Absolute Infinity/Consciousness

[No1Here2c]

55 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Knowing as being and knowing as linguistic knowledge is an attribute. Not a thing in itself.

So you claim now that an experience arising within Consciousness is not a thing?

Attribute is Thing

to be a Thing is to have Attribute.

[No1Here2c]

'Pure Being', when used as a specific pointer towards formless absolute, can be claimed to have no attribute.

But 'Being' is typically utilized as a pointer towards the forms which arise presently. These are attributed things, or things with attribute.

Perhaps we play semantics?

Or interpretational games?

Communication gap widens the deeper we go

Edited 14 hours ago by No1Here2c

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

'Pure Being', when used as a specific pointer towards formless absolute, can be claimed to have no attribute.

But 'Being' is typically utilized as a pointer towards the forms which arise presently. These are attributed things, or things with attribute.

Perhaps we play semantics?

Or interpretational games?

Words point to words in infinite meaningless circles.  You could say everything there is to be said for a million years without actually clarifying actuality a whim . 

[No1Here2c]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Words point to words in infinite meaningless circles.  You could say everything there is to be said for a million years without actually clarifying actuality a whim . 

Yes.

Words, things with attributes, typically are utilized to point toward words/meanings situated within the network of other words; also things with attributes.

We, 'Truth seekers', must(If we wish to have pointers within our cognitive network) devise linguistic devices which we may utilize to point toward the deeper layers of reality. Unless you have the foundation & framework to utilize these devised devices, you are trapped within the web of limited meaning.

Consciousness, to grasp itself must forgo symbols.

Consciousness, as human form, has little tools to communicate. Hence the feeble words here attempting to guide in Truthful direction.

Edited 13 hours ago by No1Here2c

[No1Here2c]

Its a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.

Catch-22

Edited 13 hours ago by No1Here2c

[No1Here2c]

49 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Words point to words in infinite meaningless circles.

Words, utilized & arranged in just the right way, from just the right state of consciousness, have the capacities to catalyze awareness into expansive states.

This is an experience one must have from their own perspective in order to fully grasp.

Edited 13 hours ago by No1Here2c

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, No1Here2c said:

Words, utilized & arranged in just the right way, from just the right state of consciousness, have the capacities to catalyze awareness into expansive states.

Example? 

[Mellowmarsh]

1 hour ago, No1Here2c said:

So you claim now that an experience arising within Consciousness is not a thing?

Attribute is Thing

to be a Thing is to have Attribute.

It doesn’t really matter what the term is claimed to mean. The point is perception is required to attribute that meaning.

“Is” has no meaning by itself. “Is” is abstract and provides no actual explanation.

Existence doesn’t need perception to be, but the term “is” requires perception and consciousness to have meaning.

 

 

[No1Here2c]

24 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Example? 

I cannot know what example will work for you under your current cognitive condition & state of consciousness. This becomes deeply personal work.

[No1Here2c]

26 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

It doesn’t really matter what the term is claimed to mean. The point is perception is required to attribute that meaning.

“Is” has no meaning by itself. “Is” is abstract and provides no actual explanation.

Existence doesn’t need perception to be, but the term “is” requires perception and consciousness to have meaning.

Is

look at is

IS

IS

IS

THIS IS WHAT IS POINTS TO

ABSTRACT?

OR DIRECT PERCEPTION?

ANY DIFFERENCE?

Edited 12 hours ago by No1Here2c

[No1Here2c]

We come to discover that 'direct perception' is much more abstract in nature than it is assumed to be.

In the Abstract Nature of reality/perception, is found abstractions which are effectively utilized to point toward True Nature.

Is

Is IS

You get lost in the words without careful tact and awareness of the linguistic traps.

Utilize the words as direct pointers.

Do you know how a pointing arrow works?

–>       ×       <–

Those two are pointing toward what?

Watch for the trap of getting stuck on the arrow itself.

–>    ×

It is pointing toward something

~♤~

We go beyond meaning, into the realm of 'direct pointers' in this work.

You must grasp and utilize that 

Twist:

When the pointer is trying to point to itself and all you know is looking elsewhere based upon the cue of the arrow, how will you ever grasp that the arrow itself must be recognized?

Edited 12 hours ago by No1Here2c

[Mellowmarsh]

9 hours ago, No1Here2c said:

Is

look at is

IS

IS

IS

THIS IS WHAT IS POINTS TO

ABSTRACT?

OR DIRECT PERCEPTION?

ANY DIFFERENCE?

Looking doesn’t know what it’s pointing to or looking at, or looking from, or what’s looking. Looking is an abstract idea pointing to abstract intangible ideals.

 

No thing knows itself. Infinity, or absolute are known abstract ideas that know nothing.  An idea is known, but never tangibly seen.

“Omniscience”  is a relative idea of something it claims is infinite and absolute. Relative ideas are never an omniscient knowing because of the cessation of knowledge problem upon the ultimate, eventual, unavoidable demise of the finite mind and body mechanism. 
 

There’s no one here to know anything because infinity is inconceivable… except in this conception, the arising of a known knower that knows nothing. Infinity can never tell itself it’s infinite because it doesn’t have a self, it’s a synthetic construct. 

[Mellowmarsh]

10 hours ago, No1Here2c said:

When the pointer is trying to point to itself and all you know is looking elsewhere based upon the cue of the arrow, how will you ever grasp that the arrow itself must be recognized?

The pointer… aka brain mind mechanism can point to everywhere but itself because there is no self at its core base source. The self is an emergent built for predicting (Not Self-Reflection)

The primary function of the brain is to predict future events and manage the body (allostasis), using past experiences to create an internal model of the world. It is not designed to understand its own biological mechanisms.

A model of the world is not the world it is a representation born of perception, it’s a synthetic simulation, not real.

The world isn’t out there, the world is contingent upon consciousness. No consciousness, no world.

While consciousness is obviously known to be, consciousness can never know what consciousness is because there’s nothing outside or beyond it to measure or study it. Consciousness can never step outside of its own arena to get a peek up its own skirt.

Consciousness remains forever a mystery even to itself…. Every thing else is just the linguistic contents of consciousness.

 Consciousness doesn’t have any requirement or need to know itself, that would be like the content of consciousness trying to look for consciousness, it’s absurd.

Edited 2 hours ago by Mellowmarsh

[Mellowmarsh]

11 hours ago, No1Here2c said:

I cannot know what example will work for you under your current cognitive condition & state of consciousness. This becomes deeply personal work.

One can never know another one. Only One.  Only the Lonely. One without a second.

 

It’s lonely at the top. Better among the bottom feeders, the big ass club that absolutely resists having itself as a member.