Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

1. Perfection is both relative and absolute.

2. It is absolute given all being relative to Nothingness is perfect. This perfection is derived from its unity.

3. It is relative given one grade of being has a higher degree of perfection compared to another. This perfection is derived from its relations.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by AlexW »

4. Perfection is an idea. It only exists as a concept.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

AlexW wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:03 pm 4. Perfection is an idea. It only exists as a concept.
And all concepts appear though an emergence, perfection emerges from the empirical.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by AlexW »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:34 pm And all concepts appear though an emergence, perfection emerges from the empirical.
While concepts are an attempt at explaining and interpreting direct experience, the idea that (any part of) this experience is either perfect or imperfect is nothing but (self) deception.
What is perfect or imperfect about the experience we label *wind on skin*, or *taste of coffee*?
The experience itself is perfectly immune to all qualification, description and interpretation - all conceptual attempts of explaining don't affect the experience in the slightest (the only "thing" that is affected, is the stream of conditioned thinking, which is trying to interpret the experience - the result is either a positive or negative stream of thoughts arising, to no affect of the experience itself, that's all...)
This perfection you are talking about is as such purely made/thought up - it has no base in fundamental reality / direct experience.

Also, attempting to introduce "degrees of perfection" as in:
3. It is relative given one grade of being has a higher degree of perfection compared to another. This perfection is derived from its relations.
is utter nonsense.
As if there were "grades of being" present anywhere else but in the world of our convoluted minds... Being is being, there is no better or worse, no grades of perfection - this should be pretty obvious when you consider your own idea of "perfection is derived from its relations" - why? Simply because everything is connected to everything else - there is no thing that is more connected to everything else than any other thing (it is actually much rather the case that all separation, all thingness vanishes simply because of this most intimate connectedness).
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

AlexW wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:17 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:34 pm And all concepts appear though an emergence, perfection emerges from the empirical.
While concepts are an attempt at explaining and interpreting direct experience, the idea that (any part of) this experience is either perfect or imperfect is nothing but (self) deception.
What is perfect or imperfect about the experience we label *wind on skin*, or *taste of coffee*?

The degree to which they are sensed. A gust of wind on the skin that is barely felt , compared to one which is felt without doubt, necessitates one experience as more immersive then another. This degree of immersion relates to the perfection of the experience as one experience is experienced more in fullness than another.


The experience itself is perfectly immune to all qualification, description and interpretation - all conceptual attempts of explaining don't affect the experience in the slightest (the only "thing" that is affected, is the stream of conditioned thinking, which is trying to interpret the experience - the result is either a positive or negative stream of thoughts arising, to no affect of the experience itself, that's all...)
This perfection you are talking about is as such purely made/thought up - it has no base in fundamental reality / direct experience.

The depth of experience necessitates grades of experience as grades of immersion.

Also, attempting to introduce "degrees of perfection" as in:
3. It is relative given one grade of being has a higher degree of perfection compared to another. This perfection is derived from its relations.
is utter nonsense.
As if there were "grades of being" present anywhere else but in the world of our convoluted minds... Being is being, there is no better or worse, no grades of perfection - this should be pretty obvious when you consider your own idea of "perfection is derived from its relations" - why? Simply because everything is connected to everything else - there is no thing that is more connected to everything else than any other thing (it is actually much rather the case that all separation, all thingness vanishes simply because of this most intimate connectedness).

Using the above examples one may be involved within an experience at a higher degree than another experience.

The ability for an experience to be assumed and imprinted on the psyche necessitates experience to occur in grades of more or less than another experience.

The gradation is the ability for the observer to connect with the phenomenon.

This connection is the ability for the observer to be imprinted.

This imprintation is the common bond between the observer and observed.

This common bond is that which is similar between the observer and observed where a middle unifying phenomenon occurs. For example the common bond between the gust of wind and the observer is the movement of the hairs of the skin. Both the hairs of the skin and the wind move thus necessitating an underlying common median which is movement which occurs simultaneously between both. The quantity and quality of (a) common median(s) is what determines connections.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by AlexW »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:00 am The degree to which they are sensed. A gust of wind on the skin that is barely felt compared to one which is felt without doubt necessitates one experience as more immersive then another. This degree of immersion relates to the perfection of the experience as one experience is experienced more in fullness than another.
As I see it, there are no degrees of immersion - you are always 100% immersed in direct experience, there is no other option.
Just because the mind/thought attempts to pick direct experience apart by labelling an extract - a recognised pattern of the whole - this does not mean that this part is actually separate from the "rest" of direct experience. As such, it doesn't matter how intense the sensation of *wind on skin* appears to be, it doesn't make it any more perfect just because of that.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:00 am The depth of experience necessitates grades of experience as grades of immersion.
Sure, there are grades of immersion - eg in meditation one could exclusively focus on the breath, eventually resulting in the "disappearance" of all other senses. But the experience is not any more or less perfect than before the narrowing of focus ... yes, to the judging mind it is narrower, less diverse, but this doesn't mean it has increased in perfection.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:00 am This common bond is that which is similar between the observer and observed where a middle unifying phenomenon occurs. For example the common bond between the gust of wind and the observer is the movement of the hairs of the skin. Both the hairs of the skin and the wind move thus necessitating an underlying common median which is movement which occurs simultaneously between both. The quantity and quality of (a) common median(s) is what determines connections.
How do you know this is true? Do you experience it exactly this way?
Do you actually experience this separate observer? If not, how do you know there is such an entity? Maybe its all a mirage of the mind...

When you directly experience *wind on skin* ... how does that work?
Is there an observer that decides(?) to get into contact with all sorts of external phenomena (eg with the wind)? Or does experiencing simply happen?
As I see it ... it simply happens... no doing or observing involved at all - its fully automatic (you cant actually escape this automatism .. as long as you are awake its always on)... What sense would the existence of a separate observer make for a process that is, per default, always on?
If there were such an entity it would be permanently bonded to whatever phenomena arises (as it cannot remove itself from experience) - wouldn't it make much more sense to discard the idea of there being a separation between the observer and the observed and simplify things ... meaning: realising that direct experience is "simply happening" and does not require the (conceptual) split between a separate observer and observed.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

AlexW wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:00 am The degree to which they are sensed. A gust of wind on the skin that is barely felt compared to one which is felt without doubt necessitates one experience as more immersive then another. This degree of immersion relates to the perfection of the experience as one experience is experienced more in fullness than another.
As I see it, there are no degrees of immersion - you are always 100% immersed in direct experience, there is no other option.

False one may be only partially aware of a phenomenon thus introducing grades of experience. This partiality necessitates a degree of connection but not a complete connection.
This absence of complete observation is an absence of complete reflection between the observer and observed. This reflection is the uniting of the observer and observed through the ability to be imprinted by such a phenomenon and to replicate this phenomenon.



Just because the mind/thought attempts to pick direct experience apart by labelling an extract - a recognised pattern of the whole - this does not mean that this part is actually separate from the "rest" of direct experience. As such, it doesn't matter how intense the sensation of *wind on skin* appears to be, it doesn't make it any more perfect just because of that.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:00 am The depth of experience necessitates grades of experience as grades of immersion.
Sure, there are grades of immersion - eg in meditation one could exclusively focus on the breath, eventually resulting in the "disappearance" of all other senses. But the experience is not any more or less perfect than before the narrowing of focus ... yes, to the judging mind it is narrower, less diverse, but this doesn't mean it has increased in perfection.

Perfection is unity, unity requires the connection of qualities, connection is the similarity of these qualities. The ability to connect requires grades of unity thus grades of perfection.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:00 am This common bond is that which is similar between the observer and observed where a middle unifying phenomenon occurs. For example the common bond between the gust of wind and the observer is the movement of the hairs of the skin. Both the hairs of the skin and the wind move thus necessitating an underlying common median which is movement which occurs simultaneously between both. The quantity and quality of (a) common median(s) is what determines connections.
How do you know this is true? Do you experience it exactly this way?
Do you actually experience this separate observer? If not, how do you know there is such an entity? Maybe its all a mirage of the mind...

Mirages are approximations of a truth thus exist as grades of truth. Grades of perfection as approximations of perfection necessitates absolute perfection existing.

When you directly experience *wind on skin* ... how does that work?

The skin and the wind share the same movements where one movement reflects the other. This movement is what is observed as it imprints itself on a previously thoughtless state or emptiness of thought.

Is there an observer that decides(?) to get into contact with all sorts of external phenomena (eg with the wind)? Or does experiencing simply happen?
As I see it ... it simply happens... no doing or observing involved at all - its fully automatic (you cant actually escape this automatism .. as long as you are awake its always on)... What sense would the existence of a separate observer make for a process that is, per default, always on?
If there were such an entity it would be permanently bonded to whatever phenomena arises (as it cannot remove itself from experience) - wouldn't it make much more sense to discard the idea of there being a separation between the observer and the observed and simplify things ... meaning: realising that direct experience is "simply happening" and does not require the (conceptual) split between a separate observer and observed.

Observing something as simply happening draws on the phenomenon as emerging from a previous state void of the very same phenomenon. This emergence as observed through interpretation results in another emergence of that phenomenon under the act of interpretation. Interpretation is an emergence of emergence, thus a recursive action occurs where one emergence results in another. This recursion is observation given one assumption results in another, one imprint results in another. Observation may simply happen but given its self referentiality through recursion the subject object dichotomy occurs in the respect one phenomenon results in another where the subject Inverts into an object. A previously formless state, the subject, inverts into one of form, the object.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

AlexW wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:00 am The degree to which they are sensed. A gust of wind on the skin that is barely felt compared to one which is felt without doubt necessitates one experience as more immersive then another. This degree of immersion relates to the perfection of the experience as one experience is experienced more in fullness than another.
As I see it, there are no degrees of immersion - you are always 100% immersed in direct experience, there is no other option.
Just because the mind/thought attempts to pick direct experience apart by labelling an extract - a recognised pattern of the whole - this does not mean that this part is actually separate from the "rest" of direct experience. As such, it doesn't matter how intense the sensation of *wind on skin* appears to be, it doesn't make it any more perfect just because of that.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:00 am The depth of experience necessitates grades of experience as grades of immersion.
Sure, there are grades of immersion - eg in meditation one could exclusively focus on the breath, eventually resulting in the "disappearance" of all other senses. But the experience is not any more or less perfect than before the narrowing of focus ... yes, to the judging mind it is narrower, less diverse, but this doesn't mean it has increased in perfection.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:00 am This common bond is that which is similar between the observer and observed where a middle unifying phenomenon occurs. For example the common bond between the gust of wind and the observer is the movement of the hairs of the skin. Both the hairs of the skin and the wind move thus necessitating an underlying common median which is movement which occurs simultaneously between both. The quantity and quality of (a) common median(s) is what determines connections.
How do you know this is true? Do you experience it exactly this way?
Do you actually experience this separate observer? If not, how do you know there is such an entity? Maybe its all a mirage of the mind...

When you directly experience *wind on skin* ... how does that work?
Is there an observer that decides(?) to get into contact with all sorts of external phenomena (eg with the wind)? Or does experiencing simply happen?
As I see it ... it simply happens... no doing or observing involved at all - its fully automatic (you cant actually escape this automatism .. as long as you are awake its always on)... What sense would the existence of a separate observer make for a process that is, per default, always on?
If there were such an entity it would be permanently bonded to whatever phenomena arises (as it cannot remove itself from experience) - wouldn't it make much more sense to discard the idea of there being a separation between the observer and the observed and simplify things ... meaning: realising that direct experience is "simply happening" and does not require the (conceptual) split between a separate observer and observed.
You said: "As I see it, there are no degrees of immersion"

Then said: "Sure, there are grades of immersion"
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by AlexW »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:08 am You said: "As I see it, there are no degrees of immersion"

Then said: "Sure, there are grades of immersion"
Yes, I see how that might confuse the reader...
The first instance (A): "there are no degrees of immersion" concerns direct experience as a whole, while the second instance (B):
"Sure, there are grades of immersion", is targeted at a part of experience (see: in meditation one could exclusively focus on the breath... etc)
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:02 pm False one may be only partially aware of a phenomenon thus introducing grades of experience.
Your answer is a reply to (A) - but my statement was not relating to a specific phenomenon - and as such not to a part of the whole direct experience (DE) which is happening all the time (DE consists of all sensory input plus thought).
As such, there can be no "grades of experience", there can only be grades of immersion into a part of experience (but this part is only a mental construct, as there is no way to cut this DE into actual pieces - all these pieces, all these apparent separate phenomena are not actually separate, they are only separate within the world of our conceptual interpretations).
Does this make it any clearer?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:02 pm Perfection is unity, unity requires the connection of qualities
This would be correct if there actually were separate parts in DE... But there really aren't - all parts - which again are defined by specific qualities - are mental constructs, which are not on the "same level" as DE (mental constructs are only valid in the world of concepts, not in directly experienced "reality").

But ... one can also arrive at this conclusion coming from ever deepening "immersion" into a (apparently) specific phenomenon / part of DE.
If, for example, one again would focus exclusively on the breath (eg in meditation) then the breath becomes the sole object/phenomenon of DE. When this happens the breath loses all its relativistic/objective qualities (as there is nothing else to compare it with) - it is the whole, but it isn't anymore "the breath"... this is where words fail us as it is not a "something" anymore which has specific qualities or connections ... its simply all that is.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

AlexW wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:08 am You said: "As I see it, there are no degrees of immersion"

Then said: "Sure, there are grades of immersion"
Yes, I see how that might confuse the reader...
The first instance (A): "there are no degrees of immersion" concerns direct experience as a whole, while the second instance (B):
"Sure, there are grades of immersion", is targeted at a part of experience (see: in meditation one could exclusively focus on the breath... etc)

Experience is thus subject to grades.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:02 pm False one may be only partially aware of a phenomenon thus introducing grades of experience.
Your answer is a reply to (A) - but my statement was not relating to a specific phenomenon - and as such not to a part of the whole direct experience (DE) which is happening all the time (DE consists of all sensory input plus thought).
As such, there can be no "grades of experience", there can only be grades of immersion into a part of experience (but this part is only a mental construct, as there is no way to cut this DE into actual pieces - all these pieces, all these apparent separate phenomena are not actually separate, they are only separate within the world of our conceptual interpretations).
Does this make it any clearer?

The act of experience is the immersion itself therefore there are grades of experience. With grades of experience come grades of connection between subject and object. With the grades of connection between subject and object come grades of perfection as grades of unity between subject and object are observed.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:02 pm Perfection is unity, unity requires the connection of qualities
This would be correct if there actually were separate parts in DE... But there really aren't - all parts - which again are defined by specific qualities - are mental constructs, which are not on the "same level" as DE (mental constructs are only valid in the world of concepts, not in directly experienced "reality").

All experiences result in mental constructs thus are mental constructs in themselves. One cannot seperate an experience from a mental construct given that the experience itself is a measurement of reality thus a thought in itself. This thought, as inherent within the experience, is an act of distinguishment between one phenomenon and another. All thoughts as phenomenon are connected by an underlying common phenomenon, yet each part is a fractal thus is distinct in itself as dually seperate. All phenomenon are both connected and seperated. An example of this would be a brick and a rose. The color red unifies both a brick and a rose under a common means, yet the brick and the rose have distinctions given there different forms.

But ... one can also arrive at this conclusion coming from ever deepening "immersion" into a (apparently) specific phenomenon / part of DE.
If, for example, one again would focus exclusively on the breath (eg in meditation) then the breath becomes the sole object/phenomenon of DE. When this happens the breath loses all its relativistic/objective qualities (as there is nothing else to compare it with) - it is the whole, but it isn't anymore "the breath"... this is where words fail us as it is not a "something" anymore which has specific qualities or connections ... its simply all that is.

The breath changes as it is being observed. It may change from a more shallow breath to a more full breath thus subjecting the breath to grades. One breath is compared to another.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by AlexW »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm Experience is thus subject to grades.
No, only the mental/conceptual interpretation of parts of experience is - and as there really are no parts (besides the ones that we invent within our minds) DE is as such not subject to grades.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm The act of experience is the immersion itself therefore there are grades of experience.
There really is no "act of experience" - experience simply happens/is.
There is nothing one has to do for experience to happen. One doesn't have to immerse him/herself into experience for it to happen.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm All experiences result in mental constructs thus are mental constructs in themselves.
Really?
Pinch the skin of your arm... is this a mental construct?
Sure, the label "pinch of arm" or "pain" or any other interpretation of what just happened is a mental construct, but the experience itself is not.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm One cannot seperate an experience from a mental construct
I sure can... if you cannot do this as well I would be very surprised...
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm given that the experience itself is a measurement of reality
Direct experience is reality - there is no other reality one could know.
And then there is the world of concepts - this world is not reality, but rather an interpretation of reality.
All "measurements of reality" live in the world of concepts, not in reality itself.
The question is: How well do our interpretations reflect reality?
Can we really measure reality accurately from our dualistic/relativistic point of view?
What if reality is not divided into separate objects? What exactly are we measuring if there are no separate things to aim at?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

AlexW wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm Experience is thus subject to grades.
No, only the mental/conceptual interpretation of parts of experience is - and as there really are no parts (besides the ones that we invent within our minds) DE is as such not subject to grades.

The mental aspect is part of the emergence of reality.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm The act of experience is the immersion itself therefore there are grades of experience.
There really is no "act of experience" - experience simply happens/is.
There is nothing one has to do for experience to happen. One doesn't have to immerse him/herself into experience for it to happen.

One recieves impressions and this act of impression can be viewed as a phenomenon in itself being impressed upon the mind. One can experience having an experiencem thus with experience a distinction occurs.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm All experiences result in mental constructs thus are mental constructs in themselves.
Really?
Pinch the skin of your arm... is this a mental construct?

Sure, the label "pinch of arm" or "pain" or any other interpretation of what just happened is a mental construct, but the experience itself is not.

The experience exists both as thought and memory [color]
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm One cannot seperate an experience from a mental construct

I sure can... if you cannot do this as well I would be very surprised...

Being aware of x reduces x to a thought.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:02 pm given that the experience itself is a measurement of reality

Direct experience is reality - there is no other reality one could know.
And then there is the world of concepts - this world is not reality, but rather an interpretation of reality.

Experience is the interpretation of a phenomenon "as is".

All "measurements of reality" live in the world of concepts, not in reality itself.

The world of concepts is part of reality./color]

The question is: How well do our interpretations reflect reality?

Interpretations are the mirroring of a phenomenon into a new form. The level of quality in reflection is dependent upon the quality and quantity of common bonds between the phenomenon and the interpretation./color]

Can we really measure reality accurately from our dualistic/relativistic point of view?
Measurement is distinction thus is relativistic by nature given this very same distinction. Distinction necessitates a contrast, contrast necessitates a relation of parts, a relation of parts necessitates multiplicity, multiplicity necessitates relativity./color]


What if reality is not divided into separate objects?

What if reality is both seperate and connected? A brick and a rose are composed of seperate forms yet are connected under the common color red./color]

What exactly are we measuring if there are no separate things to aim at?

Measurement is the creation of a new phenomenon./color]
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by AlexW »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:48 am Being aware of x reduces x to a thought.

If all one can be aware of are thoughts (I guess this is what you are saying with the above?) ... then how do you know there even is an "x" previous to thought?
Its perfectly impossible to know... (yes, you can speculate, but you could never know for sure)

Also, if everything one can be aware of are thoughts, then what exactly is it that separates phenomenon X1 from X2?
Both are thoughts, right..? So all that can separate X1 from X2 is another thought X3 stating "X2 is different from X1"...
But in this scenario the question arises: can thought actually separate more thought?
Answer: No - it can only project the idea of these phenomena being separate and different, but it can not actually separate them.

Its the same with the field of color. All you ever see is an unbroken field of color (including B/W and grey), yet we subscribe to the idea that we see separate objects - even the only thing that separates these objects is color...
Question: If everything is color ... can a different shade of color separate one object from other objects?
I don't think so .. a change of color can be conceptually interpreted as a different/separate object, but the basic stream of raw data (color) doesn't contain any such information (it actually doesn't contain the slightest information about separate objects).
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

AlexW wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:17 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:48 am Being aware of x reduces x to a thought.

If all one can be aware of are thoughts (I guess this is what you are saying with the above?) ... then how do you know there even is an "x" previous to thought?
Its perfectly impossible to know... (yes, you can speculate, but you could never know for sure)

In observing a thought one can observe, through self reflection, that nothing occurs behind it except a certain formlessness. This formlessness is the gap between one thought and another much in the same manner a gap in memory results in the seperation between memories. Thus a thought lies behind a thought given this inevitable gap occurs.

Also, if everything one can be aware of are thoughts, then what exactly is it that separates phenomenon X1 from X2?

Void is the boundary condition which both forms the phenomenon and seperates it. And example is a glass half full of water, half full of air. A boundary occurs between the air and water, which while simultaneously defining them also is empty in itself. Emptiness thus acts as a means of distinction.

Both are thoughts, right..? So all that can separate X1 from X2 is another thought X3 stating "X2 is different from X1"...
But in this scenario the question arises: can thought actually separate more thought?
Answer: No - it can only project the idea of these phenomena being separate and different, but it can not actually separate them.
Seperation is an idea and as such recursively self references itself under a new idea. In defining seperation a seperation occurs thus necessitating one thought as existing through another. This recursion necessitates not only a connection, as common limits are repeated, but this connection of forms necessitates an isomorphism where one phenomenon exists in a symmetrical yet variates state. Seperation occurs through recursion which manifests isomorphism through fractals.



Its the same with the field of color. All you ever see is an unbroken field of color (including B/W and grey), yet we subscribe to the idea that we see separate objects - even the only thing that separates these objects is color...

The field of color reflects itself through an infinite variation of colors thus necessitating multiple other colors which manifest through these grades. Each grade of color exists through another color which is not that color.

Question: If everything is color ... can a different shade of color separate one object from other objects?
I don't think so .. a change of color can be conceptually interpreted as a different/separate object, but the basic stream of raw data (color) doesn't contain any such information (it actually doesn't contain the slightest information about separate objects).

A stream of raw color manifests infinite other streams where any point along the continuum contains a new color.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Perfection is Both Relative and Absolute

Post by AlexW »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:06 am In observing a thought one can observe, through self reflection, that nothing occurs behind it except a certain formlessness. This formlessness is the gap between one thought and another much in the same manner a gap in memory results in the seperation between memories. Thus a thought lies behind a thought given this inevitable gap occurs.
According to your logic this gap - as you are aware of it - has to be a thought as well... no?
Or are you saying that reality exists of thoughts and formless gaps? But then again... you are aware of the gap... so it has to be a thought as well...

Also: Who is doing the observing? Is there a separate observer? If so, who or what is this observer?
If you are aware of this observer, then it would have to be a thought as well, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:06 am Void is the boundary condition which both forms the phenomenon and seperates it. And example is a glass half full of water, half full of air. A boundary occurs between the air and water, which while simultaneously defining them also is empty in itself. Emptiness thus acts as a means of distinction.
Ok... as "void" is only an idea there really is no boundary at all... (besides the idea, of course)
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:06 am The field of color reflects itself through an infinite variation of colors
A "thing" can never be infinite - by being infinite it gives up its "thingness" and automatically "turns into everything".
Post Reply