Absolute Infinity

[kavaris]

18 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

@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.

I need approx. 10-25 mins or so, as i eatin sandwich. And my cats like lookin at me, as im goin "deep, deep, deep, deep...", on my phone, waitin for food.

[kavaris]

@Mellowmarsh Which part?, that is to ask, was it the "chair is not confirmed to be 'chair" part, or was it the "finding out what meaning is, is like, not knowing meaning" thing? I see one path being about the nature of validity/locating it, and the other is about "whats meaning... or what ..." or im tryina understand... Is that second part suppose to be like "until you know", like is the emphasis about, what its like to mean (represent/define) something ~ up until,  or is it about "what it means  ~that wiill precisely equate to your answer, cause you gave it the meaning?"

[Mellowmarsh]

@kavaris You don’t know what anything is until you conceptualise it. Including yourself, you don’t know what or who you are until you conceptualise it, in this conception. In this not knowing known. 

[kavaris]

34 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

This part -> How, 'You don’t know what anything is until you conceptualise it — Including yourself. You don’t know what, or who you are until  you conceptualise it, in this conception.

Through understanding t'what ya mean — I believe theres like this mystery / unknown element behind the knowing. And your own self- The thing that does conceptualizing, doesnt know who, what, ..., upon which should lead to "THAT conceptualizing of..." -something like that, yes?

I believe that to be the case. You (we, us) anyone... ... They dont know what anything is, until theyve validated it and linked it to that idea of "This is known" or "This is still unknown to me". Im sure you had another part to it to, i just dont recall what it was right at this moment. Im wingin it, up to this point so i dont spend too much time in wonderlandei.

Apologeis if i totally did not even get the whole subject matter incorporated in there, as im avoiding—the long time spentin Vvonderlandei tryina figure it out.

Edited 5 hours ago by kavaris

[Mellowmarsh]

[Mellowmarsh]

[Mellowmarsh]

[kavaris]

Even when it sounds like the dumbest, of the dumbest, of the dumbest thing stated, Its an "Are we tracking the referent w/ this word or idea" in that, its a way to invite agreement too. It's 'how everyone may recognize, or come to recognize for their own case, whether everyone agrees/understands, or not, up unto that point in the sense that they have the opportunity to flag that datum / word that was pointed to (e.g. monad, or whatever it may be in the course of thought) and to consider the pages that lend themselves to this fuller context (internalizing that 'page of requirement, if it is like a pointer to a prior/or posterior thing or sumthin) i mean, just technically, thats how something like that could function, or should function, like when its actually got a lot of different elements that can change the nature of the question or the argument.

Edited 3 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

(cont.) Like, if someone says,

> Person 1 says "Monad = Gonad"

> Person 2 says "No"

Thats sounds crazy rediculous, but its levels beyond just stagnating and looking around the room, not particularly focused, maybe thinkin about the nature of your Sims 3 character or your tamagotchi pet, like its a step above the 2026-fully-wound-up-in-whatever without direction, cayse now its got some investment in the dialectic attitude of "what you were even doing to begin w/" which is itself of a profound nature.

Edited 3 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

6 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

A chair is not a chair

(cont. ii) First we have to do this, or it will never be understood; Differing the versions of Not-thing (spirit of Not-thing)

"Not a thing" is purely grammatical negation, when we (you, i, us) talk about "no things", such as in the past, prior or apriori positions (whether it be before/after in time, etc.) thats not a "Not-thing" defined!...

Not-things arent things... its only a "thing" because you dont have an actual description for it, so it absorbs "that very thing itself" thats why yyour descriptions for things keep taking on this "a chair is not a chair, not a thing being all things"

That is to say, the absolute captures the idea of a thing, and that itself already captures "absence" (we can do better, description wise), BUT...

You arent actually talking about that. You are talking about how "reality, in its absolute, is potentiated as a thing... that also includes itself when it reverses... when it goes back to source"

Thats what you are trying to say, but it one of those things that is like trying to point to the very thing itself, and in doing so, we show someone the product of reality, without the cause, without the apriori spirit that gave it its name (the thing thats inactivated)

The other part to it is like, theres this thing where you have "potentiated reality in the act of", and that cancels out the source. It doesnt validate it, because to validate is to "act facing towards" (validation now as a stricter version of)

... This is the thing we are actually talking about when invoking a Not-thing (obviously) but it doesnt actually do anything to the person who thinks source means like ....

... Iuno what they'd think source means. They prolly are imagining "when i was born, then i was this, then i become that", like, they are imagining this basic source code of self, not self in the experienced, validated sense we just described (or just absolute, but absolute is the single word term, in a hierarchy of lesser terminology)

And thats really the beauty of language, we can talk in a descriptive language realm/territory, because a single word creates a space for it, it gives it this "reason" to exist, since its saying "Now its okay, make a descriptive language version". Or its a pages of words that are saying "it can be made clearer and w/ less, or even single, separated words".

That is to say, sometimes people (and i am assuming "us") ARE actually talking about a REAL experience underneath them words, so its not that someone is right or wrong, its "who spent way too much time trying to meticulously point to the right terms, in the right way, and such..." which is just profession... its just, its just artistry / experience, not plain, absolute experience.

So no one is right or wrong, not when its a matter of trying to take what you can feel is simmering underneath, bring it to the surface — unless they dont sound like they are interested or even know wat they are tlkin bout, of course. They can potentially just be wrong and they dont know it yet.

Edited 13 minutes ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

33 minutes ago, kavaris said:

its just artistry / experience, not plain, absolute experience.

I wrote this line, but i really like it, As a way to illustrate how sometimes the lesser etymological realm, much like etymological feeling space, is a preferred place over pure descriptive language towards a destination. That is, you can have "artistry, experience" or the simpler, lesser (lesser said), direct "absolute" experience. Kinda neat... right...? *shrugs?*

Edited 8 minutes ago by kavaris