darkSpyro

See. This is why I don't believe in evolution.

See. This is why I don't believe in evolution.

See. This is why I don't believe in evolution.

But who laid those eggs, is the question

Quote: Windumup

But who laid those eggs, is the question

The chicken's god damn evolutionary predecessor

A dialectical answer (that of Hegel and Marx) is that the egg and chicken exist in a dialectical relationship; the problem, it says, is that we are approaching an organic/dialectical relationship with the mindset of formal logic, (linear cause-and-effect). Using this mindset, we reach a paradox, for we only see it in terms of "this caused that". To reach the true nature of this relationship, we have to admit the fact that the egg creates the chicken just as much as the chicken creates the egg. Hegel uses an analogy of a bud:
The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them, at the same time, moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole.

Quote: Wikipedia

A dialectical answer (that of Hegel and Marx) is that the egg and chicken exist in a dialectical relationship; the problem, it says, is that we are approaching an organic/dialectical relationship with the mindset of formal logic, (linear cause-and-effect). Using this mindset, we reach a paradox, for we only see it in terms of "this caused that". To reach the true nature of this relationship, we have to admit the fact that the egg creates the chicken just as much as the chicken creates the egg. Hegel uses an analogy of a bud:
The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them, at the same time, moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole.

This leads us down to questions regarding the origins of causality itself, and in particular, of whether the systems of duality and contradiction, that allow our perception of causality, have existed, or if it had the system of and how we understand the existence of time in contrast to timelessness. The conclusion we may draw from this text would be that duality is, in essence, a variation of monism, which we, being accustomed to perceiving its various components as being set against one another, forget to see as forming part of the same whole.

Yet still, if we are to establish the processes that form the basis of our perception of contradiction as entities in themselves, would we not also conclude that there is a conscious attribute contained in them, a will that sets time in motion? If there is indeed an entity that encompasses a larger and more intricate structure than the human mind, would it too, not reflect the various attributes of mind, such as consciousness?
Of course, if mutually contradicting dualities are indeed an illusion, which we misjudge as being an absence or opposite of monism, then would it not also be a misjudgement to view reality in terms of human perception, by placing a higher consciousness, or divine will, as the entity which oversees the processes of creation and destruction, life and death, and so on?
When monism is defined as an absence of duality, if all knowledge, perception, and perhaps also physicality itself is fundamentally defined in terms of duality, then would this absence not be absolute, leaving us with a void of non-being, and thus non-consciousness? Or since the contradictions we see in the world we know already are illusions, then would that mean an absence of any fundamental difference between being and non-being, thus allowing for consciousness to form part of even this supposedly empty primordial void from which duality spontaneously sprung out into existence?

But anyway, I guess the chicken and the egg are really the same thing. Sort of.

Quote: 84skylanderdude

Quote: Windumup

But who laid those eggs, is the question

The chicken's god damn evolutionary predecessor

And who laid the eggs of the first predecessor?

Eggs because egg cells were there waaaaay before evolution.

Nerd.