The Totality

[Simon]

The totality and its relationship to time and change is mind boggling to think about.

Let's examine what empiricism tells us.

The earth, ever changing, is a large container, holding smaller constituents, ever changing.

But then again, the earth is also a small constituent, a small dot among many other small dots (planets, moons) being held in the solar system, which is kind of a large container that is ever changing.

But then again, our solar system is also a small constituent, just a small dot among many constituents, and all of these tiny star systems are held in a larger container, the galaxy, which is ever changing.

But then again, the galaxy is a small constituent, one among many, just little dots, being held in a larger container, the universe, which is ever changing.

That is what empiricism tells us.

Now, we can take this trend of 'big being small', 'the container being the constituent', which we have sensed empirically, and using rational thought, we can extrapolate this trend infinitely, suggesting that which is beyond imagination.

In other words, we can reason that the universe, despite it appears from our limited empirical vantage point as the ultimate container, may in fact be just a tiny consitutent among billions and billions of universes, all of which exist in another container, which turns out to be just a constituent, etc, etc., for infinity....

But should we use reason to extrapolate our way into such a notion of 'totality'?

What logical reason do I have for believing in a totality that implies this Matryoshka doll type of logic, except that it never ends, and therefore is unfathomable to consciousness?

It would be nonesensical to try to apply concepts of time, change, and cause and effect to such a notion of 'totality'.

[Duke]

Is it nonsensical?
Sure the universe is big, really big, infinite maybe.
However we bother to tack on the things we perceive to be important, time, change, cause, and effect, why?
For that is the systems we have put in place on our little speck in this gigantic universe. We apply the notions we hold here to the rest of the universe, as out our realm of understanding the universe might be, because we understand things like time, change, cause, and effect.
I think thats the simple way to look at it.

However it is possible I mistook your point.

[Simon]

Is it nonsensical?
Sure the universe is big, really big, infinite maybe.

However we bother to tack on the things we perceive to be important, time, change, cause, and effect, why?

For that is the systems we have put in place on our little speck in this gigantic universe. We apply the notions we hold here to the rest of the universe, as out our realm of understanding the universe might be, because we understand things like time, change, cause, and effect.

But time, change, cause & effect can happen only relative to a center, a point. If we were to define the totality as I have done in the original post, then a center would be an impossibility - the concept points to that which is beyond 'odd' and 'even'. It's impossible to wrap your mind around it, because it is without boundry. It has no form.

[Duke]

But time, change, cause & effect can happen only relative to a center, a point. If we were to define the totality as I have done in the original post, then a center would be an impossibility - the concept points to that which is beyond 'odd' and 'even'. It's impossible to wrap your mind around it, because it is without boundry. It has no form.

Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree the universe is something that you cannot wrap your mind around. However impossible a true center might be to find, we could use a point of reference to act as a center in the absence of one (i.e. Earth), we will most likely use this point of reference when we study and try to define (as futile as it might be) the universe.

[Sapius]

Hi Simon,

The totality and its relationship to time and change is mind boggling to think about.

Not at all, because….

It would be nonsensical to try to apply concepts of time, change, and cause and effect to such a notion of 'totality'.

Once you know this, the word ‘relationship’ should make no sense in your first sentence. For totality is not an ‘it’ that ‘it’ could have a “relationship” to... whatever.

On the other hand, time, change, things… IS totality itself, and yes, they are relative, but that is what existence is, in other words, consciousness.

To add a bit more…

But time, change, cause & effect can happen only relative to a center, a point.

Yes.

If we were to define the totality as I have done in the original post, then a center would be an impossibility…

Yes, if you see it as understood through the Russian doll type of logic; but then again, any point can be considered as a center by the same logic, for infinity would extent in every which direction from any which point.

In fact, every which point IS the center, relatively to the rest, which is most apparent in what we call consciousness. For a thing is necessarily conscious from a point of Self, against all that it is not.

It's impossible to wrap your mind around it, because it is without boundry. It has no form.

Are you sure? In a way you did wrap your mind around it (totality) by saying ‘it has no form’, but on the other hand, even saying ‘it has no form’, does not apply to “IT”.

Tricky, eh!?

[Simon]

Simon: If we were to define the totality as I have done in the original post, then a center would be an impossibility…

Sapius: Yes, if you see it as understood through the Russian doll type of logic

How else could you understand the totality? How do you personally understand it?

The only alternative I can imagine is a totality of finite space.

But this seems wrong, because doesnt finite space, like a circle, require surrounding space? And doesnt that surrounding space, for it to be space, require a boundary? Do not all boundaries require an outer space? And does not all outer space logically require boundary?

But then again, any point can be considered as a center by the same logic, for infinity would extend in every which direction from any which point.

This doesnt seem logical to me. A point needs surrounding boundaries relative to itself in order to be considered a center. To speak of a center without boundaries is not logical.

A center by definition needs to be relative to a surrounding form. e.g; the center of a circle, square, earth, universe, etc.

But the 'center' of infinity? No, that just does not seem to work.

In fact, every which point IS the center, relatively to the rest, which is most apparent in what we call consciousness. For a thing is necessarily conscious from a point of Self, against all that it is not.

A thing is conscious of being a center when it is contrasted with surrounding boundaries and forms. That's why when I try thinking of an infinite totality I lose consciousness - I just go blank. It's impossible to fathom.

The totality is an impossiblity for consciousness. Where a sense of 'centrality' exists, infinity is impossible. And where infinity is allotted, consciousness ceases.

Simon: It's impossible to wrap your mind around it, because it is without boundry. It has no form.

Sapius: Are you sure? In a way you did wrap your mind around it (totality) by saying ‘it has no form’

Logically it cannot have form, because form implies boundary, and boundary implies finitude. Just consider the term 'wrap around'. Around what?! You can only wrap your mind around the finite. I truly can't wrap my mind around an infinite totality, it eludes consciousness.

but on the other hand, even saying ‘it has no form’, does not apply to “IT”.

I would say 'formlessness' is adequate for pointing to that which is has no boundaries. But just because I can see, by logical neccesity, that an infinite totality cannot have form, doesnt mean I've wrapped my head around it. On the contrary - facing up to it leaves me stupified. It seems like an utterly useless excercise with no practical value.

[Simon]

But time, change, cause & effect can happen only relative to a center, a point. If we were to define the totality as I have done in the original post, then a center would be an impossibility - the concept points to that which is beyond 'odd' and 'even'. It's impossible to wrap your mind around it, because it is without boundry. It has no form.

Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree the universe is something that you cannot wrap your mind around. However impossible a true center might be to find, we could use a point of reference to act as a center in the absence of one (i.e. Earth)

A point of reference, a center, is only useful for creating an outer boundary.

We will most likely use this point of reference when we study and try to define (as futile as it might be) the universe.

Sure, a point of reference is neccesary to study an outer boundary, the spherical universe - but a point of reference in consciousness cannot help give consciousness an appreciation of how utterly unfathomable the totality is. It's only by letting go of all supports, of our notions of centrality, do we truly apprehend the incomprehensible.

What I'm puzzled about is how this is in anyway practical or useful. It prevents entropy maybe? Egocentricism, anthropocentricism, patriotism, humanism, agriculture - all of these attitudes seem only to lead to entropy. Perhaps for consciousness to beat entropy and endure everlastingly, it needs to not worship any sort of center, it needs to not succomb to any centricity, or ism, consciousness, to beat entropy, must seek to unite itself and seek opportunity to survive in nothing less than the infinite.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Time occurs relative to an observer. Attempting to think about what time is independent of an observer is faulty. There's simply no way we can possibly know such a thing, given that we aren't omniscient Gods, but simply creatures trapped in our own perspective. Reason doesn't give us a trap door to the world-as-it-is, as all of our non-trivial reasonings involve axioms derived from the world-as-it-appears. All we can say with any degree of knowledge is that time occurs from our perspective. Furthermore, the world (totality) can be thought of as the totality of facts. Or, we should say, the set of all facts. It is nothing more or less then these facts.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I just realized that I didn't make my point explicit in my last post. We can't talk of the world (totality) as if it were anything other then all of its constituent parts. Things aren't the case or not the case for the totality, but rather things are part or not part of the totality depending on whether they are the case.

[Simon]

I didnt express myself well, so I'm going to address some of my own points:

What I'm puzzled about is how this is in anyway practical or useful. It prevents entropy maybe?

Entropy is revealed as an illusion, created by egocentricism. Entropy only exists relative to a center. By overcoming illusion, we overcome entropy.

Egocentricism, anthropocentricism, patriotism, humanism, agriculture - all of these attitudes seem only to lead to entropy. Perhaps for consciousness to beat entropy and endure everlastingly, it needs to not worship any sort of center, it needs to not succomb to any centricity, or ism, consciousness, to beat entropy, must seek to unite itself and seek opportunity to survive in nothing less than the infinite.

I just want to make it clear that the above paragraph is not suggesting anything to do with cosmic consciousness. I'm more reffering to 'the survival of wisdom'. A term which I've heard kicked around here, and one which I like.

[bert]

how can our consummation be adequate when any of our combination of ideas into a whole complex we make is of parts chosen in preference to another reintended as a purpose as a whole?

[Sapius]

Simon,

How else could you understand the totality? How do you personally understand it?

I understand it as NOT being a Total of infinite things, but literally as ALL that there is that consciousness has to offer, and absolutely nothing beyond that.

(But my definition of ‘consciousness’ is not limited to what I subjectively experience, nor that there is a universal consciousness that works as some hidden or an unknowable “force” that is sentient and acts through reason.)

The only alternative I can imagine is a totality of finite space.

All that there is, is infinite finiteness, and that cannot be totaled. Totality does not mean the Total of ALL infinite phenomena, but the opposite in fact, that it cannot be totaled in any conceptual sense, for each phenomena has infinite causes to its credit, so how can one ever actually total up Totality so to speak? Only that Totality means Infinity of finite things.

But this seems wrong, because doesnt finite space, like a circle, require surrounding space? And doesnt that surrounding space, for it to be space, require a boundary? Do not all boundaries require an outer space? And does not all outer space logically require boundary?

Yes, all does logically require boundaries, and hence, all that there is, is consciously perceived boundaries; without which, even the thought of ‘All that there is’ would not exist.

Sap: But then again, any point can be considered as a center by the same logic, for infinity would extend in every which direction from any which point.

Smn: This doesnt seem logical to me. A point needs surrounding boundaries relative to itself in order to be considered a center. To speak of a center without boundaries is not logical.

A center by definition needs to be relative to a surrounding form. e.g; the center of a circle, square, earth, universe, etc.

But the 'center' of infinity? No, that just does not seem to work.

Why not? As long as you can conceptualize it, you remain at the center of it so to speak. However, I know what you mean, but the fact is, there isn’t any thing other than boundaries around. The infinity of boundaries makes any boundary a “center” in that sense, not as in a literal mathematical center, because yes, there cannot be a literal center to that which is not conscious or a thing - ‘infinity’, but to you, yes, in every which direction or sense.

A thing is conscious of being a center when it is contrasted with surrounding boundaries and forms. That's why when I try thinking of an infinite totality I lose consciousness - I just go blank. It's impossible to fathom.

The totality is an impossiblity for consciousness. Where a sense of 'centrality' exists, infinity is impossible. And where infinity is allotted, consciousness ceases.

It is the sentient consciousness that IS capable of conceptually visualizing a sense of infiniteness in and of finitude. How does consciousness cease while doing just that?

Logically it cannot have form, because form implies boundary, and boundary implies finitude. Just consider the term 'wrap around'. Around what?! You can only wrap your mind around the finite. I truly can't wrap my mind around an infinite totality, it eludes consciousness.

All that needs be done is “wrap your mind around”, that is understand, realize, the meaning and essence of what lies beyond the finite word ‘infinite’, and grasp its meaning.

I would say 'formlessness' is adequate for pointing to that which is has no boundaries.

The moment you say ‘formless’, you are confining it as a ‘thing’, namely as a ‘formless’ thing. Hence, the people of the old have rightly pointed to it by saying that the Tao that can be named is not the Tao. Hence, silence is all that one can express in that respect.

But just because I can see, by logical neccesity, that an infinite totality cannot have form, doesnt mean I've wrapped my head around it.

Simon, what in the blazing saddles do you mean by “wrap my head around it”? You just did that by saying that “an infinite totality cannot have form”. May be I’m getting it all wrong then. May be you want your head to be an infinitely gigantic thing that can literally engulf infinity so to speak. :D

On the contrary - facing up to it leaves me stupified. It seems like an utterly useless excercise with no practical value.

Ah! Practical values are a different story. Where and how do you see it brings no practical values?

Egocentricism, anthropocentricism, patriotism, humanism, agriculture - all of these attitudes seem only to lead to entropy. Perhaps for consciousness to beat entropy and endure everlastingly, it needs to not worship any sort of center, it needs to not succomb to any centricity, or ism, consciousness, to beat entropy, must seek to unite itself and seek opportunity to survive in nothing less than the infinite.

I just want to make it clear that the above paragraph is not suggesting anything to do with cosmic consciousness.

Point noted, and I didn't think that you did. And no one said that this ‘centricity’ is to be worshiped in any sense; I just want to clear that from my side.

[Sapius]

Ironic,

I just realized that I didn't make my point explicit in my last post. We can't talk of the world (totality) as if it were anything other then all of its constituent parts. Things aren't the case or not the case for the totality, but rather things are part or not part of the totality depending on whether they are the case.

Humm… well… What we are trying to do here is place a kind of limit by definition to the word ‘totality’, but I don’t think it works that way, so to speak.

Lets just say that that there is no case that “totality” does not encompass, but not in the sense that it is a Total of ALL cases, but the word simply points to literally infinite cases, with no case beyond “it”, because it literally has no ‘beyond’ at all due to the infinite nature of cases.


In the ‘Consciousness is things’ thread, I was meaning to question Cory after you jumped in to question one of his points.

Cory: Kelly, lets start from scratch and try to agree on a basic premise.

1) It's not possible for there to be "appearance" independent of an observer.

Sap: So far so good, but if you can define what you mean by ‘observer’, it might make more sense of the rest.

For example, would you consider a rabbit an observer? Or a rat? Or say an amoeba? I do understand that they too are “appearances” from our perspective, but “appearances” do contain certain logical realities, otherwise, it is absolutely pointless to talk about any thing at all, logically speaking. (which I believe, you, Ironic, call ‘objective knowledge’ what I mean by ‘logical realities’)

Cory: However.

2) The totality determines consciousness and it's objects independently from consciousness.

Sap: Now this is an absolute impossibility from the get go.

In this you are assuming “Totality” as a ‘thing’ THAT determines over and above that which is experienced from a thing to a thing. Whereas “Totality” determines absolutely NOTHING beyond that which is relatively experienced between a thing to a thing, which we call ‘consciousness’.

Without relativity, nothing literally exists, but we assume that there must be some REAL THING because we can logically deduce that all conscious things experience the same thing differently, so there must be a TRUE identity to that thing beyond general “consciousness”, where actually there is absolutely none.

Now, to convey this point.. or the essence.. or what one really means by it… to others who will most probably never ever believe that there is actually no thing except in a relative sensual consciousness, one needs to lure them to open their minds and understand it by pointing to the concepts such as Emptiness, Tao, Totality… or some sort of conceptual understanding, and then say that that is not a “thing”, and YET it is not a nothing whatsoever at the same time. Which apparently makes sense to some but confuses most, for it stands in contrast to their reasoning.

But if the same thing were to be put forth as a plain and simple logical truth that there isn’t any hidden REAL THING behind what is being perceived by any particular thing, irrelevant of who or what the perceiver or observer, or a thing is to a thing, it would make more sense, at least to me.

I did not post the above then, because I was just thinking it then. I dug it up and wrote it now since it seemed relevant to what you have said here..

Time occurs relative to an observer. Attempting to think about what time is independent of an observer is faulty.

Yes.

There's simply no way we can possibly know such a thing, given that we aren't omniscient Gods, but simply creatures trapped in our own perspective.

In this one is assuming that there IS something that could be known through some means other than a conscious observer, so in effect, you did not really mean what you said earlier. And secondly that one thinks that OUR perspective is a trap of some kind, as if there is one that is not, so 'trap' cannot really be applied here.

Reason doesn't give us a trap door to the world-as-it-is, as all of our non-trivial reasonings involve axioms derived from the world-as-it-appears. All we can say with any degree of knowledge is that time occurs from our perspective.

There is no such thing as “world-as-it-is”, since there is no logical reason to believe that it is any thing other than ‘world-as-it-appears’. We are simply chasing an illusion by creating a mental concept of ‘world-as-it-is’ in the first place. There is nothing really there in that direction. Nothing to be known in that direction.

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

I say to the learned, please stop confusing us with ‘emptiness’, ‘formlessness’, 'tao', or whatever that equates to it, and speak plain and simple truth, that there is nothing really there to begin with, which does not automatically mean that "I" am full of myself as a detatched thing-in-it-self from all that there is. For I would be nothing without all that there is, and I am not All that there is.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Sapius,

I can't really see how anything you said contradicted my point, so I imagine that you must be attacking a strawman.

[Sapius]

Sapius,

I can't really see how anything you said contradicted my point, so I imagine that you must be attacking a strawman.

Hmmm... I did? My bad then… however, I do not like the word “attack” when discussing such things, although I know it is just an expression.

You mean to say that I did not refute your point in any way with all that extra babble in my post. Well, yes, I did not, nor was that my intention. I was simply trying to elaborate what your point really meant, and what should logically entail IF it were to be understood and retained, as an unshakable realization once and for all. If you felt that it was an egoistical attack on my part, to simply show myself as one-up without actually saying anything at all, then that was not my intention.

We don’t have much to exchange between us then.

[Simon]

Simon: How else could you understand the totality? How do you personally understand it?

I understand it as NOT being a Total of infinite things, but literally as ALL that there is that consciousness has to offer, and absolutely nothing beyond that.

Ok, but isnt it the other way around? Isnt it, the ALL that can be offered to consciousness? And isn't consciousness offered that which it carves into 'things'?

And what reasons to you have for believing that the offerings, the things are limited? Maybe I misinterpreted.

(But my definition of ‘consciousness’ is not limited to what I subjectively experience, nor that there is a universal consciousness that works as some hidden or an unknowable “force” that is sentient and acts through reason.)

Ok, well I take it you mean, your definition of conscious includes all possible sentient beings? And do you think, by logical neccesity there must be a limit to the ammount of sentient being that the totality will produce?

Simon: The only alternative I can imagine is a totality of finite space.

Sapius: All that there is, is infinite finiteness, and that cannot be totaled. Totality does not mean the Total of ALL infinite phenomena, but the opposite in fact, that it cannot be totaled in any conceptual sense, for each phenomena has infinite causes to its credit, so how can one ever actually total up Totality so to speak? Only that Totality means Infinity of finite things.

Well, then it would require infinite time and space to fit all those infinite things. That's how I understand it.

Sap: But then again, any point can be considered as a center by the same logic, for infinity would extend in every which direction from any which point.

Smn: This doesnt seem logical to me. A point needs surrounding boundaries relative to itself in order to be considered a center. To speak of a center without boundaries is not logical.

A center by definition needs to be relative to a surrounding form. e.g; the center of a circle, square, earth, universe, etc.

But the 'center' of infinity? No, that just does not seem to work.

Sapius: Why not? As long as you can conceptualize it, you remain at the center of it so to speak.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that I just go blank when I try to truly fathom the totality. Consciousness cannot truly grasp it. We can only create false conceptualizations.

However, I know what you mean, but the fact is, there isn’t any thing other than boundaries around.

I think it's a mistake to make such a conclusion. Are not all boundaries illusionary, a creation of consciousness? Are not all phenomena truly just one undivided unity, a continuity without begining or end? Is not boundary an illusion?

Simon: A thing is conscious of being a center when it is contrasted with surrounding boundaries and forms. That's why when I try thinking of an infinite totality I lose consciousness - I just go blank. It's impossible to fathom.

Sapius: The totality is an impossiblity for consciousness. Where a sense of 'centrality' exists, infinity is impossible. And where infinity is allotted, consciousness ceases.

Sapius: It is the sentient consciousness that IS capable of conceptually visualizing a sense of infiniteness in and of finitude. How does consciousness cease while doing just that?

As demonstrated above, the best a person can do is imagine himself at the center of infinity - - and this is of course infinitely false. To truly fathom the totality is impossible. One can only logical deduce it, and from there, merely apprehend.

Simon: Logically it cannot have form, because form implies boundary, and boundary implies finitude. Just consider the term 'wrap around'. Around what?! You can only wrap your mind around the finite. I truly can't wrap my mind around an infinite totality, it eludes consciousness.

Sapius: All that needs be done is “wrap your mind around”, that is understand, realize, the meaning and essence of what lies beyond the finite word ‘infinite’, and grasp its meaning.

Well yes, I agree that can be done.

Simon: I would say 'formlessness' is adequate for pointing to that which is has no boundaries.

Sapius: The moment you say ‘formless’, you are confining it as a ‘thing’, namely as a ‘formless’ thing.

How can a thing be formless? Things by definition have form.

But I realize the word is not the ______

Simon: But just because I can see, by logical neccesity, that an infinite totality cannot have form, doesnt mean I've wrapped my head around it.

Sapius: Simon, what in the blazing saddles do you mean by “wrap my head around it”? You just did that by saying that “an infinite totality cannot have form”. Maybe I’m getting it all wrong then. May be you want your head to be an infinitely gigantic thing that can literally engulf infinity so to speak.

What I mean is this: I can look out at a vast ocean, and I can acknowledge that I can't physically percieve the whole of it. The totality of the earths ocean eludes my physical perception. However, I can fathom its size by zooming out and imagining the entire globe.

The totality however, can neither be physically pecieved, nor can zooming out help me imagine it abstractly in the way that I can abstractly imagine the earth as a globe. But that doesnt mean I can't understand the implications of the totality: that the big is eternally small.

Simon: On the contrary - facing up to it leaves me stupified. It seems like an utterly useless excercise with no practical value.

Sapius: Ah! Practical values are a different story. Where and how do you see it brings no practical values?

Well, actually, I think the concept is useful for killing the ego, as it is highly anti-centric.

Simon: Egocentricism, anthropocentricism, patriotism, humanism, agriculture - all of these attitudes seem only to lead to entropy. Perhaps for consciousness to beat entropy and endure everlastingly, it needs to not worship any sort of center, it needs to not succomb to any centricity, or ism, consciousness, to beat entropy, must seek to unite itself and seek opportunity to survive in nothing less than the infinite.

I just want to make it clear that the above paragraph is not suggesting anything to do with cosmic consciousness.

Sapius: Point noted, and I didn't think that you did. And no one said that this ‘centricity’ is to be worshiped in any sense

Yes, no one explicitly said we are supposed to be egotistical, but we are indeed self-centered, egotistical creatures - - and to survive more effectively, we need to stop seeking security in a center, and instead identify ourselves with the other.

[Anti-christ]

If the sun has it's own meaning[meaning moons] than we have miscalculated an existence which we all have been waiting for. Totaltilarianism is not a factual number, nor is it the waist band of our belts, geniuses.

For budah was here about 2 days ago speaking to us in his own tongue. Neither did we pay any attention to his saying, but he darted off, and all I could offer his holiness was a chance to eat some sushi.

[Sapius]

Simon, I think if we tackle certain basic points, it might not need a point to point clarification.

The thing I see is that you are seeing things only form an empirical point of view, not philosophical.

Simon: The only alternative I can imagine is a totality of finite space.

Sapius: All that there is, is infinite finiteness, and that cannot be totaled. Totality does not mean the Total of ALL infinite phenomena, but the opposite in fact, that it cannot be totaled in any conceptual sense, for each phenomenon has infinite causes to its credit, so how can one ever actually total up Totality so to speak? Only that Totality means Infinity of finite things.

Simon: Well, then it would require infinite time and space to fit all those infinite things. That's how I understand it.

OK. In what time/space frame would you fit in time/space itself? Similarly, in which frame of thing-ness would you fit in infinite things itself?

Sapius: However, I know what you mean, but the fact is, there isn’t any thing other than boundaries around.

Simon: I think it's a mistake to make such a conclusion. Are not all boundaries illusionary, a creation of consciousness?

Boundaries are “illusory” in so far as they do not exist independently or permanently, not that consciousness is a magician that creates literal illusions.

Are not all phenomena truly just one undivided unity, a continuity without begining or end?

Let me put it this way. Undivided unity can be considered as a conceptualized truth derived from the logical deduction of impermanency of boundaries seen through the connectivity of causality. Each phenomenon still remains, as it is, irrelevant of its beginning-less or end-less nature as seen through causality. That does not mean that each phenomenon is literally beginning-less and endless. If that were so, how could we actually be aware of any?

Is not boundary an illusion?

No it is not; it is “illusory” but is really there.

As demonstrated above, the best a person can do is imagine himself at the center of infinity - - and this is of course infinitely false. To truly fathom the totality is impossible. One can only logical deduce it, and from there, merely apprehend.

What do you mean by ‘truly fathom’? What else is there than merely apprehending through logical deduction?

Sapius: All that needs be done is “wrap your mind around”, that is understand, realize, the meaning and essence of what lies beyond the finite word ‘infinite’, and grasp its meaning.

Simon: Well yes, I agree that can be done.

Well, that’s all there is to it. Go get it.

How can a thing be formless? Things by definition have form.

But I realize the word is not the ______

Exactly.

What I mean is this: I can look out at a vast ocean, and I can acknowledge that I can't physically percieve the whole of it. The totality of the earths ocean eludes my physical perception. However, I can fathom its size by zooming out and imagining the entire globe.

Exactly, but that is not “imagining”, but comprehending logically. You do not need to see, smell, taste, or drink every drop of the ocean to know what an ocean is. Same goes for the globe, and the same for totality.

Yes, no one explicitly said we are supposed to be egotistical, but we are indeed self-centered, egotistical creatures - - and to survive more effectively, we need to stop seeking security in a center, and instead identify ourselves with the other.

Now that is perfectly clear to me.

If I have missed something that needs particular attention, then let me know.

[Sapius]

If the sun has it's own meaning[meaning moons] than we have miscalculated an existence which we all have been waiting for. Totaltilarianism is not a factual number, nor is it the waist band of our belts, geniuses.

For budah was here about 2 days ago speaking to us in his own tongue. Neither did we pay any attention to his saying, but he darted off, and all I could offer his holiness was a chance to eat some sushi.

:)