Meaning of Life

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

To be non-dualistic means to be complete, therefore the universe is dualistic, not non-dualistic, otherwise it would be inert.

Good. Now do you see the difference between the universe and the Totality? Since the Totality includes all time, the Totality is inert while the universe is not.

Nonetheless to perceive the nature of the universe, one should analytically observe both non-duality and duality in unison. Reality is not a non-dualistic totality, it is not a matter of one or the other, but a combination of the two concepts.

Very good - in order for something to be totally nondualistic, it must also be neither dualistic nor nondualistic. That is how time is extracted.

[David Quinn]

Carl,

DQ: For example, you will understanding that the Totality is timeless and unchanging, and therefore beyond the very possibility of having a purpose.

CG: Okay. But perhaps parts of it can have a purpose. Perhaps a Galaxy can have a purpose. Perhaps Humanity has a purpose.

Yes, parts within the Totality can have a purpose. For example, evolution by natural selection has imbued almost all living species with the purpose of passing on their genes.

DQ: Or to take another example, you will understand that there can be nothing outside of the Totality that the Totality could be conscious of.

CG: Conscious of itself. Self-conscious.

That can only happen through us, or some other sentient race.

The Totality, as a whole, is entirely formless, which means that it cannot even have the form of consciousness.

DQ: Well, if a person can't exercise his reasoning and solve these basic questions for himself, then he doesn't have much going for him. He might as well give up and go to the beach, or go shoot himself. Resolving these issues via logic is the barest minimum requirement for a person to enter the genius realms.

CG: Putting all one's eggs in the one basket of logic, at the end of the day, that's what one has, logic. Logic doesn't necessarily lead to knowledge. Definition does not necessarily lead to knowledge, although it may seem logical that it does.

That is to say, deductive reasoning does not necessarily lead to knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily lead to knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality. It depends on how pure and courageous the reasoner is, how willing he is to reject false thinking and challenge all of his attachments. Not many people are willing to remove all hindrances to their reasoning powers. It's too large a sacrifice.

-

[Jamesh]

Jamesh wrote:
To be non-dualistic means to be complete, therefore the universe is dualistic, not non-dualistic, otherwise it would be inert.

Good. Now do you see the difference between the universe and the Totality?
Since the Totality includes all time, the Totality is inert while the universe is not.

The totality does not include all time, because time is simply an observer noting changes to the configuration of the universe. Time= degree of change relative to something else. In relation to the totality, there is no past or future, only the ever present. No part, nor some illusionary impossible totality, is ever absolutely inert, though things can be relatively inert compared to something else.

The totality-of-all-things does not equal the totality-of-all-that-exists. The totality of all things is finite, though it will always be immeasurable, the totality of all that-exist, is infinite. I'm using the word "exists" in its objective sense, namely that of being a causal agent. The totality of all things (as a total) is caused, infinitely, but to be caused then it must ultimately be caused by something that it is not, otherwise all things would be self caused, which they are not. In a sense, the totality of all that exists, is bigger or greater than the totality of all things. Not bigger in the spatial or mass sense, but bigger in its causal ability.

Now while the form of all things is caused by all other things, such form is not the thing-in-itself. The thing-in-itself of all things, is that which is infinitely able to be a cause. Take away the form and you are left with infinity, however this infinity contained within the sum of all things is not the whole of infinity. Within things, infinity has been constrained. This is what time does, it puts barriers to the causal potential of the infinite causes. The totality of all things is this form of constrained infinity, but it is in a constant state "being caused" by fundamental infinites that are not constrained by time. Time affects that which is infinite via reverse causality. The fundamental infinities create things, and these things themselves have a causal impact back upon the fundamental infinities by adding a third boundary to the action of the infinite force (the other boundary is each other) - we call this boundary on the infinite, time.

Jamesh wrote:
Nonetheless to perceive the nature of the universe, one should analytically observe both non-duality and duality in unison. Reality is not a non-dualistic totality, it is not a matter of one or the other, but a combination of the two concepts.

Very good - in order for something to be totally nondualistic, it must also be neither dualistic nor nondualistic. That is how time is extracted.

No, order for something to be non-dualistic it must not be divisible, it must not have parts. The word totality signifies that something has parts. It must also be uncaused, which I consider an impossibility. If things are caused then the totality of all things is caused. The totality of all that exists or is, however includes the complete circular causal nature of existence, something that cannot be totalled.

The fundamental forces however, must have a form of non-duality. Their existence within our finite universe, as causal agents must be continually caused by a duality, namely that which they are and that which they are not, but they are non-dualistic in the sense that they permanently only ever do perform one action, they only have one true form of existence, namely expansion or contraction.

Kind of anyway. The words expansion and contraction are not their true reality, but there are no concepts or words to define their form, it is simply too basic for beings to conceptualise. Those words are just the most generalised causal related concepts I can come up with. These words describe the manner in which the boundary formed by their interaction flows, post the creation of form, so they are descriptors that are already dualistic. All our words were caused to exist by dualistic comparisons.

[Leyla Shen]

James, I know you like to bounce your half-cocked thoughts on the forum here but young, amenable minds are listening!

The totality-of-all-things does not equal the totality-of-all-that-exists. The totality of all things is finite, though it will always be immeasurable, the totality of all that-exist, is infinite. I'm using the word "exists" in its objective sense, namely that of being a causal agent.

1. The "totality-of-all-things" is the sum of finite things
2. The "totality-of-all-that-exists" is the sum of all causal agents and is infinite

Conclusion: 1. is caused infinitely by 2.

Now while the form of all things is caused by all other things, such form is not the thing-in-itself.

(Whence comes this sudden, unexplained "form of all things"?)

3. The form "[the-totality-] of all things" (1.) is caused by 2. and cannot therefore be 2.

The thing-in-itself of all things, is that which is infinitely able to be a cause.

4. (What? Either I've gone wrong at 3. or you've left a logical step or two out when you introduced "form" in the quote above 3. Don't you mean the thing-in-itself of the forms of all things?)

[Edit: corrected first quote.]

.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Before I go picking everything apart, I'll tell you that on the first part about the Totality, I think that at this moment we are pointing at the same thing, but the vocabulary is different enough to cause some confusion to other readers. I'll show you where both our vocabulary differs, and the points of the rest of your post that need tweaking. To respond to this right, I need to take a few of your sentences out of order.

The totality-of-all-things does not equal the totality-of-all-that-exists. The totality of all things is finite, though it will always be immeasurable, the totality of all that-exist, is infinite. I'm using the word "exists" in its objective sense, namely that of being a causal agent.

Under the definition of God that I have had since my late teens which matched the QRS definition of the Totality (and I like that name better, as it is more clearly descriptive) is that the Totality is absolutly everything, without exception (I feel that the redundancy is necessary to make the point to you that nothing is left out of the Totality).

What you are calling the totality-of-all-things is the universe, which is different from the Totality. This is the difference I was asking you if you understood about the difference between the Totality and the universe. Okay, you get it, you just want to use different terms.

The totality does not include all time, because time is simply an observer noting changes to the configuration of the universe.

In this statement, the vocabulary difference becomes problematic because it fails to provide the bridge into the higher dimension of thinking required to understand the perspective of the Totality. Jim, I'm not asking you to believe my way, but I am asking you to try to see what David and I are referring to Once I'm sure that you understand the concept, I'll be confident that you will be able to arrive at the conclusion that is right for you to believe.

time is simply an observer noting changes to the configuration of the universe.

No, time is not an observer. Time would be what time is even if there were nothing but time. Time is a universal constant which can not be changed or altered (Einstein was wrong in his theory that time slows at increased speeds - it is only the effects of time that slow (gravitational effects are strong enough to alter the effects of time), and all the experiments were off because they did not adequately compensate for the gravitational effect on time measurement devices. It's almost like looking at a watch with a dead battery and declaring that time has stood still).

Time= degree of change relative to something else.

No, that is the experience of time – it is not time itself.

In relation to the totality, there is no past or future, only the ever present.

Other than the phrase “In relation to the totality,” I agree. Reality is that there is only now, yet the past and the future are part of the Totaliy. This is one finger that points to the fact that the Totality does not exist.

No part, nor some illusionary impossible totality, is ever absolutely inert, though things can be relatively inert compared to something else.

Please explain why you believe this is so.

The totality of all things (as a total) is caused, infinitely, but to be caused then it must ultimately be caused by something that it is not, otherwise all things would be self caused, which they are not.

Depending on the perspective I look at this, I can agree. All things would be self-caused if All is taken as a whole, although all things taken as individual parts would not be, except for the “initial” cause – but ultimately there was no initial cause. This is another finger pointing at the Totality not existing.

In a sense, the totality of all that exists, is bigger or greater than the totality of all things. Not bigger in the spatial or mass sense, but bigger in its causal ability.

Yes.

Now while the form of all things is caused by all other things, such form is not the thing-in-itself.

True.

The thing-in-itself of all things, is that which is infinitely able to be a cause. Take away the form and you are left with infinity, however this infinity contained within the sum of all things is not the whole of infinity.

Eeeh, we’re teetering on the edge here. There is no infinity contained within the sum of all things – that is just the sum of all things. I take it that by “The thing-in-itself of all things, is that which is infinitely able to be a cause” you mean the spark of Creation – which would be infinity. Infinity is not inside anything.

Within things, infinity has been constrained. This is what time does, it puts barriers to the causal potential of the infinite causes. The totality of all things is this form of constrained infinity, but it is in a constant state "being caused" by fundamental infinites that are not constrained by time.

Perhaps if you rephrase that a bit… There is no such thing as constrained infinity, and although there are fundamental principles, there are not fundamental infinities. Would you explain what you mean in a different way please?

Time affects that which is infinite via reverse causality.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

The fundamental infinities create things, and these things themselves have a causal impact back upon the fundamental infinities by adding a third boundary to the action of the infinite force (the other boundary is each other) - we call this boundary on the infinite, time.

The fundamental principles are the causes of how things are and become. By definition of “fundamental” it is inherently indicated that the Totality would not be what it is if the fundamental principles were not as they are.

No, order for something to be non-dualistic it must not be divisible, it must not have parts.

If something is not divisible, it is indivisible, not non-dualistic.

The word totality signifies that something has parts. It must also be uncaused, which I consider an impossibility.

There are parts to the Totality. We addressed “uncaused” above.

If things are caused then the totality of all things is caused. The totality of all that exists or is, however includes the complete circular causal nature of existence, something that cannot be totalled.

Although the Totality has circularity in its nature, its nature is not circular – it is infinite. A human can not total the Totality because a human is a finite thing, but human beings can have a representative concept of the Totality.

The fundamental forces however, must have a form of non-duality. Their existence within our finite universe, as causal agents must be continually caused by a duality, namely that which they are and that which they are not, but they are non-dualistic in the sense that they permanently only ever do perform one action, they only have one true form of existence, namely expansion or contraction. Kind of anyway. The words expansion and contraction are not their true reality, but there are no concepts or words to define their form, it is simply too basic for beings to conceptualise. Those words are just the most generalised causal related concepts I can come up with. These words describe the manner in which the boundary formed by their interaction flows, post the creation of form, so they are descriptors that are already dualistic.

I agree that the mandatory form of dualism for definitions is recognizing the difference between what something is and what it is not, but there is more to existence than contraction or expansion, not just less. Also, the boundaries between the fundamental forces are like the boundaries of the Gulf Stream – there, but not there.

[Jamesh]

Sheila's,

If I don't respond tomorrow, then it might be a few more days. going to my hometown for a few days. I can see responding will be difficult and don't wish to stay up late.

I will say this now though.

I just find that calling the Totality everything and leaving it as that, is a little weak as it includes the potential for unknowns, for mystery.

Your definition says the totality cannot have a cause, as there can be nothing outside of it to cause it. It does not explain anything much about the nature of reality as a process, though it is useful for understanding why there can be nothing outside of it and thus why there can be no creator God.

While I partially accept this definition, I reject it for completeness, primarily because, to me, it abandons cause and effect, so I added my own secondary type of totality. Lol, one in which I can link to my own theories.

Cause and effect is either absolute or it isn't, and I have seen nothing to suggest that it isn't, so unlike you and the QRS I feel validated in pondering about a cause of the totality, as darn difficult or impossible as that may be.

Regardless of what the QRS may say, all absolute truths they have all come from the generalisation of imperical knowledge. All such truths come from observation of physical reality. Why not take it a step further and find out the cause of causes? Just like where their absolute truths originated from, I reckon it must be something we could see in/across every observation - it just takes the right mode of generalisation.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Your definition says the totality cannot have a cause, as there can be nothing outside of it to cause it. ...

While I partially accept this definition, I reject it for completeness, primarily because, to me, it abandons cause and effect,

What part of the concept of infinity do you not understand?

[Jamesh]

What part of the concept of infinity do you understand?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

What part of the concept of infinity do you understand?

The whole concept.

[Jamesh]

Well get fucked then. If you understand the whole concept then you can explain it can't you?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Well get fucked then. If you understand the whole concept then you can explain it can't you?

The mere question "What part of infinity do you not understand" should have been an adequate indicator of how it would be uncaused to someone who was ready to understand the concept. Since you can't articulate any better than that, you are obviously not ready, and that's okay.

Most strangely, what does your phrase "Well get fucked then" have to do with the topic at hand? Understanding the concept of infinity does not prompt the behavior of sexual intercourse, so were you suggesting that I get inebriated or were you suggesting I submit to violence? I suppose your reaction to understanding a profound concept would be to alter your conciousness with alcohol or a drug, but that is not my reaction to profundity (and actually I no longer consider it all that profound, but I recognize what the realm is in relation to most people's understanding). If you are suggesting violence, I am pleased that you are on the opposite side of the planet from me. Actually that fact pleases me anyway. So Jim, what did you mean by that statement?

[Jamesh]

I was and am irritated with your lack of respect. You are being patronising to me. By your tone I can tell you think you are ever so intellectually superior to me. You are not you know - you have little orginality, you just have a superior memory. Your knowledge of reality, though far better than most, often feels like rote-like learning, which those with good memories have a tendency to rely on.

Answering with "The whole concept" is just so meaningless. I really do not believe that you have any idea of what infinity can be or can not be.

In saying "get fucked", I was also indicating that if you can't be bothered then neither can I. It is not as if you are deep enough to teach me anything.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Jim, if you would actually think through what infinity is, you would understand - it's just that you are asking me to spoon feed to you something that you can grasp on your own. Infinity can't have a cause because it didn't have a begining. How could anything that includes all of time have a begining? It can't. That's like asking how long ago the begining of always was.

I am being patronizing as a result of the conditioning I have received on this forum. I understand that if I do not come off as at least a bit arrogant, I get slammed (even the rhetorical question I included in the paragraph above in this post normally would get slammed, but I left it in this time as an example for this paragraph). I don't like the patronizing attitude that I recognize that I have to adopt to avoid some of the attacks by various members here, but I am also done with being slammed so frequently. I can't imagine any of the QRS would have tolerated half of what I have put up with from members here, and staying had become less than worth it with some of the recent thread quality, so I do appreciate you participating in this thread. If it were not for you and David picking up some of the slack in the last couple of days, I could easily have left.

No, this stuff that I am presenting is not memorized; in fact much of it is quite disagreed with by people in positions of "respect." Actually I have argued my point about Einstein being wrong about the flexibility of time since 9th grade, and annoyed countless teachers with my concepts. It is not memorized, it is thought out. If anything, I have been a bit lazy on the reading side, as much of my studying still needs to be directed at the markets. I have learned here though that philosophy is supposed to be read slowly and in small chunks, so I guess what I am considering laziness is actually the "right" way to go about it. I recognize at this point that skimming Nietzsche, Plato, Weininger, and a set of notes on Kierkgaard over the course of a week and thinking I got it all was probably a bit optimistic, so I have discarded my previous opinions and have started over with a fresh mind.

You listed some bad stuff about a good memory, but a bad thing about a high IQ that you may not be aware of is that often we get intellectually lazy because we know we can pick up a handfull of facts and pull the rest out of the air. What you have seen from me has involved pretty much no memorization, so you're off on that regard. I imagine it sounded like rote memorization, but I'm also overeducated, so I have had way too many years of making what I say sound like something some teacher would want to hear, but it came form me. David even caught me on that when he stated that he did not like that I let this forum do my thinking for me - that's a bad habit of a good student of just reflecting the "right" answer while keeping half an ear out for conflicting information to get bonus points for asking a "good" question. It's a form of laziness that happens when thinking is too easy.

As for why I'm not spoon-feeding everything to you, it is because it would be irresponsible of me to do that in this context. You are capable of thinking Jim - and I expect that you come to message boards to prompt your thinking. If you just wanted it all fed to you, you would just read the books and never go anywhere to discuss any of the concepts. I am being a friend to you by prompting you to walk when you don't need to be carried.

[Leah]

"Life" and "The Meaning Of Life" are exactly the same thing.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

"Life" and "The Meaning Of Life" are exactly the same thing.

edit to make it sound nicer for the newbie - this may be just a vocabulary barrier because you are new to this forum. I don't want to scare you off, so would you please elaborate on your point?

[Leah]

edit to make it sound nicer for the newbie - this may be just a vocabulary barrier because you are new to this forum. I don't want to scare you off, so would you please elaborate on your point?

Erm... shelve your kid gloves, if you don't mind.

Existences' "meaning" is inherent unto itself, existence and its meaning are inseparable. To search for the meaning of existence is to adorn existence with meaning, to "find" the meaning of existence is to realize there is nothing outside the mind's applied meaning to discover, and so therein, discover freedom from meaning.

Self-realization is not the meaning of existence, or existence would end upon realization of self.

Solidity of some grand meaning of existence is something grasped at by those afraid of the infinite creative freedom of awareness, those incapable of not moving, those who need to feel like Golden Children, those afraid of the void, those whose understanding has not yet developed a mental language for the concept of zero.

[Nordicvs]

Existences' "meaning" is inherent unto itself, existence and its meaning are inseparable. To search for the meaning of existence is to adorn existence with meaning, to "find" the meaning of existence is to realize there is nothing outside the mind's applied meaning to discover, and so therein, discover freedom from meaning.

Yeah, the 'medium is the message' kinda thing. I tend to agree in this context.

If one were living a fulfilling, interesting life, one would hardly need to validate it by seeking meaning. Like a bored couch potato wishing for adventure; long ago and seen in the lives of such peoples as the Inuit, there was no such need, no such conception---these peoples' lives were an adventure.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If one were living a fulfilling, interesting life, one would hardly need to validate it by seeking meaning. Like a bored couch potato wishing for adventure; long ago and seen in the lives of such peoples as the Inuit, there was no such need, no such conception---these peoples' lives were an adventure.

You are answering like DH suggested, asking "what is the meaning of my life" - which can be assigned.

Leah - How are you defining "meaning" here?

[Blair]

edit to make it sound nicer for the newbie

Oh that's hilarious. Elizabeth, you are a newbie. This forum has been around for years. I've been reading it for at least five.

Your presumptuous manner is comical.

[Matt Gregory]

Well, she's posted more than anyone else. She's probably posted more than everyone else combined.

[Pye]

.

Elizabeth writes: . . . I don't like the patronizing attitude that I recognize that I have to adopt . . .

Elizabeth, you have to? . . . really? This place makes you? . . . really? Please explain this rationale without falling into the same lake of bad faith that blames others for the acts and thoughts of the conscious self.

It is striking me that you need to be alpha-female amongst the males, and that this is exactly what you recognize as well in Sue, your soulmate in this. Something to think about anyway. The two of you go after exactly the females, the moment they show up, and start your discrediting/patronizing of them before your listening to them. I've seen it again and again from both of you, and in this, I think criticism is warranted, regardless of gender. It always smells of an ego and an agenda. One has to locate the phenomenal self before attempting to de-seat it, and it is exactly this phenomenal self that for all I have read of you, I cannot locate in you, but a host of experiences and adaptations, and a taste for playing king or queen of the hill.

Who are you, Elizabeth?


.

[Pye]

.

btw, this question is not asking for an answer here, but directing you to one in yourself - the only place it can be answered; the only place it matters.


.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth, you have to? . . . really? This place makes you? . . . really? Please explain this rationale without falling into the same lake of bad faith that blames others for the acts and thoughts of the conscious self.

If you have 3 apples and your goal is to have 5 apples, you have to obtain 2 more apples to reach your goal.

The two of you go after exactly the females

Are you saying that lou was a female? I'm responding to the words in front of me, and I am not going after "exactly the females." I linked just one example for you. Perhaps you are recalling when I agreed that I, as a female, would understand females better, and should target the females. I tested that theory out, and after stuff blew up with Katy, I decided that was not a good idea to focus on the females and went back to treating each gender the same. I don't think this board wants me to post an announcement every time I learn enough about something to change my mind.

it is exactly this phenomenal self that for all I have read of you, I cannot locate in you

I do not exist - of course you could not find a phenomenal self - it isn't there.

Who are you, Elizabeth?

I am one cell in the Body of the Infinite.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

btw, this question is not asking for an answer here, but directing you to one in yourself - the only place it can be answered; the only place it matters.

Sorry, I was already posting a reply when you posted this.

[Pye]

.

Elizabeth writes:

I do not exist - of course you could not find a phenomenal self - it isn't there.

There is exactly a phenomenal self. There is simply no in-itself quality to it (noumenal). People here use the words inherent and non-inherent to express this. And jumping over this to obliterate it linguistically is not dealing with it.

I was thinking that, given your wide array of abusive experiences that perhaps it is still too painful for you to deal with this phenomenal self, given these phenomena you have experienced. Perhaps it is covered over with IQ tests, degrees, accomplishments, involving yourself in the psyche problems of others, etc. Otherwise, you have adapted to the lessons and lingo of the site and not done the actual, the painful work of it. Someday maybe. And again, only you can answer to that in yourself.

If you have 3 apples and your goal is to have 5 apples, you have to obtain 2 more apples to reach your goal.

If you know yourself well and occupy that space consciously, then you needn't eat other people's apples nor take on the taste of them. That's about the best I can make out from your answer in response to what I asked.

Elizabeth, in my estimation, you have assumed far too much and assumed yourself far too far-along in it. Perhaps your IQ, degrees, accolades, etc. assist you in this. You have entered, and not done the work of going backwards to the beginning: perhaps you have assumed your intellectual credentials earn you a seat ahead of everyone else. This assumption is exactly what will keep you behind.

Elizabeth: Sorry, I was already posting a reply when you posted this.

:) . . . so maybe some reflection then before reaction.


.