This is nonsense. There is either something or nothing. If it's something, then it is what it is.
Something is the nonsense, or the sense that is imagined (made manifest by consciousness). You and I can name something "chair" and another comes along and uses it as "weapon." Therefore it is for this other what it is not for us. All some-things have variation is purpose of their existence, at least when conscious interpreters are present. This includes same some-things that resemble (physical) us, aka our bodies.
It is illogical that there is something else that is not inclusive by everything (and no-thing).
Can you rephrase this? What?
The 'chair' in above example is actually no-thing, but is manifested as some-thing, by our conscious awareness. We give it all the meaning it has (for us). I demonstrated in previous statement that it can be purposed for something else, to degree that it could literally be something else for someone else. You originally said, "to be that something is to be what that thing is and not something else:" - and this depends on what that something is. In all cases there is this dependency. It starts out as no-thing (default) and actually remains that, but we come along and make it (conceptually) something, while others can make it something else. It is therefore inclusive by no-thing, and in that vein it is being what that (no) thing is and not something (else). While other side of this is that all things, as one big whole, are everything with no distinction but what we give it. If we say here is something and over there is something else, well everything is inclusive of those things (as well as all things). So each instance of a thing is what that thing is as everything (and no-thing), and is nonsense to logically conclude it is (only) something and/or something else.
It's never possible, ever, anywhere, under any circumstances, for anything, for something to be itself and not-itself at the same time and in the same respect.
Agreed. As long as same respect is made consistent. It is not possible anywhere for a thing to ever be not-itself. Hence why a thing is everything (and no-thing).
I'm really not sure what you're saying here. Knowledge is necessarily logical to be knowledge at all.
I said Transcending logic is what Knowledge does. I presented argument that explains this. You seem a bit behind on this.
"Possible" is the exact same thing as "logically possible." Nothing is possible in any sense whatsoever unless it is logical.
Perhaps for you. Illusion makes for everything to become something, or namely what a thing is not, aka something else, something other than what it is, something other than everything (or no-thing). Illusion makes this possible, where logic would say illusion is not logically possible to be existing (as reality). Logic would dictate that the illusion's contents (in this case everything) is not possible to be other than what thing it is. And yet we have manifested an entire (and incredibly vast universe) of things that are made up of something, conceivably aware of something else (as real, possible), and moreover is by our own convictions, not what the thing is, other than something. It is (for us) not everything, not nothing, and not something else. It is only (by our conviction) the something that we are convinced it is.
How our conviction works: A chair is a chair, and not a weapon. If used as a weapon, it doesn't cease to be a chair. A chair is not everything, it is a specific instance of a thing. And it is surely not nothing, for we see it, it exists, and exists as chair. We know this.
To suggest a chair is not a chair is 'logically impossible' by what you are saying. But it is possible that 'not a chair' can be shown to exist (as everything and no-thing) while chair within relative illusion held in place by conviction, will limit possibilities of what is even logical. Knowledge transcends this, as it is working with / from everything as no-thing. Logic cannot grasp (honestly) everything as nothing. Try as it might.
Being yourself as a body that's asleep and also yourself as a being within a dream is not illogical: it doesn't violate contradiction because it's not you being yourself and not-yourself at the same time and in the same respect.
Agreed, as stated before, but it is not logically possible from within the dream to know which is real, while it is still possible if one essentially realizes (within any dream / manifestation) that I am not a thing, aka not a body. For logic to grasp this, in its entirety, is to logically accept I am everything that is nothing.
Consider a straw in a glass of water. You can look at the straw from above and it might seem disjointed at the water line. Now say you reach your hand in to touch it, and it feels straight even though it looks disjointed. Someone might say, "AHA! It's illogical since it contradicts -- it's straight but not-straight at the same time!" But that just shows a misunderstanding of what a contradiction really is: it may seem disjointed and straight at the same time, but it's not straight and disjointed in the same respect.
Agree with what you're saying here, but relative illusions within the illusion, like you are describing, or what my earlier explanation of what dreamer illusion describes fall short of what logic cannot grasp. I stated this earlier with this:
Logic relies on cause and effect or antecedent and consequent. Without this, there is no logic. Knowledge transcends this (and includes this).
Even "transcends this" will seem like matter of logic, but here is where I'll borrow from understanding you and I have in another thread. This transcending is not linear, it is not 'one day knowledge will transcend logic, just you wait and see.' It is infinitely transcending logic, while also already including logic. Knowledge is what makes logic logical. I realize that is word salad, but we have antecedents which we identify (via knowledge) to have sense, we follow those with consequents that of themselves make sense (via knowledge), but logic relies on connection between the two making sense, otherwise it is illogical. Knowledge can still make it possible, even while logical would have its limit, and conclude, this is illogical, these two things do not correlate. Any example I give of this will be met with you (I think) asserting a) that is illogical and more importantly from your perspective b) it is not possible (because it is illogical).
And while I know (via knowledge) that there is way around this, I admit that it becomes very hard to communicate this in communication form (language) that relies on linearity to explain things. Experience of illogical paradigms as possible would do it, convince you otherwise. I have no doubt that through contemplation, meditation you would find this convincing proof, but not only there. Just best sought there.
Or really here.
Now.
