existance

[Manik]

Hey all,

ever thought of the bigger picture?

Why does existence exist?

God is an anomaly of non-existence.

[Telos]

Sorry, I'm on a crusade to correct people from spelling "existence" like "existance." I mean, think about it - how can someone begin to know the first thing about existence when they don't know how to spell it? You spelled it right within the body of your post, so I know you know what's up.

In any case this question is more philosophy than quantum physics.

[mactombs]

No, no, no. "Existance" is small. "Loose" and "lose" is a real epidemic.

I good question about Integral Philosophy is what does that even mean? I looked up "integral" to give me a clue, but I still don't have one...

[Ybom]

ever thought of the bigger picture?

Sometimes I just want a 5x7 instead of an 8x10 since the bigger picture is more fragile. But seriously, I used to all the time. It led from seeking wisdom to seeking perfection to accepting imperfection to realizing it all together at the same time (along with focusing on how to relate other things to these).

Why does existence exist?

Because in Latin, the word "exsistere" means to come forth or be manifested. You're working with limited bounds of the mind, since everything is here now, and it was never manifested, as the word exist implies. Plus you're also asking a loaded question...Why does manifestation manifest? Because that's its job to!

God is an anomaly of non-existence.

God is an anomaly of nonmanifestation. Actually I think this is at minimum partially wrong (maybe totally; I dunno), as it is the duty of God to uphold God's desires, which includes the desire to create. Of course I think God suddenly did manifest somehow, but only if you think of time as a thing without beginning or end. Before time, there was a reality that was most likely beyond the grasp of any human, and things probably lived there too! I also want to point out that I don't like to view the universe as on a timeline, more of as on a quantity of various dimentions, so we're probably going to clash by comparing apples and oranges of viewpoints.

...I (Did you mean to add "have a"?) good question about Integral Philosophy is what does that even mean? I looked up "integral" to give me a clue, but I still don't have one...

I'm worried about your Searching Process. The first thing I did to find a good response to your post here is to click the last page in this subforum. I pseudo-immediately found the What is Integral Philosophy? thread. Within it, I found this:

Hi Tom,

As Robert Bruce mentions, Integral Philosophy or Integral Psychology is mainly based on Ken Wilber's synthesized overview. Ken wilber believes that Art, Science and Morality - after a long period of individuation -  should now be integrated. He speaks of them as Beauty,Truth and Goodness. His ideas are a voluminous synthsis of perennial philosophy and just about every other major thought throughout the centuries and believes that development of mankind needs to progress within us (as 'I' and We') and without us ('it' and 'its') ie., intentional, cultural, behavioural and social). For a wonderful overview of his work I would recommend 'The Collected Works of Ken Wilber volume four' or a copy of one of his latest books 'Integral Psychology' which is available in paperback (shambhala, Boston, USA.).

An academic of his calibre who also has a life and a wonderful sense of humour - makes him quite a remarkable guy....

I hope you manage to get hold of some of his stuff and enjoy the journey ...
Love
Shirley

I was also going to bash both you and Telos about your little grammatician responses, but I'll pass since I'm not in that type of mood right now. Above all, I hope this helps Manik.

[Greenrat]

existence has to exist because it has no opposite, non-existence is nothing so, how can there be nothing to exist?

its here because it is, if it wasnt here, it wouldnt matter. not even nothingness would be.

So, it must be.

i wish i just knew everything in the universe, then i could answer your  question.

[mactombs]

I pseudo-immediately found the What is Integral Philosophy? thread. Within it, I found this:

Yeah, and I still don't understand what it means.

[Ybom]

Yeah, and I still don't understand what it means.

I understand it, because he wants to find a way to integrate separate studies into a single study. Simplification is what this means. Alternatively, here is a thread with links to integral based studies.

I agree that it should be done, but alternatively should still be kept separate as well, so every possible aspect of this is still regarded as special.

However, I think this stuff is being integrated, at least in music. Where would the entire electronica genre be without computers? Art+Science! But maybe what needs to happen is more companies integrate some type of beauty into the services they provide unemotionally.

What do you think?

[Telos]

The interesting part of integral philosophy is the rejection that some things must be left out in the integration process in order to prevent contradictions.

Is that possible? If so, how is that possible? Can we integrate everything while still remaining consistent? If it's inconsistent, then it's not integration. It's a great question and I am glad that there is a movement towards affirming it.

However, don't you think there's a limit to how many ideas you can integrate while sustaining them? Should we not reject things that don't work, the same way Integralists rejected the exclusiveness of philosophies before it?

The greatest weakness of integral philosophy is not this, however, but the lack of focus on new ideas. Integration may itself be a new idea, and some new ideas may rise to further the mission of integration, but what about  new ideas that don't serve integration? What about revolutionary ideas? That completely turn the tide of our thinking?

[Ybom]

The greatest weakness of integral philosophy is not this, however, but the lack of focus on new ideas. Integration may itself be a new idea, and some new ideas may rise to further the mission of integration, but what about  new ideas that don't serve integration? What about revolutionary ideas? That completely turn the tide of our thinking?

I'm not sure if Integral Philosophy explicitly excludes new ideas, but it may be habit to do so since you have tons of complex concepts trying to mesh together and all of a sudden a new groundbreaking concept comes along that undoes everything you've been working so hard on to rebuild.

Exactly how would you feel if this happened to you? No matter your answer to that, I think it's important to note that hardly ever it is suggested to 'be patient'. Another flaw in Integral Philosophy may be impatience, but I need more info about the subject before I make an assumption like that.

[dirty_blonde]

how couldn't it?

Whether or not the entire universe is an illusion or dream is irrelevant to the question. Even the voids found in space are things that exist. Space itself is an existence because, if it weren't, everything would be a singularity....and yet, how can a singularity even exist without occupying space?  It cant.  So why does existence exist? Because existence has no other option.

[edit] as for integral philosophy, truth cannot contradict truth. Any contradictions that exist must either come from errors in one or all disciplines. Truth is the validity of existence, and existence either is or isn't. So in the grand scheme of things, there is only one Truth that encompasses all existence, and whatever it may be...it cannot be contradicted by itself.