Absolute Infinity

[Meeksauce]

- is not something only attainable after this life, or in an altered state, but is literally the case right now. This would blow your mind if you truly realized it. Psychedelics just remove some of the limitations your mind has placed on reality, so yes they bring you closer to unlimitedness; but how do you think limits could exist without unlimitedness governing them? It's impossible to explain, but once you see it everything just has this infinite quality to it. I got my clearest awakening in a dream where I basically just slipped out of the matrix into an infinite void - imagine being able to see infinitely far, only you can actually perceive the distance all the way, as if the filter that normally blocks this has been removed. The fact that this one glimpse gave me such a connecting thread for everything I have subsequently experienced is proof alone.

 

What I'm really getting at with this is not only that you can perceive the infinite at all times but that God is epicly good, so good that it breaks the standard human notion. You really would not believe it.

 

You already are the infinite perceiving itself, you just have to be smart enough to not succumb to your own illusions so you can see it more clearly. If you're lost and feel like you can't see it that's just what the infinite is doing at that moment - the situation is that you are swimming around in circles trying to plumb the well of your consciousness in 3 dimensions when it was in 4 the whole time.

Edited 3 hours ago by Meeksauce

[Mellowmarsh]

53 minutes ago, Meeksauce said:

- is not something only attainable after this life, or in an altered state, but is literally the case right now. This would blow your mind if you truly realized it. Psychedelics just remove some of the limitations your mind has placed on reality, so yes they bring you closer to unlimitedness; but how do you think limits could exist without unlimitedness governing them? It's impossible to explain, but once you see it everything just has this infinite quality to it. I got my clearest awakening in a dream where I basically just slipped out of the matrix into an infinite void - imagine being able to see infinitely far, only you can actually perceive the distance all the way, as if the filter that normally blocks this has been removed. The fact that this one glimpse gave me such a connecting thread for everything I have subsequently experienced is proof alone.

 

What I'm really getting at with this is not only that you can perceive the infinite at all times but that God is epicly good, so good that it breaks the standard human notion. You really would not believe it.

 

You already are the infinite perceiving itself, you just have to be smart enough to not succumb to your own illusions so you can see it more clearly. If you're lost and feel like you can't see it that's just what the infinite is doing at that moment - the situation is that you are swimming around in circles trying to plumb the well of your consciousness in 3 dimensions when it was in 4 the whole time.

Excellent.

Yes, we all have the capacity to recognise this because we are this. 
 

Turiya (meaning "the fourth") is the fourth state of consciousness that acts as a pure, silent witness beyond the three everyday states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. Sometimes metaphorically called a "fourth-dimensional" or transcendental state of pure awareness, it underlies and pervades all ordinary human experiences.

There’s not even any distance between the perceiver and the perceived because distance implies there’s something to attain, something to reach, while this is already closer than your very own skin.

Infinity is the Absolute. Here now, everywhere and nowhere. Not a thing and all things. This, just this. One without a second. 
 

That which is blind, deaf, dumb, senseless, tasteless, unfeeling….arising/ appearing as sight, hearing, speaking, sensation, flavour, and emotion. 

[kavaris]

1 hour ago, Meeksauce said:

What I'm really getting at with this is not only that you can perceive the infinite at all times but that God is epicly good, so good that it breaks the standard human notion. You really would not believe it.

Yea, but what is meant by "good"? Thats a construct you are inventing, and are applying it to be inside of everything.

Like, you cant break the standard, if you dont even have ways to define said standard, which is to say then that description preludes actualization,

Like you dont have to actually believe it, since you can "say what you believe", and it doesnt necessarily align w/ you, as belief isnt pointing to something tangibly true. Like you dont hold onto thoughts you have, enough for them to be practically true in any way, so why would there be "absolution" in the course of "realizing yourself to be one"? Like, how did you end up here then? See below...

22 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Infinity is the Absolute. Here now, everywhere and nowhere. Not a thing and all things. This, just this. One without a second. 

Likewise, you cant have "Not a thing" and "All things", not only because "Not a thing" isnt a "thing" you can conceive of (unless negation is being used per its function, through speech~and not practically), but also, you are facing towards "those things that you think exist from both directions, absolutely", but the entire point is that, you cant have both sides. Once you challenge the other side of the equation ~ once you instigate "one" or "the other"... It validates "one" (YOUR construct of one) instead of the other, your construct of other. Like if you last left off @ "One", that then counters "Two". If you have two, it counters one.

It's not that the second choice wasnt an option, like... you just assume that its "simplified as one", but thats not the practical mechanism that is giving rise to that, for theres something that validates "oneness" prior to believing, saying, or actualizing. Likewise, it feels like everything you say is in the realm of validation, precisely because you have the ability to counter your own experiences. So what is that? Like, you are validating oneness, prior to validating your own experience as yourself, which doesnt make sense.

Edited 2 hours ago by kavaris

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, kavaris said:

you cant have "Not a thing" and "All things",

Yes you can. A thing is not a thing, until it’s conceived of as the thing it’s not. 
 

Are you not conceiving the words in the moment they are being written, of course you are. 

[kavaris]

6 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

A thing is not a thing

Ya but what does that mean?

[kavaris]

Like if you can cancel out everything, what do you have left? Its actionable cancelation, and yet, here we are still.

[Mellowmarsh]

Yes, and timeless and boundless too, appearing as time bound. 
 

Infinite movements with the unmoved silent still brilliant sea of unconditionally free love. It’s all good because it’s all free.

 

For my love there is no charge. That’s God.

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, kavaris said:

Ya but what does that mean?

A chair is not a chair until you say it’s a chair, what does chair mean to you?

[kavaris]

2 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

A chair is not a chair until you say it’s a chair, what does chair mean to you?

Well slow down there speedy Gonzolez, hold on...

We are at "if you can cancel out everything, what do you have left?"

[Meeksauce]

18 minutes ago, kavaris said:

Yea, but what is meant by "good"? Thats a construct you are inventing, and are applying it to be inside of everything.

Like, you cant break the standard, if you dont even have ways to define said standard, which is to say then that description preludes actualization,

Like you dont have to actually believe it, since you can "say what you believe", and it doesnt necessarily align w/ you, as belief isnt pointing to something tangibly true. Like you dont hold onto thoughts you have, enough for them to be practically true in any way, so why would there be "absolution" in the course of "realizing yourself to be one"? Like, how did you end up here then? See below...

Likewise, you cant have "Not a thing" and "All things", not only because "Not a thing" isnt a "thing" you can conceive of (unless negation is being used per its function, through speech~and not practically), but also, you are facing towards "those things that you think exist from both directions, absolutely", but the entire point is that, you cant have both sides. Once you challenge the other side of the equation ~ once you instigate "one" or "the other"... It validates "one" (YOUR construct of one) instead of the other, your construct of other. Like if you last left off @ "One", that then counters "Two". If you have two, it counters one.

It's not that the second choice wasnt an option, like... you just assume that its "simplified as one", but thats not the practical mechanism that is giving rise to that, for theres something that validates "oneness" prior to believing, saying, or actualizing. Likewise, it feels like everything you say is in the realm of validation, precisely because you have the ability to counter your own experiences. So what is that? Like, you are validating oneness, prior to validating your own experience as yourself, which doesnt make sense.

My brother in Christ you made the notion of good an absolute as God. This is like saying "torture and oral sex are completely equivalent because how do I know what God ordains". You're diminishing the intelligence and scope of God.

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, kavaris said:

Well slow down there speedy Gonzolez, hold on...

We are at "if you can cancel out everything, what do you have left?"

You cannot cancel out a thing that you have already created, conceived it as a thing. 
 

 

[kavaris]

^Hold on now, forget about God or not God, etc, etc...

P.s. im watchin a video to stay entertained, cause weve stumbled on a very tough Parmenidian path here...

"If we cancel everything out, whats that leave us w/,  and  whats doing the canceling, and how is it doing said canceling?"

[kavaris]

2 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

You cannot cancel out a thing that you have already created, conceived it as a thing. 
 

 

Oh i didnt see this post. hold up.

[kavaris]

Thats interesting. Stop it there for a sec, As i need more than a sec to think bout that mind-winder.

Edited 1 hour ago by kavaris

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, kavaris said:

Thats interesting. Stop it there for a sec, As i need more than a sec to think bout that mind-winder.

No problem, take all the time you need. Godspeed.

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, Meeksauce said:

Psychedelics just remove some of the limitations your mind has placed on reality, so yes they bring you closer to unlimitedness; but how do you think limits could exist without unlimitedness governing them? It's impossible to explain, but once you see it everything just has this infinite quality to it.

God must have intention, you have a mind, a mind that can be removed or not, it’s a choice you give to yourself. It’s called free will, unconditional love. 

You don’t even need psychedelics to remove limitations. This can be realised without the intervention of bugger sugar. 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Mellowmarsh

[kavaris]

Like, im thinkin of it like "We need something that *conceives, of, things* because,

20 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

.... youve already created [...], "conceived of..." -kindve thing.

1) Creation - Something has already done said creation.

2) Conception - That which is conceived is not canceled, because its immediately in conception, like its effectively conception itself.

3) "To cancel" is then said to be, 'something thats not "cancellation of everything" — atleast — in this particular way / However this may be cancellation in just one particular mode of, like... muting, for example.

4) Elimination via cancellation is yet another kind of cancellation, for its not necessarily assumed that anything has been eliminated, unless its this one (bulletpoint (4) now)

In conclusion, if we went down this path, we'd have a very complicated view of what it even means to cancel, conceptually, for it could just be that we are softening one side for another... but in the strictest version of, we have to have had some self creator, not to mention, to cancel everything out is to be left w/ something like a person whos been doing the conceptualizing ~ whether it be connected to self creator or not.

Edited 1 hour ago by kavaris

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, kavaris said:

Like, im thinkin of it like "We need something that *conceives, of, things* because,

1) Creation - Something has already done said creation.

2) Conception - That which is conceived is not canceled, because its immediately in conception, like its effectively conception itself.

3) "To cancel" is then said to be, 'something thats not "cancellation of everything" — atleast — in this particular way / However this may be cancellation in just one particular mode of, like... muting, for example.

4) Elimination via cancellation is yet another kind of cancellation, for its not necessarily assumed that anything has been eliminated, unless its this one (bulletpoint (4) now)

In conclusion, if we went down this path, we'd have a very complicated view of what it even means to cancel, conceptually, for it could just be that we are softening one side for another... but in the strictest version of, we have to have had some self creator, not to mention, to cancel everything out is to be left w/ something like a person whos been doing the conceptualizing ~ whether it be connected to self creator or not.

Who said anything about cancelling out what’s already conceived?

 

How can you cancel the conception of yourself? And how would you know you’ve been cancelled, if there’s no conception of you who could know ?

[kavaris]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Who said anything about cancelling out what’s already conceived?

 

How can you cancel the conception of yourself? And how would you know you’ve been cancelled, if there’s no conception of you who could know ?

Yes. Its not the case that our intention is to necessarily cancel out anything.

It may have not been your intention either, as it wasnt my ultimate intention (i think it was something i started in order to lead us here, possibly, maybe). And even if it was my intention, cancellation wouldnt necessarily imply elimination.

How can you cancel the conception of yourself?... How would you know you’ve been cancelled, if there’s no conception of you who could know?  -  Depending on whats meant by cancellation, you can conceptually cancel out yourself via a line of negation. Thats kinda what i thought we were doing at first... until cancellation took on multiple ideas...

Now cancellation means something more like softening or muting, in the looser sense. In the strictest sense, we are saying "what validates or invalidates <X> or..." something. Its a conceptual idea towards a possible revealing.

Okay. And let me just add in one element into this, to see if it starts to like... unblur the field-of-view / fog-of-war... "If everything was an intelligent field, or a spectrum of intelligence", what does that now mean for the thing doing the conceiving of, and the subsequent product / action of conception? And what does it leave us w/, per the motif, not to monotonously keep rephrasing the same things, but to just stay in a somewhat familiar territory given my need to introduce this totally new, possibly disruptive element (that could potentially crash the logic, or lead us to a dead end, or anything else that could result, per the wonders of the unrevealed mysteries ahead)

[Mellowmarsh]

@kavaris Let’s just go back to what you said earlier. You asked what does that mean.

 

I answered: A chair is not a chair until you say it is. So it’s up to you to find meaning in meaningless. To question what does that mean is to not know meaning, until you do know meaning, and that will be your answer.