Wonderism

Wonderism basically means that all we can really say, is that we are in a state of wonder at the mysterious universe.

Metaphysics

Ultimately, existence is mysterious as we cannot truly know what and why it is with complete and absolute assurance of our notions. Doubt beads everything together, even in these words I am writing.

The most we can say is that all is one. There are no gaps of nothingness in existence, even if there were, it would remain to be one, as the separate entities need space to exist, and so the space and the entities form one being again. Existence, thus, is one, solid continuity in infinite mystery.

Science and Religion

Both of these movements find themselves in a pool of beliefs. Canons and facts rely on their reign via their influential qualities. So, one has to belief in the axioms, experiences, fundamentals and testimonials of a specific knowledge-system in order to attach special significance to it. Real faith in one’s experience, observation and reason is necessary to be scientific or religious.

Ethics

In the absolute sense we can not know whether good and evil really exists, but in order to be truthful and authentic to ourselves, we must owe others what we feel others owe us, and never do things to others that we would not do to ourselves.

Art

Imagination is what makes something real or unreal.

How wonderful...you named a thread after yourself... 😉

Many things fit nicely into boxes to make others feel comfortable...but as with many things....they can't....Metaphysics is one of them....Everything belongs into a big "Whole"...of ONE, I feel....There is just too much evidence to deny it...If a person looks or experiences it.

Firstly, welcome back...Wondericus.

Secondly, SA may have been part of the cradle, but we've grown-up since then.

Thirdly, just because we can't absolutely answer why 'it' is, doesn't mean that 'it' is an absolute mystery.

Fourthly, if we cannot talk in absolutes, then we cannot state that there is absolutely no nothingness.

Fifthly, the implication of us 'knowing' that we should treat people how we would like to be treated does give us an implicit notion of 'good' and 'bad' - at the very least, on a personal level.

Sixthly, depending on your definition of 'real', your final statement could be considered inherently false.

Finally, I enjoy reading your opinions.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Firstly, welcome back...Wondericus.

Thanks, but welcome back from where?

Secondly, SA may have been part of the cradle, but we've grown-up since then.

Well, the world's oldest skeletal [pre]human forms are still found in South Africa (Sterkfontein Caves)

Thirdly, just because we can't absolutely answer why 'it' is, doesn't mean that 'it' is an absolute mystery.

It must be a mystery if the most essential what and why of existence still eludes our knowledge. It is an absolute mystery because in the absolute sense we do not know existence.

Fourthly, if we cannot talk in absolutes...

Exactly. I agree, that's why I say existence is a mystery.

Fifthly, the implication of us 'knowing' that we should treat people how we would like to be treated does give us an implicit notion of 'good' and 'bad' - at the very least, on a personal level.

It's not a matter of 'knowing' how to treat people, but rather a matter of deciding for our own sake to treat them as ourselves. 'Knowing' or knowledge of correct treatment would imply a source of conduct which we discover and conform to - there is no such source, that's why it's rather a decision based on our own well being. Rather than an 'implicit notion', it is a realisation of what is beneficial and what is detrimental to the our personal condition.

Sixthly, depending on your definition of 'real', your final statement could be considered inherently false.

I disagree. In this case of 'imagination makes things real or unreal' the 'imagination' takes a side and perceives itself as 'real' and that which contradicts its essence, as unreal. Nothing false about the condition.

Finally, I enjoy reading your opinions.

Thanks, I enjoy reading your comments.

Originally posted by Wonderer

It's not a matter of 'knowing' how to treat people, but rather a matter of deciding for our own sake to treat them as ourselves. 'Knowing' or knowledge of correct treatment would imply a source of conduct which we discover and conform to - there is no such source, that's why it's rather a decision based on our own well being. Rather than an 'implicit notion', it is a realisation of what is beneficial and what is detrimental to the our personal condition.

True...it's a learning experience....many have tried to teach it, but many don't grasp it, and it makes hell ones own....

Well, the world's oldest skeletal [pre]human forms are still found in South Africa (Sterkfontein Caves)

I saw Lucy in Chicago....think it was Lucy....

Lucy in the sky with diamond

NO....Lucy full of bones!!! 😂

LSD.....wasn't in Chicago...

Originally posted by Wonderer
Thanks, but welcome back from where?

I think you know what I'm refering to...

Well, the world's oldest skeletal [pre]human forms are still found in South Africa (Sterkfontein Caves)

Like I said - we may have began there, but we've moved on...It's like saying: 'Kindergarten - the birth of education'....catch ma flow, yo?

It must be a mystery if the most essential what and why of existence still eludes our knowledge. It is an absolute mystery because in the absolute sense we do not know existence.

Let me speak plainly...It's not an absolute mystery because we know something, but we just don't know everything.

Exactly. I agree, that's why I say existence is a mystery.

It may seem that I am playing with semantics here, but I'm not; existence may be a mystery, but it's not an absolute mystery.

It's not a matter of 'knowing' how to treat people, but rather a matter of deciding for our own sake to treat them as ourselves. 'Knowing' or knowledge of correct treatment would imply a source of conduct which we discover and conform to - there is no such source, that's why it's rather a decision based on our own well being. Rather than an 'implicit notion', it is a realisation of what is beneficial and what is detrimental to the our personal condition.

From an anthropological perspective, the essence of quality - good/bad, etc - is a notion formed by society. Therefore, our history is our measure of quality. Ergo, we do have a solid foundation to refer against in regards to 'good' and 'bad'.

I disagree. In this case of 'imagination makes things real or unreal' the 'imagination' takes a side and perceives itself as 'real' and that which contradicts its essence, as unreal. Nothing false about the condition.

The 'real' of the mind is different from the 'real' of the physical.

Originally posted by finti
still but have they found skeltal older than that of Lucy? Also I read some weeks ago about a find in asia they said could match the age of Lucy havent heard more about it though

Yes, it is older than Lucy.

3.6 million-year-old ape-man found in South Africa
Johannesburg--December 9, 1998 - Reuters

South African researchers said on Wednesday they had discovered the world's first near-complete skull and skeleton of an ape-man estimated to be 3.6 million years old. The four-foot-tall fossil was unearthed at Sterkfontein on the outskirts of Johannesburg and is estimated to be 3.6 million years old.

The oldest previous skeleton was 3.2 million year-old "Lucy," found in Ethiopia, while older specimens recovered from East Africa yielded only fragments of the whole frame. "The new find at Sterkfontein is, therefore, the oldest hominid skeleton yet discovered anywhere in the world," said Tim Partridge. He, together with the Geomagnetism Laboratory of the University ofLiverpool, assessed the age of the fossil.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I think you know what I'm refering to...

Ok.

Like I said - we may have began there, but we've moved on...It's like saying: 'Kindergarten - the birth of education'....catch ma flow, yo?

I merely stated an interesting fact. Whether we have moved on is debatable...well, some of us definately haven't moved on. haha!

Let me speak plainly...It's not an absolute mystery because we know something, but we just don't know everything.

Exactly, if we don't know everything, it is an absolute mystery.

From an anthropological perspective, the essence of quality - good/bad, etc - is a notion formed by society. Therefore, our history is our measure of quality. Ergo, we do have a solid foundation to refer against in regards to 'good' and 'bad'.

Yes, but we (those of us with brains) still probe society's moral codes and then decide what to accept. The point is that society's ethical ideas originated from what I call 'a realisation of personal benefit'

The 'real' of the mind is different from the 'real' of the physical.

Not clear. What is mind and what is physical? We don't know, so it's mysterious again.

Be humble and admit that we know nothing...it is questionable whether we really and truly know anything.

Originally posted by Wonderer
Exactly, if we don't know everything, it is an absolute mystery.

Saying it's an 'absolute mystery' implies that we know nothing, but I belive we know something.

Yes, but we (those of us with brains) still probe society's moral codes and then decide what to accept. The point is that society's ethical ideas originated from what I call 'a realisation of personal benefit'

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Not clear. What is mind and what is physical? We don't know, so it's mysterious again.

An individual's imagination cannot be subjected to another individuals comparison. However, the composition of 2 different types of rocks can be subjected to tangible comparisons.

Be humble and admit that we know nothing...it is questionable whether we really and truly know anything.

You're getting all Socratic on me! I like it!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Saying it's an 'absolute mystery' implies that we know nothing, but I belive we know something.[B]

So, we know something of the great mystery? What is this 'something' we know?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

um..the chicken...or was it the egg...it was the instinct in this case.

An individual's imagination cannot be subjected to another individuals comparison. However, the composition of 2 different types of rocks can be subjected to tangible comparisons.

Now that's mysterious. Just shows that we know even less than nothing.

What constitutes 'two distinct individuals'? Imagination...?

You're getting all Socratic on me! I like it!

Originally posted by Wonderer
So, we know something of the great mystery? What is this 'something' we know?

If we know absolutely nothing, then why do we even search? We must know something to consider the possibility of something more...

um..the chicken...or was it the egg...it was the instinct in this case.

If it is instinct that denotes our comprehension of 'quality', then it is a universal concept.

Now that's mysterious. Just shows that we know even less than nothing.What constitutes 'two distinct individuals'? Imagination...?

I refer to an individual in the physical sense that we function biologically independent from each other.

Your arguments doesn't follow logically, but assumes.

Originally posted by Wonderer
Your arguments doesn't follow logically, but assumes.

If - as you propose - we know nothing, then why would the use of logic be the best solution to knowing something?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
If - as you propose - we know nothing, then why would the use of logic be the best solution to knowing something?

Any time we think of something, we constrain it into a model (an understanding). The universe is not a model and can not be understood. However, if this is kept in mind, models can be used to improve understanding as long as they are always questioned.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
If - as you propose - we know nothing, then why would the use of logic be the best solution to knowing something?

Our use of Logic is natural, but I do not mean that it is a 'best solution to knowing something'.

You assume that we know something, based on the premise that we 'want to know more', BUT the 'want to know more' does not imply that we already know something.

Where do you suppose we get this assurance from that we what we consider to be knowledge, really is knowledge? It is nobody but ourselves that tell us that we know things.

Also, if we do not know the essence of things, then we cannot really say that we know things, because we cannot rely on only knowing a bit of something.

How do we know that what we know has any real meaning? We are too small to know. Why do you think that we don't think insects really knows anything? Because they are too small and not aware of the bigger picture. It's the same with us - we are not really aware of the bigger picture.

There is no 'god' in the sky to verify our 'knowledge'.

It's part of our nature to want to inquire about the unknown...All throughout history....and the more we find the more we understand...and the more we want to know....But we will probably never know everything...not in this life in human form...maybe not after either....just another unknown...But hey, the ride is fun... 😄
What is this wanting to know anyway...where did this come from?