The Void, Emptiness, and Infinite or Eternal

[osgart]

I think of it as formless potentiality, constantly in motion til the information takes on arrangements of relationships that produce our actuality. The Source is not a place , but a repository of infinitely vast potentialities of information that creates location; time, space, matter, and energy in the forms we do encounter. It starts out dimensionless and goes from there to create increasing dimensionality. Meaning and purpose are existent in the information but only appear in our world with specific arrangements of relationships. From the unconditioned to the conditioned in constant states of becoming til forms, and structures of energy that eventually dissipate over long epochs in and out of our time frame. From timelessness to time and back again.

The constant creation goes from potentialities, to actualities, back to potentialities in an endless cycle. The catalyst, or source of information has will, purposes, meanings, intentionalities that act to form and produce.

If it were unitized in bits, such like Qubits then the eternal process is flipping bits and creating many conditions of arrangement, position, and relationship. It's not just on/off but many other conditions simultaneously.

The Source evolves and learns and constantly adapts.

 

[Fool]

I disagree. I think you are being too literal. Amorphous is still an form per aristotle, who is one of the original authorities. If you choose a dictionary over a philosopher who wrote ( i think ) an entire book about it, that is a choice you are making. Also the DDJ supports my point of view.

But, please know that I can see it from your point of view that amorphous is without a form.

Can you see it from my point of view? If not, why not?



No that's different. Amorphous describes something, "thing", which is nearly infinte. It's not infinite in all manner and in all dimensions in any realm / domain / world / universe /mutil-verse, etc...

The uncreated-creator is absolutely literally infinite in all manner, in all dimensions, in any realm / domain / world / universe / multi-verse, etc...

I described this in the treatise you didn't read, but I didn't use the words "uncreated-creator".



It is a conglomerate. An ever growing and increasing blob. It is a form, singular. Yes forms are plural, but that is irrelevant.

Essentially the amorphous ever-growing blob appears to be singular when it is considered from a zoomed out "bird's eye view". All the details are washed out. But on closer inspection there are forms included in it which are producing the form which is labeled "amorphous" in english.

This is what I brought from aristotle, and if you read it carefully ( with an open mind ) I think you'll realize the concordence. I am very very confident that this is not beyond your capability, if you are open to it.

View attachment 83450




There is no "force" without the static "form" to "push" or "pull" against. Dual.



"light" = "the electro-magnetic-spectrum" and it is not all-inclusive. I already brought you evidence supporting this.

The prism is concentrating and simultaneously splitting the spectrum demonstrating that "light" is actually a collective of individual different types of "light". Similar in many ways, but also their differences are significant. What appears to be a non-dual, singular, absolute, is actually multiplicity.

Understanding it as singular is useful in certain contexts, for example, it's dangerous to look directly at a solar eclipse with the naked eye.

Understanding it as a collective is useful in many many contexts. The first example I thought of is lasers used in surgery, but also, grow lights which encourage the different phases of plant development, the grow cycle and the bloom cycle. Growing is different than blooming, and this is often ( always ? ) triggered by day-light hours compared to night-time hours and two corresponding different types of light. Dual and dual again. Partnerships. Seasons, cycles, a dance. The rhythm of life. Can you feel it?

Here's a link which describes this critical component of all life on earth. If you notice in the middle of the page, there's a picture of a prism.

Looking at red light - a time telling tale

Detecting the change of season is key to a plant's survival - seasonal changes control everything from germination to vegetative growth and flowering. While temperature and light intensity influence plant growth, they are not always a reliable indicator of seasons because they may change from...

growample.com

the electromagnetic spectrum is irreducible per science. it's one of the four fundamental forces in nature. fundamental meaning it is the base, foundation, original, primary.


the creator is a thing. the creator isn't nothing. it is why i stated no thing as in the sense of pluralism. the forms are an illusion to the singular process of inevitable change from vibration. contrast can only exist in change of vibration. if everything vibrated at the same rate, there would be no thing but the one; if observed. this is why it is written i'm am the lord beside be there is no there.

this is why the verb to be in it's infinitive, or future alludes to the fact that it never ending

so the action is singular; which is vibration. the difference in vibration creates the contrast and forms arise from that.

 

[Fool]

Are you thinking a void with dimensions or a void without dimensions?

can be either. especially when there is the difference in vibration. dimensions would arise from the differences in rate of vibration. dimensions would not arise where there was only a single rate of vibration.

 

[sun rise]

so then, is the infinite a place where there is no matter but seemingly empty of form because forms are temporary but the action, motion, vibration is eternal?

Since this is a "religious debate", In Buddhism the goal of many is nirvana, the ultimate release from the world of rebirth in suffering. In Meher Baba's view nirvana is the first stage of full enlightenment where the void exists. The second stage is "fana-fillah"/"nirvikalpa samadhi" the stage where the soul merges into Divinity.

There's also a void called "dark night of the soul" where meaning collapses and purpose disappears but that is not the infinite.

 

[dybmh]

the electromagnetic spectrum is irreducible per science.

Please forgive me for not being clear. It's true, I misspoke regarding it being reduced by the prism. But it is still reducible. I tried to correct myself, but I was not clear.

1. The electromagnetic spectrum is a version of infinity, but it is not absolutley literally infinite. There are different "forms" of infinite. The electromagnetic spectrum is one of them.
2. The electromagnetic spectrum is not all-inclusive.
3. The electromagentic spectrum can indeed be reduced. This is called "photon absorption"

And, I understand why this is an important analogy for you, but those books are not monist. They contain little sparks of monism if the counter-examples are ignored.

it's one of the four fundamental forces in nature. fundamental meaning it is the base, foundation, original, primary.

If you pay attention to the words you have chosen they are all "forms". A force is a form. A foundation is a form. Primary is a form.

Please compare to the definition by arstitotle? Are you refusing to consider it for some reason? Why am I needing to repeatedly refer to the same definition?

If you are choosing to ignore it, then, please state that clearly, and we can filter out this cycle of repetitive discourse.

the creator is a thing. the creator isn't nothing.

I didn't say it was "nothing", although calling it a "thing" would be woefully incomplete if it is literally absoutely infinite. I think this is coming from Qabbalah, which is often masquerading as authentic Jewish philosophy. Lifting up "nothing" as supreme is NOT my perspective, but, as usual, I am able to see it from that perspective if I choose to. I understand why from some perspectives "nothing" is lifted up as the ideal and/or as the creator. It's an interesting point of view. It's not my point of view.

It makes me very happy on the inside to read your words "the creator isn't nothing." This further supports my confidence that you are fully capable of seeing things from my point of view in addition to your own. Fully. It's all in there.... I will be doing a happy dance when/if it makes an appearance.

it is why i stated no thing as in the sense of pluralism. the forms are an illusion to the singular process of inevitable change from vibration. contrast can only exist in change of vibration. if everything vibrated at the same rate, there would be no thing but the one; if observed. this is why it is written i'm am the lord beside be there is no there.

There is no vibration without duality. I haven't seen anything you've written which refutes this.

this is why the verb to be in it's infinitive, or future alludes to the fact that it never ending

so the action is singular; which is vibration. the difference in vibration creates the contrast and forms arise from that.

I disagree. But I can see it from your point of view. First, I understand why you have chosen the infintive, but in context in the original scripture, where it is originally written, it would be present-progressive "being", on-going and eternal. Second there is a lot going on in that episode/story which is unknown. Third the gnostic gospels are not the origin of that name, and I think you know it.

Beyond that, looking at words and their meanings, and their forms, the same word can be simultaneously be a noun-form and a verb-form. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but you're not actually addressing what I've written. Are you throwing spaghetti at the wall? It's an honest question.

A noun is a form. A verb is a form. Some concepts are both. Light is a great example. Insight/understanding is an example. Knowledge is a counter example.

Perhaps the greatest concepts are both simultaneously. I haven't analyzed it, but I have been starting threads in the philosophy forum exploring this. The greatest concepts( greatest both upwards and downwards in valence/tone ) in human experience seem to be dual. They are "sympathetic paradoxes" which would normally, if considred literally, cancel each other out. But in truth, we don't live in a "literal" word, agreed? There's nuance and metaphor which is NOT literal.

These paradoxes partnerships exist, they're real, and, they are sympathetic even though they appear to be opposing: cooperative partnerships locked in a delicious or sometimes dreadfully tragic dance. These dual concepts bring texture to the human experience. Texture. Sometimes soft and luxurious, sometimes cold and prickly.

Your perspective, currently, seems stuck in a realm where these partnerships are being denied, they are being ( present-progressive ) cast into oblivion. Oblivious, in my opinion, is not a healthy place to be. But I can understand why some people prefer it, or get stuck there, in denial.

This perspective, philosophy, denial, all of it is a choice; none of it is supported by science, but people seem to be in-love with it.

 

[Fool]

Please forgive me for not being clear. It's true, I misspoke regarding it being reduced by the prism. But it is still reducible. I tried to correct myself, but I was not clear.

1. The electromagnetic spectrum is a version of infinity, but it is not absolutley literally infinite. There are different "forms" of infinite. The electromagnetic spectrum is one of them.
2. The electromagnetic spectrum is not all-inclusive.
3. The electromagentic spectrum can indeed be reduced. This is called "photon absorption"

And, I understand why this is an important analogy for you, but those books are not monist. They contain little sparks of monism if the counter-examples are ignored.



If you pay attention to the words you have chosen they are all "forms". A force is a form. A foundation is a form. Primary is a form.

Please compare to the definition by arstitotle? Are you refusing to consider it for some reason? Why am I needing to repeatedly refer to the same definition?

If you are choosing to ignore it, then, please state that clearly, and we can filter out this cycle of repetitive discourse.



I didn't say it was "nothing", although calling it a "thing" would be woefully incomplete if it is literally absoutely infinite. I think this is coming from Qabbalah, which is often masquerading as authentic Jewish philosophy. Lifting up "nothing" as supreme is NOT my perspective, but, as usual, I am able to see it from that perspective if I choose to. I understand why from some perspectives "nothing" is lifted up as the ideal and/or as the creator. It's an interesting point of view. It's not my point of view.

It makes me very happy on the inside to read your words "the creator isn't nothing." This further supports my confidence that you are fully capable of seeing things from my point of view in addition to your own. Fully. It's all in there.... I will be doing a happy dance when/if it makes an appearance.



There is no vibration without duality. I haven't seen anything you've written which refutes this.



I disagree. But I can see it from your point of view. First, I understand why you have chosen the infintive, but in context in the original scripture, where it is originally written, it would be present-progressive "being", on-going and eternal. Second there is a lot going on in that episode/story which is unknown. Third the gnostic gospels are not the origin of that name, and I think you know it.

Beyond that, looking at words and their meanings, and their forms, the same word can be simultaneously be a noun-form and a verb-form. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but you're not actually addressing what I've written. Are you throwing spaghetti at the wall? It's an honest question.

A noun is a form. A verb is a form. Some concepts are both. Light is a great example. Insight/understanding is an example. Knowledge is a counter example.

Perhaps the greatest concepts are both simultaneously. I haven't analyzed it, but I have been starting threads in the philosophy forum exploring this. The greatest concepts( greatest both upwards and downwards in valence/tone ) in human experience seem to be dual. They are "sympathetic paradoxes" which would normally, if considred literally, cancel each other out. But in truth, we don't live in a "literal" word, agreed? There's nuance and metaphor which is NOT literal.

These paradoxes partnerships exist, they're real, and, they are sympathetic even though they appear to be opposing: cooperative partnerships locked in a delicious or sometimes dreadfully tragic dance. These dual concepts bring texture to the human experience. Texture. Sometimes soft and luxurious, sometimes cold and prickly.

Your perspective, currently, seems stuck in a realm where these partnerships are being denied, they are being ( present-progressive ) cast into oblivion. Oblivious, in my opinion, is not a healthy place to be. But I can understand why some people prefer it, or get stuck there, in denial.

This perspective, philosophy, denial, all of it is a choice; none of it is supported by science, but people seem to be in-love with it.

a form as a noun is not the same thing as form as a verb

 

[dybmh]

a form as a noun is not the same thing as form as a verb

That's not what I said.

This is what I said:

A noun is a form. A verb is a form. Some concepts are both. Light is a great example. Insight/understanding is an example. Knowledge is a counter example.

---

---

---

@Fool,

I have this. Nothing you've brought refutes it. There is an inherent duality that is supported by science again and again and again. I can see it from your perspective. If you cannot see it from mine, I think that's highly signficant. A choice is being made to ignore science and ignore my point of view. And that's fine.

It doesn't mean I don't accept you and it doesn't mean I don't love you like a brother. I wrote an essay dedicated to this form of brotherly love. It's posted here, for you, if you ever choose to read it.

Sincerely,

 

[Fool]

That's not what I said.

This is what I said:

---

---

---

@Fool,

I have this. Nothing you've brought refutes it. There is an inherent duality that is supported by science again and again and again. I can see it from your perspective. If you cannot see it from mine, I think that's highly signficant. A choice is being made to ignore science and ignore my point of view. And that's fine.

It doesn't mean I don't accept you and it doesn't mean I don't love you like a brother. I wrote an essay dedicated to this form of brotherly love. It's posted here, for you, if you ever choose to read it.

Sincerely,

at some point it reaches an absolute, where there is no where else to go and there is no contrast to this absolute. all forms arise within this singularity, or all possibilities arise from within this absolute. so then the only forms arising from this absolute would be from within. basically the idea of this absolute recreating itself, or reimagining itself. so the forms it takes are all temporary, impermanent but it's action, its state of being, are constant. plurality is an illusion or the impermanent/temporary but the action is infinite or eternal.


this is basically the idea of maya and lila in hinduism. the eternal play and not the eternal plays

Imagining the Tenth Dimension - A Book by Rob Bryanton

www.tenthdimension.com

 

[dybmh]

at some point it reaches an absolute, where there is no where else to go and there is no contrast to this absolute.

This "absolute" is contrasted with each and every individual form, and with all of the forms combined into the amorphous nearly infinite blob. Also contrasted with the various forms of infinite.

If an individual chooses to ignore all of those forms, then it will appear that the absolute is lacking all contrast, but, that is choice. It doesn't mean the contrast doesn't exist. It's just being denied.

all forms arise within this singularity

If it is absolutely literally infinite, then they do not arise within it. They all exist within it, concurrently and eternally. And just to be clear, all negating forms are also included within it, concurrently and eternally. Those are also forms, but they are often overlooked.

This is important, and, imo simple.

It cannot be considered absolutely literally infinite if there is anything missing from it. That's why the contrast is inherent. Lacking the contrast it is absolutley NOT infinite in any way. Instead it is absolute literal oblivion.

Absolute literal oblivion is lacking all contrast.
Absolutley literally infinite possesses all contrasts.

Absolutely literally infinite =/= Absolute literal oblivion.

the only forms arising from this absolute would be from within.

There cannot be any "arising" if it is absolutely literally infinite.

basically the idea of this absolute recreating itself,

That is not absolutley literally infinite.

There can only be 1 which is absolutley literally infinite. If there was ever a recreation of itself, then that implies that this recreation was previously lacking from it. But that is impossible if it was actually absolutley literally infinite. Absolutely literally infinite means, by defintion, it is absoluletly literally not lacking. If something can be added, then it is not absolutely literally infinite.

Whatever it is, what ever concept is being considered, if something is "arising" in it, no, it cannot be absolutely literally infinite. It is something else.

What ever it is, what ever concept is being considered, if it is being "recreated", it cannot be absolutely literally infinite. It is something else.

so the forms it takes are all temporary,

the word "temporary" is out of context for the absolutely literally infinite. All of it is completely eternal. If any aspect of it in any way is NOT eternal, then it is not absolutely literally infinite.

impermanent

the word "impermanent" is out of context for the absolutely literally infinite. All of it is completely eternal. If any aspect of it in any way is NOT eternal, then it is not absolutely literally infinite.

but it's action, its state of being, are constant.

OK. Yes, that action is included and is eternal. But, it possesses all actions, plural. All actions are concurrent. Standing and walking and sitting and singing and dancing and eating and rolling and crashing and playing and studying and beginning and ending and waiting and going, etc, etc, etc, all of it is eternal and concurrent.

But, if it is lacking even the briefest flicker of a flicker, and what you have described above is lacking quite a bit, then...

It is not absolutely literally infinite.

plurality is an illusion or the impermanent/temporary but the action is infinite or eternal.

Only if a person denies the contrast. The same phenomena can be reproduced by closing the eyes.

this is basically the idea of maya and lila in hinduism. the eternal play and not the eternal plays

Interesting idea. From my perspective, what ever it is called is denying a lot. But, from a primitive perspective prior to what is now known about the natural world, I'm sure it was way ahead of its time.

Cute video. It made a few mistakes. The minor one that sticks out is that observation *causes* the wave function collapse. I'm reasonably confident that is false. The observation doesn't cause it. I don't remember the rational behind this, but, I can look it up to confirm and explain it, if there is interest.

A major problem is, it models the dimensions 7 and up as points. That's a false model. They are not points at all, they are only points when imaging it, considering it from the next higher dimension. From it's own perspective, it is completely infinite in all of its dimensions. Infinite 7 dimensions, infinite 8 dimensions, infinite 9 dimensions, etc...

Another major problem is that it has chosen this "folded" dimension method of imagining higher order dimensions, but that's chosen by convenience. It's not required to be that way at all. And, because of that **choice** they are somehow limited to 10 dimensions. I can imagine far beyond that, all the way to ... I suppose infinite dimensions. I see no reason to stop at ten. But... hee-hee... please don't ask me to draw any of these. At least not neatly.

A much much better way, imo, of considering these multipple dimensions is as a taxonomy chart with infinite branchings. Or a ummm, or, gee-whiz what are they called? fractal! An infinte taxonomy chart which behaves like a fractal. Much much better, in my opinion, and they are not limited to any number of dimensions.

But all of this necessarily includes contrast. Can you see it from this perspective?

 

[Fool]

This "absolute" is contrasted with each and every individual form, and with all of the forms combined into the amorphous nearly infinite blob. Also contrasted with the various forms of infinite.

If an individual chooses to ignore all of those forms, then it will appear that the absolute is lacking all contrast, but, that is choice. It doesn't mean the contrast doesn't exist. It's just being denied.



If it is absolutely literally infinite, then they do not arise within it. They all exist within it, concurrently and eternally. And just to be clear, all negating forms are also included within it, concurrently and eternally. Those are also forms, but they are often overlooked.

This is important, and, imo simple.

It cannot be considered absolutely literally infinite if there is anything missing from it. That's why the contrast is inherent. Lacking the contrast it is absolutley NOT infinite in any way. Instead it is absolute literal oblivion.

Absolute literal oblivion is lacking all contrast.
Absolutley literally infinite possesses all contrasts.

Absolutely literally infinite =/= Absolute literal oblivion.



There cannot be any "arising" if it is absolutely literally infinite.



That is not absolutley literally infinite.

There can only be 1 which is absolutley literally infinite. If there was ever a recreation of itself, then that implies that this recreation was previously lacking from it. But that is impossible if it was actually absolutley literally infinite. Absolutely literally infinite means, by defintion, it is absoluletly literally not lacking. If something can be added, then it is not absolutely literally infinite.

Whatever it is, what ever concept is being considered, if something is "arising" in it, no, it cannot be absolutely literally infinite. It is something else.

What ever it is, what ever concept is being considered, if it is being "recreated", it cannot be absolutely literally infinite. It is something else.



the word "temporary" is out of context for the absolutely literally infinite. All of it is completely eternal. If any aspect of it in any way is NOT eternal, then it is not absolutely literally infinite.



the word "impermanent" is out of context for the absolutely literally infinite. All of it is completely eternal. If any aspect of it in any way is NOT eternal, then it is not absolutely literally infinite.



OK. Yes, that action is included and is eternal. But, it possesses all actions, plural. All actions are concurrent. Standing and walking and sitting and singing and dancing and eating and rolling and crashing and playing and studying and beginning and ending and waiting and going, etc, etc, etc, all of it is eternal and concurrent.

But, if it is lacking even the briefest flicker of a flicker, and what you ahve described above is lacking quite a bit, then...

It is not absolutely literally infinite.



Only if a person denies the contrast. The same phenomena can be reproduced by closing the eyes.



Interesting idea. From my perspective, what ever it is called is denying a lot. But, from a primitive perspective prior to what is now known about the natural world, I'm sure it was way ahead of its time.



Cute video. It made a few mistakes. The minor one that sticks out is that observation *causes* the wave function collapse. I'm reasonable confident that is false. The observation doesn't cause it. I don't remember the rational behind this, but, I can look it up to confirm and explain it, if there is interest.

A major problem is, it models the dimensions 7 and up as points. That's a false model. The are not points at all, they are only points when imaging it, considering it from the next higher dimension. From it's own perspective, it is completely infinite in all of its dimensions. Infinite 7 dimensions, infinite 8 dimensions, infinite 9 dimensions, etc...

Another major problem is that it has chosen this "folded" dimension method of imagining higher order dimensions, but that's chosen by convenience. It's not required to be that way at all. And, because of that **choice** they are somehow limited to 10 dimensions. I can imagine far beyond that, all the way to ... I suppose infinite dimensions. I see no reason to stop at ten. But... hee-hee... please don't ask me to draw any of these. At least not neatly.

A much much better way, imo, of condiering these multipple dimensions is as a taxonomy chart with infinite branchings. Or a ummm, or, gee-whiz what are they called? fractal! An infinte taxonomy chart which behaves like a fractal. Much much better, in my opinion, and they are not limited to any number of dimensions.

But all of this necessarily includes contrast. Can you see it from this perspective?

the blob, the absolute, the whatever nomenclature you wish to use is a singularity and has no external something to be contrasted to, against. it's immeasurable because there is no beginning from which to start measuring and no other point from which to end the measuring. time and space give the illusion of separateness due to contrast within the blob, not external to the singularity itself.

all the forms that arise from this blob, arise from within it's infiniteness because there is no otherness. If there was otherness, duality, then it would be divided against itself, opposed, and can't be classified as infinite because of otherness limiting it.


Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.
The Law of One Session 1
That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.
The Law of One Session 1
In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.
The Law of One Session 1
that is the part you fail horribly at understanding. you use plural terms to refer to the infinitte; which singular

 

[dybmh]

the blob, the absolute, the whatever nomenclature you wish to use is a singularity and has no external something to be contrasted to,

It does, my friend. the blob is a form. the blob is contrasted with an ineffable source which is absolutely literally infinite and ( this is important ) cannot be contained per King Solomon. I referred you to this in my very long essay, 1 Kings 8.

When considering these lofty concepts, it's important to be consistent in language.

formless =/= ineffable although the two concepts seem to be conflated repeatedly in your writing.

formless ( in spite of how it looks on the screen ) is a form when one considers the concept of "form" properly.
ineffable is absolutely literally formless, and there is only 1 which is ineffable.
ineffable is a consequence of the 1 which is absolutely literally infinite.

it's immeasurable because there is no beginning from which to start measuring and no other point from which to end the measuring.

immeasurable =/= no contrast
there are different forms of infinite which are contrasting
there does not need to be a "point" in order for there to be contrast
and this is the problem identified in the video you posted

the desire, the choice, to perceive these lofty concepts in terms of an imagined "point" may be a significant obstacle.
I understand how important this would be for you if you are still philosophically bound to/in pantheism.
I see under your avatar, the slogan remains, as it has ever since I have known you: "ALL in all".
The profound meaning and implications of this are not beyond me, but, it is logically incoherent.

Departing from this one sided perspective, might be extremely uncomfortable, due to the length of time one has been bound to it and in it.
But that doesn't mean it is the only true perspective. It means that is rewarding to deny the others.

time and space give the illusion of separateness due to contrast within the blob, not external to the singularity itself.

Correction: time and space have become insignificant from the perspective of this blob. The illusion is that they do not exist.

This is a very simple concept to demonstrate. Pointilism. The pixels on the screen you are looking at right now my friend.

Denying space and time is like denying pixels on the screen. There is an illusion produced, that part is true. But it's inverse of what you are describing.

This inverted reality is what Isaiah warned about, 5:20. When a person abandons their ego, their personality, a vaccuum is produced which permits this sort of altered, flipping, warping, scrambling, mixing, distorted reality. Some people are in-love with this, because it feels like "freedom". But as I wrote long ago, and you agreed: "Freedom isn't free."

all the forms that arise from this blob, arise from within it's infiniteness because there is no otherness.

You just contradicted yourself: If the forms arise from it, then there is otherness. If there is no otherness, then there is no "arising".

If there was otherness, duality, then it would be divided against itself, opposed,

Correct. And that is precisely what happens. It's called harmony. Or a duet. Sometimes it's called rivalry. Like brothers.

and can't be classified as infinite because of otherness limiting it.

It cannot be classified as absolutely literally infinite? True. The concept you are considering is not the ineffable source. You have approached it as far as the human mind can go.

Ra: I am Ra.

Hello Ra! ~waves~

Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite.

OK...

That which is infinite cannot be many

Buzzzzz..... wrong answer.

1) There are different forms of infinite
2) What you are describing is not absolutely literally infinite, because, it is described as lacking something
3) Therefore, Ra, my friend, your language is lacking specificity which produces false conclusions

, for many-ness is a finite concept.

That is 100% False. Are you high right now?
It's completely 100% false. Ra, why should I consider your words as an authority again?

To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity;

False again!

otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning.

False!

In an Infinite Creator there is only unity.

False!

In truth there is no right or wrong.

Ra, buddy, if you want to commit crimes against humanity, rape, murder, coerce young people to do things prior to their capability to consent, this sort of argument is going to fail each and every time.

On the other hand, if you distinguish between these heinous crimes and others, then, you have just acknowledged duality. You get to pick. Are you endorsing heinous crimes against the innocent? Or are you acknowledging otherness?

But I understand, I truly understand the desire for freedom to possess, to take what does not belong to you.
But there will always be people like me that can clearly see right and wrong.

Besides, look on the bright side , if you want freedom, you need people to enforce it. Agreed?

I'm done for now, I have to go. Good talk,

 

[PureX]

this thread was inspired by @dybmh who mentioned the void in another thread and driving to work this morning i began ruminating on it.

in some religious, spiritual teachings there is an idea of a void, emptiness, or the abyss

basically a place containing no matter.

but this is reminiscent of the idea in science regarding quantum field theory at the most basic level its called the wave/particle duality. even in the idea of electro-magnetic spectrum everything is in motion, even seemingly appearing solids are vibrating within themselves, or are in motion.

so then, is the infinite a place where there is no matter but seemingly empty of form because forms are temporary but the action, motion, vibration is eternal?

I think we're confusing a philosophical void with a physical one. I mean that there is a void that must exist philosophically in order to accommodate and justify the assumption that 'being' as a legitimate cognitive state. "I am what I am" only functions in the context of something that is not "I". For something to "exist", there must be non-existence. Even though non-existence is a logically incoherent concept.

Actual physicality doesn't necessitate this 'void'. It simply isn't. The "void beyond the universe", for example, doesn't "exist" as a void. It doesn't exist as anything. Or even as nothing.

 

[Fool]

It does, my friend. the blob is a form. the blob is contrasted with an ineffable source which is absolutely literally infinite and ( this is important ) cannot be contained per King Solomon. I referred you to this in my very long essay, 1 Kings 8.

When considering these lofty concepts, it's important to be consistent in language.

formless =/= ineffable although the two concepts seem to be conflated repeatedly in your writing.

formless ( in spite of how it looks on the screen ) is a form when one considers the concept of "form" properly.
ineffable is absolutely literally formless, and there is only 1 which is ineffable.
ineffable is a consequence of the 1 which is absolutely literally infinite.




immeasurable =/= no contrast
there are different forms of infinite which are contrasting
there does not need to be a "point" in order for there to be contrast
and this is the problem identified in the video you posted

the desire, the choice, to perceive these lofty concepts in terms of an imagined "point" may be a significant obstacle.
I understand how important this would be for you if you are still philosophically bound to/in pantheism.
I see under your avatar, the slogan remains, as it has ever since I have known you: "ALL in all".
The profound meaning and implications of this are not beyond me, but, it is logically incoherent.

Departing from this one sided perspective, might be extremely uncomfortable, due to the length of time one has been bound to it and in it.
But that doesn't mean it is the only true perspective. It means that is rewarding to deny the others.



Correction: time and space have become insignificant from the perspective of this blob. The illusion is that they do not exist.

This is a very simple concept to demonstrate. Pointilism. The pixels on the screen you are looking at right now my friend.

Denying space and time is like denying pixels on the screen. There is an illusion produced, that part is true. But it's inverse of what you are describing.

This inverted reality is what Isaiah warned about, 5:20. When a person abandons their ego, their personality, a vaccuum is produced which permits this sort of altered, flipping, warping, scrambling, mixing, distorted reality. Some people are in-love with this, because it feels like "freedom". But as I wrote long ago, and you agreed: "Freedom isn't free."



You just contradicted yourself: If the forms arise from it, then there is otherness. If there is no otherness, then there is no "arising".



Correct. And that is precisely what happens. It's called harmony. Or a duet. Sometimes it's called rivalry. Like brothers.



It cannot be classified as absolutely literally infinite? True. The concept you are considering is not the ineffable source. You have approached it as far as the human mind can go.



Hello Ra! ~waves~



OK...



Buzzzzz..... wrong answer.

1) There are different forms of infinite
2) What you are describing is not absolutely literally infinite, because, it is described as lacking something
3) Therefore, Ra, my friend, your language is lacking specificity which produces false conclusions



That is 100% False. Are you high right now?
It's completely 100% false. Ra, why should I consider your words as an authority again?



False again!



False!



False!



Ra, buddy, if you want to commit crimes against humanity, rape, murder, coerce young people to do things prior to their capability to consent, this sort of argument is going to fail each and every time.

On the other hand, if you distinguish between these heinous crimes and others, then, you have just acknowledged duality. You get to pick. Are you endorsing heinous crimes against the innocent? Or are you acknowledging otherness?

But I understand, I truly understand the desire for freedom to possess, to take what does not belong to you.
But there will always be people like me that can clearly see right and wrong.

Besides, look on the bright side , if you want freedom, you need people to enforce it. Agreed?

I'm done for now, I have to go. Good talk,

You have to have contrast, two distinctly defined things that appear separate for measurement to be possible. Without two points of reference, there can be no measurement.

That is what makes it indefinite or infinite.

 

[dybmh]

You have to have contrast

ineffable contrasts with effable.

ineffable contrasts with the amorphous blob, aka the hive, aka the borg. All of these are effable but amorphous forms.

, two distinctly defined things that appear separate for measurement to be possible.

measurement is not only possible, it's easy.

Without two points of reference, there can be no measurement.

That's actually not true. Only 1 reference point is needed. Refer to Archimede's bathtub.

Basically the way it works is, you combine them and measure the overflow. It's easy, watch:

Ineffable + 1 utterable attribute = effable.

Therefore:

Effable - Ineffable = 1 utterable attribute

There's your measurement.

In english: "The difference between effable and ineffable is 1 utterable attribute."

The measurement is always 1 for these perfectly binary pairs. What this is demonstrating is a "bit". The units never matter, btw, they're totally arbitrary.

Bit - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"These values are most commonly represented as either "1" or "0", but other representations such as true/false, yes/no, on/off, or +/− are also widely used."

Open - Closed = 1 gap
Wet - Dry = 1 drop
Impure - pure = 1 speck
Rough - smooth = 1 bump
Light - dark = 1 spark

etc...

Get it?

That is what makes it indefinite or infinite.

No. I'm telling you bro, I've got this. The amorphous blob is not absolutley literally infinite. It is a form. There is only one which is ineffable. The two can be contrasted, their contrast can be measured and described.

They are distinctly dual always and forever.

 

[dybmh]

I think we're confusing a philosophical void with a physical one. I mean that there is a void that must exist philosophically in order to accommodate and justify the assumption that 'being' as a legitimate cognitive state. "I am what I am" only functions in the context of something that is not "I". For something to "exist", there must be non-existence. Even though non-existence is a logically incoherent concept.

Actual physicality doesn't necessitate this 'void'. It simply isn't. The "void beyond the universe", for example, doesn't "exist" as a void. It doesn't exist as anything. Or even as nothing.

You said: "I am what I am" only functions in the context of something that is not "I". For something to "exist", there must be non-existence."

@PureX = Not { shoe , shirt, dog, cat, ant, table, chair, school bus, aardvark, couch, tomato, .... }. It's not "non-existence". It simply a nearly infinte set of all the things you are not. Perhaps it seems like semantics, but I think it's imporant. These are negations, but they all certainly exist. They exist as the set of "things" you are not. And that set is nearly infinite. Since it never achieves / attains infinty then any and all ~weirdness~ that accompanies that "station" are avoided.

 

[PureX]

You said: "I am what I am" only functions in the context of something that is not "I". For something to "exist", there must be non-existence."

@PureX = Not { shoe , shirt, dog, cat, ant, table, chair, school bus, aardvark, couch, tomato, .... }. It's not "non-existence". It simply a nearly infinte set of all the things you are not. Perhaps it seems like semantics, but I think it's imporant. These are negations, but they all certainly exist. They exist as the set of "things" you are not. And that set is nearly infinite. Since it never achieves / attains infinty then any and all ~weirdness~ that accompanies that "station" are avoided.

But the ant (and everything else) and I are one and the same. The delusion that we are 'different' is just a cognitive imposition. Existence is a singular whole until my mind chooses to divide it up according to all sorts of self-imposed criteria. And then I forget that I have in fact created and imposed those divisions.

I may not be able to avoid doing this, as it is how the human brain functions, but I can at least try and remain aware of it, lest I fall victim to my own delusions.

 

[dybmh]

But the ant (and everything else) and I are one and the same.

LOL. Please, don''t be foolish. I am included in that nearly infinite set of negations. And unless you can tell me the last four digits of my cell#, you and I are not one and the same.

The delusion that we are 'different' is just a cognitive imposition.

False. ~eye-rolls~

Existence is a singular whole until my mind chooses to divide it up according to all sorts of self-imposed criteria.

Translation: "You can dig a hole and bury your head in it and deny everything anytime you choose to do so."

And then I forget that I have in fact created and imposed those divisions.

Correct, like I said: that is a self-imposed oblivion. It doesn't mean those divisions don't exist. It just means you're ignoring them and denying them like a toddler at nap time: "I'm NOT tired, I'm NOT tired, I'm... I'm.... Zzzzzzz. Zzzzzzz"

I may not be able to avoid doing this, as it is how the human brain functions, but I can at least try and remain aware of it, lest I fall victim to my own delusions.

Fall victim to your own delusions? Are you sure you're not conjuring them currently?

What's the last 4 of my cell#?

You said: you and everything are one and the same?

What's the last 4 of my cell#?

Case closed.

 

[Fool]

ineffable contrasts with effable.

ineffable contrasts with the amorphous blob, aka the hive, aka the borg. All of these are effable but amorphous forms.



measurement is not only possible, it's easy.



That's actually not true. Only 1 reference point is needed. Refer to Archimede's bathtub.

Basically the way it works is, you combine them and measure the overflow. It's easy, watch:

Ineffable + 1 utterable attribute = effable.

Therefore:

Effable - Ineffable = 1 utterable attribute

There's your measurement.

In english: "The difference between effable and ineffable is 1 utterable attribute."

The measurement is always 1 for these perfectly binary pairs. What this is demonstrating is a "bit". The units never matter, btw, they're totally arbitrary.

Bit - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"These values are most commonly represented as either "1" or "0", but other representations such as true/false, yes/no, on/off, or +/− are also widely used."

Open - Closed = 1 gap
Wet - Dry = 1 drop
Impure - pure = 1 speck
Rough - smooth = 1 bump
Light - dark = 1 spark

etc...

Get it?



No. I'm telling you bro, I've got this. The amorphous blob is not absolutley literally infinite. It is a form. There is only one which is ineffable. The two can be contrasted, their contrast can be measured and described.

They are distinctly dual always and forever.

there is no overflow in a singularity. he combined two different things.

the singularity is a whole. nothing can be added to it, nor taken away from it. otherwise it's not a singularity. infinite is a singularity.

and finally

ineffable and infinite aren't synonyms

ineffable is neither infinite or finite as a synonym

an infinite isn't definable, or describable.

an infinite is undefinable, immeasurable. it has no reference point to anything else.

 

[dybmh]

there is no overflow in a singularity. he combined two different things.

First of all, you're flip-flopping to a new word? Singularity? You'll need to be consistent in language in order to discuss these topics.
Second, who's "he", what are you talking about?

We were talking about a nearly infinite amorphous blob, comparable something which is absolutely literally infinite. You implied they could not be distinguished and that the nearly infinte amorphous blob was as big and all inclusive a concept as could exist. Now that II proved you wrong, your changing to a new word.

Singularity is a form. Singularity is not all inclusive. And it's source is unknown. It is not absolutely literally infinite, it is missing at least 1 which is formless and ineffable.

If you are intending to talk about THE singularity from billions of years ago, that's a bizarre example to bring since, there is NO singularity currently.

the singularity is a whole. nothing can be added to it, nor taken away from it. otherwise it's not a singularity. infinite is a singularity.

So what? That doesn't mean that it is absolutely literally infinite, and it is certainly a form. And just because it is a whole, does not mean that it is not contrasted with each and every other thing which is contained in it. It's called a singularity, but it's full of highly dense infinitesimal forms.

ineffable and infinite aren't synonyms

Correct. How many times have I said there are different forms of infinite?

Ineffable is the only one of these forms which is absolutely literally infinite. All of the others are infinite in certain dimensions, but not all dimensions at all times.

ineffable is neither infinite or finite as a synonym

So what? Ineffable is in the category of infinite.

Ineffable is a consequence of absolutley literally infinite. And none of the others are ineffable.

an infinite isn't definable, or describable.

Wrong answer:

The set of natural numbers is infinte and definable.
The set of integers is infinite and definable.
The set of real numbers is infinite and definable.
The set or irrational numbers is infinite and definable.
The broadband spectrum is infinite and definable.
The electromagnetic spectrum is infinite and definable.
ANY AND ALL spectrums are infinite and definable.

Even the absolutely literally infinite is definable. But it is still ineffable.

an infinite is undefinable, immeasurable. it has no reference point to anything else.

They are definable. As I showed you above. There is contrast between them which can be measured. That is because units of measure are always arbitrary.

At this point, I don't think you know what your own argument is.

What is your claim, Fool? What are you trying to prove?

Here's my claim: any and all versions of infinite that you can come up with include an inherent duality and are part of an inherent duality.

 

[Fool]

First of all, you're flip-flopping to a new word? Singularity? You'll need to be consistent in language in order to discuss these topics.

the word infinite is not plural. it's singular. it's a singularity. the absolute, or whole without otherness isn't definable. it literally has no definition

Second, who's "he", what are you talking about?

archimedes and the bathtub example you gave.

We were talking about a nearly infinite amorphous blob, comparable something which is absolutely literally infinite. You implied they could not be distinguished and that the nearly infinte amorphous blob was as big and all inclusive a concept as could exist. Now that II proved you wrong, your changing to a new word.

i never used the term nearly. the infinite is amorphous. it can't be defined unless there is otherness and then it wouldn't be infinite. it would be delimited by the otherness.

Singularity is a form. Singularity is not all inclusive. And it's source is unknown. It is not absolutely literally infinite, it is missing at least 1 which is formless and ineffable.

that which is undefinable and has no otherness to contrast against. it is literally the whole

If you are intending to talk about THE singularity from billions of years ago, that's a bizarre example to bring since, there is NO singularity currently.

no i'm talking about the absolute, or whole

So what? That doesn't mean that it is absolutely literally infinite, and it is certainly a form. And just because it is a whole, does not mean that it is not contrasted with each and every other thing which is contained in it. It's called a singularity, but it's full of highly dense infinitesimal forms.

the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts because the parts are definable and contrasted against each other, not the whole.

Correct. How many times have I said there are different forms of infinite?

but there is only one infinite as a whole even if their are attributes or forms within it.

Ineffable is the only one of these forms which is absolutely literally infinite. All of the others are infinite in certain dimensions, but not all dimensions at all times.

ineffable simply means to be indescribable, or undefinable. the whole as an infinite is undefinable.

Wrong answer:

The set of natural numbers is infinte and definable.
The set of integers is infinite and definable.
The set of real numbers is infinite and definable.
The set or irrational numbers is infinite and definable.
The broadband spectrum is infinite and definable.
The electromagnetic spectrum is infinite and definable.
ANY AND ALL spectrums are infinite and definable.

Even the absolutely literally infinite is definable. But it is still ineffable.

really bad example because these are only linear examples. the whole, the infinite i'm speaking of isn't linear

They are definable. As I showed you above. There is contrast between them which can be measured. That is because units of measure are always arbitrary.

At this point, I don't think you know what your own argument is.

What is your claim, Fool? What are you trying to prove?

Here's my claim: any and all versions of infinite that you can come up with include an inherent duality and are part of an inherent duality.

the irony of all this is that change is inevitable. self-perpetuating because I WILL BE what I WIll BE