GENIUS FORUMS

Ok, not 1 dimensional, but not zero either. Somewhere in between. These are inherently ambiguous specks of energy, they have no discernible dimension, yet they somehow exist. It doesn't get any smaller than these guys. I dunno, Loki, it sounds a bit vague to me. What if we were to shrink our perspe...

Ok, not 1 dimensional, but not zero either. Somewhere in between. These are inherently ambiguous specks of energy, they have no discernible dimension, yet they somehow exist. It doesn't get any smaller than these guys.

What Gurrb said. Since a thing's size is relative in nature, it depends on whatever we decide to compare it to. It does not have any size of its own, but gains size through the momentary happenstance of other things. In my experience this has been the case, and intuitively this seems to be the case...

Think of the ALL as being sizeless. Size is a relative term. Things only become large or small when compared to other things. Since the ALL has nothing else to be compared to, it is entirely without size. The all (if it's finite) can be compared to the smaller parts it's made-up of. Kind of like th...

It doesn't matter. Teleology is merely a product of human consciousness. An Infinite Reality, which is what we have, cannot have a teleological aspect. The totality itself, because it's necessarily non-dual, cannot have a teleological nature, I agree. However, that doesn't mean a smaller universe w...

Think of the ALL as being sizeless. Size is a relative term. Things only become large or small when compared to other things. Since the ALL has nothing else to be compared to, it is entirely without size. The all (if it's finite) can be compared to the smaller parts it's made-up of. Kind of like th...

Whether it is the universe, subsections of it, the human mind, human logic, and most important, there is no logic for any one to speak of the All, when the All cannot be defined logically or metaphorically. I don't know about you, but I have no problem defining the ALL - namely, utterly everything....

How is it impossible? Prove it!

Loki: I just don't have a reason to consider it "unbounded". I see the matter within the universe to be potentially finite. And I also can imagine the universe emerging out of nothing and dying into nothing, so it would have a definite beginning and end. How do you imagine something emerg...

What about yourself? What's your view on the matter? - My view on it is similar to your own. It seems very primitive cultures believe in magic and spirits, and they don't really have much to show for it [besides a lot of alcoholism, gambling, damaged self esteem]. Western Civilization has an amazin...

As for "supernatural powers", the Buddha warned his followers on numerous occasions not to pursue them. Not only is it a distraction from the all-important task of becoming enlightened, but the ego can easily get boosted and unbalanced by such an increase of its powers, often to the point...

The reason we have different conception is because we have different perceptions. Only slightly, but overall we see the world the same way, we have the same basic physiology after all. Take for instance December 25th; everyone basically perceives it the same way, yet Christians conceive of this day...

Can you translate the translation? ;)

But aren't conceptions dictated by our perceptions? In other words, don't we have to see something first before we conceive of it? Well, even though we are both perceiving the same reality, we appear to have different conceptions of it. So much for our perceptions dictating our conceptions. The rea...

Ok, this strikes my interest. Can you give me some examples of conception? And how can we know the varieties of conception are infinite? Take The Solar System for example. We can conceive of it any number of ways. We can conceive of it as just the Sun and the planets, or we can say it also includes...

at any moment we can change the boundaries of something by redefining it in an infinite number of ways. Can you do this with the hypothetical speck? Please demonstrate. It's not changing our perception that's important, it's changing our conception that means everything here. And as I've explained ...

I'm trying to prove the possibility that there are things in the universe which cannot be divided any further. This is logically impossible because that would imply that boundaries and the things they encompass are inherent, No. It only implies that the thing in question is too small and ambiguous ...

My intention is to create a hypothetical that may be possible. The hypothetical is there are these specks which are essentially point-like. They don't obey laws in the way all other things we know of do. For instance, when you try to zoom in, they don't get any bigger. They exist in this constant s...

Perhaps it's possible to reach a point where magnification is impossible, and the smallest things you can see are these specks, but these specks cant be divided, because they are merely one dimensional points without any discernible place to draw a line. You're needlessly letting the limitations of...

Ok, but this permits a bounded totality, does it not? I can imagine a bounded totality, and sure, cut it up infinitely. But it's still bounded (finite). But stop right there for a second. How do you even know for certain that something can be infinitely indivisible? Isn't it possible that I could d...

The nature of appearances (the finite) and the Totality (the infinite) are intertwined. The simplest way to express this would be to say that we can potentially carve the Totality into an INFINITE number of FINITE appearances. Understand this and you understand everything . What say you? Ok, but th...

Well, let me just explain to you what I do know. I understand there are appearances. I get that. Absolutely. I also understand the necessity of duality, contrast, and relativity. It isn't possible to talk about a thing without that thing having a contrasting otherness. That is crystal clear. Here's ...

After thinking over the things discussed in this thread, I feel absolutely confident in the truth of A=A. Thanks to all who have helped me in this thread, I got exactly what I aimed to achieve. What remains for me is to realize with absolute certainty: a) the illusion of a beginning and an end b) ho...

Knowledge at it's most fundamental level is simply A is A. You can't reduce it any simpler. We all function under the premise of A=A, so it's just a matter of becoming conscious about what we already know. Cory, let's imagine that I'm staring at a dog. I recognize the dog as a dog, or I at least di...

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Loki,

How do I know what the "right" definition is?

definitions that help to reveal the nature of the self.

how do you know what the nature of the self is?