GENIUS FORUMS

guest_of_logic wrote:Hey, if you feel like redefining words, go right ahead I suppose, but I don't really see the point - why?

That's because you don't really care about understanding anything. You don't' feel a sense of responsibility to uncover what's absolutely true, so of course you don't see the point. Duh!

guest_of_logic wrote:OK... well, that was pretty... random. There doesn't seem to be any point to it. What are you trying to prove? That you can redefine that which is finite as infinite? If so, then consider your point (all infinity of them) proved. But where does it get us? More importantly, where does it get YOU? Has it enlightened you?

Oh so first you mock Loki by painting him as a self proclaimed prophet who comes to spread the faith and bring salvation to others. Then you come right back and indignantly demand that he get back in the corner you tried to paint him into so you can continue your tired charade ad nauseam. I would call you an asshole, but you're too fucking stupid to understand what the hell you're actually doing.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:I don't want to ask a stupid question, but still it is valid: with all that, how do you feel?

After I figured out the solution to my problem, I felt like most people feel when they overcome a problem that's been bothering them (lightness, gratitude, happiness, a desire to share and give). But these feelings should fall away quickly enough.

I certainly don't claim to be perfectly awake or realized. I still have curiosities, on a philosophical level, and on other levels, and there will be more problems in the future.

One thing I have noticed is that as I become wiser, problems don't oppress me emotionally as much, so the solution tends to not create much elation. There is less drama. I can see how eventually problems and solutions will cease to have much emotional import at all, so perhaps it will eventually just be a consistent lightness of being?

As for any extreme mystical bliss, ecstasy... I had such extreme states many years ago and I relate those more to rawness of mind. Exploring my perception and metaphysical possibilities was so new, so fresh, so mind blowing. But that stuff gets old, I find. As a young person, there was also strong emotional oppression and fear about common things we all struggle with, which I would dramatically lift away with imagination, grandiose, superstitious thoughts, wild speculation, and drug use. I think people who have powerful mystical experiences are often extremely oppressed by the world and the mystical experience is blowing off steam, a sudden release of negative energy.

Perhaps of note: if someone tells me a spooky enough story, I often can't help but get euphoric chills, a mild ecstasy, even though I don't really believe the story is important. Sometimes this also happens with really generic pop music that I don't really respect. It elicits a strange crawling ecstasy that in earlier times I would interpret as spiritual and otherworldly, but now I don't really see it as having much significance, even though it still happens.

They say that knowledge of Self produces 'bliss' (ananda) I mean that is what yogis say (like Ramakrishna). I know that this was a realization about the Infinite and not the Self, but what comes from your realization?

What now/next?

Difficult to say what I'll pursue next. I'm still not very clear on many issues that I want clarity on, so there's no shortage of things to go after.

Laird wrote:Kelly, you seem not to have understood my "snide little remarks". It was with good reason that someone - I think Alex, in an earlier incarnation - coined the term QRStianity.

[snip]

Loki: How about you actually try using logical argumentation to debunk my OP?

Laird: I'm tired now, and not long ago I finished writing a very long post to another forum, so I don't have the energy to put in a lot of analysis, but I'll have a bit of a go at it:

You're playing a game of redefinitions, just like QRS. You've redefined "infinite" so that it no longer means what it conventionally does - something like "unlimited in extent" - but now means something very odd that's hard to express concisely - something like "can be conceived of as being comprised of a randomly selectable indefinite chain of causes-by-physical-relation". Hey, if you feel like redefining words, go right ahead I suppose, but I don't really see the point - why? Just so that you can start a thread with "Infinite" in the title?

Laird, your understanding of what "Infinite" is used to mean on this forum (and not only on this forum, by the way) is wrong. You are still thinking in terms of an infinitely extendable sequence of discrete units. You clearly think so, because you describe "a chain" of "physical" units. Try to look beyond that interpretation, because it's not the one being used on this forum (and not only on this forum, by the way). What happens when you add finite elements in an unending series, or if you subtract a fractional element in an unending series, is a mathematical kind of infinite. It's an unending accumulation, and we can call it a trans-infinite, but it isn't a true infinite. It's not really infinite in the philosophical sense. It is logically more finite than infinite, because it is limited by what it isn't, and therefore is not truly unbounded and unending.

The definition you still haven't been able to get your head around is "not-finite", the logical meaning of infinite. It isn't a meaning based on adding or subtracting, multiplying or dividing finite units, but recognising the logical alternative to finite units: the non-finite which doesn't have any inherent units at all.

This definition has been around for thousands of years if you want to examine history. So, not only is the definition that is being used not game-playing that chooses something arbitrary merely to rebel against convention, but it is a very precise definition and it is one that, according to history, is far in the lead in terms of being a convention. So, to be really truthful here, it is you who are game-playing, and being arbitrary and unconventional.

Your version of infinite is very easily applied to that which is conventionally considered finite. Take the totality of my field of vision right now. Conventionally, it is finite (i.e. in spatial extent), but by your definition I could say "The top rightmost dot of my computer monitor is caused by that which is - well, in your words, 'everywhere and nowhere' - so by that criteria I can pick any other part of my field of vision and ascribe it as the cause - say, the appearance of the wall behind my monitor. Now I can pick another random part of my field of vision to be the cause of that appearance - say, the webcam on top of my monitor. And so it goes, on to infinity since I'm free to choose not just finite components of my field of vision but infinitesimal points in it, of which there are no limit."

Loki's joke is that the contrasts by which something can be judged to exist cannot be identified as the sole causes for a finite thing. The fact that each new selection of contrasts repeats the same mental process should have indicated to you the folly of using the mathematical definition of "infinite", and the nature of Loki's reasoning. To repeat again what I said above, the definition that is being used for Infinite is not about dividing or multiplying, adding or subtracting units, but about recognising that any units are identified as discrete only in an arbitrary way. That is, the non-finite is already present as one unified and seamless whole, without any intrinsic parts.

OK... well, that was pretty... random. There doesn't seem to be any point to it. What are you trying to prove? That you can redefine that which is finite as infinite? If so, then consider your point (all infinity of them) proved. But where does it get us? More importantly, where does it get YOU? Has it enlightened you?

It gets us to what is absolutely true, not some psychological or physical place other than here. It doesn't get us to any place except to recognise what is already true for here and now.

Recognising that Reality is not made up of discrete finite units, but is already empty of any such things, has profound consequences for oneself and one's thought. One of the first realisations is that there is no inherent self. And therefore nothing to gain or lose in life, no truth in the feelings of being empowered or depressed, and so forth.

.

Kunga wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:I really can never understand anything religious.

Don't you do anything religiously ? :)

I don't even know what that means? I think it translates to do it often, how the word religiously got replaced for often doesn't make sense to me. It's like religion will try to throw words into your life for no reason. Do you believe in the Aether? well that's a belief in a God...

No, it's a belief in Aether...

Religion: from Latin religion-, religio reverence, likely from religare, 'to tie back'. According to the dictionary definitions, all religiousness is activity in relation to 'the divine', but it can also be defined as 'relating or devoted to the divine or that which is held to be of ultimate importance'.

Why 'to tie back' is probably lost is the swamps of time...

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Religion: from Latin religion-, religio reverence, likely from religare, 'to tie back'. According to the dictionary definitions, all religiousness is activity in relation to 'the divine', but it can also be defined as 'relating or devoted to the divine or that which is held to be of ultimate importance'.

Why 'to tie back' is probably lost is the swamps of time...

You missed out number 3.....

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

Don't you do anything religiously ? :)..................scrupulously

Which I think is a meaning that is thrown in to the abyss.

"I've got to get normal folk using religion somehow. I know, make all words work with religion."

Loki wrote:"Infinite" still means unlimited in extent, Laird. Perhaps the issue you have is how I'm applying the concept?

Yes, that seems to be more accurate.

When someone tells me that something is infinite, I tend to ask "infinite in what sense"? If we can find a sense in which your infinite applies, then I'll grant that you haven't so much redefined the word as applied it in an unconventional way. It seems to be possible to word your assertion as "reality is infinite in the sense of the extent of interdependencies between its components", so yeah, it's more that you're applying infinity in an unconventional way than redefining the word per se.

Loki wrote:You clearly don't understand what I'm pointing to.

I read the description in your OP and I didn't have any comprehension difficulties with it, but if you think that I've failed to understand then so be it - I don't really care to get into a debate on that point.

It seems that your key assertion can be summed up as this: everything is interdependent. There doesn't seem to be any need to bring infinity into it.

Nick,

Any indignation is your own projection. For someone aspiring to emotionlessness, you use a lot of emotional language: "asshole", "fucking stupid", "what the hell". You probably ought to reconsider which of us is carrying out a charade.

Kelly,

I won't respond as I'm not interested in entering into a discussion with you, but I did read your post.

Loki wrote:You don't even know what I mean by accept, you are just guessing (but I wonder if you are even conscious that you are guessing).

Well, I have to guess when it comes to empirical matters. It's the best I can do.

By accept, I just mean, "confirm as correct". Take the proposition: "things are appearances". This is something to be accepted, provided one is to advance further. Without accepting this basic proposition, you cannot discern truths that depend on this proposition.

But that's the problem. Reality is not based on any propositions or concepts, although it can be understood through concepts(like this one.)

What appears can't be other than how it appears.

Sure it can, although only in time(i.e, it can appear to be something different from what it appeared to be previously.)

That which can't appear (the unseen) is a part of what drives reality, yes I covered that already.

How can that which can't appear be a part of reality?

You still have quite a long way to go, but you're on the right path.

guest_of_logic wrote:Kelly,

I won't respond as I'm not interested in entering into a discussion with you, but I did read your post.

Well, that's fine, and I am glad that you read the post.

Interdependence is a half-way conclusion, it's looking at the contents. The Infinite is the end-point, it's looking at the totality.

dejavu wrote:Kelly:

Laird, your understanding of what "Infinite" is used to mean on this forum (and not only on this forum, by the way) is wrong. You are still thinking in terms of an infinitely extendable sequence of discrete units. You clearly think so, because you describe "a chain" of "physical" units. Try to look beyond that interpretation, because it's not the one being used on this forum (and not only on this forum, by the way). What happens when you add finite elements in an unending series, or if you subtract a fractional element in an unending series, is a mathematical kind of infinite. It's an unending accumulation, and we can call it a trans-infinite, but it isn't a true infinite. It's not really infinite in the philosophical sense. It is logically more finite than infinite, because it is limited by what it isn't, and therefore is not truly unbounded and unending.

Spatial infinity not 'true' infinity?! What is "Infinite" used to mean on this forum Kelly?

I made it breathtakingly obvious more than once. Go and read the whole post again.

Quoting Kelly: "Spatial infinity not 'true' infinity?!"

Even I was able to understand this. Maybe, just maybe, I am making progress!

If I understood right, she is looking at the word infinite in its specific sense. We tend to think (well, loosers like me anyway: narcissistic aesthetes, universal history trivia-addicts, etc.) that 'infinity' means a universe expanding forever, with no limits. But for a group of interconnected reasons, those who are looking for solid, definite and 'absolute' definitions or bases with which to reason about the nature of existence and being, understand that this is not the part that holds the real seed to understanding. It is a sort of philosophical red-herring. Chase it at your own risk, oh Seeker of the Ultimate.

To say 'infinite' means there is no such thing as a discreet 'free-standing' thing. There are no finite things, all things are in-finite. The true recognition of infinity is in this.

Now, when you see that all things are not really 'free-standing' things, that they are only vague semblences (if you will), it tends to do a number on your view of your own self. First, there is really no specific container for the self. Truth be told you are really more like a cloud or a vapor-vortex in a 'world' of other vapor-vortexes. There is no beginning to you and, for the same reason, no end. If your container is 'infinite' in this sense, whatever are you going to think about what 'it' supposedly contains? Where exactly is your self? Do you feel...angst...depression...joy...fear? Think again, sage! You are just a vague floating wisp of indescreet vapor having a good or a bad day among other vague floating wisps of indiscreet, well---hallucination.

The world is made insubstantial so that one might assemble a true substance. The beginning of a 'sober mind' is here. With a sober mind one can approach real understanding.

These are 'first-order definitions', similar to the axioms of Euclid: they are so obvious and in that sense inarguable that they only need be presented axiomatically.

How'd I do, Kelly? (You might think I am making fun but I'm really not).

jupiviv wrote:

Loki wrote:By accept, I just mean, "confirm as correct". Take the proposition: "things are appearances". This is something to be accepted, provided one is to advance further. Without accepting this basic proposition, you cannot discern truths that depend on this proposition.

But that's the problem. Reality is not based on any propositions or concepts, although it can be understood through concepts(like this one.)

Remember, my opening post was "a map" that I used to realize the infinite. I don't confuse the map with the territory. The propositions were a means toward understanding.

What appears can't be other than how it appears.

Sure it can, although only in time(i.e, it can appear to be something different from what it appeared to be previously.)

Yeah, but then it's a completely new appearance from the old one.

That which can't appear (the unseen) is a part of what drives reality, yes I covered that already.

How can that which can't appear be a part of reality?

How about you tell me? Remember when you said:

Jupiviv: it could also be said that non-appearances comprise our reality.

You still have quite a long way to go, but you're on the right path.

I realize I am not fully enlightened, but you don't strike me as such either. :)

One of you (I won't say which!) is 75.3549% enlightened.

The other is 74.9217% enlightened.

Close enough to be matched, yet the difference still stands. (Inasmuch as anything can be said to 'stand' in a world of competing vapors).

Now go! Sweep the GF Dojo floor, chop some wood! Master will be back soon!

guest_of_logic wrote:

Loki wrote:You clearly don't understand what I'm pointing to.

I read the description in your OP and I didn't have any comprehension difficulties with it, but if you think that I've failed to understand then so be it - I don't really care to get into a debate on that point.

It seems that your key assertion can be summed up as this: everything is interdependent. There doesn't seem to be any need to bring infinity into it.

But the nature of these interdependencies renders an individual thing as literally non-existent. Any given thing is not truly there. That which doesn't truly exist (that which has no true boundaries) is not finite, hence infinite.

Infinite means not-finite, unbounded, immeasurable.

I remember you took issue with the fact that my usage of infinite is at odds with conventional definitions. However, isn't Buddhism a very old tradition?

Consider this bit from Hui Heng (638 - 713AD):

What is Maha? It means 'great'. The capacity of the mind is as great as that of space. It is infinite, neither round nor square, neither great nor small, neither green nor yellow, neither red nor white, neither above nor below, neither long nor short, neither angry nor happy, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor evil, neither first nor last. All Buddha-Lands are as empty as space. Intrinsically our transcendental nature is empty and not a single dharma (thing, phenomena) can be attained. It is the same with the Essence of Mind, which is a state of "Absolute Emptiness" - that is, emptiness of form.

What he's talking about is exactly what I have realized. Emptiness of Form is synonymous with the infinite.

This usage of infinite has been around for well over a thousand years.

Do you take issue with it simply because it's not popular in society?

Loki wrote:Remember, my opening post was "a map" that I used to realize the infinite. I don't confuse the map with the territory. The propositions were a means toward understanding.

The map is the same as the actual area. We're all reading maps in the territory itself.

What appears can't be other than how it appears.

Sure it can, although only in time(i.e, it can appear to be something different from what it appeared to be previously.)

Yeah, but then it's a completely new appearance from the old one.

We can say that the same thing(appearance) appears differently in two moments of time(two "sub-appearances", let's say).

How can that which can't appear be a part of reality?

How about you tell me?

Time. There can be a category of things that do not appear *right now*, but have appeared, or may appear eventually. This is why it can be said that things that do not appear cause us, or we cause them. Because time is causality - the past is our causes, and the future our effects.

I realize I am not fully enlightened, but you don't strike me as such either. :)

I'm definitely not enlightened all the time(or even half the time), but I believe I have a complete understanding of reality. It's really hard to stay enlightened, as the mind has a tendency to drift from it. It's even harder if you're surrounded by ordinary, deluded people.

Loki wrote: "But the nature of these interdependencies renders an individual thing as literally non-existent. Any given thing is not truly there. That which doesn't truly exist (that which has no true boundaries) is not finite, hence infinite."

Isn't it more accurate to say that there are no crisply defined things? Doesn't the issue hang on the tendency we have to believe that things have crisp, independant existence? Isn't that where llusion is born? Pain, attachment, suffering?

But isn't it similarly false to say that anything/everything is 'literally non-existent'? It would therefor be accurate to consider Laird's definition: everything is interdependent. Everything is interwoven, everything interprenetrates everything else, especially at the frontiers?

"Do you take issue with it simply because it's not popular in society?"

Look, I don't want to answer for Laird. And though I am being humorous to a degree I am actually working to define with you what you mean (though the realization connected with it may be beyond my grasp). But, for practical people, we tend to focus on practical things. We ask: what will this DO for me?

"None of this is gonna help me get laid..." (that was a joke of course). But there is really something to it. According to Kelly's use of these doctrines, the individual does not exist, or fades away. There would be no way to define connectedness as we normally understand it. Is it part of a process of atomization? I suggest that these doctrines will never allow anyone to achieve any level of physical mastery of their domain. They may lead to inner states of awareness that could very well have 'value', but they will destroy one's 'outer' life. That is fine, of course, as long as one knows what one is choosing.

We're back to 'presuppositions' and in this case to essential axioms that guide how perception is filtered to construct a world-view and the ethics that stand upon it.

jupiviv wrote:

Loki wrote:Remember, my opening post was "a map" that I used to realize the infinite. I don't confuse the map with the territory. The propositions were a means toward understanding.

The map is the same as the actual area. We're all reading maps in the territory itself.

You just said in an earlier post that reality is not based on propositions and concepts.

In other words, you are distinguishing propositions and concepts apart from reality. And that's precisely what I did in my first post, I used propositions and concepts (map) to point to Reality (territory).

Is it possible that you are just willfully interpreting my words to be more foolish than they really are just so that you can puff yourself up as my superior?

Loki: What appears can't be other than how it appears.

Jup: Sure it can, although only in time(i.e, it can appear to be something different from what it appeared to be previously.)

Loki: Yeah, but then it's a completely new appearance from the old one.

We can say that the same thing(appearance) appears differently in two moments of time(two "sub-appearances", let's say).

Yeah, but then we can say that the two sub-appearances comprise one single appearance.

e.g., the appearance of change.

In other words, my statement "what appears can't be other than how it appears" can be interpreted wisely and isn't wrong in any absolutist sense, despite your seemingly willful attempts to force it as wrong.

Jup: How can that which can't appear be a part of reality?

Loki: How about you tell me?

Time. There can be a category of things that do not appear *right now*, but have appeared, or may appear eventually.

That doesn't make sense. Things that have appeared, or will appear eventually don't have the quality of can't appear. Things that have happened or will happen can appear by definition.

This is why it can be said that things that do not appear cause us, or we cause them. Because time is causality - the past is our causes, and the future our effects.

I'd actually say the opposite. I would say that "timelessness" cannot happen, it cannot be experienced, it cannot appear to consciousness as a sensory appearance, but it can be confirmed through logic. Timelessness is a part of Reality, it makes causality possible, even though it doesn't appear to our senses directly (it literally can't).

So me and you are quite at odds on this issue.

Interesting: an enlightenment of nomenclature.

Attain nomenclature, attain enlightenment.

Hmmmmmm.

(*Scribbles notes in black notepad*)

guest_of_logic: It seems that your key assertion can be summed up as this: everything is interdependent. There doesn't seem to be any need to bring infinity into it.

Loki: But the nature of these interdependencies renders an individual thing as literally non-existent. Any given thing is not truly there. That which doesn't truly exist (that which has no true boundaries) is not finite, hence infinite.

Oh boy. Look, you're buying into a "logic" and set of definitions that I choose not to buy into myself. To be "truly" there; to "truly" exist - what do these mean? No, wait, you don't have to answer, because the answer comes prepackaged, from The Holy Scriptures and the Enlightened Word: to truly exist is to exist non-relationally; "non-inherently" (there's another entirely questionable definition). And we all know that such an existence is impossible... except, how could we? If it did occur, then we would have no access to it. And yet, on the other hand, we know that it does occur: "the Totality" exists non-relationally.

So... relational existence is not enough for you, huh? If it's relational, it's not "true". I can see what's coming... you're going to hit me with the whole "boundaries are arbitrary" doctrine, aren't you? Uh huh. Well go ahead - let it all hang out.

Loki wrote:Infinite means not-finite, unbounded, immeasurable.

Right, and to apply infinity to the finite set of appearances in my field of vision (as it seems you would, since you brooked no objection to my framing of the situation in those terms) is just a contrivance.

Loki wrote:I remember you took issue with the fact that my usage of infinite is at odds with conventional definitions. However, isn't Buddhism a very old tradition?

Consider this bit from Hui Heng (638 - 713AD):

What is Maha? It means 'great'. The capacity of the mind is as great as that of space. It is infinite, neither round nor square, neither great nor small, neither green nor yellow, neither red nor white, neither above nor below, neither long nor short, neither angry nor happy, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor evil, neither first nor last. All Buddha-Lands are as empty as space. Intrinsically our transcendental nature is empty and not a single dharma (thing, phenomena) can be attained. It is the same with the Essence of Mind, which is a state of "Absolute Emptiness" - that is, emptiness of form.

You agreed that "infinite" means something roughly like "unlimited in extent". What in good heavens does that definition have to do with what Hui refers to? "Neither this nor that"... what does that have to do with limitless extents? Nothing... nothing at all. The word he's looking for is not "infinite" - it's "inscrutable", or "ineffable".

Loki wrote:What he's talking about is exactly what I have realized. Emptiness of Form is synonymous with the infinite.

Oh jeez. See, this is just too contorted for me to be patient enough to deal with. Yeah, I'm being abrasive, but seriously, I can see you buying into something that you'd do far better to avoid. This says it all:

Loki to jupiviv wrote:I realize I am not fully enlightened, but you don't strike me as such either. :)

That's the game you're going to be playing from here on in, now that you've declared your affiliation in this thread. "None of us will ever be as enlightened as the Mighty QRS, but I'll fight to be recognised as more enlightened than you!!!" And that's the thing: you never will be recognised as an equal with QRS. You will be the perpetual "beta" male, fighting it out with the other "betas" (which include not only men, but also a couple of women) for some scraps of enlightenment-recognition, all the while reinforcing your "beta" status by conforming to the definitions and "logic" handed on down from the alphas.

Harsh? Maybe, but that's the way it's looking for you.

Here, you even seem to have seen a part of it yourself:

Loki to jupiviv wrote:Is it possible that you are just willfully interpreting my words to be more foolish than they really are just so that you can puff yourself up as my superior?

Jeez, could that really be possible? And could it be possible that you, ultimately, will buy into the same game at some point, seeing as how much you've already bought into? Maybe, or maybe you'll quickly ascend into the higher parts of the hierarchy of disciples: where overt competitiveness is shunned on the understanding that recognition-rewards from the alphas will instead ensue. Either way, you'll never be allowed to match the "masters".

I've observed as you came here attracted by the missionaries and the preachers, taking part in Bible studies; asking difficult questions of the preachers and disciples; copying the exchanges to other forums to see if others had better responses to the preachers and disciples than you; gradually acclimatising yourself to the belief system that, ultimately, you were always going to adopt if given a satisfying enough framework. Thing is, you haven't realised where that framework really places you - do you really think that QRS et al have a serious clue about "enlightenment"? Or does the whole thing actually play out as a game of status within a hierarchy, with the concepts being preached being secondary to the status within the hierarchy? I think that you know what the answer to that "truly" is.

And do I have an alternative for you? In terms of a neat prepackaged set of interlocking ideas like those of QRS... no, I don't. All I can offer is the advice to continue in the freethinking spirit that you clearly are capable of: don't declare allegiance to anyone; give your personal power away to neither man nor woman, but always look to the other side of the equation.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Loki wrote: "But the nature of these interdependencies renders an individual thing as literally non-existent. Any given thing is not truly there. That which doesn't truly exist (that which has no true boundaries) is not finite, hence infinite."

Isn't it more accurate to say that there are no crisply defined things? Doesn't the issue hang on the tendency we have to believe that things have crisp, independant existence? Isn't that where llusion is born? Pain, attachment, suffering?

But isn't it similarly false to say that anything/everything is 'literally non-existent'?

There are two ways I find helpful to think about the word "exist". In one sense, exist means to appear, and things certainly appear, so in that sense they exist. The other sense of exist means for a thing to be independent, bounded and objectively real, apart from the mind. So in that later sense, things don't exist, and have an infinite (immeasurable) nature.

It would therefor be accurate to consider Laird's definition: everything is interdependent. Everything is interwoven, everything interprenetrates everything else, especially at the frontiers?

The dependency of things on other things reveals things to have a lack of finite essence, things have a quality of emptiness, boundlessness and immeasurability.

Look, I don't want to answer for Laird. And though I am being humorous to a degree I am actually working to define with you what you mean (though the realization connected with it may be beyond my grasp). But, for practical people, we tend to focus on practical things. We ask: what will this DO for me?

"None of this is gonna help me get laid..." (that was a joke of course). But there is really something to it. According to Kelly's use of these doctrines, the individual does not exist, or fades away.

The individual, as a definition or a concept, turns out to be entirely arbitrary and subjective.

There would be no way to define connectedness as we normally understand it. Is it part of a process of atomization? I suggest that these doctrines will never allow anyone to achieve any level of physical mastery of their domain. They may lead to inner states of awareness that could very well have 'value', but they will destroy one's 'outer' life. That is fine, of course, as long as one knows what one is choosing.

I don't see this at all. I am going to school as a programmer, and I don't see how my new understanding is going to be that much of an impediment. I still see value in survival, science, art, even some entertainment.

guest_of_logic wrote:Any indignation is your own projection.

Yeah whatever it takes to keep yourself from seeing people for who they are instead of trying to paint them as something they're not and then getting indignant because they don't operate within the box you try to put them into. Take your circle jerk arguments somewhere else fool. Seriously, do you have any idea what a rude asshole you are?

guest_of_logic wrote:For someone aspiring to emotionlessness, you use a lot of emotional language: "asshole", "fucking stupid", "what the hell". You probably ought to reconsider which of us is carrying out a charade.

That's funny, dejavu said something similar to me about being emotional. So yeah, I probably would reconsider if I was aspiring to emotionlessness, but unfortunately for you guys I'm not. This is really just another sad attempt on your part to paint someone as something they are not.

Funny post Laird. Funny in an odd way.

What's all this talk of "declaring allegiance"? I'd rather think you let your excitement get the better of you than think you actually believe that.

dejavu wrote:Kelly: What happens when you add finite elements in an unending series, or if you subtract a fractional element in an unending series, is a mathematical kind of infinite. It's an unending accumulation, and we can call it a trans-infinite, but it isn't a true infinite. It's not really infinite in the philosophical sense. It is logically more finite than infinite, because it is limited by what it isn't, and therefore is not truly unbounded and unending.

dejavu: Spatial infinity not 'true' infinity?! What is "Infinite" used to mean on this forum Kelly?

Kelly: I made it breathtakingly obvious more than once. Go and read the whole post again.

dejavu: (quoting) The definition you still haven't been able to get your head around is "not-finite", the logical meaning of infinite. It isn't a meaning based on adding or subtracting, multiplying or dividing finite units, but recognising the logical alternative to finite units: the non-finite which doesn't have any inherent units at all.

By this rule, you deny inherency to infinity itself. Its division by perception into apparent finitudes is beside the point. You think it exists through logical inference alone, that is to say, through its 'proof' to mind. Infinity is spatial.

The proof is not the cause of the existence of anything, except understanding. It also helps reveal that a series is finite by the very fact of its being a series.

I did tell you to read the whole post again. For instance, the following quotes are even more revealing than the previous one you chose to look at:

Loki's joke is that the contrasts by which something can be judged to exist cannot be identified as the sole causes for a finite thing. The fact that each new selection of contrasts repeats the same mental process should have indicated to you the folly of using the mathematical definition of "infinite", and the nature of Loki's reasoning. To repeat again what I said above, the definition that is being used for Infinite is not about dividing or multiplying, adding or subtracting units, but about recognising that any units are identified as discrete only in an arbitrary way. That is, the non-finite is already present as one unified and seamless whole, without any intrinsic parts.

Laird: OK... well, that was pretty... random. There doesn't seem to be any point to it. What are you trying to prove? That you can redefine that which is finite as infinite? If so, then consider your point (all infinity of them) proved. But where does it get us? More importantly, where does it get YOU? Has it enlightened you?

Kelly: It gets us to what is absolutely true, not some psychological or physical place other than here. It doesn't get us to any place except to recognise what is already true for here and now.

Recognising that Reality is not made up of discrete finite units, but is already empty of any such things, has profound consequences for oneself and one's thought. One of the first realisations is that there is no inherent self. And therefore nothing to gain or lose in life, no truth in the feelings of being empowered or depressed, and so forth.

.

Well, Laird, do you feel like being totally honest and divulging why it is you are excessively frustrated with people who express ideas you disagree with? They would probably be understanding if you gave them half a chance, but at present they're just finding your spatty posts a bit wierd.

You know you don't have to be here on this forum, as it's entirely your own choice. You know that no one can force anyone to do what they don't want to do, or think what they don't agree with. You know also, don't you, that you cannot become riled by what others do, unless you have made the decision to become upset. So, why is it you're getting so uptight?

Oh boy, this is getting funner and funner! I'm really getting into this. Now I understand why you dudes like this stuff so much. Mastery is within sight!

Loki wrote: "The other sense of exist means for a thing to be independent, bounded and objectively real, apart from the mind."

There are two existences, is more realistic and intuitively sensible: one is the existence of the 'thing' apart from you and anyone: it is not as tangible as we normally think, it may even be cloud-like, unfixed and non-finite, but still, there it is.

And the second is the existence of that thing in your own mind, which is indeed a special case, a special sort of 'existence'. For example, you could take a pill that would inhibit you from perceiving walls, but if you walked into a wall you'd still bump your nose. Or, you could take a pill that would make you think there are walls everywhere, and you'd think you're stuck. But, perhaps just out of frustration, as if you didn't care, you maybe all of a sudden started to run and just passed through the 'walls' you thought were blocking you.

When I was a kid a neighbor boy told me a very convincing story about a rat swimming up into the toilet through the sewer-lines when he was taking a shit. It so freaked me out that I didn't take a shit for a week! I got terrible constipation.

A rat had an 'existence' in my mind, but no objective existence.

Things exist, apart from the mind. But, 'things' also exist in the mind. This is not a case of A=A.

Kelly asks His Lairdness: "So, why is it you're getting so uptight?"

He's a very advanced Jedi Master playing us on a three-level chess board, Kelly. There is a reason, but we can't see it. He's not getting uptight. He was smiling all the way through.