There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

[Advocate]

"Things" are sets of attributes and boundary conditions. Those conditions are set according to purpose. Thus, all things are patterns with a purpose )and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. An apple to an ordinary person is a much lower-resolution thing than the same apple to an apple vendor, even though it's made of the the identical material stuff.)

The distinction of appearances is inherent in the title itself. Appearances are Of something, external. That distinction is the core of all philosophy. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) "Things in themselves" can only mean the set of characteristics that renders some arbitrary set of stuff manageable.

[Age]

The one is expressed through multiplicity. For example, one electron is expressed through many where the one is a set of many parts (ie one electron exists through many different electrons).

That may be your view, but obviously thee One Universe does NOT exist through many different Universes. For the very SIMPLE FACT that there can ever only be just One Universe.

Each universe is a fractal/fraction of the original universe where each fractal is distinct as a means of change to another fractal/fraction.

Another example is the number one expressed recursively through many numbers. "All that there is" includes all acts of measurement as phenomena in themselves where "the many", as a series of phenomenon, is a phenomenon in itself as a series of phenomenon which exists.

This may be true, but this does NOT counter NOR refute what I have been saying.

In the dichotomy between the one and the many they both exist at the same time in different respects given they are both expression of all that there is.

The universe does not exist as independent of itself given it moves through itself under of multiplicity of parts where each part is distinct given it progresses to another part as a means of change.

What does "moves through itself" actually mean, to you?

The progression of one part through another part suggests each part as empty in itself. This emptiness of each part necessitates each part as progressing to another resulting in a self sustained loop. This loop, as with most loops, is empty given the parts which compose it cannot exist on there own terms. The universe, or all being, is a series of loops within loops with all loops being an approximation of one loop. An example of a series of rings within rings shows one ring as existing through many thus both one and many rings.

I agree the Universe does not exist as independent of "Its Self". To suggest such a thing would just be an absurdity.

But, to me, the Universe, Itself, is obviously independent of ANY thing else.

The universe is not independent of the parts which compose it just in the same manner as a series of rings within rings is not independent of the ring form and function.

Also, you claiming that " 'each part' is distinct " could be seen as somewhat countering, somewhat contradicting, and/or somewhat refuting your own claim that there is NO 'things-in-themselves. Each part as distinct is a means of change from one phenomena to another through a contrast. For example a bird cannot be observed on it's own terms except in contrast to a tree. The bird as a distinct phenomena is a means of change to another phenomena, in this case a tree.

The universe, all that there is, is both one and many.

I have not come across ANY one who says otherwise.

Thee Truth, however, is the apparent and seemingly separation or distinction between the "many", which you say is "each part which is distinct", is not actually there, other than in language and/or labels and names ONLY.

Language, labels and names are part of the universe as phenomena which exist as part of the universe.

By the way, what you wrote here in this quote actually contradicts your claims, and backs up and supports what I have been saying.

False, the universe exists as both one and many, both dependent upon itself through fractals and independent of itself as a means of change from one fractal to another.

The universe is dependent upon it fractals through which it exists.

It is independent of these fractals given each fractal is a variation of the original form.

So, now you want to make the claim that there are 'many' universes. As I say, adult human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" and back up and support their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, instead of changing and looking at things differently.

Rarely will the adult human being ever admit that they are wrong or incorrect. They will also rarely, again if ever, even just realize that if they just changed their thinking a little bit, then they would be closer to seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS. They much prefer to HOLD ON to the thoughts that they have 'now', and 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" those thoughts, rather than just admit that the thoughts they have now might just be wrong and might just need some changing, and/or fine tuning.

[Eodnhoj7]

That may be your view, but obviously thee One Universe does NOT exist through many different Universes. For the very SIMPLE FACT that there can ever only be just One Universe.

Each universe is a fractal/fraction of the original universe where each fractal is distinct as a means of change to another fractal/fraction.



This may be true, but this does NOT counter NOR refute what I have been saying.

In the dichotomy between the one and the many they both exist at the same time in different respects given they are both expression of all that there is.





What does "moves through itself" actually mean, to you?

The progression of one part through another part suggests each part as empty in itself. This emptiness of each part necessitates each part as progressing to another resulting in a self sustained loop. This loop, as with most loops, is empty given the parts which compose it cannot exist on there own terms. The universe, or all being, is a series of loops within loops with all loops being an approximation of one loop. An example of a series of rings within rings shows one ring as existing through many thus both one and many rings.

I agree the Universe does not exist as independent of "Its Self". To suggest such a thing would just be an absurdity.

But, to me, the Universe, Itself, is obviously independent of ANY thing else.

The universe is not independent of the parts which compose it just in the same manner as a series of rings within rings is not independent of the ring form and function.

Also, you claiming that " 'each part' is distinct " could be seen as somewhat countering, somewhat contradicting, and/or somewhat refuting your own claim that there is NO 'things-in-themselves. Each part as distinct is a means of change from one phenomena to another through a contrast. For example a bird cannot be observed on it's own terms except in contrast to a tree. The bird as a distinct phenomena is a means of change to another phenomena, in this case a tree.





I have not come across ANY one who says otherwise.

Thee Truth, however, is the apparent and seemingly separation or distinction between the "many", which you say is "each part which is distinct", is not actually there, other than in language and/or labels and names ONLY.

Language, labels and names are part of the universe as phenomena which exist as part of the universe.

By the way, what you wrote here in this quote actually contradicts your claims, and backs up and supports what I have been saying.

False, the universe exists as both one and many, both dependent upon itself through fractals and independent of itself as a means of change from one fractal to another.

The universe is dependent upon it fractals through which it exists.

It is independent of these fractals given each fractal is a variation of the original form.

So, now you want to make the claim that there are 'many' universes. As I say, adult human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" and back up and support their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, instead of changing and looking at things differently.

And that is your belief. I am simply accepting all phenomena, including the abstraction of "the many" as a phenomena in itself.

Rarely will the adult human being ever admit that they are wrong or incorrect. They will also rarely, again if ever, even just realize that if they just changed their thinking a little bit, then they would be closer to seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS. They much prefer to HOLD ON to the thoughts that they have 'now', and 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" those thoughts, rather than just admit that the thoughts they have now might just be wrong and might just need some changing, and/or fine tuning.

Contradictions, as concepts thus phenomena, exist as part of the one. "The One" and "The Many" both exist under the concept of "all that there is" thus necessitating reality as triadic.

[Age]

So, now you want to make the claim that there are 'many' universes. As I say, adult human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" and back up and support their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, instead of changing and looking at things differently.

And that is your belief. I am simply accepting all phenomena, including the abstraction of "the many" as a phenomena in itself.

You even have this completely and utterly WRONG. 'What' EXACTLY are you suggesting is, supposedly, "my belief"?

Rarely will the adult human being ever admit that they are wrong or incorrect. They will also rarely, again if ever, even just realize that if they just changed their thinking a little bit, then they would be closer to seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS. They much prefer to HOLD ON to the thoughts that they have 'now', and 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" those thoughts, rather than just admit that the thoughts they have now might just be wrong and might just need some changing, and/or fine tuning.

Contradictions, as concepts thus phenomena, exist as part of the one. "The One" and "The Many" both exist under the concept of "all that there is" thus necessitating reality as triadic.

But you are SO BLINDED that you can NOT even SEE that the sum of EVERY thing is Everything as the One, and thee ONLY One.

'All that there is' together, therefore, can ONLY be One Thing, which OBVIOUSLY 'has to be' independent of absolutely ANY thing else. This can NOT be ANY other way. Thee End.

You are FREE to simply accept ANY and ALL phenomena, as you so feel you have to or want to. But, just simply accepting ALL phenomena does NOT make ALL phenomena right NOR correct.

[surreptitious57]

Rarely will the adult human being ever admit that they are wrong or incorrect . They will also rarely again if ever even just realize that if they just changed their thinking a little bit then they would be closer to seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS . They much prefer to HOLD ON to the thoughts that they have now and try absolutely ANY thing to justify those thoughts rather than just admit that the thoughts they have now might just be wrong and might just need some changing and / or fine tuning .

Human beings admit to wrong all the time just not every single time
I have zero intention of holding onto any thoughts that are wrong where that can actually be demonstrated
So I try not to have fixed thoughts about any thing for this very reason instead just let them be as they are

[Advocate]

Rarely will the adult human being ever admit that they are wrong or incorrect . They will also rarely again if ever even just realize that if they just changed their thinking a little bit then they would be closer to seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS . They much prefer to HOLD ON to the thoughts that they have now and try absolutely ANY thing to justify those thoughts rather than just admit that the thoughts they have now might just be wrong and might just need some changing and / or fine tuning .

Human beings admit to wrong all the time just not every single time
I have zero intention of holding onto any thoughts that are wrong where that can actually be demonstrated
So I try not to have fixed thoughts about any thing for this very reason instead just let them be as they are

I'm told i'm wrong all the time by people who are straw-manning or simply don't know how to make their argument salient. As such, those aren't productive conversations. An ultimate guru, a true arbiter of truth would have big problems finding anyone with the capacity to recognise them as such because most people don't have a capacity to recognise either truth or someone who recognises truth.

[Eodnhoj7]

So, now you want to make the claim that there are 'many' universes. As I say, adult human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" and back up and support their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, instead of changing and looking at things differently.

And that is your belief. I am simply accepting all phenomena, including the abstraction of "the many" as a phenomena in itself.

You even have this completely and utterly WRONG. 'What' EXACTLY are you suggesting is, supposedly, "my belief"?

. As I say, adult human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" and back up and support their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, instead of changing and looking at things differently.

Rarely will the adult human being ever admit that they are wrong or incorrect. They will also rarely, again if ever, even just realize that if they just changed their thinking a little bit, then they would be closer to seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS. They much prefer to HOLD ON to the thoughts that they have 'now', and 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" those thoughts, rather than just admit that the thoughts they have now might just be wrong and might just need some changing, and/or fine tuning.

Contradictions, as concepts thus phenomena, exist as part of the one. "The One" and "The Many" both exist under the concept of "all that there is" thus necessitating reality as triadic.

But you are SO BLINDED that you can NOT even SEE that the sum of EVERY thing is Everything as the One, and thee ONLY One.

False the sum of everything results in many parts behaving as one yet this one is composed of and composed many parts.

'All that there is' together, therefore, can ONLY be One Thing, which OBVIOUSLY 'has to be' independent of absolutely ANY thing else. This can NOT be ANY other way. Thee End.

You are FREE to simply accept ANY and ALL phenomena, as you so feel you have to or want to. But, just simply accepting ALL phenomena does NOT make ALL phenomena right NOR correct.

All phenomena exist under the sum total of "everything" thus the concept of "the many" exists. The universe, as accepting all phenomena as existing (including concepts and measurements), is both one and many thus triadic.

What you fail to see is under the summation of everything the concept of "the many" exists as real. There is both one and many universes just like there is one electron which exists through many electrons.

[Age]

And that is your belief. I am simply accepting all phenomena, including the abstraction of "the many" as a phenomena in itself.

You even have this completely and utterly WRONG. 'What' EXACTLY are you suggesting is, supposedly, "my belief"?

. As I say, adult human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" and back up and support their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, instead of changing and looking at things differently.

I do NOT believe this. I also NEITHER disbelieve this. Therefore, this is NOT my belief.

So, as I said, you are completely and utterly WRONG.

Contradictions, as concepts thus phenomena, exist as part of the one. "The One" and "The Many" both exist under the concept of "all that there is" thus necessitating reality as triadic.

But you are SO BLINDED that you can NOT even SEE that the sum of EVERY thing is Everything as the One, and thee ONLY One.

False the sum of everything results in many parts behaving as one yet this one is composed of and composed many parts.

So, you say what I say, but then you say that this is false.

'All that there is' together, therefore, can ONLY be One Thing, which OBVIOUSLY 'has to be' independent of absolutely ANY thing else. This can NOT be ANY other way. Thee End.

You are FREE to simply accept ANY and ALL phenomena, as you so feel you have to or want to. But, just simply accepting ALL phenomena does NOT make ALL phenomena right NOR correct.

All phenomena exist under the sum total of "everything" thus the concept of "the many" exists. The universe, as accepting all phenomena as existing (including concepts and measurements), is both one and many thus triadic.

What you fail to see is under the summation of everything the concept of "the many" exists as real.

Where is the actual EVIDENCE or PROOF that I, supposedly, fail to see this?

There is both one and many universes just like there is one electron which exists through many electrons.

Where is the actual EVIDENCE or PROOF that there are many universes?

[Age]

Rarely will the adult human being ever admit that they are wrong or incorrect . They will also rarely again if ever even just realize that if they just changed their thinking a little bit then they would be closer to seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS . They much prefer to HOLD ON to the thoughts that they have now and try absolutely ANY thing to justify those thoughts rather than just admit that the thoughts they have now might just be wrong and might just need some changing and / or fine tuning .

Human beings admit to wrong all the time just not every single time

If 'human beings' did admit to wrong 'ALL THE TIME, then they MUST ALSO, logically, do it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Read back through this forum, for actual evidence of just how rare wrongs are admitted to.

Also, take note that you will NOT admit to YOUR WRONG here, as well. (Unless of course you will now PROVE ME WRONG).

I have zero intention of holding onto any thoughts that are wrong where that can actually be demonstrated

Okay.

Also, are you AWARE that there are thoughts within that body that are wrong, and which can actually be demonstrated to be wrong, but you are currently just NOT YET able to SEE that they are wrong?

So I try not to have fixed thoughts about any thing for this very reason instead just let them be as they are

But WHY 'try' not to have fixed thoughts about any thing?

Why not just do it?

[Age]

Rarely will the adult human being ever admit that they are wrong or incorrect . They will also rarely again if ever even just realize that if they just changed their thinking a little bit then they would be closer to seeing and understanding what thee actual Truth of things IS . They much prefer to HOLD ON to the thoughts that they have now and try absolutely ANY thing to justify those thoughts rather than just admit that the thoughts they have now might just be wrong and might just need some changing and / or fine tuning .

Human beings admit to wrong all the time just not every single time
I have zero intention of holding onto any thoughts that are wrong where that can actually be demonstrated
So I try not to have fixed thoughts about any thing for this very reason instead just let them be as they are

I'm told i'm wrong all the time by people who are straw-manning or simply don't know how to make their argument salient.

Well here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of BEING, just plain, WRONG.

And what will be SHOWN, and discovered, is that this will just NOT be accepted as being the actual Truth.

As such, those aren't productive conversations.

Well if you explained to the person, at the time, that they are, so called, "straw-manning", AND provided the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF for this, and, if you explained to the "other" how to actually make their argument, so called, "salient", then that would be you being actually productive in the conversation.

But, if you do NOT do these things, then it is you who is NOT creating a productive conversations.

An ultimate guru, a true arbiter of truth would have big problems finding anyone with the capacity to recognise them as such because most people don't have a capacity to recognise either truth or someone who recognises truth.

But they ALL do have the capacity, within them. This capacity has just been shrunk, or lost, through incorrect teachings, and learning, during their past experiences.

[Eodnhoj7]

You even have this completely and utterly WRONG. 'What' EXACTLY are you suggesting is, supposedly, "my belief"?

. As I say, adult human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" and back up and support their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, instead of changing and looking at things differently.

I do NOT believe this. I also NEITHER disbelieve this. Therefore, this is NOT my belief.

So, as I said, you are completely and utterly WRONG.

That is your belief.

But you are SO BLINDED that you can NOT even SEE that the sum of EVERY thing is Everything as the One, and thee ONLY One.

The sum of everything includes "the many" as part of this summation.

"The One"
"The Many"
"Being"

Necessitates a trifold nature.

False the sum of everything results in many parts behaving as one yet this one is composed of and composed many parts.

So, you say what I say, but then you say that this is false.

Being is One and Many.

'All that there is' together, therefore, can ONLY be One Thing, which OBVIOUSLY 'has to be' independent of absolutely ANY thing else. This can NOT be ANY other way. Thee End.

You are FREE to simply accept ANY and ALL phenomena, as you so feel you have to or want to. But, just simply accepting ALL phenomena does NOT make ALL phenomena right NOR correct.

The One is the summation of everything including that which appears as illusion.
If truth and falsity exist as part of the One in necessitates the One as dualistic.

All phenomena exist under the sum total of "everything" thus the concept of "the many" exists. The universe, as accepting all phenomena as existing (including concepts and measurements), is both one and many thus triadic.

What you fail to see is under the summation of everything the concept of "the many" exists as real.

Where is the actual EVIDENCE or PROOF that I, supposedly, fail to see this?

The quote of you stating: "But you are SO BLINDED that you can NOT even SEE that the sum of EVERY thing is Everything as the One, and thee ONLY One."

There is both one and many universes just like there is one electron which exists through many electrons.

Where is the actual EVIDENCE or PROOF that there are many universes?

In how the universe exists as a classification of a summation of parts as matter and space.. Anything which exists as a summation of parts of matter and space exists as a universe. Given multiple phenomenon results in multiple distinctions and multiple distinctions necessitate multiple individual entities there are multiple universes as multiple distinct yet individual entities. Multiple universes exist as multiple clusters of matter and space.

Given the concept of the many exists as part of the universe, the many is a means through which they universe exists.

An example of the one and many is a single line composed of multiple lines. One line exists as repeated yet this repetition necessitates a multiplicity.

The summation of everything necessitates the one existing through the many much in the same manner the summation of all numbers necessitating multiple ones as existing through many numbers composed of multiple ones.

[Advocate]

Human beings admit to wrong all the time just not every single time
I have zero intention of holding onto any thoughts that are wrong where that can actually be demonstrated
So I try not to have fixed thoughts about any thing for this very reason instead just let them be as they are

I'm told i'm wrong all the time by people who are straw-manning or simply don't know how to make their argument salient.

Well here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of BEING, just plain, WRONG.

And what will be SHOWN, and discovered, is that this will just NOT be accepted as being the actual Truth.

As such, those aren't productive conversations.

Well if you explained to the person, at the time, that they are, so called, "straw-manning", AND provided the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF for this, and, if you explained to the "other" how to actually make their argument, so called, "salient", then that would be you being actually productive in the conversation.

But, if you do NOT do these things, then it is you who is NOT creating a productive conversations.

An ultimate guru, a true arbiter of truth would have big problems finding anyone with the capacity to recognise them as such because most people don't have a capacity to recognise either truth or someone who recognises truth.

But they ALL do have the capacity, within them. This capacity has just been shrunk, or lost, through incorrect teachings, and learning, during their past experiences.

You just said 'you're wrong, they do have the capacity' and 'because it's hidden within' which is introducing a different dimension of understanding not related to my contention and therefore not a valid refutation. My contention, clearly and properly understood is; They do not have the capacity <at the moment in question, when it is time to recognise truth, etc.>. I was definitely referencing a particular moment, not their overall worth as human beings or something. I'd call that a straw-man argument by definition. However, perhaps i could find another phrase than "don't have the capacity" that can't so easily be understood across boundaries to where it does not apply.

[Age]

. As I say, adult human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" and back up and support their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, instead of changing and looking at things differently.

I do NOT believe this. I also NEITHER disbelieve this. Therefore, this is NOT my belief.

So, as I said, you are completely and utterly WRONG.

That is your belief.

The sum of everything includes "the many" as part of this summation.

"The One"
"The Many"
"Being"

Necessitates a trifold nature.

False the sum of everything results in many parts behaving as one yet this one is composed of and composed many parts.

So, you say what I say, but then you say that this is false.

Being is One and Many.

The One is the summation of everything including that which appears as illusion.
If truth and falsity exist as part of the One in necessitates the One as dualistic.

All phenomena exist under the sum total of "everything" thus the concept of "the many" exists. The universe, as accepting all phenomena as existing (including concepts and measurements), is both one and many thus triadic.

What you fail to see is under the summation of everything the concept of "the many" exists as real.

Where is the actual EVIDENCE or PROOF that I, supposedly, fail to see this?

The quote of you stating: "But you are SO BLINDED that you can NOT even SEE that the sum of EVERY thing is Everything as the One, and thee ONLY One."

There is both one and many universes just like there is one electron which exists through many electrons.

Where is the actual EVIDENCE or PROOF that there are many universes?

In how the universe exists as a classification of a summation of parts as matter and space.. Anything which exists as a summation of parts of matter and space exists as a universe. Given multiple phenomenon results in multiple distinctions and multiple distinctions necessitate multiple individual entities there are multiple universes as multiple distinct yet individual entities. Multiple universes exist as multiple clusters of matter and space.

Given the concept of the many exists as part of the universe, the many is a means through which they universe exists.

An example of the one and many is a single line composed of multiple lines. One line exists as repeated yet this repetition necessitates a multiplicity.

The summation of everything necessitates the one existing through the many much in the same manner the summation of all numbers necessitating multiple ones as existing through many numbers composed of multiple ones.

The example that there is only One and nothing else is thee Universe, Itself.

You can provide MANY examples of other things. But, by definition, there can EVER ONLY BE One Universe.

[Age]

I'm told i'm wrong all the time by people who are straw-manning or simply don't know how to make their argument salient.

Well here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of BEING, just plain, WRONG.

And what will be SHOWN, and discovered, is that this will just NOT be accepted as being the actual Truth.

As such, those aren't productive conversations.

Well if you explained to the person, at the time, that they are, so called, "straw-manning", AND provided the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF for this, and, if you explained to the "other" how to actually make their argument, so called, "salient", then that would be you being actually productive in the conversation.

But, if you do NOT do these things, then it is you who is NOT creating a productive conversations.

An ultimate guru, a true arbiter of truth would have big problems finding anyone with the capacity to recognise them as such because most people don't have a capacity to recognise either truth or someone who recognises truth.

But they ALL do have the capacity, within them. This capacity has just been shrunk, or lost, through incorrect teachings, and learning, during their past experiences.

You just said 'you're wrong,

WHEN and WHERE did I, supposedly, say; "I am wrong"?

they do have the capacity' and 'because it's hidden within' which is introducing a different dimension of understanding not related to my contention and therefore not a valid refutation.

Okay, if you say so.

But what happens if "another" is just expressing an understanding of what is ACTUALLY True, but which is just not related to 'YOUR' contention, which is NOT actually True, anyway?

My contention, clearly and properly understood is;

Just wondering, from your perspective, whose fault is it if YOUR contention is NOT clearly and properly understood?

They do not have the capacity <at the moment in question, when it is time to recognise truth, etc.>.

Seems like I was ACTUALLY ALLUDING TO WHY they do not have the capacity AT THE MOMENT IN QUESTION, which would mean that I was actually introducing the dimension of EXPLAINING WHY things have occurred and are happening AT THE MOMENT IN QUESTION.

By the way, did I HAVE TO 'refute' YOUR contention? Can I NOT just elaborate on YOUR contention, and/or explain what and/or why that particular thing happens and occurs, and/or just introduce further knowledge and understanding about YOUR contention?

I was definitely referencing a particular moment, not their overall worth as human beings or something. I'd call that a straw-man argument by definition. However, perhaps i could find another phrase than "don't have the capacity" that can't so easily be understood across boundaries to where it does not apply.

Yes you could find another phrase, very simply and easily, which can so easily be understood across boundaries to where it does not apply. You find this be just being COMPLETELY OPEN and thus just LOOKING AT what thee actual Truth of things IS.

For example; If you wanted to claim thee actual Truth, then just say; Most adult people lose the capacity to recognize either truth, or someone who recognizes truth, some of the time.

ALL issues and problems, here, solved, and ONLY thee Truth is being SEEN, and expressed.

[Eodnhoj7]

I do NOT believe this. I also NEITHER disbelieve this. Therefore, this is NOT my belief.

So, as I said, you are completely and utterly WRONG.

That is your belief.



So, you say what I say, but then you say that this is false.

Being is One and Many.





Where is the actual EVIDENCE or PROOF that I, supposedly, fail to see this?

The quote of you stating: "But you are SO BLINDED that you can NOT even SEE that the sum of EVERY thing is Everything as the One, and thee ONLY One."





Where is the actual EVIDENCE or PROOF that there are many universes?

In how the universe exists as a classification of a summation of parts as matter and space.. Anything which exists as a summation of parts of matter and space exists as a universe. Given multiple phenomenon results in multiple distinctions and multiple distinctions necessitate multiple individual entities there are multiple universes as multiple distinct yet individual entities. Multiple universes exist as multiple clusters of matter and space.

Given the concept of the many exists as part of the universe, the many is a means through which they universe exists.

An example of the one and many is a single line composed of multiple lines. One line exists as repeated yet this repetition necessitates a multiplicity.

The summation of everything necessitates the one existing through the many much in the same manner the summation of all numbers necessitating multiple ones as existing through many numbers composed of multiple ones.

The example that there is only One and nothing else is thee Universe, Itself.

You can provide MANY examples of other things. But, by definition, there can EVER ONLY BE One Universe.

One universe is composed of multiple universes considering a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space. The problem is one of classification.

The one exists through the many and the many is an approximation of the one considering the one cannot be known in its totality.

We observe the one through the many thus the many is a facet of the one. This would be no different than seeing one line as composed of multiple lines, the one line is strictly many lines grouped together.

The one and the many are inseperable. The universe is both one and many.