Singularities, Dualities, Attributes

Hello.

We use language to create communication. In order to have communication, you need common language. This allows us to accept that some sounds mean this, while others mean that. Humans have done pretty well with languages. They are abundant.

Terms we use to describe sound, such as loud, soft, shrill, fast, slow etc., are all terms describing segments of the overall sound. No one description embodies the sound completely. We are limited to describing attributes of the sound. Our other option is to attempt recreation.

In our attempt to describe the sound we find that attributes have values. A sound that is loud is loud compared to other sounds. If we find that sound to be loud then we mean that it is loud compared to more sounds than would make it seem not loud by comparison. More industry specific terms are applied with more advanced study. Tone, timbre, frequency, harmonic qualities etc.

What we find are that we have series of properties with two possible trajectories. These properties either increase in value or decrease in value. Our system of comparative property description does not allow for properties to not exist, they would simply diminish in value beyond all other comparable attributes. This system of an increase or decrease of energy is dualism.

The realization that these properties are simply labels humanity concocted leads us to the oneness of the object (sound) with itself. It is defined truly only by what it is. Its very existence is its explanation. This is the singularity.

What is left after the singularity is simply an energy pulsation, on a trajectory that will either increase or decrease its energy.

What if we're wrong?

A quick snippet from the new Bill Maher commercial. He and a Jesus looking fellow ask each other "what if you're wrong?".

It's a shame neither answered.

Ask the atheist

What if you're wrong?

If I'm wrong then I will gladly stand before God or any other existing entity who would judge me. I would say that I have lived a good life, based on what I logically and rationally understood a good life to mean.
I would state that I did not always know right from wrong, but always tried to do right.
I would state that I made mistakes, tried to learn from them, and gained wisdom.
I would state that I was inspired to do right without fear from punishment for doing wrong.
I would state that the spirit of love was what drove me to do good.
I would state that the desire for wisdom and compassion drove me to not accept without thinking what authority had told me, when I could clearly see the oppression of that authority.
I would state that no person warranted a lack of compassion, no matter their sin.
I would state that humility had led me to not raise a golden calf in place of a God that might exist, and that any faith in what human authority claimed was an affront to the possible God's authority.

Now we ask the Christian

What if you're wrong?

I would state into the void that I tried to live a good life based on what I was told.
I would state that I did not always know right from wrong, but always tried to do right.
I tried to live a good life, but fell short hoping for eventual forgiveness.
I would state that I made mistakes, tried to learn from them, and gained wisdom.
I would state that the spirit of love was what drove me to do good.
I believed authority's claims and wanted to take a positive place within society.
I unfairly judged people due to doctrines built upon the fears and prejudices of authorities.
I was unable to live a rational life due to rationalism's conflicts with my faith.
I would state that fear led me to submit to authority.


So, what if we're wrong?

hmm

can't believe that the title sophist's choice was snagged already, but mine at least will be philosophical in nature.

No Harrison Ford reviews here.