What am I?

[now is forever]

@tsuki do we need to understand that?

mine was at least funny. i can’t see it. well with a little phantasy.

Edited November 21, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

@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.

[tsuki]

Two important observations:

1. I stopped being in contact with direct experience and started studying abstract patterns.
2. 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):

1. 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.
2. 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

Quote

Fundamental to the idea that ∞ is a point no different from any other is the way the real projective line is a homogeneous space, in fact homeomorphic to a circle. For example the general linear group of 2×2 real invertible matrices has a transitive action on it. The group action may be expressed by Möbius transformations, (also called linear fractional transformations), with the understanding that when the denominator of the linear fractional transformation is 0, the image is ∞.

The detailed analysis of the action shows that for any three distinct points P, Q and R, there is a linear fractional transformation taking P to 0, Q to 1, and R to ∞ that is, the group of linear fractional transformations is triply transitive on the real projective line. This cannot be extended to 4-tuples of points, because the cross-ratio is invariant.

The terminology projective line is appropriate, because the points are in 1-to-1 correspondence with one-dimensional linear subspaces of R^2

EDIT 2: ** - this is also wrong. It seems like PER becomes something like a closed loop within the higher order dimension?

Edited November 21, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

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

[tsuki]

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.

[tsuki]

On 15.11.2018 at 3:40 PM, tsuki said:

There is definitely a degree of 'mine-ness'. The body is more mine than a cup, and my cup is more mine than my colleague's cup. But why is my body more mine than my cup? Is it because I move my body and I can't move a cup by itself? Well, the eyes blink by themselves and they are more mine than my cup, so it is not a matter of will/control. Is it about inseparability? Have I ever been separate from my body? Am I separate from my cup? No, I'm not. A cup is a cup because it's obvious and undeniable. It is self-apparent, even if there is nothing about this thing that makes it a cup. I recognize a cup to be a cup. So, perhaps - I am the recognition of what a cup is? That is an interesting way to put it.

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

Edited November 21, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

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:

1. a ≤ a (Reflexive: every element is related to itself).
2. if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then a = b (Antisymmetric: two distinct elements cannot be related in both directions).
3. 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.

Edited November 21, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

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.

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.

Edited November 21, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

Ok, today is not my day. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived?
That, or I lost momentum by diving into abstract concepts.

I may have to retrace my steps tomorrow. The order of beings is very nuanced.
Especially when it comes to the taxonomy of senses. Beings are multi-dimensional and I lost track of that.

I also seem to have confused ordering with invertibility of the group operation.
Huh, I also didn't notice that I started to call the elements of the group 'beings' and beings do not belong to any of the gross senses.

Note to self for tomorrow:

• inner and outer may be represented by the inversion of elements in the group operation.
• this model may apply only to the sense of being and is projected onto other senses.

Definitely sleep deprived.

Edited November 21, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

spoiler alert: 

have you pined it down yet?

 

or was it this one?

 

ulysses

to radical?

Edited November 21, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

Sigh. I am nothing, I know nothing.
Is this the low after a high?
Is this the feeling of embarrassing myself in front of the forum people?
Is this the feeling of being well-rested?
Did the high go away because of the glass of wine, or because I lost momentum in the depths of group theory?
Or did I upset the muse by being too greedy with my reasoning?

11 hours ago, now is forever said:

spoiler alert: 

have you pined it down yet?

It certainly does . I am not trying to capture anything. I'm trying to describe it honestly.
The language may seem bizarre, but hey! This is the language I speak. I want to speak maths.
Think of this journal as Ulysses written in mathematics.
I do not write it to accomplish anything, but as a ladder to change my state of consciousness.

[tsuki]

Oh, the flow is getting back online.

The end goal of description is:

• I am a kind of N-dimensional space of senses
• A sense is a group over a set that includes point at infinity.
• Because of this (?) sense is homeomorphic to a circle
• There is a homeomorphism between one sense and two other senses
• If you look at one sense from the point of view of two others, it is circle-like (constrained).

[now is forever]

@tsuki mhhh - why do you think that? i mean why do you think you are nothing?

of course you are no THING tsuki - you are extremely cool and a really nice person ♥️

and your math is kind of cute. i don’t get it all but who could write like that?

question is what you want to pin down?

[tsuki]

14 minutes ago, now is forever said:

question is what you want to pin down?

Well, I suppose that I want to express the strange-loopines of reality as a result of how senses are wrapped onto each other.
Ego - the sense of being limited - is expressed within that.

Oh, and thank you for your compliments.

Edited November 22, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

@tsuki then go back to where you think, you‘ve lost it.

[tsuki]

1 minute ago, now is forever said:

@tsuki then go back to where you think, you‘ve lost it.

@now is forever Yes, mother.

Edited November 22, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

@tsuki

ok - but you need me for that?

Edited November 22, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

@now is forever No. *slams the door*

[now is forever]

@tsuki what is this?

i mean you slam the door - because you don’t want someone to interfere? is it that? or is it some kind of invitation?

what do you want to pin down tsuki? or is it the opposite?

Edited November 22, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

33 minutes ago, now is forever said:

what do you want to pin down tsuki?

Sigh. Myself. Reality. God. Creativity. Infinity.
I'm sure that it is unpinnable. End of story.
Still, I hunt for it because in the process of doing it, I have to learn new tools.
No tools will ever be sufficient. The only way in which I may pin it down is by deluding myself that my proof is correct.
Delusion is, however, a sign that I have not mastered the tools that I used to capture it. I know that I am deluded when I suffer.
By retracing my steps I can tell what mistakes I made and convert the suffering back to ignorance and achieve mastery.
This is the cycle. Now I'm going uphill. Please, don't disturb me.