Formlessness (inside & outside)

[Nick]

You're defining "forms" differently to me then I think.

What is your definition of a form?

It also contains things that do not posess form, e.g. logic and consciousness.

By my definition they are forms too.

They are finite phenomena, being that there are other things they are not. So if by form you mean finite phenomena, it really doesn't make much of a difference when discussing the formless/infinite nature of the Totality.

Ok, but there are still contrasts existing between the constituent parts.

Sure, but it's actually not accurate to say that the Totalitly is constitued of parts. Parts only mean something from a certain POV. When we are talking about the Totality as a whole; parts, time, concepts, and anything else you can think of or not, never enter the picture to begin with.

The problem I saw was in your claim that the Totality is "formless." To me that sounded like the forms/things/parts contained within the Totality somehow magically disappeared and what was left was a unity with no distinctions, no divisions, just one undivided thing lacking any internal forms/things/parts whatsoever. Maybe that's not how you view the Totality after all?

The way it seems to me is that you are trying to say Existence can exist. Existence doesn't exist, it creates things that do exist.

[divine focus]

The way it seems to me is that you are trying to say Existence can exist. Existence doesn't exist, it creates things that do exist.

LOL Nice!

The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.

But does the meaning of the concepts have form? Isn't meaning more like a feeling (unlike simple information)?

Meanings and feelings are forms too, they have characteristics and qualities.

To me, forms are things that can be visualized or manipulated. You can visualize the symbol of a meaning and shift meanings among symbols, but the meanings exist beyond that.

I say Totality is both form and formless because they both exist, but it is more than both also.

[Jason]

You're defining "forms" differently to me then I think.

What is your definition of a form?

Think of "thing" and "appearance" as QSR define those terms. Essentially that.

It also contains things that do not posess form, e.g. logic and consciousness.

By my definition they are forms too.

They are finite phenomena, being that there are other things they are not. So if by form you mean finite phenomena, it really doesn't make much of a difference when discussing the formless/infinite nature of the Totality.

Yes I do believe I mean "finite phenomena." How doesn't it make much of a difference?

Ok, but there are still contrasts existing between the constituent parts.

Sure, but it's actually not accurate to say that the Totalitly is constitued of parts. Parts only mean something from a certain POV. When we are talking about the Totality as a whole; parts, time, concepts, and anything else you can think of or not, never enter the picture to begin with.

The only way they would never enter the picture is if this "Totality" of yours is a fantasy in your head; as I have already noted. Reality has parts("finite phenomena"), this is a brute fact. That you recognize a larger whole does not magically extinguish the parts that it is made from.

The way it seems to me is that you are trying to say Existence can exist. Existence doesn't exist, it creates things that do exist.

Then, the way it seems to me: the way it seems to you is wrong.

[Nick]

I'll ask you again Jason; can you give me an example of a form that could theoretically exist if there were nothing aside from it?

[Jason]

I'll ask you again Jason; can you give me an example of a form that could theoretically exist if there were nothing aside from it?

Does the form in question lack internal parts and characteristics?

[Nick]

It doesn't matter, however you want to view it.

[mikiel]

Idiots!
Space is infinite. No possible end or boundary but in an idiot's imagination.
Forms of all kinds and sizes (mostly beyond humanity's scope of 'seeing' or imagination) *occupy* space... on all scales....
within the cosmos we can "see" and beyond.

This thread has become a prime example of the conceit of the human intellect beyond its depth in the realm of *all there is*... the universe beyond all human cosmologies.

What we can see is a finite "take" on "the cosmos." What we can not see is speculation... what other "cosmi" might be beyond the sphere of our best scientific or mystic vision.

But this much is certain. Space is infinite and the forms which occupy space are each... on whtever scale... finite.

If the discussion were to at least recognize the above, it could proceed with a common understanding of terms.
(Too much to hope for as a standard of clear communication here.)

[Jason]

I'll ask you again Jason; can you give me an example of a form that could theoretically exist if there were nothing aside from it?

Does the form in question lack internal parts and characteristics?

It doesn't matter, however you want to view it.

This may be the primary issue, and I find it deeply interesting. Maybe you can show me something new here Nick(or I you), although I suspect I know where you're coming from and that I fundamentally disagree. I think that it is in fact crucial whether or not the form has internal parts or characteristics.

If the form in question doesn't have internal parts or characteristics then I would say that it doesn't exist - because a thing must have characteristics of some kind to exist. Its characteristics literally are its existence.

If, on the other hand, the form does have internal parts or characteristics then I think it could be said to exist even if there were nothing other than it.The form could be known to exist, in its entirety, by knowing all of the internal parts/characteristics.

So to answer your question: The Totality(reality in its entirety) is an example of a thing(more accurately a group of things) that exists despite there being nothing other than it.

Basically, the difference I see between us is that I'm saying that a thing as a whole can exist purely because of the parts and contrasts inside it, and you're saying a thing can only exist if there are things outside it.

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason,

How can there be an "inside" to "The Totality(reality in its entirety)"?

If there isn't an outside, there isn't an inside. Yes?

[Jason]

How can there be an "inside" to "The Totality(reality in its entirety)"?

If there isn't an outside, there isn't an inside. Yes?

By "inside" I was simply referring to the things that constitute the Totality. The term "inside" can be a bit misleading in that sense, I agree, because there is no outside of the Totality.

[sue hindmarsh]

Continuing on...

Since there isn't an outside or an inside to the Totality, it also hasn't any "constitute" parts, has it? For there is no thing that cannot be The Totality.

[Jason]

Continuing on...

Since there isn't an outside or an inside to the Totality, it also hasn't any "constitute" parts, has it? For there is no thing that cannot be The Totality.

Since there is no thing that cannot be the Totality then it follows that all things are the Totality - thus the Totality is constituted of all things/parts.

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason wrote:

thus the Totality is constituted of all things/parts.

Can any thing that already is The Totality be classed as "constituting"?

[Jason]

I don't understand your point. I see no significant difference between saying that things constitute the Totality and saying that things is/are the Totality.

[sue hindmarsh]

No matter how much we try to divide and separate, we have divided nothing and separated nothing.

The Totality cannot possess any thing, for there is no thing that is not The Totality.

[Jason]

Because of the way your manner seems to have changed in that post: I'm getting a vision of you closing your eyes and repetitively chanting to yourself what you wrote - as a fall-back safety mechanism used to strengthen what you already believe, and block out any possibility of what I've said from penetrating. It's like you've started speaking at me, instead of with me.

Just an observation of my gut reaction which may be completely wrong, not meant as any sort of well-founded criticism of you or your post, but I thought it worthy of being shared. Let's carry on as usual:

No matter how much we try to divide and separate, we have divided nothing and separated nothing.

I don't believe that I've said anything about trying to divide and separate. I have said that it is a brute fact that reality has parts and characteristics.

The Totality cannot possess any thing, for there is no thing that is not The Totality.

I don't think I said that the Totality possesses things either. I said the Totality is things.

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason,

You wrote:

Because of the way your manner seems to have changed in that post: I'm getting a vision of you closing your eyes and repetitively chanting to yourself what you wrote - as a fall-back safety mechanism used to strengthen what you already believe, and block out any possibility of what I've said from penetrating. It's like you've started speaking at me, instead of with me.

Just an observation of my gut reaction which may be completely wrong, not meant as any sort of well-founded criticism of you or your post, but I thought it worthy of being shared. Let's carry on as usual:

I'll just quickly address your above concern before, as you suggest, we carry on as usual.

I came into this discussion because in your post to Nick you wrote, "This may be the primary issue, and I find it deeply interesting". If you didn't already know, I too find such investigation deeply interesting. I tell you straight that I've approached each of your statements and questions fully focused upon unraveling the truth of the issue.

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason,

Let's go back to the mind space of when we were talking about The Totality having no inside, because it has no outside. Now let's explore the significance that "parts and characteristics" play.

For example, a characteristic of The Totality that I see is that it has no form. But doesn't my saying that it has "no form" actually give it a form? Isn't everything we try and say about The Totality like that?

[Nick]

No matter how much we try to divide and separate, we have divided nothing and separated nothing.

I don't believe that I've said anything about trying to divide and separate. I have said that it is a brute fact that reality has parts and characteristics.

When you say that Existence "contains" things, or however you want to put it, you are simultaneously dividing it, because if something is contained, that automatically means it's not the actual container. Since, by definition, there is nothing aside from Existence, it can not logically contain anything.

The Totality cannot possess any thing, for there is no thing that is not The Totality.

I don't think I said that the Totality possesses things either. I said the Totality is things.

If we define Reality in a way that means there is nothing aside from it, by logical necessity it must be formless.

[skipair]

Reasoning about reality as a whole doesn't make much sense to me. It is so abstract that it seems not to refer to anything in my experience, making it more or less meaningless. I can see in/congruence within the logical structures that people use when talking about the totality, but they are just foreign forms floating about in the ether. It is not personal at all.

Maybe I'm just not at the level of making totality-talk relevant. Obviously I'm not, or maybe it's just pointless to talk about a thing that isn't a thing. :)

I'll see. This did catch my eye, though:

If, on the other hand, the form does have internal parts or characteristics then I think it could be said to exist even if there were nothing other than it.The form could be known to exist, in its entirety, by knowing all of the internal parts/characteristics.

This seems all theoretical until we try to apply it to a specific example. What form could possibly exist that we know ALL internal parts of? That's like saying you know everything there is to know about experiencing chairs. But we can't stop change from happening, and every moment something new is presented, a new angle is experienced, and the solid logical structures we use don't really refer to what is happening. IOW, I think knowing all parts of a thing is impossible.

[Jason]

Let's go back to the mind space of when we were talking about The Totality having no inside, because it has no outside. Now let's explore the significance that "parts and characteristics" play.

For example, a characteristic of The Totality that I see is that it has no form. But doesn't my saying that it has "no form" actually give it a form? Isn't everything we try and say about The Totality like that?

Yes I know well the sort of apparent paradox you're speaking of. Finite descriptions can appear to drag the Totality down into being a specific finite thing with certain characteristics. The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao and all of that.

But this is not an issue that I think we even need to look at. I don't think it's relevant, I think I cut off any chance of even needing to look at that before it even has a chance to arise. Although you can make a connection between that and what I'm about to say:

We are ultimately talking about reality, correct? We want to understand reality. Well, as I keep saying - the brute fact of the matter is that reality does have parts/forms/characteristics. They are in front of your eyes right now. There is no denying this fact.

Here's the issue: that there exists even a single part negates any possibility of a formless whole. A formless whole by definition relies upon there never being a part anywhere at any time. Once a part exists that makes it impossible for the whole to be formless, by default.

A formless whole is fundamentally in contradiction to there being parts in reality. You can't have both and we know for a fact that parts exist. So the formless whole can never be anything more than a fantasy in your head.

[Jason]

I don't believe that I've said anything about trying to divide and separate. I have said that it is a brute fact that reality has parts and characteristics.

When you say that Existence "contains" things, or however you want to put it, you are simultaneously dividing it, because if something is contained, that automatically means it's not the actual container. Since, by definition, there is nothing aside from Existence, it can not logically contain anything.

I didn't intend to give the impression that I believed that Existence is a container of things. Existence is not separate from things, Existence is things. I will expand on this below:

I don't think I said that the Totality possesses things either. I said the Totality is things.

If we define Reality in a way that means there is nothing aside from it, by logical necessity it must be formless.

We don't seem to be making much ground(it actually made me giggle a bit.) Maybe if I give an analogy it could help:

When you recognize a bicycle, as a whole, does it suddenly cease to be composed of wheels, pedals, seat and frame? No!

Say I were to tell you that a bicycle is composed of a certain configuration of wheels, pedals, seat and frame. Then, if you found all these parts in the correct configuration you would know that you had found a bicycle - all without the need for anything other than, beyond or outside these parts.

But without anything but a bicycle and its parts, how do you know you have a bicycle? There is nothing to contrast it against right? There is no non-bicycle.

Well, remember that you only need to know that you have wheels, pedals, seat and frame to know that you have a bicycle. Nothing more. The wheels are known by contrast against the pedals, seat and frame. The pedals are known by contrast against the wheels, seat and frame, and so on. So there is no need for anything beyond or outside that which composes the bicycle in order for you to know that this is a bicycle and not some formless nothing.

Just like the bicycle isn't formless, it is wheels, pedals, seat and frame, the Totality isn't formless, the Totality is all forms.

[Loki]

Let's go back to the mind space of when we were talking about The Totality having no inside, because it has no outside. Now let's explore the significance that "parts and characteristics" play.

For example, a characteristic of The Totality that I see is that it has no form. But doesn't my saying that it has "no form" actually give it a form? Isn't everything we try and say about The Totality like that?

Yes I know well the sort of apparent paradox you're speaking of. Finite descriptions can appear to drag the Totality down into being a specific finite thing with certain characteristics. The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao and all of that.

But this is not an issue that I think we even need to look at. I don't think it's relevant, I think I cut off any chance of even needing to look at that before it even has a chance to arise. Although you can make a connection between that and what I'm about to say:

We are ultimately talking about reality, correct? We want to understand reality. Well, as I keep saying - the brute fact of the matter is that reality does have parts/forms/characteristics. They are in front of your eyes right now. There is no denying this fact.

Here's the issue: that there exists even a single part negates any possibility of a formless whole. A formless whole by definition relies upon there never being a part anywhere at any time. Once a part exists that makes it impossible for the whole to be formless, by default.

A formless whole is fundamentally in contradiction to there being parts in reality.

All very well written, Jason - but those parts are only creations of our mind! There ultimately are no things!

[skipair]

Well, remember that you only need to know that you have wheels, pedals, seat and frame to know that you have a bicycle. Nothing more. The wheels are known by contrast against the pedals, seat and frame. The pedals are known by contrast against the wheels, seat and frame, and so on. So there is no need for anything beyond or outside that which composes the bicycle in order for you to know that this is a bicycle and not some formless nothing.

I think you're using a hypothetical in a way that changes how our consciousness works. I don't think a single definition of a thing, like a bicycle or a chair, can be viewed as just needing a few internal causes for its creation, while leaving out all the external causes, and neglecting that all these causes are actually infinite. It's not like we can bring into consciousess a bike, and only a bike, and pretend that it is the totality of all things. It is not. It's a definition, and that also requries an outside context.

I agree that is seems to be a brute fact that finite phenomena exist, but I think it will be the manner in which they exist that will tell us how they are also unbounded on a different level - on the level of causation.

[Cory Duchesne]

Well, remember that you only need to know that you have wheels, pedals, seat and frame to know that you have a bicycle. Nothing more. The wheels are known by contrast against the pedals, seat and frame. The pedals are known by contrast against the wheels, seat and frame, and so on. So there is no need for anything beyond or outside that which composes the bicycle in order for you to know that this is a bicycle and not some formless nothing.

I think you're using a hypothetical in a way that changes how our consciousness works. I don't think a single definition of a thing, like a bicycle or a chair, can be viewed as just needing a few internal causes for its creation, while leaving out all the external causes, and neglecting that all these causes are actually infinite. It's not like we can bring into consciousess a bike, and only a bike, and pretend that it is the totality of all things. It is not. It's a definition, and that also requires an outside context.

Yes, what you've just pointed to is a very fundamental point, one which appears to be going over Jason's head. Otherness (formlessness) must always be paired with thingness. There cannot be a thing without a surrounding otherness.

Picture a white dot. Can the white dot exist without a contrasting background? Of course not, therefore the white dot and the contrasting background are two parts of the same whole.