I have Realized the Infinite

[Pincho Paxton]

But I am saying that the one thing is sizeless. It is neither big nor small, it has no form, it has no relationship, it is not finite.

It has a planck size. You could count how many planck are in a thing, or you could count how many planck it is across. If you counted higher than that you would be counting something that doesn't exist.. which would be a bit silly. A planck is a grain, and it's not made from any more grain, so its just a single thing. From then onwards you would be counting half a planck, which couldn't be used for anything, as you can't break a planck in half, it vanishes, and all of the other planck rush into its place.

[guest_of_logic]

Nick,

So if you want to consider it a shortcoming of mine because I get emotional, I have no problem with that, but we all have a few of those; am I right?

You're right so far as I've observed, although some people seem to have fewer shortcomings than others. And I don't consider getting emotional a shortcoming - unless it becomes so excessive that it causes you to do or say stupid things. I consider it perfectly natural: essentially human. It's just that I was under the impression that you were aspiring to, and had laid claim to, a state where emotions did not (could not) occur.

Being that I have gained an understanding of what is absolutely true, I also know the consequences of it and how it can affect one's behavior; namely how and why emotions arise.

OK, so in your opinion is it possible to exist in a state where emotions do not arise? If so, then how? And if so, then why aren't you there?

Besides, me getting emotional doesn't make what I say any less true.

One "truth" of the house philosophy (and it's no secret that you're very supportive of that house philosophy), is that once you understand absolute truth, emotions no longer arise: so given that by your claim you've achieved that understanding of absolute truth, then, if emotions are still arising in you, to the extent that you "say" that "house truth", your getting emotional actually does make what you say less true.

Where does that reasoning fall down, Nick? Is it that, despite the many references to emotion in your past posts, you actually don't agree with that aspect of the house philosophy?

Dan,

Our points of philosophical departure have to do with the exact nature of enlightenment and various points of psychology.

But those are very significant points of departure, Dan. They're a big part of why I give you "attitude". That "attitude" is basically a response to your own "attitude": your male chauvinism and your sense of superiority in your supposed enlightenment, as exemplified in Kevin's YouTube video on the atheist evolutionary tree.

The difference between you and Nat is also about emphasis and approach. You guys make a big deal out of your supposed understanding that Nat doesn't. You elevate it into something grand; proselytise it; promote it as a way of life; make out that you are There and that everybody else in the world is not (e.g. the aforementioned video). You over-inflate the value of those parts of your philosophy that have truth to them; and those parts which aren't so truthful have a negative net effect.

Nat is more realistic: he takes the approach that whatever understanding he has is nothing particularly grand or special; that there's no need to make a big deal out of it. Plus, he's flexible and open to new ideas: these days he doesn't have nearly as much use for the type of Eastern philosophy that you guys derive your own "wisdom" from. I see no need to take attitude with Nat's approach.

[chikoka]

But I am saying that the one thing is sizeless. It is neither big nor small, it has no form, it has no relationship, it is not finite.

But infinite is a size so how can it be sizeless then.
I would think its neither finite nor infinite but rather a-cardinal.

[Dan Rowden]

What does "size" mean?

[1456200423]

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et_MmlTxMXA

[chikoka]

What does "size" mean?

Cardinality.

It has to be infinite *something*.
The whole concept of infinity came from the study of cardinals and their properties.

Just as a side question : what is the totality a totality of?

[Jamesh]

Dejavu,

I hope you never accept David and co's arguments. I agree so much more with your comments. David will never recognise the fact that differentiation makes his sort of mystical statements here, false. It is a fact that if there is any sort of differentiation at all, then existence, as in dualism, becomes immediately inherent - inherent in the sense that "what appears, is only what can appear".

With formlessness, cause and effect could not exist, as there would be no evolution of things. However this also means that "endless forms" are not possible, though endless repetition of a finite number of forms is. The vast, but limited, array of appearances the evolved forms may produce in life does not then signify formlessness at all, but formfulness.

A lack of inherency is something we all agree on, but so what. That permanancy in things is impossible is not particularly relevant, I mean isn't this what A=A is all about. Whatever appearance appears exists, and that it can only be an appearance of a temporary nature is neither here nor there.

Yes, they share in the basic reality of the universe, but nonetheless their existence is as empty as a shadow or a mirage.

Not when A=A defines existence.

Both shadows and mirages have existence.


I agree that the universe is inherent (as there is nothing else apart from it). And this means that I agree with your point that all things share in that kind of inherency. All things are real in that sense. They are direct expressions of reality.

Lol. Reality cannot express any fucking thing without intrinsic form.


Endless form is one aspect of formlessness, but not the only aspect. The empty nature of all forms is another aspect. The timelessness of formless reality is yet another.

To understand these points, you need to start thinking in terms of what is permanently and absolutely real.

Why should we have to think in terms of what is permanent and absolutely real? Or more precisely why should we only take that side of the idea, why is the flip side, temporary and existing fleeting appearances, of any less importance in what we think about when considering truths of reality?

People like me do that (ie my time theory) and you just dismiss as if we should not think of such things as they are supposedly unexplainable.

You sure are a god loving creature - you want your god to be as unexplainable and as abstract as any other preacher. It's the lure that draws your entertainment back time and time again, the same as any other spin guru. To many people here seem to have an underlying desire for mysticism.

Also relevant is that a thing, in the very moment of its existence, has no existence of its own, but is sustained by countless factors beyond it.

Yes, that’s right, things require inherent dualism, brought about by inherent differentiation.

The only form of non-duality is a mere concept, "The Totality" - and that concept has the same paradoxes that all concepts of infinity have. A paradox that is readily put to the side - though not as in "grasping spatial infinity", just grasping process infinity - if one can accept that reality is a continuously expanding Entity, rather than just something infinite that just happens to change configuration within, for some unexplained reason.


--------------------------------------

Just as a side question : what is the totality a totality of?

Not that anyone will accept this answer, but it is the totality of all that existed in the past.

Because Time is continuous, not quantum, there are no instants or gaps where what is will be all that is and as such a total is not possible. As the past is always becoming more, the Totality is always more finite than its future self, thus the totality is not wholly infinite at any time one may refer to it as being "the totality of all there is".

Infinity intrinsically requires self-growth, and only content can self-grow, not form. Form is the past, content is Time itself. Infinity is sort of "countably infinite", but without numbers or fractions, its a steady non-linear addition with just one thing being added forever to itself at an absolutely consistent rate of expansion from within.

[chikoka]

Not that anyone will accept this answer, but it is the totality of all that existed in the past.

My question is what is that all?

Things , causes,.. what?

[David Quinn]

Dejavu,

I hope you never accept David and co's arguments. I agree so much more with your comments. David will never recognise the fact that differentiation makes his sort of mystical statements here, false. It is a fact that if there is any sort of differentiation at all, then existence, as in dualism, becomes immediately inherent - inherent in the sense that "what appears, is only what can appear".

If that is what dejavu means, then fair enough. Everything is inherent in that sense.

With formlessness, cause and effect could not exist, as there would be no evolution of things.

On the contrary, there can be no causation, and no evolution, without formlessness. If reality was locked into a form, nothing would occur at all.

DQ: Yes, they share in the basic reality of the universe, but nonetheless their existence is as empty as a shadow or a mirage.

JH: Not when A=A defines existence.

Both shadows and mirages have existence.

They certainly have existence, but it is an illusion nonetheless.

I've always liked the Buddha's illustration of this, in which he twirled a flame around and around in a circle so that it formed a ring of light. The ring of light certainly appears to exist and can be perceived by observers, and yet at the same, it doesn't really exist at all. It is merely an illusion of circumstances.

All things are fundamentally like this. They appear to exist from certain angles, but they are not really there.

This has no end. You could chase a thing forever and you would never find it.

DQ: Endless form is one aspect of formlessness, but not the only aspect. The empty nature of all forms is another aspect. The timelessness of formless reality is yet another.

To understand these points, you need to start thinking in terms of what is permanently and absolutely real.

JH: Why should we have to think in terms of what is permanent and absolutely real?

To take in the larger perspective.

Dejavu wants to live in the world of immediacy, like a child, and thus all he ever experiences (and wants to experience) are forms.

Or more precisely why should we only take that side of the idea, why is the flip side, temporary and existing fleeting appearances, of any less importance in what we think about when considering truths of reality?

One should examine the matter from all possible perspectives, and not just the perspective of immediacy favoured by dejavu.

DQ: Also relevant is that a thing, in the very moment of its existence, has no existence of its own, but is sustained by countless factors beyond it.

JH: Yes, that’s right, things require inherent dualism, brought about by inherent differentiation.

The only form of non-duality is a mere concept, "The Totality" - and that concept has the same paradoxes that all concepts of infinity have. A paradox that is readily put to the side - though not as in "grasping spatial infinity", just grasping process infinity - if one can accept that reality is a continuously expanding Entity, rather than just something infinite that just happens to change configuration within, for some unexplained reason.

There is an excellent passage in the Tao Te Ching, so simple and yet so profound, which goes right to the very heart of this matter:

The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.

Genius!

-

[Jason]

On the contrary, there can be no causation, and no evolution, without formlessness. If reality was locked into a form, nothing would occur at all.

How are you defining "form" and "formlessness" David?

[chikoka]

How are you defining "form" and "formlessness" David?

David :

If you (explicitly) said what the totality was a totality of , maybe we could understand how it could be formless.

[David Quinn]

How are you defining "form" and "formlessness" David?

"Form" is synonymous with thing, object, process, phenomenon, etc. That is, any portion of the Totality.

"Formlessness" refers to the way in which the Totality isn't a thing, object, process or phenomenon. It isn't something which can be experienced directly as a distinguishable phenomenon in the way that, say, a tree or an emotion can. Even though it comprises all distinguishable phenomena, the Totality, taken as a whole, isn't a distinguishable phenomenon itself.

So when I say that reality is formless, I'm not saying that it is like an empty container in which nothing exists (this, after all, is just another form). I'm saying that it is like a flowing stream which is constantly creating and destroying all things, while it itself is never one of those things.

Or, looking at the matter from another perspective, the form of reality is whatever happens to appear in the moment. It has an ever-changing form, with no one form being any more inherent or special than the rest.

If you (explicitly) said what the totality was a totality of , maybe we could understand how it could be formless.

The totality of all forms. That is to say, utterly everything.

-

[Kelly Jones]

One "truth" of the house philosophy (and it's no secret that you're very supportive of that house philosophy), is that once you understand absolute truth, emotions no longer arise: so given that by your claim you've achieved that understanding of absolute truth, then, if emotions are still arising in you, to the extent that you "say" that "house truth", your getting emotional actually does make what you say less true.

No, it only means that a person's application is imperfect. Their understanding may be perfect, but they haven't let it touch every aspect of their being. It doesn't mean that their understanding is untrue, or flawed.

For instance, even though sunlight may be always bright and strong for some plants, if those plants are heavily overgrown by other plants, they won't be healthy. Their growth may be stunted and crooked, and they may look lanky and pale. And, if they are suddenly exposed to the full sunlight, they won't change their look overnight. It'll take time to adjust. The light is still strong and bright, but the past life is still apparent. The plants don't look like they've been growing in full light all their lives.

Similarly, a person's mental habits take time to adjust to an enlightened understanding. It takes time for these habits to alter, moment after moment, thought by thought, day after day. Some moments will be "purer" of false views than others, others not. So it is not the understanding which is the issue; it is just a matter of conscientiousness over time.

By the way, "house philosophy" doesn't mean anything. If it did, then the whole idea would be a matter of speculative opinion, and surely not worth discussing. It's whether an idea is itself true or false or realistic. Calling an idea "house philosophy" belittles this important distinction, and it is far more important to challenge an idea for its truth value, rather than for who holds it.

[Nick]

So if you want to consider it a shortcoming of mine because I get emotional, I have no problem with that, but we all have a few of those; am I right?

It's just that I was under the impression that you were aspiring to, and had laid claim to, a state where emotions did not (could not) occur.

I simply aspire to live according to what I know is ultimately true. Causality takes care of the rest.

OK, so in your opinion is it possible to exist in a state where emotions do not arise? If so, then how?

It's not possible for emotions to arise when the ego has been completely uprooted, and I mean 100% annihilated. If there is any trace of ego, emotions will arise, and they can be just as strong as they are in a person who has no understanding of truth. Also keep in mind there is a big difference between the emotions of a man who has fire in the belly, and a babe who cries for it's mother's milk.

And if so, then why aren't you there?

It's not like I need to go to some magical realm or achieve some mystical state of mind where emotions no longer exist. The reason I get emotional is simply because I have an ego.

One "truth" of the house philosophy (and it's no secret that you're very supportive of that house philosophy), is that once you understand absolute truth, emotions no longer arise: so given that by your claim you've achieved that understanding of absolute truth, then, if emotions are still arising in you, to the extent that you "say" that "house truth", your getting emotional actually does make what you say less true.

Not only do you need to have an intellectual understanding of absolute truth, this understanding needs to permeate every nook and cranny of one's mind. Something which involves overturning behaviors and perspectives that have been deeply etched into one's mind over the course of a life time as Kelly explained in her post above. Your analysis is seriously superficial and shows why you need to try much harder if you want to understand what actually goes on here.

Where does that reasoning fall down, Nick? Is it that, despite the many references to emotion in your past posts, you actually don't agree with that aspect of the house philosophy?

First of all, there is no "house philosophy". It's simply a forum dedicated to the discussion and understanding of what is ultimately true. Secondly, much like anything else, whether it be sports, academic pursuits, or any task for that matter, there is a difference between understanding something and actually doing it; the latter being much more difficult in most cases.

In either case, you have no understanding of truth, and you certainly have no idea what it would be like to live according to it, which is why I find your caricatures of others and myself rather amusing at times. So I'm not really getting upset when I display emotion in our discussions. It's more or less a verbal spanking. Kind of like how you would spank a kid at a funeral who is whining about wanting to go home so he can play video games. In both cases, you and the child are mostly innocent in what would otherwise be absolutely vile behavior if it were to come from a more mature and wiser individual.

[skipair]

You can get a sense of the infinite when you examine a concept and see that you can never really define it absolutely. Instead what you see is an infinite web of causes that run smoothly both inside and outside the concept.

For example, some people say that genes are what create humans - that they are a blueprint containing information, and it's the genes that are essentially our primary cause. But our essence in an intellectual sense, if it's anywhere at all, is always in the context and process, and in the end that extends into the workings of everything. Causation is too smooth to locate a blueprint that contains information.

Like the movements of an ocean.

[Pincho Paxton]

You can get a sense of the infinite when you examine a concept and see that you can never really define it absolutely. Instead what you see is an infinite web of causes that run smoothly both inside and outside the concept.

For example, some people say that genes are what create humans - that they are a blueprint containing information, and it's the genes that are essentially our primary cause. But our essence in an intellectual sense, if it's anywhere at all, is always in the context and process, and in the end that extends into the workings of everything. Causation is too smooth to locate a blueprint that contains information.

Like the movements of an ocean.

That's right.

[skipair]

I suggest that these doctrines will never allow anyone to achieve any level of physical mastery of their domain. They may lead to inner states of awareness that could very well have 'value', but they will destroy one's 'outer' life. That is fine, of course, as long as one knows what one is choosing.

Agree 100%. In one sense, understanding logic will change you forever on the inside.

[Note: IMO listening to other people's doctrines and direction will hurt you. Figuring this stuff out on your own naturally (because you just HAVE to know how things work) is the only way. You have to use your own words and your own ideas. I do not recommend reading. I write to express myself, but if you reader are someone still looking for more clarity, these words are not for you.]

Anyway, it's true: Once a person gets abstracted, understands the fundamentals of how things work, and looks out on the world and sees that the boundary of his bubble is nowhere to be seen, it's impossible not to be affected by it. It changes you on the inside forever.

However, in another sense, humans are emotional beings. It's so obvious that everyone is having emotions at all times. Sometimes they're nice, and other times they're a pain in the ass. But call this a product of an unwanted and illogical ego and you effectively take an enormous black dildo and shove it up your ass.

Understanding logic does not mean you try to control yourself to always act logically. You are human. Trying to act totally logically all the time does not make you perfect. You are HUMAN. You are MESSY. You are not and you never will be "logically perfect". If you try that you will become dissociated from yourself and the world, losing all natural skills and instincts while interacting with it. Do violence to your emotions and you will suffer. And hopefully you won't then say it's in the name of truth (stupidity more like it).

A complete human is someone who can feel out their emotions, embrace them, and create them. It is also someone who WHEN THE TIME COMES can see the situation totally logically.

[guest_of_logic]

Nick,

You (and Kelly) refer to this type of process:

Break through into understanding of Absolute Truth => work this understanding into the core of your being => attain perfect enlightenment and stop experiencing emotions.

The thing is, you guys change your tune whenever it suits you. Take, for example, what David wrote in his opening statement in The Larkin Debate:

The core delusion of the mind, which forms the basis of all other delusions, is the belief in inherent existence. [...] As soon as this core delusion is eliminated, every other delusion concerning the nature of existence naturally falls into a heap - like the sudden collapse of a stack of cards - and it is here that the mind experiences enlightenment.

[...]

The enlightened person is one who is fully conscious of Ultimate Reality. He has completely abandoned the idea of a permanent, fixed self, and fully accepts the reality that his very own existence is nothing more than a momentary, illusory whim. Such a person is utterly beyond the emotions (there being nothing to get emotional about), and utterly beyond religion (he no longer depends on blind faith).

Here David describes a sudden breakthrough into enlightenment: as soon as the core delusion of inherent existence is eliminated all other delusions collapse like a stack of cards, resulting in immediate enlightenment and transcendence of emotions. Here there is no transitory state of working the understanding into the core of your being.

So Nick, before expecting me to work harder to understand you, you and your truth buddies need to work harder to express yourselves more consistently. You'll claim enlightenment as a "sudden" process of breaking through into Absolute Truth when it suits you, to distinguish yourselves from the everyday unenlightened mob, but when it comes to living up to the ideal, well, then you'll throw in this new distinction of not yet being totally de-habituated to past egoic delusions - enlightenment is no longer "sudden": instead it can be divided into "intellectual understanding" and the later state - after practice - of total lack of delusion, and until that total lack of delusion is achieved, the pure intellectual understanding is insufficient to prevent the arising of emotions. This way you get to justify emotions in an otherwise supposedly rationally enlightened being, whilst simultaneously claiming that enlightenment is a breakthrough all-or-nothing affair - you're either enlightened or you're not. Cake tastes nice, doesn't it? Pity you can't have it after you've eaten it.

Face facts: you guys preach an ideal that not one of you is capable of living up to. If you haven't by now recognised that the reason that none of you is capable of living up to it is not that it's a challenging ideal, but that it's a false one, then you're just not paying attention.

P.S. Good posts, skip. Good to see you back.

[Dan Rowden]

Ah, but we do/have live[d] it and experience[d] to to a sufficient extent to know that the ideal is real and accurate, however challenging.

So, - insert juvenile nose thumbing gesture -.

[Nick]

Face facts? Laird, the bottom line is that you haven't the slightest clue about what's true and what's not. What you really need to do is stop blowing all this hot air around and go do the work before you come here and tell me how something you know nothing about should affect my life. A little humility goes a long way.

[Steven Coyle]

the martian finds life on a green planet

which brings me to...

the land files the snark

[Nick]

Hey Skip,

I ask this with all sincerity; but does it ever concern you when someone like Laird, (who's grasp on logic is so weak that among other things, he can't even figure out why his notion of a god is absolutely untenable) appears to agree with the overall gist of what you have to say, namely your most recent post here?

[skipair]

Hey bro,

It doesn't concern me, but it does make me want to generally clarify that this ideal is impossible as an ideal, but it's the opposite of false. It's the one true thing there is. IMO, Laird doesn't understand this and doesn't WANT to understand this (and sometimes that's frustrating), but I appreciate that he understands and feels me on the emotions end of it. That's the part that's hard for me.

I think it's a great skill to be truly grounded, but expand your emotional and passionate territory - taking risks with them and really LIVING.

Of course, this is completely different from feminine emotions, which aren't tethered to the ground.

[Steven Coyle]

I met a bomber who couldn't natch

[Nick]

It doesn't concern me, but it does make me want to generally clarify that this ideal is impossible as an ideal, but it's the opposite of false. It's the one true thing there is.

Please, specifically clarify it for me! I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean when you say the ideal is impossible, yet true. In either case, it doesn't appear to mean much. What you seem to be doing is stating as an absolute rule about something which is actually more of an empirical matter; namely the question of whether or not a sentient being can cease experiencing emotions. I mean, there is no universal rule which makes it so this ideal can't or never will manifest in a way where a conscious entity fully represent this ideal in thought and action at all times.

IMO, Laird doesn't understand this and doesn't WANT to understand this (and sometimes that's frustrating), but I appreciate that he understands and feels me on the emotions end of it.

Alright but still, being that he's coming at this subject from a highly deluded perspective, wouldn't it just be a coincidence that you two happen to be on the same page about the nature of emotions, and therefore pretty meaningless in this context? The only other option would be that you're both coming at this subject from a highly deluded perspective causing to both to arrive at the same conclusion.

That's the part that's hard for me.

Hard in what way?

I think it's a great skill to be truly grounded, but expand your emotional and passionate territory - taking risks with them and really LIVING.

I mostly agree with this, but (and I'm not sure if this is what you are implying) I disagree with the idea that emotion and passion are absolutely essential to the idea of really "LIVING" as you put it. Due to our physiology and cultural conditioning, emotion and passion play a very important role in our development, but again there is no universal rule which states that all beings must exist this way. Either way, there is a point where being passionate about life becomes nothing more than an addiction to certain feelings of pleasure.

Of course, this is completely different from feminine emotions, which aren't tethered to the ground.

So where do you think emotions come from, and why do we experience them? I think you said before something along the lines of them being "hardwired" into us, e.g. if we are hungry and see a plate of good we get excited. But then I'd argue that if you have two hungry individuals and one of them has a food allergy to whatever is on the plate, one person will get excited, but the person with the food allergy might not experience any emotion at all. This example demonstrates that how we view things and our understanding of them can and often does over ride what emotions we experience, or whether or not we experience any emotion at all. You can apply the same example to a person who believes in the inherent existence of things, and a person who does not, and see how this will have a dramatic affect on the emotions they experience, or lack of them, as they go about their daily lives.