What's the next "Holon", "Meta", "Paradigm"?

[Yimpa]

12 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Unless you really want high quality, in which case, it’s best to upload it to an external image hosting source and paste the link here.

I use Imgur to do that. I can teach you via DM @Rafael Thundercat

[Leo Gura]

11 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

I wish I could add the AI images I am creating with the concepts of Crocodiles and other Raptors. But the Paradox is that there is a limit of image size I can upload so I cant. What is the exact image size and format to add easy in the forum?

You can upload images to Imgur.com and post links.

[UnbornTao]

On 10/20/2024 at 2:19 AM, Staples said:

Every distinction is distinct too 😁

Not as distinctions--they are what "everything" may be comprised of.

For the sake of speculation: is everything distinct from nothing? What's the substance of difference?

Quote

It depends how you frame it. If you sum all distinctions together you get oneness.

Whatever you draw a distinction around is a 'thing'. And that drawing is conceptual. 

Within that drawing are infinitely more smaller distinctions. Which we summarize in order to create the higher conceptual 'thing'.

What if concept comes after distinction and not the other way around?

Say concept needs distinction for it to take place, while distinction stands as something different in nature, perhaps prior to "thought".

Edited October 22 by UnbornTao

[Staples]

11 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

For the sake of speculation: is everything distinct from nothing? 

Yes. A ≠ B. Everything is not nothing.

11 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Not in their nature as distinctions

That nature is a categorization. A conceptual boundary you draw around your paradigm of distinction. Raw distinction is something more fundamental.

11 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What if concept comes after distinction and not the other way around?

Say concept needs distinction for it to take place, while distinction stands as something different in nature, perhaps prior to "thought".

@UnbornTao Yes I see truth in that. Distinction is very fundamental.

Edited October 22 by Staples

[Genius100x]

On 10/20/2024 at 7:59 PM, Rafael Thundercat said:

I wish I could add the AI images I am creating with the concepts of Crocodiles and other Raptors. But the Paradox is that there is a limit of image size I can upload so I cant. What is the exact image size and format to add easy in the forum?

On 10/21/2024 at 7:18 AM, Leo Gura said:

You can upload images to Imgur.com and post links.

Hey Rafael,  I just found out a technique of posting images without consuming server space. Go to 

https://postimages.org/

and upload your image, then paste your URL here, it will be automatically embedded here. 

Edited October 24 by Genius100x

[UnbornTao]

On 21/10/2024 at 10:44 PM, Staples said:

Yes. A ≠ B. Everything is not nothing.

That nature is a categorization. A conceptual boundary you draw around your paradigm of distinction. Raw distinction is something more fundamental.

What if difference itself is relative (its substance being nothing)? 

Everything and nothing might be absolute. Perhaps A=A. Although A is a distinction.

Just playing around.

Edited October 23 by UnbornTao

[Staples]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What if distinction itself is relative (its substance being nothing)? 

Everything and nothing might be absolute. Perhaps A=A. Although A is a distinction.

Just playing around.

If Solipsism is true then the concept of relative doesn't make sense. Your distinctions are just true in themselves.

If other minds exist, then yes all of your distinctions will be different than someone else's. The same distinction can never made twice. (See Heraclitus river quote)

Have you ever experienced the same moment twice? Is that possible?

Distinction does not have substance. And its not nothing. It's consciousness that's changing. Consciousness that is dual - not uniform.

Edited October 23 by Staples

[Keryo Koffa]

Context itself is a distinction. The ability to distinguish or not to distinguish certain qualities is a context.
Context exists whether one is aware of it or not, as do all possible states of context and perception.
Distinctions being arbitrarily designated, created, or contextualized does not deny their reality of being.

[UnbornTao]

On 23/10/2024 at 2:37 AM, Staples said:

If Solipsism is true then the concept of relative doesn't make sense. Your distinctions are just true in themselves.

If other minds exist, then yes all of your distinctions will be different than someone else's. The same distinction can never made twice. (See Heraclitus river quote)

Have you ever experienced the same moment twice? Is that possible?

Distinction does not have substance. And its not nothing. It's consciousness that's changing. Consciousness that is dual - not uniform.

A "thing" gets to exist in relation to what it is not. "Apple" exists in relation to "not-apple": air, "my" hand, cat, book. That's relativity. Everything is relative. 

"Moment" (time) as a distinction might also be constructed. What is a moment?

The substance of distinction might be Nothing--who knows? Consciousness might not be subject to time but the basis of it, so it changing refers to a process happening in time, as something that is not.

Edited October 25 by UnbornTao

[Staples]

8 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

A "thing" gets to exist in relation to what it is not. "Apple" exists in relation to "not-apple": air, "my" hand, cat, book. That's relativity. Everything is relative. 

"Moment" (time) as a distinction might also be constructed. What is a moment?

The substance of distinction might be Nothing--who knows? Consciousness might not be subject to time but the basis of it, so it changing refers to a process happening in time, as something that is not.

Sure. I thought you meant relative like a perspective.

Everything is constructed, from smaller and smaller pieces that would go on forever if you looked.

1 = 1.000000000000000000...

Distinction does not have substance. It's beyond that - it's like a mathematical law. Distinction is what makes numbers different.

Distinction is the relationship between pieces. All pieces are different, so all pieces are distinct.

The sense of time is constructed from many pieces.

This is the only metaphysical thing I know for sure.

Edited October 26 by Staples

[UnbornTao]

15 hours ago, Staples said:

Everything is constructed, from smaller and smaller pieces that would go on forever if you looked.

Except, and including, Nothing. 

I'm being cute.

Perhaps everything is constructed. But are you? In other words, is your nature invented? Is being relative?

15 hours ago, Staples said:

Distinction does not have substance. It's beyond that - it's like a mathematical law. Distinction is what makes numbers different.

Distinction is the relationship between pieces. All pieces are different, so all pieces are distinct.

The sense of time is constructed from many pieces.

This is the only metaphysical thing I know for sure.

Let's consider that without a given distinction, say "numbers", they can't occur for you. The act of distinguishing between "things" would be what makes numbers possible in the first place.

What makes the pieces different? What was there so to speak before any distinction was made? 

Piece, relationship, difference, sameness, contextual realities such as self and space -- all these show up as distinct in our experience. 

So what is this difference business about?

At this point it would be wiser to tackle this subject as a personal contemplation, a koan.

[Nilsi]

On 23.10.2024 at 2:44 AM, UnbornTao said:

What if difference itself is relative (its substance being nothing)? 

Everything and nothing might be absolute. Perhaps A=A. Although A is a distinction.

Just playing around.

The problem is that "A" isn’t really "A." A bird isn’t simply a bird. There are as many versions of "A" as there are individual birds. In fact, there’s no fixed thing such as "A" at all, because what "A" refers to and the context in which it exists are always in flux.

That’s why difference is more fundamental than identity.

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

The problem is that "A" isn’t really "A." A bird isn’t simply a bird. There are as many versions of "A" as there are individual birds. In fact, there’s no fixed thing such as "A" at all, because what "A" refers to and the context in which it exists are always in flux.

That’s why difference is more fundamental than identity.

That’s precisely why all this talk about God is so absurd. By Leo’s own admission, every "God-Realization" is different. So, can God really be said to be fundamental, or is it the singularity of each particular experience - the difference in itself - that is fundamental?

As familiar as that experience may seem, it’s also as if it’s happening for the first time - totally novel and totally different, in the sense that it is singular and non-fungible. That’s the beauty of reality: it is perpetually novel, affirming difference in itself and its eternal return for itself.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

That’s why difference is more fundamental than identity.

What is meant by more fundamental there?

Something like one is being contingent on the other or you mean something different?

 

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

What is meant by more fundamental there?

Something like one is being contingent on the other or you mean something different?

 

When I say difference, I don’t mean it as a lack or deviation from an established identity. Identity is a secondary construction - a momentary stabilization within a dynamic and ongoing process of differentiation.

So yes, identity is contingent on difference in the sense that it emerges from difference, not the other way around, as has traditionally been held in Western metaphysics since Plato’s idealism.

I hate appealing to science, but in this case, it’s fair to say that what might be dismissed intellectually as weird Deleuzian postmodernism (though I believe the logic and experience should speak for themselves) has even been demonstrated by Ilya Prigogine, whose Nobel Prize-winning work on dissipative structures shows that stable identities and structures are not pre-existing essences but emerge from dynamic processes of difference and continuous transformation.

[Staples]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Perhaps everything is constructed. But are you? In other words, is your nature invented? Is being relative?

I am both the pieces and the construction. My nature is both relative and absolute. I am dual because I am made of many things.

9 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Let's consider that without a given distinction, say "numbers", they can't occur for you. The act of distinguishing between "things" would be what makes numbers possible in the first place.

Even if I couldn't consciously grasp numbers, their existence potential is absolute. You live within God's mind. What is real is not at all based on what our little human minds can or cannot distinguish. So, I guess we agree to disagree here.

[UnbornTao]

On 26/10/2024 at 5:17 PM, Nilsi said:

The problem is that "A" isn’t really "A." A bird isn’t simply a bird. There are as many versions of "A" as there are individual birds. In fact, there’s no fixed thing such as "A" at all, because what "A" refers to and the context in which it exists are always in flux.

It seems we can create "a thing," which refers to one in particular, and "thing," too. The difference bird may not be the same for an ornithologist than for the average person.

Quote

That’s why difference is more fundamental than identity.

That seems to be the case. First there has to be a difference for it to become identified as part of something else.

 

Edited October 28 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

On 26/10/2024 at 5:41 PM, Nilsi said:

That’s precisely why all this talk about God is so absurd. By Leo’s own admission, every "God-Realization" is different. So, can God really be said to be fundamental, or is it the singularity of each particular experience - the difference in itself - that is fundamental?

As familiar as that experience may seem, it’s also as if it’s happening for the first time - totally novel and totally different, in the sense that it is singular and non-fungible. That’s the beauty of reality: it is perpetually novel, affirming difference in itself and its eternal return for itself.

But the absolute isn't a distinction; it is absolute. Perhaps, tu put it metaphorically, "God" is what allows for distinctions to exist in the first place, whatever that is.

[Nemra]

A = A shows A's existence, because it is the truth.

[LoseYourvelf]

I think it's an obedient singular of some sort like Meta

 

I think we're in some sort of broken down integrated state

 

It's probably Ohm or Bhod

Edited October 28 by LoseYourvelf