tsuki

That is very interesting. I'm so incredibly tempted to say that the two orders are equal, but they aren't. In reality there is no total order of beings, but I desperately want to preserve this idea and develop it. As I look at my chair and my guitar I was wondering whether one is more mine than the other. This is particularly important with respect to the second axiom of the ≤ relation: if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then a = b If the chair is less or equally mine as the guitar, and the guitar is less or equally mine than the chair, then the chair is the same as the guitar. That is just exactly how Ego thinks, isn't it? Since in the total order all elements must necessarily be comparable by ≤, then beings melt together with respect to mineness. The total order of beings seems to imply the egoic perspective, where things are either mine or not. Partial order of beings can have elements that cannot be compared with ≤, so the question is meaningless.

So, 'mineness' of things is a rudimentary description, but it implies order within a sense. Order is defined as an operation on the elements of the set that lets us tell whether or not they are smaller or greater. The most general case of order is Partial order. There is one interesting special case, which is called Total order. Partial order is when the relation is: a ≤ a (Reflexive: every element is related to itself). if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then a = b (Antisymmetric: two distinct elements cannot be related in both directions). if a ≤ b and b ≤ c, then a ≤ c (Transistive : if a first element is related to a second element, and, in turn, that element is related to a third element, then the first element is related to the third element). In total order we can compare every element of a sense to every other element of a sense. In partial order there are pairs of elements that are incomparable. This distinction between the kinds of orders is important, because there are two modes of how we can treat 'mineness' of beings. One way is to try to construct a total moral system that can compare every thing to every other thing. The other way is to let it be loose and leave some things within a sense as incomparable. The 'mineness' of things, the order of beings within a sense, will from now on be called morality. Morality can be total, or partial. Partial morality is how we express ambiguity (?). For example - in the sense of vision, beauty is kind of morality: We can always say that something is as beautiful as itself (why would we even say that?) if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then a = b We can create chains of beauty Total order of vision requires that all visual beings either beautiful, or not. Partial order of vision lets us not compare beauty of a TV to a car. EDIT: I don't like the name morality. It's more like meaning. EDIT 2: I don't like the word meaning as well. I'm trying to generalize too quickly and I lose touch with direct experience. Let's stick to mineness. Things are mine, not mine and a boundary. Now, we have the relationship of less and more mine. Less and more inner. Let's define a zero. EDIT 3: No zeros yet.

Let's take the 'mineness' of the world as the basis for the description of the binding operation.

Let's model sense as a group. It is a set of elements and a binding operation. The binding operation needs to fulfill group axioms: Closure Associativity Identity Invertibility I need to find an appropriate name for the binding operation and elements.

My inner mathematician suffers from the lack of proof. If the implications are correct, then I have found what Ego is.

Two important observations: I stopped being in contact with direct experience and started studying abstract patterns. Rational analysis of nondual perception spirals down to singularity very quickly. I'm not ready to end this mystical experience yet, so instead - I will focus on analysis of egoic perception. That being said, there are two points that I'd like to make about nondual perception and merging logic with paradox. Trying to define away a/0 in mathematics had led to the invention of projectively extended real line (PER). Trying to define square root of -1 had led to the invention of complex numbers (CN). There are some similarities that I intuit to be important for creation of dualities/perspectives. Once you define paradox and include it into the logical system, it influences the system in the following ways (based on the two above examples): Loss of total order: Cannot compare a to infinity in PER and cannot compare between 'pure' complex and real numbers in CN. This is very similar to how I perceive the gross senses. If we take the underlying structure (real numbers) and wrap it onto iteself, we get the increase of dimensions in CN If we take the underlying structure (real numbers) and extend it via addition of a point (infinity), we stay at the same number of dimensions (?) in PER. * Is this a recipe for creation of senses? The other thing is that PER has a correspondence between zero and infinity. They are similar. There is also the same similarity present in movement between touch and stillness. Touch is like zero and stillness is like infinity. Do other gross senses have both zero and infinity? EDIT: * - this is wrong. Dimensionality of PER increases: ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_line#Geometry EDIT 2: ** - this is also wrong. It seems like PER becomes something like a closed loop within the higher order dimension?

@now is forever No, just some funny synchronicities. Now, let's get back to work. There is this theme about 'my' enlightenment: I try to merge paradox with logic into a single 'thing'. I got a little 'aha' moment today where I understood that the process of trying to understand infinity is the very process that destroys the mind. Perhaps, this is why contemplation is a technique for enlightenment.

Guess what looks like @Zweistein's avatar?

OH, now I get it: EDIT: Doesn't it look like my avatar? Hahaha!

Funny how 5-simplex has two projections and I just came up with two conceptual systems of perception. The left is egoic and the right is nondual: Let's focus on some implication of the hierarchy of senses in the nondual perspective for now. I think that the way in which I described the nondual perspective makes it inherently unstable (like we observed it to be). If we observe that the subjective and objective worlds are beings themselves that other senses relate to, then we have to make further observations along this line of reasoning. Because now, we can observe that each of the five categories of senses are beings themselves that group something (experience?). If that is the case, then even the senses themselves are grounded in the sense of being. Calling sense of being a sense now feels inappropriate. That is because senses themselves are beings that experience relates to. In the nondual perspective, there is just being and the various forms of it. If we take being as primary and account for the existence of paradox with its limit (nonbeing), then we can relate other senses with their inner-outer partitioning as perspectives. A perspective on being is a duality of inner-outer with its associated paradox: Seeing: inner / darkness / outer Hearing: inner / silence / outer Movement: inner / stillness / outer Taste: inner / tastelessness / outer Smell: inner / smelllessness / outer And, we can have much more, like: Time: past / now / future etc. The bold paradoxes are how nonbeing is projected within this perspective on being. What interests me now is how is this inner-outer relationship established. There seems to be an order of being, a direction. I wonder how that is projected from being into senses. It's strange because it reminds me of the attempts to define paradox away in mathematics, such as number systems that allow division by zero. I'll have to get into that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_line

I don't know. Yes, if I introduce the sense of time somehow. The perceptions alternate, just like what you describe. All of the mystical experiences feel equally deep in the sense of clarity, but at the same time they seem deeper and deeper. It's okay. You're asking very important questions. I'm still getting ready to answering what is sense of time. It seems to be some sort of leftover/misconception from the egoic perspective. I'm calling the traditional five senses gross to articulate that the sense of being can be special. It can either be perceived as gross or not. Gross senses are partitioned into inner and outer. Or were you joking and I'm just dense?

Since my not-punching bag is getting upset, I'll publicly admit that the limit of movement is stillness, not touch. Touch is an inner movement that is confused for stillness. The Ego's wet dream therefore is: Darkness Silence Saliva (tastelessness?) Air (smelllessness?) Stillness Nothingness (non-existence) The inner and outer spheres of the gross senses are what I call the inner and outer world. Subjective and objective. The boundary between subjective and objective is the "-lessness" : the paradox. The sense of being is, however, problematic. I can approach it in two ways: Treat it as a gross sense and claim that there are 'private' and 'public' beings. That I can agree and disagree about the existence of things with other people and treat it as the basis for experience. Observe that the very partitioning of senses into inner and outer is grounded in the sense of being. Subjective and objective worlds themselves are entities that form relationships with other senses. This way, I can see that the sense of being itself cannot be partitioned into inner and outer, because the possibility of partitioning is grounded in it. The first option creates one stable conceptual system in which there is "I" and "other". I will call this conceptual system Egoic perception. The second option creates another stable conceptual system in which there is "I=you=we". I will call this conceptual system Nondual perception.

Hahaha, isn't that a fucking coincidence? I was researching the properties of a 5-simplex and look what projection I found: Now we're talking. Ego, Satan, etc... The middle one has got to be the sense of being.

Boom, progress. I was wondering about this question right here: and it got me curious and a little bit depressed. That is because everything that is obvious is unitary. There is nothing inner and outer about it. In fact, innerness and outerness are beings themselves so they have to somehow point back into the sense of being. This got me depressed because it ruins all of the beautiful dual symmetry of the 5-simplex. (Or maybe it doesn't? I just figured something out). Anyways, here's another clue: That thing right here is the Ego's wet dream. Paradoxes in the gross senses seem like manifestations of nothingness.

All of the senses contain paradoxes. What is the 'paradoxical experience'? Darkness Silence Saliva (?) Air (?) Touch Nothingness Isn't that basically the experience of death? The total sensory deprivation?

I wonder if nondual perception is a category? All senses seem to have singularities, which are the points between inner and outer spheres: inner sight / darkness / outer sight inner hearing / silence / outer hearing inner taste / ??? / outer taste inner smell / ??? / outer smell inner movement / touch / outer movement inner being / nothingness / outer being ??? - there seems to be no obvious word for these singularities. They are like the taste of saliva and the smell of air. I'm still having difficulty talking about the sense of being. I can only describe its short-circuits with other senses. From the point of view of short-circuits, it is the ability to recognize entities out of sensations. When the phone rings, I move in such a way that I can see the phone. Sense of being is what 'glues' the sound of ringing, motion of the head and shape of the phone into what I perceive to be the entity called phone.

TODO: Use the 5-simplex to describe the framework of separate senses. Vertices are sense-spaces, connections are short-circuits. I don't like the name framework of separate senses. I'll call it nondual perception from now on.

What would the sense of being look like if I partitioned it into inner and outer sphere in the social perspective?

For now, I'm not willing to look. I have my own stuff to attend to. I'll let you know when I'm free enough to follow you.

I was wondering how could I describe all of the categories of experience and I came up with the following idea: What if a paradox is the description of a sense that is missing from my account of experience? For example, philosophy had always tried to explain why things are, as if there was no sense of being. It tried to explain things in terms of other things and created chains of reasoning with cause and effect. This had always led to arguments about whether some things are primary and others are secondary. They even argued things out of existence (postmodernism) and created them (religion?). Yes, there is a short-circuit between sense of being and inner hearing and things can go in and out of existence. But, without the ability to perceive consistency I wouldn't be what I am now. The sense of being seems to be connected to recontextualization.

Why look for fault? The situation is the result of your touching of my unresolved things. Or, it is the result of my unresolved things being touched by you. There is no difference between the two. Not in my experience.

Yes it is. You said it yourself - you're good at touching unresolved things. How about we talk about your relationship with scientific thought and arrogance?

It is just that I already have one mother. Mothers are lovely, but also dangerous. When you are a little child and have no boundaries, they take care of you and mold you into a functioning human being. Then, they forget the fact that you can take care of yourself and keep trying to mold you. Of course, they still take care of you after you can take care of yourself, but now they are just making sure that you know how to have boundaries. The boundary between you and your mother is the most difficult one to maintain. Hurting the very definition of what care is (mother) is the greatest act of compassion. And mothers can take it. I don't want to be molded. I am what I am, even if I don't know what am I. It is an open journal because you may want to know me better. If you feel like something is off in my reasoning - it simply means that we think of our experience differently. You can ask me to clarify things so that you can squeeze yourself into the lens I'm presenting, but do not try to correct me. My experience is not wrong. It simply is. That is the sharpest tool in the toolbox of motherly self-defense.

@now is forever My arrogance is your projection. I am not going to argue about what I experience. I am also not denying that senses are interconnected. Now, get out.

Well, the way I see it - if I focus solely on the kinesthetic sense, touch is when what I normally call movement of a body part changes into an inner movement (feeling). For example, if I hit a wall with my fist with my eyes closed, first, I move and then there is the inner movement that I call pain. Touch (with all the other senses excluded) is the moment where the outer movement becomes an inner movement. In this example, pain is an unpleasant inner movement, but there are also pleasant ones - like when I touch my loved one. Then, I am drawn to that person, I want to be closer and the "conversion" from the outer movement of what I call a hand into an inner movement that I call warmth is pleasant. (EDIT: I'm sorry, I just realized that I'm an asshole and you may be lonely). Movement is as giving as touch, because one is constituted in the other (and vice versa). However, I see touch as the limit of movement, similar to how darkness is the limit of vision. Isn't it when the night is dark we use our inner vision and imagine threats?