Ontological viewpoint

definitude03 wrote on Sep 13
I am not one to tribute to "God" so I will speak of it's possible intent. To assume that the exclusion of something could be a redress of its intent plays to semantics. The very notion of universality is transidential. To give it a name is personal and lends to egocentricity. Immortality of absolute truth is undeniable yet that is what is evident here. To assimilate such a notion to animal is far more absurd than assimilating immortality to a mineral and yet that to is absurd.Chaos is absolute. It is the forces of cohesion that elude us. This is no surprise, although the revelation is renewed in every re-development of a life, a contentious life that is. To discover such a notion is simple, yet to understand it is ethereal. This paradox is not worth considering in parallel between animal and mineral.The laws of physics could be absolute as Western culture predicts, it is the indoctrination of scientific prowess that is slighted in this instance. To support universality we simply apply Nietzsche's notions and excuse paradigm. This is an adult notion in an infantile existence. As far as the superiority complex goes, one only need to abandon the complex to realize we have no control over existence entirely. Therefor, the notion of superiority is transferred to the immortalist.The Ontological argument (truth + experience = existence) lends to the notion of acceptance regarding universality. The laws however have simply eluded us. Refer to http://theoreticalphysic.multiply.com/ to discuss the laws. This is scientifically speaking, I have not seen any belief system that has categorically attempted to alienate reason. So for this reason it is important to avoid mincing it as well.


Thanks for a comment from your ontological perspective