tsuki

Now that's something quite remarkable. I was wondering what does it mean for the sense of sight to be a 'dimension'. Isn't it obvious that it is 2 dimensional? When I look at the screen, the screen is flat. It is not a line. Now is it really? As I touch my index finger and the thumb and start rubbing them together, I know where to look. It is not that vision is two dimensional. Looking is. Looking is vision + movement!

Hmm, action implies interaction of senses. I can use two senses to convert the sense of being into one other sense. For example - if I have the sense of being of a loudspeaker and can move and hear, then I can see it. The motion of my head is constrained by my sense of being and my hearing. No - they coexist at the same time. There is no causation.

Thank you for the reminder. What I'm trying to pin down is: integration of the separate senses.

It's okay. See you later in my journal .

Sigh, mind, feelings, movements interexist. Why not talk about your feelings about my mind stuff then? Feelings that compel you to comment.

Well, you're only disturbing me if I say so . We need to learn to communicate properly without suffering. Since we seem to be stuck together, why not make it a learning opportunity? Also, isn't your will to comment on my mind stuff - your mind stuff? Why not talk about it?

And my space isn't my space when I ask you to stay out?

Sigh. Myself. Reality. God. Creativity. Infinity. I'm sure that it is unpinnable. End of story. Still, I hunt for it because in the process of doing it, I have to learn new tools. No tools will ever be sufficient. The only way in which I may pin it down is by deluding myself that my proof is correct. Delusion is, however, a sign that I have not mastered the tools that I used to capture it. I know that I am deluded when I suffer. By retracing my steps I can tell what mistakes I made and convert the suffering back to ignorance and achieve mastery. This is the cycle. Now I'm going uphill. Please, don't disturb me.

Post your comments here. Please.

@now is forever No. *slams the door*

@now is forever Yes, mother.

Well, I suppose that I want to express the strange-loopines of reality as a result of how senses are wrapped onto each other. Ego - the sense of being limited - is expressed within that. Oh, and thank you for your compliments.

Oh, the flow is getting back online. The end goal of description is: I am a kind of N-dimensional space of senses A sense is a group over a set that includes point at infinity. Because of this (?) sense is homeomorphic to a circle There is a homeomorphism between one sense and two other senses If you look at one sense from the point of view of two others, it is circle-like (constrained).

Sigh. I am nothing, I know nothing. Is this the low after a high? Is this the feeling of embarrassing myself in front of the forum people? Is this the feeling of being well-rested? Did the high go away because of the glass of wine, or because I lost momentum in the depths of group theory? Or did I upset the muse by being too greedy with my reasoning? It certainly does . I am not trying to capture anything. I'm trying to describe it honestly. The language may seem bizarre, but hey! This is the language I speak. I want to speak maths. Think of this journal as Ulysses written in mathematics. I do not write it to accomplish anything, but as a ladder to change my state of consciousness.

Ok, today is not my day. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived? That, or I lost momentum by diving into abstract concepts. I may have to retrace my steps tomorrow. The order of beings is very nuanced. Especially when it comes to the taxonomy of senses. Beings are multi-dimensional and I lost track of that. I also seem to have confused ordering with invertibility of the group operation. Huh, I also didn't notice that I started to call the elements of the group 'beings' and beings do not belong to any of the gross senses. Note to self for tomorrow: inner and outer may be represented by the inversion of elements in the group operation. this model may apply only to the sense of being and is projected onto other senses. Definitely sleep deprived.

That is very interesting. I'm so incredibly tempted to say that the two orders are equal, but they aren't. In reality there is no total order of beings, but I desperately want to preserve this idea and develop it. As I look at my chair and my guitar I was wondering whether one is more mine than the other. This is particularly important with respect to the second axiom of the ≤ relation: if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then a = b If the chair is less or equally mine as the guitar, and the guitar is less or equally mine than the chair, then the chair is the same as the guitar. That is just exactly how Ego thinks, isn't it? Since in the total order all elements must necessarily be comparable by ≤, then beings melt together with respect to mineness. The total order of beings seems to imply the egoic perspective, where things are either mine or not. Partial order of beings can have elements that cannot be compared with ≤, so the question is meaningless.

So, 'mineness' of things is a rudimentary description, but it implies order within a sense. Order is defined as an operation on the elements of the set that lets us tell whether or not they are smaller or greater. The most general case of order is Partial order. There is one interesting special case, which is called Total order. Partial order is when the relation is: a ≤ a (Reflexive: every element is related to itself). if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then a = b (Antisymmetric: two distinct elements cannot be related in both directions). if a ≤ b and b ≤ c, then a ≤ c (Transistive : if a first element is related to a second element, and, in turn, that element is related to a third element, then the first element is related to the third element). In total order we can compare every element of a sense to every other element of a sense. In partial order there are pairs of elements that are incomparable. This distinction between the kinds of orders is important, because there are two modes of how we can treat 'mineness' of beings. One way is to try to construct a total moral system that can compare every thing to every other thing. The other way is to let it be loose and leave some things within a sense as incomparable. The 'mineness' of things, the order of beings within a sense, will from now on be called morality. Morality can be total, or partial. Partial morality is how we express ambiguity (?). For example - in the sense of vision, beauty is kind of morality: We can always say that something is as beautiful as itself (why would we even say that?) if a ≤ b and b ≤ a, then a = b We can create chains of beauty Total order of vision requires that all visual beings either beautiful, or not. Partial order of vision lets us not compare beauty of a TV to a car. EDIT: I don't like the name morality. It's more like meaning. EDIT 2: I don't like the word meaning as well. I'm trying to generalize too quickly and I lose touch with direct experience. Let's stick to mineness. Things are mine, not mine and a boundary. Now, we have the relationship of less and more mine. Less and more inner. Let's define a zero. EDIT 3: No zeros yet.

Let's take the 'mineness' of the world as the basis for the description of the binding operation.

Let's model sense as a group. It is a set of elements and a binding operation. The binding operation needs to fulfill group axioms: Closure Associativity Identity Invertibility I need to find an appropriate name for the binding operation and elements.

My inner mathematician suffers from the lack of proof. If the implications are correct, then I have found what Ego is.

Two important observations: I stopped being in contact with direct experience and started studying abstract patterns. Rational analysis of nondual perception spirals down to singularity very quickly. I'm not ready to end this mystical experience yet, so instead - I will focus on analysis of egoic perception. That being said, there are two points that I'd like to make about nondual perception and merging logic with paradox. Trying to define away a/0 in mathematics had led to the invention of projectively extended real line (PER). Trying to define square root of -1 had led to the invention of complex numbers (CN). There are some similarities that I intuit to be important for creation of dualities/perspectives. Once you define paradox and include it into the logical system, it influences the system in the following ways (based on the two above examples): Loss of total order: Cannot compare a to infinity in PER and cannot compare between 'pure' complex and real numbers in CN. This is very similar to how I perceive the gross senses. If we take the underlying structure (real numbers) and wrap it onto iteself, we get the increase of dimensions in CN If we take the underlying structure (real numbers) and extend it via addition of a point (infinity), we stay at the same number of dimensions (?) in PER. * Is this a recipe for creation of senses? The other thing is that PER has a correspondence between zero and infinity. They are similar. There is also the same similarity present in movement between touch and stillness. Touch is like zero and stillness is like infinity. Do other gross senses have both zero and infinity? EDIT: * - this is wrong. Dimensionality of PER increases: ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_line#Geometry EDIT 2: ** - this is also wrong. It seems like PER becomes something like a closed loop within the higher order dimension?

@now is forever No, just some funny synchronicities. Now, let's get back to work. There is this theme about 'my' enlightenment: I try to merge paradox with logic into a single 'thing'. I got a little 'aha' moment today where I understood that the process of trying to understand infinity is the very process that destroys the mind. Perhaps, this is why contemplation is a technique for enlightenment.

Guess what looks like @Zweistein's avatar?

OH, now I get it: EDIT: Doesn't it look like my avatar? Hahaha!

Funny how 5-simplex has two projections and I just came up with two conceptual systems of perception. The left is egoic and the right is nondual: Let's focus on some implication of the hierarchy of senses in the nondual perspective for now. I think that the way in which I described the nondual perspective makes it inherently unstable (like we observed it to be). If we observe that the subjective and objective worlds are beings themselves that other senses relate to, then we have to make further observations along this line of reasoning. Because now, we can observe that each of the five categories of senses are beings themselves that group something (experience?). If that is the case, then even the senses themselves are grounded in the sense of being. Calling sense of being a sense now feels inappropriate. That is because senses themselves are beings that experience relates to. In the nondual perspective, there is just being and the various forms of it. If we take being as primary and account for the existence of paradox with its limit (nonbeing), then we can relate other senses with their inner-outer partitioning as perspectives. A perspective on being is a duality of inner-outer with its associated paradox: Seeing: inner / darkness / outer Hearing: inner / silence / outer Movement: inner / stillness / outer Taste: inner / tastelessness / outer Smell: inner / smelllessness / outer And, we can have much more, like: Time: past / now / future etc. The bold paradoxes are how nonbeing is projected within this perspective on being. What interests me now is how is this inner-outer relationship established. There seems to be an order of being, a direction. I wonder how that is projected from being into senses. It's strange because it reminds me of the attempts to define paradox away in mathematics, such as number systems that allow division by zero. I'll have to get into that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_line