Recent Posts

Exactly, except when you label Emptiness as "infinity" then you're still thinking conventionally and you're missing the ISness of it. Even "Emptiness" isn't a perfect term, obviously, but hell we need some way to refer to it!

Topology:

From an aware sentient perspective, a limit is only ever a constituent of a framework towards potentially limitless freedom, where the potential limitlessness doesn't imply nullification of the framework, and where the freedom doesn't imply separation from the framework. Freedom within the framework of reality refers not to a transient feeling of being free on a sunny day at the park, it refers to actually having one's modality of being aligned with the structure or grid of reality such that as an agent of consciousness one can, sustainably, simultaneously change and remain intact/coherent in a way that's both self-sustaining as well as context-bound.

Tons of processes are finite in terms of duration, scope, etc. A television program lasts for one hour.

Attributing finiteness to a given process is easy, identifying "something" as existing in the first place is the hard part.

I did introduce myself.. in the introduction forum I made a thread.. I didn't say much.. I made some jokes.. maybe what I didn't say is more important.. but to clarify, no I have not previously met any of you elsewhere on the internet, unless there's one here who goes by the name Crow (that would be bone chilling).. although I have frequented various websites over the years so it's possible we met and I don't remember.. and how I found this website is simply by googling "alternative spirituality forum" or some such thing and dredging through heaps of garbage.

Topology:

You mean to say that logic isn't the end, but in effect you're saying that it's the polar opposite from the end, which is a gross mischaracterization. The evidence is that you just linked me to a dense encyclopedia entry to 'prove' your point.

I said that it's false to say that nothing can be known for certain. Do you really disagree with this? If you're trying to tack on something beyond certainty of knowing, that's not what I'm talking about.

Now ask me to give you an example of something that can be known for certain and I'll shoot myself in the head. Haha

It is pretty much about fun in the end - romance, beauty, art...

Duality and non-duality arise mutually, neither can exist without the other, as exemplified by the a priori adage that a unity is only truly a unity with a healthy variety to unify in the first place.

True, there was an original source aka Emptiness, but it's as impersonal as it gets, that is, a form of consciousness the least personalized as possible. Its manifestations occur organically, flowing along the channels of necessity. By itself it doesn't really exist, only through us does it exist, exactly in the same way that your ego only exists through you.. and you'll always need your ego, your conventional aspect, at least for various logistical purposes in terms of the structural integrity/functionality of your being.

It's funny people are afraid of death, but if they truly considered the notion of immortality they would be at least just as afraid, unless you serve them some platitude that it will be a 'pleasant' eternity. To say that the whole damn game is just about fun, it's not to short-change it, not if you know how to REALLY have fun, but at the same time it's important to take a sober step back and realize that it's not so easy for existence to offer unlimited abundance.. if you live forever, would you ever get bored and want to die, and thus choose to reincarnate?.. the line between living and dying, after millions of years old, is so faint and subtle it's difficult to imagine.. taking life seriously and taking life not seriously truly converge.. the artist.. you don't know where you're going but you know where you came from recently, thousands of year old memories fade to black, you find new love sometimes, maybe have a hundred year orgasm if you meet the right gal.. the point is, necessity is the mother of invention, so before asking what is the point, consider what you could possibly ask for instead, what else could even possibly be feasible at all? Sufficiency by definition is either sufficient or it's not... free from suffering.... it's alright, damn majestic at times even.

I am not familiar with this swapping of the belief.



It seems to me a priori logic such as this is just the opposite of too much thinking, normally it's so hard to deliver such a clean, succinct morsel. Your question in parenthesis doesn't follow by the way, not sure if you were kidding or not.

There’s an adage that nothing finite can exist apart from the infinite. Some would instead argue the opposite, that nothing infinite can exist apart from the finite. Yet with mere logic, these two notions and quiet time to contemplate, one can arrive at the unequivocal conclusion that there’s no such thing as infinity. It’s merely a matter of a priori logic, as surely as there can be no such thing as a married bachelor. Rather than any real or living process, just as people don’t go around speculating about the real-life existence of numbers one, two, three, etc, infinity is a mathematical concept representing an unlimited amount. If two plus two necessarily equals four, adding a substantive component behind the numbers changes everything, as two apples plus two oranges certainly doesn't equal four apples. The concept of infinity as a real, animated process breaks down when its components are qualified in a real-life context, as once any unit of infinity’s capacity is delineated or given substance then that unit would impose a restriction on infinity's overall unlimited capacity. If infinity is ever defined by a specific number then it ceases to be infinity, no matter how high that number is, because there would always be a higher number beyond it.

The mother of invention, necessity itself usurps infinity’s existence. Reality doesn’t run so relentlessly extraneously that it can have no buffers, no containment, that its inertia can’t be harnessed into any manner of convention. As there must be a cup for the brim to be surpassed in the first place, as superfluousness is the opposite of sufficiency, so the abundance of existence doesn’t overflow into sublime dissolution but rather flows precisely in its channels. Sometimes less is more. ‘Everything’ can’t be ‘anything’, even the vastest capacity can't accommodate the sheerest diametric contradiction, just as an omnipotent deity per the definition of ‘omnipotent’ couldn’t create a boulder heavier than they could move. Is reality stuck up in a mechanical, existential gridlock of supply and demand where survival of the fittest is the law? Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer--sufficiency is either sufficient or it’s not. The question is, what’s sufficient for you? As Marshall McLuhan says that art is ANYTHING ...that you can get away with, so to is life. As art as in life there’s a difference between abstract and ugly, and the north star of truth reveals that the organic nature of necessity as the mother of invention is beautifully sufficient indeed.

As science finally begins tackling the deeper mysteries of the universe, as quantum and string theories breath a new life into human imagination, the bow of blind faith and superstition begins to break. A more logical spirituality can finally flourish. As logical theories are formed and tested and debunk doctrines of fear, decadence and oppression, as the corruption and perversion of faith is brought into the light of view, the masses scurry towards the end of the mayan calendar, the law of attraction and other pseudo-scientific facades. People point to divine perfection and purity to justify prejudiced condemnations of supposed nonconformity as if the divine were some homogeneous blob, fundamentally and essentially unadulterated in its oneness, unaware of how the coherence and cohesion of harmoniously balanced equilibrium delineates the engraving of creation in terms of abstract beauty versus ugly mess. They say the conventional world is tainted with sin or maya, but they aren’t yet content, merely tainted is apparently insufficient, they insist it’s tarnished beyond saving, save for grace.

The marketplace of ideas is highly polarized and confused largely due to a certain monkey-wrench of a meme portraying the divine as laying so axiomatically, transcendentally beyond the dense delineation of conventional space-time that it’s ineffable beyond the grasp of human understanding and intangible beyond the expression of human language. Such blissful ignorance is underpinned by misunderstanding the nature of reality’s fundamental, essential capacity in terms of abundance and limitations, a failure to recognize the inherent primacy of necessity and to fully differentiate wants from needs. It’s not about asking as many questions as possible but rather the right questions, not a slew of small questions but certain big ones. Mainstream opinion is convinced the divine is ineffable and intangible on the mere self-fulfilling basis that the divine has yet to be palpably understood and disambiguated, and assumes such a thing as infinity exists in order to explain away the glaring abyss, propping up a bogus buffer of polarizing duality between fundamentality and convention, reality and illusion, known and Unknown--if infinity can’t be understood or expressed then there’s no point trying very hard to understand or interpret it.

Single-pointed fixation upon external salvation is the most rigid, inanimate thing--the farthest reaches of stagnation, desperation, numbness, the proverbial womb--whereas logic begets an organic universe of patterns and movement, change, evolution, revolution, interactivity, originality. To never allow the possibility of doubt into the mind, to never think outside the box, this isn’t to insist on making progress but rather it ensures the absence of progress and the consequence of stagnation and regression. Blind faith is clinging to one side of the proverbial coin with all one’s force, utterly horrified of the Other side and utterly oblivious as to how the coin’s rim does and doesn’t exist. The greatest leap isn’t one of faith but rather it’s a leap into the proverbial abyss where one may actually tackle and confront things, sort things out, find tools, discern patterns, realize foundation and build. That whosoever shall seek to save their soul shall lose it, this is only to say that nothing can be done when one is paralyzed in ignorance and fear. Spontaneity isn’t about reacting as quickly as possible, it’s about acting, and there can be no acting without a sober actor.

Life isn’t a blank slate, every brushstroke doesn’t touch an infinite canvas. As there’s a difference between perfect clouds and perfect clocks, so insisting on the perfect painting is thinking in black and white, antithetical to the subjectivity that affords the potential for beauty, diversity and creation. As scarcity and abundance are two sides of the coin of sufficiency, so specialization implies not contraction but expansion. A unity is only truly a unity with a healthy variety to unify in the first place. As the painting must always be an expression of the painter, seeking to paint on a boundless canvas, seeking to shatter the causal continuity between painter and painting, this isn’t thinking outside the box but just the opposite, it’s an expression of inner conflict and confusion, a product of repression, denial, fear and ignorance. As reality flows precisely in its channels so drawing outside the lines is only productive to the extent that one recognizes they don’t fully see the lines and that one seeks to explore so that they may realize the lines more fully (they're your lines in the first place, after all).