Is there anything between the absolute and pure delusion.

[ChrisZoZo]

I think we can all agree that there is the absolute and the relative but it may be more complex than that. Do you think their are Levels? I would say that there is in are universe at least two levels the absolute and pure delusion. An example might be the love race game (described in outrageous experiments in Consciousness) which would be level 2 which puts pure delusion at level 3 and the absolute at level 1.  

[yetineti]

There are endless levels, so there are no levels.

In this case, 0=infinity

Edited February 4, 2022 by mw711

[Adam M]

1. Yes

2. No

3. Yes and No

4. Neither 

5. All of the above

6. None of the above

7. Some of the above

 

There's your answer

[ChrisZoZo]

@mw711 Ignoring 0=infinity there are infinity levels would you say? 

[ChrisZoZo]

14 minutes ago, Adam M said:

1. Yes

2. No

3. Yes and No

4. Neither 

5. All of the above

6. None of the above

7. Some of the above

 

There's your answer

I would agree with this but its kind of going to the extreme I ask you now within are universe would you say there are endless levels? 

[ChrisZoZo]

@Adam M Because we can say this with anything lol (referring to my comment above) . And this is precisely why I ask because the defining of the in-between levels is what I see a huge lack on in the form never mind the world 

[softlyblossoming]

Is the absolute pure delusion?

[ChrisZoZo]

@softlyblossoming pure delusion is thought's like these people hate me and seeing things real or non real. The absolute is absolute truth formless size less and attribute-less. 

[softlyblossoming]

Thanks, @ChrisZoZo.

[yetineti]

You chose how many levels there are; that’s how many levels there are.

[softlyblossoming]

@mw711 That's so deep. How do you choose something other than another delusion? Is it possible?

[softlyblossoming]

2 minutes ago, BenG said:

This shouldn't be taken seriously.

Well I took you seriously, so too bad, @BenG. I think it was a great answer because it reconciled a paradox in a way still in fitting with common sense.

When 19th-century inventors and engineers started using bug as a synonym for defect, they were talking about mechanical ­malfunctions, and mechanical malfunctions were always bad. The idea that a bug might actually be something desirable would never have crossed the mind of an Edison or a Tesla. It was only after the word entered the vocabulary of coders that it got slippery. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature is an acknowledgment, half comic, half tragic, of the ambiguity that has always haunted computer programming.

In the popular imagination, apps and other programs are “algorithms,” sequences of clear-cut instructions that march forward with the precision of a drill sergeant. But while software may be logical, it’s rarely pristine. A program is a social artifact. It emerges through negotiation and compromise, a product of subjective judgments and shifting assumptions. As soon as it gets into the hands of users, a whole new set of expectations comes into play. What seems an irritating defect to a particular user—a hair-trigger ­toggle between landscape and portrait mode, say—may, in the eyes of the programmer, be a specification expertly executed.

Who can really say? In a 2013 study, a group of scholars at a German university sifted through the records of five software projects and evaluated thousands of reported coding errors. They discovered that the bug reports were themselves thoroughly buggy. “Every third bug is not a bug,” they concluded. The title of their paper will surprise no one: “It’s Not a Bug, It’s a Feature.”

INABIAF—the initialism has earned a place in the venerable Acronym Finder—is for programmers as much a cri de coeur as an excuse. For the rest of us, the saying has taken on a sinister tone. It wasn’t long ago that we found software ­dazzling, all magic and light. But our perception of the programmer’s art has darkened. The friendly-seeming apps and chatbots on our phones can, we’ve learned, harbor ill intentions. They can manipulate us or violate our trust or make us act like jerks. It’s the features now that turn out to be bugs.

The flexibility of the term bug pretty much guaranteed that INABIAF would burrow its way into everyday speech. As the public flocked online during the 1990s, the phrase began popping up in mainstream media—The New York Times in 1992, The New Yorker in 1997, Time in 1998—but it wasn’t until this century that it really began to proliferate.

A quick scan of Google News reveals that, over the course of a single month earlier this year, It’s not a bug, it’s a feature appeared 146 times. Among the bugs said to be features were the decline of trade unions, the wilting of cut flowers, economic meltdowns, the gratuitousness of Deadpool 2’s post-credits scenes, monomania, the sloppiness of Neil Young and Crazy Horse, marijuana-induced memory loss, and the apocalypse. Given the right cliché, nothing is unredeemable.

The programmer’s “common catchphrase” has itself become a bug, so trite that it cheapens everything it touches. But scrub away the tarnish of overuse and you’ll discover a truth that’s been there the whole time. What is evolution but a process by which glitches in genetic code come to be revealed as prized biological functions? Each of us is an accumulation of bugs that turned out to be features, a walking embodiment of INABIAF.

—'It's Not a Bug, It's a Feature.' Trite—or Just Right?

 

[softlyblossoming]

10 minutes ago, BenG said:

I always heard the term "bug" started because of actual insects that would crawl into early computers and cause them to malfunction. ?

@BenG Wow, I had no idea. Really interesting. 

[Nahm]

This question assumes there is a thing, absolute, and this other thing, delusion, and a thing between, such that there are or could be levels of said thing. 
 

Infinite cannot know if finite. That there is finite, such as a separate self and things, is what the term delusion points to. 

 

[ChrisZoZo]

7 hours ago, Nahm said:

This question assumes there is a thing, absolute, and this other thing, delusion,

We can see both. If you say there is no distinction between absolute and delusion then the point of perception of a distinction is itself a delusion. Then in this case there are at least two levels.

You can see god and you can see form (form being not the totality of god) therefore there are two levels, even if there are delusions. 

7 hours ago, Nahm said:

Infinite cannot know if finite.

Not sure if I agree seems to set a limitation on god.  

[ChrisZoZo]

On 2/7/2022 at 7:03 PM, BenG said:

So there's infinitely many levels of delusion and still everything below the absolute is delusion.

Totally agree, I am looking for defining these levels very well. This might become very helpful. In my case a level not the absolute or pure delusion is the love-race set up by god. Race explained in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnn0IU0-atg .

[Nahm]

9 minutes ago, ChrisZoZo said:

We can see both.

Double check by literally pointing. 

9 minutes ago, ChrisZoZo said:

If you say there is no distinction between absolute and delusion then the point of perception of a distinction is itself a delusion. Then in this case there are at least two levels.

If. 

9 minutes ago, ChrisZoZo said:

You can see god and you can see form (form being not the totality of god) therefore there are two levels, even if there are delusions. 

This is thought attachment. No offensive is meant. 

9 minutes ago, ChrisZoZo said:

Not sure if I agree seems to set a limitation on god.  

Seems. 

[ChrisZoZo]

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

Quote

If you say there is no distinction between absolute and delusion then the point of perception of a distinction is itself a delusion. Then in this case there are at least two levels.

If. 

Expand on your point.

 

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

Quote

You can see god and you can see form (form being not the totality of god) therefore there are two levels, even if there are delusions. 

This is thought attachment. No offensive is meant. 

This only works if my last argument is no true (plus countless assumptions I guess lol). No offensive taken.

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

Quote

Not sure if I agree seems to set a limitation on god.  

Seems. 

Expand also.

[Nahm]

2 minutes ago, ChrisZoZo said:

Expand on your point.

I’m not a dog. Well, I mean, I am but not in this sense. If you have a question, feel free to ask it. 

2 minutes ago, ChrisZoZo said:

This only works if my last argument is no true (plus countless assumptions I guess lol). No offensive taken.

None of anyone’s arguments are true. 

2 minutes ago, ChrisZoZo said:

Expand also.

No. ? 

[ChrisZoZo]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

I’m not a dog. Well, I mean, I am but not in this sense. If you have a question, feel free to ask it. 

1 hour ago, ChrisZoZo said:

My apologies, 

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

1 hour ago, ChrisZoZo said:

This only works if my last argument is no true (plus countless assumptions I guess lol). No offensive taken.

None of anyone’s arguments are true. 

Hmm, what to do then?