Logic

[LunarRay]

In reading Moonbeam.... he is speaking of what motivates folks to be as they are.. and suggests that if they had no motivators.. they'd be in a state of infancy with years behind them.... imagine a room full of folks and not one looking at or evaluating the other. Not trying to impress the group with superior anything.... because at that point all are equal.. and the only emotion might be simply Love...
So.... One should know what motivates them to feel, act, and etc.. something does.. and from each comes a slightly different version of the same or similar motivator..

That is what all that Moonster says means to me..

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
3. If you notice people react often times defensively to what I post. I maintain it's because I touch a nerve in them. People feel like the worst in the world and know it somewhere within.

On the other hand, it's also possible that what you're experiencing as defensiveness is in fact frustration.

By way of example, I am infuriated by many of Seekermeister's posts not because he touches a nerve in me but because his ignorance is so complete and so utterly willful. So terrified is he of confronting his own mortaility that he brainwashes himself into insisting that science is just a belief system.

Well, I sort of take back what I just said: In some weird sense, Seekermeister DOES touch a nerve (but not at all in the sense you mean): Seekermeister is so self-satisfied in the pre-packaged vomitus he clings to as truth, that he evades all responsibility for rational thought and discourse. There he sits, a smug little man so utterly clueless that he hasn't a care in the world. How galling that such imbeciles achieve pseudo-Nirvana by flushing the human condition down the toilet, whereas I cannot help but confront my voyage into oblivion.

Especially galling because I have a great, big brain and I've done lots of heavy lifting to achieve my current state of enlightened ignorance: I see the void and it's going to gobble up every last one of us. And your own philosophy to the contrary, it wouldn't have mattered if Mommy and Daddy had been more suitable.

You, too are ignorant, though you seem to think your ignorance is better than the rest of ours. Sorry, but the story you tell yourself to help you sleep is almost as useless as Seekermeister's.

That's not anger or self-hate you hear speaking. It's tough love.
[/quote]

 

[fskimospy]

Well of course people aren't always honest when it comes to self assessment. Are you asking why people attribute qualities to themselves that they find desireable? I would say that it is because they find them desireable and want to believe that they have them. People lie to themselves all the time... and sure that inhibits them from growing as people. I'm sure it prevents a deeper understanding of the world as well. I just think that Moonbeam attempts to cut the gordion knot with his approach... and that's crap.

Also, if I'm not mistaken (no psych expert here) that test is usually given in settings and situations that don't press for high levels of introspection... before therapy starts, etc. So... it's not a great surprise to me that it would suffer from that sort of bias.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sandorski
I disagree strongly. There's no need for Science and Religion to intermesh. In fact, the less they do the better for both.

Or you could keep an open mind and say that science is the pursuit to figure out "how God did it".

That would not be keeping an open mind. Instead, you would be restricting yourself to three related assumptions: That God exists, that God actually "did" anything, and that science can lead to any answers there.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well of course people aren't always honest when it comes to self assessment. Are you asking why people attribute qualities to themselves that they find desireable? I would say that it is because they find them desireable and want to believe that they have them. People lie to themselves all the time... and sure that inhibits them from growing as people. I'm sure it prevents a deeper understanding of the world as well. I just think that Moonbeam attempts to cut the gordion knot with his approach... and that's crap.

Also, if I'm not mistaken (no psych expert here) that test is usually given in settings and situations that don't press for high levels of introspection... before therapy starts, etc. So... it's not a great surprise to me that it would suffer from that sort of bias.

Well... examine bias versus denial (remember I said self consumption too)... Sure the 'test' is not a prerequisite to anything other than perhaps a job.. Many companies use that 'Personality Test' to see if an individual fits in... given they are given by companies that usually hire for Retail Sales... but also useful for Drucker's 'Effective Executive'...

A therapist will garner all the information during 'talks' or 'sessions' that he needs to enable the individual to touch his inner self... That is all about getting at the truth... the individual's truth.

But.. for just one moment think about the Bigot... the person who hates lets say... and denies that he is a bigot or that he even hates.. but yet to the observer.. the phenomonologist, it is obvious... The Bigot's position is often justified by some other 'force' .. a religion or society etc.. So they are all bigots? How can the small child have inculcated those feelings... Not likely imo.... no... the bigot has something motivating that may not even be remotely connected to what ever he is bigoted about..

So.. when Moonster says 'unlearn' or be a 'nobody' etc, he challenges you to see that one with out a motivation cannot hardly carry out the acts of one who does...

Why do I type at this computer while others race along the beach out there splashing in the surf... all else being equal... I guess we have different motivators at play.. And all of life is about that... motivators..
My quest is to understand what motivates... That I wrote what I did was motivated by something.. the understanding was facilitated by an accumulation of data... But what motivated me to actually respond in this thread... (I know the reason and it has not to do with any edification attempt or argument one way or another)

Edit: I entered the thread cuz I understand Moonbeam.... and many do not.. when they do.. and not try to over complicate his message or debate the merits they too will know freedom...

 

[fskimospy]

.. and not try to over complicate his message or debate the merits they too will know freedom...

You were going okay until you said that.

Unfortunately that's the same point that he's tried to press time and time again... which is why he's an idiot.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
3. If you notice people react often times defensively to what I post. I maintain it's because I touch a nerve in them. People feel like the worst in the world and know it somewhere within.

On the other hand, it's also possible that what you're experiencing as defensiveness is in fact frustration.

(Not sure what you are saying here.

By way of example, I am infuriated by many of Seekermeister's posts not because he touches a nerve in me but because his ignorance is so complete and so utterly willful. So terrified is he of confronting his own mortaility that he brainwashes himself into insisting that science is just a belief system.

Well, I sort of take back what I just said: In some weird sense, Seekermeister DOES touch a nerve (but not at all in the sense you mean): Seekermeister is so self-satisfied in the pre-packaged vomitus he clings to as truth, that he evades all responsibility for rational thought and discourse. There he sits, a smug little man so utterly clueless that he hasn't a care in the world. How galling that such imbeciles achieve pseudo-Nirvana by flushing the human condition down the toilet, whereas I cannot help but confront my voyage into oblivion.

(Yes yes yes, you see there is a nerve. You know that because there is anger. You have words to describe the thing that makes you angry but what you don't understand, I say, is why. Your see what he is but what you see causes you to be angry. This is an irrational act because your can't identify why what he is should be despised. Assume for a moment that he is everything you say without the emotional baggage. Something like this:

Seekermeister has a truth, that avoids rational thought and discourse in my opinion. His thinking allows him to live without a care in the world. But when I look at the world I suffer.

What you are saying is that ignorance is bliss and consciousness brings suffering.

Little wonder, is there, there are so many shallow people in the world. But really, why does this make you angry. Do you not also know that if you can go way way down you can also go way way up. Do you seriously believe that ignorance is bliss. I tell you people's inner lives are hell and that what you see is a great deal of pretense. Look at things like mass hysteria and mobs. The bliss of ignorance masks a huge amount of violence and that all goes back to self hate. And I have said that if you suffer you will not suffer. But we were told to be tough and turn away from it, pretend it does not exist.

I am saying, essentially what LunarRay was saying about bigotry. You have a kind of bigotry against people like Seekermeister, a motivator that makes you feel what you feel that is not conscious.

I am saying we do not know what we feel and the truth of our feelings is our real truth, not the phony truth we make up because we don't know what we feel.

Why do we not see people like Seekermeister with understanding and compassion if in real fact he is truly far more lost than you? I say it because within you there is a feeling that you have been hurt unjustly. You can into this world a beautiful and perhaps even especially intelligent child and you were hurt because you wanted more love that the people around you, who secretly also hate themselves, could give. Your open purity and honest need terrified them because you caused them to remember their own unsatisfied childhood need. We were crucified and now we're pissed and here's this asshole who pretends he's got it made and is going to live forever in heaven. Hehehehe Why would you not rather wish with all your being that he will. It is because, I think, our needs weren't met and we carry the deficit of that feeling. Inside there is a hole the universe itself can't fill.)

Especially galling because I have a great, big brain and I've done lots of heavy lifting to achieve my current state of enlightened ignorance: I see the void and it's going to gobble up every last one of us. And your own philosophy to the contrary, it wouldn't have mattered if Mommy and Daddy had been more suitable.

(I say, and I know you can't believe me when I do, that you do not know what you feel. You have no idea how fantastically difficult it is to do, how massive the walls are back to origin)

You, too are ignorant, though you seem to think your ignorance is better than the rest of ours. Sorry, but the story you tell yourself to help you sleep is almost as useless as Seekermeister's.

(It can't be helped then because my delusions bring me some sense of peace and joy and, I think, insight into other people. I fought the great war and won. I defeated the nothing. I have been into the blackest of despair and got free. I went to the end of the rope and let go. I paid for my light with every thing I loved and believed, all my precious garbage heaped on my by centuries of accumulated nonsense. I lost everything to the nothingness but it could not take my heart. All that I had wanted to come to me from out there came back to me by flowing out.

But there is plenty about my feelings I still do not understand. You can't force consciousness. You can only try to cooperate, hehe.)

That's not anger or self-hate you hear speaking. It's tough love.

I would say the same, but I have learned that when the ego speaks you have to anticipate unconsciousness and deception. I do not believe we are capable of love when we still are filled with ego need. Or should we say our love is somewhat tainted and potentially fickle.

[/quote]

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sandorski
I disagree strongly. There's no need for Science and Religion to intermesh. In fact, the less they do the better for both.

Or you could keep an open mind and say that science is the pursuit to figure out "how God did it".

That would not be keeping an open mind. Instead, you would be restricting yourself to three related assumptions: That God exists, that God actually "did" anything, and that science can lead to any answers there.

I completely agree that those are the hiden assumptions just as in the original quote I see these assumptions:

The speaker assumes he knows what science and religion really are and additionally he knows all ways in which the two could conceivably intermesh and that all of them are bad.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: MoonbeamI fought the great war and won. I defeated the nothing. I have been into the blackest of despair and got free. I went to the end of the rope and let go. I paid for my light with every thing I loved and believed, all my precious garbage heaped on my by centuries of accumulated nonsense. I lost everything to the nothingness but it could not take my heart. All that I had wanted to come to me from out there came back to me by flowing out.

Tell me about it. Psychotherapy can be a bitch.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
It would appear that the definition here, in this forum, of what the word logic means, is how effectively one person can insult another.

This thread degraded into insults because of your own highly inflammatory statements. For example:

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Therefore, science is only able to find the evidence that it is looking for, and only able to evaluate it in accordance with it's established logic.

This statement is highly illogical and patently false. Major breakthroughs in the way science views the world have occur when scientists go against "established logic", not follow it. Copernicus was not following "established logic" when he theorized that the earth revolved around the sun. Darwin was not following "established logic" when he started theorizing about evolution. The original theorists behind string theory were not following "established logic" either. Even now, decades after the string theory was first proposed, scientists are not foolish enough to proclaim it as reality. Instead they openly acknowledge that string theory will never progress beyond being philosophy until they can perform experiments to test it. The scientific community is very conservative when it comes to accepting new theories. Theories are not arbitrarily accepted and there is certainly no "selffullfilling circle of reasoning" as you claim.

 

[fskimospy]

I think this is the basic problem here. Everyone is arguing from fundamentally different premises, we're playing football in two totally different stadiums.

Moonbeam and Seekermeister will never be convinced of a single thing, because their points of view don't rely on rational discourse. How can you argue with someone who says the only reason you find what he's saying objectionable and stupid is because you weren't loved enough as a child? There is literally no answer to that, because the statement itself is so ridiculous that the act of responding to it pretty much destroys the conversation anyway.

Moonbeam specifically referred to Seeker's blissful ignorance as some sort of "truth", when he has achieved it precisely by the rejection of what is true. This is Orwellian in its denial of reality, and you can't beat it because they aren't playing by the same rules.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Actually, no. I would say psychology much more then philosophy. And it's not advanced. The idea that people are controlled by influences from their childhoods and project their self image onto the world around them is pretty much exactly psych 101.

I'm guessing you have some sort of connection to Moonbeam as he quotes you in his signature and your names are pretty similar. Don't tell me we're going to have two people spewing that stuff now.

You see psych101 - I see philosophy. In fact - there is hardly ever a moonbeam post that doesn't echo ideas found in many modern philosophers: Nietzsche, Sartre, Kant, etc. This thread in particular is colored with shared ideas of them all.

 

[fskimospy]

You see psych101 - I see philosophy. In fact - there is hardly ever a moonbeam post that doesn't echo ideas found in many modern philosophers: Nietzsche, Sartre, Kant, etc. This thread in particular is colored with shared ideas of them all.

So he's taking cues from Nietzsche (no comment needed), Sartre (who claimed that the desire for sex is not a biological impulse), Kant (who is famous for the "Argument from Morality" thesis for the existence of God), and who else? This is not the kind of company I would be keeping in my corner in an argument about logic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
It would appear that the definition here, in this forum, of what the word logic means, is how effectively one person can insult another.

This thread degraded into insults because of your own highly inflammatory statements. For example:

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Therefore, science is only able to find the evidence that it is looking for, and only able to evaluate it in accordance with it's established logic.

This statement is highly illogical and patently false. Major breakthroughs in the way science views the world have occur when scientists go against "established logic", not follow it. Copernicus was not following "established logic" when he theorized that the earth revolved around the sun. Darwin was not following "established logic" when he started theorizing about evolution. The original theorists behind string theory were not following "established logic" either. Even now, decades after the string theory was first proposed, scientists are not foolish enough to proclaim it as reality. Instead they openly acknowledge that string theory will never progress beyond being philosophy until they can perform experiments to test it. The scientific community is very conservative when it comes to accepting new theories. Theories are not arbitrarily accepted and there is certainly no "selffullfilling circle of reasoning" as you claim.

What if he had said, 'science can only seek to prove a theory that has already been propounded, although it will always invent new ones to explain what is not yet known, but it will always test their validity via one tool, the scientific method.'

I think that is what Seekermeister is saying. The fact that the scientific does not propose supernatural theories and cannot test for God, however, in my opinion, doesn't tell us much as he may think it does.

Let us think about the matter of human experience for a moment. We are conducting a class in sex education to an age of children who have, so far, no experience with sex. We tell them that when two people have sex they can experience a profound feeling of pleasure that they may wish to share with each other over and over again and that is can cement a powerful bond between them we sometimes refer to as a cherry on the ice cream of love.

One of the children, one who has perhaps often been tricked and fooled and has learned to hate others for making him feel naive, calls you a psycho-babbling idiot and religious nut because you are pedaling some phony opiate trick called 'orgasm'. How do you pass the wisdom and truth of experience to a reluctant fool who, knowing nothing, is still filled with certain truth. There is nothing you can do for the walled in who defend their walls except hope that experience will break them down. The joy of sex is the property of those who have it. Generally speaking you can't teach somebody of the truth of sexual orgasm by talking to them with words.

But for those who will listen you can lay out a plan. You might say something like, grow up and be responsible. Something inside you will begin to itch and push you to someone nice. Be with them and let your body speak. This is, of course, a rather simple plan and there are doubtless much better that could be said. I am not so much interested in accuracy as in making a generalized case for someting like this:

Suppose human beings are capable of a mental orgasmic state of oh, let's say, 'cosmic conscience', to use some sort of words, and that the experience of it more or less shatters all known knowledge and understanding. And let us say it is pleasant in the extreme. Let us call those who know it 'awake', in an Ah Hah state, theoretically of course, since we sophisticates don't believe in fairy tails, and that those who are awake recognize each other just as those awake in room at the airport know who is awake and who is asleep. Those who are asleep know nothing. They are asleep, of course.

Let us say these folk who are awake, because of the joy of being awake, decide they might want to find a way(s) to awaken the sleepers from their dreams. They will know how to do this because they too were once asleep and awakened. They build a system, a science of the experience of awakening, and offer it to the people. The people then, of course, turn around and open sleep clinics with it to put themselves back to sleep. And sleep becomes fitful as each contests over whose is the better religious dream.

Meanwhile some hear some odd echo of truth and feel an irresistible urge to awaken. These are those whom sleepers call fools.

So the science of awakening was turned into the sleep train of religion, but contained in that mattress of narcotic are still traces of pins and rocks that prod the sensitive and the hungry to awaken. Sleepers, knowing nothing, don't know how to completely destroy a scientific system designed to awaken them.

Experience is known only to those who have it. Some have so little experience they do not even know it exists.

If you do not believe there is an awakening you can still awaken. It will help if you don't believe in anything, especially anything you do believe in. Hehe.

If you believe in God you already have some tools to help you awaken. The danger is that you take the bridge to awakening for being awake. But do not laugh at the religious because when their faith becomes profound they can awaken. And more go by that way than any other, no?

But the best tools for the sleeper are dream dependent. If the dream is that there is no God then the path to awakening does not require Him. If the dream is of religion the tools embedded in that religion will be suited. It is the man or woman who is awake who knows what to do. He or she will see your real condition. He or she is awake.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Actually, no. I would say psychology much more then philosophy. And it's not advanced. The idea that people are controlled by influences from their childhoods and project their self image onto the world around them is pretty much exactly psych 101.

I'm guessing you have some sort of connection to Moonbeam as he quotes you in his signature and your names are pretty similar. Don't tell me we're going to have two people spewing that stuff now.

You see psych101 - I see philosophy. In fact - there is hardly ever a moonbeam post that doesn't echo ideas found in many modern philosophers: Nietzsche, Sartre, Kant, etc. This thread in particular is colored with shared ideas of them all.

There is one truth and it covers all. We have in common something with everyone, no?

In a grain of sand the universe is contained.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is one truth and it covers all. We have in common something with everyone, no?

I hate to be picky (well, maybe I don't), but if the "one truth . . . covers all", it must (in violation of the Heisenberg principle) be a statement of the exact location and momentum of each particle of matter and energy in the multiverse at an instant in time, plus an exhaustive statement of the laws of physics that decide what each of those particles will do.

Unfortunately, if the "one truth" defines all that, then the size of the notebook (or the size of the brain) required to contain all that information would be larger than the multiverse the "one truth" purports to describe. And even worse, that notebook or brain woulds itself a part of the multiverse, so you end up with an unresolvable recursion problem.

All of which leads to the conclusion that God is just a highly efficient data-storage device.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In a grain of sand the universe is contained.

Actually, William Blake wrote:

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

Not the universe, exactly, but a good start.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We need to establish if we are walking to school or carrying our lunch.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Actually, no. I would say psychology much more then philosophy. And it's not advanced. The idea that people are controlled by influences from their childhoods and project their self image onto the world around them is pretty much exactly psych 101.

I'm guessing you have some sort of connection to Moonbeam as he quotes you in his signature and your names are pretty similar. Don't tell me we're going to have two people spewing that stuff now.

You see psych101 - I see philosophy. In fact - there is hardly ever a moonbeam post that doesn't echo ideas found in many modern philosophers: Nietzsche, Sartre, Kant, etc. This thread in particular is colored with shared ideas of them all.

There is one truth and it covers all. We have in common something with everyone, no?

In a grain of sand the universe is contained.

I don't know if there is one truth, though. Studying Descartes, and the dualists that followed, it seems as if there is only truth: That I exist, that I am condemned to be free, and that I am forced to interact in a world where I must take into consideration the freedom of others?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: RyanStudying Descartes, and the dualists that followed, it seems as if there is only truth: That I exist, that I am condemned to be free, and that I am forced to interact in a world where I must take into consideration the freedom of others?

Rene' Descartes walked into a bar and said to the bartender, "Give me a scotch on the rocks."

The bartender poured the drink, which Descartes quickly emptied.

"Would you like another?" asked the bartender.

"I think not," said Descartes, and disappeared.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
We need to establish if we are walking to school or carrying our lunch.

I will attempt to answer that.... well.... as soon as I can figure out the difference between an orange...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

.. and not try to over complicate his message or debate the merits they too will know freedom...

You were going okay until you said that.

Unfortunately that's the same point that he's tried to press time and time again... which is why he's an idiot.

In context, my statement was intended to suggest acceptance of the notion that to start down a hill requires that one first must climb up it... one doesn't suddenly appear on the precipice of one's own oblivion.. There is, however, much less effort required in the descending than in the ascending of this particular adventure.
IOW... For a moment, imagine one event in your day that you might have had the opportunity to have done differently... and see if you can track back and find what it was (or what they were) that caused that to occur versus some alternative(s). I submit that you won't find the motivator... you'll come to a point were you may indicate you were influenced by parents or friends or what ever.. but why were you in agreement with that or them... and on back... and on back... to the point where your conscious awareness ceases to provide an answer... it is then... you begin to see that in the sub-conscious lives the motivator... but how on earth did it get there......
This is the Merit Debate that need not be undertaken..

 

[Moonbeam]

Ryan: I don't know if there is one truth, though. Studying Descartes, and the dualists that followed, it seems as if there is only truth: That I exist, that I am condemned to be free, and that I am forced to interact in a world where I must take into consideration the freedom of others?

shira: I hate to be picky (well, maybe I don't), but if the "one truth . . . covers all", it must (in violation of the Heisenberg principle) be a statement of the exact location and momentum of each particle of matter and energy in the multiverse at an instant in time, plus an exhaustive statement of the laws of physics that decide what each of those particles will do.

Unfortunately, if the "one truth" defines all that, then the size of the notebook (or the size of the brain) required to contain all that information would be larger than the multiverse the "one truth" purports to describe. And even worse, that notebook or brain woulds itself a part of the multiverse, so you end up with an unresolvable recursion problem.

All of which leads to the conclusion that God is just a highly efficient data-storage device.
===================

I don't see truth as a theorem or a principle that can be be into words. The Truth cannot be spoken or written out. The truth is more of along the lines of that which is in a particular state of consciousness I call earlier, 'awake'. You know it is the truth just as you know that THAT was an orgasm. It transforms the self entirely. Long before you could think or had an ego, you were and it was perfection. It is there we can return. To think is 'not to be' because to think is to mull over the past, which creates the illusion of ego. It is a fragment of self looking at an other fragment. To be is to be whole.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not the universe, exactly, but a good start.

Hehe, I can be picky too. Check out def 9 of world.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
world /w?rld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wurld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

?noun 1. the earth or globe, considered as a planet.
2. (often initial capital letter) a particular division of the earth: the Western world.
3. the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period: the ancient world.
4. humankind; the human race; humanity: The world must eliminate war and poverty.
5. the public generally: The whole world knows it.
6. the class of persons devoted to the affairs, interests, or pursuits of this life: The world worships success.
7. a particular class of people, with common interests, aims, etc.: the fashionable world.
8. any sphere, realm, or domain, with all pertaining to it: a child's world; the world of dreams; the insect world.
9. everything that exists; the universe; the macrocosm.
10. any complex whole conceived as resembling the universe: the world of the microcosm.
11. one of the three general groupings of physical nature: animal world; mineral world; vegetable world.
12. any period, state, or sphere of existence: this world; the world to come.
13. Often, worlds. a great deal: That vacation was worlds of fun.
14. any indefinitely great expanse.
15. any heavenly body: the starry worlds.
?Idioms16. bring into the world, a. to give birth to; bear: My grandmother brought nine children into the world.
b. to deliver (a baby): the doctor brought many children into the world.

17. come into the world, to be born: Her first child came into the world in June.
18. for all the world, a. for any consideration, however great: She wouldn't come to visit us for all the world.
b. in every respect; precisely: You look for all the world like my Aunt Mary.

19. in the world, a. at all; ever: I never in the world would have believed such an obvious lie.
b. from among all possibilities: Where in the world did you find that hat?

20. on top of the world. top1 (def. 46).
21. out of this or the world, exceptional; fine: The chef prepared a roast duck that was out of this world.
22. set the world on fire, to achieve great fame and success: He didn't seem to be the type to set the world on fire.
23. think the world of, to like or admire greatly: His coworkers think the world of him.
24. world without end, for all eternity; for always.

 

[GZeus]

I can't believe I took the time to read this thread. The pretense of intellect here is enough to make me want to vomit.

Lets see...

We have the deeply religious who want to use the pretense of 'logic' and then discount, and essentially vilify, any belief system which they do not adhere to. Very nice.
There is no faith without love and understanding, and there is no love if you proclaim your faith to be above all others.

We have the deeply self righteous who believe that they alone understand the human condition and they alone have mastered their minds and emotions to a level that elevates them above all others.
Pseudo-philosophical tripe which carries heavy overtones of Scientology. Say 'hi' to TomKat for me.

Your 'discussion' is as much about inflating your own sense of self worth as it is about anything else.

I feel for the few who have taken you to task for your absurdity.

Enjoy yourselves.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not the universe, exactly, but a good start.

Hehe, I can be picky too. Check out def 9 of world.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
world /w?rld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wurld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

?noun 1. the earth or globe, considered as a planet.
2. (often initial capital letter) a particular division of the earth: the Western world.
3. the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period: the ancient world.
4. humankind; the human race; humanity: The world must eliminate war and poverty.
5. the public generally: The whole world knows it.
6. the class of persons devoted to the affairs, interests, or pursuits of this life: The world worships success.
7. a particular class of people, with common interests, aims, etc.: the fashionable world.
8. any sphere, realm, or domain, with all pertaining to it: a child's world; the world of dreams; the insect world.
9. everything that exists; the universe; the macrocosm.
10. any complex whole conceived as resembling the universe: the world of the microcosm.
11. one of the three general groupings of physical nature: animal world; mineral world; vegetable world.
12. any period, state, or sphere of existence: this world; the world to come.
13. Often, worlds. a great deal: That vacation was worlds of fun.
14. any indefinitely great expanse.
15. any heavenly body: the starry worlds.
?Idioms16. bring into the world, a. to give birth to; bear: My grandmother brought nine children into the world.
b. to deliver (a baby): the doctor brought many children into the world.

17. come into the world, to be born: Her first child came into the world in June.
18. for all the world, a. for any consideration, however great: She wouldn't come to visit us for all the world.
b. in every respect; precisely: You look for all the world like my Aunt Mary.

19. in the world, a. at all; ever: I never in the world would have believed such an obvious lie.
b. from among all possibilities: Where in the world did you find that hat?

20. on top of the world. top1 (def. 46).
21. out of this or the world, exceptional; fine: The chef prepared a roast duck that was out of this world.
22. set the world on fire, to achieve great fame and success: He didn't seem to be the type to set the world on fire.
23. think the world of, to like or admire greatly: His coworkers think the world of him.
24. world without end, for all eternity; for always.

My dear Moonie:

Of course "world" can mean something akin to "universe," given the proper context. But I think it's pretty clear that Blake's context in that line from "Auguries of Innocence" is a single world, not the entire cosmos. Let's look at that stanza again (the bolding is mine):

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

Note that Blake uses "a world," not "the world." Clearly, "a world" is a part of something bigger, a something that contains this world, that world, Blake's "world" and every other world. A something that one could fairly refer to as "the universe."