Physically real + Imaginary (Hads versus Had~nots)

[kavaris]

So why do i say it like that? Its physically real. Plus, it is imaginary. Its not just that its imagined as a *real thing*, nor is it that we decide 'whats imaginary or not, But its also the active imagining or the active non-imagining that is making distinct imaginary and/or not imaginary. So ask yourself, 'how is it that physical realness and imaginary dont cancel each other out ... Or ask, why they do, and what the new word is, but know itll be an actively made distinction.

Its a subtle thing thereafter called "hads" or "had nots", like "to have non distinction" in the realm of imagined forms, is to exist directly, such that those things that arent directly now are the "not hads (had~nots)", and the "hads" are just everything your conscious of having, granted you dont always have all of the hads directly at every moment. Sometimes they are the misunderstood things that go to the subconscious or the unknown, or theyre simply *there* but you just arent actively having, resulting in "distinctly other hads"... As "to have" is to distinctly "have not", so one has to "have" wholly, without all the "had nots", otherwise theres always "to have distinctly" and "to had not". You could do the same with "loves me" and "loves me not".

An example of a "had wholly" is to say "Does the majority of America speak English?"

That is, we dont have a way to point to that question directly, or to verify it beyond our "belief" or what we think. So try to take that kind of question, but in this area of non duality where its about the unprovable question, taking it and transcending the belief structure that gives rise to it, such that its touching on the whole, or the closest equivalent whole.

Edited 9 hours ago by kavaris