''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

[raw_thought]

You have to be pompous to gain Hobbe's respect!!! Sprinkle your post with words like " modalities" !!

[Dontaskme]

You have to be pompous to gain Hobbe's respect!!! Sprinkle your post with words like " modalities" !!



I model reality on the way I am.

... other models are of no relevance to me, they're already taken...

Be yourself...the real fictional character...

[Terrapin Station]

I had a friend in high school who used to get a kick out of trolling people (of course, no one called it that back then) by just saying "It's possible" and "Not necessarily" in response to everything.

Dontaskme seems to be doing something in the same vein, but my friend was a lot more efficient and elegant about it.

Well, not necessarily.

But it's possible.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme seems to be doing something in the same vein, but my friend was a lot more efficient and elegant about it.

I'm actually a very serious researcher and philosopher ...been like this since I was a small child.

What I've discovered after years of being told I am an individual someone is that I'm actually not an individual someone, rather, I am no one or no thing experiening everything. When you experience everything, you are nothing at the same time. You have to be nothing to experience everything. If you are something, there is no room for everything. Everything is ONENESS. There's no room in here for two. More than one is still the same one being more of itself. We are looking out from nothing to everything, from nowhere to everywhere, from stillness to movement, from darkness to light. We're all doing the same looking, so the idea there is an individual looker is impossible. It's like sitting in a dark movie theatre watching life. If the theatre was not dark, you could not see the movie. Your real self is in a dark, silent void that is open to life. You are the void and everything in it, nothing and everything at the same time.

I know this to be truth, because it's my experiential truth so I'm sticking with it no matter what others say or believe to be the contrary. I'm not saying it's thee all time ultimate truth, because no one could possibly know that, all truths are within the experiencer and will be as unique as the experience. We cannot experience someone elses experience just as we cannot know the thoughts of others. Life is made of just thoughts and experiences appearing in this void that doesn't belong to ANYBODY.. but for the sake of communication we conceptually construct the idea of other.

I'm not asking or expecting others to agree with my findings. I'm simply putting it out there for people to ponder, they can either take it or leave it. That's what most truth seekers are doing anyway, they are taking what rings true for them and leaving what doesn't. I certainly don't believe in a final truth where we are all in some kind of collective agreement with one another. I don't believe that's possible. The only possible truth that makes any logical sense to me is there is no truth.

[Dontaskme]

2 = 0

Two being the balancing opposites, one positive one negative - they cancel each other out, equal nothing and everything.


It also goes the other way, 0 = 2.



One comes out of the other. The other comes out of the One.

[Terrapin Station]

What I've discovered after years of being told I am an individual someone . . .

That's an interesting way to put it, because it suggests that for you it was a matter of people telling you something rather than a matter of something seeming to be the case.

[Beauty]

Dontaskme, you say that You have to be nothing to experience everything, but isn't nothing also included in everything? It is. Also you say later that you are the void and everything in it, nothing and everything at the same time, then how are we nothing, to experience everything, because we would have to be separate from everything to experience it. I'm curious as to your reply.

[Beauty]

Dontaskme, when you say, ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE, do you mean that an essay written and deleted is the same one? It is definitely, but in one scenario it is there and in another it is not there. And here, situation there and situation not there is not the same one - not the same situation.

[Beauty]

Dontaskme, regarding the Absolute, if the Absolute stands itself, its definition let’s say of dark, light, right, wrong etcetera would still be against a world of knowledge where we accept that to be true like dark is black, scary etcetera and these words defining the Absolute when not absolute, then is the not absolute defining the Absolute? Or, if the words defining the Absolute are in themselves Absolute, then even then an Absolute is defining the Absolute, so it would not stand Absolute defining itself. Maybe you can clarify as to exactly what you mean when you say Absolute?

[Beauty]

Dontaskme you say, Just as zero is the sum of all positive and negative numbers, nothing is the sum of everything positive and negative.
It sounds absurd but nothing is, in reality, everything. This means that all properties/things must come in complementary/opposite pairs so as to sum up to nothing.
It follows that any imbalance (a non-zero sum) must be corrected so as to conserve nothing.
Change/motion is thus nature's way of correcting a violation of the mother of all conservation principles, the conservation of nothing.
This law is applied universally, i.e., non-locally. The universe is one, as it's name implies.
What begins ends, nothingness sustains.

I have several questions here for you.
I agree that the sum total of +ve and -ve is zero - equalling to nothing.
I do not have an opposite, it does not mean that I am a violation in nature that change will put right, I'm there, sustained, then gone. Then how do you explain my existence from nothing and into nothing without my opposite being there? Perhaps you can shed some light on this?
Definitely, change may be a way towards correction, but you cannot deny that change being the law of nature, it is also for happiness, because if things remained the same, no season changes, no seasonal changes, no personal nature changes, no likes/loves/dislikes/hates etc. changes, then life would become intolerable. Change is a welcome thing, not just a means towards correction. On top of that nothing is not conserved or we would not be here. So who says there is a conservation of nothing principle?
If nothingness sustains, then how do you explain the somethingness which is this world and the things/life in it. Therefore even nothingness does not sustain. Nothing is there, something is there and it is on and off perhaps.

[Beauty]

Dontaskme, actually first thing, I really wanted to commend some posts of yours. For instance this one -
The notion that matter is made of something quickly leads to an infinite regress. If something is made of other things, what are the other things made of?
And so on, ad infinitum.
We are left with no choice other than to accept the truth that matter is made of nothing.
But how can this be? How can something be made of nothing? What is the logic?

As to your question, my answer is this -
My umbrella is made up of molecules, atoms, particles, quarks and so forth. The quarks or something else let's say is the sum-total of +ve and -ve energy and so we have something from nothing. But we are not in existence as a universe and its opposite, or that my opposite is there, or that the opposite of the umbrella is there etcetera. What I said is, that +ve and -ve miniature particles are there initially as nothing because they sum-total to zero. This is why we have +ve, -ve energy. I am up today, down I was yesterday. I feel beautiful today, I felt ugly yesterday, dark and light, up and down, front and back, top and bottom, inside and outside, +ve charge and -ve charge etcetera. However, I don't understand as to how and why the +ve and -ve energy particles are there initially, and that makes me feel that energy can be created/formed or can create/form itself and also destroy itself. It's energy. And that explains how we can rise - sit, go - return, move front - move back, go forward - remain there (sustenance) - come back. The last bit explains sustenance too together with creation and destruction of energy.

[Beauty]

I also wanted to say that our Spirit must be +ve and -ve energy at the beginning of the Cosmos/Universe, which is precisely why we have front/back, top/bottom, come/go, active/passive, action/rest etcetera. And Spirit does not occupy space as we perceive and in Spirit World it would be like - I said a, where is the a? So Spirit is like the said a, it is somewhere, written in the Cosmos initially, a forming of energy. We are afterwards.

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme you say, Just as zero is the sum of all positive and negative numbers, nothing is the sum of everything positive and negative.
It sounds absurd but nothing is, in reality, everything. This means that all properties/things must come in complementary/opposite pairs so as to sum up to nothing.
It follows that any imbalance (a non-zero sum) must be corrected so as to conserve nothing.
Change/motion is thus nature's way of correcting a violation of the mother of all conservation principles, the conservation of nothing.
This law is applied universally, i.e., non-locally. The universe is one, as it's name implies.
What begins ends, nothingness sustains.

I have several questions here for you.
I agree that the sum total of +ve and -ve is zero - equalling to nothing.
I do not have an opposite, it does not mean that I am a violation in nature that change will put right, I'm there, sustained, then gone. Then how do you explain my existence from nothing and into nothing without my opposite being there? Perhaps you can shed some light on this?
Definitely, change may be a way towards correction, but you cannot deny that change being the law of nature, it is also for happiness, because if things remained the same, no season changes, no seasonal changes, no personal nature changes, no likes/loves/dislikes/hates etc. changes, then life would become intolerable. Change is a welcome thing, not just a means towards correction. On top of that nothing is not conserved or we would not be here. So who says there is a conservation of nothing principle?
If nothingness sustains, then how do you explain the somethingness which is this world and the things/life in it. Therefore even nothingness does not sustain. Nothing is there, something is there and it is on and off perhaps.

Dear beauty, apologies for the delay in responding to you. I do not have an email alert informing me I have had a reply to any of my threads. And I do not look around the forum much checking to see if any one has posted on my threads. So sorry for the late reply. I've only just realised today you have posted here.

If there's just one undivided everything then that everything has to be the same as nothing. There are plenty of websites on the internet that can explain why this is so if your interested. Just type into google [ how Everything and Nothing can be the same. ] Nothingness sustains simply means without nothingness, nothing can appear.

In my opinion energy is always looking to conserve itself by seeking for the path of least resistance ... When there is too much exertion of energy there is exhaustion, when too little exertion there is apathy or inertia. The universe appears to seek balance and is why it appears to be a finely tuned harmoniously functioning efficient living organism. There is a natural order to all things.

As for opposites. The ALL is a union between Nothing and All possibility, the ultimate opposites, and the nature of that union is without beginning or end, for these two opposites automatically and simultaneously create each other. The existence of opposites provides a meaning to a word. The word by itself is devoid of any meaning without the presence of it's opposite, for example; good is known because of it's opposite bad, otherwise what good is could never be known. The opposite is a word as well, which gets it's meaning from the word it gives meaning to, which is nevertheless without a meaning by itself. Therefore, since opposites are in everyday life, it only means that the quantum nature of meanings is a word with it's opposite in the same moment. This implies that the meaning which you do not want is also present in the meaning that you do want, for example right or wrong.

Something and Nothing are in the same moment IN life, and not in the same moment of conceptualisation. Something and Nothing are concepts in an illusory moment of the mind.

I will address your other posts as soon as I am able to do so.

[Impenitent]

quick, hide the donut holes...

-Imp

[Dontaskme]

Dontaskme, when you say, ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE, do you mean that an essay written and deleted is the same one? It is definitely, but in one scenario it is there and in another it is not there. And here, situation there and situation not there is not the same one - not the same situation.

The essay written and deleted are in the same moment IN life. The essay could not have been written if it hadn't already had the potential to exist in the first place. The essay couldn't have been deleted if there wasn't no where for it to go. But the essay hasn't gone anywhere, it's always here now or nowhere.
Nothing or Emptiness is the first place holder of Everything. The deleted essay hasn't gone anywhere, because there is ONLY here.
The first place is the infinite field of potential aka 'latent energy' ..Secondly, the essay appears from within what was first a latent situation... changing into a movement from latent to kinetic energy. And this is all happening as ONE UNITARY ACTION.
The apparent opposites ''here'' and ''not here'' must exist simultaneously in the same place .. which is always HERE...for anything to happen/appear in the first place.


It's the same with Everything in life. Every thing is here and not here at the same time. ( A rainbow can appear but the actual location of the rainbow can never be found) ... any attempt to approach a rainbow - will see it disappear.

See how the phrase ... '' Never Not Here '' can read both ways which sum to zero. It can read nothing is ever here. Also read as everything is always here.
Existence could not be known without it's opposite non-existence.

Nonduality does not mean the absence of duality ..it simply gives meaning to duality.
Duality is both non &duality at the same time. Duality is all there IS...simply because duality cannot not exist.

I understand that nondual thinking can be rather confusing, but is always worth the effort to understand it, especially once the penny drops. That's why the Buddha laughed and not to forget the laughing Jesus....LOL