Existence Is Infinite

[Dontaskme]

The “knower” is simply a complex arrangement of matter and energy facilitating the process of consciousness, among other things. When that particular “knower”, when that particular conscious unit disintegrates consciousness is discontinued for that unit. Existence persists. Other conscious beings persist. Even if they do not existence persists either way.

So the is the ''knower'' constantly dipping in and out of existence, but is never completely severed or separated from infinite existence itself. The ''knower'' is either in a state of being latent or kinetic? ..is that correct to say?

Not necessarily because consciousness isn’t an isolated or anomalous phenomenon. Consider the billions of conscious, living beings on this planet alone at this moment alone.

While there are particular “knowers”, or particular conscious beings, consciousness itself is rather generic.

Consciousness is basically the same. Conscious beings can sense, they can perceive, conscious beings are aware. Through the course of one’s life personal experiences, memories and opinions are layered over that conscious core which are largely what comprise the individual.

In other words when a particular conscious unit is discontinued there are still other conscious units remaining, perpetuating the “knower” as all consciousness is basically the same. Those “others” are basically you and I.

This doesn’t just apply to humans but all organisms, perhaps even artificial intelligence and advanced technologies. Nor does it include only Earth. Consciousness, the knower could be perpetuated in other star systems, in other galaxies. Our entire universe could be part of some superior, conscious living organism surrounded by other conscious living organisms. We could be part of a massive body of consciousness. Or we could be part of its lab experiment. The possibilities, the potentialities are incalculable.

If there were a point of nonconsciousness, of “not knowing”, would there be a “knowing” of it at that point anyway?

The point being in some form, in some way the knower is perpetuated. Just not necessarily memories.

My take...Nonexistence is simply known in it's word, and this word is known in existence, which means nonexistence is a conceptual word known by existence. When the ''knower'' seeks itself, this 'knowing self' is known only in the word, the thing known...is that correct to say?

All that is known and all that could ever be known is existence. Nonexistence is not to be known or unknown. Concepts of nonexistence, of nothing, of nothingness are all concepts of existence, not nonexistence.

Nonexistence cannot be known, nonexistence cannot be perceived directly nor indirectly for nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Thank you daniel, I do understand what you are speaking about. I do comprehend what you are saying, I do like and resonate with the way you put this into words.

For words is all that knowing can know. As words inform each and every one of us who is familiar with knowledge that yes indeed, existence exists as the word exists...in this conception.

All of us will no doubt put differently what we are attempting to point out, so we can only resonate with apparent difference or not, according to what each of us as an individual understands directly through experience...and not as some other individual, who will appear to be different, but will indeed be the same one infinity expressing itself infinitely for eternity, paradoxically speaking.

[daniel j lavender]

For words is all that knowing can know.

Existence is all that can be known or unknown. Existence is all.

All of us will no doubt put differently what we are attempting to point out, so we can only resonate with apparent difference or not, according to what each of us as an individual understands directly through experience...and not as some other individual

Are you claiming to have experienced nothing or nonexistence?

Referring to this statement:

Nothing and everything are conjoined twins infinitely for eternity inseparably one.

How can one make such a declaration?

How can nothing and something, or nothing and many things, coexist?

If there is some thing there is not no thing. How does one resolve this?

[Age]

Just ask any piece of form a question and wait to see if it gives you an answer.

'I' ALREADY HAVE.

'they' ALREADY HAVE, TOO.

What piece of form did you ask....will you name it in one word?

I will use TWO WORDS. Human being.

I ASKED the 'human being' form, AND, the 'human being' form ANSWERED.

But if you just want ONE word ONLY, then 'human' will suffice here, for now.

Did you REALLY NOT GRASP 'this' BEFORE?

WHY do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, and 'human bodies' are NOT 'forms', YET, 'I', and EVERY 'thing' ELSE, ARE 'forms'?

Any concept known is form. Form appears as an object looked upon. And that which is looked upon, knows, and sees, nothing.

Human/body/being/ I / are all form.

[Age]

Nonexistence IS 'logically and actually POSSIBLE'. Although BECAUSE of the Conscious Being Existing, HERE-NOW IN or WITH 'Existence', Itself, 'nonexistence' could NEVER have existed NOR EVER could exist.

Absence of consciousness equals absence of consciousness. Absence of consciousness does not necessarily equal nonexistence.

I KNOW.

AND I NEVER even THOUGHT NOR SUGGEST OTHERWISE, let alone SAID 'it' ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE.

So, WHY would you even MAKE the ASSUMPTION that I was even THINKING 'absence of consciousness' mean 'nonexistence'.

These people, back then, REALLY could NOT STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, and the MOST RIDICULOUS 'thing' with a GREAT DEAL of those ASSUMPTIONS were that they were ACTUALLY False, Wrong, or Incorrect BUT STILL BELIEVED that their OWN MADE UP ASSUMPTIONS were True, Right, OR Correct.

AND WORST STILL is that those False, Wrong, or Incorrect ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS were LEADING them COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ASTRAY. As can be WITNESSED and CLEARLY SEEN here, IN THIS FORUM.

Even if a conscious being loses consciousness nonexistence is not introduced.

I ALREADY KNOW.

AND, as can be CLEARLY SEEN I have NEVER even SAID NOR ALLUDED to ANY 'thing' REMOTELY EVEN CLOSE to what you are SAYING here.

SO, WHY you ARE SAYING 'this' here REALLY ONLY you KNOW.

Nonconsciousness would be introduced.

If you SAY SO. BUT so-called 'introduced' to WHO, EXACTLY?

I realize this as a conscious being. Existence is perpetuated even if consciousness is not. Certain conditions allow consciousness. Other conditions do not. However all conditions are existence, are being. Existence is present conscious or not.

WHO CARES?

Existence, things can be without consciousness. Things, existence may not be realized, at least at that point, but they would be. Consciousness cannot be without existence, without things at all.

It isn’t because of some conscious bias. It’s because it is what it is.

AGAIN, WHO CARES?

What you are SAYING here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I WAS POINTING OUT and SAYING here.

As stated, both the concept existence and the concept nonexistence are only concepts.

It does NOT MATTER ONE IOTA IF 'they' are just 'only' 'concepts'. BOTH 'existence' AND 'nonexistence' EXIST. Which you HAVE ALREADY AGREED WITH.

Nonexistence does not and cannot exist.

Are you 'now' SAYING that 'nonexistence' the word, idea, and concept does NOT exist?

ALSO, what we have here IS a PRIME example of HOW and WHEN one WITH A BELIEF IS ABSOLUTELY Truly INCAPABLE of SEEING and HEARING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', which OPPOSES THEIR BELIEF.

What this one IS DOING here PROVES MY POINT, ABSOLUTELY.

AND it does NOT MATTER ONE IOTA IF one's BELIEF IS ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct, the Fact that 'that one' is NOT ABLE TO LISTEN TO and HEAR "another" and is ALSO NOT ABLE TO SEE ANY 'thing' ELSE, opposing, is just what I have BEEN POINTING OUT and SHOWING through these 'respondents' here, in this forum.

Those are concepts, those are words, terms. They are perceived and interacted with.

AND they EXIST. Which you AGREED WITH, earlier on.

Nonexistence is never perceived or interacted with as it does not and cannot exist.

OKAY. you have TOLD us YOUR BELIEF here NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY.

Just so this is VERY CLEAR: We ARE ALREADY FULLY AWARE of what you BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE here.

There what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, which IS DIFFERENT FROM what you BELIEVER here is of NO REAL IMPORTANCE.

That 'you', a human being, BELIEVE what you do, and, that 'you' are NOT OPEN to ANY 'thing' OTHER BECAUSE OF BELIEF, is about ALL I WANT to SHOW and REVEAL here. So, THANK YOU.

The Infinite, which has no counterpart, which is not exceeded and which is unlimited.

BUT the 'counterpart' OF 'infinite' IS 'finite', just like the 'counterpart' OF 'existence' IS 'nonexistence'.

Counterpart, n., “One that closely resembles another”

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition 2016)
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/counterpart

Are you here suggesting that the word 'infinite' IS NOT a 'counterpart' for the word 'finite'?

If yes, then I can work WITH 'this'. However, WHY then did you SAY before that the word 'nonexistence' IS the 'counterpart' for the word 'existence'?

Or, are those two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 'things' or issues?

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited to any particular. Existence is not just infinite; existence is also finite. To limit existence to either infinitude or finitude would be limitation.

Existence is both part and whole as conveyed in the original text (Existence Both Part And Whole section). Existence is unlimited; existence is the entirety, existence is all things, existence is each and every thing.

Existence is infinite. Existence is all. Existence is all there is. There is no other to closely resemble.

Have you come to this forum to just CLAIM that, 'existence is infinite', and that 'this' is ALL you REALLY want to do here?

The term nothing or nonexistence is contradictory because it implies no thing while it is a thing.

While 'what' is A 'thing'?

The term.

This would be one of the WORST definitions I have seen for a while now.

BUT, did 'you' or did 'you' NOT just get through TELLING 'us' that 'nonexistence' EXISTS in 'concept'?

No.

So, 'now' are you SAYING that 'nonexistence' does NOT EXIST, in 'concept', to 'you'?

I said, or perhaps implied, the idea, concept, word or adjective “nonexistent” exists as an idea, concept, word or adjective:

BUT 'you' are NOT ABLE TO have a 'concept' of 'nonexistence', right?

In other words, the 'concept' OF 'nonexistence' is NOT ABLE TO exist WITHIN 'that body', right?

It’s self-evident.

That thing is a thing. Not no thing, not nonexistence.

Okay.

LOL you just can NOT bring "your" 'self' to doing 'it' hey?

Eternal is not the same as infinite.

I KNOW. AND, as I POINTED OUT TO you EARLIER, the 'eternal' word IS MORE Accurate for what you are SO DESPERATELY 'trying to' SAY and CONVEY here.

But as I mentioned earlier, if I recall correctly, the 'infinite' word here will suffice, for now.

There are a few OTHER MAJOR ISSUES that NEED to be RESOLVED before we delve into the MORE SUBTLE ones, like for example YOUR CONTRADICTION here.

As conveyed in the essay, existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Existence is both eternal and infinite.

So, WHY have you ONLY been USING the 'infinite' word, since.

Eternal, eternity concerns duration or time. Infinite concerns extent, range or spatial scope.

I KNOW, and this IS WHY I POINTED OUT and SAID what I DID earlier on.

It is like BECAUSE I SAID and NOTED the SAME 'thing' earlier you are now just COPYING me.

Language certainly could be eternal and I presume it is. Language would not be infinite, however, as language is observably not the totality of things.

The VERY REASON WHY I SAID 'language' can ALSO EXIST FOREVER MORE IS BECAUSE the BOLDED two words REFER TO DURATION and thus 'eternal' and NOT SPATIAL nor 'infinite'.

So, WHY would you SAY and WRITE such A STUPID 'thing' as what you just DID here?

I WAS the ONE who FIRST PLANTED the Fact WITHIN you the Correct WAY to USE those words.

Language is language. Language is not a stone; language is not the stone itself, what the word or term “stone” represents, anyway. Language is language. It is limited to that extent.

WHAT ARE you ON ABOUT here?

Existence is language, and the stone, and the screen, and all other things and each and every thing. Existence is unlimited. Existence is infinite.

If you REALLY WANT TO SAY and CLAIM what you are here, then PLEASE FEEL ABSOLUTELY FREE TO.

'you', adult human beings, HAVE YOUR BELIEFS, and IF you WANT TO SHARE 'them' WITH 'us', then PLEASE DO. Some 'things' that 'you', people, BELIEVE are ABSOLUTELY TRUE can be VERY ENLIGHTENING.

Everything.

Existence. Words. Concepts. Ideas. Images. Screens. Blank screens. Each and every thing you see, hear, think. Each and every thing that is perceived, or interacts, or has properties or qualities. All things, everything, all.




There appears to be no adequate refutation against it.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

Here we have MORE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of HOW WHEN one IS BELIEVING some 'thing' IS TRUE that they are then are NOT AT ALL OPEN to ABSOLUTELY ANY REFUTATION of THEIR BELIEF AT ALL.

It is a simple, basic and logical principle: If there is some thing there is not no thing.

THIS ABSURDITY SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

The Fact that 'that sentence' could be WRITTEN, and UNDERSTOOD, SPEAKS ABSOLUTELY OF the ILLOGICALITY of 'it', while REFUTING 'itself'. As even the one who WROTE 'it' has POINTED OUT and SHOWN PREVIOUSLY.

If there is a thing there is not no thing.

The ABSOLUTE EASY it would take to SHOW and PROVE this sentence here IS False, Wrong, AND Incorrect is PURE SIMPLICITY.

BUT, while this one IS BELIEVING what 'it' IS here, then there is, literally, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that could SHOW and PROVE otherwise to this one.

Do you mean to imply otherwise?

you continually TELLING us what you BELIEVE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, while SHOWING us just how CLOSED you REALLY ARE here is what I like to REVEAL here.

Also, I have CLEARLY 'implied' that what you BELIEVE IS TRUE is NOT necessarily true AT ALL, let alone even CLOSE to the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

You mean to declare there is a thing, and not a thing, at the same time?

If I recall correctly, I IMPLIED 'this' in my FIRST post here in this forum.

As I had been talking ABOUT YOUR CONTRADICTION, which have NOT been ABLE TO GET TO BECAUSE you have been TO BUSY CONTINUALLY TELLING 'us' what you BELIEVE IS TRUE, INSTEAD.

How do you wish an attempt to reconcile that?

I just WAIT for those who are Truly INTERESTED.

I have NO wish to ANY 'thing' ELSE.

As you illustrate, “nonexistence” does exist. There it is. Look at it. It is a word. A term. A concept. It is perceived.

you SAY here, ' 'It' is perceived '. Now 'what', EXACTLY, is perceived?

That is a thing, an existing. Not a nonexisting, not nonexistence.

Nonexistence is never perceived or interacted with as it does not exist.

So, in one sentence you SAY and CLAIM, 'It is perceived', BUT in another sentence you SAY and CLAIM, 'Nonexistence' IS NEVER EVER perceived'.

Only existence, only things are perceived and interacted with.

Which only FURTHER backs up and supports MY VIEW here.

[Age]

There is not nothingness. Nothingness cannot be. Nor is there any need for nothingness if it could.

So what is death? Is there no death then?

Death is death.

So how can we define the difference between ALIVE and not-alive? what would be the difference, what would it look and feel like?

Has this not already been fairly well established?

Living and nonliving, biological and nonbiological things.

Living things exhibit vital signs, biological functions such as consumption and metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, etcetera. Nonliving things do not exhibit such signs.

Will you list some of what you call 'nonliving things'?

[Age]

For words is all that knowing can know.

Existence is all that can be known or unknown. Existence is all.

All of us will no doubt put differently what we are attempting to point out, so we can only resonate with apparent difference or not, according to what each of us as an individual understands directly through experience...and not as some other individual

Are you claiming to have experienced nothing or nonexistence?

Referring to this statement:

Nothing and everything are conjoined twins infinitely for eternity inseparably one.

How can one make such a declaration?

How can nothing and something, or nothing and many things, coexist?

Very SIMPLY and very EASILY, and in fact is the ONLY WAY the One 'Thing' ACTUALLY EXISTS, HERE, and NOW.

If there is some thing there is not no thing.

We ALREADY KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

How does one resolve this?

VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY, one HAS TO BE FIRST OPEN to that BELIEF of YOURS being so-called RESOLVABLE.

[daniel j lavender]

It does NOT MATTER ONE IOTA IF 'they' are just 'only' 'concepts'. BOTH 'existence' AND 'nonexistence' EXIST. Which you HAVE ALREADY AGREED WITH.

Nonexistence does not and cannot exist.

Are you 'now' SAYING that 'nonexistence' the word, idea, and concept does NOT exist?

No. I’m saying the word, idea or concept is a word, idea or concept.

I’m saying all that is existence.

Nonexistence is a word, term or concept representing no thing or nonexisting. However there is no nonexisting.

Nonexistence, what the term or concept is attempting to represent, does not exist.

Nonexistence, nothing is such an absurd concept it contradicts itself in plain sight:

Nothing? No thing? Not quite.

Someone show me nothing. Someone show me nonexisting. Someone show me nonexistence. Simply show me evidence of nothing, of nonexisting, of nonexistence. Not words. Not terms. Not concepts. It can’t be done. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Those are concepts, those are words, terms. They are perceived and interacted with.

AND they EXIST. Which you AGREED WITH, earlier on.

Correct. Which is evidence of existing, of existence. Not evidence of nonexisting or nonexistence.

You mean to declare there is a thing, and not a thing, at the same time?

If I recall correctly, I IMPLIED 'this' in my FIRST post here in this forum.

As I had been talking ABOUT YOUR CONTRADICTION, which have NOT been ABLE TO GET TO BECAUSE you have been TO BUSY CONTINUALLY TELLING 'us' what you BELIEVE IS TRUE, INSTEAD.

How do you wish an attempt to reconcile that?

I just WAIT for those who are Truly INTERESTED.

I have NO wish to ANY 'thing' ELSE.

As stated earlier, others cannot make your arguments for you.

Present your argument.

How can one make such a declaration?

How can nothing and something, or nothing and many things, coexist?

Very SIMPLY and very EASILY, and in fact is the ONLY WAY the One 'Thing' ACTUALLY EXISTS, HERE, and NOW.

If there is some thing there is not no thing.

We ALREADY KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

How does one resolve this?

VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

You have yet to do so.

Feel free to elaborate.

Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing.

[Dontaskme]

Nothing and everything are conjoined twins infinitely for eternity inseparably one.

How can one make such a declaration?

The same way the delcaration is made that existence is infinite.

It's like how could 'infinity' even know it is infinite existence without also knowing 'infinity' (cannot not be finite).
Declaration implies there is a 'something' that knows some other 'thing' ...so this knowing, this knower, would always have to be with KNOWLEDGE. The knowledge I already have.

For 'infinity' to know it is infinite? it would also need to know 'finite'?
Knowing would need to know both (to-exist) and (to not-exist) for these two known concepts to have any sort of meaning, or mental congnition..before being declared or claimed.

For example: to declare I know I exist, can only be possible because I can also know (I do not not-exist). Both these known concepts have to be known, otherwise, both ideas (I know I exist) because as I exist, I also know ( I do not not-exist) and so without knowing both these concepts ..the declaration (I exist) would be completely meaningless. The claim ( I exist ) could only mean something within knowledge in relation to the opposite which would be known as (to not-exist)

How can nothing and something, or nothing and many things, coexist?

They coexist as existence but only as concepts known.

If there is some thing there is not no thing. How does one resolve this?

But to be able to speak of the word ( no thing ) is to make it a thing, so it has to be including in this all inclusive knowing that is existence itself.

.

[Dontaskme]

I will use TWO WORDS. Human being.

I ASKED the 'human being' form, AND, the 'human being' form ANSWERED.

I is another word for 'human being'. Both the words I and 'human being' are concepts known. Concepts formed in this conception.

Form never asks and answers form, form cannot ask form questions. That would be like an 'arm' asking a 'leg' a question.
It can only be the formless asking and answering questions, as and through form.

How do questions and answers arise as formless as and through form..no form knows?

Form knows nothing of it's reality. Knowing, is a completely formless phenomena. Knowing, doesn't take on a form or experience itself as a form, knowing, can never experience itself as an object, a form.

There is no way ''knowing'' can experience itself as an actual object/form or concept. Both the form and formless are the same one reality/exitence, they coexist. Another way of describing the form/formless would be to say there is (no thing and some thing) coexisting.


.

[daniel j lavender]

Nothing and everything are conjoined twins infinitely for eternity inseparably one.

How can one make such a declaration?

The same way the delcaration is made that existence is infinite.

I’m not simply making declarations.

I have presented a structured, cohesive, comprehensive text detailing how existence is infinite. I am not making empty proclamations void of supporting statements, arguments or evidence.

That existence is infinite, that existence is unlimited in extent, that existence is not limited to any particular is a straightforward and sensible premise observable in the real world.

To the contrary you have not produced any sort of text detailing any sort of argumentation or providing any type of supporting evidence for your confounding claim:

Nothing and everything are conjoined twins infinitely for eternity inseparably one.

You haven’t even defined any terms.

Nor have you been able to provide any evidence for nothing or nonexistence.

Knowing would need to know both (to-exist) and (to not-exist) for these two known concepts to have any sort of meaning, or mental congnition..before being declared or claimed.

For example: to declare I know I exist, can only be possible because I can also know (I do not not-exist). Both these known concepts have to be known, otherwise, both ideas (I know I exist) because as I exist, I also know ( I do not not-exist) and so without knowing both these concepts ..the declaration (I exist) would be completely meaningless. The claim ( I exist ) could only mean something within knowledge in relation to the opposite which would be known as (to not-exist)

And as you acknowledge both are concepts. Both are examples of existence, not nonexistence.

How can nothing and something, or nothing and many things, coexist?

They coexist as existence but only as concepts known.

So you concede only concepts can be referenced when attempting to identify nonexistence. Only things are identified in the attempt to identify nothing. Perhaps that’s because nonexistence is not and cannot be.

“As existence” is existence. A concept is part of existence.

Again, those are things. They are concepts. They coexist because they are.

A concept is part of existence. A concept is a thing. A concept is not nonexistence. A concept is not no thing.

That is evidence of existence. Not evidence of nonexistence.

We can talk conceptually about the coexistence of something and nothing but that does not mean something and nothing coexist in reality.

We agree there are things. There is something. I have asked that participants show nonexistence, or at least evidence of nonexistence. They have not. They cannot.

The coexistence of something and nothing is illogical. It isn’t even valid conceptually. Both something and nothing are things, are concepts, not no things, even in the mind, illustrating only things can be, only existence can be even conceptually.

You’re basically casting the idea that nonexistence, which has no basis, no identifiable basis as it is not and cannot be, extends or reveals itself conceptually through the terms nothingness and nonexistence. The argument literally has no basis.

Nothing, nothingness is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness revealed through the term or concept nonexistence. Rather nothingness is an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothingness. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually creates this abstraction of nothingness. Without consciousness nonexistence is not a worry. Without thought nonexistence is not a concern.

You speak as if nonexistence is interwoven with existence, intimately connected, coexisting as “conjoined twins”. That, interwoven with existence, nonexistence is as ubiquitous, is as prevalent as existence. Yet essentially you concede that only contradictory concepts, only allusive words can be referenced in the attempt to identify “infinite nonexistence”. If nonexistence is infinite, if nonexistence is as ubiquitous as existence why all the difficulty identifying it?

[Age]

Nonexistence does not and cannot exist.

Are you 'now' SAYING that 'nonexistence' the word, idea, and concept does NOT exist?

No. I’m saying the word, idea or concept is a word, idea or concept.

I’m saying all that is existence.
'
Nonexistence is a word, term or concept representing no thing or nonexisting.

To me the word 'nonexistence' does NOT represent 'no thing' AT ALL. To me the word 'nothing' represents NO 'thing'.

However there is no nonexisting.

WHY do you KEEP RE-REPEATING 'that' what NO one is disagreeing with?

Nonexistence, what the term or concept is attempting to represent, does not exist.

'What' IS the term or word 'nonexistence' so-called 'attempting to represent', which you CLAIM does NOT exist?

Nonexistence, nothing is such an absurd concept it contradicts itself in plain sight:

Nothing? No thing? Not quite.

Someone show me nothing. Someone show me nonexisting. Someone show me nonexistence. Simply show me evidence of nothing, of nonexisting, of nonexistence. Not words. Not terms. Not concepts. It can’t be done. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

It IS BECAUSE of BELIEF like 'this' here WHY I do NOT even bother.

Those are concepts, those are words, terms. They are perceived and interacted with.

AND they EXIST. Which you AGREED WITH, earlier on.

Correct. Which is evidence of existing, of existence.

Do you, or did you, even NEED 'evidence' of 'existence'?

Not evidence of nonexisting or nonexistence.

You mean to declare there is a thing, and not a thing, at the same time?

If I recall correctly, I IMPLIED 'this' in my FIRST post here in this forum.

As I had been talking ABOUT YOUR CONTRADICTION, which have NOT been ABLE TO GET TO BECAUSE you have been TO BUSY CONTINUALLY TELLING 'us' what you BELIEVE IS TRUE, INSTEAD.

How do you wish an attempt to reconcile that?

I just WAIT for those who are Truly INTERESTED.

I have NO wish to ANY 'thing' ELSE.

As stated earlier, others cannot make your arguments for you.

Present your argument.

What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you are now TELLING me TO PRESENT an ARGUMENT FOR?

WHY do you KEEP WANTING TO DEFLECT AWAY FROM YOUR CONTRADICTION?

Is it BECAUSE you BELIEVE that you have NO CONTRADICTION here? Or, for some OTHER reason?

How can one make such a declaration?

How can nothing and something, or nothing and many things, coexist?

Very SIMPLY and very EASILY, and in fact is the ONLY WAY the One 'Thing' ACTUALLY EXISTS, HERE, and NOW.

If there is some thing there is not no thing.

We ALREADY KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

How does one resolve this?

VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

You have yet to do so.

Feel free to elaborate.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Okay. If 'this' IS what you BELIEVE IS TRUE, then 'it' MUST BE TRUE, right?

If there is something there is not nothing.

AGAIN, OKAY.

[Dontaskme]

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothingness. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually creates this abstraction of nothingness. Without consciousness nonexistence is not a worry. Without thought nonexistence is not a concern.

We do not even know what consciousness is, except it is known as and through the word itself, in it's conception...consciousness is not something that can be tangible to touch or to be seen as a thing. And yet, consciousness seems to be this seeing, this touching, this knowing.

So we still have to deal with where concepts come from in the first place. Yes, there is existence, and existence obviously was here first before it was conceptualised. Now imagine what a non-conceptual existence would be like. There would be no words to describe of define it, it would just exist as a not known, nameless, indescribable, undefinable unidentified phenomena. Concepts arrived later on, they were overlaid upon the unspeakable mystery...and suddenly everything was known about this mystery. It's as if a mystery solved it's own mystery.

Animals do not know existence is infinite, no thing can tell itself it is a thing. So what is this knowing? It's still just a concept known that cannot know how it knows. There is nothing there in existence that can know it exists.

[Age]

I will use TWO WORDS. Human being.

I ASKED the 'human being' form, AND, the 'human being' form ANSWERED.

I is another word for 'human being'.

And here 'it IS. This here IS WHERE the CONFUSION 'laid', and HOW and WHY the CONFUSION 'persists'.

'I' is NOT ANOTHER word for 'human being'. Never WAS. And, NEVER WILL BE. Although a LOT of 'you', adult human beings, BELIEVE 'it' IS, and USE that letter/word to REFER TO 'you', individual human beings. But of ALL people 'you', "dontaskme", should KNOW just how ILLUSORY that word and letter is for 'you', human beings.

ANY 'sense of self' is just AN ILLUSION. There is ONLY One, and thus NO separate 'selfs'.

Both the words I and 'human being' are concepts known. Concepts formed in this conception.

EVERY word, to 'you', is a so-termed 'concept known', correct "dontaskme"?

Form never asks and answers form, form cannot ask form questions.

Do words, questions, and answers come OUT of the 'form', human being, or NOT?

That would be like an 'arm' asking a 'leg' a question.

WHERE DO QUESTIONS and ANSWERS COME FROM, if NOT FROM the human body?

It can only be the formless asking and answering questions, as and through form.

When 'you' SAY, 'formless', you MEAN non visible, right?

How do questions and answers arise as formless as and through form.

'you' would have to EXPLAIN what the words 'formless' AND 'form' MEAN or ARE REFERRING TO, FIRST and EXACTLY, if 'you' REALLY WANT 'me' to ANSWER this QUESTION of YOURS here.

no form knows?

When 'you' IN-FORM 'us' how 'you' ARE defining the word 'form' here, then we CAN SEE what you ACTUALLY MEAN.

And, as 'I' have been OFFERING, and EXPLAINING TO, 'you', CLEARER 'definitions' ARE NEEDED for the Truth, the WHOLE Truth, and ONLY the Truth to COME-TO-LIGHT, and be REVEALED.

Form knows nothing of it's reality. Knowing, is a completely formless phenomena. Knowing, doesn't take on a form or experience itself as a form, knowing, can never experience itself as an object, a form.

Is 'thinking' a 'form' to 'you', "dontaskme"?

There is no way ''knowing'' can experience itself as an actual object/form or concept.

So, HOW does 'knowing' KNOW, EXACTLY?

Or, does 'knowing' NOT KNOW ANY 'thing', to you?

Both the form and formless are the same one reality/exitence, they coexist. Another way of describing the form/formless would be to say there is (no thing and some thing) coexisting.


.

So, which one IS 'form' AND which one is 'formless'? Or, which one is 'no thing' AND which one is 'some thing'?

[Eodnhoj7]

3. Nothingness generally is viewed negatively given cultural views which emphasize the goodness of distinction and thingness. However there is no contradiction in nothingness as there is no distinction. No distinction is unity as there are no barriers which manifest the phenomenon of separation.

Neither distinction nor nondistinction may be applied to nothingness as nothingness is not and cannot be.

If there is some thing there is not nothing. There cannot be nothingness in any real sense of the term if there is some thing, if there is anything at all. You are saying there is something and nothingness simultaneously. How do you resolve that?

There is not nothingness nor is there any need for nothingness.

Existence concerns distinction or separation, as you imply, and nondistinction or unity.

We can observe differences in things. We can observe differences, variations. We can observe opposing forces, opposing elements, opposition. We can see contradiction in things. But it all balances as simply being. As expressed earlier:

What do all things, what do all variations of things have in common? What is their commonality? They all are. They all exist. They all are parts of existence, they all are expressions of existence. All differences, all variations, all opposition, all contradiction ultimately balances as simply being. As simply existence.

Existence simply is. All things simply are.

We are aspects of being. Being is. That is the commonality, that is the ultimate unity.

There is no real unity in nothingness as there is no thing to unite or be united.

There is not nothingness. Nothingness cannot be. Nor is there any need for nothingness if it could.

Existence is everything. Existence is distinction and nondistinction. Existence is separation and unity. Existence is balance. Existence is.

1. The totality of being is without compare otherwise it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. Without compare it is formless as comparison allows for form (i.e. the comparison of my hand and a table allows both respective forms to be observed). As formless it is no-thing, nothing. If all there is is being then this being is effectively nothing, i.e. not a thing. There is no need for nothingness as well as there is no need for being.

2. Nothingness can neither be proven or disproven as to prove it would be to prove nothing and to disprove it would be to disprove nothing. Nothingness is beyond being.

3. "Existence is" is a vague statement that effectively contains no distinctions as it is dependent upon absolute unity (i.e. all things share the same nature of existence). However, in a separate respect, existence is divided against itself as one existence is distinct from another with this distinction being an existence as well. Under these terms existence is contradictory, i.e. self-divided, and from this anything can be said about it as it is irrational.

[daniel j lavender]

Nonexistence, what the term or concept is attempting to represent, does not exist.

'What' IS the term or word 'nonexistence' so-called 'attempting to represent', which you CLAIM does NOT exist?

Nonexistence beyond the concept and term. Nonexistence in and of itself.

WHY do you KEEP WANTING TO DEFLECT AWAY FROM YOUR CONTRADICTION?

Is it BECAUSE you BELIEVE that you have NO CONTRADICTION here? Or, for some OTHER reason?

You have failed to identify any contradiction.