Back to Infinity

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

AlexW
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW » Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:57 am

Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
If I posit I exist, am I doing so from outside myself?
Haha... no! You cannot do anything from the outside simply because there is none.
I said: "By positing something exists you are doing so from a point of observation that is apparently outside A"
Meaning that this point of observation is not real - it is only an idea.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
How does an object observe itself in order to know itself? How does "being" translate into "knowing"?
The only quality of infinity is knowing itself (well, its not a quality, knowing is what it is). It knows by being.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
I think it means that it's void of relevance
Only to the dualistic mind because thought cant go there - you cannot think of something that is not an object. You can try to do just that by thinking of the unlimited, but you are still creating an object out of the non-objective.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
The only ubiquitous thing I can conceive is that of nothingness, in infinite supply, yet no thing in existence is more more irrelevant than nothingness.
Yet it contains all (apparent) things...
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
Yes but space only exists if there is a speed limit
Thats why there is no space in infinity. Space is mind-made.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
That means something is acting as resistance to slow us in some regard which produces the perspective that we know.
If you are asking me to guess what this magical thing slowing us down might be, I would answer: dualistic/relativistic thought
There is nothing else that could slow us down.

AlexW
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:27 am

Nick,

I do (mostly) agree with what you stated about the ONE, besides:
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:24 am
Creatures existing within creation are limited as opposed to the ONE which IS
All limitation is only perceived - even in existence. This is so as existence is not different to the ONE - am sure you have heard the wave/ocean analogy before - if the ocean is the ONE then existence are the waves - they are still the ocean, not separate at all, they just appear to be separate when seen from the point of view of the individual wave. The ocean knows nothing of individuality.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:24 am
But why is this bad? What is so good about accepting oneself along with everyone else as an equal part of society
It is not bad at all as long as it doesn't define who you think you are. Once you accept that you are limited, isolated and lonely then this is how you will perceive the world and others around you - the world turns from heaven into hell in an instant.
It is thus really impossible to see anyone as equal if you perceive them (think of them) as being separated beings - if they are different they are not equal.

The excerpt from the letter Simone Weil wrote is very interesting - it displays the great need to find truth and the strong belief it can be found in the mind. Her worst enemy is not mediocrity, but her belief in that she is "excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides" because of not being clever enough. Truth is not complex - rather the opposite. A great mind doesn't guarantee access to truth - its rather more harmful than helpful (the more you know the more will you have to cut away to find truth)
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:24 am
Why not value quality?
I do value quality, but only when it is based on truth. Otherwise the idea of value becomes destructive.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:24 am
From this perspective the solution isn’t imaginary oneness which inhibits the need to become oneself but acquiring the humility and intelligence to respect the value of differences as necessary parts of the collective human organism serving a higher universal purpose.
Yes, very true, but you can only truthfully value differences in others if you don't see them as opponents. The ego can pretend to value others over itself, but it will not work - the egotistic mind always only thinks of its own benefit.

Atla
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Atla » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:29 am

AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:42 am
There are (at least) two ways of thinking, the dual and non-dual one - the benefit of the non-dual understanding is that it includes understanding of duality whereas this is not so the other way round.
Exactly. When most people are first introduced to this topic, they seem to misunderstand the relation of the dual and the nondual. They think these two refer to the same "level" of understanding, they think that the dual and the nondual form a pair or a mutual interdependence.

But the "nondual" here applies in a more fundamental sense, it refers to the lack of a dualistic "dimension", so to speak. And so the dualistic understanding is contained within the more fundamental nondual understanding.
Non-dual thinking is where we come from, young children still think this way - this innate knowing is covered up over the years by a process adults call learning. It is important to realise that this knowledge cannot be lost, it can only be veiled and can again be found by stripping away everything that veils truth (basically everything we have learned). The stripping away of all concepts doesn't mean that we forget all the things we have learned and turn into blabbering idiots - it means that we have to see past these conceptions until the essence reveals itself. While the process is a mental exercise of seeing past illusion the last step is a natural unfolding - truth reveals itself once we understand and deeply accept that we don't know.
Now we have both - the childlike, innocent way of looking at the world AND the understanding of duality (I guess there is some truth in the parable of the lost son after all :-) )
Exactly. We can't remember the nondual first, we can only rediscover it once the conceptual layers are stripped away. It's the natural state, we were in that state for the first few years of our lives. I've observed that animals are also kinda in this state (except they never formed egos, so they don't know anything else).

Babies experience the "Oceanic feeling", they don't experience themselves to be separate from the rest of the world. Modern Western psychology treats this as some kind of an anomaly, they don't know what it means and what to do with it.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Greta » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:53 am

AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:17 am
Greta wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:12 am
is it that people ignore the notions of wholeness and interdependence, or that they ignore existential thought generally?
I think people ignore it until something happens in their lives that makes them re-evaluate whats really important and some might find a new way of looking at life.
Yes. Family deaths certainly got me thinking existentially, as did waiting for a diagnosis after a lung test, not long after my elder sister died of cancer. Less than a year afterwards I had a major peak experience and have been an insufferable bore on philosophy forums ever since :)

Like you, I find it surprising when people have these experiences and don't much follow up. I was personally astonished to discover this other type of consciousness that was hugely more blissful, open, intense and rooted in the present moment than usual.
AlexW wrote:
Greta wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:12 am
Throughout history the intelligentsia has complained about the masses lack of contemplation (a la Plato), and the masses complain about the intelligentsia's lack of physical work.
Yes, true, but both groups still apply the same way of thinking - some maybe more than the others - but to change that we would have to start teaching children from early infancy on that there is another way of seeing things. Or rather, we shouldn't take it away from them. Children still have the natural ability to see infinity, but it is brainwashed out of them over years of structured learning, social conditioning and the inflexible system of thought humanity subscribes to.
Yes, neither seems to realistically assess the qualities of the others, inflating the worth of their own "tribe" while being somewhat blind to that of other people. Oh well, stuff happens.

The child must die so that the adult must live, and that usually (though not always) involves the sacrifice of beautiful qualities such as openness, creativity, trust and innocent honesty. On the plus side, much fear, naivete and atavistic selfishness is also left behind as the child becomes an adult.

We speak of concepts like unity but this is not something many people will contemplate at all until they face the reaper and find that their nervous system is shutting down. No longer able to feel the bounds of their body in space, they will necessarily feel boundless, with no more mental line between them and everything else. It's a matter of circumstance and temperament as much as anything whether the notion of unity appeals or not before that inevitable awakening/ending.

Perhaps greater peace can be had by people if they more appreciated these other nuances of existence, as you suggest, but it's only one path to inner peace. I vaguely remember reading Buddhist teachings some decades ago and there were touted various paths to inner peace - the physical path of the fakirs, the emotional and devotional path of Abrahamic prayer, the intellectual approach of exploratory thinkers, and what was touted as the "highest form" of meditation which was supposed to transcend thought. Re: the last, the idea is probably to invoke peak experiences on demand, and the familiarity would naturally lead to greater understanding of them than in an novice.

Belinda
Posts: 1979
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Belinda » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:15 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:06 am
Hi Alex

As we know a dollar can be divided into two half dollars, four quarters, ten dimes, 20 nickles and 100 pennies. I think we can agree that the concept of a penny can exist within a nickle which in turn exists within a dime which in turn exists within the quarter and so on. Finally, all the fractions of dollar exist as one within the dollar, within the whole. From this perspective, a quarter exists both as part of a whole and also as an individual reality.

Why cannot a human being be simultaneously part of of a higher whole and an individual entity at the same time? Isn't that what I AM is - everything in conscious potential together with the manifestation of all qualities of lawful fractions of the whole?
I agree. Reality from the aspect of eternity, and reality from the aspect of duality are both true.

Dual aspect has a parallel in the theology of God who is both transcendent and immanent. I say that not for evidence but to illustrate dual aspect reality.

Nick_A
Posts: 3202
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Nick_A » Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:58 pm

Alex
Nick_A wrote: ↑

But why is this bad? What is so good about accepting oneself along with everyone else as an equal part of society

It is not bad at all as long as it doesn't define who you think you are. Once you accept that you are limited, isolated and lonely then this is how you will perceive the world and others around you - the world turns from heaven into hell in an instant.
It is thus really impossible to see anyone as equal if you perceive them (think of them) as being separated beings - if they are different they are not equal.
Tell me if you think the following explanation of the relationship between the exoteric, esoteric, and transcendent levels of reality is wrong.

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/

The idea here is that we live in the exoteric level of reality governed by imagination which is the same as Plato’s cave. The idea is that some can awaken to the madness of the world and strive through the esoteric practices to acquire the understanding, the being, of the transcendent level of reality. This is what attracted Simone. She was attracted to the infinity of the transcendent level or the origin of diverse opinions or partial truths humanity at the exoteric continually fight over. Rather than fighting over opinions she wanted to experience the origin of opinions.

A person has two options. They can imagine themselves as part of the great oneness or they can impartially witness that they also live in imagination so rather than being part of the grand collective, they can admit their nothingness and strive to grow to experience their being potential within the transcendent level of reality.

I’ve learned and have come to believe that one of the strongest motivating influences at the exoteric level of reality is the need for prestige. So regardless of all the talk of unity, in reality it isn’t wanted. People want prestige which is why they follow those who have it. Appreciation for higher values begins at the transcendent level which some like Simone are drawn to.

Jacob Needleman wrote: “Of course it had been stupid of me to express it in quite that way, but nevertheless the point was worth pondering: does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure? The history of religion in the west seems by and large to rest on the assumption that the answer is no. Therefore, externally induced emotions of egoistic fear (hellfire), anticipation of pleasure (heaven), vengeance, etc., have been marshaled to keep people in the faith.”

Part of what provides pleasure is prestige within Plato’s cave. The idea of oneness is pleasurable but practically it isn’t wanted. A true seeker of truth is willing to sacrifice pleasure in order to strive for the experience of the objective truth of the human condition as we struggle on in Plato’s cave. Their intent is to enter the transcendent level. Scaring people causes more harm than good. So IMO the only hope for collective Man rests with the awakening influence of the minority scorned by society because they are willing to struggle for truth at the expense of pleasure making them appear odd.

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm

AlexW wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:57 am
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
If I posit I exist, am I doing so from outside myself?
Haha... no! You cannot do anything from the outside simply because there is none.
I said: "By positing something exists you are doing so from a point of observation that is apparently outside A"
Meaning that this point of observation is not real - it is only an idea.
:D Oh I see. So if I posit that you exist, is the point outside of you real or not?
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
How does an object observe itself in order to know itself? How does "being" translate into "knowing"?
The only quality of infinity is knowing itself (well, its not a quality, knowing is what it is). It knows by being.
I'm not sure since I have to ask other people for an objective view of myself. In other words, I can't really know myself. I can only see reflections of myself from others.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
I think it means that it's void of relevance
Only to the dualistic mind because thought cant go there - you cannot think of something that is not an object. You can try to do just that by thinking of the unlimited, but you are still creating an object out of the non-objective.
If we can't go there, then how do we know it exists? I understand that there are no separate things or events, but I don't see how that implies infinity.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
The only ubiquitous thing I can conceive is that of nothingness, in infinite supply, yet no thing in existence is more more irrelevant than nothingness.
Yet it contains all (apparent) things...
Nothing contains everything. Now that's interesting! 8)
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
Yes but space only exists if there is a speed limit
Thats why there is no space in infinity. Space is mind-made.
And space (nothingness) is infinite so infinity is mind-made ;)
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:16 am
That means something is acting as resistance to slow us in some regard which produces the perspective that we know.
If you are asking me to guess what this magical thing slowing us down might be, I would answer: dualistic/relativistic thought
There is nothing else that could slow us down.
Here Don Lincoln says everything in the universe is traveling at one speed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2JCoIGyGxc

But things made of matter have some resistance to traveling through space, so their velocity is diverted through time. I'm not sure how dualistic thought is causing that. Anyway, how do we transcend dualistic thought and what is the benefit of doing so? Isn't that a state of nonexistence that undermines the purpose of the games we're playing here?

That's been my discovery of buddhism... you achieve a state of nonexistence and now what? Well, there's nothing to do but go back in the game. That's why they say there is nothing to realize: because the ultimate reality is nothing, but also because once you achieve it, you must go back where you started so there was nothing to realize in the first place. Any spiritual quest is spurious.

AlexW
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:29 am

Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
So if I posit that you exist, is the point outside of you real or not?
No point is outside the real and thus no point is outside of me - I AM is reality/truth/infinity (however you would like to call it).
That a statement could point outside reality - to something that is thought to be there - is not more than an idea.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
I'm not sure since I have to ask other people for an objective view of myself
The problem seems to be that you are mixing up relative and absolute points of view - this leads to confusion and makes no sense at all. Points of view only exists when approaching something from the relative aspect - from duality - there are no points of view when seen from the absolute/infinite.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
In other words, I can't really know myself
Not in duality - here you can only create a mental picture of what you think you are - this will always be changeable and thus ultimately wrong/illusory. But in reality you always only know yourself.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
If we can't go there, then how do we know it exists?
You are not what you think you are - at least not in reality - you seem to be what you think only in duality.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
I understand that there are no separate things or events, but I don't see how that implies infinity.
Infinity as we define it is again only an idea. We are talking about something that cannot be known by the split mind. You can only know it by being it (which you are).
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
Nothing contains everything.
Nothing and everything are concepts pointing to the same truth. It is not that one contains the other - there are no levels - no Russian dolls stacked into each other. Thats why I wrote "all (apparent) things"
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
And space (nothingness) is infinite so infinity is mind-made
Yes it is infinite, but this is true for all objects - even the cup on the desk in front of you is infinite - only the attributes you attach to it are mind-made. Remove all attributes and infinity shines without mind-made clothes (there is still the cup, but not separate from or in opposition to reality).
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
But things made of matter have some resistance to traveling through space, so their velocity is diverted through time. I'm not sure how dualistic thought is causing that.
I don't know either :-)
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
Anyway, how do we transcend dualistic thought and what is the benefit of doing so? Isn't that a state of nonexistence that undermines the purpose of the games we're playing here?
Dualistic thought is not the problem when applying it from the foundation of non-dual knowing. We don't have to get rid of all our understanding - we don't have to kill the mind and live the life of a vegetable. We only have to realise truth and play the game of duality accordingly. Humans act like soccer players who have forgotten they are actually playing in a team - each player thinks he is not only versing the team on the other side but also the other 10 players on his own side of the pitch. Wouldn't it be nice to see a fair game for a change? There can be fun, competition, winners and losers, but whats important is that we all know that this is only a game we play - its not real (only reality is real).
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
That's been my discovery of buddhism... you achieve a state of nonexistence and now what?
Its not about reaching a state of nonexistence. Its about knowing who you are (and as such knowing what truth is).
Now what... Take it back into the world and live accordingly.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
Well, there's nothing to do but go back in the game. That's why they say there is nothing to realize: because the ultimate reality is nothing, but also because once you achieve it, you must go back where you started so there was nothing to realize in the first place. Any spiritual quest is spurious.
Yes, and play it without fear, pain, depression, anxiety... enjoy it.
They only say there is nothing to realise because the the mind cant fathom it - reality is no-thing and thus nothing to the dualistic mind. But life is not happening in the mind - it is reality where life happens.
I don't agree that there is nothing to realise - the realisation of truth has major impacts on how we think and perceive and thus dualistic realisation/understanding is what follows from knowing/being truth.

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:29 am
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
So if I posit that you exist, is the point outside of you real or not?
No point is outside the real and thus no point is outside of me - I AM is reality/truth/infinity (however you would like to call it).
That a statement could point outside reality - to something that is thought to be there - is not more than an idea.
I define reality as the interaction between subject and object because there can be nothing known unless there is a knower and there can't be a knower unless there is a known. I'm sure you'll combine the two and say they are part of the same thing, but then that's nothing because plus + minus = 0. We can't have an experience without a dichotomy.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
I'm not sure since I have to ask other people for an objective view of myself
The problem seems to be that you are mixing up relative and absolute points of view - this leads to confusion and makes no sense at all. Points of view only exists when approaching something from the relative aspect - from duality - there are no points of view when seen from the absolute/infinite.
There is no such thing as an absolute point of view because it would have to be pinned to something for us to know where it is. Relative points are the only points that can exist. Likewise there is no such thing as objectivity since any observer would be a subject observing an object.

If there were only an object, but then the object decided to look at itself, the object would have to divide itself into a subject that can view the remaining part of the object and at that moment, reality is born. Infininty is born out of the split of the object because in order to view the subject, the subject would have to split itself into an object/subject pair and so on for ever. It's that circular observation that produces the illusion of infinity. Infinity is an artifact of reality and not fundamental to it.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
In other words, I can't really know myself
Not in duality - here you can only create a mental picture of what you think you are - this will always be changeable and thus ultimately wrong/illusory. But in reality you always only know yourself.
I'm not seeing what you're seeing lol
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
If we can't go there, then how do we know it exists?
You are not what you think you are - at least not in reality - you seem to be what you think only in duality.
That's because without duality, there is no reality.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
I understand that there are no separate things or events, but I don't see how that implies infinity.
Infinity as we define it is again only an idea. We are talking about something that cannot be known by the split mind. You can only know it by being it (which you are).
I'm down with being the whole universe, but I still don't see how that implies infinity. Rather it's the other way around... infinity is an artifact of trying to see myself (infinite regression).
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
Nothing contains everything.
Nothing and everything are concepts pointing to the same truth. It is not that one contains the other - there are no levels - no Russian dolls stacked into each other. Thats why I wrote "all (apparent) things"
Ok, so nothing contains the one thing. Clearly nothing is more ubiquitous than something.
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
And space (nothingness) is infinite so infinity is mind-made
Yes it is infinite, but this is true for all objects - even the cup on the desk in front of you is infinite - only the attributes you attach to it are mind-made. Remove all attributes and infinity shines without mind-made clothes (there is still the cup, but not separate from or in opposition to reality).
In what way is the cup infinite?
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
Anyway, how do we transcend dualistic thought and what is the benefit of doing so? Isn't that a state of nonexistence that undermines the purpose of the games we're playing here?
Dualistic thought is not the problem when applying it from the foundation of non-dual knowing. We don't have to get rid of all our understanding - we don't have to kill the mind and live the life of a vegetable. We only have to realise truth and play the game of duality accordingly. Humans act like soccer players who have forgotten they are actually playing in a team - each player thinks he is not only versing the team on the other side but also the other 10 players on his own side of the pitch. Wouldn't it be nice to see a fair game for a change? There can be fun, competition, winners and losers, but whats important is that we all know that this is only a game we play - its not real (only reality is real).
A fair game against who? There is only one player ;)
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
That's been my discovery of buddhism... you achieve a state of nonexistence and now what?
Its not about reaching a state of nonexistence. Its about knowing who you are (and as such knowing what truth is).
Now what... Take it back into the world and live accordingly.
Is there an objective truth?
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:40 pm
Well, there's nothing to do but go back in the game. That's why they say there is nothing to realize: because the ultimate reality is nothing, but also because once you achieve it, you must go back where you started so there was nothing to realize in the first place. Any spiritual quest is spurious.
Yes, and play it without fear, pain, depression, anxiety... enjoy it.
They only say there is nothing to realise because the the mind cant fathom it - reality is no-thing and thus nothing to the dualistic mind. But life is not happening in the mind - it is reality where life happens.
I don't agree that there is nothing to realise - the realisation of truth has major impacts on how we think and perceive and thus dualistic realisation/understanding is what follows from knowing/being truth.
I see this world existing because there is nothing to do without it. There is no existence without the duality. There is just an eternal now, which really sucks.

AlexW
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:56 am

Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
I'm sure you'll combine the two and say they are part of the same thing, but then that's nothing because plus + minus = 0.
Yes :-)
But we have to stop thinking about things - we are not combing things, not adding up plus and minus, but simply seeing through the belief that there are separate things in the first place. As long as you are trying to combine things with the aim to end up with the resulting no-thing then you are trying to reach infinity from the finite (which will not work).
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
There is no such thing as an absolute point of view
Agree
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
Relative points are the only points that can exist. Likewise there is no such thing as objectivity since any observer would be a subject observing an object.
Agree. The problem is that, even we understand this, we still argue about partial truths that only exist when seen from a relativistic position. It doesn't matter which position one takes - it will never be True. All positions are thus equally wrong (they seem to make sense and are more or less correct when viewed from a point of view, but never ulimately true). We can understand the fact applying (higher) reasoning but still we continue trying to make our point and get upset when somebody else has a different opinion... Isn't this madness?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
If there were only an object, but then the object decided to look at itself, the object would have to divide itself into a subject that can view the remaining part of the object and at that moment, reality is born
No, reality is not born from dualistic perception. Maybe your definition of reality is different to mine... If to you reality is the world of separate objects observed by an independent witness then you might be right, but this is what I see as the mind-made overlay to reality.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
Infinity is an artifact of reality and not fundamental to it.
No, infinity and reality are one and the same (it is not the same if you define reality as the universe of things).
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
It's that circular observation that produces the illusion of infinity.
There is no illusion of infinity - there is only the illusion of separation which is established by believing in artificial borders drawn up by the mind.
When you look at the cup on your desk you really see infinity, but you have learned to believe that you see an object separate from you. This is a wrong deduction. Trust your senses, they work perfectly fine, its only your interpretation that draws borders where there are none.
If you feel like it, try this simple exercise: Look at the cup and try to find the observer, then the border separating you (the observer) from the cup, then the object cup you are looking at. Do you find any objects in looking? Where do you find them? What do you find in pure looking (without listening to thought stories about looking)? See if you can answer your own question: "In what way is the cup infinite?"...
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
That's because without duality, there is no reality.
Without duality there is no objective reality. But reality is not objective.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
A fair game against who? There is only one player
True, so why would you cheat yourself into believing there are many?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
Is there an objective truth?
No. Truth is absolute/infinite/eternal... Partial truth seems to work in our relativistic view of the world - but it really doesn't as there are no different versions of truth. Still we believe our view of the world is truer than that of our neighbour and so look down on him and feel superior...
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
I see this world existing because there is nothing to do without it. There is no existence without the duality. There is just an eternal now, which really sucks.
Haha... thats funny. Lucky we have the belief in time, in the past, a mindset that makes the present barely perceivable and a bright ideas for the future so we can escape this uncomfortable NOW.

AlexW
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:15 am

Nick,

Intersting article - I especially like this part:
Once we identify any particular thought system, no matter how comprehensive, as the truth, then we have excluded other thought systems and denied the Truth its unity and its infinite possibilities for expression. The unity of Truth must therefore be a Transcendent Unity. “The fact that it is transcendent,” Smith writes, “means that it can be univocally described by none.” Thus, while there is one and only one Truth, there are many expressions of it.

I agree that there is only one truth (thinking otherwise just makes absolutely no sense) but a range of expressions of it. Ultimately everything (every perception) is an expression of truth - it is only the thought stories we subscribe to that try to modify and mould truth so it fits into a system of belief - this is where truth is lost (or rather veiled).
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:58 pm
Part of what provides pleasure is prestige within Plato’s cave
Yes, unfortunately humanity subscribes to this mad idea. I don't think it can be changed without uprooting the cause - our modern way of thinking.
To be someone in society you have to chase prestige - we are told it will make us happy... unfortunately it doesn't. It actually makes us unhappy, fearful (we might lose our precious ring of power and what are we without it...) and depressed.
Thats why we keep on accumulating even more prestige (maybe we just haven't compiled enough yet? but when we have more we will surely be happier!?!?) and so we dig a deeper and deeper hole for ourselves... time to stop digging, get a ladder (e.g. self inquiry), climb out and see the sun (sounds like Plato's cave after all).

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:56 am
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
I'm sure you'll combine the two and say they are part of the same thing, but then that's nothing because plus + minus = 0.
Yes :-)
But we have to stop thinking about things - we are not combing things, not adding up plus and minus, but simply seeing through the belief that there are separate things in the first place. As long as you are trying to combine things with the aim to end up with the resulting no-thing then you are trying to reach infinity from the finite (which will not work).
It's no problem for me to see that there are no separate things, but my problem is in understanding how that view necessitates infinity.

The revelation of the nondual comes with realizing that in order to have the saved, we need the damned. Other than that, I don't see a point to the melting away of reality.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
Relative points are the only points that can exist. Likewise there is no such thing as objectivity since any observer would be a subject observing an object.
Agree. The problem is that, even we understand this, we still argue about partial truths that only exist when seen from a relativistic position. It doesn't matter which position one takes - it will never be True. All positions are thus equally wrong (they seem to make sense and are more or less correct when viewed from a point of view, but never ulimately true). We can understand the fact applying (higher) reasoning but still we continue trying to make our point and get upset when somebody else has a different opinion... Isn't this madness?
Truth is relative by definition since there is no objective truth and it makes no sense to claim so. Truth is only applicable within a context. Whether or not it's hot in here depends on there being a here and someone to feel anything, so hotness is not an objective attribute that could exist, but is always a subjective interpretation. But that doesn't mean there is no truth or that subjective truth is any less valid. 2+2=4 is still valid within the context of math even though math doesn't exist.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
If there were only an object, but then the object decided to look at itself, the object would have to divide itself into a subject that can view the remaining part of the object and at that moment, reality is born
No, reality is not born from dualistic perception. Maybe your definition of reality is different to mine... If to you reality is the world of separate objects observed by an independent witness then you might be right, but this is what I see as the mind-made overlay to reality.
But the reality you're talking about can't be an experience because there is either no experiencer or nothing to experience. How can a singularity experience itself?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
Infinity is an artifact of reality and not fundamental to it.
No, infinity and reality are one and the same (it is not the same if you define reality as the universe of things).
I suspect you're simply defining that to be so rather than arriving at that conclusion deductively. Infinity is often employed as an explanation of the unexplainable because infinity cannot be understood.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
It's that circular observation that produces the illusion of infinity.
There is no illusion of infinity -
By definition infinity cannot be real because it is always unbounded, has no border, and can never be reached. Never means never. The idea of infinity comes from a camera looking at its own monitor which produces the infinite regression. There is no way you can see yourself just like teeth cannot bite themselves and a knife can't cut itself. I once told my buddies I has a dream about a cat with its head in its mouth and they laughed at me :lol:

I have 2 postulates for the universe: either it is simply having fun (no purpose) or it is trying to see itself, to realize what it is, and that can never be done. When we try to peer into the innerworkings or the quantum world, we're trying to look at ourselves and our own innerworkings, so we see causeless events as a result of that infinite regression of a camera trying look at itself through it's own monitor. That's where the idea of the infinite comes from: that circularity of self-inspection. Otherwise, it's fantasy because it's defined as something that can never exist. Perhaps, when "never" arrives, then the infinite will be real, but that can never happen.

Now I can agree that eternity is the absence of time and infinite space is the lack of anything, but all that is nothing. And in a state of nothingness, there is nothing to know, nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to see. What I can't imagine is infinite-something. Clearly there is not infinite matter because there exists places where there is not matter, and since there are places where more matter could fit, obviously matter is not infinite... and if it were infinite, it would be ubiquitous and therefore nothing.
there is only the illusion of separation which is established by believing in artificial borders drawn up by the mind.
I don't think that is the only illusion, but that is indeed an illusion.
When you look at the cup on your desk you really see infinity, but you have learned to believe that you see an object separate from you. This is a wrong deduction. Trust your senses, they work perfectly fine, its only your interpretation that draws borders where there are none.
I see what you mean, but not sure how it implies infinity. If the cup were infinite, it would not be part of me. On the other hand, if the cup is part of me, then fake-me + cup = me. The All could be a finite size and still produce the illusion of a smaller you and a cup within it. The All doesn't need to be infinite to make that happen.
If you feel like it, try this simple exercise: Look at the cup and try to find the observer, then the border separating you (the observer) from the cup, then the object cup you are looking at. Do you find any objects in looking?
Everything that I see is an object of my observation, and that includes deduction. I make no distinction between a priori and a posteriori. The one thing I cannot see is myself, but only effects of myself on the objects.
Where do you find them? What do you find in pure looking (without listening to thought stories about looking)? See if you can answer your own question: "In what way is the cup infinite?"...
Yes, yes I totally understand being one with the universe, but my objection is that the realization of that is a state of nonexistence. If you could really melt yourself into the universe and assimilate like the Borg on Star Trek and do everything subconsciously like Zen master recommend, then obviously you'd have no consciousness of it, at least not in any way other than being simply a cog in a process.

But as the great Sixth Patriarch of China pointed out, you must learn to distinguish between a living Buddha and a stone Buddha, because if a buddha was simply one who was not affected by anything, then lumps of wood and pieces of stone would be Buddhas. https://books.google.com/books?id=flUud ... od&f=false
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
That's because without duality, there is no reality.
Without duality there is no objective reality. But reality is not objective.
No it's subjective reality. There is no objective reality because there is no subject for it to be real to.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
A fair game against who? There is only one player
True, so why would you cheat yourself into believing there are many?
For fun; why else? ;) Gotta make it believable too... can't just pretend I'm 2 soccer teams. I think the Hindus have it right.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
Is there an objective truth?
No. Truth is absolute/infinite/eternal...
Objective is absolute. It's the same question.
Partial truth seems to work in our relativistic view of the world - but it really doesn't as there are no different versions of truth.
If there is an absolute truth, then we can never know it. I guess that's an absolute statement of absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, but it's up to you to believe or not and is still subject to your subjective interpretation of my assertion which makes it not an absolute statement because I do not have absolute authority to issue absolute truths.

Absolute truth depends upon an absolute authority.
Still we believe our view of the world is truer than that of our neighbour and so look down on him and feel superior...
And therein lies the problem. The sin the garden wasn't suddenly coming into possession of the knowledge of good and evil, but in presuming that we could know the difference (ie objective truth exists). That's the sin of arrogance, which is the only sin. Therefore all religion is counter-productive, even the religion of no-religion.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:05 am
I see this world existing because there is nothing to do without it. There is no existence without the duality. There is just an eternal now, which really sucks.
Haha... thats funny. Lucky we have the belief in time, in the past, a mindset that makes the present barely perceivable and a bright ideas for the future so we can escape this uncomfortable NOW.
Yup, I'll drink to that! :D

Nice convo! Hopefully we can keep it up because, what else do you have to do for all eternity? ;)

AlexW
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:11 am

Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
But the reality you're talking about can't be an experience because there is either no experiencer or nothing to experience. How can a singularity experience itself?
It don't know how it can but it apparently does... If you look at your own direct experience you will never find an experiencer and you also wont find any separate objects that you experience. The reality I am taking about is always here/now, in front of your very eyes NOW, yet you believe in thought stories about reality rather than really looking at it.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
I suspect you're simply defining that to be so rather than arriving at that conclusion deductively. Infinity is often employed as an explanation of the unexplainable because infinity cannot be understood.
You can arrive at this conclusion in multiple ways and one of them is honest deduction - not conditioned thinking - based on your direct experience of the world and yourself. If there are no borders anywhere, if all that (apparently) separates is thought, then how would you call this thing you have found? I call it infinity/reality. It is not a thing, but it for sure IS and as there is absolutely nothing between it and me...
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
By definition infinity cannot be real because it is always unbounded, has no border, and can never be reached
True, it cannot be reached by dualistic thinking - if you believe that reality can be found in thought then, from your point of view, you seem to be right. As I see it, it is exactly the other way round - only the limitless can be real. Everything that is limited is only so because you (thought) made it so. But wishful thinking doesn't create reality (what it does is create a belief of how reality should be)
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
That's where the idea of the infinite comes from: that circularity of self-inspection
The way you define infinity, it requires two separate points of view to create an infinite regression, but this is not what infinity is. There are no separate objects looking at each other.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Otherwise, it's fantasy because it's defined as something that can never exist. Perhaps, when "never" arrives, then the infinite will be real, but that can never happen.
I find it even more fantastic that it is possible to believe in separation - something that acquired, conditioned thought tells us and that we now take for reality. Does something have to be fantasy only because it doesn't exist in your belief system? Or is it more likely that the belief system itself is fantasy?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Now I can agree that eternity is the absence of time and infinite space is the lack of anything, but all that is nothing. And in a state of nothingness, there is nothing to know, nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to see.
No, this is again only your idea of infinity/eternity. Yes, infinity is no thing, but it is not nothing (i.e. like empty space) - it is full of being/knowing.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
What I can't imagine is infinite-something.
Do you have to imagine it? Is something only real when you can imagine it? What if all imagination is just what the word implies: the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses
What if no objects are EVER present to the senses and you (mind) are making it all up?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
I see what you mean, but not sure how it implies infinity. If the cup were infinite...
Thats exactly it... IF the cup where XYZ... The question is: Is there a cup at all? What tells you there is one? vs What does direct seeing reveal?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Everything that I see is an object of my observation, and that includes deduction. I make no distinction between a priori and a posteriori. The one thing I cannot see is myself, but only effects of myself on the objects.
This is not what direct experience/seeing reveals, is it? Does seeing say this is an object? Does it know observation? Does it deduct? Does it separate between me and cup? What is the most basic essence (before thought says such and such)?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Yes, yes I totally understand being one with the universe, but my objection is that the realization of that is a state of nonexistence. If you could really melt yourself into the universe and assimilate like the Borg on Star Trek and do everything subconsciously like Zen master recommend, then obviously you'd have no consciousness of it, at least not in any way other than being simply a cog in a process.
Love the above - The Borg Zen Master - sounds like a fun movie.
But, no, this is not what I believe anyone should be aiming for. All we need to know is reality (and thus ourselves) and from then on everything else will sort itself out perfectly fine.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
But as the great Sixth Patriarch of China pointed out, you must learn to distinguish between a living Buddha and a stone Buddha, because if a buddha was simply one who was not affected by anything, then lumps of wood and pieces of stone would be Buddhas
Fully agree. This is not an exercise in removing all emotions and turning into a robot. It is quite the opposite. The more you see that everything that happens actually happens to You, the more you will get involved in the world.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Absolute truth depends upon an absolute authority.
But they are not different. This authority is the absolute itself.
I understand that our way of thinking makes it hard, nearly impossible to accept that there is something we cannot think of but that still IS. How could that be? It would mean we are maybe not even who we think we are... what an impossibility!
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Nice convo! Hopefully we can keep it up because, what else do you have to do for all eternity?
Well, I could watch some soccer on TV and find out if there are really two teams playing
Then again, knowing its only me playing takes the excitement out of the game... so I write this post to myself :-)

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:12 pm

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:11 am
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
But the reality you're talking about can't be an experience because there is either no experiencer or nothing to experience. How can a singularity experience itself?
It don't know how it can but it apparently does... If you look at your own direct experience you will never find an experiencer
Because a singularity cannot find itself; not necessarily because the singularity doesn't exist.
and you also wont find any separate objects that you experience.

Well if there are no objects to be experienced and there is no experiencer, then there is no experience and therefore no reality.
The reality I am taking about is always here/now, in front of your very eyes NOW, yet you believe in thought stories about reality rather than really looking at it.
"Thinking is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas." Goethe.

I don't make distinctions between what I'm "really looking at" and my "thought stories" because it's all an experience that I observe. How can I abandon reason in favor of this view you're purporting if any evidence supporting it is also a "thought story"?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
I suspect you're simply defining that to be so rather than arriving at that conclusion deductively. Infinity is often employed as an explanation of the unexplainable because infinity cannot be understood.
You can arrive at this conclusion in multiple ways and one of them is honest deduction - not conditioned thinking - based on your direct experience of the world and yourself. If there are no borders anywhere,

I'm not entirely sure of that. There are things, but not separate things. There are borders, but the borders are shared.
if all that (apparently) separates is thought, then how would you call this thing you have found? I call it infinity/reality. It is not a thing, but it for sure IS and as there is absolutely nothing between it and me...
If there is no border containing anything, then there is nothing there to call anything. A thing needs a contrast of what it is not in order to be a thing and have a name. Infinite things cannot be things.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
By definition infinity cannot be real because it is always unbounded, has no border, and can never be reached
True, it cannot be reached by dualistic thinking -
Dualistic thinking is logic: true/false. I don't know how to think in any other way.
1) As I see it, it is exactly the other way round - only the limitless can be real.

2) Everything that is limited is only so because you (thought) made it so.

3) But wishful thinking doesn't create reality (what it does is create a belief of how reality should be)
Only the limitless can be real and the basis for believing that is because logical thinking cuts reality into pieces, so we postulate logic to be incorrect (somehow without using logic) and because logic incorrectly cuts reality into pieces, then the continuum must be infinite and all this is not wishful thinking nor is it logical. Is that correct?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
That's where the idea of the infinite comes from: that circularity of self-inspection
The way you define infinity, it requires two separate points of view to create an infinite regression, but this is not what infinity is. There are no separate objects looking at each other.
Point a camera at its own monitor. How are there 2 points of view?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Otherwise, it's fantasy because it's defined as something that can never exist. Perhaps, when "never" arrives, then the infinite will be real, but that can never happen.
I find it even more fantastic that it is possible to believe in separation - something that acquired, conditioned thought tells us and that we now take for reality. Does something have to be fantasy only because it doesn't exist in your belief system? Or is it more likely that the belief system itself is fantasy?
Lack of separation doesn't necessitate infinity. If the universe is like a finite bubble in a sea of infinite nothingness, then the outside skin of the universe is the shared boundary between something and nothing, but there is no outside because there is nothing there.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Now I can agree that eternity is the absence of time and infinite space is the lack of anything, but all that is nothing. And in a state of nothingness, there is nothing to know, nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to see.
No, this is again only your idea of infinity/eternity. Yes, infinity is no thing, but it is not nothing (i.e. like empty space) - it is full of being/knowing.
Empty space is lack of anything. It is not the same as the spacetime fabric. There cannot be infinite spacetime, but only infinite emptiness.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
What I can't imagine is infinite-something.
Do you have to imagine it? Is something only real when you can imagine it?
Well, can you imagine a 4-sided triangle? That is the same as infinite-something. If it can't be imagined, then it can't be real since reality is defined as the interaction between subject and object.
What if all imagination is just what the word implies: the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses
What if no objects are EVER present to the senses and you (mind) are making it all up?
Then I've created reality. Every organism creates reality in its own image. Birds can see in tetrachromatic. Can you imagine what ultra-orange looks like? Birds can see it, but it doesn't exist to us.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
I see what you mean, but not sure how it implies infinity. If the cup were infinite...
Thats exactly it... IF the cup where XYZ... The question is: Is there a cup at all? What tells you there is one? vs What does direct seeing reveal?
You said there was a cup. And then you said the cup is infinite.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Everything that I see is an object of my observation, and that includes deduction. I make no distinction between a priori and a posteriori. The one thing I cannot see is myself, but only effects of myself on the objects.
This is not what direct experience/seeing reveals, is it? Does seeing say this is an object?
Seeing is not necessarily the same as observation or experience. I can see what you're saying (seeing = understanding) that seeing is the perception of electromagnetic waves (seeing = perception). Experience is reality and seeing is one avenue to an experience.
Does it know observation? Does it deduct? Does it separate between me and cup? What is the most basic essence (before thought says such and such)?
Consciousness is the basic essence because nothing can engender it.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Yes, yes I totally understand being one with the universe, but my objection is that the realization of that is a state of nonexistence. If you could really melt yourself into the universe and assimilate like the Borg on Star Trek and do everything subconsciously like Zen master recommend, then obviously you'd have no consciousness of it, at least not in any way other than being simply a cog in a process.
Love the above - The Borg Zen Master - sounds like a fun movie.
But, no, this is not what I believe anyone should be aiming for. All we need to know is reality (and thus ourselves) and from then on everything else will sort itself out perfectly fine.
But that's the problem: we can never know ourselves.

There are times when all the world's asleep
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
Please tell me who I am


Awesome song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQfjIw3mivc
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
But as the great Sixth Patriarch of China pointed out, you must learn to distinguish between a living Buddha and a stone Buddha, because if a buddha was simply one who was not affected by anything, then lumps of wood and pieces of stone would be Buddhas
Fully agree. This is not an exercise in removing all emotions and turning into a robot. It is quite the opposite. The more you see that everything that happens actually happens to You, the more you will get involved in the world.
That's futilism. If things happen to you, then you are the passive thing being kicked around by everything else. In Buddhism, futilism is transcended by realizing that there is no you to be kicked around, there is just the process. And as I said, that's a state of nonexistence. At least in futilism, there is someone existing, albeit he has no control over anything and just floats with the currents, which isn't much of an existence, but it is at least an existence.
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Absolute truth depends upon an absolute authority.
But they are not different. This authority is the absolute itself.
I understand that our way of thinking makes it hard, nearly impossible to accept that there is something we cannot think of but that still IS. How could that be? It would mean we are maybe not even who we think we are... what an impossibility!
Well yes, you have to postulate this idea by authority because you assert there can be no evidence for it because logic itself and all deduction and empiricism are illusions and I've been asking why we should hold this belief, especially since nothing can be gained by doing so. Why not, instead, believe in the old benevolent bearded gentleman in the sky for whom there can also be no evidence?
Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:14 am
Nice convo! Hopefully we can keep it up because, what else do you have to do for all eternity?
Well, I could watch some soccer on TV and find out if there are really two teams playing
Then again, knowing its only me playing takes the excitement out of the game... so I write this post to myself :-)
Talking to yourself is the first sign of craziness :D How am I doing today?

I woke up this mornin' with the sundown shinin' in
I found my mind in a brown paper bag, but then...
I tripped on a cloud and fell eight miles high
I tore my mind on a jagged sky
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhOKhJaM1QE

AlexW
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:10 am

Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:12 pm
Talking to yourself is the first sign of craziness How am I doing today?
I think you are in fine form - doing great!

Let me compress our discussion a little bit as otherwise we end up with posts that become impossible to manage.
If you don't mind I would like to zoom in on your camera-monitor as well as the 2+2=4 examples.

You stated that the regression a camera looking at a monitor creates can be seen as the basis for the idea of infinity.
While this sounds reasonable you are overlooking that in a finite system - to which the camera and monitor obviously belong (otherwise infinity would already be present even before the regression) - everything is by definition finite. That includes the resolution of the camera as well as the screen. The regression as such cannot create infinity, but the regression will end when the resolution is exhausted. One single pixel of a certain color will thus be the end of the regression - infinity can as such never be reached from a limited system (and even the idea of infinity is wrong as it is based on the false assumption that an infinite regression can be created in a finite system).

The 2+2=4 example seems to work better than the camera-monitor example. Positive integers range from 1 to infinity and thus the (idea of the) system itself is built in the foundation of infinity. To make a system based on the infinite applicable in duality (our way of thinking) we have to introduce a basic error - we have to cut up infinity into slices of ones. Now we suddenly have an infinite system apparently containing an infinite number of discrete parts called one and we postulate that by adding up all available ones we reach infinity. Voila, the mistake has been made and from now on we conveniently ignore the far away destination of infinity and busy ourselves with adding up its (imaginary) parts.
In infinity 1+1 can never be 2, it always has to be 1 due to the fact that, in an infinite system, all (apparent) parts are as well infinite. Adding up infinities will not generate more infinity: One_Infinity + One_Infinity = Infinity, no matter how many 1+1=2 or 2+2=4 we postulate and apply in our relativistic way of thinking.

While this is how infinity works, the idea of being able to cut up infinity is very handy to solve every-day problems. It is great that we can use this system of thought, but I believe it would be even better if we would include its foundation into our understanding of reality. Once we understand that all separate entities, all ones and twos are not really limited, that each of these labels point to infinity and that all parts actually are infinity, our dualistic mode of thinking opens up to allow the non-dual to enter our system of thought.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: odysseus and 3 guests