beyond the infinite

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert wrote:A definition defines something but there's nothing "there" outside or inside that definition, nothing "in itself". A definition is an example of a container, like any thing is an example of containment.
The definition itself, being finite, has no inherent existence. It is simply a finite container, as opposed to the All, which contains everything. In fact, all finite things are "containers", but none of them are real.
Right! The moment I've "figured it out" though I'm limiting it again!
Have you figured out this particular fact about the infinite? If yes, then how could you? You limited it with your mind, therefore, it is no longer infinite, and therefore, your assertion is untrue. Do you see how pointless this kind of thinking is when it comes to the infinite? You have to be the eye of God in order to see God.
What makes you think it's LESS because it's contained? That only applies to comparing two finite things, using equal measurement systems even. An apple is not less than the containing fruit basket in some existential, general sense.

That which is contained must of necessity be less than the container.
But you allow for the infinite container to still exist. You just try to make it into a non-defined entity of some kind. You want it to exist and yet not exist. With that very mental act limitations and distortions start jumping in place.

I believe I defined the infinite simply as a container which contains all things. I didn't say anything about it existing or not existing.
So you say that whatever appears to you contains more appearances.
I don't think I said that. I said that things appear as whatever they appear, and have no reality other than that.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Is wrote:If you believe that this is so, then your understanding is evidently inferior. The statements "You shall not kill any humans regardless of sex, race, beliefs or creed", and "Electrons revolve around a nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons" for example are not inherently true, they are only conventionally true within the dynamic sphere of our rational, modernist conceptual worldspace here on the planet. Now, according to your logic, it follows that these statements are then utterly meaningless. Of course this is not so, they are 100% valid within our worldspace, without for that reason being ultimate truths.
Yes, but those statements are about empirical things, and therefore are already not ultimate.

On the other hand, your assertion that there can be no ultimate assertions would have to hold good for all possible cases for it to be ultimately true. If it holds true only for this worldspace, then it is necessarily not true for other worldspaces. Therefore, ultimate assertions CAN be made in other worldspaces, and are possibly being made right now. So that makes your statement untrue even for this worldspace, as other worldspaces where this assertion does not hold true would make ultimate assertions which would hold true even for this worldspace.

You have to understand that there is, literally, an infinite difference between empirical theorising and philosophising.
User avatar
Is.
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden.

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Is. »

jupiviv wrote:Yes, but those statements are about empirical things [statement x], and therefore are already not ultimate [statement y].
First of all, "You shall not kill any humans regardless of sex, race, beliefs or creed", is a moral matter, not an empirical one. Second, I'd be interested to know how, for you, statement y follows from statement x?
jupiviv wrote:On the other hand, your assertion that there can be no ultimate assertions would have to hold good for all possible cases for it to be ultimately true.
But I said it isn't ultimately true. It is conventionally an universal truth for a consciousness having enacted the perspective of emptiness, and that's different.
jupiviv wrote:If it holds true only for this worldspace, then it is necessarily not true for other worldspaces.
The phenomena called emptiness is actually quite special, in that it indeed holds true for all worldspaces, without for that reason being an ultimate truth. This is because of its status as a non-affirming negation. Emptiness is a phenomena which exists within all dualistic worldspaces - granted of course that there is a consciousness in there advanced enough to give rise to it - because it simply negates all assertions made (as if they were inherently existing) within that worldspace.

It is because of this that emptiness holds the key to liberation and omniscience.

---

I should perhaps mention, in order not to give the impression of myself as a mere post-modern reductionist, that I do ultimately assert one thing: God. God can then for clarification be divided into two (not actually separate) aspects: suchness and Law. These two aspects of my ultimate assertion can also be clearly seen in the work of David Quinn when he says:

"1: In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness [suchness] and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live [Law]. To know anything more than this is impossible - for anyone or anything."

The two aspects can also be found in the profound philosophy of Hua Yen buddhism:

"The View of Non-obstruction between 'Li' and 'Shih' [理事無礙觀] -- to view that the real nature of matters and phenomena is so-called 'True Suchness' [真如] or 'Li' [理], which has twofold meanings, one is the 'Unchanged' [不變] [suchness] and the other the 'Accord with Conditions' [隨緣] [Law]. The former is its body while the latter is its manifestation / functions. As the True Suchness is unchanged in nature, it can manifest in accordance with conditions and produce all Dharmas or 'Shih'. Thus, there is no obstruction between 'Li' and 'Shih'."

This of course arises with an advanced worldspace, but can - unlike all other phenomena - within that worldspace be asserted as being an Ultimate Truth. That said, if this is clung to in any way by a reifying mind, liberation will not be achieved.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Is wrote:First of all, "You shall not kill any humans regardless of sex, race, beliefs or creed", is a moral matter, not an empirical one.

Morality is an empirical matter; besides it is wholly related to empirical phenomena. There is no absolute morality that applies to all cases, or for that matter, worldspaces.
Second, I'd be interested to know how, for you, statement y follows from statement x?
You were the one who divided one statement into two statements, so that question should not be put to me in the first place..
But I said it isn't ultimately true. It is conventionally an universal truth for a consciousness having enacted the perspective of emptiness, and that's different.
You contradicted yourself there.
The phenomena called emptiness is actually quite special, in that it indeed holds true for all worldspaces, without for that reason being an ultimate truth.
....and again here.
User avatar
Is.
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden.

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Is. »

jupiviv wrote:There is no absolute morality that applies to all cases, or for that matter, worldspaces.
And I have never claimed that there is. But there are relative moral expressions existing within worldspaces. It follows by your logic that - since the moral expression mentioned earlier is not ultimately true - that it must be utterly meaningless. This is completely wrong and demonstrates inferior understanding; you've already misunderstood both the meaning of wisdom (form=emptiness), and the meaning of compassion (emptiness=form).
jupiviv wrote:You were the one who divided one statement into two statements, so that question should not be put to me in the first place..
As you wish.
jupiviv wrote:You contradicted yourself there.
jupiviv wrote:....and again here.
No. It is because you don't have the capacity - or are simply misinformed about concepts often used in this forum - to enter into my worldspace that you infer that my explanation results in contradiction. Try again. An ultimate truth and a conventionally universal truth is not the same.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Pincho Paxton »

To the OP...

Time has already ceased to exist.. it never existed.. it is a word for map coordinates in 4D. The map however was destroyed before the coordinates were written.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Is wrote:And I have never claimed that there is. But there are relative moral expressions existing within worldspaces. It follows by your logic that - since the moral expression mentioned earlier is not ultimately true - that it must be utterly meaningless. This is completely wrong and demonstrates inferior understanding; you've already misunderstood both the meaning of wisdom (form=emptiness), and the meaning of compassion (emptiness=form).
Morality is a relative thing in the first place. If a person does not choose to be moral, then he is not moral - simple as that. It does need to apply to everyone/everything/every place to be true. On the other hand, the assertion that there can be no ultimate assertion must be absolute in the first place. Otherwise it loses all meaning, for reasons I mentioned. Morality does not lose its meaning in the right context. Logical assertions like the former need to be applicable to all contexts for them to have any truth/meaning whatsoever.
No. It is because you don't have the capacity - or are simply misinformed about concepts often used in this forum - to enter into my worldspace that you infer that my explanation results in contradiction. Try again. An ultimate truth and a conventionally universal truth is not the same.
I couldn't care less about the concepts used in this forum. I only care about logic, and absolute truths. It is logically impossible for a conventional truth to be a universal truth, i.e, a relative truth to be universal. If you disagree, then offer some logical proof why it should be otherwise.
User avatar
yana
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:43 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by yana »

To Pincho Paxton: Finally! The dilemma is solved from my point of view. G'day to you sir.
202
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:The definition itself, being finite, has no inherent existence. It is simply a finite container, as opposed to the All, which contains everything. In fact, all finite things are "containers", but none of them are real.
They are finite because they contain. They contain because there are boundaries or limits. That's the way things are contained, you know. Remove the boundaries and there's no thing left!

And your "All" which "contains everything" is not real - either! It's an example of making a lie so big it can get away with it.
You have to be the eye of God in order to see God.
They eye is a good symbol of god itself. All it sees cannot be else than god. However, the all-seeing eye is necessarily blind.
That which is contained must of necessity be less than the container.
If I wrap twenty pounds of rolled up lead in a thin sheet of paper, why is for you the lead necessarily less than the paper?
I believe I defined the infinite simply as a container which contains all things. I didn't say anything about it existing or not existing.
To contain means to define limits. It becomes a limiting thing. Your loss.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert wrote:They are finite because they contain. They contain because there are boundaries or limits.

You still have to provide a reason why they should have boundaries to contain.
That's the way things are contained, you know. Remove the boundaries and there's no thing left!

My Father has no boundaries, yet he contains everything.
And your "All" which "contains everything" is not real - either! It's an example of making a lie so big it can get away with it.
What gives it the quality of not being real? You?
They eye is a good symbol of god itself. All it sees cannot be else than god. However, the all-seeing eye is necessarily blind.
I see(experience) everything, and I am not blind.
If I wrap twenty pounds of rolled up lead in a thin sheet of paper, why is for you the lead necessarily less than the paper?
Because the lead is less than the paper in size. Otherwise you could not have put it in the paper.
To contain means to define limits. It becomes a limiting thing. Your loss.
To contain means to define the limits of the thing contained, not the container.
User avatar
Is.
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden.

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Is. »

jupiviv wrote:Morality does not lose its meaning in the right context. Logical assertions like the former need to be applicable to all contexts for them to have any truth/meaning whatsoever.
So the statement "Electrons revolve around a nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons" is completely meaningless, in your view? Because obviously it is not an ultimate truth.
jupiviv wrote:It is logically impossible for a conventional truth to be a universal truth, i.e, a relative truth to be universal. If you disagree, then offer some logical proof why it should be otherwise.
It (emptiness) is univerally true within conceptual contexts, or worldspaces. The concept emptiness is univerally true - given that there is a consciousness enacting the concept - in all contexts (i.e. universally) because it can be logically shown that everything lack inherent existence. But since emptiness depends upon what is negated, it is not an ultimate truth.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:You still have to provide a reason why they [things, definitions] should have boundaries to contain.
The same reason that when you grasp, take or hold, there's something to take it, hold it or grasp it with. A hand, a mind, whatever. Like the hand or mind is part of the grasping, boundaries are essential part of the act of containment. Without them, we cannot speak of it.
My Father has no boundaries, yet he contains everything.
He's still bounded by having all this content 'inside'. It's already giving form to what's ultimately formless. It's important to become aware one is doing this instead of denying it.
I see(experience) everything, and I am not blind.
Yet you still don't see the illogical element in your statement. Nothing can become visible without something hidden.
If I wrap twenty pounds of rolled up lead in a thin sheet of paper, why is for you the lead necessarily less than the paper?
Because the lead is less than the paper in size. Otherwise you could not have put it in the paper.
The lead is "contained" by its own rolled up shape making it possible for this container to fit into another. Without the specific form the paper could not have contained it as the lead has more mass, surface and weight. So the fact of being the outer container or skin does not make it "more" in any meaningful way.
To contain means to define the limits of the thing contained, not the container.
The limits of the thing contained, that's what I'd call container. There's not much else to it.
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by BMcGilly07 »

Perhaps this will clarify this containment issue: I once read a definition of God (Totality, Infinite) as. 'Having its center everywhere and circumference nowhere."
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Is wrote:So the statement "Electrons revolve around a nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons" is completely meaningless, in your view? Because obviously it is not an ultimate truth.
It's not true in all cases, but in some cases, and this is perfectly OK, because it is an empirical observation(based on reasonable evidence). On the other hand, your assertion must hold true everywhere for it to be true at all. I explained all of this before. I don't know why you are repeating the same argument.
The concept emptiness is univerally true
No concept is universally true.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert wrote:The same reason that when you grasp, take or hold, there's something to take it, hold it or grasp it with. A hand, a mind, whatever. Like the hand or mind is part of the grasping, boundaries are essential part of the act of containment.

What does this prove? If the "something" is the Totality, it will still "grasp" and "hold" everything. There is still no reason why boundaries are necessary for containment. A container does not have to be finite in order to contain - that is something you are bringing in to the picture.
Like the hand or mind is part of the grasping, boundaries are essential part of the act of containment. Without them, we cannot speak of it.
I speak of the Infinite as a container, so it certainly is possible to speak of it(in the right context).
Yet you still don't see the illogical element in your statement. Nothing can become visible without something hidden.
I don't experience every particular, or every detail. That would of course be impossible. But I can "experience" the All, through what I experience at any given moment, because everything(including myself) is necessarily connected to everything else - thus making up the All.
The lead is "contained" by its own rolled up shape making it possible for this container to fit into another. Without the specific form the paper could not have contained it as the lead has more mass, surface and weight. So the fact of being the outer container or skin does not make it "more" in any meaningful way.
At the time and place when the lead was contained by the paper, it was less in size than the paper. What's so hard to understand about this?
The limits of the thing contained, that's what I'd call container. There's not much else to it.

Oh, so I can get two exactly identical balls to contain each other, because the limits of the contained thing is the container?

Obviously not. The container has to be bigger than the contained thing. That's the whole point of going through the trouble to *contain* that thing. Using your logic here, it can be said that all things contain themselves....
Steven Coyle

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Steven Coyle »

in mathematical terms: 1 1/4 x (infinite googles)

amps all types of back log brog.

through the GF.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: If the "something" is the Totality, it will still "grasp" and "hold" everything.
But then you made the Totality into a "something", namely "the totality" that has abilities like containing everything else. Now you have two somethings: a totality and its content: "everything else"! In other words, still in the finite world.
At the time and place when the lead was contained by the paper, it was less in size than the paper. What's so hard to understand about this?
You now add "in size" to your earlier qualifier "less". It was expected you'd start qualifying your statement with more containers, more dimensions.

What one could see here is that one can only compare content and packaging by defining them both as containers, or limited by dimensions. If or the content or the packaging layer would be dimensionless there cannot be a comparison, there would be no "more" or "less". Hell, there couldn't be any containment anymore!

A milk package is not more than the milk inside. The milk inside is merely limited by the package. There's no other way to compare them unless one introduces another container to measure the milk independently. And so forth.
The container has to be bigger than the contained thing. That's the whole point of going through the trouble to *contain* that thing. Using your logic here, it can be said that all things contain themselves....
All things contain themselves. They are defined by their thingness, often a dimension of some kind, a coordinate, a measurement or a description of its whereabouts.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert wrote:But then you made the Totality into a "something", namely "the totality" that has abilities like containing everything else. Now you have two somethings: a totality and its content: "everything else"! In other words, still in the finite world.
As I say, it is you who are making those distinctions, not me. I can very clearly conceive of a Totality and separate objects within it at the same time. Neither duality nor non-duality are in and of themselves the Totality - just expressions of it.
You now add "in size" to your earlier qualifier "less". It was expected you'd start qualifying your statement with more containers, more dimensions.
I don't think there is that big a difference between saying "less" and "less in size". More containers and dimensions are arising only in your imagination.
All things contain themselves.
That's pretty meaningless. It's like saying: A is A, and A contains A. The question of containment only comes in when there is a difference in size between two phenomena - in this case, the Totality and a part of the Totality.

In any case, I think this discussion is going nowhere, mostly because A) You are not defining clearly what you mean by the key issue of contention - "the finite". B) You are not being consistent even with the definition that you did provide.

In order for this discussion to continue, you will have to stick to your definition of the "finite", that is, any finite object, and NOT the totality of all finite objects.
User avatar
Is.
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden.

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Is. »

jupiviv wrote:No concept is universally true.
If this were true, why should I accept what you're saying here? Heh. As it turns out, it is only I who can effectively use this argument against you, instead of the other way around.
jupiviv wrote:I don't know why you are repeating the same argument.
Because your primitive understanding seem to require it.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Is wrote:If this were true, why should I accept what you're saying here? Heh. As it turns out, it is only I who can effectively use this argument against you, instead of the other way around.
Because what I'm saying is not a concept, it's an absolute truth. A concept must have a conceiving being for it to be true, so for that reason itself, it can't be absolute to be begin with.
Because your primitive understanding seem to require it.

I already demonstrated the falsity of your argument, so the question of my understanding it does not even arise.
User avatar
Is.
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden.

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Is. »

jupiviv wrote:Because what I'm saying is not a concept, it's an absolute truth.
Right!

:P
paco
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by paco »

yana wrote:Once time ceases to exist, then what happens? Ignore the big bang and the crunch if you must.

Are we truly men of the infinite?
Time exists because of moving matter.
I am illiterate
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by jupiviv »

Is. wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Because what I'm saying is not a concept, it's an absolute truth.
Right!

:P
???

A concept cannot be absolutely true, and an absolute truth cannot be a concept. The Totality is not a concept of any kind, neither is A=A, or cause and effect.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:Because what I'm saying is not a concept, it's an absolute truth.

The Totality is not a concept of any kind, neither is A=A, or cause and effect.
True and false are the very means to conceptualize, to orientate. They have no existence outside what you think you feel, think you do, think you believe and so on. Any experience without meaning giving, without conceptualizing, is as it is. Not true, not false.

Some would call that the absolute. It's only when we start to reflect [upon] it that truth and falsehood is born. How this pans out further is all rather relative to each context.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: beyond the infinite

Post by Pincho Paxton »

paco wrote:
yana wrote:Once time ceases to exist, then what happens? Ignore the big bang and the crunch if you must.

Are we truly men of the infinite?
Time exists because of moving matter.
That's not time, that's present.. always present.
Locked