all things leading up to death you can nicely call "adapting" if you wish - fever, projectile vomiting, skin lesions. the root cause is infection.
all things leading up to death you can nicely call "adapting" if you wish - fever, projectile vomiting, skin lesions. the root cause is infection.
Last edited by rat1; 01-31-2012 at 05:46 AM.
So, is society literally or figuratively projectile vomiting? What's the infection, inherited superstitions that promise inescapable, ironic catastrophe if you reject them?
The end is nigh
there are behaviors and consequences. when you thoughtfully consider every action you take, one at a time; and every inaction you take, and its consequences; especially on other living things (consequences of this type become exponential): an actions effects are truly vast. Now if you look at those effects across an infinite span of time, and trace whether they ultimately lead to death or to continued life, the confusing superstitions you are talking about are infact common sense principles - principles which keep all the garbage from piling up onto a future generation, at some given time. If you dispute something specific I can show you how you are mistaken. There are so many signs around us, too. how much proof would you require before you accepted these things as decided to do something about it, whatever little you could?
Last edited by rat1; 01-31-2012 at 06:47 AM.
Dude, you're getting old lol.
I'm concerned too, but not alarmed. You and I have to figure out what is wrong and fix the problem (or try, at least), or it isn't worth complaining about. The cryptic language you are speaking in isn't helping your case. It is quite possible that I agree with you on many points.
The end is nigh
if you aren't alarmed, you aren't fully informed.
you want the problem well identified. do you have any suggestion on what part of the problem we should begin with?
I can't be alarmed until it is determined that there is actually an urgent, identifiable problem.
You mentioned the next generation of children.
The end is nigh
I disagree on the "doing acid for fun is stupid and a waste". I mean I respect that you take it as something more than just a usual drug, and in some ways I do too... it is different and it can be "magic", but I see nothing wrong with doing acid for fun if you're the sort of person who can have fun doing acid. Acid can be a very powerful experience, especially if you push the boundries in dosage, so I do think that people need to respect it in that sense, but it isn't if you don't push those boundries and just go with a comfortable dose (this assumes that a person has previous experience and knows the drug). In my mind, acid isn't anything sacred that is going to ruin souls or otherwise destroy you if you take it for a good time. Not every trip has to contain some mind ripping epiphany that changes lives, using acid to just enjoy yourself and have a special time can renew the spirit as well.Originally Posted by Gilly
Last edited by bg; 01-31-2012 at 09:02 AM.
bad trips suck.
I dunno. Personally I think acid is a mind-opening experience whether you want it to be or not, and if you just ignore that aspect of the trip...to me it seems like it wouldn't even be worth it. I guess people are different.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
the notion of 'leading up to death' is specious. after death, it is 'leading up to life,' and then back again; the difference remains that of ice and water.
the fear of death stems from an unspoken awareness that one isn't truly living.
4w3-5w6-8w7
You should be grateful to people who feel the way crazedrat feels and have the power to take action. They guard you while you sleep.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Every moment is constantly being created and recreated. And each moment comes from the previous one and leads into the next. All creativity traces back to the moment of experience. Emulation kills that process. Compulsively reliving the past kills it.
The past must add to the future, not define it. Otherwise you have endless repetition without change, and the energy dissipates - the life process dies. All of this "living it up" is just a way of recreating the past, and clinging to it.
Organic life is an transcendental process which can't be artificially replicated in full. You are organically unique. Still, people try to replicate life. But the emulation never lives up to the original. That is the sinking feeling which we [me and everyone i know] have. We are constantly trying to recreate originality in our society. That's the definition of being hooked onto something. Right now pretty much the whole society is enslaved to the internet, staring through a screen zombified at a moving picture. When you see kids as zombified as myself, you know we are in serious trouble.
It is the difference between machines & organisms. Now life is transcendental, death is the closure of that transcendental process. The span of your life, and all the effects you had on others, are finalized. At this time your values become absolute. They are applied across an endless span of time. When values are applied across time the process leads to either self extinguishment or neverending life.
It's because of this absolution you either inherit eternal life or your energy dissipates. Life and death: don't consider it the life or death of the physical body, but consider it the difference between energy that dissipates and falls back down to a less organized state, compared with energy that elevates to a more organized state.
In this way eternal life is not something we inherently possess. A self extinguishing process cannot have endless life. The problem is how you are thinking about life. Life is organized. Life is the increase. Energy dissipated into a less organized state is not life, it is death. The physical death of the body is a turning point and potentially an elevation of the organization life, but not inherently.
Nothing is created or destroyed, but no one will contend that your body fueling a worm whose children are dead in 60 or some odd years along with all the other life on earth is you being reincarnated. But it does represent the continuation of your spirit, along with all the other effects you've had throughout your life, which is why your effects on other human beings is so critical. In the same way, your soul being burnt up and reforming into another isn't you having eternal life. You can exist eternally upon death, with the same consciousness which defines you.
Your spirit is held together by others. Everything we do here on earth has massive effects upon the world of spirits. Right now our spirits are being forged. When the internet crashes and burns, everyone who put themselves into the internet will have some level of spirit death. The internet is actually referred to in revelations. That's a whole nother issue if you want to get into that.
Last edited by rat1; 01-31-2012 at 09:12 PM.
...
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
hence being the same moment.
the past is what circumscribes the future, which is given infinite potential by the present.The past must add to the future, not define it. Otherwise you have endless repetition without change, and the energy dissipates - the life process dies. All of this "living it up" is just a way of recreating the past, and clinging to it.
endless repetition can condense just as much as dissipate energy; what you're referring to is how undiluted the organic life process is; beginning and end are irrelevant.
yes, except that this has been going on for much longer than whatever age you think is mapped out in the bible. self-consciousness implies an antagonism between organic emergence and deliberate replication; maintaining this balance is the the transcendence of the process itself, not simply 'life.'Organic life is an transcendental process which can't be artificially replicated in full. You are organically unique. Still, people try to replicate life. But the emulation never lives up to the original. That is the sinking feeling which we [me and everyone i know] have. We are constantly trying to recreate originality in our society. That's the definition of being hooked onto something. Right now pretty much the whole society is enslaved to the internet, staring through a screen zombified at a moving picture. When you see kids as zombified as myself, you know we are in serious trouble.
the bolded is where I see the main fault. the difference between a machine and an organism is one of form, not basic function; and the conflict you have been harping on is merely the current embodiment of consciousness seeking a reflection through binary means.It is the difference between machines & organisms.Now life is transcendental, death is the closure of that transcendental process. The span of your life, and all the effects you had on others, are finalized. At this time your values become absolute. They are applied across an endless span of time. When values are applied across time the process leads to either self extinguishment or neverending life.
death is a closure in one sense, but a mediation in another; one's values are made absolute, but not in the test of judgment sense you seem to be implying -- this is because never-ending life is the implicit premise of the process, whose 'attainment' doesn't necessarily occur upon the moment of physical death, but can be activated at any moment, depending on the way one's conscious energy is reflected across the spectrum (you can see an example of this in the 'rebirth' that is described in initiation ceremonies)
no, life and death are not conditioned by physical existence; hence the transcendence not being so, either. for example, if one were truly being-towards-death, to use heideggarian terms, they would effectively already be dead, transcendent, with their energy only echoing the vector they had aligned on a universal level.It's because of this absolution you either inherit eternal life or your energy dissipates. Life and death: don't consider it the life or death of the physical body, but consider it the difference between energy that dissipates and falls back down to a less organized state, compared with energy that elevates to a more organized state.
In this way eternal life is not something we inherently possess. A self extinguishing process cannot have endless life. The problem is how you are thinking about life. Life is organized. Life is the increase. Energy dissipated into a less organized state is not life, it is death. The physical death of the body is a turning point and potentially an elevation of the organization life, but not inherently.
agreed. but I'm guessing you wouldn't be interested in an explanation of what 'you really are,' on this very basis? I say that because you seem to believe one is defined by a consciousness.Nothing is created or destroyed, but no one will contend that your body fueling a worm whose children are dead in 60 or some odd years along with all the other life on earth is you being reincarnated. But it does represent the continuation of your spirit, along with all the other effects you've had throughout your life, which is why your effects on other human beings is so critical. In the same way, your soul being burnt up and reforming into another isn't you having eternal life. You can exist eternally upon death, with the same consciousness which defines you.
I'm not much interested in biblical parallels, as the coding remains the same regardless of the medium, and I've already studied the works which paved the way for your prophetic canon.Your spirit is held together by others. Everything we do here on earth has massive effects upon the world of spirits. Right now our spirits are being forged. When the internet crashes and burns, everyone who put themselves into the internet will have some level of spirit death. The internet is actually referred to in revelations. That's a whole nother issue if you want to get into that.
4w3-5w6-8w7
You need to learn to communicate clearly, not to the voices in your head but to the people on this side of reality. This is a massive knot which I'm only going to take the time to untie once.
Last edited by rat1; 02-01-2012 at 06:26 AM.
How on earth could endless repetition condense, aka GROW energy? Growth is a change. After that growth, the thing is changed.
because repetition is the undertone of change. when I say that repetition can condense just as well as dissipate, I'm referring to the way in which something repeats itself. you're taking repetition literally, and thus missing the entire point.
Things stay the same to a degree, and they change to a degree. This happens simultaneously, in harmony, as I described in the first part of the main post. For a simple example of the process I am talking about read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
With Pi, one number after another IS calculated in the same way, and it DOES grow out of the moment previous; yet the number never repeats itself, and it never ends. This is how life works.
What you describe is analogous to tugging on a flower and expecting it to grow faster, or depriving a flower of water and wondering why it died.
funny, given that I already said it was a harmonious antagonism. quit being an idiot and realize that CHANGE IS SELF-SAME. then consider the substance of the soothsaying bullshit you've been spouting off for the past two pages.
If you can't understand how life works on a fundamental level you aren't going to understand the significance of our society being absorbed into machines on a mass scale. So this debate is fruitless until you get the first part of this discussion correct. But I will say that if you don't see the qualitative difference between the last 60 years, the last 200 years, and the last 2000 years, then you are blind.
the 'qualitative differences' between this or that era's evolution only confirm the same fundamental pattern.
organic harmony is a better phrase. And yes, replication works in tandem with the concrete moment as an adaptation, i.e. the past adds to the future. This is different than the endless repetition which leads to dissipation - what defines that is disconnection from the concrete moment (something which alot of people on here are plagued by - i wonder why).
repeat after me: the process' repetition is itself endless. this is why it is about the vector of each individual within the collective space. you've just confirmed what I said above after overlooking it in lieu of a semantic change, now you want to talk about being disconnected from a concrete moment. right. the person who goes from sucking off jesus to flattering himself as a shameful satanic to an internet forum knows so much about that.
That's what death is, rejection of the implicit premise, aka God.
death is rejecting God? no, it's the universal force at work
The person must be 'reborn' before death, but yes.. You are mostly correct, we may reconcile at any given time within our lives. There is an exception but it's not that relevant to this discussion. Though keep in mind that the longer a person goes without reconciling themselves, the less likely it becomes they will do so before they die. But I fail to see how this is significant in what we're discussing to begin wit). If you are trying to say something more than this I'm not seeing it.
what I'm saying is that the reconciliation is already there, to be realized whenever, not some lofty bedchamber awaiting those noble souls who have 'inherited eternal life' through their death. being reborn amounts to opening one's eyes while asleep, and realizing that a waking dream is but a more honest form of a living slumber. what you're not seeing is due to mistaking ideological understanding with personal application.
The values are made absolute only at death.
only if the person couldn't realize them as such while still living.
Actions are an input for programming reality. So historical fact is important.
and did you consider how actions are programmed to begin with? oh right, it's all mapped out in the bible.
boo
4w3-5w6-8w7
My bad for getting pissed at you. This is not how I am supposed to behave, as you can see I struggle with following the law.
The first point I made to you distinguishes between repetition without change, and repetition with change. The repetition without change I described as just that: "endless repetition without change", which you then quoted as "endless repetition", removing the distinction. When you quote the phrase "endless repetition" I take this as a direct reply to the phrase I used, namely "repetition without change". Now you tell me you meant repetition WITH change. Very well then - if repetition with change is what you meant to describe, again I've already covered this in the bit about how "the past serves the future". That is in the first post as well. You actually do not have a point. You're not contradicting me, you're drawing erroneous conclusions off of misinterpretations.
You are not comprehending what you read. That is the problem. You read it, interpret it badly, quote that and negate the very thing you misinterpreted by repeating what I actually said, then you manage to rally that as justification to arrive at the opposite conclusion you should be arriving at. Looking through the rest of your post you've done this the whole way through.
This "harmonious antagonism" is what I originally described... Should I take this to mean you're agreeing with me again? What then is your point? You have no assumption to support one. Do you mind starting from scratch and making one on your own? Like I did for you, writing my own paragraph with the point clearly supported, where the paragraph may stand on its own, not twisted and full of misinterpretations the way you have it here. If you can write your own standalone paragraph, then I will respond to you.
Every pattern involves both change and sameness. What do you think this describes:
"With Pi, one number after another IS calculated in the same way, and it DOES grow out of the moment previous; yet the number never repeats itself, and it never ends. "
Simply observing there is change and sameness isn't a point. Every pattern has that quality. You must distinguish between patterns. Right now we are talking about 3 of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number - the past serves the future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal - endless repetition without change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number - life is transcendental (as is Pi)
The entire post I made is distinguishing between these patterns. All 3 of these patterns both change and stay the same.
Endless repetition without change - as far as .333 is the same as .3333333, there is no change. The number is diminishing itself. It does eventually extinguish completely; read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_series
In this way "endless repetition without change" is a nonsense phrase, as is "endless repetition"; it should be more like "eternal repetition" .. Or something. Because the number stretches out to the boundary of an eternity, but does not transcend that boundary, since it is not irrational.
In other words, each number in a repeating decimal is not reformulated by the number preceding it, so nothing is ever created by it. This type of fixation is described in the OP.
As we see here you're still 4 levels behind.
traces back to the indistinct assumption described above.
If you only realized what's coming to us all you'd be along side me. I am trying to communicate how this works to you, but you just don't get it. No one seems to actually get all of it. Maybe a simpler approach is all that works. Moralistic, but direct and to the point.
You are tending to misinterpret what I say and then bounce out of wack off of that. So I'll say it again: if you can write your own standalone paragraph, then I will respond to you.
Last edited by rat1; 02-01-2012 at 07:22 PM.
Everything I said here can be more easily summarized by distinguishing between convergent and divergent series. This is the differences between the patterns which I kept trying to describe. So it's better to just move this discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_series - repeating decimals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_series - irrational and transcendental numbers, and the harmonic series.
you want a standalone paragraph, when what you described is already a regurgitation of the information I originally relayed to you in a series of pms some while back.
ugh. my issue was that you're unable to see the implicit unity between these qualitative differences. it has nothing to do with whether a decimal series diminishes or not; it's something observable, constantly reflecting itself.
endless repetition ties directly to the 'eternal repetition' semantic tweak you used below, which is exactly what I meant by 'self-same,' and what the life>>death>>life process condensed in my first post. repetition and change are mutual implications, it is that simple.
the 'harmonious antagonism' is an extrapolation of my initial statement. what you 'described' was a formulaic redundancy aimed at giving your views an appearance of greater validity, when they didn't conflict with mine to begin with, sans the personal aspect, namely your inability to reconcile physical mortality with your lofty notions of eternal life, and thus negate the erroneous belief that the latter can only be arrived at upon death.This "harmonious antagonism" is what I originally described... Should I take this to mean you're agreeing with me again? What then is your point? You have no assumption to support one. Do you mind starting from scratch and making one on your own? Like I did for you, writing my own paragraph with the point clearly supported, where the paragraph may stand on its own, not twisted and full of misinterpretations the way you have it here. If you can write your own standalone paragraph, then I will respond to you.
you still fail to see this. my initial statement was more of a test to see if you would address where I was coming from, or distort it to suit your ideological narcissism. sound familiar?
funny, change is self-same?Every pattern involves both change and sameness. What do you think this describes:
"With Pi, one number after another IS calculated in the same way, and it DOES grow out of the moment previous; yet the number never repeats itself, and it never ends. "
Simply observing there is change and sameness isn't a point. Every pattern has that quality. You must distinguish between patterns. Right now we are talking about 3 of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number - the past serves the future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal - endless repetition without change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number - life is transcendental (as is Pi)
The entire post I made is distinguishing between these patterns. All 3 of these patterns both change and stay the same.
see above post.In this way "endless repetition without change" is a nonsense phrase, as is "endless repetition"; it should be more like "eternal repetition" .. Or something. Because the number stretches out to the boundary of an eternity, but does not transcend that boundary, since it is not irrational.
it's actually exemplified in your religious 'shift.' the two poles sway you because you have yet to realize what the balance between organic emergence and deliberate reflection implies; there isn't a shred of experiential substance in anything you say, so while I see our views aligned theoretically, in the end I know you can't stand behind your pristine equations.In other words, each number in a repeating decimal is not reformulated by the number preceding it, so nothing is ever created by it. This type of fixation is described in the OP.
reread your pms, then pretend you aren't still groping at a 'last best hope.'If you only realized what's coming to us all you'd be along side me. I am trying to communicate how this works to you, but you just don't get it. No one seems to actually get all of it. Maybe a simpler approach is all that works. Moralistic, but direct and to the point.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Your delusional narcissism is wearing on my nerves.
The point of making you write your own paragraph is to force you to word yourself coherently, and hopefully have you flesh out your thoughts in the process. If you want to continue this conversation then do so. Otherwise I can't be bothered by this.
EDIT: This sort of qualifies as a paragraph, not a well worded one but I know what you are saying:
endless repetition ties directly to the 'eternal repetition' semantic tweak you used below, which is exactly what I meant by 'self-same,' and what the life>>death>>life process condensed in my first post. repetition and change are mutual implications, it is that simple.
What you are describing is just the cycle of life and death. This is why I went on about the worm in the first post. It's pretty simple and obvious. When you die, and your energy dissipates, it will eventually cycle back into another life form. That happens on a physical and spiritual level. This is not the kind of eternal life I am talking about. In this scenario, you, and everything which defined you - which is unique - is dead. The physical life which reforms from your biomatter is not you; the imprint of your spirit is not you, it is a result of you. You only exist once. This is the principle behind reincarnation, but that you yourself are not reincarnated is glossed over.
Last edited by rat1; 02-02-2012 at 02:02 AM.
enjoy.
yes, I did not go into detail regarding the qualitative differences in the initial post, because those are redundant to the essential process; day always implies night; so long as we are existing in a material form, there will always be a self-entwining antagonism between matter and spirit, because the process of resolution is both extremely gradual and, at times, painful.EDIT: This sort of qualifies as a paragraph, not a well worded one but I know what you are saying:
endless repetition ties directly to the 'eternal repetition' semantic tweak you used below, which is exactly what I meant by 'self-same,' and what the life>>death>>life process condensed in my first post. repetition and change are mutual implications, it is that simple.
What you are describing is just the cycle of life and death. This is why I went on about the worm in the first post. It's pretty simple and obvious. When you die, and your energy dissipates, it will eventually cycle back into another life form. That happens on a physical and spiritual level. This is not the kind of eternal life I am talking about. In this scenario, you, and everything which defined you - which is unique - is dead. The physical life which reforms from your biomatter is not you; the imprint of your spirit is not you, it is a result of you. You only exist once. This is the principle behind reincarnation, but that you yourself are not reincarnated is glossed over.
eternal life exists independently of the forms which it is embodied through. 'you' don't exist, for this reason; as the energy that is already an a priori composite within you, i.e. the reason you are 'here' being an extrapolation of past incarnations which could've taken place at any other tier on the octave, is already defining the texture of the path you are choosing 'right now'; so is this moment but an inverted movement back over all those moments, a microscosmic resolution, you could say. this is the entire basis of why people say, 'living through a dream of yourself from the end all over again.' and hence why I said 'the same moment.' I'm lazy.
and herein lies the central point: life and death are fundamentally the same thing; just as light and darkness; and the principle can be summated as such: when two things have never existed without one another, they are of. when your body came into existence, so did 'you'; feel me?
so, when you speak of 'eternal life,' I can't help but laugh, because this is the greatest irony of conscious creation, the implicit premise that colors every 'waking moment,' revealed just as much in 'dreams,' but yet impossible to prove in a materialistic sense. think of it this way: if eternal life were something attained, it would contradict itself; one would be living in finitude based on the hope of eternity. it's either all or nothing-at-all. this is the cosmic joke, and the basis of philosophical speculation.
whatever else you would like explained, feel free to ask. I don't like math at all, conveying occult aspects to a dating site all-the-less, but you are a defiant ingrate, and asked for a paragraph.
4w3-5w6-8w7
i don't need drugs to sometimes feel that way.
what about when you've been up all night, and everyone's moving fast and you're moving slow?
That nothing is created or destroyed is a law secondary to existence; it provides no explanation for what is here. Reincarnation operates by the principle. Light always implies darkness, life always implies death: while these things are true, they are true within boundaries.
When an eastern religious guru describes the universe they'll say the universe repeatedly expands and contracts, nothing is created or destroyed, and over infinite time the same things end up repeating themselves; our lives have been lived infinite times. EDIT: They would say: The universe is infinite within a limitation. This limitation is required for the principle of reincarnation to operate. In the same way, the cycle of life & death; the balance between light & darkness; anything that is yin yang requires this limitation, and that it remains a limitation; otherwise, if the limitation were to disappear, a third variable enters the mix and disrupts the harmony of yin and yang, rendering it partially obsolete. This disruption would then continue indefinitely.
This disruption, this lack of boundaries, has the ability to explain existence in the first place; the balance principle is an afterthought, it operates on the assumption of existence. The lack of limitations is mathematically sound since it is based on unlimited infinite, which is at the basis of all math. And from that it can be verbally justified. The limitation is also mathematically sound, and you can achieve things working within limits, but the limitation is not primal.
When you say light implies darkness, and life implies death; in the same way which yin and yang is redefined by increasing variables, you are not giving sufficient qualification to light & darkness, or life & death. Your definitions are true within an idealized limitation. Define death. Physical death? Spiritual death? Every moment we are dying in some way. Some of us are already dead. Define life. What distinguishes machine consciousness from organic consciousness? What is the difference between an organic creature and a pile of dirt? After you've pinpointed the difference, does this difference persist after physical death in whole? Define light. What is light? Infrared light is darkness to me. There are spectrums of light we still have not found. I'd argue light in itself is infinite, and that light & darkness is secondary to light itself.
You say upon birth we are created; but upon when was the universe created, and when will it be completely destroyed? Ever? You begin counting toward infinite, and you will continue endlessly and never reach it. A beginning does not imply an end. This is only true because of infinite itself, and this principle transcends yin and yang: it is the very thing which yin and yang is based on. Consider that infinite is God. Just as infinite is endless, although we were born, we never die; as we strive toward God we are likened to counting toward the infinite.
This is how the eastern idea of the universe infinitely repeating itself is flawed. All the idea describes is a limitation, which is nothing but the inflated significance of your perceptions within a given moment; in the same way we were discussing earlier that a repeating decimal centers around a given ratio - .3333 = 1/3, .333333333 = 1/3, .333~eternally = 1/3; All of these ARE 1/3rd, each additional decimal both expands the limit of the decimal range and then respecifies the identical value suited for the range.
The limitation you assume DEFINES your logic.
Every moment is completely unique - it is by this uniqueness all things move. And by this standard YOU are completely unique, YOU exist, and if you follow God you will never completely die. You will change, but not die. Physical death is only one form of death; death is happening constantly, but there is no mathematical necessity for an absolute moment of death, UNLESS you choose to partake of it - i.e. unless you believe in it.
Last edited by rat1; 02-02-2012 at 08:21 PM.
the bolded is the crux of this entire discussion. I blithely say 'life>>death>>life' to allude to what this principle implies, whereas you describe the qualitative differences of each aspect within said boundaries. this is fine, but what I'm saying is that understanding those differences is not enough; where the 'transcendence' lies, is in the 'moment's moment,' if you will, where infinity breaches its own asymptote. to put it simply, the only way to reference the scales is to forget the pivot; I ask you whence the latter because a positive verbalization constitutes the most ironic self-negation. so I ask you to consider this point firstly, especially in light of the 'third variable.'
the qualifications of life/death etc. are secondary to their mutual implication in the first place. my 'idealized limitation' is a vain attempt to relay a vantage point that can be said to be both inside and outside of said limitations, yet of course language will bind the metaphors to dualism. the other issue is that I find it tedious to segregate definitions, i.e. if you ask me to define death, I will give ideas such as, 'a mediation of transience within infinite time-space that conditions the horizon of a future space-time by the recycled energy of a prior space-time'; this may or may not be suitable to you, but I try to reduce things as little as possible. likewise, I see no intrinsic difference between a machine and organic consciousness, other than the proxy by which an already divided consciousness has reflected itself. so the notion of anything perishing or persisting 'after death' itself becomes effectively obsolete.This disruption, this lack of boundaries, has the ability to explain existence, to begin with; the balance principle is an afterthought, it operates on the assumption of existence. The lack of limitations is mathematically sound since it is based on unlimited infinite, which is at the basis of all math. And from that it can be verbally justified. The limitation is also mathematically sound, and you can achieve things working within limits, but the limitation is not primal.
When you say light implies darkness, and life implies death; in the same way which yin and yang is redefined by increasing variables, you are not giving sufficient qualification to light & darkness, or life & death. Your definitions are true within an idealized limitation. Define death. Physical death? Spiritual death? Every moment we are dying in some way. Some of us are already dead. Define life. What distinguishes machine consciousness from organic consciousness? What is the difference between an organic creature and a pile of dirt? After you've pinpointed the difference, does this difference persist after physical death in whole? Define light. What is light? Infrared light is darkness to me. There are spectrums of light we still have not found. I'd argue light in itself is infinite, and that light & darkness is secondary to light itself.
you are correct about light and darkness; the spectrum would be perceived in an inverted way on higher planes, and imo, not at all on one of absolute objectivity. personally I see light as the vehicle of infinity.
I did not say we are created upon birth, but that the consciousness which colors your existence is incepted synchronously with the physical vehicle of its expression. this is 'coincidence,' an expression of what some would call 'spontaneous emergence,' and ties directly back to the 'third variable' disruption you touched upon. can you see that what I'm describing is the process' movement itself, and not a given manifestation, or axiom?You say upon birth we are created; but upon when was the universe created, and when will it be completely destroyed? Ever? You begin counting toward infinite, and you will continue endlessly and never reach it. A beginning does not imply an end. This is only true because of infinite itself, and this principle transcends yin and yang: it is the very thing which yin and yang is based on. Consider that infinite is God. Just as infinite is endless, although we were born, we never die; as we strive toward God we are likened to counting toward the infinite.
'beginning and end' ultimately negates itself; completion is expressed in the transient simultaneity of creation and destruction; counting to infinity is the inherent contradiction of a binary consciousness, which itself is the disruption created by an inherently unified consciousness as a means of resolution (blindly attaining self-awareness, so to say).
I could never in earnest say that infinite is god, because the statement swallows itself before being spoken, and illustrates the transcendent principle we seem to be dancing around. we are still physically inhabited.
hence binary consciousness. the assumption of true/false actually transcends its implicit limitation... if viewed in the right light.This is how the eastern idea of the universe infinitely repeating itself is flawed. All the idea describes is a limitation, which is nothing but the inflated significance of your perceptions within a given moment; in the same way we were discussing earlier that a repeating decimal centers around a given ratio - .3333 = 1/3, .333333333 = 1/3, .333~eternally = 1/3; All of these ARE 1/3rd, each additional decimal both expands the limit of the decimal range and then respecifies the identical value suited for the range.
The limitation you assume DEFINES your logic.
every moment is unique by being subsumed in every other moment, and thus constituting a single moment which can be said to act as both composer and instrument in an inverted symphony.Every moment is completely unique - it is by this uniqueness all things move. And by this standard YOU are completely unique, YOU exist, and if you follow God you will never completely die. You will change, but not die. Physical death is only one form of death; death is happening constantly, but there is no mathematical necessity for an absolute moment of death, UNLESS you choose to partake of it - i.e. unless you believe in it.
following anything already implies that you are dead, in the sense of having 'given away,' even to the loftiest absolute, since by abstracting it into something positive, you thereby establish a limitation, and thus preclude what eternity implies. this is why I take issue with your necessity of a biblical interpretation -- anything that is externalized.
death is happening constantly... yes. hence my initial post? absolute death is essentially absolute life, but that may require a different discussion.
4w3-5w6-8w7
No... You did not get it.
What I wrote is a refutation of the yin/yang you keep using.
I am not ascribing to yin yang, I am refuting it. You are attempting to refute a refutation of duality WITH duality. Then in parts you are alluding to things I've already described, like transcendence, without being clear and as a result not realizing the full implication of what you're saying.
I don't think I can be more clear than I already have been, and I'm not picking apart what you wrote since it's all the same thing again.
Last edited by rat1; 02-02-2012 at 07:57 PM.
oh ok.
4w3-5w6-8w7
The part you bolded was what was refuted, but you bolded it like I was making it as a positive statement..
Your argument is basically saying that a harmonic scale is convergent. Life>death>Life: this repetition is why I asked you to define life. Read about divergence and you will understand what I am trying to say to you - it is the greater principle.
Last edited by rat1; 02-03-2012 at 02:16 AM.
Posting Permissions
