Osaid

That's the name of the game here. If someone is stuck in intellect I have to traverse intellect.

You can only experience what exists. Notice how this immediately intuitively makes sense until your logic comes running through. "Doesn't exist" "non-existence" "lack" are words which point to something that doesn't exist. That's how they are defined. Making conclusions about consciousness, or what does exist, or what is experienced, through words which point to non-existence, is a serious blunder. Because those words can never describe what exists, by their definition. It's like if you ask me what vanilla ice cream tastes like and I tell you "vanilla is not Santa Claus." It doesn't tell you anything about what vanilla is because Santa Claus is not. The point of reference is something which does not exist. You can't point to what exists using non-existence. You can't conclude that experience is limited by pointing to non-existence. Non-existence describes nothing about existence, naturally. It is intellectual stagnation. You get caught in it like a hamster wheel because it seems to make logical sense. It is important not to confuse "nothing" with non-existence. Non-existence is intellect. Nothing is actual. Nothing has no intellectual basis, no conclusions, it says nothing about reality, literally. Non-existence, on the other hand, has an intellectual basis, it is a conclusion, a way to define how experience operates. Nothing != non-existence. Your experience says nothing about what is not experienced, literally. That is on the right track. Limitation is literally "what doesn't exist." That means the limitation itself doesn't exist either. It's imagined. It's really profound if you grasp it. The color red doesn't exist as "not blue" or "not yellow." It exists as red. Which causes you to think about blue and yellow, which is not blue and yellow, just thinking/imagination. If your thinking was actually blue and yellow, your experience would not be limited anymore. Your mind is desperately trying to grasp at non-existence and use it as proof that your experience is limited, but that is impossible. When you say "my experience is limited because blue doesn't exist", you've literally admitted right there that the thing which is limiting your experience does not exist.

Non-existence is not experienced. Of course. By definition. Non-existence couldn't be. I am not conscious of non-existence. Of course not. You are playing an intellectual game with yourself.

It does. You just can't see it. You simply can't perceive consciousness as "more" or "less" without comparing consciousness against something other than consciousness. You can't experience non-existence. Consciousness does not have that feature. Experience does not have that feature. It is by definition "not consciousness." You don't experience a lack of kangaroos, that is impossible. You can't experience a lack of something, that is an existential contradiction. You infer that through your knowledge of kangaroos. In the same way you don't actually experience a lack of consciousness when you go to sleep. The color red is not experienced as a lack of kangaroos, even though it isn't a kangaroo. The smell of a flower is not experienced as a lack of kangaroos, even though it isn't a kangaroo. You can only experience what exists. You can only imagine or infer what doesn't exist through what exists. It's just existence. There's no limitation anywhere until you imagine it. You're imagining a variable which doesn't exist in your current experience (kangaroo/non-existence) and then calling it a limitation. No, the limitation literally does not exist. If there is a lack of kangaroos you do not perceive that, it is literally non-existence. It says nothing about what exists. If you say "experience is limited because kangaroos do not exist" you have literally admitted in that sentence that the limitation itself does not exist.

In order to perceive consciousness as less or more you have to perceive consciousness as an object in your mind which can be pitted against things other than itself. It's all a relative conception. An intellectual illusion which points to nothing outside of itself. Just mind dividing and separating as it tends to do. Nothing more to see here. "More consciousness" means there is something beyond consciousness, which is impossible. It's the classic folly of believing something can exist beyond the absolute. This is why you can't become conscious through intellect or logic or mind. Because the mind can only divide, and division is limitation.

They don't, obviously. He was just fooling us.

My favorite pity parties are the ones where you aren't allowed to reference the past or future.

? Not only that, but something other than what you are right now? I know what you mean. You mean the future. The you which isn't here with us right now. But when you get there, it won't include a body. And then we'll say "it's not infinite because it's excluding a body." Maybe infinity can't be "imagining other experiences"? Maybe your idea of infinity has trapped you in a logical catch-22 which points to absolutely nothing? And you chase that "nothing" like a hamster in an infinite wheel? Hahaha is this a threat to signify your annoyance or am I misinterpreting?

But not a body? Pointing out contradiction is "playing with words"? ? Right.

A limitation is a relation between two things. For something to be limited, it is limited by a thing. For limitation to occur, there is "Thing A", which is. And then "Thing B", which is not. The perception of a thing which is and a thing which is not, creates the perception of "limitation." But how can something which is not, Thing B, ever be experienced? It can't. It is non-existence. It must be imagined and inferred. Any single limitation you can think of, is simply just what you can think of. Mind. Imagination. Nothing else. Do you experience yourself as two? Are there two experiences? Are there two experiences which can relate and limit each other? Or do you simply divide it through your mind, and mistake it for yourself?

That is a limitation, which is finite. "Infinity cannot have a body" What you talk about is not infinite. Because you limit it in that sentence. "Beyond current senses" means "beyond the absolute" or "what is not occurring yet." It means there is an experience somewhere else in the future, which you can be. Which you currently aren't. That can't be the case. Not in infinity.

It seems obvious? Because you think that you can be something else in the future? Because you think that you were something else in the past? Maybe it's just you thinking, nothing else?

Imagination appears as imagination; about a "you" in the future which is less limited than you right now. Imagination certainly is, as a unicorn or Santa Claus is. Right. Imagination is not antithetical or excluded. It is imagination. Imagining unicorns isn't "unicorns", it is imagination.

I don't think it is basic or semantic or "hair-splitting" to convince people that infinity is antithetical to being human and located in a future. "Annoy" by contesting that idea? Being misguided or deluded about what you are feels bad. Just trying to prevent that.

It's obligatory for me to interject everytime you talk about infinity.

Might as well say "infinity exists somewhere other than what exists right now" or might as well even say "infinity doesn't exist." You are just talking about the future here, not infinity. "Lack" is created through mental inference/imagination. Not through infinity.

Goddamn. As expected though. Highly religious sects will inevitably have to employ narcissistic tactics which end up causing some form of trauma in the long run. No other way to create compliance, and compliance creates sustainability to a certain point. I find highly religious countries to be a breeding ground for narcissism or NPD for those reasons.

But that's good because it makes her submissive and easy to marry!

If it is one substance, where is the space for a sense of self? If there is one simultaneous physical occurrence (looking = eyes + rock), where is the space for a sense of self? Certain identities have different limitations than others which feel different. The persistent "block" you feel is probably a result of being stuck in that medium of imagination; the medium of imagining yourself in various different ways, and the constant desire to imagine a better and more accurate version of yourself. Don't know either. If you can't find it in your experience, then the idea of it doesn't really matter much. What really matters is what this means to you and how that makes you feel. What does it make you imagine about yourself and how does that make you feel? And is it accurate to imagine yourself that way? Hope is a desire to alleviate a current feeling of sadness through a future situation of love. This statement implies to me that an illusion is present which prevents love. This cannot be the case if it is truly illusion, because how can something unreal like illusion prevent something real like love? It simply must be a misperception, and that misperception cannot have power beyond being a misperception. Similar to saying "Santa Claus makes me hopeless or prevents love." The fear you feel towards the imagined self is actually equivalent to the love you feel towards yourself, it is all the same simultaneous occurrence. It is a desire to protect yourself from the imagination of yourself which creates fear. That desire is motivated by the love you have towards yourself, and the love that you already are. It is great to realize what you are, or aren't. In essence, you are a thing that is constantly trying to feel great or be great. Imagining yourself feels bad because it isn't you. It contradicts what you are, and so it threatens you. The great part is that it isn't you and it can't be you. For example, if it feels bad to see things as hopeless, that is you retaliating against the imagination of yourself as "hopeless", in the same way you would retaliate against a bear which threatens you.

It actually doesn't. That's just how it seems when you try to intellectually perceive non-duality. It's more like realizing that all duality is made of imagination or thought. It doesn't exclude it, it just perceives it more accurately. That might be a better way of looking at it. It's like someone comes up to you and says "I think that I'm a unicorn" and you're like "no you're not actually a unicorn, it's an imagination of a unicorn, you're just thinking it" and then they're like "no you can't just exclude unicorns like that." Like I'm not excluding anything, you're just imagining something and then also imagining that it isn't imagination on top of that. That's exactly how duality works. When you look at duality as something existential beyond your imagination, you're mistaking the map for the territory, the map being your literal imagination. When I say infinity or infinite I am talking about an awareness of something which is genuinely not limited by anything that exists. You cannot perceive something like that through some kind of intellectual definition, only through awareness itself. In the same way that you can't perceive sound or color through intellect, you can only partially grasp it through certain words and definitions, but those words and definitions never capture that "thing" itself. This is exactly correct. Because any framing is by definition not infinite or non-dual. It must exist outside of any frame, and so logic or intellect or imagination can't ever touch it.

You are still looking at infinity as if it is math or logic or incremental or relative.

You are actually in the same position, since you criticize other peoples understanding of infinity, which implies that you have your own understanding of infinity. You are just teaching dualisms because you never saw through duality. And it's not like you deny that since you like to scoff at non-duality.

Which means it was not infinite. You can't ascribe lack to something and then call it infinite, because if it lacks something then it is finite in some way. This reminds me of the mathematical infinity which I talked about a bit here: You're trying very hard to fit infinity into something relative but it just wont work.

I can agree with this much. Yes, reality is magical AF.