got in here, I was going to answer Phortis as well...

In point of fact, I disagree with Phortis. He's speaking of opposition in terms of words, phrases, and communicative convention. And in that context, you're absolutely correct that everything does not necessarily have an opposite. Most things, in fact, do not. This is because most things that our language attempts to convey are abstractions of reality, and reality, typically doesn't like to be quantified, codified, or classified...therefore defies and far outstrips the descriptive capability of language.

The opposition I'm trying to convey is the philosophical relationship between "object/un-object" and in that I have, apparently failed miserably. I apologize that my language was not equal to the task, I shall endeavor to rectify this in the future.

Jestor wrote: It does sound silly.. The lengths we might be going to to show you what we mean... But, It is not sillier than what you are saying to us...

I agree about the lengths we will go to to explain what we mean...but I do take mild offense to being told that what I'm saying is "silly". I bear no grudge against you, however, because as I have already stated, that is my failing. It stems from my inability to convey in words what I know to be the truth of existence.

Jestor wrote: So,if I said what is the opposite of around you would say over, or under? Not through?

Actually, through works too, I just hadn't thought of that.

Jestor wrote: Yes and no...

I ask for "the opposite of a pile of cardboard under a bridge", not "the opposite of a pile of cardboard" under a bridge...

So because the pile of cardboard and the bridge are the objects, I was looking for the opposite of the equation....

The cardboard and the bridge are related objects in that statement, you cannot know which pile of cardboard without the bridge...therefore you cannot know which cleanliness without the bridge either...the bridge is necessary.

Jestor wrote: Am I making sense, seriously...

I think you are...but if I were you, I wouldn't take my word for it, I thought I was making sense too. lol

Jestor wrote: Text environment sucks for good conversations...:woohoo:

Yet another point we whole-heartedly agree on.

Jestor wrote: My, and ren's, thing is, to claim all things have opposites, is a fallacy... When you get to the literal definitions...

Yes, but I was never speaking "literally".

Jestor wrote: However, in the broad sense of words and things, sure things have opposites...

Finally, progress!

Jestor wrote: These sematical differences are what people get all uptight about...

FraterDavid and I went around on a comment of mine, and in the end, I wanst exact enough for my declaration... (everything is an opinion was my declaration, and it is, and its not, depending on how far do you want to define the object... To surface imperfections?)

Yes, and that's just silly (the whole "language can't accurately convey the truth of existence" thing again)

As to your statement of everything is an opinion...that would depend on your belief as to the nature of the universe. If you believe that you create your own reality, or that all of physical reality is an illusion then there can be nothing that is not, at least, someone's opinion. But, if you're like most people, then yes...there are opinions and then there are facts. My problem with most people is that they attempt to convey their own opinions as verifiable fact...that is irritating.

Jestor wrote: (what would you say is the opposite of a quarter?
honestly? Im trying to find something...

Would it be $1.25? or -25 cents?

Because a quarter is a 1/4th of a dollar, would it be the whole item plus quarter?

Or because the quarter is worth 25 cents, would the opposite be -25 cents?

Or, is the quarter the object in which case the absence of the quarter be the opposite?

LOL It would all depend on your point of view...opposition always depends on where you're coming from. I could easily see either the absence of the quarter being the opposite of the quarter, or the negative value of "owing" 25 cents...everything else would require a level of abstraction and context that we simply lack in this conversation.

Jestor wrote: Im still not trolling, I promise...

Still not taking it that way. To make things easier on you, Jestor, I promise to tell you when I think you're trolling, but before I get "upset" about it, ok?

Jestor wrote: Im just frustrating... Huh ren?

You are not frustrating, you are providing me exactly what I need...feedback and a "foil".

Jestor wrote: As you can see, I think nothing has an opposite...

And the truth of that statement depends entirely on your point of view.

Jestor wrote: What about a reflection?

Dude, you can't make me laugh like that...I'm at work! LOL!

Wow this thread really move along since I was here last.

As far as emotional content, I believe...

It is not the same as emotion. Anger is the emotion, the content of the anger is the tightened muscles, the blood flow, the wide eyes, and open ears. The physical transformation of the body caused by the emotion.

This is not the psychological transformation of the brain that causes irradic behavior and loss of mental control.

This thread has become quite a mess. Let's see if we can bring some order to it. I hardly know where to begin...

First of all, Alluvius, I find it weird that you are one of the ones defending the reality of Polarity when, in another thread ("Dark side?"), you assert that the Force has no Light or Dark aspects. The Axiom of Polarity is either universal or it's false (since it is an "axiom"). If it's universal, then that means it also applies to the Force. This does not have to mean that the Force is limited by duality (hence the view of panentheism), but the Force does also take expression in dualistic realms. Otherwise, we as manifest beings would have no experience of it. Does that seem in any way illogical?

Alluvius wrote: You can nit-pick and ask for examples of opposites all day, and I can provide them, but I believe there are better uses for our time.

Agreed, better uses like: not falling into logic traps based on faulty examination. Asking for examples of opposites is not the problem here. Asking for opposite objects is. And no, you cannot provide them. That is what finally occurred to me; I can say unperturbedly that I have no idea what the exact opposite of an apple, a horse, a house, a cardboard box, etc is, and yet it is still accurate that Polarity remains a fundamental truth of the universe. See below for elaboration.

Alluvius wrote: I assure you it is unnecessary to fully define a thing to determine it's opposite.

Actually no, it IS necessary to fully define a thing in order to determine its exact opposite. That's precisely the problem here, no pun intended. These objects they are asking us to tell them the opposite of, are so complex in terms of the number of different spectrums of Polarity by which they are defined, that determining their exact opposite would be exceedingly difficult.

Even if you were to encounter the opposite of a house, somewhere out there in the universe, the last thing you're going to think is, "oh hey, that's the exact opposite of a house right there!" It will probably be something so alien and strange, or so far removed from us, or so dangerous (like in the middle of an antimatter galaxy) that you'll never find it or make the connection with a house. But that doesn't mean that the concept of "house" doesn't have some exact opposite floating around out there somewhere, in some dimensionality. It probably wouldn't even be visible or physically measurable, since those are both properties of a house.

The point is, it doesn't matter. Jestor and ren are assuming, incorrectly, that every object is oppositeless out of sheer supposition on their part. They have no direct experience of there being no opposite of a house. They have only a lack of experience of its opposite, which is not nearly the same thing.

The proof I offer that all things have opposites is based in application of the Axiom of Polarity at the microcosmic vibratory level defining all matter and energy (the "below"), combined with the Force Axiom of Correspondence, which says, "That which is above is like that which is below, and that which is below is like that which is above". Thus what is demonstrable at the microcosmic level must also apply in some way at the "above" level of macrocosmic being (i.e. that of complex objects). The following paragraphs contain the substance of my proof.

Jestor wrote: You cannot be detailed enough to show something has an opposite....

Actually, the problem is quite the negative of that. You are not being detailed enough to show that something has no opposite. Merely saying "house", by any description whatsoever, with a basement, with no basement, makes no difference in its inapplicability. Let me illustrate: What IS a house? It is walls, floor, and a ceiling, right? Maybe some doors and windows? A basement?

Ok, well what are THOSE things? Well, walls typically consist of drywall, wood (or metal), screws or nails (so dirty!), electrical wiring, insulation, maybe plumbing, etc.

Ok, well what are THOSE things? Various proportions and arrangements of raw materials, like metal, wood, plastic, gypsum, copper, paper, fiberglass, etc.

Ok, well what are THOSE things? Collections of molecules in various layered arrangements.

You can continue this process of focusing your examination more and more finely (i.e. increasing its detail until you finally can go no further, because you have arrived at saying that whatever you are examining (if it be a manifest thing) is basically energy vibrating and circulating at specific rates. Well, vibration exists along a continuum of expression, or in other words, a Polarity. Name me one thing that is not based in vibrating energy, and I will point out something that doesn't actually exist.

Granted, the energy arises from, and is the substance of the Force, which is outside of time and thus transcendent of vibration, but outside of manifestation, the Force is unknowable. In fact, that is the purpose of manifestation -- so that the Force may know the fullness of Itself through experience. And experience requires Polarity. Also, I said name me a "thing", and the Force is no one thing.

On a basic level, even complex objects are able to be broken down into an assortment of polarities, be it black/white, heavy/lightweight, opaque/transparent, spiritual/material (consciousness), heat/cold, motion/stillness, positive/negative, light/shadow, rough/smooth, formed/shapeless, wet/dry, radiant/absorptive, dull/shiny, etc. All these properties arise from the intermingling rates of vibration of the object's constituent energy. These properties all exist along polar spectrums, just as vibration exists along the polar continuum we call the electromagnetic spectrum. Note that they are first properties, not objects. Objects are aggregations of properties.

Yes, everything in the universe is unique, but that has no bearing on whether everything has an opposite or not. A unique thing can have a unique opposite, even if we never know what it is. To even begin to try to imagine what the opposite of an object is, we must examine all the individual polar properties of it.

Key point here: We don't need to know what the exact opposite of some object is, as long as we have experience of what the opposites of that object's individual properties are.

Jestor wrote: Well, I would think that if a unique object has an opposite, then its opposite ought to be unique...

So, if I said what is the opposite of around you would say over, or under? Not through?

Those examples are not opposites, they are alternatives. To determine the opposite of each would require closer examination of all the options (i.e. the attendant microcosmic polarities) and what is involved with performing each action. It is much more likely that the opposite of going around something would be staying where you are, or going the opposite direction, in basic vibratory terms. And probably the same for the other alternatives, but we may need more details to be sure.

Jestor wrote: But, this is the game of black and white, your mind focuses on the "opposite to define the object"...

But, this is how we define, to communicate, and mutually converse on subjects...

But, these things simply exist... They are...

Why do they need an opposite?

Well, on a basic level there can be no vibration to differentiate anything without there being diametric poles between which to vibrate. But as to specific properties, they need opposition because how else would we know them as anything distinct? If the whole world were uniformly blue, we wouldn't even have a word "blue" because it would mean the same thing as the word "everything". We experience blue by its relation, vibrationally, to all the other colors in the visible spectrum. Without Polarity, there could be no experience of anything, because nothing would be distinct (i.e. separate through the opposition of variations in vibratory frequency).

How do you know what a house even is? Because of what goes into its construction and what it can be used for. If a house required no materials for its construction and was not needed to achieve or provide anything, then how would we even be able to see it, let alone know that it exists or even want it to exist, if it has no use?

Polarity is self-evident (and thus axiomatic) in the world unless you allow yourself to be deluded by the surface appearance of indivisible objects instead of recognizing the myriad polar properties of which they are wholly comprised, which properties arise from the One Thing we call the Force.

Avoiding the game of Black vs White is simple, and does not require refusing to accept Polarity. All it requires is recognition that all things are One and are interconnected by their polarities. Just because something is completely wet does not mean it cannot be made dry. Just because something is in complete shadow does not mean it cannot be brought into light. "No matter how dirty something gets, you can always clean it right up."

The only real Adversary is Appearance. We can cease being deluded by appearances and still see that polarity remains a reality. We do not escape the effects of something by pretending it isn't real. We escape it by learning the rules of its functioning and then applying those in a way that makes us free. That is the Law of Neutralization, based on the Law of Reversal. Neither Law would have any applicability or success if Polarity was merely opinion.

ren wrote: But not all things are conscious. Many life forms (by the bilogical definition) do not posess consciousness

Everything is conscious, on some level. All the universe is a sea of radiant, conscious energy. If you limit your understanding of consciousness to the biological definition, then you will never fully understand the nature of the Force. What do you think the Force is, if not pure consciousness? On a related note:

ren wrote: That is why I do not believe in duality, and see duality as a construct of the mind, a belief, and not, as phortis believes it to be, a fact.

Duality, relativity, manifestation, etc ARE constructs of Mind, just not of personal mind. Personal mind is merely a tiny bay connecting to the ocean of universal Mind, and thus is perceiving what has arisen from universal Mind. To say otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.

The Force Axiom of Mentalism asserts unequivocally that The ALL is Mind, and the universe is mental (i.e. existing within the Mind of the ALL). The Force is in all, and all are in the Force. There is nothing that is not mental substance, in all the world. This is why our consciousness is capable of affecting the world around us in such an infinite number of ways.

The consciousness we direct as "our own" is simply universal consciousness being channeled "downward" through our centers of expression and directed at itself, so of course there will always be effects. Like interacts with like summatively. This is the very heart of the Law of Suggestion upon which control of the Force is based. This is the source of all true Strength.

This fact of Mentalism in no way makes duality a belief, or untrue. It is a necessary prerequisite for manifestation. There could be no vibration without two Poles between which to move. Even Joseph Campbell says that myths based on duality and transcendence of duality are both forms of insight, that they are both based on Reality. Did you miss that part of the second video?

The practical value of recognizing the existence of Polarity is, as I said above, so that we may be enabled to apply the Law of Neutralization to the goal of achieving ever greater freedom (from Nature and from ourselves). If you're in Alaska or Antarctica or some place like that, you can freeze to death while contemplating how "unique" and oppositeless the cold is, or you can apply the Law of Reversal by starting a big fire and building a structure around you, the immobility of which will neutralize the effects of the freezing wind.

When you calm yourself down after being angry, you are acknowledging Polarity whether you realize it or not, and are thus applying the Law of Neutralization to sublimate your anger. You could not stop being angry if there were no opposites to transmute the anger into. Energy is never created nor destroyed, but it can be transformed into more useful states. Those states are defined in relation to each other.

Part of what complicates the consideration is that any given quality or aspect can serve as a polar opposite for more than one spectrum or polarity. This happens for two reasons. 1) As a specious artifact of language, where the same word is used to mean two different things, like light (as photons) vs light (as in not heavy).

Or 2) Because the same quality matches more than one opposite. For example, indifference can be the opposite of love, but it can also be the opposite of hate, if love is not being considered. In many such cases, these "half-polarities" can and probably should be combined into one larger polarity. But in the specific contexts of their use, both are still accurate and applicable separately.

If this doesn't clarify things, then nothing probably will until hard experience teaches you otherwise. The Force Axiom of Rhythm in our lives (enabled by Polarity) cannot be ignored, and will not be transcended until we acknowledge the reality of Polarity and intelligently adjust its manifestations within us.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

Everything is conscious, on some level. All the universe is a sea of radiant, conscious energy.

you're entitled to your beliefs.

All the universe is a sea of radiant, conscious energy. If you limit your understanding of consciousness to the biological definition, then you will never fully understand the nature of the Force.

Anyone who claims they can ever hope to fully understand the true nature of the Force is in my opinion, a fool. I've spent a good 8 years now thinking about it though.

What do you think the Force is, if not pure consciousness?

Absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. I do not believe it is aware of itself, and do not believe there is anything other than the Force (and therefore it cannot be aware of that either).

I'm not going to reply to your other "universal mind" comments because, obviously, it means nothing to me.

Panpsychism?

Nice flip David....

I think no one is being detailed enough...

I said, "you" and you said, "you" (meaning me).... Had the burden of proof, or lack of, lol....

Either way...

We agree that to find the opposite if something, we have to examine it all the way to the basic building block components of the item in question...

Reverse engineering, if you will...

And, forgive my not-so-eloquent way of putting this, I think I might not be as smart, so you will probably prove me wrong....

But, we are talking about frequency, of electricity, energy, right?

Vibrating energy... lol, you wouldn't believe how much jumping through apps this takes...

Vibrating energy....

So, looking at the vibration as a sine wave, there are peaks above zero, and opposite, corresponding valleys below zero...

So, the polar opposite would be the object in which the peaks where the valleys are, and valleys where the peaks are...

So, taking the polar opposite sine wave, and forward engineering would create the polar opposite...

So, in my example of a quarter, the polar opposite would be the absence of the quarter... The "hole" that the quarters polar opposite would create, would be the opposite....

Like turning something inside-out...

This is polar opposite....

Since an absence of something, is not a "thing" (unless for the sake of argument you want to call this absence an "idea", in which case, an idea is a thing.. lol)

Anyway, since an absence of something is not a thing, there is no opposite for a quarter....

At least in our plane of existence...

Lol...

+++++++++++
If, by chance, the negative quarter exists, which it must, at least for this discussion, it exists in a plane of negativity...

And these two planes will not, and cannot meet...

So, if they can't be proven do they exist? To each other?

As ren said, its an idea... Duality that is...



+++++++

Everything is conscious, on some level. All the universe is a sea of radiant, conscious energy. If you limit your understanding of consciousness to the biological definition, then you will never fully understand the nature of the Force. What do you think the Force is, if not pure consciousness? On a related note:

I can see "living" things having a form of consciousness...

Not so much inanimate things though...

How about that quarter of mine?

+++++++++
David, you use a lot of "laws" and "axioms"...

The problem with that, is that they are observations and rules, humans use to try to.understand the world around us...

I'm not smart enough to counter the ones you presented, but, they are best theory for the moment...

Laws are said to be made, to be broken...

++++++++
I'm sure Joe Campbell would tell you that he has been wrong...

You realize Campbell has been dead for 25 years, and we might have moved ahead on a theory or two, right?

Lol...

I'm doing this from my phone, so i may have missed a point....

But, as we turned this into a "opposite" discussion, I covered the important stuff....

++++++
David...

On the general wet/dry, up/down, kinda opposite way...

Do you know the opposite of "reflection"...

Maybe "absorption"... lol...