Leyla, I generally understand and agree, but I’m simply discussing… my point here is… if we are calling or naming, as in – ‘emptiness’ – then that itself makes it a thing since we do mean something by it, but if we then say that it is ‘no-thing’ or express it as ‘not nothing whatsoever’, then what exactly do we mean?
Is this a trick question? :)
What we mean is that even though we mean something by it, that something is not it--it can only point to it. “The tao which can be tau-ed is not the Eternal Tau.†Any moment, and therefore any manifestation/expression of the Eternal Tau, is finite.
Suppose if we say that it is the impermanency of things seen through casualty which points to the permanency of an infinite process or flow of impermanency, then that should be more then enough since it says exactly what one means,
Does it? So what if the impermanency of things seen through causality points to the permanency of an infinite process. That doesn’t appear to have stopped many from looking for the beginning of the universe, or the cause of God, does it?
Strange thing about looking for the beginning of the universe, or what caused the Totality, is the fact that one necessarily must conceive of it as a finite thing in the first place.
“The tau (reason) which can be tau-ed (reasoned) is not the Eternal Tau (Reason).â€
…(which of course does not create a mysterious atmosphere much needed to create its profound standings), rather than create a “non-thingâ€, which is not… exactly… nothing whatsoever… and so… hence… yet it is….
I’m a little lost here.
Causality and the caused are both logically apparent, and neither could exist without the other, so if we consider the caused as illusory, then one necessarily takes causality as REAL as in permanent, ignoring that which is caused,…
No, not necessarily. One may just understand the distinction between causality and the caused.
…whereas both are REAL since no thing would be without causality, and no causality without things being around, both are infinitely interdependent, and that seems to be the only Reality put together.
A thing depends on causality for its existence but causality does not depend on things; especially as the inferred infinite process of thingness--expressed as an aspect in a snapshot of the Totality.
My point is, if things are illusory, then does that make emptiness (however one wants to define it) non-illusionary?
It makes it an expression of consciousness, and if one is not certainly conscious then the illusory nature of things is utterly meaningless.
L: What we mean is that even though we mean something by it, that something is not it--it can only point to it.
S: Would this mean that we point to something that we don’t exactly mean?
No, it means that we speak in and of finitude in order to bring about an understanding of the infinite.
S quotes L: A thing depends on causality for its existence but causality does not depend on things;..
S: I simply cannot even imagine causality separate from things, or things separate from causality. Either way it does not work.
Well, the latter part (in italics) of that sentence was crucial to my meaning. I wrote:
A thing depends on causality for its existence but causality does not depend on things; especially as the inferred infinite process of thingness [snip]
If causality is defined as the infinite process of thingness (thingness being the caused), then it is necessarily differentiated from that which is caused. Otherwise, causality itself becomes the caused and--yes, you guessed it--you now have to look for what causes causality. Unless you’re satisfied with circular reasoning, which would seem to go something like this: (1) causality causes things to exist, (2) causality exists, (3) therefore, causality is a thing caused by causality.
No, it means that we speak in and of finitude in order to bring about an understanding of the infinite.
I can understand the meaning of this quite clearly, but where does the Tau fit in? Is Tau the infinite and not the causality? Are you saying that the Eternal Tau is the cause of causality? What makes the Tau Eternal?
If causality is defined as the infinite process of thingness (thingness being the caused), then it is necessarily differentiated from that which is caused.
Yes, as seen from finitude, but the caused itself is the cause of the next effect, going back infinitely, and not only forward.
Otherwise, causality itself becomes the caused and--yes, you guessed it--you now have to look for what causes causality. Unless you’re satisfied with circular reasoning, which would seem to go something like this: (1) causality causes things to exist, (2) causality exists, (3) therefore, causality is a thing caused by causality.
How mystical!
Although that is not exactly how I understand causality, what is the non-mystical alternative?
L: No, it means that we speak in and of finitude in order to bring about an understanding of the infinite.
S: I can understand the meaning of this quite clearly, but where does the Tau fit in? Is Tau the infinite and not the causality? Are you saying that the Eternal Tau is the cause of causality? What makes the Tau Eternal?
If you imagine an aerial view of the ripple effect in a body of water from the centre of an impact outward then take a cross section of this view by slicing through the body of water, you will see such a linear cause-effect/cause-cause wave as you speak of above. The Eternal Tau, in this instance, would be best pointed to by indicating not only the cause-effect/cause-cause linear wave view but also the lateral aerial view as well as those same views of the observer as the centre of its own ripple effect at the same time; and so on.
L: If causality is defined as the infinite process of thingness (thingness being the caused), then it is necessarily differentiated from that which is caused.
S: Yes, as seen from finitude, but the caused itself is the cause of the next effect, going back infinitely, and not only forward.
The qualifiers “back†and “forward†are still finite regardless of the assertion that this backwardness and forwardness is infinite. Backwardness and forwardness is limited by the present; the present imposes the boundaries, that is. In other words, this particular view is still a finite one and not the infinite (the Eternal Tau), notwithstanding its attempt to point to it.
L: No, it means that we speak in and of finitude in order to bring about an understanding of the infinite.
S: I can understand the meaning of this quite clearly, but where does the Tau fit in? Is Tau the infinite and not the causality? Are you saying that the Eternal Tau is the cause of causality? What makes the Tau Eternal?
L: If you imagine an aerial view of the ripple effect in a body of water from the centre of an impact outward then take a cross section of this view by slicing through the body of water, you will see such a linear cause-effect/cause-cause wave as you speak of above. The Eternal Tau, in this instance, would be best pointed to by indicating not only the cause-effect/cause-cause linear wave view but also the lateral aerial view as well as those same views of the observer as the centre of its own ripple effect at the same time; and so on.
Casualty is not as linear as you think that I think. It encompasses all that you mention, and at the same time. How are the other 'views' not causal conditions at the same time? Are you saying that each and every possible view imaginable put together is the Eternal Tau?
However, the bold in your response above is then what the Eternal Tau is. Isn’t it? You ARE pointing to ‘something’. Are you not? If not, then what is the Tau and what makes you think it is Eternal?
The qualifiers “back†and “forward†are still finite regardless of the assertion that this backwardness and forwardness is infinite. Backwardness and forwardness is limited by the present; the present imposes the boundaries, that is.
The point is, what limits the forwardness, backwardness, AND the present-ness itself? What imposes the boundaries to THAT process itself, AKA causality?
Leyla: Strange thing about looking for the beginning of the universe, or what caused the Totality, is the fact that one necessarily must conceive of it as a finite thing in the first place.
Yes and No. As Stephen was pointing out, we can conceptualise infinity to a certain extent.
In our thoughts of the infinite, we can limit thingness to a completely vague and blurry finiteness.
I just ignore all properties of things, except the flow of change in from one form to another.
In this manner I can mentally take hold of all things at once. In limiting the baggage of thingness to it's fundamentals, one allows room for more realistic pointers to infinity to form, which one can then logically assess, just as you are doing in this thread.
Cory: What about the totality? How can the totality have a cause? By definition it can't, therefore the totality is uncaused.
No. It is not that the totality is uncaused, but that the totality is self-causing. That is why Cause and Effect is the most fundamental truth of reality to most of us here. It is why the cause and effect "process" exists instantaneously and has never not existed.
Oops of on one of my glorious rants again, where I walk a lonely path. Folks shouldn’t say things like this - The point is, what limits the forwardness, backwardness, AND the present-ness itself :)
To be self-causing the totality must exist of two opposing causes, which at each and every QUANTUM instant cause each other to exist. The quantum instant is the cause of our measurement of the totalities flux, namely time. These quantum instants are the necessary fault line between the perfection of dualistic infinity. They allow the creation of imperfect infinities, namely finite temporary things.
These causes are not able to be made one and the same as they are intrinsically opposite in nature. The view of teachers of reality, that things are illusionary, stems from the fact that these fundamental forces give the appearance of merging into one, whereas all their infinite nature is really doing is flowing along the path of least resistance to seek out an impossible equilibrium with its opposite. An equilibrium that is as impossible amongst the realm of the finite as it is in the realm of the infinite, the world of the finite simply being a layer upon the infinite stasis of the infinite.
Within the realm of the unbounded infinite, there is no linear time, there is just what Is - and what is there is something that has the power to cause, but it can only cause when it is bounded by that which it is not, when it is relative to something else. Only in tandem with the other side of infinity, its opposite, can its causal nature take on the property of action.
Quantum instants are caused by the fact that neither of the two infinite causes can make the other infinite cause totally finite - a boundary to their infinity exists, they cannot instantly merge into one (directly proven by the fact that there is a Now) - and it is this very incompleteness of merging, that causes the totality to pulse. In the fact that they cannot instantly totally merge, this means that in the middle of the finite boundary where they have merged, there will always be an aura of close to perfect balance where there is 50% contraction and 50% expansionary force. This is relative to the rest of the boundary that is not perfectly balanced, and now forms a temporary block to further interaction between the infinities.
Imagine a magic coin that one side had the power of expansion and on the other the power of contraction. One cannot push the power of expansion through the inside of the coin to the other side, the coin bars one from doing this. The near perfectly balanced portion of the infinite boundary has the same affect within the totality as the coin. This barrier is very strong. It's strength comes from the fact it is a spectrum - 'non-quantumly next' to that which is in most perfect balance is finiteness that is almost the same Expansion/Contracting ratio, right up to where one reaches pure infinity on either pole.
The boundary is perfect and permanent in the sense that it will always existing, but it's form will morph from one instant to another, due to the fact that a perfect balance is made impossible when two things are opposites. Only opposites can directly merge into a form of One - when two causes that are the same polarity meet, they do not cause each other to change causal polarity, they merely create an additive causal strength.
Causal flows are relative to other causal flows. This actually means that causes act with different levels of power. It also means that universal flows can be measured, and concepts like causal strength can be realised. In terms of what a cause can do, it can cause something else to expand or to compress.
Liquid to Gas - spatial expansion
Matter to Energy - spatial expansion
Compressing to create greater mass - spatial contraction
Gravity - spatial contraction
Energy to matter - spatial contraction
Exploding whatever (petrol, stars, muscle chemicals) - spatial expansion
When something expands however it will always stop expanding, to an observer the dominant expansionary cause will peter out and cease. This however is not the case, all of the expansionary force continues to have the same total strength, but its strength will have been divided to the extent of no longer being easily determinable. As well as numerous freed debris, molecules and atoms, the pieces of the object would be or have been radiating hugely increased levels of light and radiation, which carries away the expansionary cause from the object, eventually leaving an object that is likely to be spatially smaller with a heavier mass and gravitational pull per unit of spatial measurement. This is because it is now an object that contains a higher ratio of non-balanced contracting power seeking equally/balance with the everything which surrounds it. An explosion is a release of expansionary force, which comes about from stable objects being forced upon one another, or something extremely volatile like burning oxygen being injected into something less volatile. Such intrusions cause a massive high level structural breakdown, self-contained balances are destroyed and the and the contracting force shifts inwards while the expansionary force causes even more balances to become imbalanced, releasing even more expansionary power. Boom. The contracting force also attracts itself.
In a mystical sense, it is a force that is a collector, it pulls everything inwards and together, tries to make everything into a collection, and when it has collected everything it will be a One, it will again only be in the form of infinity, not also in the merged finite form tainted by the expansionary force.
The Expansionary force is the great divisor. It seeks to pull everything apart, it seeks space to make itself infinite by becoming larger and larger and larger, ad infinitum.
Properties are just attributes of complexity, aspects of increasing, or perhaps decreasing, degrees of immediate relativity. Relativity that in turn stems from the quantity and degree of flows of causal power being released from differing structural, chemical, atomic, sub-atomic formations within the object, including those being altered by external intrusions (such as air and light).
Upon review of our discussion I can only say that I have already answered the questions presented in your last post. I am unable, at this stage, to express those ideas more appropriately in any other way.
Maybe you might consider expressing your questions differently?
~
James:
Leyla: Strange thing about looking for the beginning of the universe, or what caused the Totality, is the fact that one necessarily must conceive of it as a finite thing in the first place.
James: Yes and No. As Stephen was pointing out, we can conceptualise infinity to a certain extent.
In our thoughts of the infinite, we can limit thingness to a completely vague and blurry finiteness.
I just ignore all properties of things, except the flow of change in from one form to another.
You’re still conceiving of the Totality as a finite thing in that your conception of it is that it is a thing in continuous (infinite) change--bit like a shape shifter--and particularly in light of this:
James to Cory: No. It is not that the totality is uncaused, but that the totality is self-causing. That is why Cause and Effect is the most fundamental truth of reality to most of us here. It is why the cause and effect "process" exists instantaneously and has never not existed.
Causality is fundamental to existence/appearances. When the Totality appears as a self-causing thing, it is a finite thing just as any other thing. I don’t think it’s logical to simply and suddenly remove time from the equation in order to assert causality as “the most fundamental truth of reality.â€
Upon review of our discussion I can only say that I have already answered the questions presented in your last post. I am unable, at this stage, to express those ideas more appropriately in any other way.
Whenever you are up to it then…
Maybe you might consider expressing your questions differently?
Well… I don’t know… let’s see…
Can one question as to how this Tau came about? Or is it silly… if so…. why?
And, there must be a reason for you to say that it is Eternal, so what is the reason that makes you think it is ‘Eternal’?
Can one question as to how this Tau came about? Or is it silly… if so…. why?
It is silly because if it came about then it would end, as do all things which come about. Unless, that is, you understand this coming about of the infinite specifically as the consequence of comprehending finitude. That consequent understanding is what I'd call understanding the nature of reality.
And, there must be a reason for you to say that it is Eternal, so what is the reason that makes you think it is ‘Eternal’?
To be self-causing the totality must exist of two opposing causes, which at each and every QUANTUM instant cause each other to exist.
why must the totality exist of two opposing causes to be self-causing?
I know that the fruits of action are two-fold,but they are just "degrees of desire"
what is totality?of what reality are you speaking?
when I look from the sky to a trainstation,I see people moving and trains going away and coming,and with different times different situations occur,I see chaos.there is no line to see in it.
The quantum instant is the cause of our measurement of the totalities flux, namely time. These quantum instants are the necessary fault line between the perfection of dualistic infinity.
there is no such thing as a fault line,although it may be expressed as such.it is just belief.
actions are expressions bound up in the belief.
the centre of belief is love for one's self.
They allow the creation of imperfect infinities, namely finite temporary things
of course,Self is the negation of completeness as reality.
we are what we believe and what it implies by a process of time in the conception,creation is caused by this bondage to formula.
I have said this things now more than 15times.
anyhow ,you are hitting the right direction.
or, you must be talking about something else.
Leyla: You have obviously spent some time thinking about things--how much time do you spend editing your work?
Mostly I just think as I write, though I often am lead into truth-daydreams as a result of what I experience.
I don’t edit anywhere near as much as I should. Virtually everything I write contains errors that would be picked up if I spent more time editing. Lol, at work I have trouble finishing anything off, I do the draft then get bored with the job. Seems to be a part of my undisciplined personality.
Leyla: You’re still conceiving of the Totality as a finite thing in that your conception of it is that it is a thing in continuous (infinite) change--bit like a shape shifter--and particularly in light of this:
Yes that is true. Infinity is just not something that can be summed into a one.
IMO, at any one point of time, the Totality of all things cannot be classed as absolutely infinite, as all there is, even though there may be no limit to the quantity of things. The problem of our inability to fully rationally define the terms finite and infinite, and the problem of inside/outside perspective, muddies the waters.
With an outside perspective of things they are finite. No thing is all that is. An outside perspective means to take something only as a whole, such as what one does when they use the term "A thing", or The Totality.
With in inside perspective of things they are infinite. As no thing is truly separate from everything else, there in no way we can say 'here endeth this object or here endeth the causes of this object'. An inside perspective means to perceive of a thing, not as a totality but a sum of parts. It is the perspective of "what makes up this thing, what are the properties of the things parts".
Infinite is supposed to mean not bounded, but that is nonsense. No one thing can ever be absolutely infinite. If any one thing or causal force was infinite, or if the "void" was a non-dualistic causal power, then it would be all that is. If it was all that is then it would be logically impossible for any differentiation to form, there would be no things as everything would be the same. Such a non-bounded infinity would also logically imply that it was uncaused.
Therefore everything is bounded. The Totality is bounded. This being the case, to describe what infinity is, then becomes a matter of determining the degrees of layers of boundedness, of what would otherwise be infinite. Boundedness creates thingness, not just of physical things, not just of the universe, but also of that which causes this thingness.
Boundedness does not make something infinite, 100% finite, a thing still contains elements of infinity - for example all things are still causally infinite, and it is possible that the quantity of things is infinite (but I am unable to confirm this through logic).
The Fundamental causal layer of reality are the Infinite forces of Contraction and Expansion - bounded by each other. This is binary form of boundedness, creating a singular binary layer of relativity.
Finite things - caused by and existing of the fundamental layer of relativity, PLUS a third boundary, namely other things. The third boundary only comes into play where the fundamental layer of relativity has been equalised, and this equalisation causes an additional boundary, which has the form of non-relativity. Most of the power to cause has been used up in being relative to the other, the power continually equalises with its opposite. Where the power to cause has been used up in this manner then a power vacancy is caused, and this vacancy of external power to affect by default must be another form of boundary.
Bert why must the totality exist of two opposing causes to be self-causing?
Nothing singular could cause anything. To be singular means to be separate, to be separate means to be uncaused. To be uncaused would mean that something does not exist.
I know that the fruits of action are two-fold, but they are just "degrees of desire"
Yes the fruits of action are twofold. The results of causal action will always consist of that which in balanced with its opposite and that which is not. In reality there is no such thing as equality. If you divide something by something else, one set of causes with another, there will always be a portion that in turn will cause another thing to expand or contract. It is the proportion of that which is balanced, at any one time, that determines the degree of power (or desire as you may have been putting it) that the object has on another, for only that portion that is not in balance will be able to be relative to whatever non-balanced power is in the other object (though of course any interaction causes a chain reaction that can unbalance existing balances). The flux of the universe is this constant causal chain reaction.
They are more than just "degrees of desire" as they are polarised, and being polarised means that there is a duality in existence. The same cause can cause different results in different objects. This is clearly seen with Heat. If you place a cold spoon into hot water, then the cold thing, the spoon, will get hotter. However if you first significantly heat the spoon and then place it in the water, then heat will flow from the spoon to the water. Although the cold and hot spoon is not absolutely the same thing, so we aren't exactly comparing apples with apples, the only difference is that some different energy form is emanating from what otherwise would be the same thing. Heat by the way is just the effect excesses of the expansion and contraction forces have on our nerves. When something is hot it is actually releasing, from its mostly balanced synchronistic state, a higher degree of contracting force, carried away in atoms, light, radiation etc, which generally has the effect of allowing the spatial expansion of that which remains (it varies depending on the internal structural relativities, for example superconductors have a unusual structure in relation to heat).
Me: The quantum instant is the cause of our measurement of the totalities flux, namely time. These quantum instants are the necessary fault line between the perfection of dualistic infinity.
Bertie: what is totality? of what reality are you speaking? when I look from the sky to a train station, I see people moving and trains going away and coming, and with different times different situations occur, I see chaos. there is no line to see in it.
With absolute chaos, with unchecked or bounded forces, nothing would be able to form. Both causal synchronicity and chaos are caused only because nothing can ever truly form/merge unite into a single one, including the totality itself.
In everything, there exists a fundamental inequality that cannot be broken, but gives the illusion of brokenness due to the fact that that which causes this effect can be "separated" - that is the forces give the appearance of being divisible, of being taken apart to create different forms. This is false. The forces are not truly separated, but (and this is descriptive only) it is akin our visualisations of the stretching of space-time.
Perhaps a better descriptive example would be blowing expansionary force into a balloon, stretching the skin of the balloon, which represents the contractive force. As the skin of the balloon spreads out, because the expansionary force is growing inside, that after all is all this force actually does, then this contracting force skin, gains more power to push the expansionary force inwards. Two different effects are created depending on whether I am inside the balloon or outside of it.
The fault line is automatically created due to the fundamental unchangeable difference in action, in essential nature, between the two forces. If something cannot be changed then it automatically becomes a boundary.
man is a very mean measure of all he is responsible/answerable to conceive,and of the forgotten remainings of his experiences.all truths are dimensional (often of two) and always directional,but what we often discount or overlook is the elasticity and permissable difference of forms (as now),and that at any time and place anything may be true or not.relativity is no more true than not - therefore a thing is equal to its measure of advancement (in direction)
Lol, at work I have trouble finishing anything off, I do the draft then get bored with the job. Seems to be a part of my undisciplined personality.
Please tell me you don't work for Centrelink. I would have to ring and have you fired.
I rang their Appeals department recently and was given precisely the same information I got from "Customer (??) Service." When I suggested what I thought the underlying issue was and asked him to refer to the case file instead of the database, I was told that I would have to appeal if I considered the decision unsatisfactory. So, I said; "Obviously, I consider the decision unsatisfactory, which is not only why you exist but also why I am calling you in particular. You are the Appeals department and you have given me no more information than Customer Service, so what exactly do you think your function is if not to deal with Appeals?"
It was amazing. I think he must've pulled out his policy manual, opened it at no page in particular, closed his eyes, circled his finger in mid-air a few times and read out to me whatever it was his finger landed on.
You know, I had to actually force him to tell me what was involved in his getting that case file on his desk (from internal comms to overnight courier systems) and then tell him to do that before he actually did it?
Bloody get me started on what is supposed to be the public "service"...
Now, as an employee in the private sector, I would not last a second if I did not know and do my job super-efficiently. Especially since I am also so otherwise unconventional!
It is silly because if it came about then it would end, as do all things which come about.
Yes I agree, that is kind of silly, but I understand that as causality, not Tau. Do you think causality came about? You see, since you name it as Tau, I have to ask what is it and what caused it? On the other hand I cannot ask the same question for causality because causality is not a name of any particular thing but a process which applies to all, including the Tau so to speak, and whatever one considers has created causality must necessarily have a cause to it, for nothing could exist without having a cause to it, hence it could not be beyond a causal process. Now, is Tau beyond a causal process?
Unless, that is, you understand this coming about of the infinite specifically as the consequence of comprehending finitude. That consequent understanding is what I'd call understanding the nature of reality.
Of course, unless I do not comprehend finitude (in and of things and their nature) I cannot comprehend the infinite nature of causality. I don’t need to introduce a name of a non-thing to comprehend the infinite; it is already quite simple. It all depends on how one perceives.
If the Tau works for you then fine, but it seems illogical to me. Causality is perfectly comprehendible through reason, and there is no other reality than the infinite dualistic nature of existence itself. There has never been a ONE, nor will there ever be, as far as existence is concerned.
I think James is trying to explain the same thing but in much better terms than I.
