What is the Universe?

[David Quinn]

There's not much point going any further. All the information you will ever need has already been given to you. You can either think about it or not.

-

[Jamesh]

Oh so he can point away from everything and by point away from everything he is actually pointing to everything?

I see, Totality is special like that. Because by pointing away from it you are actually pointing to it? And this makes sense how?

You want a description and a reason, in other words you want a scientific explanation. There is none and there cannot be one. The problem science has is that it deals in specifics, in details. It always limits itself to a finite set of circumstances, and requires testing for proof. Even when it tries to combine all these details into a conceptual totality they will still only include what they know in some fashion (which can even be abstract maths), they always set boundaries on the universe making it into a finite thing they can then analyse. What they fail to do is philosophise, they fail take the traits of things, and then generalise commonalities layer by layer until they can generalise no more. The only way you can generalise no further is to narrow everything down to ONE, to The Totality.

If they did this then would then have the proper base from which to start looking at the detail in a more enlightened manner. Each layer of the hierarchical pyramid of knowledge of reality would be in place. Their minds would have the correct structure for categorisation of knowledge, of details - namely many specific details, layer by layer becoming one detail, much like each layer of a pyramid requiring fewer and fewer blocks on each layer. This is precisely how language works. Each word is many different concepts and "mental experience-images" stored in memory, gradually categorised into a oneness, a word. A "Chair for sitting" for example may be of a huge number of colours and shapes and can be formed from a huge number of materials, each of which requires a huge set of "thing" categorisations themselves. To determine that a chair is a chair the mind must have to process an enormous number of details, potentially billions. In order to be able to do so, so rapidly, requires a good indexing system. Even something as simple as the Dewey Decimal System requires layers of categories of detail that form into a "one", the total of the system itself without the detail - it's name.

Indeed...not much can be said about it, nothing in particular actually...thus nothing specific.

(I'll post this section even though I think this sort of stuff makes people think I'm nutty).

Only that it must be infinite. That it is infinite is proven by the fact that there are things, there is something and if there is something, then there is a totality. As already explained, if there is a totality then by definition there cannot be anything outside that totality, and if there is nothing outside that totality then nothing can act as a cause on the totality, EVER, so therefore it must be infinite - it will never not exist, it will always do what it does. The concept of "first" cannot logically be applied to the concept of infinity, so the issue of first cause is not relevant. Infinity is not and cannot be a physical "thing", so we cannot adequately define it scientifically or mathematically, but we can see its effects, namely things. Nonetheless this only proves that The Totality is infinite as a process.

The totality being infinite is possibly wrongly assumed to also mean infinite in size. I've got my doubts about this. My reason is that I know the infinite creates the finite. I also know that infinity must have two forms and that these two forms must have opposite natures, as this is the core requirement of creation. A single infinity would mean there is a God, who then intelligently creates forms, but this is the problem about a single form, there cannot be any such thing. If something only had one form and was infinite there would be no form as it would have nothing else to be relative to.

Or it could mean that the infinite is self-caused. I have faith that it is. Logic dictates it. If something is self-caused then it must be continually "growing", it cannot have any need to use anything other than itself to create more of itself, so it does not need to utilise that part of itself that already exists. So it grows in size or force. What might be infinite can't be anything unless it does something, and to do something it has to change, and change for something that is infinite can only mean more of the same.

If something is growing then it can't be the totality of all that WILL EVER exist, it can only be the totality of all that exists now. This limits infinity of size to a specific period. Its only boundary to being infinite is the future, which it is busily creating more of. At the same time this expansion would have been happening infinitely, which means the universe will appear as being infinite to any possible observer, including any semi-gods who may have evolved during the already infinite growth of infinity.

Alternatively, there could be something about spatial size that causes the universe to continually collapse into itself. I think there might be, because of the fact that universal constants exist, but I've spoken enough about that in past posts. If this is the case then the universe is definitely finite in size.

Things only exist because of movement. It is not things themselves that create properties we can observe, but the patterns of movement. Movement is thus a requirement of any physical infinity. It becomes a property of infinity. My suggestion is that movement is THE property of a dualistic infinity. If I had to define infinity into one word I would generalise it as Movement.

To have movement you require a duality of some sort, duality requires two properties, two "layers of thingness" Yin/Yang etc. If you categorise and abstractly generalise all the opposing layers of the properties of all things that you know about into the yin/yang system, which is easily done by imagining everything as having a life, a beginning, a middle and an end, and then categorising everything into categories that provides for a spectrum from one end to the other.

For example, the elementary components of all physical things can grouped together into a thing that consists of the electromagnetic energy spectrum, the atomic chart of elements, and black hole type material. Then if you can imagine plotting this spectrum on a frequency versus mass chart, what you will find is a bell curve of some sort, that tapers into nothing at either end. Now consider this in relation to The Totality. If you can be bothered to try and do this, one can create a conceptual chart of all physical things, a bell chart of The Finite, the universe if you like.

What is lacking? First of all, as a finite thing, it must be placed within the endless sea of the infinite. Instead of thinking of the start and finish of the bell curve as tapering off into nothing, think of the bell curve as tapering off at one end into 100% of "A" and 0% of "B" and the other end as the reverse. These two 100%'s represent the basic level duality of the infinite.

Secondly, it is static, in order to be a true reflection of things then it must also have movement (which is the same as change).

Scientists do not know what movement is, as they cannot define its cause, they only define its effects. Movement at its core is the ability of something to be caused to be made larger or smaller, acting in concert with something else that can be made the opposite of the former. While that statement may seem flat out bullshit, it actually isn't. An arrow in flight cannot push the atoms out of the way unless something is compressed. An arrow cannot be made to fly unless a force is applied at one end or side of the object which in turn compresses that end, the force - which is actually a flow of atomic level compression and expansion - then flows through the arrow to the tip which attempts to expand, and in doing so it forces atoms out of the road and creates a path of lesser resistance.

Movement is the ability to move along the bell curve of all physical things. This is why speed creates greater mass, why things will greater speeds lose relative time, why E=MC2. Humans categorise things as being more static than they really are. All things are at all times moving and they are moving up and down the bell curve in different relative time speeds depending on mass. Such movement may be infinitesimally small, a mere hint of a Strings vibration, and as the movement is relative to that which surrounds it, then it may as quickly reverse. The smaller it the more likely it is going to do so. It just depends, if it is part of an atom in a nuclear reaction, the expansion of that which surrounds it may force it to contract, force it to hold the same mass in a smaller spatial area, to move to the right along the "bell curve of all things" which could then in turn allow some other atom to expand by opening up a path of lesser spatial resistance.

[hades]

Oh so he can point away from everything and by point away from everything he is actually pointing to everything?

I see, Totality is special like that. Because by pointing away from it you are actually pointing to it? And this makes sense how?

You want a description and a reason, in other words you want a scientific explanation. There is none and there cannot be one. The problem science has is that it deals in specifics, in details. It always limits itself to a finite set of circumstances, and requires testing for proof. Even when it tries to combine all these details into a conceptual totality they will still only include what they know in some fashion (which can even be abstract maths), they always set boundaries on the universe making it into a finite thing they can then analyse. What they fail to do is philosophise, they fail take the traits of things, and then generalise commonalities layer by layer until they can generalise no more. The only way you can generalise no further is to narrow everything down to ONE, to The Totality.

If they did this then would then have the proper base from which to start looking at the detail in a more enlightened manner. Each layer of the hierarchical pyramid of knowledge of reality would be in place. Their minds would have the correct structure for categorisation of knowledge, of details - namely many specific details, layer by layer becoming one detail, much like each layer of a pyramid requiring fewer and fewer blocks on each layer. This is precisely how language works. Each word is many different concepts and "mental experience-images" stored in memory, gradually categorised into a oneness, a word. A "Chair for sitting" for example may be of a huge number of colours and shapes and can be formed from a huge number of materials, each of which requires a huge set of "thing" categorisations themselves. To determine that a chair is a chair the mind must have to process an enormous number of details, potentially billions. In order to be able to do so, so rapidly, requires a good indexing system. Even something as simple as the Dewey Decimal System requires layers of categories of detail that form into a "one", the total of the system itself without the detail - it's name.

Indeed...not much can be said about it, nothing in particular actually...thus nothing specific.

(I'll post this section even though I think this sort of stuff makes people think I'm nutty).

Only that it must be infinite. That it is infinite is proven by the fact that there are things, there is something and if there is something, then there is a totality. As already explained, if there is a totality then by definition there cannot be anything outside that totality, and if there is nothing outside that totality then nothing can act as a cause on the totality, EVER, so therefore it must be infinite - it will never not exist, it will always do what it does. The concept of "first" cannot logically be applied to the concept of infinity, so the issue of first cause is not relevant. Infinity is not and cannot be a physical "thing", so we cannot adequately define it scientifically or mathematically, but we can see its effects, namely things. Nonetheless this only proves that The Totality is infinite as a process.

The totality being infinite is possibly wrongly assumed to also mean infinite in size. I've got my doubts about this. My reason is that I know the infinite creates the finite. I also know that infinity must have two forms and that these two forms must have opposite natures, as this is the core requirement of creation. A single infinity would mean there is a God, who then intelligently creates forms, but this is the problem about a single form, there cannot be any such thing. If something only had one form and was infinite there would be no form as it would have nothing else to be relative to.

Or it could mean that the infinite is self-caused. I have faith that it is. Logic dictates it. If something is self-caused then it must be continually "growing", it cannot have any need to use anything other than itself to create more of itself, so it does not need to utilise that part of itself that already exists. So it grows in size or force. What might be infinite can't be anything unless it does something, and to do something it has to change, and change for something that is infinite can only mean more of the same.

If something is growing then it can't be the totality of all that WILL EVER exist, it can only be the totality of all that exists now. This limits infinity of size to a specific period. Its only boundary to being infinite is the future, which it is busily creating more of. At the same time this expansion would have been happening infinitely, which means the universe will appear as being infinite to any possible observer, including any semi-gods who may have evolved during the already infinite growth of infinity.

Alternatively, there could be something about spatial size that causes the universe to continually collapse into itself. I think there might be, because of the fact that universal constants exist, but I've spoken enough about that in past posts. If this is the case then the universe is definitely finite in size.

Things only exist because of movement. It is not things themselves that create properties we can observe, but the patterns of movement. Movement is thus a requirement of any physical infinity. It becomes a property of infinity. My suggestion is that movement is THE property of a dualistic infinity. If I had to define infinity into one word I would generalise it as Movement.

To have movement you require a duality of some sort, duality requires two properties, two "layers of thingness" Yin/Yang etc. If you categorise and abstractly generalise all the opposing layers of the properties of all things that you know about into the yin/yang system, which is easily done by imagining everything as having a life, a beginning, a middle and an end, and then categorising everything into categories that provides for a spectrum from one end to the other.

For example, the elementary components of all physical things can grouped together into a thing that consists of the electromagnetic energy spectrum, the atomic chart of elements, and black hole type material. Then if you can imagine plotting this spectrum on a frequency versus mass chart, what you will find is a bell curve of some sort, that tapers into nothing at either end. Now consider this in relation to The Totality. If you can be bothered to try and do this, one can create a conceptual chart of all physical things, a bell chart of The Finite, the universe if you like.

What is lacking? First of all, as a finite thing, it must be placed within the endless sea of the infinite. Instead of thinking of the start and finish of the bell curve as tapering off into nothing, think of the bell curve as tapering off at one end into 100% of "A" and 0% of "B" and the other end as the reverse. These two 100%'s represent the basic level duality of the infinite.

Secondly, it is static, in order to be a true reflection of things then it must also have movement (which is the same as change).

Scientists do not know what movement is, as they cannot define its cause, they only define its effects. Movement at its core is the ability of something to be caused to be made larger or smaller, acting in concert with something else that can be made the opposite of the former. While that statement may seem flat out bullshit, it actually isn't. An arrow in flight cannot push the atoms out of the way unless something is compressed. An arrow cannot be made to fly unless a force is applied at one end or side of the object which in turn compresses that end, the force - which is actually a flow of atomic level compression and expansion - then flows through the arrow to the tip which attempts to expand, and in doing so it forces atoms out of the road and creates a path of lesser resistance.

Movement is the ability to move along the bell curve of all physical things. This is why speed creates greater mass, why things will greater speeds lose relative time, why E=MC2. Humans categorise things as being more static than they really are. All things are at all times moving and they are moving up and down the bell curve in different relative time speeds depending on mass. Such movement may be infinitesimally small, a mere hint of a Strings vibration, and as the movement is relative to that which surrounds it, then it may as quickly reverse. The smaller it the more likely it is going to do so. It just depends, if it is part of an atom in a nuclear reaction, the expansion of that which surrounds it may force it to contract, force it to hold the same mass in a smaller spatial area, to move to the right along the "bell curve of all things" which could then in turn allow some other atom to expand by opening up a path of lesser spatial resistance.

Too long, didn't read.
Needs more salt.

[hades]

There's not much point going any further. All the information you will ever need has already been given to you. You can either think about it or not.

-

When you say think about "it" what exactly are you refering to?


I will think about 'it', whatever that might be...

[Beingof1]

Jamesh:

Oh so he can point away from everything and by point away from everything he is actually pointing to everything?

Well said. The universe and reality are not a subset of consciousness. Equally true is that consciousness is not a subset of the totality. They are one and the same.
To believe they are somehow separate is to try to divide awareness from itself.
This is the great trap of comparisons and duality.

The absolute sense of universal Being is realized only when consciousness, void of all that it makes conscious, loses itself in the Self, being purified of all relation to personality.

-- Yoga Vasishtha

[David Quinn]

Hades,

DQ: There's not much point going any further. All the information you will ever need has already been given to you. You can either think about it or not.

H: When you say think about "it" what exactly are you refering to?

Resolving the issue. Understanding the nature of the Totality - understanding its formlessness, the manner in which it is both nothing at all and yet utterly everything. Understanding the foolishness of trying to reduce "utterly everything" into graspable, finite property and thus the foolishness of asking "what is it?"

It's going to require a significant paradigm-shift for you to resolve it, which you may or may not be capable of doing. It's going to require you to leave a lot of conventionality behind. It's going to make you less attractive to the babes.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

David Quinn wrote:

It's going to require a significant paradigm-shift for you to resolve it, which you may or may not be capable of doing. It's going to require you to leave a lot of conventionality behind. It's going to make you less attractive to the babes.

Is this paradigm shift the result of a personal act of will, is it the result of a choice, Is it the result of an effort to understand?

[hades]

Hades,

DQ: There's not much point going any further. All the information you will ever need has already been given to you. You can either think about it or not.

H: When you say think about "it" what exactly are you refering to?

Resolving the issue. Understanding the nature of the Totality - understanding its formlessness, the manner in which it is both nothing at all and yet utterly everything. Understanding the foolishness of trying to reduce "utterly everything" into graspable, finite property and thus the foolishness of asking "what is it?"

It's going to require a significant paradigm-shift for you to resolve it, which you may or may not be capable of doing. It's going to require you to leave a lot of conventionality behind. It's going to make you less attractive to the babes.

-

I just need to make sure a concept is bullet proof before I start carrying it around with me, and in order to do that I need to know exactly what it is.

[Jamesh]

Too long, didn't read.
Needs more salt.

Thanks, at least I now know to completely ignore you.

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

DQ: It's going to require a significant paradigm-shift for you to resolve it, which you may or may not be capable of doing. It's going to require you to leave a lot of conventionality behind. It's going to make you less attractive to the babes.

C: Is this paradigm shift the result of a personal act of will, is it the result of a choice, Is it the result of an effort to understand?

Yes. One can always have accidental insights - through the chance reading of a book, or the hearing of a few spoken words, or while walking along the street, or whatever - and sometimes these insights can be profound. But forming a sustained relationship with the principle of cause and effect so that it begins to permanently alter the mind definitely requires a conscious act of will. Indeed, every step towards enlightenment involves an act of will.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

David Quinn wrote:

Indeed, every step towards enlightenment involves an act of will.

I don't see a personal will, a personal mind that chooses to do anything. How can enlightenment be the result of my acts of will, when my will is only an illusion?

It is obvious that I have personal memories that are unique to me, however the emotional structure that my idiosyncratic memories rest upon, I dont see as unique, as personal. The resentment, the jealousy, the feeling of inferiority, anxiety, the desire for superiority, the lust, the paranoia, the enthusiasm's, depressions, ambitions, regrets, greed, hatred, the fantasies for sex and power, etc, etc...The emotional structure (millions of years of genetic/animal inheritance and 1000's of cultural inheritance) is what is real - - while the uniqueness of my thoughts I see as nothing of importance. Now, that doesnt mean I think the more impersonal structure that roots personal memories is 'important' or something to preserve or value either.

The logic that I am employing (however reasonable or unreasonable) is not at all original either. Even if my logic was original, the truth of the insight is not up to me - in fact, it annihialates me.

What i'm getting at is this: I dont see a personal self, a mind, or a will to begin with. There is simply the illusion of self. There is no self to end. There is simply a general tendency based on conditioning (genetic and cultural) in relationship to insight, truth which functions to 'burn away' all that has been.

This is probably familiar to you - - however, you might want to guide me into a direction that you feel is more accurate.

[Jamesh]

Good post. I wouldn't know how to respond to it.

Mind you I imagine that in reality, this comment is completely false

I don't see a personal will, a personal mind that chooses to do anything.

[David Quinn]

Cory,

I don't see a personal will, a personal mind that chooses to do anything. How can enlightenment be the result of my acts of will, when my will is only an illusion?

True. A person will only seek enlightenment if he is caused to seek it. Ultimately, God is the doer of all things.

It is obvious that I have personal memories that are unique to me, however the emotional structure that my idiosyncratic memories rest upon, I dont see as unique, as personal. The resentment, the jealousy, the feeling of inferiority, anxiety, the desire for superiority, the lust, the paranoia, the enthusiasm's, depressions, ambitions, regrets, greed, hatred, the fantasies for sex and power, etc, etc...The emotional structure (millions of years of genetic/animal inheritance and 1000's of cultural inheritance) is what is real - - while the uniqueness of my thoughts I see as nothing of importance.

In some circumstances, this emotional structure will cause a person to seek happiness in enlightenment, while others will try to seek it in a marriage or in a job. Thus, even though people might have relatively similar emotional structures right across the board, their paths can deviate sharply depending on what choices they make.

A spark in a forest can either turn into a raging bushfire destroying thousands of acres, or it can fade away into nothingness within seconds. It has the same basic nature, yet the outcome is radically different in each case. It all depends on God.

What i'm getting at is this: I dont see a personal self, a mind, or a will to begin with. There is simply the illusion of self. There is no self to end. There is simply a general tendency based on conditioning (genetic and cultural) in relationship to insight, truth which functions to 'burn away' all that has been.

This is probably familiar to you - - however, you might want to guide me into a direction that you feel is more accurate.

I agree that there is fundamentally no self to end. So the task is really one of eliminating the thoughts and emotions which assume the self does exist. This would range from the belief that there is life and death, and gain and loss, to emotions such as fear, anger, boredom, happiness, joy, etc. All of these are generated out of a false belief in the self, and a wise man no longer experiences them.

-

[Jason]

The essence of Universe is an arbitrary division of an undivided whole.

Oh really? Arbitrary compared to what?

[Sapius]

The essence of Universe is an arbitrary division of an undivided whole.

Oh really? Arbitrary compared to what?

Arbitrary in the sense that that not being an intrinsic nature of the whole, and yet that cannot exist without division.

I don't know how else to say it, but in my opinion, that is what the "essence" is, since it escapes nothing; consciousness, cause & effect, things, Emptiness, you name it.

Really. But if you could word it better, I would be glad.

[Jason]

The essence of Universe is an arbitrary division of an undivided whole.

Oh really? Arbitrary compared to what?

Arbitrary in the sense that that not being an intrinsic nature of the whole, and yet that cannot exist without division.

I don't know how else to say it, but in my opinion, that is what the "essence" is, since it escapes nothing; consciousness, cause & effect, things, Emptiness, you name it.

Really. But if you could word it better, I would be glad.

Division is all that I have ever experienced. Talk about intrinsic! No, I'd definitely say division is intrinsic. Where is this undivided whole that you speak of?

[Sapius]

Jason;

Where is this undivided whole that you speak of?

Every that which there IS.

[Jason]

Jason;

Where is this undivided whole that you speak of?

Every that which there IS.

I don't understand what you mean.

[Sapius]

Jason;

Where is this undivided whole that you speak of?

Every that which there IS.

I don't understand what you mean.

Let me quote someone who I think understands...

I'll tell you what I've found: doubt, samsara, faith, finiteness, problem-solving, stopping problem-solving, worldliness - they are all pefect expressions of Reality. It doesn't matter what you do or what you think, or what you gain or what you lose, Reality just is. You can step back into worldliness, Reality is. You try to follow QSR, Reality is. See? There is nothing to doubt, there is no need for faith when you realize that Reality simply is.

Ring any bells? Now, to go a bit further, I don't consider anything being an "expression" of Reality as such, since it includes that expression itself, and also what I have just said. Although it is quite clear to me, but saying "expressions" of Reality kind of segregates Reality from its expressions, which obviously is not the case, for what ever IS, is IS. We can only see the indivisibility through logically applying the workings of what IS, and that is Cause and Effect, ...divisibility. Hence my initial attempt of saying what I said as I understand it to be the “essence” of what IS.

Let's put it this way...

The essence of the universe is the divisibility of the undivided.

[Sapius]

Jason;

I think we are in disagreement after a certain point. It seems you agree that Reality is simply what is. Well, for me(and I assume you too) division is what is. An undivided whole is not what is. "Undivided whole" is actually a thought, which is a division too.

Sure, but the question is, do these sensually perceived and logically deduced divisions have any connections at all? Do they or can they exist on their own? If they have a connection, what is it? If they do not, and exist on their own, then why aren’t they permanent? Is there something that can be said to be permanent?

The thought of “undivided whole”, Reality, Totality, is a result of logically deducing the above questions, which shows a causal connection between all divisions, which in turn shows the non-inherent nature of divisions (things).

Essentially I am saying that Reality is just the collection of all divisions (aka "things"). "Pointing" to all the divisions at once and calling them Reality, doesn't remove, alter or transcend those divisions. It actually totally affirms the divisions.

Ah! I see. Well, I’m not too attached to the word Reality; it gives a wrong impression in my opinion. But when one is talking about Reality, (a.k.a. Totality) he is not pointing to just the collection of all divisions, but actually their relationship as well, which points to there non-inherent nature, and at the same time, no-thing (division) is transcended in any way. In effect, these connections show that there is a one “whole system” at work, (not a “whole thing”), and this “whole system” is nothing more than a collection of divisions that are absolutely interrelated and interdependent, rather than freely unconnected, independently, and permanently existing things (divisions).

On the other hand, do you believe that there are no causal connections between things (divisions)?

A car is made up of many parts. When you point to a car, you point to a collection of parts, but that doesn't remove the parts, rather it totally affirms the parts.

I would like to know who says that pointing to a “collection” of parts (defined as car), removes the parts all together? Non-inherency does not make the parts disappear.

[Sapius]

Jason, did you delete your last post? Or is there something wrong with the board?

[Jason]

I deleted it, but you obviously copied it before I did. I think we're really on quite different and diverging paths here. It seemed like we were close, but now it seems like we are getting further and further apart. I think we are using some of the same words quite differently. I'm probably going to post a critique of David Quinns "Wisdom of the Infinite" that will explain my position on these things. So I think I'll just point you to that.

[Sapius]

Jason;

I would like to say that I think I do indeed understand you but the applications of what you are saying holds no meaning at all, including “JUST a collection of divisions”; and without any further continued thought, through memory based on cause and effect that is, that conclusion of “JUST a collection of division” would not exist any more. So you see, even the thought of “JUST a collection of divisions” needs some continuity, even as a continued memory to hold any meaning. If I say that too is just a division since I see it as such and have logically conclude that ALL is “JUST a collection of divisions”, FULL STOP, then I have to simply lie down and die. Nothing remains to talk about any further.

Let me address what you have said from the above point of view.

I think we're really on quite different and diverging paths here.

Does it matter? It is just divisions.

It seemed like we were close, but now it seems like we are getting further and further apart.

Why are you relating unrelated divisions? There is nothing close or further apart, just divisions.

I think we are using some of the same words quite differently.

Are you saying that you recognize the difference between divisions? No need to, they are JUST divisions, and hold no comparative meaning.

I'm probably going to post a critique of David Quinns "Wisdom of the Infinite" that will explain my position on these things.

How would that help? Why do you want to create relationship between divisions? I know what is is just is and that is just divisions that I can experience; no relationship between them that I can see of. Why bother?

So I think I'll just point you to that.

Not necessary. It will still be JUST a division devoid of any relative meaning. I better live with JUST divisions.

I think you might say that that is not how you perceive it, but that is exactly what it leads to. However, I will look forward to your critique. In my opinion, existence is a bit more complex than to understand it as just JUST, because you need to at least understand JUST it self, meaningfully that is, and that entails a few other things.

[Jason]

Jason: I think we're really on quite different and diverging paths here.

Sapius: Does it matter? It is just divisions.

Jason: It seemed like we were close, but now it seems like we are getting further and further apart.

Sapius: Why are you relating unrelated divisions? There is nothing close or further apart, just divisions.

Jason: I think we are using some of the same words quite differently.

Sapius: Are you saying that you recognize the difference between divisions? No need to, they are JUST divisions, and hold no comparative meaning.

Even though I may have used words that seem to suggest otherwise, I'm not ultimately saying that all things have a single universal property, like "just division". When speaking of reality, I must use language and I must use particular words to try to describe. But reality is not a particular thing. It is all things.

You could try to describe reality with words(or thoughts or systems or maps). The problem with this is that when words try to point to reality, they seem to point away from themselves, as if the words were not part of reality themselves. But the words are part of reality too. And if you only use a few particular words to try to describe reality, the person listening might think you are therefore saying that all the other words in the dictionary, that you are not using, are not reality. But really, all those words are part of reality too. This is the problem of trying to describe or capture the Whole with a part(words, maps, ideas, systems etc).

I've been writing some aphorisms, maybe they will be useful here:

Philosophy denies. Reality affirms.

Philosophy discriminates. Reality tolerates.

Philosophy excludes. Reality includes.

Philosophy picks sides. Reality shows no favouritism.

Philosophy judges. Reality is impartial.

-

I've been making a big deal about nothing. A thought is a thought, a sight is a sight, making judgements is making judgements, meaning is meaning.

[Sapius]

Jason;

Even though I may have used words that seem to suggest otherwise, I'm not ultimately saying that all things have a single universal property, like "just division".

Neither am I saying that divisions are not one of the basic properties, but in your opinion, what other properties do things, the universe have?

When speaking of reality, I must use language and I must use particular words to try to describe. But reality is not a particular thing. It is all things.

I agree, reality IS ALL things and not a particular thing, and you have just described it in words, but here, you do conceptualize ‘ALL’, don’t you? All, Whole, Totality? What do you mean by ‘all’? Does it exclude any ‘thing’ at all?

Now logic is one of those things, and logic says that the logical common truth of All things, including logic, is that all things other than being divisions are causally created and hence are connected back indefinitely, hence, it is actually impossible to pin point an actual beginning or end to a thing, and although we experience it as an individual thing, (division), there doesn’t seem to be any actual division at all, being undivided through causality, and at the same time, divisions cannot be experienced if there weren’t any, and human consciousness (a division) being the prime culprit that experiences it meaningfully, as we are doing now.

Having said that, that does not mean that “I” do not exist or that “I” have no beginning or end in itself, that would be very arrogant and unwise of me. Things come and go, that is, they are temporal in nature, including myself, although ultimately no particular cause could be held as being responsible for the beginning of any thing, but what remains permanently is the coming and going, not that which comes and goes, but both put together, the coming and going, (permanency that confirms undivided-ness), and that which comes and goes, (divided-ness, things), is the essence of the universe. Neither could exist without the other, and essentially, are absolutely reliant on each other to be what ALL IS.

You could try to describe reality with words(or thoughts or systems or maps). The problem with this is that when words try to point to reality, they seem to point away from themselves,

Words are nothing without the meaning they hold. How could they point away from what they mean? Reality, as you agree, is not some ‘thing’ “out there” that one could point to; it is essentially all around, including me. And, how else could one ‘meaningfully comprehend’ existence if not through meaningful words. Is ‘comprehending meaningfully’ not reality then?

as if the words were not part of reality themselves.

Who said so? Did I?

But the words are part of reality too.

Of course they are.

And if you only use a few particular words to try to describe reality, the person listening might think you are therefore saying that all the other words in the dictionary, that you are not using, are not reality.

You may think so, but that is unreasonable on your part, what can I do?

But really, all those words are part of reality too.

Yes, again.

This is the problem of trying to describe or capture the Whole with a part (words, maps, ideas, systems etc).

No, there is no problem as such. Firstly, the ‘whole’ is not a “Total” of all in terms of reality, All (whole) excludes absolutely nothing, making it a non-thing, and according to what I have said about the essence of the universe, (reality), it should make perfect sense to you that although you are still hell bent on hanging on to divisions, and that divisions (words) cannot comprehend the undivided (whole, all, reality, totality) it is quite logical that no division escapes the undivided-ness of ALL, so how is it not possible to comprehend the truth about ones own nature, which at its core is no different than the fundamental nature of All that there IS? BTW, that does not mean that “I” have the nature of All ‘things’ (divisions) that I experience.

Just to make sure, even you saying, “This is the problem of trying to describe or capture the Whole with a part (words, maps, ideas, systems etc).” is a division, and ALL (reality) encompasses this too, including all that I have said.

Divisions are the only way that one could possibly comprehend the true nature of divisions (“parts”) itself, and that is their undivided-ness, and if you say that that is not possible to comprehend through ‘words’ (“parts”), then what else?

I've been writing some aphorisms, maybe they will be useful here:

Philosophy denies. Reality affirms.

Philosophy discriminates. Reality tolerates.

Philosophy excludes. Reality includes.

Philosophy picks sides. Reality shows no favouritism.

Philosophy judges. Reality is impartial.

Good, keep on writing, in doing so, you are actually contradicting your original understanding that “reality is not a particular thing. It is all things”; how come you are now excluding Philosophy? How can you compare a thing to reality that encompasses ALL? All you are doing is giving qualities of thing-ness to reality, which you have already said is not a thing at all, hence in effect, you are giving it some kind of Godhood, the religion of reality perhaps? I really don't know what to say...

I've been making a big deal about nothing. A thought is a thought, a sight is a sight, making judgements is making judgements, meaning is meaning.

Yes, in my opinion you are making a big deal of a thing quite simple, but I don’t have a clue on what follows.