beyond the infinite

[paco]

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.

The time factor is based on movement is exactly what I was originally going to say.

I don't know what is present unless I am watching a film or a movie. Time only exists because of space time. Outside of space there is void. The void.

[paco]

=]

At an earlier age I was still as underdeveloped as I am now, and, slipped my thoughts past the moon! Could this have been a factor of what changes A=A? Probably not. The only thing that's present are my figures{1,2,1}.

[divine focus]

The only thing that's present are my figures{1,2,1}.

Genius! ;)

[jupiviv]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by having "existence" outside what I think. I know some things to be absolutely true and others absolutely false, and I know that they would be so even without my knowledge. Their "existence" does not depend on me.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I know some things to be absolutely true and others absolutely false, and I know that they would be so even without my knowledge. Their "existence" does not depend on me.

Only by a little trick: you extend "me" to a situation that supposedly would be without this "me": the world at large, a universe, a future beyond your death and so on. But the moment you know it, you're extending yourself to include it, or for it to include you.

This is the way you know.

Existence is a counterpart to something that knows itself to exist. You can give it any name you want.

[Pincho Paxton]

The time factor is based on movement is exactly what I was originally going to say.

I don't know what is present unless I am watching a film or a movie. Time only exists because of space time. Outside of space there is void. The void.

True. memories make time, and in a black space we have no memories. Anyway, I did say that time doesn't exist so even with blackness I am right.

[jupiviv]

Only by a little trick: you extend "me" to a situation that supposedly would be without this "me": the world at large, a universe, a future beyond your death and so on. But the moment you know it, you're extending yourself to include it, or for it to include you.

It is impossible to "know" myself, for the same reason that an eye cannot see itself. I can know that which is not myself(and therefore beyond myself) through logic. And there are certainly things that are not me, since otherwise I could not exist or be conscious.

[ELDUDERINO]

Time will cease to exist when all living beings have gone beyond the need for such an illusion it and exist only in the present.

[Is.]

The Totality is not a concept of any kind, neither is A=A, or cause and effect.

If you ever experience suffering in the future, then you'll know the cause will be these attachments.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It is impossible to "know" myself, for the same reason that an eye cannot see itself. I can know that which is not myself(and therefore beyond myself) through logic.

The eye sees only what's related. One could even claim that the only firm knowledge, "absolute" if you will, is knowing oneself: seeing eye-to-eye as it were.

And there are certainly things that are not me, since otherwise I could not exist or be conscious.

Indeed, they can only be "not me" in relation to "me".

Spinoza wrote it like this: "For the ignorant man is not only agitated by external causes in many ways, and never enjoys true peace of soul, but also lives ignorant, as it were, both of God and of things, and as soon as he ceases to suffer ceases also to be. On the other hand, the wise man, in so far as he is considered as such, is scarcely ever moved in his mind, but being conscious by a certain eternal necessity of himself, of God, and of things, never ceases to be, and always enjoys true peace of soul."

[jupiviv]

The eye sees only what's related. One could even claim that the only firm knowledge, "absolute" if you will, is knowing oneself: seeing eye-to-eye as it were.

I would define "knowing oneself" as knowing the Totality, and not any particular of that Totality.

Indeed, they can only be "not me" in relation to "me".

Yes, but what does that prove? Just because they exist in a relation to me doesn't mean they are me.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I would define "knowing oneself" as knowing the Totality, and not any particular of that Totality.

What's to know about the totality? It doesn't allow for such thing by definition. You can know the limits of its very definition of course, if you'd desire so.

Just because they exist in a relation to me doesn't mean they are me.

It's still about you claiming to know that a truth can exist even "without your knowledge". But the truth lies in the knowing, not in some unknowable construct.

[jupiviv]

What's to know about the totality?

In short - that it is the totality.

It's still about you claiming to know that a truth can exist even "without your knowledge".

I did not claim that. I said that a truth can be true without my knowledge of it. I never said anything about truths existing. Once again you are projecting your own words on mine.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I said that a truth can be true without my knowledge of it. I never said anything about truths existing.

Such supposedly non-existing "true truths" are indeed not worth knowing!

[jupiviv]

I said that a truth can be true without my knowledge of it. I never said anything about truths existing.

Such supposedly non-existing "true truths" are indeed not worth knowing!

Truths cannot exist or not-exist, because they are not things. They are just how the world appears to us.

[yana]

What I meant by this thread is simply that there exists an infinity of infinitys, but only god can solve the true puzzle.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Truths cannot exist or not-exist, because they are not things. They are just how the world appears to us.

Also truths are but appearances. One could call them "bigger things" in relation to "smaller things" like "the world" or "a lie". But they are no "not-things".

[Sapius]

Hi Diebert.

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

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

D: Essentially they are (sensation of pain and contemplation on suffering). It's why I guess Genius has been defined somewhere here in the instructional section as "the infinite capacity for giving pain." :-)

Well, they might go Ouch! in either case, but I don’t have to go by how they define it or feel the sensation. My experiences tell me otherwise, so I’m kind of helpless ;D

Does this mean you'd found the mother answer: that it's all slave mentality and egotistical imagining? Or is it just an opinion to consider?

What!?
I’m saying that there isn’t really a mother of all questions to begin with, and you are asking me If I have found the mother answer?

Nevertheless, it could still be just a reflection of eternity: fleeting shadows could be said to have by definition somewhat of a slave mentality and a wild "imagining"of what they think they are. So you might ask: how could a lie still form a truth?

Sure, it could, and hence, knowing that, why would I ask what you think I might ask? When I perfectly know that indulging in valuing truths over lies is an egotistical activity to begin with. Anything that I know is egotistical in nature in any case, including knowing that itself. And I have no problem with that; but if someone does, then that’s his/her business; all I can sincerely say is good luck to them.

[Sonata]

everthing has the potential to be infinate but it will never be possible. complete contradiction.

infinite would be an incorrect word simply because it does not occur anywhere in any of the conceptual envirnments. the problem with the word overall meaning is the fact that it has an end or a stopage of motion i would say no entropy. its used as a singular noun which it isnt which would mean it would be meaningless.

infinitely would be a correct form of word to use. it would mean that existance itself would never stop existing. everything is infinatly possible but never completely infinite or unified it would simply be an never ending idea of completion. combined comprensive noun.

an infinately great number would simply be the most simple shape in conceptuality would resemble a simple line = 1 is the only number you will need to know simply because evertyhing else would be simply a predication of it. 9 means 1 so does 27 or even 103 they all mean 1 just in a repetitous conceptions. dualistic meaning of 1 would also be symbolic in reference to concepionism.

the correct concept of infinity wouldnt be the idea of thoughts it would be the idea of ideals. would mean the never or ever variations of the simplist thing required for anything to exist.