beyond the infinite

[jupiviv]

"Any finite object"(your definition of "finite") is boundless?

When bound, contained or encompassed by something, that something has to be called finite.

It's confusing to talk about a "finite object" as if there's an infinite object somewhere?

Any object is bound by definition. The boundaries define it, limit it. That's what makes it finite, not a supposed content or perhaps I should say intrinsic existence!

You did not answer the question. In fact, I can't understand what you're trying to say here at all.

True but where can it be outside the finite?

What is your definition of "finite" here? If it is any finite object(as you previously defined it) then this question is meaningless.

the infinite cannot be contained within a finite object.

So where would the remainder hang out then?

The infinite is not a finite object - there can't be a "remainder".

Only a finite object can be said to include anything. Because the moment boundaries are drawn, you're in the finite. That's why it's perfectly logical to define the infinite as within the finite. The finite provides boundaries. It doesn't say much about the content, what's included apart from what the boundaries just defined for you.

The moment boundaries are drawn, there's something else outside them. The infinite cannot not be in any place, and if it is within "the finite", then there must be someplace(without the finite), where it is not.

Also, your definition of "finite" is highly confusing. You say that you define it to be a finite object, but from your use of it, it seems to me that you define it to be the entirety of the finite world, or maybe a combination of the entire finite world and a finite object....it's impossible to understand. You're lost in the henids. And what is the entirety of the finite world? - the infinite.

[Sapius]

Diebert,

When bound, contained or encompassed by something, that something has to be called finite.

True, but by what means are we taking here? Are you talking here about experiencing a thing directly through our senses without defining it, just like a new born baby has not yet learnt the art of defining but is yet able to reach and grab a particular thing? Or through defining things that we sensually expereince? What is the definition of ‘define’ I would ask?

Any object is bound by definition. The boundaries define it, limit it. That's what makes it finite, not a supposed content or perhaps I should say intrinsic existence!

If that were the only and absolute truth, then babies could not differentiate between two things before they mastered some language or another. So again, the definition of ‘define’ becomes curtail to help understand what binds the “finite”? Is experiencing finite things through our senses the same as defining things?

Secondly, the “content” of the Infinite seems to be all the ‘finite’ things, otherwise we could not know the Infinite, or actually be able to define or understand it; so does not the defining of ‘Infinite’ limit it in some way? As in what it means, and what it does not? I know the meaning of the word contradicts the law of defining, but we face similar things when dealing with a theological God.

Or is meaning not considered as a binding or limiting agent when it comes to defining something?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Lets focus on this part for now:

The moment boundaries are drawn, there's something else outside them. The infinite cannot not be in any place, and if it is within "the finite", then there must be someplace(without the finite), where it is not.

You mean to say a container has an inside as well as an outside. But then again, it was you who defined the finite as being inside the infinite. So according to you something else must be outside too, outside the infinite? It's where logic would lead you.

Truth is that inside and outside are a matter of perspective. In this context it doesn't matter: the boundary defines just the difference. A finite thing might be as well a one-dimensional point in a plane. The plane would be still "contained" by the point, because without any point of reference, there would be no plane.

it seems to me that you define it to be the entirety of the finite world, or maybe a combination of the entire finite world and a finite object

It doesn't matter if we talk about one finite thing or all of them stamped together in one idea.

And what is the entirety of the finite world? - the infinite.

The finite already means "the world" and is already the "entirety". It's also infinite in reality.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi there Sapius!

Are you talking here about experiencing a thing directly through our senses without defining it, just like a new born baby has not yet learnt the art of defining but is yet able to reach and grab a particular thing?

There's no such thing as experiencing directly. The baby reaches and grabs using a blurry, barely shaped definition which enables the coordination of movements. It might have defined anything dangling before its face as "teat" and not as "killer" by the instruction of its instincts. But apart from that it's still able to recognize there's something to grab, a result of quite some brain processing.

Is experiencing finite things through our senses the same as defining things?

I don't see a problem with saying they're the same. An experience is a complex process but will always revolve around the definition of some event, meaning, sighting, sense or feeling. It's a construct.

Secondly, the “content” of the Infinite seems to be all the ‘finite’ things, otherwise we could not know the Infinite, or actually be able to define or understand it

The case I make is that one shouldn't talk about the "content' of the Infinite. It only confuses things. And it's true defining or understanding the Infinite drags it into the realm of the finite. This is why the Infinite could be called the Untouched, the Unspoiled, the Virgin, the Unblemished, the Perfect and so on.

Or is meaning not considered as a binding or limiting agent when it comes to defining something?

"Meaning" I'd describe as relating one limiting agent or boundary to another one. Through this web a meaning arises. It's a superstructure of finite things that can serve as pointer to many other superstructures that couldn't be grasped otherwise or even as pointer to the philosophical abstracts like "the constant".

[Sapius]

Hello Diebert,

There's no such thing as experiencing directly.

Well, the brain interprets all sensual experiences, so in that sense, yes, no DIRECT experience, but the experience of a bullet entering the back of my head is not the same as experiencing a philosophical discourse.. or is it?

The baby reaches and grabs using a blurry, barely shaped definition which enables the coordination of movements.

What does a “barely shaped definition” mean?

I think we might be using different meanings of ‘definition’. I’m talking linguistically, and may be you are talking as in HD TV, or may be a philosophical definition of ‘definition’.

It might have defined anything dangling before its face as "teat" and not as "killer" by the instruction of its instincts. But apart from that it's still able to recognize there's something to grab, a result of quite some brain processing.

I agree with the latter half, that the baby might recognize it as “something”, but not necessarily define it as “trick” or “treat”, and indeed there is some awesome brain processing going on, but as you correctly mention, it is ‘recognition’ that is happening, not ‘defining’ per say in my opinion.

By “definition” I mean the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc. and you seam to use the meaning the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined as experienced sensually. So bumping into a lamppost is what defines a “lamppost” as “lamppost” and “me” as “me”?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

the experience of a bullet entering the back of my head is not the same as experiencing a philosophical discourse.. or is it?

It's not exactly the same in most cases :-)

But essentially the experiences do not differ in their nature. The fact that the experience with the bullet is probably too fast to have much of a conscious response doesn't matter. There will be some response on neurological level, no matter how brief.

I think we might be using different meanings of ‘definition’. I’m talking linguistically, and may be you are talking as in HD TV, or may be a philosophical definition of ‘definition’.

Not sure why you think there's a difference. A linguistic high quality definition could clarify a word in the context just as a HD signal clarifies and sharpens a picture. Both use contrast and proper detail, what's "between the lines" and "fine-tuned", to accomplish a high definition.

By “definition” I mean the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc. and you seam to use the meaning the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined as experienced sensually.

It would be the same with the word "object". You can take it in general terms as the aim of a targeting, part of the subject-object relation, or you can take it as a specific thing or some "quick and dirty" perception through the senses. The first way is a more general abstracted way of talking about it but when it comes down to existential truth there's a direct equivalence relationship with the whole body-mind experiencing.

When taking something in the abstract the goal is not to remove it from simple day-to-day experiences here. The goal is the opposite: to make sure it connects as clear as possible to the facts of consciousness, without too much static.

[Sapius]

Diebert: Not sure why you think there's a difference. A linguistic high quality definition could clarify a word in the context just as a HD signal clarifies and sharpens a picture. Both use contrast and proper detail, what's "between the lines" and "fine-tuned", to accomplish a high definition.

I don’t know… perhaps I don’t take the fine-tuning of meaning/definition of a word or phrase to be the same as fine-tuning a TV ‘picture’. One belongs to a conceptual world, by definition, and other to a physical world, by definition, although physical world need not necessarily mean things-in-themselves, but they aren’t purely conceptual ideas either.

Diebert: Any object is bound by definition. The boundaries define it, limit it. That's what makes it finite, not a supposed content or perhaps I should say intrinsic existence!

All I want to understand is; considering your above statement; what do you mean by “object”? How do you define it? Are you talking about physical objects?

Say a tree, love, bravery, table, cloud, scream, bachelor, an itch, finite, infinite… exactly what in there is an object and what isn’t? Or are they all “objects” (perhaps of the “mind”)? And exactly what in there is not bound by definition (its meaning)? Do the meanings of any of those words/phrases create the boundaries that define or limit them? Or sensual experiences? Can thinking or conceptualizing be considered a sensual experience?

[jupiviv]

So according to you something else must be outside too, outside the infinite?

There can't be anything outside the infinite - it is everything, by definition. So the "finite"(still unclear about that) has to be included within everything, mustn't it?

It doesn't matter if we talk about one finite thing or all of them stamped together in one idea.

It does matter. One finite object is infinitely different from the entirety of finite objects. That's because the entirety of finite objects would actually be the infinite.

The finite already means "the world" and is already the "entirety". It's also infinite in reality.

It doesn't mean that, in the way that you define it. Besides, the "entirety" cannot possibly be finite.

[Blair]

The entirety is the finite.

The infinite is misunderstood, a lack of knowledge about dark matter/energy and its nature.

The force is not particle, it holds the shape of cosmos.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So the "finite"(still unclear about that) has to be included within everything, mustn't it?

This "everything" is still finite by the very fact that you're putting something inside it.

the entirety of finite objects would actually be the infinite.

The sum of all the parts together does not constitute an undivided whole. At best you have some mirage effect, like a false perspective.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... physical world need not necessarily mean things-in-themselves, but they aren’t purely conceptual ideas either.

What's a pure conceptual idea? Ideas come from somewhere, they originate in complex processes very much intertwined with the physical world, designed to reflect it to some degree. And at the same time our ideas about the physical world reflect the conceptual processing in place.

This way the sensation of pain is as defining as any contemplation on suffering. Although some people entertain the notion they have more control over the contemplation.

Can thinking or conceptualizing be considered a sensual experience?

To me all thinking or conceptualizing is like a crystallization, a feed-back network of signals. What you call "sensual experiences" perhaps we could call then simple straight-forward conceptualizations. But the more complex experiences like "there's the world" or "this is me" are just more intricate, interwoven, more granular processing of the same.

[jupiviv]

This "everything" is still finite by the very fact that you're putting something inside it.

You are conceiving of the "everything" as an "it" - as a finite object. That is why you are having a problem understanding what it means.

The sum of all the parts together does not constitute an undivided whole. At best you have some mirage effect, like a false perspective.

Your understanding of the infinite is flawed. You cannot make a distinction between it and other finite objects, most probably because you have the delusion of inherent existence rooted in your thinking.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You are conceiving of the "everything" as an "it" - as a finite object.

Because the "everything" is a finite object by definition: every thing, all packed together. But for you magically transformed into the infinite.

It seems at times you've declared the tip of your nose to be the infinite just because it extents a bit in some general direction. How short-sighted!

This all was ultimately about " the emptiness of emptiness".

----
And Diebert threw Jupiviv's pot of tea on the floor, shattering it in ten thousand pieces. Look, even without the container, the tea is still there, on the floor, absorbed by clothes and even against the walls. But without all this the unbounded, unlimited water would instantaneously dissipate.

[jupiviv]

Because the "everything" is a finite object by definition: every thing, all packed together.

So what's outside it? Where is it? Where are its boundaries?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Because the "everything" is a finite object by definition: every thing, all packed together.

So what's outside it? Where is it? Where are its boundaries?

Again: the finite is only the boundary itself. What's inside or outside is just not the point. The boundary might be a tiny dot of ink on a giant sheet of paper. The dot as well as the sheet becomes defined. Neither of them was there before unless you introduce another point of perspective again. This means the infinite should not be looked for "beyond" anything as it might easily introduce yet another big delusion, big enough to hide in.

I believe it's not that different from what David Quinn wrote in his Wisdom of the Infinite, chapter five. It's perhaps clearer:

We cannot point to it, or isolate it from the rest of existence, and say "there it is!" And yet there is never a time when we are not perceiving and experiencing it. It stands right before our eyes, in all its glory, in each and every moment of our lives.

Although the Infinite is not any particular "thing", neither is it separate or distinct from the things of this world in any way. As an analogy, consider a lake of pure distilled water, which is comprised solely of water molecules. It is easy to see that a particular water molecule within the lake and the lake itself are two completely different things. And yet at the same time, there is no "lake" over and above the water molecules which form its body. The sum total of the water molecules is the lake.

Similarly, there is no "Infinite" over and above the finite objects which comprise it. The things we see around us are literally the Infinite. There is no hidden mystical realm that we have to seek. We only have to learn how to open our eyes and see what is already there.

[jupiviv]

Again: the finite is only the boundary itself.

So now your "finite" has become a boundary? It must be a magnificent thing, whatever it is!

This means the infinite should not be looked for "beyond" anything as it might easily introduce yet another big delusion, big enough to hide in.

The infinite is "beyond" the computer screen in front of me, and yet the computer screen is within the infinite. It depends on how you define "beyond." The infinite is definitely beyond deluded people in a sense, and what they experience or perceive, or think about.

Your problem is that you think that when someone says that the infinite is no different from the finite, he literally means every single finite object, or the bundle of all finite things together. You then look around you, at your room, at the road, at the field - wherever - and think that those things are the infinite. You wrongly conceive of a "finite whole" and equate that with the infinite. And then you think you've understood reality. Actually, your understanding remains as deluded as other people's. You're like those Zen monks Hakuin talked about, and you'll fall for the first delusion that comes your way - in this case, Prince's definition of the infinite.

In sum, my understanding is - "the finite is the infinite."

And your understanding is - "the FINITE is the infinite."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Perhaps my applied logic needs more highlighting:

The moment one creates an inside to hold, to contain anything, one defines limiters, walls, ends or bounds. So putting "all finite" things inside something, one ends up with yet another container, no matter how big you stretch it. One could imagine a boundless container, but that would in my view break the law of identity: to have bounds and no bounds at the same time. From this faulty logic a lot of bad thinking could arise.

On the other hand, putting the infinite, the indivisible, inside something, a finite thing, there's no such breach of logic. The fact that a limited thing contains something doesn't say much about the content, apart from what the container allows you to know about it. There's nothing essentially known about the content outside from the limits the container defines for it.

In reality there are no such things as container nor content as things in themselves. But that doesn't make them contained inside a "larger reality" either. It all just is, it all just becomes.

So now your "finite" has become a boundary? It must be a magnificent thing, whatever it is!

Indeed, the finite never was more than the boundary, the distinction created by our awareness. Which is a magnificent thing to behold!

"Do you not know the ease of the man of the Way
who has gone beyond learning, and whose state is 'non-action'
Who neither suppresses thoughts, nor seeks the 'Truth?'
To him the reality of ignorance is the Buddha Nature;
The empty illusory is the ultimate nature of reality"

- Ch'an Master Hsuan Chuen of Yung Chia

[jupiviv]

The moment one creates an inside to hold, to contain anything, one defines limiters, walls, ends or bounds. So putting "all finite" things inside something, one ends up with yet another container, no matter how big you stretch it. One could imagine a boundless container, but that would in my view break the law of identity: to have bounds and no bounds at the same time. From this faulty logic a lot of bad thinking could arise.

Finite thinking again. Where is the rule that says that containers must be bounded?

On the other hand, putting the infinite, the indivisible, inside something, a finite thing, there's no such breach of logic. The fact that a limited thing contains something doesn't say much about the content, apart from what the container allows you to know about it. There's nothing essentially known about the content outside from the limits the container defines for it.

A limited thing can contain another limited thing. It can't contain unlimited things.

Indeed, the finite never was more than the boundary, the distinction created by our awareness. Which is a magnificent thing to behold!

My understanding is identical to the poem, but I don't understand what you say here. What is this boundary you are speaking of?

[Nick]

I'd like to jump in for a moment.

The nature of the infinite is uncovered by understanding the nature of the finite. The nature of the finite is uncovered by understanding the nature of boundaries, boundaries which can be placed anywhere, anyway, any-when, or infinitely; thus the nature of the finite and the infinite are interwoven.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"Finite thinking again", jupiviv? Of course it's finite. You can keep your non-limiting non-thoughts to yourself!

Where is the rule that says that containers must be bounded?

To be able to hold anything it will have bounds. Why else call it a container if it's not able to contain any content?

Where is the rule that says a room has walls or is enclosed? Where is the rule that says a binder is binding something together? It's how we have defined it.

A limited thing can contain another limited thing. It can't contain unlimited things.

A bottle contains water. Without the bottle or any other limiter it would be unbounded like some abstract. Where's the water now? Contained by "molecules" inside a "vacuum"?

What is this boundary you are speaking of?

Your marvelous consciousness. And since this must be present in everything we experience, we could call it infinite, the constant, the unchanging.

[NB: further dialog on this will have to wait for around a week]

[Is.]

Excellent discussion guys. I really enjoy listening this exchange.

[Sapius]

S: …physical world need not necessarily mean things-in-themselves, but they aren’t purely conceptual ideas either.

D: What's a pure conceptual idea? Ideas come from somewhere, they originate in complex processes very much intertwined with the physical world, designed to reflect it to some degree. And at the same time our ideas about the physical world reflect the conceptual processing in place.

Hehehee… As usual, with all who have achieved excellence in mastering philosophical discourses, the discussion goes off track and in circles. You ARE acknowledging above the intertwining of TWO DIFFERENT things, but somehow are reluctant to wipe out that difference and go what… unconscious? Its those DIFFERENCES that mean consciousness, otherwise there is no “the Infinite” to talk about either.

This way the sensation of pain is as defining as any contemplation on suffering.

It may be as defining to you, but yet they are NOT one and same thing, by definition if you like. Are they?

Although some people entertain the notion they have more control over the contemplation.

Sure, just as you seem to entertain the “notion” that you have said something more meaningful than anybody else in this thread… well… tell me you don’t? In which case... quoting Kevin... I can safely ignore you ;)

To me all thinking or conceptualizing is like a crystallization, a feed-back network of signals. What you call "sensual experiences" perhaps we could call then simple straight-forward conceptualizations. But the more complex experiences like "there's the world" or "this is me" are just more intricate, interwoven, more granular processing of the same.

Your "to me” doesn’t really matter or hold any meaning really, for that too is more of… “a feed-back network of signals”, so our different stance does not hold meaningful comparison, for it is but just that, or ultimately simply Is. Isn’t it?

Ultimately, milk may be milk, by definition, but cheese is not milk, and milk is not cheese, again by definition, and so should be the Infinite… by definition perhaps?

David: Although the Infinite is not any particular "thing", neither is it separate or distinct from the things of this world in any way. As an analogy, consider a lake of pure distilled water, which is comprised solely of water molecules. It is easy to see that a particular water molecule within the lake and the lake itself are two completely different things. And yet at the same time, there is no "lake" over and above the water molecules which form its body. The sum total of the water molecules is the lake.

Are you quoting David to justify you stand? If that explanation were any simpler than yours, we would have had enlightened beings raining like cats and dogs by now.

Although the Infinite is not any particular "thing", neither is it separate or distinct from the things of this world in any way.

If he says so… but I think we are imagining “the infinite” for one reason only; we have a slave mentality and can never imagine being actually free of this mentality, and keep creating God like substitutes to satisfy our own ego, and pretend, or lie to ourselves, that I have found the answer to the mother of all questions, and what a question it is… an egotistically self imagined and self imposed one.

As an analogy, consider a lake of pure distilled water, which is comprised solely of water molecules. It is easy to see that a particular water molecule within the lake and the lake itself are two completely different things. And yet at the same time, there is no "lake" over and above the water molecules which form its body. The sum total of the water molecules is the lake.

No, we can IMAGINE the lake BECAUSE we can experience or say are imagining a boundary to IT by mentally adding up ALL the molecules = the lake, hence it carries the boundary created by that definition at least, which makes it a THING, by definition again…, so when, how and why does this lake become divine and above all things is the question, especially when it is said that “it” isn’t and “it” is at the same time?


I must be in that "jovial" mood today… ;)

[NB: further dialog on this will have to wait for around, may be, 2 weeks, if thread still alive and interesting]

[jupiviv]

To be able to hold anything it will have bounds. Why else call it a container if it's not able to contain any content?

The infinite can have no bounds yet it contains everything, by definition. A "container" must be able to contain - that's all.

Where is the rule that says a room has walls or is enclosed? Where is the rule that says a binder is binding something together? It's how we have defined it.

The rule is in the definition itself. A finite thing(define as the same) can only contain(defined appropriately) finite things(defined as the same.)

A bottle contains water. Without the bottle or any other limiter it would be unbounded like some abstract. Where's the water now? Contained by "molecules" inside a "vacuum"?

Without the bottle, the water would have been contained somewhere else, wherever it may be(the ground, the sky, vacuum etc.) Ultimately it is contained in the infinite.

Your marvelous consciousness. And since this must be present in everything we experience, we could call it infinite, the constant, the unchanging.

My consciousness is not present in everything, otherwise it wouldn't be consciousness. There are a lot of things that are not conscious - rocks, women, most men, etc.

[Is.]

Ultimately it is contained in the infinite.

Sounds confused and redundant to me.

You can't make any ultimate assertions. Because any positive assertion always fall prey to logical consequences. I'd say rather that conventionally water is just a mental construct an nothing else. This is the way of the non-affirming negation; nowhere in our Ultimate analysis of water do we ever find any water. However, that doesn't water ultimately nonexistent, right; it exists relatively when a perticular worldspace/perspective/conceptual realm is enacted.

This kind of reasoning - in the omniscient, liberated worldspace - turns everything into Infinite Light. Looking at running tap water - oh my God. A million acid trips combined wouldn't wouldn't come close to it. That said, Ultimately water is neither a colourless liquid, molecules, quantum fluctuations, a relationship of cause and effect, nor Infinite Light; words can not describe the Infinite Dharmadhātu.

[Jamesh]

Infinity relates to causality, not things.

As reality is always expanding via the expansionary flow of time, there is not even a point where “what is” is “all that is”. There is no real totality, other than as a logical concept in which one falsely assumes effects are real-in-themselves and static.

Fundamental Time (or whatever the base cause is) does not flow on a stop/start quantum basis, but is continuously causal without variation or change. Thus there is no point of time in which “newness” is not being created. It does cause variation, or quantumness, as effects, but it has no variation or duality within its own singular causal nature.

When I say “reality is always expanding”, I mean that relativity is continuously increasing in complexity, via the addition of new time. As time flows, as time occurs, the relationship between the past and the new present, becomes greater – it is only this relativity that causes effects.

Space and dimensions, are effects, not causes, and thus mislead us when conceptualising infinity. In reality there may be no “space”, the universe may have no size, no dimensions (in fact that is how it must be!).

All that exists is simply time of various ages - the older the time the lesser it's action is relative to the present - the creationary power of time is the same no matter the age, but the older that time is the more it's effect on the present is consumed by being relative to all the time that has occurred in the meantime.

Our ability to observe relates entirely to the brain calculating time relativities. Ultimately calculating Time differences is the only fundamental way we can measure anything.

Take colours – they actually occur as a result of different speeds of light reaching our eyes. Our eyes transfer these speed differences into linear data streams using the same basic dots and dashes method as Morse code, but a million times more detailed. Via the various combinations of “short amount of time, long amount of time” it determines patterns within these time coding streams and names and memorises them as various “colours”.