The first surprise - ever - before time existed  

anthonyfca 61M
3 posts
3/12/2006 10:34 am

Last Read:
3/12/2006 10:51 am

The first surprise - ever - before time existed


"As to philospophy I like the idea that there was "

the idea here is that before anything there was merely what was - if you like (and this is why it ends with the word "was", because to say more is to try to define it and it can be different for every person) there was.. sentience, consciousness, purity of being, all one, nothing separate, oneness, nothing distinct, whatever it was, it was the only existence in existence, incorporeal. Hence you might say there was was. This is reduced to simply : there was. Because before time, before everything or anything there was.... whatever it was, it was. See?

"and what was became curious; "

in other words, whatever it was, it wondered about itself, how to know itself? It got curious!

"bearing in mind that within infinity of is, an infinitely small amount of curious, is enough. "

In an infinite amount of sameness, any difference however small, is a huge difference, so the tiniest curiosity was a huge matter. Try putting a grain of sand between two perfect panes of glass, crunchy!

"Thus what was split itself into what was and what was not. "

This is conceptual thought, that whatever was might be, it was able to separate itself out into itself and not itself, in other words what was and what was not.

"Thereby also creating all that is in between, neither what was nor what was not."

Clearly to separate out two things, there has to be a gap between, otherwise they are not separated, they are the same.

"Did what was see this coming? I wonder. For it had no frame of reference, no point of view and perhaps I offer this was the first surprise; ever."

I am suggesting that since what was had no frame of reference in the first place, since this was why it got curious, then it saw what was not coming, but had no expectation of everything in between what was and what was not. Whether there was a surprise or not is no more than a matter for philosophical amusement. The separation of what was into what was and was not, is the philosophical point about existence. From this all else can flow about the meaning and reason for existence. Whether or not the reader accepts the part about in between, is not fundamental; what is fundamental is the separation of what was into what was and was not.


in answer to a request for explanation of an earlier post headed: Me, myself and the meaning of life? Getting a life?

Become a member to create a blog