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 10 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 8 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 8 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

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

Quick note: I would be remissed to ignore you on "A chair is also not a chair" point, as i must describe the absolute perspective it points to, cause thats an important subject matter that actually does point towards the absolute idea, the other perspective thats simmering under?

To begin again,

"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 i suddenly go off topic / off script here...)

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 5 hours 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 5 hours ago by kavaris

[Ziran]

9 hours ago, Meeksauce said:

one glimpse gave me such a connecting thread for everything

In a word:  "Splendor"? 

9 hours 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.

It's "splendid"?

9 hours ago, Meeksauce said:

swimming around in circles trying to plumb the well of your consciousness in 3 dimensions when it was in 4 the whole time.

Well stated.  

8 hours ago, kavaris said:

what is meant by "good"?

In general:  Good makes better.  In particular, it's a case-by-case evaluation of risk vs. reward for all stake-holders within a sphere-of-influence.

8 hours ago, kavaris said:

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

True, Negating "Any" is none.

8 hours ago, kavaris said:

Like if you can cancel out everything, what do you have left?

 The negation of "All" is Any.

[kavaris]

1 hour ago, kavaris said:

... not self in the experienced, validated sense we just described...

I also had a vision of this twizzler of differing ways to describe this again, like the way to talk about self next to these ideas, and that then changes how you want to speak of experience, cause im not quite sure if theres a totally set, defined way to place those words together ~ like its the boggling, the twizzlering of self as it becomes experience, or something like that... Like its two aspects or something, coming together, to give it the right context, and its hard to place it right now.

[kavaris]

11 minutes ago, Ziran said:

In a word:  "Splendor"? 

It's "splendid"?

Well stated.  

In general:  Good makes better.  In particular, it's a case-by-case evaluation of risk vs. reward for all stake-holders within a sphere-of-influence.

True, Negating "Any" is none.

 The negation of "All" is Any.

We are now at this, granted, i just wrote it up, so its like 'Hot biscuits atm,

1 hour ago, kavaris said:

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

Quick note: I would be remissed to ignore you on "A chair is also not a chair" point, as i must describe the absolute perspective it points to, cause thats an important subject matter that actually does point towards the absolute idea, the other perspective thats simmering under?

To begin again,

"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 i suddenly go off topic / off script here...)

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.

 

[kavaris]

When the little boy from the Matrix says Not-spoon, he then goes on to fk w/ reality. Wtf, we wanna move spoons too!... But, thats perhaps not just a mind over matter thing, as its like, a matter of matter, for the mind. Like it matters what type of matter you are "talking about" to yourself, Like what type of matter that spoon was, suppose to be, like they all share that 'realm of relatable matter...

Its like, determinate matter, where its being pictured in layers of differing ways where its very much "matter"... I mean, a sudden-liquid spoon is kindve not the same matter that we would call matter anyway, so its following a path thats unfamiliar territory, which is quite difficult to relate to. Thats a testament to how much we rely on routines, cause liquid spoons isnt just like...

... it isnt just an idea, like... And, it's not something that happens spontaneously on a daily basis. Like "His spoon went up, spontaneously! It went up in liquid formation!!!"

*p.s. maybe i shouldve said "it is of concern..."   or   "it is relevant to 'what matter, you speak of..."   so that way its not getting smushed by English's horrific sciency "matter", as a way to represent concern and physical matter w/ the very same word, a polysemorous word or watever-the-fk

Edited 4 hours ago by kavaris

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours 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

Good is a valorative judgement that happens in absence of "bad". As you are used to live between good and bad, if you have a mystical experience you feel everything as "good", but really it's not good, it's absolute being. But absolute being has a quality, it's affirmative and it's unlimited potential. From absolute being any form is the same than another, all are alive, affirmative, because they are. 

[Mellowmarsh]

The things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal. 

There is a light within a man of light, and it lights up the whole world. If it does not shine, he is in darkness.
I was blind but now I see. 

The way to perfection is through a series of humiliations of the false self.

[kavaris]

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

@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. 

When you have 10 months and you hit your head with a hammer you know what pain is, you don't need to conceptualize it. The rats know what pain is and that cats are dangerous, and they are not good in conceptual thinking 

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall

[kavaris]

We have to rewrite The Matrix a little, like the relationship to tech and the mind has to remain passive, like today, as Ai-out as yous want it, however the tech can still be present and alive, but more like how Neo starts talkin to his computer in the beginnin, As then its like, 'you got this code of Alien talk that happens on a normal prompt, and then, thats the matrix... just chattin... Sayin whatsup... And tryina stay in that realm, for death is akin to one of these dimensions you can fall in, which isnt necessarily easy to do (meaning, the dimension/paradigm...) i mean... death is easy cause everyones pointing to it, like "Youre gonna die, And youre gonna die, And youre gonna die, And youre gonna die"... Like... Its not just people pointing to it, but the layers of conception and imagination are pointing to it, as a very finite, triad, birth, death, life, birth, death life... or you kno wat i mean.

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

When you have 10 months and you hit your head with a hammer you know what pain is, you don't need to conceptualize it. The rats know what pain is and that cats are dangerous, and they are not good in conceptual thinking 

I really like rats and cats, as i feel for the cats. They are not good at conceptual thinking however, true.

Edited 1 hour ago by kavaris