Explain in one paragraph.

[Blair]

If Alexi does actually get it, she does a bloody good job of being a troll.

But the question remains, why...

Abandoned Alexi
Thinks she waxes sexi
takes on the persona of a babbling horse
fuck shouting at the ignorant, my throat is hoarse

or something like that.

[David Quinn]

Right. I'm getting it. According to Jupi, and to all apearances, each of you-plural takes the term in your own unique way, and it is relevant in a unique way.

You've got a nice set-up going there. If we speak of the Infinite in the same way, it indicates that we are part of a cult. If we speak of it in different ways, it indicates that the term "Infinite" has no objective meaning.

What can possibly penetrate such well-layered defenses?

All communication disappears.

Perhaps if you were to converse about it (tip-o-the-hat to Carl Sagan), you would discover you are actually opposed to each other.

I doubt it.

An important point to realize is that the understanding of the Infinite is a "living understanding", as opposed to the dead, conceptual knowledge that you favour, the kind found in encyclopedias and books. Being "alive", it is ungraspable. It can be fully understood in one moment, only to be lost again in the next moment. It all depends on one's relationship to the Infinite in any given moment. Clarity can be lost the moment egotism and delusion enter the mind and wreak their distorting influences.

Also, because it is a living understanding, it can be handled by a wide variety of concepts. It can just as easily be addressed by Christian concepts as it can by Buddhist or atheist concepts. This doesn't present a problem for those who know how to tune into the living understanding, but it easily counfounds those who don't.

And you still haven't shown any signs of understanding it, despite the prolonged exposure to it.

No, David, that is not it at all. When I finish here on the Explain-it-in-one-Paragraph thread I will know more about 'it' than you, and I will be able to offer up some statements.

Good luck with that!

And I believe I will also be able to show why the statements you make about it, indeed your 'relationship' to 'it', necessarily drives your conclusions and activities, but that the premise can be examined more closely. Or, since it is at the very core a mystical notion, an article of faith,

Not at all. I don't have any articles of faith. I don't assume anything, I have no belief in anything. My thinking operates purely from what is indisputable - namely, the things that I directly experience in each moment ("A") and rationality ("A=A"). There is nothing else in the mix.

As such, I am 100% rational, and therefore, of course, 100% mystical.

And even now I ask you for some sort of definition of 'spirituality' because I have NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS or what the value of it is.

"Spirituality" simply refers to one's relationship to truth. The more truthful a person is - the more he is aware of his true nature, his "spirit" - the more spiritual he is.

Why have it? Why 'be spiritual'?

Why value truth? Why fight against being deceived by one's own mind? If you can't answer that one for yourself, then no one can can help you.

(You cannot answer and shout 'Freedom!' This would be no different than a Christian shouting 'Salvation'!

Was I shouting? From my perspective, I was calmly answering your question, distilling the answer to its essence.

In Buddhism, the term "enlightenment" means liberation. Liberation from the illusion of your own existence. Being free of delusion, restriction and suffering.

If you are going to use rational discourse to defend your axioms and your conclusions, you are going to have to talk about it honestly.

I'm sorry, Alex, but I just can't take you seriously. You pretend to be interested, but in reality you act like a cunning fox trying to catch its prey. It is impossible to have an honest conversation under those circumstances.

-

[jupiviv]

An important point to realize is that the understanding of the Infinite is a "living understanding", as opposed to the dead, conceptual knowledge that you favour, the kind found in encyclopedias and books. Being "alive", it is ungraspable. It can be fully understood in one moment, only to be lost again in the next moment. It all depends on one's relationship to the Infinite in any given moment. Clarity can be lost the moment egotism and delusion enter the mind and wreak their distorting influences.

What is more important to realize is that this "understanding" doesn't exist, since the Infinite doesn't exist. If we can maintain this realization in every moment, then egotism will not disrupt our minds.

[Talking Ass]

What is more important to realize is that this "understanding" doesn't exist, since the Infinite doesn't exist. If we can maintain this realization in every moment, then egotism will not disrupt our minds.

If we speak of it in different ways, it indicates that the term "Infinite" has no objective meaning.

All communication disappears.

An important point to realize is that the understanding of the Infinite is a "living understanding", as opposed to the dead, conceptual knowledge that you favour, the kind found in encyclopedias and books. Being "alive", it is ungraspable. It can be fully understood in one moment, only to be lost again in the next moment. It all depends on one's relationship to the Infinite in any given moment. Clarity can be lost the moment egotism and delusion enter the mind and wreak their distorting influences.

Also, because it is a living understanding, it can be handled by a wide variety of concepts. It can just as easily be addressed by Christian concepts as it can by Buddhist or atheist concepts. This doesn't present a problem for those who know how to tune into the living understanding, but it easily counfounds those who don't.

I don't have any articles of faith. I don't assume anything, I have no belief in anything. My thinking operates purely from what is indisputable - namely, the things that I directly experience in each moment ("A") and rationality ("A=A"). There is nothing else in the mix.

As such, I am 100% rational, and therefore, of course, 100% mystical.

"Spirituality" simply refers to one's relationship to truth. The more truthful a person is - the more he is aware of his true nature, his "spirit" - the more spiritual he is.

I'm sorry, Alex, but I just can't take you seriously. You pretend to be interested, but in reality you act like a cunning fox trying to catch its prey. It is impossible to have an honest conversation under those circumstances.

These are keepers, definitely!

The 'infinite' doesn't exist, nor the understanding of it, and it is necessary to maintain this realization in every moment. With this, how could any sort of objective meaning about it exist? Or should I say 'exist'. Or, should I say 'I'?

If one doesn't get this, one is a 'cunning fox' trying to get at the poor defenseless chickens, trying to 'trip you up', and coming from this angle, 'communication disappears'.

But the inner truth about 'it' is revealed: it is a 'living truth' and you cannot get to 'it' through concepts or language. And yet it is ALSO a truth that can be rationally known, indeed to know 'it' is (simply) to engage in a concerted rational endeavor, which is also 100% mystical.

Hey, I think I'm getting it! The Ass is waking up! Oh Glory!

But it slipped away again! Drat! Clarity came but then was swamped by egotism and delusion!

Those who know how to 'tune in' to [special understanding] can express it with Christian, Buddhist or atheist concepts, except that any conceptualization is impossible, since concepts are 'dead' and not part of the 'living understanding'. This 'confounds' those who don't 'get it', naturally (and the wise just chuckle...)

And it is Ole Alex who can't be taken seriously?

Summation. To all appearances, there is a sort of 'game' played with this pseudo-'definition' of 'the infinite'. One is encouraged to use 100% rational means to understand what cannot, in fact, be understood. It does not even exist, nor the understanding of it. The only way to get it is with some mystical understanding. But especially this mystical understanding is (to my eyes) rather suspect since, in fact, it can be anything one wants or needs it to be since it has no objectivity. Our GF Rationalists, these tremendous intellects who soar up toward 'genius' get all tangled up in the most simple explanation. There is just a giant knot here. What I get from this is that this 'knot' is what drives 'understanding' but that this 'knot' seems only to lead to confusion, but the confusion is taken as some grand knowledge and is conflated with 'genius'.

It looks pretty fucking neurotic to me, my fine gents! I suggest that not only you fine folks but many many people find themselves in a similar trap. They don't seem to have to appropriate tools to understand their own selves, nor the tools to understand their 'reality', and while some just let this be and never really think about it (deal with it), others---in this case our local geniuses---have devised quite an intricate system, a marvellous flying machine from the look of it, that they have gotten very invested in, but which, when examined, has no core, and vaporizes. But, a great deal is hung upon this non-existant core, and what comes from it is an exteriorization of an essentially 'neurotic position'. It is defended though with violence! You are not allowed to step into the Holy of Holies (an invisible space that doesn't exist). To do so is like stepping into a hornet's nest.

What can possibly penetrate such well-layered defenses?

What is the cure, I ask? I don't profess to have an answer. The only thing that really serves me is some questions. Oh and the decision, born of my 'dogma', that what really has value in any of this (in any conversation about 'spirituality') is the I and thou, incarnate, in bodies, dealing with this reality, with a focus in ethical considerations that deal on this 'reality'. To me, it is ever-more obvious (especially after these mad-hatter exchanges with you fine fine fellows) that the focus needs to be here.

[jupiviv]

The 'infinite' doesn't exist, nor the understanding of it, and it is necessary to maintain this realization in every moment. With this, how could any sort of objective meaning about it exist? Or should I say 'exist'. Or, should I say 'I'?

Well, what part of that do you think is not "objective"? Can nothing exist? No. Can a being capable of understanding something, understand nothing? No. These are absolute truths, and the realisation of these truths, and their implications, is essential if you want to attain enlightenment.

I suggest you actually try to analyse what we are saying, instead of trying to lump us all into one box so you can ridicule us with greater ease and satisfaction. All of us over here have flaws, to various degrees, but unless you point out those flaws instead of trying to paint us as a bunch of clowns, you won't get anywhere.

One fault that I see with the forum members in general, including you, is that over-confidence and unwise judgmentalism are the order of the day.

[Talking Ass]

I suggest you actually try to analyse what we are saying, instead of trying to lump us all into one box so you can ridicule us with greater ease and satisfaction. All of us over here have flaws, to various degrees, but unless you point out those flaws instead of trying to paint us as a bunch of clowns, you won't get anywhere.

Right, Jupi: there are some massive egos here, aren't there?

There is no way, in fact, to 'analyse the meaning' because it is non-analytical and non-rational, as anyone who reads this exchange will I think agree. Some other skill or some other 'logic' seems to be used. I don't know how 'it' could be discussed or even why it should be discussed. While it is rude, I suppose, to ridicule, it is also one of the only options left after hearing all this false-reasoning dressed up as rational discourse.

Now, you should know that my apperception of 'this reality', at a core level, is completely mystical and I know of no way to use conventional language and conventional logic to describe what I think-feel-perceive about 'this reality'. If I did, you would say What?!? And the same is true as I hear yours. But one important point: what I think-feel-perceive, causes me to define my existence here with y'all, and a preference for work within the social body of man and humankind, to be the measure of my grasp of understanding of 'this reality'.

But, I notice that this sort of focus, or this sort of 'revelation', is in fact debunked as false by y'all. You will, for example, refer to Jesus 'being with us till the end of time' or a command such as 'leave wife and family and Follow Me' as the only relevant ethical 'commands' to be followed, but you will deny ALL THE REST of it, which is, as I see it, the most important part, the essential part. You are driven by a certain number or level of concern but deny others.

I think that is mainly what I hope to show, and I think I succeed in this. True, I am also concerned that some of you seem a little loopy, but who am I to judge? I mean, I do after all conceive of myself as a Talking barnyard Ass who has managed to dominate a human language and contrives to converse with y'all in discursive terms. Perhaps I REALLY AM the loopy one after all?

I will think about it as I meditatively savour a five pound bucket of fresh garden carrots. Yum!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But if so much is hung on 'it', it would seem to me that there would be many things to say, if not about 'it', than about what the knowledge of it, the sense of it, the through meditation on it, what that means.

But meaning reflects only the presence of connection. In daily life we talk about causes, purpose, explanation, deeper lying connection with another theme and so on. This is where you are thinking of when talking about meaning, right? But what if the subject is something connected to everything, like existence and emptiness are being defined? Because there's no specific connection to anything in particular, the usual mechanism of "meaning giving" just doesn't apply unless one would suggest it's the only really meaningful thing. Otherwise it remains just meaningless and empty.

So you are quite right in saying there's an inherent difficulty with approaching any deeper meanings underlying "it" and its definitions and meditations. It's an important observation but it doesn't have to stop the show. On the contrary!

When you ... 'go beyond' these areas/concerns, where do you go to?

The juxtaposition is between the personal and the universal. Neither of the term is absolute but for example when a biology class dissects a human torso, the approach is not called personal, but lets say toward the genus Homo. It's the same with existential philosophy: the target is talking about what remains true in any circumstance imaginable. This includes any notion of a personal existence with its many flavors. And yet at the same time it connects with the world in the widest possible sense. There is no limit actually.

At this point I will honestly confess that I have no idea---none at all!---what you mean by 'spirituality'. It is an ungrokkable term.

But that's at the same time a very important cornerstone of philosophy: to arrive there where one does not know or grok anymore. The question is more like: did you really manage to drop all ideas here? How many people ever went there? It's possible you're mostly conversing here with people who haven't either.

And now you are talking about 'spirit', another problematic word---about which there is not much to say too? A term with no definition.

It's a fluent term, hence the confusion. Personally I connect it with genius in the mythological sense. A spiritual person is therefore tuned to the nature, unity or essence of things, of "whateverness", of existence itself and its manifold manifestations.

[jupiviv]

There is no way, in fact, to 'analyse the meaning' because it is non-analytical and non-rational, as anyone who reads this exchange will I think agree. Some other skill or some other 'logic' seems to be used. I don't know how 'it' could be discussed or even why it should be discussed.

So just calling something non-analytical and non-rational without rationally analysing it is a valid argument to you?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

What other fucking terms are you going to use, man!? But still, if it pleases you, define the infinite in infinite terms.

Why do you think "in infinite terms" is the opposite of "in terms of finite things"? There is absolutely no such thing as an infinite term, and since I've stopped believing that you are being stubborn on purpose, your stupidity is pathological. You can't get it, because then you'd be practically admitting that it took you years -- not seconds -- to understand what's actually going on here.

But I start from the presupposition, etched in stone, inscribed on the waters of the deep and across the firmament above: any ideas about this Infinite only have relevance and meaning in the context of you as a person, in a body, in the here and now, and in relation to other souls. If that is my dogma, I guess I'll just have to accept it as such.

...and, as you continue to act as though that which you hold dear is profound, you will continue to miss the point.

If you used poetic imagery honestly, without exaggeration, you've drawn a chalk outline on the pavement, you skimmed the surface of a puddle, and you raised your hands in the air.

By the way, you still haven't dealt properly with my request to see your axioms and definitions. You're "fine" with only showing dogmatic beliefs. You know, that really comes across as a failure on your part. I guess your edifice was defeated by my simple query.

So as it turns out, the conclusions from the definitions you hold about the terrible relevance of the idea of The Infinite, held in your-plural ;-) heads, which you cannot say anything substantial about, and will say nothing about (except insofar as David chimes forth with his par-for-the-course Mystical Utterance), these half-baked ideas which I say I do not understand and are no part of rational discourse and disagree with in terms of the conclusions that follow from these beliefs, because I fail to grasp what you-all are talking about I am therefore stupid?

Yes, you are stupid. It's the absolute last thing I wanted to believe of you, and is a conclusion which is the result of a long process through which I ruled out all other possibilities.

By way of contrast, you drew all your conclusions about the members of this forum almost instantly, you've considered everyone to be one person for years, and no evidence to the contrary has ever been able to sway you.

Please inform me how either science or philosophy understands the the physical infinite 'only on its own terms'.

You don't understand the infinite. You look at the finger, the words, the finite... and not the moon, the infinite. You act as though compiling lists of things you didn't understand in context will take you closer to comprehension.

It's a non-trivial point that people here, in this thread, have pointed directly toward the infinite. Sure, it's a somewhat difficult task due to the nature of language. But then again, you can't comprehend ridiculously simple facts, like how the infinite can be nothing and everything.

Maybe you need complexity, to such a degree that anything that isn't complex is unfathomable to you?

[Talking Ass]

By way of contrast, you drew all your conclusions about the members of this forum almost instantly, you've considered everyone to be one person for years, and no evidence to the contrary has ever been able to sway you.

Various people, perhaps, caught in one web, or something like that. Which does, I just saw, imply a spider.

A spindel gud perhaps? (Thinking of Bergman's Through a Glass Darkly). See here.

• 'The funny things our minds get up to when we're away...' (from a popular song)

Toward the use of language in the GF forum:

• 'When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean'.
  ---from Humpty-Dumpty, by Lewis Carroll

Toward my use of language (my artful braying):

• 'Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assaults of thoughts upon the unthinking'.
  ---John Maynard Keynes

...and, as you continue to act as though that which you hold dear is profound, you will continue to miss the point.

And I shall be happy to miss such a point. I suggest that to hold and value what I am proposing we all hold and value (more) is the most difficult thing to 'get', and as it turns out so few seem to 'get it'. I also suggest that 'this place' is really just for such learning to occur. I suggest my 'it' is a big part of the message.

I recognize that I am presenting a (self-conscious) reversal or an inversion (as David says) and a mirror-image to the pseudo-profundity of your conclusions (I use the plural with some reservations, but not many), but still it is my honest thought and feeling that it is far harder to 'get' the truth I suggest than to get the vaporizing truths y'all seem to live by. There is no way to prove it, and it is only suggested, so take it as a viewpoint or viewstructure or 'conceptual pathway' just laid out on the barnyard floor for all to look at, examine, draw conclusions from.

Now, if you please, I'd like to get a little shut-eye.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

• 'When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean'.
  ---from Humpty-Dumpty, by Lewis Carroll

'The question is which is to be master — that's all. Some people have no more sense than a baby!

[Talking Ass]

Better to show the whole exchange:

• 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
  
  'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
  
  'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Through the Looking Glass. Rather terribly relevant to our own dear forum, as of late...

[Dennis Mahar]

Diebert,

But meaning reflects only the presence of connection. In daily life we talk about causes, purpose, explanation, deeper lying connection with another theme and so on. This is where you are thinking of when talking about meaning, right? But what if the subject is something connected to everything, like existence and emptiness are being defined? Because there's no specific connection to anything in particular, the usual mechanism of "meaning giving" just doesn't apply unless one would suggest it's the only really meaningful thing. Otherwise it remains just meaningless and empty.

So you are quite right in saying there's an inherent difficulty with approaching any deeper meanings underlying "it" and its definitions and meditations. It's an important observation but it doesn't have to stop the show. On the contrary!

The juxtaposition is between the personal and the universal. Neither of the term is absolute but for example when a biology class dissects a human torso, the approach is not called personal, but lets say toward the genus Homo. It's the same with existential philosophy: the target is talking about what remains true in any circumstance imaginable. This includes any notion of a personal existence with its many flavors. And yet at the same time it connects with the world in the widest possible sense. There is no limit actually.

But that's at the same time a very important cornerstone of philosophy: to arrive there where one does not know or grok anymore. The question is more like: did you really manage to drop all ideas here? How many people ever went there? It's possible you're mostly conversing here with people who haven't either.

Has to be brought to the foreground.
Can't see how it gets missed.

[David Quinn]

That Humpty Dumpty wasn't such a bad egg, after all!

The only thing that really serves me is some questions. Oh and the decision, born of my 'dogma', that what really has value in any of this (in any conversation about 'spirituality') is the I and thou, incarnate, in bodies, dealing with this reality, with a focus in ethical considerations that deal on this 'reality'. To me, it is ever-more obvious (especially after these mad-hatter exchanges with you fine fine fellows) that the focus needs to be here.

As always, you have everything arse-backwards. There can't be any talk about ethical considerations until the mind is awake to reality and free of delusions. If the tool is faulty, then the work it will do will also be faulty. Without the clarity of enlightenment, one can be nothing more than a blind man playing the role of the proverbial "do-gooder" - well-intentioned, perhaps, but ultimately doing far more harm than good.

The mind first has to be rid of all falseness, together with its associated fears, insecurities and defensive barriers. Only then will it be in a position to see what needs to be done.

• The sage has no mind of his own.
  He is aware of the needs of others.
  (Tao Te Ching)

That is ethics in a nutshell.

Or alternatively, one could wrap oneself around in multiple conceptual layers and hide away in the womb of an absurdist persona, and mock everyone else in a crude, defensive manner, such that clarity has no chance of ever materializing. That's certainly a plan.

-

[Dennis Mahar]

David,

Or alternatively, one could wrap oneself around in multiple conceptual layers and hide away in the womb of an absurdist persona, and mock everyone else in a crude, defensive manner, such that clarity has no chance of ever materializing. That's certainly a plan.

Sherlock, looking for tracks in the snow, pricked his ears up at this one:
from Alex:

I mean, I do after all conceive of myself as a Talking barnyard Ass who has managed to dominate a human language and contrives to converse with y'all in discursive terms.

Dominate a human language?

Girls put on make-up 'in order to'....for the 'sake of'.

Language dominator smells like a formula.

Motive?

To deal with existence by dominating? With Language?
To flood every nook and cranny of the Universe with a tsunami of language to keep it at bay?
Exactly the formula academics pull out of the hat and can be seen rightly as the 'Academic Solution'.

Sound and fury that signifies nothing!

Trying to get a feel of language dominator.
It would have to mean that any language appearing to the archetype is not something to be engaged with, absorbed, distilled, understood.
Rather it would be seen as an object appearing that has to be discounted, summarily dismissed, ridiculed and thusly dominated.

That's what it looks like.

[Talking Ass]

As always, you have everything arse-backwards. There can't be any talk about ethical considerations until the mind is awake to reality and free of delusions. If the tool is faulty, then the work it will do will also be faulty. Without the clarity of enlightenment, one can be nothing more than a blind man playing the role of the proverbial "do-gooder" - well-intentioned, perhaps, but ultimately doing far more harm than good.

The mind first has to be rid of all falseness, together with its associated fears, insecurities and defensive barriers. Only then will it be in a position to see what needs to be done.

• The sage has no mind of his own.
  He is aware of the needs of others.

That is ethics in a nutshell.

Or alternatively, one could wrap oneself around in multiple conceptual layers and hide away in the womb of an absurdist persona, and mock everyone else in a crude, defensive manner, such that clarity has no chance of ever materializing. That's certainly a plan.

First, the correct way to say it is ass-backward. Not 'arse'. You ride an ass not an arse, and if you ride arses, well, that is really not my problem and I DON'T want to talk about it. But if I have it backward, I have it ass-backward, okay? Here's an example:

• "Behold, your king comes to you, triumphant and victorious. He is humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass." (Zech 9:9)

But what you perceive, and declaim as the be-all and end-all of experience, and as if it is the best it is possible to perceive (in a grand existential sense), seems to me both flawed and limited. My vision, my apperception, that which my experience in living has provided me, though it is equally as mystical, in essence, as yours, seems to me 'superior', so why in the name of Heaven should I give heed to what looks to me to be partial and, as I say, 'tendentious' divination?

You see, I would say: Go back to your original perception-experience, whatever it is, and redivinate! Do you understand what I mean? That means, roll the dice again, rephrase the 'question', plunge deeper into the surrounding order. This is pretty much the tack I have taken here since I signed-on again: to stress the idea of divination and interpretation. Whether we want to accept it or not, we are all engaged in this activity. So, what I do, and see as relevant and important, is to examine the conclusions, and also to examine the personalities that roll off the production line here at GF.

• As Madame Clavel in Madeline said: 'Something is Not Right!'

I preach this Gospel: Examine the presuppositions here, weight them against your own experience (of the divine, or the 'infinite' if that blows your dress up), but also compare and analyze through the lens of cultural experience and 'our traditions'. Only in this way can a person arrive at some personal conclusions, and then put them into practice.

You start from what I think is an erroneous presupposition and hang a great deal on it: the sense I get from you is that a man, any man, even some precultural man (and in your case an unprepared man and one who is vastly ignorant of so much that has gone before), perhaps even a prelinguistic man, could meditate on this 'infinite' and get out of that meditation what you get (or what I get). False. He will surely get something, I don't deny that. But you seem to deny what is a whole evolutionary history of the protoplasm, of the cultural mind. You hang everything on a rather mediocre appreciation of some Taoist experience of 'reality'. You make a terrible mistake in this.

Your grandiosity has got you in its grip.

Men in all sorts of circumstances have interacted with 'the divine' (and there are just so many words one could use here, I won't list them all). One 'goes' to the divine, and one receives, and one returns to one's social context and one does something. That is pretty much the basis of the model. To be quite truthful, it is you who has it backwards. And in having it backwards, your 'tool' of perception is distorted, so your conclusions are grandiose and lop-sided.

There is not one 'enlightenment', and if there were everything would I suppose be wonderfully certain and easy. It would be like scaling a mountain and getting up exactly to 8,000 mts. It would be 'gradiated' rationally, logically.

Every person defines an 'enlightenment' or some level of it, and with it, even if it is imperfect or outrightly flawed, attempts to do something with it in this world. But you have turned 'enlightenment' into something like a formula, or like an equation. In your mind you conceive of one, solid, unchanging state that each person will enter into and then---poof!---I suppose you imagine they will turn into a David-clone: talk like you, act like you, agree with you. It simply does not work that way.

Because this is unquestionably true, this means that your perception is flawed (about it). It follows...

You seem to have no comprehension, nor the ability to comprehend, how hard-won are the ethical systems and practices and customs that arise in each culture through a long long process of interacting, thinking, weighing, considering, conversing. You call this 'dead'.

I could just as easily quote Isaiah as against you Tao Te Ching:

• And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.

And to understand that revelation, one would have to go back through all that material, all that temporal 'stuff', and then to seek to have one's own experience relationally, as it were.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Better to show the whole exchange:

• Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
  
  'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
  
  'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
  
  'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
  
  'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
  
  'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
  
  'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'
  
  (Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.)

[Jamesh]

I prefer to understand the infinite, non-mystically. To me it is best to avoid the Buddhist concept of emptiness, because it is not entirely rational. While things and the self do not exist in their own right, and the contents are infinite, all patterns of existence temporarily exist and have casual affects on other patterns of existence.

To define infinite is to determine what can be infinite. Now if you try and define the infinite then you can only see it in concepts that are finite, thus it is indescribable - however there is one concept of infinity we see constantly but don't properly acknowledge.

The infinite is merely Time.

Everything else is externally bounded and dualistically caused, whereas time is not.

Time is an infinite action - the action of finite expansion. It is not possible to understand exactly what is expanding so just view it as a force field that has no fundamental particles (although no fundamental particle can exist, as it would have multiple attributes yet exist without being caused, thus not possible).

In place of picturing Time as a fourth totally different, tangent dimension, instead view it as the originator dimension from which the other dimensions result as secondary affects. The other dimensions are merely descriptions of space, and the two together of course make space-time.

Think of time as a literal thing, as "expanding space", not as a concept of measuring change, but as being that which forces change to occur. By expanding it provides the universe power supply.

Time is self-caused, and this self-casual nature is the entire explanation of “infinite”. Time is causality. Finiteness is caused by way of increasing degrees of boundedness. Boundedness is the prevention of expansion that results from being inside Times omnidirectional expansion.

Each continuous moment of time progressively creates more and more finiteness (eventuating in the inter-layering of time). As time expands so to does the totality. The universe is in a continual process of creation.

The combination of the concepts of speed limits such as the maximum speed of light, times arrow, and predictability (scientific causality) all demonstrate that Time also has a limit on how much it can expand, which in turn makes Times expansion both continuous and finite. As a finite but eternal omnidirectional action, it expands both inwardly and outwardly.

The idea of a finite speed of expansion is key to explaining how time can fracture. Time expanding in on itself creates a boundary between the past and the present (the fundamental differentiation). This binding action creates internal pressure as the past expands from within. With a finite expansion of time, then at some point the pressure from within will be greater than the finite level of unbounded-times expansion, and the time plane will fracture into circular spatial areas as pressures seek equilibrium. From this ongoing process things evolve.

Black holes for instance are merely older, segments of space that relative to our own set of time patterns give the illusion of having collapsed inwards. They appear that way only because so much new time has expanded around them making them distant to our primary time plane. (beings of consciousness observe across an infinite array of time planes - consciousness allows for nonlinear observation of reality, qualia, our senses measure compound time patterns of many different ages and configurations).

The outside of the universe is the future and the future always being non-existent, is where the concepts of nothingness and emptiness best lie.

[GodsDaughter1]

Explain in one paragraph what this “infinite” means for a you and a me, in existence right now, on this Earth, and in this conversation. Make some statement about it.

I like this assignment. Structured. Germanic. Carrying it out not only requires limiting the concept of infinite with finite language, it lays out a list of additional constraints. This is what people go through every day ... working within conditions which limit what can be done, and what can be said.

Explain anything in one paragraph.

From a finite perspective, the infinite has significance as a potentiality. Not the potentiality of all things all at once, but potentiality within the frame made of time, which is the infinite potentiality manifesting in any given instance of right now, on this Earth. Based on the premise that potentiality is infinite, which is a premise arrived at through a knowing based on realization, a realization which may or may not occur via rational intellect but can be made to fit into a various shapes of logical consistency by means of rational intellect (and a condition of the shaping is capacity of the shaper), then the significance for a you and a me lies in knowledge of the conditions that promote particular finite manifestations of infinite potentiality. With wisdom to perceive the essence of conditions comes the wisdom to perceive the interactively combined and inevitable effects of various conditions, and the wisdom of choicelessly remaining undistracted from timeless awareness while living within finite constraints. And how does one do this? If further explanation is necessary then at least one additional paragraph is required, which lies beyond the constraints of this particular assignment. Such is a limitation of parameters.

GodsDaughter says: To me infinite means endless, if infinite is endless than it means humanity will continue, which means for a you and for a me is the possibility of our individual souls continuiing.

[GodsDaughter1]

An important point to realize is that the understanding of the Infinite is a "living understanding", as opposed to the dead, conceptual knowledge that you favour, the kind found in encyclopedias and books. Being "alive", it is ungraspable. It can be fully understood in one moment, only to be lost again in the next moment. It all depends on one's relationship to the Infinite in any given moment. Clarity can be lost the moment egotism and delusion enter the mind and wreak their distorting influences.

GodsDaughter says: Infinity is not a"living understanding" there is no understanding at all, there is only imagination and theory. And if infinity is endless, infinity is nothing, it continues into nothingness, nothingness continues like no-ending space. The beginning to infinity is to leave earth.

What is more important to realize is that this "understanding" doesn't exist, since the Infinite doesn't exist. If we can maintain this realization in every moment, then egotism will not disrupt our minds.

GodsDaughter says: Not all things will be understood, only things figured out can be understood.

[GodsDaughter1]

Explain in one paragraph

Infinity begins the moment you leave earth. The earth is finite because it has an end. Infinity is space outside the earth that never ends, it is space that occupies inside the earth also, but this space finites itself on earth allowing for breath. Breathing air is not possible once off the earth without a breathing aparatus, this is because oxygen is only possible in finite space, and so far only earth has finite space. Infinity is space itself that never ends, but earth occupies this infinite space that the stars, planets, galazies, universe, moon, and sun occupy also.

[Pam Seeback]

Infinity begins the moment you leave earth. The earth is finite because it has an end. Infinity is space outside the earth that never ends, it is space that occupies inside the earth also, but this space finites itself on earth allowing for breath. Breathing air is not possible once off the earth without a breathing aparatus, this is because oxygen is only possible in finite space, and so far only earth has finite space. Infinity is space itself that never ends, but earth occupies this infinite space that the stars, planets, galazies, universe, moon, and sun occupy also.

Donna, can you leave you? If your answer is no, which is the logical-intuitive answer, :-), then are you not the infinity of you, right here, right now? The infinity of you without your earth covering/breath, and the infinity of you with your earth covering/breath?

[GodsDaughter1]

Infinity begins the moment you leave earth. The earth is finite because it has an end. Infinity is space outside the earth that never ends, it is space that occupies inside the earth also, but this space finites itself on earth allowing for breath. Breathing air is not possible once off the earth without a breathing aparatus, this is because oxygen is only possible in finite space, and so far only earth has finite space. Infinity is space itself that never ends, but earth occupies this infinite space that the stars, planets, galazies, universe, moon, and sun occupy also.

Donna, can you leave you? If your answer is no, which is the logical-intuitive answer, :-), then are you not the infinity of you, right here, right now? The infinity of you without your earth covering/breath, and the infinity of you with your earth covering/breath?

GodsDaughter says: No offense movingalways but I cannot understand you. Although, you are very smart and go into the depth of thought, I have difficulty understanding your thoughts. The infinity of myself lives through my daughter and her daughter and so on. When I die my infinity lives on through my relatives.

[Pam Seeback]

GodsDaughter says: No offense movingalways but I cannot understand you. Although, you are very smart and go into the depth of thought, I have difficulty understanding your thoughts. The infinity of myself lives through my daughter and her daughter and so on. When I die my infinity lives on through my relatives.

Absolutely :-) no offence taken.

My depth of thought has nothing to do with being smart. I am not denying that a certain degree of intelligence is needed to be awake enough to ask the revealing questions, but the true measure of a man who goes into the depth of his consciousness is not his IQ, but how much faith and discipline and dedication he has to bring him to the unchanging truth of who and what he is.

I put these questions to you if you care to respond: Is the infinite born? Does the infinite die? Was your daughter born? Will your daughter die?

[ONE]

Explain anything in one paragraph?

Better assignment; "explain everything in just one word."

~ONE~