| The Soap Box |
| Freedom of expression is a Constitutional Necessity of the United States of America- If you take away free speech, you can no longer identify the good guys and the bad guys can no longer identify themselves! |
| The Soap Box is a free service provided by Linearism.org. Linearism.Org does not Endorse, Censor, Promote, or is Associated with any of the Goods, Services, or Opinions Displayed in the Ad Widows below provided by Google |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| From The Journal of A Texas Mystic |
| Chapter 2 How Things Come To Be |
Our Sunday school teacher entered the small side church room full of loud rambunctious boys and said, “Stop talking and playing around. Take your seats;
this is a Sunday school class and we are going to discuss the Bible. I have a serious question to ask you and we are all going to discuss it like adults.”
We all sat up straight in our chairs, eyes forward, anticipating the morning lesson. He continued, “I have a serious question to ask you and we are all going to
discuss it like adults.” He paused for a moment and asked, “Why do you think God created us?” as if he already had an answer ready. The other boys were
stumped as I said, “Because he was lonely”
The teacher’s skin turned white, waved his right hand in front of us while straining to say in hardly audible words “go back to what you boys were doing” then
left the room and never returned that day or if I remember correctly, teach another of my Sunday school classes.
Ontology is the study of being. In a religious sense, Ontology is commonly referred to as a proof of God’s existence which gives meaning to how things come
to be. To others, the question of being is one of the most important questions of human existence, a question deserving of explanation beyond belief; even if
that belief is likely to be true. The way we answer the question of how things come to be, affects the way we think about the laws of physics as a subject-
object relationship.
Martin Heidegger, famed Existential Philosopher of the early nineteenth century suggests, we are mistaken, incorrect with our ontological reasoning which
gives error to our judgment (Heidegger). If Heidegger’s claim is true, our presupposing of reason may be the case of what we think we know may not be true.
If our reasoning in regards to nature and phenomena is flawed, everything we think about is profoundly affected, including actual scientific applications. The
PC may be as IBM predicted, a useless toy, and Bill Gates is likely a geek gone wild!
Charles Burton poetically describes ancient Sanskrit ontology as the “Over Soul” published in 1939 (Burton). If heaven exists, and I argue that it necessarily
exists, our own solar system must be nested within its heavenly properties. In contemporary literature, we lose this association because our language now
determines these concepts as “abstract ideas” such as the Philosopher A. Kripke writes, “A. Kripke-Plantinga (KP) world is an abstract object of some sort.”
How can it be established that our solar systems, including Earth, spins in abstract space, an area that can only be appreciated intellectually?
If Sally says, “I might not have existed,” the Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy interjects the opinion of the norm “almost everyone will take her to have stated
an obvious truth”, if true then Sally is a situated knower within heaven’s own properties. What Sally says, how she says it, and why she says the things she
does, is a logical linguistic link to how things come to be.
If we analyze the essential features of the way we speak and the way we think, we can easily identify and redefine words or phrases of a particular cultural
emphasis which predetermine our opinions. In other words, by applying a few principals of Linguistics, the way we speak, to the way we think, we can with little
effort, loosen the bonds of cultural control, guaranteeing our right to freely reason on our own. Thus, to think freely is to refine our somatic domain by
redefining words or phrases that have bred false beliefs such as the term ‘metaphysics’ and the phrase ‘metaphysical realism.’
We all praise rationality but seldom do we apply the same criteria in the quiet of our own minds. It matters not if we explore the inner workings of the mind as
an idealist, or trod a true materialistic path, all persistent thinkers awake in the same primordial substance be it called matter or mind. What we say to
ourselves in the quiet of our minds can and does determine what we know.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, the Philosophy of language is the foundation of everything we know, we think we know a lot, and probably do- a lot of thinking.
Contrary to what scholars deem holy, reason is a known or the logos. To think about something is proof in itself that the thinker does not know. A good
example is the “Lost Key Example” written by me in the Spring of 2007:
this is a Sunday school class and we are going to discuss the Bible. I have a serious question to ask you and we are all going to discuss it like adults.”
We all sat up straight in our chairs, eyes forward, anticipating the morning lesson. He continued, “I have a serious question to ask you and we are all going to
discuss it like adults.” He paused for a moment and asked, “Why do you think God created us?” as if he already had an answer ready. The other boys were
stumped as I said, “Because he was lonely”
The teacher’s skin turned white, waved his right hand in front of us while straining to say in hardly audible words “go back to what you boys were doing” then
left the room and never returned that day or if I remember correctly, teach another of my Sunday school classes.
Ontology is the study of being. In a religious sense, Ontology is commonly referred to as a proof of God’s existence which gives meaning to how things come
to be. To others, the question of being is one of the most important questions of human existence, a question deserving of explanation beyond belief; even if
that belief is likely to be true. The way we answer the question of how things come to be, affects the way we think about the laws of physics as a subject-
object relationship.
Martin Heidegger, famed Existential Philosopher of the early nineteenth century suggests, we are mistaken, incorrect with our ontological reasoning which
gives error to our judgment (Heidegger). If Heidegger’s claim is true, our presupposing of reason may be the case of what we think we know may not be true.
If our reasoning in regards to nature and phenomena is flawed, everything we think about is profoundly affected, including actual scientific applications. The
PC may be as IBM predicted, a useless toy, and Bill Gates is likely a geek gone wild!
Charles Burton poetically describes ancient Sanskrit ontology as the “Over Soul” published in 1939 (Burton). If heaven exists, and I argue that it necessarily
exists, our own solar system must be nested within its heavenly properties. In contemporary literature, we lose this association because our language now
determines these concepts as “abstract ideas” such as the Philosopher A. Kripke writes, “A. Kripke-Plantinga (KP) world is an abstract object of some sort.”
How can it be established that our solar systems, including Earth, spins in abstract space, an area that can only be appreciated intellectually?
If Sally says, “I might not have existed,” the Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy interjects the opinion of the norm “almost everyone will take her to have stated
an obvious truth”, if true then Sally is a situated knower within heaven’s own properties. What Sally says, how she says it, and why she says the things she
does, is a logical linguistic link to how things come to be.
If we analyze the essential features of the way we speak and the way we think, we can easily identify and redefine words or phrases of a particular cultural
emphasis which predetermine our opinions. In other words, by applying a few principals of Linguistics, the way we speak, to the way we think, we can with little
effort, loosen the bonds of cultural control, guaranteeing our right to freely reason on our own. Thus, to think freely is to refine our somatic domain by
redefining words or phrases that have bred false beliefs such as the term ‘metaphysics’ and the phrase ‘metaphysical realism.’
We all praise rationality but seldom do we apply the same criteria in the quiet of our own minds. It matters not if we explore the inner workings of the mind as
an idealist, or trod a true materialistic path, all persistent thinkers awake in the same primordial substance be it called matter or mind. What we say to
ourselves in the quiet of our minds can and does determine what we know.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, the Philosophy of language is the foundation of everything we know, we think we know a lot, and probably do- a lot of thinking.
Contrary to what scholars deem holy, reason is a known or the logos. To think about something is proof in itself that the thinker does not know. A good
example is the “Lost Key Example” written by me in the Spring of 2007:
The Lost Key Example: Imagine, if you will, that you have lost your keys to your automobile at a most inopportune time with the worst
(almost) possible situation as the result. Your lower mind immediately comes to the rescue and lays out a linear grid of your past
movements. Before your minds’ eye, you see all the limited possibilities as per the laws that govern the lost key in the physical universe.
If you’re like most, you will blindly follow this lower mind to all the possible places that you have been with the memory of the key. And like
most, you will repeat the search in the same places even if you have already searched in the same place this lower mind has already sent
you! In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the mind will have you search the same place over and again just to satisfy its own inefficiency.
There comes a point where anger sets in from the emotional stress of the lost key. And maybe you blow your top or vent in some way, but
ultimately you refuse to follow the lower mind because it’s taking you to the same wrong places. There is calm after the anger storm or a
point when you may say to yourself, “I accept that the key is lost.”
Perhaps you grab a newspaper or turn on the TV, and focus your attention away from this mental activity called thinking and presto-
Immediately, your intuitive consciousness is activated because you have let go of the justified false belief of thinking- the foundation of
epistemology. Low and behold pure reason reveals where the key has always been; you know it’s on your dresser as if you have
ALWAYS KNOWN IT! The key consciousness has always been HERE NOW; therefore, the only false belief is thinking about the
possibilities of where the key may have been.
(almost) possible situation as the result. Your lower mind immediately comes to the rescue and lays out a linear grid of your past
movements. Before your minds’ eye, you see all the limited possibilities as per the laws that govern the lost key in the physical universe.
If you’re like most, you will blindly follow this lower mind to all the possible places that you have been with the memory of the key. And like
most, you will repeat the search in the same places even if you have already searched in the same place this lower mind has already sent
you! In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the mind will have you search the same place over and again just to satisfy its own inefficiency.
There comes a point where anger sets in from the emotional stress of the lost key. And maybe you blow your top or vent in some way, but
ultimately you refuse to follow the lower mind because it’s taking you to the same wrong places. There is calm after the anger storm or a
point when you may say to yourself, “I accept that the key is lost.”
Perhaps you grab a newspaper or turn on the TV, and focus your attention away from this mental activity called thinking and presto-
Immediately, your intuitive consciousness is activated because you have let go of the justified false belief of thinking- the foundation of
epistemology. Low and behold pure reason reveals where the key has always been; you know it’s on your dresser as if you have
ALWAYS KNOWN IT! The key consciousness has always been HERE NOW; therefore, the only false belief is thinking about the
possibilities of where the key may have been.
ordinary human being is a situated knower in heaven’s own properties or the known, undefined. The only evidence we have are textual expressions and
word of mouth, or what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do. Metalanguage, a language used to describe a language, what Sally says,
is rooted in a fundamental primordial utterance- the word.
The oldest accounts of textual expressions such as the Rig-Veda and the Bible are discredited by contemporary philosophical realism which is a “belief in
reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. (Standford).” Nevertheless, what we say,
how we say it, and why we say the things we do is a predetermined echo of what has already been said, so the following Biblical Hebrew text (King James
English Version), written about 2000 years ago is a belief that is likely to be necessarily true:
word of mouth, or what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do. Metalanguage, a language used to describe a language, what Sally says,
is rooted in a fundamental primordial utterance- the word.
The oldest accounts of textual expressions such as the Rig-Veda and the Bible are discredited by contemporary philosophical realism which is a “belief in
reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. (Standford).” Nevertheless, what we say,
how we say it, and why we say the things we do is a predetermined echo of what has already been said, so the following Biblical Hebrew text (King James
English Version), written about 2000 years ago is a belief that is likely to be necessarily true:
"John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made ."
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made ."
In addition, the following primordial propositions compliment the same ontological argument from ancient Hebrew text dating back some 4000 years ago:
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
The Rig-Veda or early Sanskrit dating back some 5500 years ago, compliment an ontological argument from ancient Hindu text and the Upanishads or
symbolic lines or linear expressions. A period known by evidence etched in ancient clay tablets, uncovered by archaeologist from the ancient Sumerian city
of Shurruppak settled by wondering nomadic bands about the biblical frontiers of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers- the origin of ancient Hebrew text.
A Philosophical paper titled "Tattvamasi ('that you are') in the Upanishads" by Octavian Sarbatoare (BA USyd) is a good reflection of what the Vedanta
poets are saying:
symbolic lines or linear expressions. A period known by evidence etched in ancient clay tablets, uncovered by archaeologist from the ancient Sumerian city
of Shurruppak settled by wondering nomadic bands about the biblical frontiers of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers- the origin of ancient Hebrew text.
A Philosophical paper titled "Tattvamasi ('that you are') in the Upanishads" by Octavian Sarbatoare (BA USyd) is a good reflection of what the Vedanta
poets are saying:
"The present work will draw attention to the multidimensional contents as well as the literature and spiritual messages of the
Upanishads. The Upanishads (Lit. 'sitting by the side') are a class of philosophical works expounding a secret spiritual doctrine by
emphasising on a monistic approach to knowledge. Behind the literal significance of the words as 'sitting by the side' there is that
secret spiritual knowledge that is acquired by a disciple, by sitting near an accomplished master. The whole philosophy of the
Upanishads has a common
Tattvamasi ('that you are'),
Ahambrahmasmi ('I am Brahma'),
Prajnanam Brahma ('the ultimate truth is consciousness'),
Ayamatma Brahma ('the extension of the Self is
Brahma').”
Upanishads. The Upanishads (Lit. 'sitting by the side') are a class of philosophical works expounding a secret spiritual doctrine by
emphasising on a monistic approach to knowledge. Behind the literal significance of the words as 'sitting by the side' there is that
secret spiritual knowledge that is acquired by a disciple, by sitting near an accomplished master. The whole philosophy of the
Upanishads has a common
Tattvamasi ('that you are'),
Ahambrahmasmi ('I am Brahma'),
Prajnanam Brahma ('the ultimate truth is consciousness'),
Ayamatma Brahma ('the extension of the Self is
Brahma').”
These primordial principals compliment and are the origins of the aforementioned ontological argument from Hebrew text dating some 4000 years ago; a
belief that is likely to be necessarily true, continues as follows:
belief that is likely to be necessarily true, continues as follows:
[Genesis 1:27 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the
earth.” Genesis 1:28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created
them. Genesis 1:29 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and
have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”]
sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the
earth.” Genesis 1:28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created
them. Genesis 1:29 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and
have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”]
If we consider Sally as an ordinary human being, or man, then what we say to ourselves in the quiet of our minds can and does determine what we know.
Sally is a situated knower within heaven’s own properties; it is the case that what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do, are determined
as if one mind sharing the same essential thing; however, it is not the case that we are saying the same thing that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Metaphysics summarizes well:
Sally is a situated knower within heaven’s own properties; it is the case that what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do, are determined
as if one mind sharing the same essential thing; however, it is not the case that we are saying the same thing that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Metaphysics summarizes well:
“The arguments of Kripke and Plantinga in defense of modality are paradigmatically metaphysical (except insofar as they directly
address Quine's linguistic argument). Both turn on the concept of a possible world. Leibniz was the first philosopher to use ‘possible
world’ as a philosophical term of art, but Kripke's and Plantinga's use of the phrase is different from his. For Leibniz, a possible
world was a possible creation: God's act of creation consists in his choosing one possible world among many to be the one world
that he creates—the 'actual' world. For Kripke and Plantinga, however, a possible world is a possible “whole of reality.” For Leibniz,
God and his actions “stand outside” all possible worlds. For Kripke and Plantinga, no being, not even God, could stand outside the
whole system of possible worlds.”
address Quine's linguistic argument). Both turn on the concept of a possible world. Leibniz was the first philosopher to use ‘possible
world’ as a philosophical term of art, but Kripke's and Plantinga's use of the phrase is different from his. For Leibniz, a possible
world was a possible creation: God's act of creation consists in his choosing one possible world among many to be the one world
that he creates—the 'actual' world. For Kripke and Plantinga, however, a possible world is a possible “whole of reality.” For Leibniz,
God and his actions “stand outside” all possible worlds. For Kripke and Plantinga, no being, not even God, could stand outside the
whole system of possible worlds.”
world illustrated in ancient text, afore mentioned. Under these biblical conditions, not even God could make a false proposition true; nor could Kripke or
Plantinga presuppose a possible ‘whole of reality” by standing outside the whole system of possible worlds.
Nevertheless, what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do is a predetermined echo of what has already been said and Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics summarizes well:
Plantinga presuppose a possible ‘whole of reality” by standing outside the whole system of possible worlds.
Nevertheless, what we say, how we say it, and why we say the things we do is a predetermined echo of what has already been said and Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics summarizes well:
“Theirs is not the only modal ontology on offer, however. The modal ontology of David Lewis (Lewis (1986)) stands in stark
opposition to the KP modal ontology. Lewis's modal ontology also appeals to objects called possible worlds, but these “worlds” are
concrete objects. What most of us call the universe is just exactly what Lewis calls “the actual world.” Non-actual worlds are other
universes, “non-actual” only in that we are not among their inhabitants, for two “worlds” share no part. For Lewis, ‘actual’ is an
indexical term: when I speak of the actual world, I refer to the world of which I am an inhabitant—and so for any speaker who is “in”
(who is a part of) any world.”
opposition to the KP modal ontology. Lewis's modal ontology also appeals to objects called possible worlds, but these “worlds” are
concrete objects. What most of us call the universe is just exactly what Lewis calls “the actual world.” Non-actual worlds are other
universes, “non-actual” only in that we are not among their inhabitants, for two “worlds” share no part. For Lewis, ‘actual’ is an
indexical term: when I speak of the actual world, I refer to the world of which I am an inhabitant—and so for any speaker who is “in”
(who is a part of) any world.”
Sally is a speaker in 'the actual world', we know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the things she says, de re. Sally is a situated
knower, we know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the things she says, de dicto. If the only thing I know with certainty, I am a
situated knower, then a situated knower must be inferred by all in the same way; we are never alone! In a metaphysical sense, religious sense, or any
sense at all, we can define Ontology as the study or being or the I-ness of a being that determines its existence.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , metaphysics also quotes Frege, “Affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of the number zero.” I
disagree, we can affirm existence without the denial of the number zero, a sphere of emptiness envelopes all binary relations, and by way of negation,
limitation, or undefined schema; all things that come to be already exist as an empty set of ideas or all possible worlds. Example:
0 is a real number, de dicto.
1
0 is a real number, de re.
1
0 is undefined
1
knower, we know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the things she says, de dicto. If the only thing I know with certainty, I am a
situated knower, then a situated knower must be inferred by all in the same way; we are never alone! In a metaphysical sense, religious sense, or any
sense at all, we can define Ontology as the study or being or the I-ness of a being that determines its existence.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , metaphysics also quotes Frege, “Affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of the number zero.” I
disagree, we can affirm existence without the denial of the number zero, a sphere of emptiness envelopes all binary relations, and by way of negation,
limitation, or undefined schema; all things that come to be already exist as an empty set of ideas or all possible worlds. Example:
0 is a real number, de dicto.
1
0 is a real number, de re.
1
0 is undefined
1
Sally is a speaker in 'the actual world or a situated knower. We know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the things
she says, de re. Sally is a situated knower, we know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the things she says, de
dicto. If the only thing I know with certainty, I am a situated knower, then I must be inferred by all in the same way; we are never alone.
Metaphysically, we can illustrate Being as a serious game of ontological hide-and-seek, a lonely game of shifting from the known to the unknown and
back again by way of experience in its own multiplicity. What Sally says, how she says it, and why she says the things she does, is a logical linguistic link
to how things come to be; however, if this is just an echo of what has already been said, why say it? Nobody says it like I do!
We might consider our humble beginnings as the big bang of consciousness, no longer a subject object relation of rocks,
dust, gases, and things but the shadows of ever-expanding awareness illuminating the dark unknown of our universe.
While living in Guangzhou, China, a Chinese friend and I arranged a visit to Lhasa Tibet. His mother is Buddhist Chinese and I have always been curious
of the spiritual bounty that may lie in the shadow of Everest. The people are quite friendly and self sufficient, although in western terms they would be
considered improvised.
We were invited to tour the summer palace of the exiled Dalai Lama. We entered the court yard of a small home made of local brick and mortar. The
roofs of the buildings and homes in Tibet are traditionally flat, and atop the roof, a vicious guard dog appeared barking, growling, and snapping at our
heads. A monk guided my companion and I into the home as we both squatted down low to avoid the angry dog.
The furnishings inside the palace had been maintained exactly as the young monk had left it with all the 1950 relics still decorating the interior. We were
taken to the Dalai Lama’s bedroom and shown a large mural on the east wall said to be thousands of years old. The Tibetan guide pointed to the mural
and began telling us a Buddhist story in Mandarin Chinese he called "The Story of the Monkey Peoples". He went on to say that the mural was a
representation of the beginning of the world—a Buddhist cosmology. I thought this odd because I had been told that the Buddhist tradition rejected these
things.
The mural was a story board arrangement starting at the top and working around to the bottom which told the story of the Monkey Peoples who were
believed to be the ancestral roots of mankind. The mural showed a group of people that would not be uncommon today; however, they glistened of white
skin and blue eyes- I would say spirit-like or angelic.
The holy tour guide began the story like most, One day, the Monkey Peoples came upon a group of visitors from another world. They were of such
beauty they startled the Monkey Peoples so they kept their distance in the thick trees nearby. It was not long for the Monkey Peoples to understand the
group to be lost and out of compassion, they came to their aid.
The guide went on to say that these beings had no way to return to their home; wherever that could be, he did not say. The monkey peoples befriended
the group and in exchange for food and shelter, the visitors taught the monkey peoples how to read and write and use arithmetic to their advantage. The
castaways also introduced the Monkey Peoples to applied science and as time went on, the Monkey Peoples reluctantly came down from their tree top
dwellings and milled lumber from their primitive dwellings to build shelter of boards and sticks on the ground.
In the spring of the following year, an illness (directly translated a virus) came upon the visitors and each died of the sickness which was the first disease
ever known by the Monkey Peoples. The Monkey Peoples were not affected by this disease, and one member of the marooned group, a young woman,
survived yet all the others of her kind passed away.
She mourned for her lost love ones - day in and out. The Monkey Peoples could not bear her sadness and did everything to lessen her grief. She kept
her distance, living alone at the edge of the Monkey Peoples’ forest.
The Monkey Peoples built her a small home with a garden and did everything they could to relieve her sadness but she isolated herself for years in the
hope that someone from her world would one day come to her rescue. The loneliness drove her out of her mind until one day she left her home and
moved to the Monkey Peoples village. There she became very happy finding friends and she took her place in the community as a teacher of the arts
such as painting, sculpting, and music.
Over time, she befriended one of the male Monkey Peoples and they lived together as a couple. They had many beautiful children together which are
believed to be the ancestral lineage of all Tibetan people and the beginnings of civilization (November 27, 1992 Lhasa Tibet Gregory N. O’Dell).
The story of the monkey peoples is a metaphysical parable to try and understand how and when humans populated the earth. The question remains,
why would anyone thousands of years ago, try to explain that humans suddenly appeared and did not evolve from primitive minds? Who would think of
writing a story to explain something or to answer a question that had yet to be asked?
she says, de re. Sally is a situated knower, we know Sally by what she says, how she says it, and why she says the things she says, de
dicto. If the only thing I know with certainty, I am a situated knower, then I must be inferred by all in the same way; we are never alone.
Metaphysically, we can illustrate Being as a serious game of ontological hide-and-seek, a lonely game of shifting from the known to the unknown and
back again by way of experience in its own multiplicity. What Sally says, how she says it, and why she says the things she does, is a logical linguistic link
to how things come to be; however, if this is just an echo of what has already been said, why say it? Nobody says it like I do!
We might consider our humble beginnings as the big bang of consciousness, no longer a subject object relation of rocks,
dust, gases, and things but the shadows of ever-expanding awareness illuminating the dark unknown of our universe.
While living in Guangzhou, China, a Chinese friend and I arranged a visit to Lhasa Tibet. His mother is Buddhist Chinese and I have always been curious
of the spiritual bounty that may lie in the shadow of Everest. The people are quite friendly and self sufficient, although in western terms they would be
considered improvised.
We were invited to tour the summer palace of the exiled Dalai Lama. We entered the court yard of a small home made of local brick and mortar. The
roofs of the buildings and homes in Tibet are traditionally flat, and atop the roof, a vicious guard dog appeared barking, growling, and snapping at our
heads. A monk guided my companion and I into the home as we both squatted down low to avoid the angry dog.
The furnishings inside the palace had been maintained exactly as the young monk had left it with all the 1950 relics still decorating the interior. We were
taken to the Dalai Lama’s bedroom and shown a large mural on the east wall said to be thousands of years old. The Tibetan guide pointed to the mural
and began telling us a Buddhist story in Mandarin Chinese he called "The Story of the Monkey Peoples". He went on to say that the mural was a
representation of the beginning of the world—a Buddhist cosmology. I thought this odd because I had been told that the Buddhist tradition rejected these
things.
The mural was a story board arrangement starting at the top and working around to the bottom which told the story of the Monkey Peoples who were
believed to be the ancestral roots of mankind. The mural showed a group of people that would not be uncommon today; however, they glistened of white
skin and blue eyes- I would say spirit-like or angelic.
The holy tour guide began the story like most, One day, the Monkey Peoples came upon a group of visitors from another world. They were of such
beauty they startled the Monkey Peoples so they kept their distance in the thick trees nearby. It was not long for the Monkey Peoples to understand the
group to be lost and out of compassion, they came to their aid.
The guide went on to say that these beings had no way to return to their home; wherever that could be, he did not say. The monkey peoples befriended
the group and in exchange for food and shelter, the visitors taught the monkey peoples how to read and write and use arithmetic to their advantage. The
castaways also introduced the Monkey Peoples to applied science and as time went on, the Monkey Peoples reluctantly came down from their tree top
dwellings and milled lumber from their primitive dwellings to build shelter of boards and sticks on the ground.
In the spring of the following year, an illness (directly translated a virus) came upon the visitors and each died of the sickness which was the first disease
ever known by the Monkey Peoples. The Monkey Peoples were not affected by this disease, and one member of the marooned group, a young woman,
survived yet all the others of her kind passed away.
She mourned for her lost love ones - day in and out. The Monkey Peoples could not bear her sadness and did everything to lessen her grief. She kept
her distance, living alone at the edge of the Monkey Peoples’ forest.
The Monkey Peoples built her a small home with a garden and did everything they could to relieve her sadness but she isolated herself for years in the
hope that someone from her world would one day come to her rescue. The loneliness drove her out of her mind until one day she left her home and
moved to the Monkey Peoples village. There she became very happy finding friends and she took her place in the community as a teacher of the arts
such as painting, sculpting, and music.
Over time, she befriended one of the male Monkey Peoples and they lived together as a couple. They had many beautiful children together which are
believed to be the ancestral lineage of all Tibetan people and the beginnings of civilization (November 27, 1992 Lhasa Tibet Gregory N. O’Dell).
The story of the monkey peoples is a metaphysical parable to try and understand how and when humans populated the earth. The question remains,
why would anyone thousands of years ago, try to explain that humans suddenly appeared and did not evolve from primitive minds? Who would think of
writing a story to explain something or to answer a question that had yet to be asked?
3 A Kripke-Plantinga (KP) world is an abstract object of some sort
4 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProMetNewMet> In addition to these dualistic theories, there are
monistic theories, theories that dissolve the “interaction problem” by denying the existence of either the physical or the
non-physical: idealism and physicalism. (Present-day philosophers for the most part prefer the term ‘physicalism’ to
the older term ‘materialism.')
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProMetNewMet>
5 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism>
6 King James Bible
7 <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/tattvam.htm>
4 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProMetNewMet> In addition to these dualistic theories, there are
monistic theories, theories that dissolve the “interaction problem” by denying the existence of either the physical or the
non-physical: idealism and physicalism. (Present-day philosophers for the most part prefer the term ‘physicalism’ to
the older term ‘materialism.')
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProMetNewMet>
5 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism>
6 King James Bible
7 <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/tattvam.htm>
| Works Cited |
O'Dell, Gregory N. "How Things Come To Be:." Linearism.Org Advocacy For Human Rights. Nov. & dec. 2008. Web. 06 Feb. 2010. <http://www.linearism.org/TheJournalofATexasMysticChpterII>.
