Back to Infinity

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Nick_A »

Hi Alex
Unfortunately nothing and everything are both members of the non-dual family of infinity and thus again point back to eternal and infinite being.
Back at the start of our relativistic journey we feel exhausted and thus, eventually, we give in — but now we finally understand that infinity is more than just a very big number. It is what we are — it is, no doubt, what we have to be! God, who we thought to be infinitely far away, is actually infinitely close, yes, inseparable from ourselves. It is our essence just like we are each other’s essence. Being infinite, you and I are truly one.
Yes we have different perspectives but that’s OK; after all we’re not married. :) But let me ask a simple question so as to better understand the the basis of your philosophy.

"Man - a being in search of meaning." – Plato

If I understand you correctly you believe that the need for meaning only arises because whatever is real in us has forgotten we are really part of oneness and do not exist in separation.

Do you believe what I perceive as the functioning universe and the process of existence has an objective purpose? Does Man have an objective purpose or is the need for the experience of objective meaning and purpose merely an illusion along with the belief in a functioning universe of integrated parts since we are oneness?
Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper »

AlexW wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:10 am Let me compress our discussion a little bit as otherwise we end up with posts that become impossible to manage.
Oh good, I'm glad you took the initiative :D
If you don't mind I would like to zoom in on your camera-monitor as well as the 2+2=4 examples.
Sure, I encourage you to refer to the tape as much as you like ;)
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).
Yes, that's the finite reality of it as there is no evidence of the infinite in reality, but theoretically or mathematically if X were to divide itself in half in order to inspect one half of itself at a time, then we'd have x/2 + x/4 + x/8 + x/16 + ..... forever, which converges, but never reaches X. Of course, as you pointed out, we can never reach either infinity nor a picture of X in totality because we'll eventually find a pixel (or quanti) that cannot be split. And that's why an object cannot observe itself.

Another way to look at the problem is to make an observation, but by doing so we affect what we are observing because, afterall, we are part of the same continuum. So we observe X, but because we are part of X, we actually observe X+N and in our efforts to account for N in order to observe X, we'll arrive at something like this: X + N - N/2 - N/4 - N/8 - .... forever, which converges on X, but never arrives.

The idea of infinity is born out of circularity. A circle with infinite diameter is an infinitely long straight line with zero curvature. All infinities are in fact loops that connect in reality. Actually, the circle doesn't need to be infinite, but merely big enough that curvature is zero as far as it's physically possible to determine from within the universe due to the planck scale (or whatever limiting factor exists on the infinitesimal). A few orders of dark numbers ought to suffice just fine.

I postulate that there are no such things as straight lines, but loops instead. I also postulate there are no such things as true circles, but polygons comprised of very minute segments which seem very much insignificant, but meaningful enough to make PI not infinite in reality.

Any time infinity pops up, you've either done something wrong or you're going in circles.
Positive integers range from 1 to infinity and thus the (idea of the) system itself is built in the foundation of infinity.

That's only true within the context of math. In reality, we cannot go beyond "dark numbers" which are numbers that are too big to be represented even when written on the planck scale within the universe.
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.
Duality is what defines the number in the first place. 1 is 1 because it is not not-one (- -1 = +1). Every number has a pair (1-1, 2-2, 3-3) except zero, which is paired with infinity because what is infinitely big is not what is infinitely small (zero).

Further, when you say we have to cut infinity into pieces, that's a little ambiguous because which infinity do you mean? If you say 1 is distinct from 2 because we've dissected them from an infinite continuum, do you mean we've distinguished them from the infinite set (1,2,3,4,5...) or the infinite numbers that lie between 1 and 2? There are infinite numbers between 1 and 2 alone without needing to go higher. There are several orders of infinity within mathematics, so which infinity are you referring to?
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.
But you could make the same argument with a finite line. Assuming 1 is a dimensionless point on the number line continuum, then any dimensionless point on any finite line will be a member of a set of infinite points. A finite line 1 inch long contains infinite zero-size points. Therefore the argument of splitting a continuum into bits does not necessitate infinity since a finite thing does not need to be infinitely big to have infinite zero-size parts.

This is why I do not understand how you jump from "no separate things" to "therefore infinity". Why not a finite continuum?
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.

I don't understand what "In infinity" means nor how 1+1=1
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW »

Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:43 am And that's why an object cannot observe itself.
Agree - but the observer is not an object.
Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:43 am The idea of infinity is born out of circularity
...
I don't understand what "In infinity" means nor how 1+1=1
All we can talk about are concepts and none of these concepts can truthfully define it. The word is not the thing and this is true for all labels and concepts. They are all only descriptive and as such not reality. Truth/reality can only be found once we transcend all concepts (including definitions like circularity) and know infinity directly. Direct knowing of infinity leaves no room for mistakes - there is no doubt in the knowing as it is unmediated, doesn't need conceptualising and is simply known by being.
You knew infinity/reality as it is before you learned how to extract things out of the whole - maybe now that you have compiled all this knowledge, the infinity/reality I am referring to is not the same thing you attempt to conceptualise using ideas like circularity - actually it cannot be the same as what you are referring to remains in the realm of ideas whereas I am talking about *this that is*, which I label using the word infinity (as it seems to fit very well).
I am trying to describe it so it fits into your way of thinking, but a concept is not it and as such I am really only trying to push you into a logical void that results in the mind giving up - the waves finally subside and you see the ocean...
Stating that 1+1=1 is and attempt to achieve the above in a fairly simple, conceptual way. Well... doesn't always work :-)
Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper »

AlexW wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:25 am
Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:43 am And that's why an object cannot observe itself.
Agree - but the observer is not an object.
Ok, but a subject (observer) cannot be object to itself.
All we can talk about are concepts and none of these concepts can truthfully define it. The word is not the thing and this is true for all labels and concepts. They are all only descriptive and as such not reality. Truth/reality can only be found once we transcend all concepts (including definitions like circularity) and know infinity directly. Direct knowing of infinity leaves no room for mistakes - there is no doubt in the knowing as it is unmediated, doesn't need conceptualising and is simply known by being.
I can get down with that somewhat. Dionysus the Areopagite said, "if anybody, having seen God, understood what he had seen, what he would have seen would not have been God, but some creature of God less than God; some sort of angel or something like that."

What you're referring to is "agnosia" the "non-conceptual knowledge" or Nirvikalpa Samadhi, Neti Neti (not this, not this).

Here is my painstaking transcription of an Alan Watts presentation on the subject http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p2697490
You knew infinity/reality as it is before you learned how to extract things out of the whole - maybe now that you have compiled all this knowledge, the infinity/reality I am referring to is not the same thing you attempt to conceptualise using ideas like circularity - actually it cannot be the same as what you are referring to remains in the realm of ideas whereas I am talking about *this that is*, which I label using the word infinity (as it seems to fit very well).
Why not use "Tat Tvam Asi"? (That thou art)
I am trying to describe it so it fits into your way of thinking, but a concept is not it and as such I am really only trying to push you into a logical void that results in the mind giving up - the waves finally subside and you see the ocean...
Stating that 1+1=1 is and attempt to achieve the above in a fairly simple, conceptual way. Well... doesn't always work :-)
A painter applies paint to canvas, but a sculptor removes stone to reveal art. I suppose either way, applying or removing, work just fine.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW »

Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:19 pm Ok, but a subject (observer) cannot be object to itself.
True - thats why subjects only sees subject (itself) - it doesn't know objects.
Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:19 pm Here is my painstaking transcription of an Alan Watts presentation on the subject
Very interesting - thank you.
I don't agree with the first sentence in that "Faith is non-conceptual knowledge"
Faith can lead to non-conceptual knowledge, but itself is still conceptual. It is one path and will be discarded once knowledge dawns.
There is no more faith required once you know.
Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:19 pm Why not use "Tat Tvam Asi"? (That thou art)
Yes, why not.
Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:19 pm A painter applies paint to canvas, but a sculptor removes stone to reveal art. I suppose either way, applying or removing, work just fine.
True. I personally followed the way of the sculptor. Removing everything until no conceptual foothold remains... I find it is the quicker, straightforward path to realisation - removing (seeing through) most concepts is not even the hardest thing, the biggest blockage are expectations - what should happen once the magic happens... Too many glowing reports of mystical experiences have been written, making it more difficult for the seeker rather than easier. One expects a major trip, a drifting away of all perception while knowledge of god fills your being... While such experiences happen they are not really helpful. Seeing the whole, infinity, god... in normal reality is what is required, only then can this knowledge be translated into everyday living.
Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper »

AlexW wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:49 am
Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:19 pm Ok, but a subject (observer) cannot be object to itself.
True - thats why subjects only sees subject (itself) - it doesn't know objects.
A subject is a point that views the object which is another point. We can't draw a line of sight from and to the same point. That is why a subject cannot view itself.
Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:19 pm Here is my painstaking transcription of an Alan Watts presentation on the subject
Very interesting - thank you.
I don't agree with the first sentence in that "Faith is non-conceptual knowledge"
Faith can lead to non-conceptual knowledge, but itself is still conceptual. It is one path and will be discarded once knowledge dawns.
There is no more faith required once you know.
Faith is the nonconceptual knowledge for how to open and close your hand; you can't explain in words or concepts how you do it, but you just do it. Faith is not choosing to believe something by brute force determination.
Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:19 pm Why not use "Tat Tvam Asi"? (That thou art)
Yes, why not.
Well, it sounds cool 8)
Serendipper wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:19 pm A painter applies paint to canvas, but a sculptor removes stone to reveal art. I suppose either way, applying or removing, work just fine.
True. I personally followed the way of the sculptor. Removing everything until no conceptual foothold remains... I find it is the quicker, straightforward path to realisation - removing (seeing through) most concepts is not even the hardest thing, the biggest blockage are expectations - what should happen once the magic happens... Too many glowing reports of mystical experiences have been written, making it more difficult for the seeker rather than easier. One expects a major trip, a drifting away of all perception while knowledge of god fills your being... While such experiences happen they are not really helpful. Seeing the whole, infinity, god... in normal reality is what is required, only then can this knowledge be translated into everyday living.
I still don't know how you're getting infinity :lol:
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW »

Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:31 am Faith is the nonconceptual knowledge
It's funny, I've just had a discussion with someone who has the same definition for "faith" - we came to the conclusion that we both use different words for pointing to "non-conceptual knowledge". I would rather call it truth, reality, absolute, infinity etc... but, for me, faith has the taint of mind-made belief, which doesn't work well, but it really doesn't matter - we can call it "faith", as long as it is non-conceptual knowledge we are talking about - so, yes I agree :-)
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:31 am A subject is a point that views the object which is another point. We can't draw a line of sight from and to the same point. That is why a subject cannot view itself.
This is only true in the way we conventionally define seeing - pure, uninterpreted seeing is different - it knows nothing of subjects or objects, no line of sight, no distance, no points
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:31 am I still don't know how you're getting infinity
Infinity is a label for what you refer to as faith (another label), the direct knowing that IS now. If something has no borders and no limits then I would define it as infinite.
Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper »

AlexW wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:20 am
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:31 am Faith is the nonconceptual knowledge
It's funny, I've just had a discussion with someone who has the same definition for "faith" - we came to the conclusion that we both use different words for pointing to "non-conceptual knowledge". I would rather call it truth, reality, absolute, infinity etc... but, for me, faith has the taint of mind-made belief, which doesn't work well, but it really doesn't matter - we can call it "faith", as long as it is non-conceptual knowledge we are talking about - so, yes I agree :-)
I think the difference is when you have faith, you do not think about it. When you stand up in preparation to walk across the floor, you don't chew your nails in hopeful consideration that you can manage the task, you simply walk. So it's quite opposite of mind-made and more like instinct. Perhaps a tightrope between two building would be another matter, then you'd hope you could make it without falling, but you wouldn't have faith unless the rope no more of a concern than the floor.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:31 am A subject is a point that views the object which is another point. We can't draw a line of sight from and to the same point. That is why a subject cannot view itself.
This is only true in the way we conventionally define seeing - pure, uninterpreted seeing is different - it knows nothing of subjects or objects, no line of sight, no distance, no points
If all that is true, then whatever it is that is one thing cannot look at itself because: no line of sight, no distance, no points.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:31 am I still don't know how you're getting infinity
Infinity is a label for what you refer to as faith (another label), the direct knowing that IS now. If something has no borders and no limits then I would define it as infinite.
But if it has no borders or limits then it's not a thing to be defined and the only thing it can be is nothing.

It's not infinite time, but lack of time. There are no borders because there is nothing there to have a border, not because it's infinite. But if there exists anything, it does have to have borders and cannot be infinite.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW »

Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:21 am If all that is true, then whatever it is that is one thing cannot look at itself because: no line of sight, no distance, no points.
Lets try it like this:
When you dream at night you walk across floors, maybe even tightropes, you look at people and the world just like you do right now. The dream seems to be real. There seems to be a line of sight, there seems to be distance and there seem to be specific points.
There are also people, characters, present that apparently move in this dream just like normal people in the real world. But I guess you agree that the characters populating your dreams are not really independent subjects looking at objects, right? I guess you also agree that there really is no distance or line of sight in a dream...
Now... what is it that is looking through your eyes within the dream? What sees the dream? And what is this no-thing looking at when it sees other people, objects and the world?
What if the exact same no-thing is looking at the computer screen that is in front of you right now?
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:21 am But if it has no borders or limits then it's not a thing to be defined and the only thing it can be is nothing.
Agree, it is not a thing, you could even call it nothing, but this nothing contains/is all (apparent) things.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:21 am It's not infinite time, but lack of time
Lack of time and infinite time is the same - whatever idea/concept/object merges with infinity (becomes infinite) automatically loses its meaning - if it has no meaning it vanishes as an object (which is only an idea) - no meaning or quality means no object
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:21 am There are no borders because there is nothing there to have a border, not because it's infinite. But if there exists anything, it does have to have borders and cannot be infinite.
Exactly, there is nothing there to have a border. Why? Not because there is nothing there, but because borders exist only as ideas. What is there is reality, this very experience. Is this nothing? Are you nothing?
Just because you have no borders doesn't mean you are nothing.
Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper »

AlexW wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:49 am
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:21 am If all that is true, then whatever it is that is one thing cannot look at itself because: no line of sight, no distance, no points.
Lets try it like this:
When you dream at night you walk across floors, maybe even tightropes, you look at people and the world just like you do right now. The dream seems to be real. There seems to be a line of sight, there seems to be distance and there seem to be specific points.
There are also people, characters, present that apparently move in this dream just like normal people in the real world. But I guess you agree that the characters populating your dreams are not really independent subjects looking at objects, right? I guess you also agree that there really is no distance or line of sight in a dream...
Now... what is it that is looking through your eyes within the dream? What sees the dream? And what is this no-thing looking at when it sees other people, objects and the world?
What if the exact same no-thing is looking at the computer screen that is in front of you right now?
I can see all that without also seeing myself. If I dream of myself looking at myself, I'm not really looking at myself.

Listen to this (and try to ignore the music) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu5oaty0uJM

Why don’t you really know what you want?

Two reasons that you don’t really know what you want:

#1 You have it.

#2 You don’t know yourself, because you never can.

The Godhead is never an object of it’s own knowledge. Just as a knife doesn’t cut itself, fire doesn’t burn itself, light doesn’t illumine itself. It’s always an endless mystery to itself. I don’t know…


The one thing God cannot know is himself.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:21 am But if it has no borders or limits then it's not a thing to be defined and the only thing it can be is nothing.
Agree, it is not a thing, you could even call it nothing, but this nothing contains/is all (apparent) things.
I don't understand why, whatever this thing is, it cannot have a border. If it contains things, then it is a thing and has a border.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:21 am It's not infinite time, but lack of time
Lack of time and infinite time is the same - whatever idea/concept/object merges with infinity (becomes infinite) automatically loses its meaning - if it has no meaning it vanishes as an object (which is only an idea) - no meaning or quality means no object
That infinity and loss of meaning is just an artifact of a singularity recursively trying to look at itself. Just as you cannot find your own ego and as soon as you try, it immediately identifies as a higher self.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:21 am There are no borders because there is nothing there to have a border, not because it's infinite. But if there exists anything, it does have to have borders and cannot be infinite.
Exactly, there is nothing there to have a border. Why? Not because there is nothing there, but because borders exists only as ideas. What is there is reality, this very experience. Is this nothing? Are you nothing?
Just because you have no borders doesn't mean you are nothing.
I'm ok with having borders. Why are you not? I don't understand why you're adamant about tearing down the walls? Good fences make good neighbors ;)
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW »

Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am The one thing God cannot know is himself.
I see it exactly the other way round - all God knows is himself.
God (or whatever other term) is pure knowing - it is what God is. How could he not know himself if there is only knowing (the of itself is redundant).
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am I don't understand why, whatever this thing is, it cannot have a border. If it contains things, then it is a thing and has a border.
It doesn't contain things - it contains ideas of things. Ideas don't have real borders - only made up ones.
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am Just as you cannot find your own ego
You can not find your own ego as it is only a collection of thoughts - it is, as such, not a thing, but only an idea. All you can really ever find is the no-thing that you are. You don't even have to go out looking for it as every experience IS it - it is the pure knowing that IS experience. The only thing that it is not are the ideas/illusions that we believe in about this experience - they are what seems to create an ego, borders, really all conceptual structures.
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am I'm ok with having borders. Why are you not?
If you know that something is simply not true would you continue believing it?
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am I don't understand why you're adamant about tearing down the walls? Good fences make good neighbors
I am not trying to tear down any walls as there are none in the first place - I am trying to make you see that your walls are all mind-made.
Good fences make enemies, not good neighbours.
Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Serendipper »

AlexW wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:17 am
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am The one thing God cannot know is himself.
I see it exactly the other way round - all God knows is himself.
God (or whatever other term) is pure knowing - it is what God is. How could he not know himself if there is only knowing (the of itself is redundant).
Well, nothing could be known unless there was something unknown. God couldn't exist unless there was something not-god. God couldn't know he existed unless there was something that was not-god that would indicate he is an entity distinct from the thing that is not-god. The only thing god could know about himself is what effect he produces on the thing that is not-god.

The vexation of man is succinctly summarized as the desire to have all white and no black; all good and no evil; all known and no unknown. It's the eternal problem of trying to bite your own teeth and it seems that this desire to have a nondual solution of all-god and no not-god is just another manifestation of splitting duality in half. Existence is not abstract, but relational. If god exists, then he exists in relation to something and not in abstraction.
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am I don't understand why, whatever this thing is, it cannot have a border. If it contains things, then it is a thing and has a border.
It doesn't contain things - it contains ideas of things. Ideas don't have real borders - only made up ones.
Ideas have borders or else we couldn't know what the idea is not.
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am Just as you cannot find your own ego
You can not find your own ego as it is only a collection of thoughts - it is, as such, not a thing, but only an idea. All you can really ever find is the no-thing that you are. You don't even have to go out looking for it as every experience IS it - it is the pure knowing that IS experience. The only thing that it is not are the ideas/illusions that we believe in about this experience - they are what seems to create an ego, borders, really all conceptual structures.
Something has to produce those thoughts, but the thing that produces the thoughts also produces the ego and therefore one cannot find the other because they are produced by the same thing.
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am I'm ok with having borders. Why are you not?
If you know that something is simply not true would you continue believing it?
No
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:56 am I don't understand why you're adamant about tearing down the walls? Good fences make good neighbors
I am not trying to tear down any walls as there are none in the first place - I am trying to make you see that your walls are all mind-made.
If that were true, then you wouldn't have to try because I would already know what you know, but clearly there is a wall separating what is you from what is me and neither of us could exist if it weren't so.
Good fences make enemies, not good neighbours.
“I have found out that there ain’t no surer way to find out whether you like people or hate them than to travel with them.” – Mark Twain

Put two people in a car for long enough time and they'll be at each other's throats. Everyone needs their own space and it's fences that define personal space. I enjoy your company only because there are times when I do not have to endure your company ;)
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW »

Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm Well, nothing could be known unless there was something unknown.
No, things are never known and therefore there is also nothing unknown - there is only knowing (maybe replacing the term knowing with consciousness works better to understand what I am referring to?)
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm this desire to have a nondual solution of all-god and no not-god is just another manifestation of splitting duality in half
There is no good or bad in the non-dual. If one is looking for only the good then he will automatically also create the bad. They come hand in hand - just like everything in duality.
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm Existence is not abstract, but relational. If god exists, then he exists in relation to something and not in abstraction.
Agree, but "God" does not exist as a thing - "he" is beyond existence and non-existence as these are still concepts that work only in duality - you need some thing to exist or not exist, but as I said "God" is not a thing and thus he doesn't exist in relation to anything nor is he an abstraction. He is not an idea, but always the knowing presence itself.
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm Ideas have borders or else we couldn't know what the idea is not.
Yes, but the border is again an idea. Is an idea real?
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm Something has to produce those thoughts, but the thing that produces the thoughts also produces the ego and therefore one cannot find the other because they are produced by the same thing.
Yes, in a way... What if this thing also produces everything else... what if there is nothing besides it and everything it produces is not just like it, but IS it?
It might seem that this no-thing, as a logical consequence of producing all things, also produces the ego, but while thoughts are real the stories/beliefs they contain are not. Thoughts are required for the idea/structure of the ego to arise, but ego itself, including all of its judgements, is only an acquired, every-changing story based on past and current learning and conditioning - a process that produces an abstraction of reality (including a separate self) that can as such never be real. It will always only be a map of reality, which is initially not a bad thing - it can be very helpful - but when this map is out of sync with base-reality it will not be able to guide you on your path through life. Only if the map is true, and as such in tune with reality is it of any value - and to know if it is true, you first have to know what truth/reality is.
Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:46 pm If that were true, then you wouldn't have to try because I would already know what you know, but clearly there is a wall separating what is you from what is me and neither of us could exist if it weren't so.
The wall exists only in the wrong map that I have been referring to before. Correct the map and you find that neither of us exists in separation (simply because there is no us, but only I).
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by Nick_A »

Alex
The wall exists only in the wrong map that I have been referring to before. Correct the map and you find that neither of us exists in separation (simply because there is no us, but only I).
Does this mean that "I AM" is a biblical mistake because there is only I?
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Back to Infinity

Post by AlexW »

Nick,
Nick_A wrote: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:44 am Does this mean that "I AM" is a biblical mistake because there is only I?
I AM is used to deliver the conceptual meaning - God's response to Moses when he asks for God's name is "I am that I am" ( Exodus 3:14)
He could have simply said "I", but "I", interpreted wrongly, could be understood to point to a subject that stands in opposition/separation to objects and other subjects (to not-I's). Maybe its just a compromise used to deliver the message in a more understandable way..?
Post Reply