Science Podcast Appearance Coming Soon

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, gengar said:

Isn't there only one formless abstraction; Infinity itself? how can a formless abstraction have the "Form" of evil?

In this case it would not be totally formless, but pretty close, with the only quality being Pure Evil.

I am literally just telling you: imagine Pure Evil. If you can do it, there it is!

Quote

You have classified God as Infinite Good(and not evil). Would God/Good be stronger than Evil, or do you propose a Zoroastrian style of metaphysics where they are in a perfect balance for eternity?

This Pure Evil would still be a part of a higher Good in my view. Good would always win out. But the Pure Evil would lurk within. Just like how Absolute Blue lurks within Infinity.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[vibv]

Evil is by definition relative.

That being said, every possible evil can and does exist.

EVIL is LIVE backwards. Coincidence? 

Edited 4 hours ago by vibv

[Sincerity]

56 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This Pure Evil would still be a part of a higher Good in my view. Good would always win out. But the Pure Evil would lurk within. Just like how Absolute Blue lurks within Infinity.

Are you talking about something like platonic forms? And that these are absolute, in your view?

[Miguel1]

2 hours ago, Rilles said:

Bruh I can't with this thread

I cant with your 7400 posts while using that profile picture 

[Miguel1]

8 hours ago, gengar said:

Thats really interesting how humans have more faith in either hard materialism or dualistic mysticism, and even a paradoxical combination of the two, than actually contemplating truth and consciousness. Maya hard at work I guess.

That’s how intelligent God is in hiding from itself.

[gengar]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

This Pure Evil would still be a part of a higher Good in my view. Good would always win out. But the Pure Evil would lurk within. Just like how Absolute Blue lurks within Infinity.

 

Aha, so you still qualify Absolute evil as being imagined by and therefore emanating from the absolute Good.

However this brings up strange paradoxes.

You qualify the absolute formless God, the ultimate reality, as being Good. Imagination itself, with nothing behind it, the ultimate bedrock of reality that is entirely self subsisting and not imagined or emanating from anything else. Let's call this the Godhead.

You call this formless Godhead, Good, without the same qualification as absolute Evil. The qualification absolute Evil had to become Evil, was to be imagined by the Godhead. However the quality of being Good of the Godhead is intrinsic to the Godhead, right? The Godhead isn't imagining Goodness for itself, it already eternally is without qualifications.

Couldn't the Godhead now, imagine in the same way as it imagines absolute Evil, imagine an absolute Good that IS qualified by the Godhead? That would be consistent with the Godheads power, since it imagined absolute Evil, it could also imagine absolute Good.

Would this second Good, this emanation from the Godhead, be any different from the Godhead (like some sort of "angelic goodness"), or would the Godhead imagine itself again?

Would absolute Evil be in opposition to the Godhead (being everything the Godhead isn't somehow), or in opposition to this "second Good"?

Surely absolute Evil is proposed by you to be in opposition to some kind of Good, in the same way darkness is the absence of light. But how can anything be in opposition to the Godhead? wouldn't that be non-existence, pure non-being? How can Absolute Infinity have an opposite?

Absolute Blue seems less paradoxical, since it's not in opposition to anything. It's just an Infinity chilling within itself.
 

[gengar]

7 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

That’s how intelligent God is in hiding from itself.

Yeah I guess. Yet I do understand it, but my ego has resorted to other tricks to keep me in the illusion.

[Rilles]

11 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

I cant with your 7400 posts while using that profile picture 

Those 7000 posts are from a long time ago, I took a 4 year break from here, now I’m back, I’m beginning to regret my decision. 

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything is a state. You are always in a state.

Yes, I am saying Infinity has entirely new dimensions of it that it discovers about itself.

Infinity is infinitely profound.

Because you seem to be limiting the Absolute to formlessness only. Which is a common mistake nondual people make.

It's interesting that you brought up nonduality, as if we were contrasting one philosophical system with another.

Still, is the absolute a state? You speak of insanity, this and that, abstract, dimension, process. It's tempting to think of infinity as an ever-expanding room that gets filled with items, like outer space.

Mentally grasping that an absolute is absolute is relatively easy. Even then, as a notion, it is itself relative. It is everything and all-encompassing. In our minds, it could be formulated as "everything is absolute. There is nothing that is not absolute - including nothing." But claiming that a cauliflower is absolute muddies up the waters, in my view. We don't even perceive the thing itself. It's likely that people end up believing that the concept of a cauliflower is somehow not relative, even though that notion might not have precise boundaries and is rather abstract and non-objective.

And "profound" is relative - a property that appears only in relation to what is not profound. As for form and no-form: aren't they relative, too? What makes something relative is that it is particular and defined, including formlessness. How it shows up in our experience is as a discrete thing. It is not every thing that exists - it is "that" thing. Our experience of everything is relative.

At some point, we might claim things like: everything is relative, nothing is relative, everything is absolute, nothing is absolute - plus both and neither, and/or both or neither. How would that help us begin to mentally unpack this topic? (Not that it could be done through those means, to be clear).

I'd stick with "everything is relative" as the common ground of our shared experience.

I'm absolutely astonished and relatively excited.

Edited 29 minutes ago by UnbornTao

[Elijah Gura]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

they did not let me read my important disclaimer

Why didn't they? Did you share it with them prior to the conversation and it triggered them?