Reciprocality

@Breakingthewall Okay my fault at assuming otherwise. And I agree that direct experience is really what matters.

That existence is a more extreme thing than you dare to believe, that it is literally unbelievable that you are alive, that belief itself does not stretch high enough for the absolute ridiculousness and wonders of existence, this is simply because belief is a subset of knowledge and it can not circle itself. I am incapable of believing that something like this world is real, it can only be known directly, our modern culture is an engagement in the delusion of reducing what is already given into a fantastical portion of itself.

@Breakingthewall A funny thing happens however if we investigate the consistency of my own statements under the same rule, the thread is called "existence is unbelievable", now since belief is one half of the self-subsistent concept of belief/disbelief (not to be refused to belief/unbelief, where the nature of the concept is a mere affirmation vs negation) it can on the surface look like I actually fail the consistency test, since the duality used tries to point to something outside itself without needing to point, but I would maintain that there are many believable things and that totality falls beyond the range of those things while you maintain that all things are infinite ("it is absolute"). But the thing is that I do not try to hold onto the unbelievability of existence, I merely acknowledge it as a momentary occurrence and argue for the process hiding behind the occurrence itself, while you wish to hold onto the occurrence and make a narrative out of it.

@Breakingthewall It is actually more plausible that it is you who hold onto thoughts, because you refuse to admit somewhere along the way the nature of the concept of infinity and then wants to take personal ownership of a word that is used in radically different situations with a different meaning than you give to it and refuse to acknowledge that it came from this different place with this different meaning. It probably did not help that what I can only infer as authority figures in your case did the same thing before you, such as Gura.

@Breakingthewall You are trying to convey an experience by means of words that have meaning, "infinity" is a concept that just like "down" loses its meaning unless it is relative to "up", so tell me what is the finite thing in terms of which your statement makes sense? Your experience, whatever it is, I am sure is very real, but it is no more or less downwards itself than it is infinity itself. You try to use concepts but fail to recognise that their literal existence is contingent on making dualities.

@Sincerity Aha, my bad. Would be cool if you´d give it a try another day since as wecome1 implied, this thread doesn't have enough sincerity.

@WeCome1 There is no irony here, I could not afford it, if what I say is false then I have fooled not only you but also myself.

@Sincerity It is not necessarily an efficient method to limit oneself only to reading, to ask questions regarding the places where our already conceived notions fails us is crucial at these crossroads.

@Breakingthewall Infinity is one half of a duality which only makes any sense by conceiving of both parts and then applying this half of it onto a third thing. I believe what you actually try to say is that reality is an amazing interplay between the finite and the infinite.

When you take the reasoning a step further you find that you did not create the things, substances, that underlies the faulty judgements of "chair". And that your power is limited to the composition of these substances, and will never stretch beyond them, which contradicts the idea that you are god if you define god as that which created existence. Edit: again I am left where I have been thousands of times before, that the power of god is reducible to the limited beings such as ourself, that the substances of which we are made were given to god as playdough is given a child, and that god had no say in their nature and direct appearance.

@WeCome1 That would be a contradictory construct, since for god to be he can not be contingent on the things he created, those things would then simply be self-subsistent. If he had the power to not create them it would necessarily be insufficient to only know that the components exists, as you seemed to imply.

@WeCome1 So the purpose of the world and its unbelievable components is that god uses them to his schemes and desires, while also these components are themselves made out of god. This is fair, but let me ask you this, did god have the power not to create these components in the first place? And if he did, isn't this necessarily a separate god? And if there are two gods, both you and the supreme one, what preserves the identity of either in the realm of the other?

@WeCome1 Okay fair fair, I started the questioning because I speculated for myself whether it may not be that you had realised your ego were an illusion and armed with this realisation used other characters to play the game of the ego intentionally instead of being dragged down into the game unintentionally like the rest of us.

@WeCome1 Okay, so a figure for what then? And also if you think it is knowable then what do you know about its purpose?

@WeCome1 That cleared it up alright, now I know what is going on, possibly how it is going on, but I have no idea still why it is going on, the why relates to my initial question, WHY would you not refer to the "me" in most situations in everyday life at home. This is what were possibly confusing for me.

@WeCome1 Yes realising that I have been wrong about everything I thought I knew, that the experience of these colours and geometries, and whatever hides behind these, is not itself a chair, and so is true of every other idea I got drilled down in my head, makes the experience itself mystical. You said that the purpose of the subject of the chair were unknowable, I believe it is knowable, I believe our self, our creativity, our intelligence IS its purpose and that it can become self evident and inconsistent to believe otherwise. I can explicate the inconsistency if you want, were interesting to hear about your mushroom trip though, I believe I can relate to it, though Ive never tried any psychedelics.

Hello WeCome, this about you referring to yourself in third person sounds interesting, not to eavesdrop on your personal life but can I ask who it is that refers to the third person character, and why it doesn't refer to itself?

Existence says through the creation of you that it is and every quasi-substance of the senses, and every self-subsistent concept is a necessary means for existence to be actual. It is fucking amazing, I can not believe how amazing it is.

Saying that you are conscious is not a claim about yourself, but is instead an affirmation of existence itself, it is most often called self-consciousness, congratulations you have discovered what characterises the whole species to which you belong. The reason you are aware of existing is irreducible, it is the only thing there exists, you can even discover through logical reasoning that the meaning of this realisation is inapplicable to anything else than whatever it came from, that it amounts to a contradiction to speak about an existence without self-awareness. We could infer from this argument that a cat though it seems to live a fairly long time lives only in proportion to how much it self-realises, and that this tick-rate makes the cat who lives from 2010 to 2023 actually only experience what would to us be a couple of weeks. Regarding things like "atoms in themselves" there is no time at all, for time is only meaningful in the contexts of the things in the mind. Edit: This should help the possible confusion of the first phrase: a claim about yourself is dual to to self of which there is a claim, and is actually the means by which existence affirms itself.

For sure the mind is powerful, it takes ridiculous amounts of self-judgement for it to operate socially, and it takes a ridiculously powerful incentive for it to judge itself, the consequence of these two powers working against one another for a whole lifetime is similar to the consequence of powers necessary to make diamonds, an almost indestructible object which takes an even more indestructible object than itself to destroy. Luckily you can cheat by penetrating the diamond with an object with a very, very pointy edge and very, very slim constitution, though perhaps it wont make the diamond shatter, and only replaces that in it which it pushed out on the other side.

Amusing, so you will not only think the difference between yourself and others but you will introduce a third element into the mix by differentiating between two kinds of others? And let me guess, this third element makes you non-dual?

Distance is a computation, it is derivative of intuition. It is a predicate never a subject, but the universe itself is just predicate and never subject, unless perhaps impenetrability, which as neither contained in the senses nor in concepts of reason is a synthesis of both, could be the actual subject and indeed substance of which everything else we think is a predicate. It turns out impenetrability is an expression of the hypothesis of opposition in the statement above of "mutually opposed matter". That is, the concept of impenetrability which actually is unthinkable and only experiential, can be applied to the border between each composite in every known experience way beyond the place from where it were abstracted, and this can be done both personally and scientifically. Is impenetrability a substance? Is it a predicate of no other subject even though we used its abstracted equivalent to predicate the border between every known quality? .. We can use the visualisation of the simultaneity of space to give a proper standing for the placement of this hypothetical substance, for since there is no continuum in the four dimensional manifold only 0-dimensional points we have precisely such a thing (in these points) which could contain the substance of impenetrability. If on the other hand there is no such impenetrability in these 0dimensional points then impenetrability is purely emergent and a mere accident in the substance of consciousness.

I know this is a very old post but since nobody cared to respond to it and it brings up a fascinating subject it deserves a revival. "Nothing" is a function of thought, it is a necessary means for me and you to be able to do anything more than merely react to stimuli, the stimuli is a given, "nothing" is similar to a nail penetrating a wall, and the wall is the stimuli, there is no "nothing" in things themselves nor a "nothing" beyond the universe, remember our discovery, "nothing" is just a means in "something" for the manipulation and discovery of that "something". "Nothing" is identical with negation and contradiction, its just that this one identical thing has several applications, in the form of "nothing" it is variability with regard to existence itself, that is, variability with regard to the presence of self-consciousness, in the form of negation is is variability with regard to the existence of a particular thing, and in the form of contradiction it is variability with regard to mutually exclusive definitions/axioms/premises and thusly mutually exclusive particular things. Variability with regard to self-consciousness has no possible instantiations (subject for predication), which is why "nothing" is a simulation and creation of the possibility itself of no self through the self. ^ This last part is very pertinent what regards this forum, because this is precisely the simulation you guys run every time you speak about enlightenment, spirituality and non-duality.

There certainly are no paradoxes. I hesitate to provide the proofs here but I can tell you that when you know the difference between self-subsistence of the duality in concepts and the actual conditions for truth-values every infinitely regressive paradox becomes nothing more than an engagement in form without content. The liars paradox becomes reducible to this: Premise 1. There is truth Premise 2. There is falsity or alternatively "I wish to conceive the concept of truth and falsity." Logic remains unharmed.

Randomness is what happens in the mind when something were unpredictable, when something occurred without a knowledge for their causes. If there exists randomness independently of the created duality of mind and object then its only possible evidence would exist at the smallest possible level of reality (feel free to ask for justification for this assertion) and be thinkable first when we reached a consistent theory of a relevant subset of the universe as emergent from this level. Yes you guessed right, we are very far from this kind of science. Most physicists who speculates about the independency of randomness conclude that it is observable in the half-life of atomic decay where though a sufficiently big sample size of atoms will fall into predictable patterns (normal distribution, imagine the bell-curve) each one of the atoms they say "decays" at a time and place, they argue, to which no possible material cause could precede the moment before, there is a mathematical theorem used as ground for this assertion, something about a principle of locality, well this is ridiculous for we already know that there exists a lot of matter that is necessarily unobservable because they, though really their category, are always simultaneous to us, never to reach us.