The Inevitable Nature of Looping

[Age]

Special Relativity says there are many simultaneous NOWS not just one NOW and this depends on an objects speed
Time goes slower the closer that an object gets to light speed and for anything that actually travels at light speed
such as photons for example the concept of NOW is entirely meaningless because for them time stops completely

Special relativity does NOT provide the answer to every thing.

Special relativity does NOT even say any thing. Special relativity is just a theory, made up by just a human being.

There is NO such actual thing as "time". There is only a perception of what "time" IS or might be. So, "time" can NOT go slower nor faster relative to absolutely any thing.

The REASON it is said "time stops completely" at the speed of light IS because human beings perception of "time" is solely related to light, itself, and specifically to the speed of light.

If a human being travels slower or faster COMPARED to "earlier", or to "another" then because there is no actual thing as "time" slowing down or speeding it up, it is just an optical illusion that "time" is slowing down or speeding up, and it just APPEARS that way. It is NOT the actual case.

But from the way you have written here you appear BELIEVE otherwise, am I correct?

[Age]

the Universe is infinite / eternal but there is actually NO actual space nor time ( many many
thousands of words to explain fully and be understood fully ) but in essence there is only a NOW

Can you give a brief but detailed explanation as to why you think there is no actual space or time

YES, but if it is at all understood or not is another matter. Even if it even began to be looked at is even another matter.


What is the "time", where THAT observer IS? (Let us call 'THAT observer' s57.)

So, what is the "time" where s57 is NOW?

Now, how much is that "time" going to be in alignment or in sync with another or other observers?

Because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, so IS "time", "space", and even their definitions, also.

Now, let us take the observer s57 and place them on planet x, RIGHT NOW, which is four light years away from where s57 was a second before s57 was placed on planet x? Now, what is the "time"? How in sync is that "time", with in any thing else?

Once an observer is in another point within the Universe, the whole concept of "time" gets scrambled and/or mixed up.

There is NO actual time existing any where. There is HOWEVER a perception of "time", which I will let you human beings decide what the definition of that is. I am pretty sure you will come to an agreement pretty quickly.. Or, will I, have I, be proven WRONG already?

You, human beings, have been thinking about "time", for quite a WHILE NOW, (pun, I will let you decide?), so what is the actual definition of "time" that you human beings have come up with, come to an agreement upon, AND accepted as being True and Right in the year ONLY SOME call 2018?

I will give a clue. 'Time' is just the label given to the word that describes the movement of whatever instrument that you human beings use to measure between PERCEIVED different, and differently labelled, events.

There is ONLY One event that exists/happens. NOW. What is perceived to be a BEFORE or a AFTER is just that - a perception. Unless of course a person can accurately and sufficiently explain WHERE and WHEN that BEFORE and AFTER are. (Accurately and sufficiently means in agreement with absolutely EVERYONE as One).

Whether 'space' can be understood as NOT being an actual thing is also depended upon the observer reading this. Also, 'space' being NOT an actual thing made be a lot harder to understand, for some. To some, this idea is NOT even considerable, at the moment, when this is first read.

For things to be observed there obviously NEEDS to be an observer. So, WHERE is that observer s57 actually?

Because absolutely EVERY thing is RELATIVE to the observer, and, ALL the human being observers are obviously DIFFERENT, then how EACH observer answers that question will also obviously be RELATIVELY DIFFERENT. NO observers, from the human being perspective, could be the EXACT same. So, WHERE is that one observer we call s57?

Some might say just behind the eyes? Some might say it is the one that concludes based on what the eye's see? Some would say it is the one looking? Others might say it is the eye's themselves? Some might say some where else? But no matter where you, human being, observers think and say the observer IS for now, let us just say it is some where with or within the human body from the exterior of the pupil of eyes inwards of that body.

So, from at least the eyes outwards of that body, the observer s57 is behind that inwards. Now, is what the observer s57 observes and sees really there?

If the answer no was given, then great. That shows how there is NO actual space.

If, however, the answer yes was given, then you would probably already be aware that what you, the observer, see happening on a sun five light years away happened five light years ago and that is NOT what is happening now. For all you KNOW that sun could have exploded three light years ago or even three days ago, but either way you still have some period before you will really KNOW what IS happening. So, what you see is NOT what actually IS.

Now, observe things closer and closer back to that body you are observing from, with each closer and closer object you observe and with imagination answer the question is that also what IS happening RIGHT NOW? That would be the same answer for absolutely every object right back the THE OBSERVER. Even if the finger from the human body was placed a ten of an inch from the human eye what is seen happening has passed and gone, just in a shorter distance than the five light years ago previously observed.

From the actual and True Observer's view what becomes observed is NOT happening NOW. That observance has already disappeared and gone. NO matter WHAT distance a object/thing APPEARS to be, that object/thing is NOT the exact same object/thing. What you, the human being observer, sees ONLY APPEARS to be that way. Even to the extent that although 'space' and 'time' may appear to exist in some way to some observers, there is NO actual object/thing as "space" nor "time".

NOW, to verify if this IS or even COULD BE true, right, and correct, imagine you could (I already KNOW you insist that it is impossible) BUT just imagine if you, the observer, COULD travel from WHERE you, the observer, are NOW, to planet x four light years away instantly. This is very easy to do because you the observer does NOT have to drag that human body along with you. You, can just OBSERVE this, and SEE what happens. Now, if you the observer travel at the speed of light to planet x and left NOW, then you would arrive NOW. Do you agree?

From the NO space and NO time perspective I talk of, there actual was NO space NOR time correct. This can also be OBSERVED and SEEN from the scientific perspective of "time stops" and "space contracts" perspective also, which is WHAT is said to happen at the speed of light.

The Truth, from my perspective ONLY, which could be partly WRONG or completely WRONG, of which I remain completely OPEN to also, IS there is NO actual "space" and there is NO actual "time" , and, that there only APPEARS to be the case.

From the human body perspective it would NOT make any sense that a 3 dimensional human body could exist if there was NO 3 dimensional space, and, from a human body perspective it would NOT make any sense also that a human body could move if there was NO time moving also.

But if you can go inside further from the human body and look out from an observers perspective, trying to NOT to be affected by they human body, and see from a deeper perspective of things, these things can become clearer.

However, there is a further far more deeper perspective from WHERE to look and observer from that gives an even much clearer perspective of things. This is WHERE A crystal clear vision of ALL-THERE-IS (EVERYTHING as One) comes from.

This IS what i think.

To give a much more detailed and FULLY understood explanation as to why i think there is no actual space or time I need to discuss this one on one with an individual so that I KNOW, for sure, what parts they are understanding and what parts they are not. I obviously do NOT KNOW where a person is up to or not up to if it is just me doing all the talking.

[Eodnhoj7]

In very quick simple (will NOT yet be understood) terms; the Universe is infinite/eternal, but there is actually NO actual space nor time (many, many thousands of words to explain fully and be understood fully) but in essence there is only a NOW, which is in a state of evolutionary constant-change, with each interaction of every single particle of matter Creating NOW. So, no matter what is being discussed or what is attempted to be looked at Everything will always come back to the NOW. Absolutely EVERY thing that "has" conceivably happened IS defined or determined by what IS, NOW. And, what "will" happen IS defined or determined by what IS actually happening NOW.

There is so much reordering of words on and in other subjects, and understanding them, BEFORE this subject could even begin to be better understood. But that is a start for NOW anyway.

So now is "constant change". The next question: "Constant Change?"

The two words; "Constant Change?" IS NOT a question.

For EVERY problem there is a solution.

EVERY 'problem' is just a question, posed for an answer.

If you WANT to KNOW the answer to a question, then you just have to put the words into a question, or in other words, you just have to rearrange words so that they make up a question.

Now, if you WANT me or another to answer a question, and/or provide the solution, then you just need to ask the question, or pose the problem, properly.

Until then I have no idea what your "next question", was/is.

Actually "constant change?" is the most rational and legitimate question for if I argue:

1) Who is constant change?
2) What is constant change?
3) When is constant change?
4) Where is constant change?
5) How is constant change?
6) Why is constant change?

The framework of the question determines the answer and fundamentally creates an artificial limitation.

If I ask:

1) "Who?" I limit it to merely a subjective experience.

2) "What?" I limit it to merely an objective experience.

3) "When" I limit it to a localization in time.

4) "Where I limit it to a localization in space.

5) "How?" I limit it to a means of existence.

6) "Why?" I limit it to an origin.

Now the problem occurs, that these three questions are dualisms where one definition as "positively" existing observes the other as "negative". Each aspect of the dualism is simultaneously "positive" in the respect it exists while "negative" in the respect is a gradation or "deficiency" in the positive. Relatively speaking each polarity of the dualism is the thesis or antithesis of the other.

Considering this premise each polarity as negative is merely the gradation of the other. So where +A may observe the phenomenon as existing -A observes a gradation of it where +A observes an inherent unity and -A observes an inherent multiplicity.

Take for example 1 and -1. -1 is a gradation of 1 effectively showing multiple 1's.

We can see this evidenced that 1 existing through 1 as 1 and 2, where 1 is maintained through itself as 2.

What seperates 1 from 2 is -1. Hence with the repitition of one comes a simultaneous gradation of it as a negative with this negative showing relation. 2 as 1 number in itself, composed of 1 repeating 1, leads to a simultaneous -1 where the progression of 1 to 2 results in -1 and -2.

So this progression of -1 to -2 through 1 and 2 can be observed as:

(1) [-1] ((1)[-1](1))



Which can be further reflected in the following number line:

1,2,3 as -1,-2,-3,-4,-5

(1) [-1] ((1)[-1](1)) [-1] ((1)[-1](1)[-1](1))



****I may have to elaborate on the above, considering what I am arguing it that the nature of numbers exist through progressive looping and not strictly a linear number line. Numbers are loops.


In these respects all negative numbers are connectors necessitating a form of gradation where what is connected must simultaneosly exist as seperate parts from a seperate perspective. This is considering negative numbers do not exist in and of themselves as there are merely "absences" necessitating actuals for an absence cannot exist on its own terms without an actual.


1) Who/What as subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivity is the absence of objectivity and objectivity is the absence of subjectivity.

"Who" as subjective experience becomes a "what" when objectified through reference by another "who?". "What" as objectivity becomes subjective through a "who" which interprets it.

2) When/Where as time and space. Time is the absence of space and space is the absence of time.

"When" as time becomes a "where" considering time exists through the position of localities in space. "Where" becomes a "when" through the progression of localities as space.

3) How/Why as means and origin. Means is the absence of Origin and Origin is the absence of means.

"How" as a means becomes "why" considering the means of an objects existence is its origin. "Why" as origin becomes a "How" considering the origin of an objects existence is its means.

Under these terms:

1) Subjectivity and Objectivity are connected along with who and what.

2) Time and Space are connected along with when and where.

3) Means and origin are connected along with how and why.


Considering (who/what), (when/where) and (how/why) effectively alternate

Where the synthesis of any two results in a third:

(subjectivity/objectivity) and (time/space) results in (means/origin)
****The subjective/objective nature of the person exists through time and space and vice versa. Both exists as a means/origin

(subjectivity/objectivity) and (means/origin) results in (time/space)
****The subjective/objective nature of the person exists as means/origin. Both exist as time/space.

(means/origin) and (time/space) results in (subjectivity/objectivity)
****The means/origin exists as time/space. Both exist as subjectivity and objectivity.



The all exist as three in one and one in three where one is inherently interlinked through the other (I may have to explain further) through the question or "?".

The question is a composition of all three of these duals. With the question observing an inherent synthetic element in the respect it gives the foundation of the truth it seeks to contain and effectively encapsulates it.


If any of the above makes sense.

[Age]

So now is "constant change". The next question: "Constant Change?"

The two words; "Constant Change?" IS NOT a question.

For EVERY problem there is a solution.

EVERY 'problem' is just a question, posed for an answer.

If you WANT to KNOW the answer to a question, then you just have to put the words into a question, or in other words, you just have to rearrange words so that they make up a question.

Now, if you WANT me or another to answer a question, and/or provide the solution, then you just need to ask the question, or pose the problem, properly.

Until then I have no idea what your "next question", was/is.

Actually "constant change?" is the most rational and legitimate question for if I argue:

1) Who is constant change?
2) What is constant change?
3) When is constant change?
4) Where is constant change?
5) How is constant change?
6) Why is constant change?

The framework of the question determines the answer and fundamentally creates an artificial limitation.

If I ask:

1) "Who?" I limit it to merely a subjective experience.

2) "What?" I limit it to merely an objective experience.

3) "When" I limit it to a localization in time.

4) "Where I limit it to a localization in space.

5) "How?" I limit it to a means of existence.

6) "Why?" I limit it to an origin.

Now the problem occurs, that these three questions are dualisms where one definition as "positively" existing observes the other as "negative". Each aspect of the dualism is simultaneously "positive" in the respect it exists while "negative" in the respect is a gradation or "deficiency" in the positive. Relatively speaking each polarity of the dualism is the thesis or antithesis of the other.

Considering this premise each polarity as negative is merely the gradation of the other. So where +A may observe the phenomenon as existing -A observes a gradation of it where +A observes an inherent unity and -A observes an inherent multiplicity.

Take for example 1 and -1. -1 is a gradation of 1 effectively showing multiple 1's.

We can see this evidenced that 1 existing through 1 as 1 and 2, where 1 is maintained through itself as 2.

What seperates 1 from 2 is -1. Hence with the repitition of one comes a simultaneous gradation of it as a negative with this negative showing relation. 2 as 1 number in itself, composed of 1 repeating 1, leads to a simultaneous -1 where the progression of 1 to 2 results in -1 and -2.

So this progression of -1 to -2 through 1 and 2 can be observed as:

(1) [-1] ((1)[-1](1))



Which can be further reflected in the following number line:

1,2,3 as -1,-2,-3,-4,-5

(1) [-1] ((1)[-1](1)) [-1] ((1)[-1](1)[-1](1))



****I may have to elaborate on the above, considering what I am arguing it that the nature of numbers exist through progressive looping and not strictly a linear number line. Numbers are loops.


In these respects all negative numbers are connectors necessitating a form of gradation where what is connected must simultaneosly exist as seperate parts from a seperate perspective. This is considering negative numbers do not exist in and of themselves as there are merely "absences" necessitating actuals for an absence cannot exist on its own terms without an actual.


1) Who/What as subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivity is the absence of objectivity and objectivity is the absence of subjectivity.

"Who" as subjective experience becomes a "what" when objectified through reference by another "who?". "What" as objectivity becomes subjective through a "who" which interprets it.

2) When/Where as time and space. Time is the absence of space and space is the absence of time.

"When" as time becomes a "where" considering time exists through the position of localities in space. "Where" becomes a "when" through the progression of localities as space.

3) How/Why as means and origin. Means is the absence of Origin and Origin is the absence of means.

"How" as a means becomes "why" considering the means of an objects existence is its origin. "Why" as origin becomes a "How" considering the origin of an objects existence is its means.

Under these terms:

1) Subjectivity and Objectivity are connected along with who and what.

2) Time and Space are connected along with when and where.

3) Means and origin are connected along with how and why.


Considering (who/what), (when/where) and (how/why) effectively alternate

Where the synthesis of any two results in a third:

(subjectivity/objectivity) and (time/space) results in (means/origin)
****The subjective/objective nature of the person exists through time and space and vice versa. Both exists as a means/origin

(subjectivity/objectivity) and (means/origin) results in (time/space)
****The subjective/objective nature of the person exists as means/origin. Both exist as time/space.

(means/origin) and (time/space) results in (subjectivity/objectivity)
****The means/origin exists as time/space. Both exist as subjectivity and objectivity.



The all exist as three in one and one in three where one is inherently interlinked through the other (I may have to explain further) through the question or "?".

The question is a composition of all three of these duals. With the question observing an inherent synthetic element in the respect it gives the foundation of the truth it seeks to contain and effectively encapsulates it.


If any of the above makes sense.

Honestly I think you are just doing the human being thing and just complicating THAT what IS really very simple and easy to see and understand.

The saying, 'You' are to smart for your own good', applies well when the 'you' means human beings.

Looking at things 'subjectively' and seeing things 'subjectively' just means looking and seeing, understanding, from one human being's or a few, and even all human being's perspective.

Looking at things 'objectively' and seeing things 'objectively' just means looking and seeing, understanding, from One's, every things' perspective as One.

For example, if you want to find the subjective answer to your first six questions or if you want to find the objective answer to your first six questions, then 'you' need to look at them and answer them from two different perspectives. Let us do that and we will see what happens;

1) Who is constant change?
2) What is constant change?
3) When is constant change?
4) Where is constant change?
5) How is constant change?
6) Why is constant change?

Now to give and get an example of what will happen when you look at and answer these six questions subjectively, 'you' just need to give an answer. By you doing so, you will have provided the example of a subjective answer. It is that simple. Now times that by the number of human being subjects who also provide examples, then you will have the number of different examples of subjectivity that are possible. That number of different subjective possibilities will be, if not, the actual number of ALL subjects providing examples, very close to that number. In other words there are just about as many different subjective perspectives of things as there are human beings looking at and seeing, understanding, things' subjectively.

BUT, there is only ONE way of looking at and seeing, understanding, things objectively. THAT way is from the perspective of Everything, as One.

NOW. Let us see what happens when we look at and answer these same questions objectively;

I could say; just wait and see WHAT happens when Everything as One comes to an agreement, but depending on how old that body is that you are within that agreement might not come around before that body stops breathing and pumping blood. In other words you might not be around to see that outcome. So, I could begin and give some examples, of which obviously some might agree, while some others will disagree with, vehemently. But that is the nature of the beast. Again, I will have to remind that what i write IS NOT the objective example it will only be a subjective example, and only WHEN Everyone is in agreement as One on WHAT the actual ANSWER IS, then that will be WHEN the one and only objective example AND answer come to light. The example I give could in fact be totally and completely WRONG.

But before we can start I need to KNOW where the questions are coming from. They are either coming from a subjective perspective or an objective perspective, so there are two ways to answer them. But either way ALL questions can be answered objectively where there is an absolute Real and True RIGHT ANSWER.

This is a troubling point even for those human beings who have a non-dual viewpoint. They BELIEVE that there is NO answer for WHO the observer IS. And, like I have explained many times already once a human being BELIEVES some thing, then they are NOT OPEN to the absolute Real and True objective RIGHT ANSWER.

To start with I need to KNOW, Who the 'who' is in the first question. This needs to be defined and clarified first before an answer can be given correctly. Are you seeking the answer to the conscious person, or human being, subjective one, or, are you seeking an answer to the conscious objective One? See even the question is depended upon if it is coming from a subjective or an objective perspective. But considering we are looking at and seeing, understanding, this for objective examples I will take the questions are from the objective perspective, which obviously they are not, but anyway;

1) Who is constant change?
The Universe, Itself, of which obviously there is only One. The Who here is the non-physical part of the Universe, that is; the Spiritual part or Mind, Itself. This is the omniscient part.

2) What is constant change?
The Universe, Itself. of which obviously there is only One. The What here is the physical part of the Universe, that is; the Particle part or Matter, Itself. This is the omnipotent part.

3) When is constant change?
NOW. There is only forever-always NOW.

4) Where is constant change?
HERE. There is only still-change HERE.

5) How is constant change?
It could NOT be otherwise. (As long as there is physical particles of matter with space between them and around them, then the Universe could NOT be any thing other than whatever shape and form It is in HERE and NOW. As long as particles can freely-move, which they can because of the distant-space between them, then because every action causes an equal or opposite reaction, there IS always constant change.)

6) Why is constant change?
So, that 'I', the Spiritual One, can bear witness to the beauty I am actually Creating, with physical matter. HERE and NOW.

By the way, you can use numbers in order to find the mathematical equation to prove all this, which again is also a very easy and simple thing to do. But what are those numbers representing? Just replacing words/definitions for numbers and symbols does not change the fact that if a human being wants their mathematical equation fully understood, then they have to replace those numbers and symbolic descriptors back into real and symbolic simple language that can be easily understood by everyone.

If human beings are only doing things for the good of a select few, then really what is the point of doing that?

[Eodnhoj7]

The two words; "Constant Change?" IS NOT a question.

For EVERY problem there is a solution.

EVERY 'problem' is just a question, posed for an answer.

If you WANT to KNOW the answer to a question, then you just have to put the words into a question, or in other words, you just have to rearrange words so that they make up a question.

Now, if you WANT me or another to answer a question, and/or provide the solution, then you just need to ask the question, or pose the problem, properly.

Until then I have no idea what your "next question", was/is.

Actually "constant change?" is the most rational and legitimate question for if I argue:

1) Who is constant change?
2) What is constant change?
3) When is constant change?
4) Where is constant change?
5) How is constant change?
6) Why is constant change?

The framework of the question determines the answer and fundamentally creates an artificial limitation.

If I ask:

1) "Who?" I limit it to merely a subjective experience.

2) "What?" I limit it to merely an objective experience.

3) "When" I limit it to a localization in time.

4) "Where I limit it to a localization in space.

5) "How?" I limit it to a means of existence.

6) "Why?" I limit it to an origin.

Now the problem occurs, that these three questions are dualisms where one definition as "positively" existing observes the other as "negative". Each aspect of the dualism is simultaneously "positive" in the respect it exists while "negative" in the respect is a gradation or "deficiency" in the positive. Relatively speaking each polarity of the dualism is the thesis or antithesis of the other.

Considering this premise each polarity as negative is merely the gradation of the other. So where +A may observe the phenomenon as existing -A observes a gradation of it where +A observes an inherent unity and -A observes an inherent multiplicity.

Take for example 1 and -1. -1 is a gradation of 1 effectively showing multiple 1's.

We can see this evidenced that 1 existing through 1 as 1 and 2, where 1 is maintained through itself as 2.

What seperates 1 from 2 is -1. Hence with the repitition of one comes a simultaneous gradation of it as a negative with this negative showing relation. 2 as 1 number in itself, composed of 1 repeating 1, leads to a simultaneous -1 where the progression of 1 to 2 results in -1 and -2.

So this progression of -1 to -2 through 1 and 2 can be observed as:

(1) [-1] ((1)[-1](1))



Which can be further reflected in the following number line:

1,2,3 as -1,-2,-3,-4,-5

(1) [-1] ((1)[-1](1)) [-1] ((1)[-1](1)[-1](1))



****I may have to elaborate on the above, considering what I am arguing it that the nature of numbers exist through progressive looping and not strictly a linear number line. Numbers are loops.


In these respects all negative numbers are connectors necessitating a form of gradation where what is connected must simultaneosly exist as seperate parts from a seperate perspective. This is considering negative numbers do not exist in and of themselves as there are merely "absences" necessitating actuals for an absence cannot exist on its own terms without an actual.


1) Who/What as subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivity is the absence of objectivity and objectivity is the absence of subjectivity.

"Who" as subjective experience becomes a "what" when objectified through reference by another "who?". "What" as objectivity becomes subjective through a "who" which interprets it.

2) When/Where as time and space. Time is the absence of space and space is the absence of time.

"When" as time becomes a "where" considering time exists through the position of localities in space. "Where" becomes a "when" through the progression of localities as space.

3) How/Why as means and origin. Means is the absence of Origin and Origin is the absence of means.

"How" as a means becomes "why" considering the means of an objects existence is its origin. "Why" as origin becomes a "How" considering the origin of an objects existence is its means.

Under these terms:

1) Subjectivity and Objectivity are connected along with who and what.

2) Time and Space are connected along with when and where.

3) Means and origin are connected along with how and why.


Considering (who/what), (when/where) and (how/why) effectively alternate

Where the synthesis of any two results in a third:

(subjectivity/objectivity) and (time/space) results in (means/origin)
****The subjective/objective nature of the person exists through time and space and vice versa. Both exists as a means/origin

(subjectivity/objectivity) and (means/origin) results in (time/space)
****The subjective/objective nature of the person exists as means/origin. Both exist as time/space.

(means/origin) and (time/space) results in (subjectivity/objectivity)
****The means/origin exists as time/space. Both exist as subjectivity and objectivity.



The all exist as three in one and one in three where one is inherently interlinked through the other (I may have to explain further) through the question or "?".

The question is a composition of all three of these duals. With the question observing an inherent synthetic element in the respect it gives the foundation of the truth it seeks to contain and effectively encapsulates it.


If any of the above makes sense.

Honestly I think you are just doing the human being thing and just complicating THAT what IS really very simple and easy to see and understand.

Rofl...I will not disagree with what you are saying. Reality is as deep or shallow as you wish to see it. The issue of depth is relative in these regards, and does take a subjective nature. I know, for what I had to deal with in life, I have been in some very complicated practical and moral scenarios that required depth.

For instance, recently I was in a serious end of life situation where I had to deal with multiple parties having extreme views over whether a person should effectively be euthanized or not and whether it was a question of euthanasia at all.

It gets more complicated when one is equally invested, emotionally, in the person passing.

The one party wanted the individual to die as quick as possible, with actual sabotage of life support on a few occasions. I had to mediate between the perspectives with both perspectives being well argued. The act of argument, debate, is actually a practical skill.

The other party wanted the individual to live "forever" regardless of the individuals personal comfort and life style. Depth is merely a synthesis between two opposing perspectives (am example in practical degrees of measurement up/down and left/right result as synthetically resulting in depth as forward/backward)

Depth is really simple...look at one issue, focus on it until you either find a solution or another problem presents itself as a set of problems. In the respects all moderation between extreme results in depth.

There is no depth if one looks at everything as one moment continually unfolding...everything appears shallow. A metaphor suffices for this statement. In Norse mythology Odin removed one of his eyes in order to "buy" wisdom. At first glance this seems absurd until one realizes that two eyes are responsible for depth perception...with one eye removed there is no more depth but rather reality unfolding through its own movements or your own.





The saying, 'You' are to smart for your own good', applies well when the 'you' means human beings.

Looking at things 'subjectively' and seeing things 'subjectively' just means looking and seeing, understanding, from one human being's or a few, and even all human being's perspective.

Looking at a thing subjectively, and subjectively looking at it as such, leads to a nature of objectivity as boundaries are given to the subjective nature and it becomes objective in the respect it cancels itself out.


Looking at things 'objectively' and seeing things 'objectively' just means looking and seeing, understanding, from One's, every things' perspective as One.

Not if objectivity and subjectivity are perceived as separate. The nature of reality as quantifiabley one and qualitatively unity necessitates a subjective observation of it. This subjective argument when it is mirrored/repeated to other subjective phenomenon becomes objective.


For example, if you want to find the subjective answer to your first six questions or if you want to find the objective answer to your first six questions, then 'you' need to look at them and answer them from two different perspectives. Let us do that and we will see what happens;

1) Who is constant change?
2) What is constant change?
3) When is constant change?
4) Where is constant change?
5) How is constant change?
6) Why is constant change?

Now to give and get an example of what will happen when you look at and answer these six questions subjectively, 'you' just need to give an answer. By you doing so, you will have provided the example of a subjective answer. It is that simple. Now times that by the number of human being subjects who also provide examples, then you will have the number of different examples of subjectivity that are possible. That number of different subjective possibilities will be, if not, the actual number of ALL subjects providing examples, very close to that number. In other words there are just about as many different subjective perspectives of things as there are human beings looking at and seeing, understanding, things' subjectively.

I agree that these questions (and I am addressing the paragraphs below in this set of statements.) are inevitably subject to a dualism between subjectivity and objectivity, however this dichomoty defeats the premise of everything being 1 at first glance.

Now to say no dualism occurs and this dualism is an illusion is effectively a lie if one looks at reality for what exists..."two" and "dualism" exist. The question occurs considering this is inherent within the all, to deny it would be to deny the all? Yes in some degrees. However no in a separate one.

The reason for the "no" is due to the respectively positive/thetical and negative/antithetical natures of these duals. Where one exists the other does not except as a deficiency of the first.

In these respects the positive unity is directed towards a negative as multiplicity and alternates back. So one polar extreme is directed towards another and a form of synthesis occurs.

The objective and subjective dualism results in the axiom as strictly "neutral observation" or "neutral awareness" (due to the entropy nature of language each definition may suffice) where a triadic nature occurs.

A positive/thesis cycles to a negative/antithesis where this cycling is in itself neutral/synthesis.

The same occurs respectively for a neutral/synthesis and negative/antithesis resulting in a positive thesis and a neutral/synthesis and positive/thesis resulting in a negative/antithesis.

1 occurs through the totality of the 3 as each part is one.

and the 3 exists as 1 considering they exist through eachother and as eachother

This cycling between the 1 in 3 and 3 in one is in itself 1...leading the argument to continually cycle. This continual cycling ad-infinitum is 1 in itself....and I will leave the argument there for Simplicity as sake.

3 and 1 are interchangeable and the Pythagorean even observed, and where split in some cases over it, as to whether 3 or 1 came first.

BUT, there is only ONE way of looking at and seeing, understanding, things objectively. THAT way is from the perspective of Everything, as One.

NOW. Let us see what happens when we look at and answer these same questions objectively;

I could say; just wait and see WHAT happens when Everything as One comes to an agreement, but depending on how old that body is that you are within that agreement might not come around before that body stops breathing and pumping blood. In other words you might not be around to see that outcome. So, I could begin and give some examples, of which obviously some might agree, while some others will disagree with, vehemently. But that is the nature of the beast. Again, I will have to remind that what i write IS NOT the objective example it will only be a subjective example, and only WHEN Everyone is in agreement as One on WHAT the actual ANSWER IS, then that will be WHEN the one and only objective example AND answer come to light. The example I give could in fact be totally and completely WRONG.

But before we can start I need to KNOW where the questions are coming from. They are either coming from a subjective perspective or an objective perspective, so there are two ways to answer them. But either way ALL questions can be answered objectively where there is an absolute Real and True RIGHT ANSWER.

This is a troubling point even for those human beings who have a non-dual viewpoint. They BELIEVE that there is NO answer for WHO the observer IS. And, like I have explained many times already once a human being BELIEVES some thing, then they are NOT OPEN to the absolute Real and True objective RIGHT ANSWER.

To start with I need to KNOW, Who the 'who' is in the first question. This needs to be defined and clarified first before an answer can be given correctly. Are you seeking the answer to the conscious person, or human being, subjective one, or, are you seeking an answer to the conscious objective One? See even the question is depended upon if it is coming from a subjective or an objective perspective. But considering we are looking at and seeing, understanding, this for objective examples I will take the questions are from the objective perspective, which obviously they are not, but anyway;

1) Who is constant change?
The Universe, Itself, of which obviously there is only One. The Who here is the non-physical part of the Universe, that is; the Spiritual part or Mind, Itself. This is the omniscient part.

Any negative observes a form of separation through gradation as all negatives imply not just an absence but an inherent relation of parts because of this absence. To argue blue is absent of red is still to observe red as existing, however seperately from blue. This separation however, dually argues a connection (through purple) considering when you divide any phenomenon it necessitates a connection.



2) What is constant change?
The Universe, Itself. of which obviously there is only One. The What here is the physical part of the Universe, that is; the Particle part or Matter, Itself. This is the omnipotent part.

To break an argument into parts and say no parts exist except as 1 is to necessitate a contradiction further implying an illusion where ther can be no illusion if all things are true. Under a...what to call it..."Prime Triad" all illusions are merely deficiencies in truth however existing as low grades of truth.



3) When is constant change?
NOW. There is only forever-always NOW.

Now is divided between a past and future which also change according to individual and group memory (and assuming time travel exists, which by logical necessity it does). We are still stuck with a prime triad in these respects.



4) Where is constant change?
HERE. There is only still-change HERE.

If here is always changing there are multiple "heres" where change is merely an inversion between unity and multiplicity. I may have to elaborate this point.



5) How is constant change?
It could NOT be otherwise. (As long as there is physical particles of matter with space between them and around them, then the Universe could NOT be any thing other than whatever shape and form It is in HERE and NOW. As long as particles can freely-move, which they can because of the distant-space between them, then because every action causes an equal or opposite reaction, there IS always constant change.)

Constant change is a dualism solved by infinity as the third element...Prime Triad.

6) Why is constant change?
So, that 'I', the Spiritual One, can bear witness to the beauty I am actually Creating, with physical matter. HERE and NOW.

Well then you created me as part of your unconsciousness and now you are divided into two...



By the way, you can use numbers in order to find the mathematical equation to prove all this, which again is also a very easy and simple thing to do. But what are those numbers representing? Just replacing words/definitions for numbers and symbols does not change the fact that if a human being wants their mathematical equation fully understood, then they have to replace those numbers and symbolic descriptors back into real and symbolic simple language that can be easily understood by everyone.

Replace 1 with A and -1 with -A. Replace A with any actual being and -A with a gradation of that being, or its antithesis.



If human beings are only doing things for the good of a select few, then really what is the point of doing that?

Everyone is an extension of everyone as everyone. People are responsible for themselves and eachother through themselves as eachother.

[Age]

Actually "constant change?" is the most rational and legitimate question for if I argue:

1) Who is constant change?
2) What is constant change?
3) When is constant change?
4) Where is constant change?
5) How is constant change?
6) Why is constant change?

The framework of the question determines the answer and fundamentally creates an artificial limitation.

If I ask:

1) "Who?" I limit it to merely a subjective experience.

2) "What?" I limit it to merely an objective experience.

3) "When" I limit it to a localization in time.

4) "Where I limit it to a localization in space.

5) "How?" I limit it to a means of existence.

6) "Why?" I limit it to an origin.

Now the problem occurs, that these three questions are dualisms where one definition as "positively" existing observes the other as "negative". Each aspect of the dualism is simultaneously "positive" in the respect it exists while "negative" in the respect is a gradation or "deficiency" in the positive. Relatively speaking each polarity of the dualism is the thesis or antithesis of the other.

Considering this premise each polarity as negative is merely the gradation of the other. So where +A may observe the phenomenon as existing -A observes a gradation of it where +A observes an inherent unity and -A observes an inherent multiplicity.

Take for example 1 and -1. -1 is a gradation of 1 effectively showing multiple 1's.

We can see this evidenced that 1 existing through 1 as 1 and 2, where 1 is maintained through itself as 2.

What seperates 1 from 2 is -1. Hence with the repitition of one comes a simultaneous gradation of it as a negative with this negative showing relation. 2 as 1 number in itself, composed of 1 repeating 1, leads to a simultaneous -1 where the progression of 1 to 2 results in -1 and -2.

So this progression of -1 to -2 through 1 and 2 can be observed as:

(1) [-1] ((1)[-1](1))



Which can be further reflected in the following number line:

1,2,3 as -1,-2,-3,-4,-5

(1) [-1] ((1)[-1](1)) [-1] ((1)[-1](1)[-1](1))



****I may have to elaborate on the above, considering what I am arguing it that the nature of numbers exist through progressive looping and not strictly a linear number line. Numbers are loops.


In these respects all negative numbers are connectors necessitating a form of gradation where what is connected must simultaneosly exist as seperate parts from a seperate perspective. This is considering negative numbers do not exist in and of themselves as there are merely "absences" necessitating actuals for an absence cannot exist on its own terms without an actual.


1) Who/What as subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivity is the absence of objectivity and objectivity is the absence of subjectivity.

"Who" as subjective experience becomes a "what" when objectified through reference by another "who?". "What" as objectivity becomes subjective through a "who" which interprets it.

2) When/Where as time and space. Time is the absence of space and space is the absence of time.

"When" as time becomes a "where" considering time exists through the position of localities in space. "Where" becomes a "when" through the progression of localities as space.

3) How/Why as means and origin. Means is the absence of Origin and Origin is the absence of means.

"How" as a means becomes "why" considering the means of an objects existence is its origin. "Why" as origin becomes a "How" considering the origin of an objects existence is its means.

Under these terms:

1) Subjectivity and Objectivity are connected along with who and what.

2) Time and Space are connected along with when and where.

3) Means and origin are connected along with how and why.


Considering (who/what), (when/where) and (how/why) effectively alternate

Where the synthesis of any two results in a third:

(subjectivity/objectivity) and (time/space) results in (means/origin)
****The subjective/objective nature of the person exists through time and space and vice versa. Both exists as a means/origin

(subjectivity/objectivity) and (means/origin) results in (time/space)
****The subjective/objective nature of the person exists as means/origin. Both exist as time/space.

(means/origin) and (time/space) results in (subjectivity/objectivity)
****The means/origin exists as time/space. Both exist as subjectivity and objectivity.



The all exist as three in one and one in three where one is inherently interlinked through the other (I may have to explain further) through the question or "?".

The question is a composition of all three of these duals. With the question observing an inherent synthetic element in the respect it gives the foundation of the truth it seeks to contain and effectively encapsulates it.


If any of the above makes sense.

Honestly I think you are just doing the human being thing and just complicating THAT what IS really very simple and easy to see and understand.

Rofl...I will not disagree with what you are saying. Reality is as deep or shallow as you wish to see it. The issue of depth is relative in these regards, and does take a subjective nature. I know, for what I had to deal with in life, I have been in some very complicated practical and moral scenarios that required depth.

For instance, recently I was in a serious end of life situation where I had to deal with multiple parties having extreme views over whether a person should effectively be euthanized or not and whether it was a question of euthanasia at all.

It gets more complicated when one is equally invested, emotionally, in the person passing.

The one party wanted the individual to die as quick as possible, with actual sabotage of life support on a few occasions. I had to mediate between the perspectives with both perspectives being well argued. The act of argument, debate, is actually a practical skill.

The other party wanted the individual to live "forever" regardless of the individuals personal comfort and life style. Depth is merely a synthesis between two opposing perspectives (am example in practical degrees of measurement up/down and left/right result as synthetically resulting in depth as forward/backward)

Depth is really simple...look at one issue, focus on it until you either find a solution or another problem presents itself as a set of problems. In the respects all moderation between extreme results in depth.

There is no depth if one looks at everything as one moment continually unfolding...everything appears shallow. A metaphor suffices for this statement. In Norse mythology Odin removed one of his eyes in order to "buy" wisdom. At first glance this seems absurd until one realizes that two eyes are responsible for depth perception...with one eye removed there is no more depth but rather reality unfolding through its own movements or your own.

If, and when, everything that only "appears" to be deep is first discovered, then uncovered, and then brought to light, at the surface, then there it can remain forever more for all to see, and be revealed to. But for that to happen adult human beings NEED to dig deep into discovering WHY they continually do wrong, and for that to happen they NEED to truly Open and Honest about ALL the wrong they do do.

None of my business and maybe way of line here, especially as how relatively recent that happen to you, but what I notice in what you wrote about those people arguing for, was they were TRYING TO argue for what they, themselves, WANTED, in this situation. There did not seem to be any regard for what the human being in question them self WANTED, in this situation. If people do not know what another person, them self, WANTS in a situation like that, then that is a failing of human beings through improper communication, which I for one am an expert in. I am not just an expert in failing all communication but an expert specifically in knowing what those close to this writer would WANT in a situation like that. I have absolutely no idea what they, themselves, WANT. As I said it is none of my business really and i am probably way out of line here.

[Age]

The saying, 'You' are to smart for your own good', applies well when the 'you' means human beings.

Looking at things 'subjectively' and seeing things 'subjectively' just means looking and seeing, understanding, from one human being's or a few, and even all human being's perspective.

Looking at a thing subjectively, and subjectively looking at it as such, leads to a nature of objectivity as boundaries are given to the subjective nature and it becomes objective in the respect it cancels itself out.

I think we are agreeing on the exact same thing/s. We are just using our different subjective perspectives to explain, and what i see as is actually happening right HERE and NOW is the boundaries of our subjective views are be defined/noticed, and from there what is left is the agreed upon view, which is coming forth, to light, or becoming objective, and in this respect is cancelling the subjective views out.

Looking at things 'objectively' and seeing things 'objectively' just means looking and seeing, understanding, from One's, every things' perspective as One.

Not if objectivity and subjectivity are perceived as separate. The nature of reality as quantifiabley one and qualitatively unity necessitates a subjective observation of it. This subjective argument when it is mirrored/repeated to other subjective phenomenon becomes objective.

Again, agreed. To me, the actual reason WHY human beings, themselves, evolved into being was because the One united 'I', that is; Consciousness, Awareness, Mind, or the Universe, Itself, needed a animal, any animal, to evolve with enough ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing, so that I can become aware of 'Who 'I' actually am'.

I, the Mind et cetara, needed to be able to SEE from many different and subjective perspectives bouncing off, mirrored, or repeated, from and to each other in order to gain the One objective Real and True VIEW and PERSPECTIVE. I just say WHAT IT IS that every one agrees with is that objective (view).

[Eodnhoj7]

Honestly I think you are just doing the human being thing and just complicating THAT what IS really very simple and easy to see and understand.

Rofl...I will not disagree with what you are saying. Reality is as deep or shallow as you wish to see it. The issue of depth is relative in these regards, and does take a subjective nature. I know, for what I had to deal with in life, I have been in some very complicated practical and moral scenarios that required depth.

For instance, recently I was in a serious end of life situation where I had to deal with multiple parties having extreme views over whether a person should effectively be euthanized or not and whether it was a question of euthanasia at all.

It gets more complicated when one is equally invested, emotionally, in the person passing.

The one party wanted the individual to die as quick as possible, with actual sabotage of life support on a few occasions. I had to mediate between the perspectives with both perspectives being well argued. The act of argument, debate, is actually a practical skill.

The other party wanted the individual to live "forever" regardless of the individuals personal comfort and life style. Depth is merely a synthesis between two opposing perspectives (am example in practical degrees of measurement up/down and left/right result as synthetically resulting in depth as forward/backward)

Depth is really simple...look at one issue, focus on it until you either find a solution or another problem presents itself as a set of problems. In the respects all moderation between extreme results in depth.

There is no depth if one looks at everything as one moment continually unfolding...everything appears shallow. A metaphor suffices for this statement. In Norse mythology Odin removed one of his eyes in order to "buy" wisdom. At first glance this seems absurd until one realizes that two eyes are responsible for depth perception...with one eye removed there is no more depth but rather reality unfolding through its own movements or your own.

If, and when, everything that only "appears" to be deep is first discovered, then uncovered, and then brought to light, at the surface, then there it can remain forever more for all to see, and be revealed to. But for that to happen adult human beings NEED to dig deep into discovering WHY they continually do wrong, and for that to happen they NEED to truly Open and Honest about ALL the wrong they do do.

None of my business and maybe way of line here, especially as how relatively recent that happen to you, but what I notice in what you wrote about those people arguing for, was they were TRYING TO argue for what they, themselves, WANTED, in this situation. There did not seem to be any regard for what the human being in question them self WANTED, in this situation. If people do not know what another person, them self, WANTS in a situation like that, then that is a failing of human beings through improper communication, which I for one am an expert in. I am not just an expert in failing all communication but an expert specifically in knowing what those close to this writer would WANT in a situation like that. I have absolutely no idea what they, themselves, WANT. As I said it is none of my business really and i am probably way out of line here.

No problem discussing it, the situation passed and now it will be a situation of property division...I referenced it because it was an immediate and relatively "intense/deep" real life example of dualism that will happen to many people at one time or another.

You are correct in your analysis, when subject to extremes people become extreme with this extreme being a form of selfishness as an extreme observes an absence of structure...hence personal identity and the freedom that comes with it.

Many people openly admitted they wanted the person to die quicker because of there own personal convenience and feelings...hence the projected these feeling as the wants of the individual. The same occurs dually with those wanting the individual to live "forever". Both sides where composed of highly intelligent and successful (in a worldly sense) people hence mediating between highly intelligent people one must be highly intelligent so mediation necessitates an adaptation to the moment.

Long story short the third party, at the center of it all being sick with stage for cancer, is the origin and to deal with the problem one must look at the origin from which the two extremes stem from and synthesize back to.

The method I took was simply to want what the person wanted regardless of my personal feelings and metaphorically "die" with her where I could. So whatever discomfort (thought, emotion, action) she had I did everything I could to relieve it (psychological counseling, massaging stiff muscles, feeding/drinking, changing diapers/sheets, etc.).

By becoming what the persons (and parties) lacked I mediated the two extremes of the parties and took an objective approach that necessitated the problem as one of lack of unity within the individuals by "filling in the gaps". In simple terms one must treat each problem in accords to how it manifests.

Take for example, the woman (who is a relative and close friend of mine) had an infection that caused serious hallucinations on top of stage for cancer. One party just wanted her to die. While the cancer could not be treated (due to a variety of circumstances) the infection could.

Now the goal of treating a person who is dying is to provide comfort and love with the hope they will recover, but knowing they may not at all but must be comforted anyhow. So I helped, where I could, with the recovery from the infection (again I had to play the role of the gap filler so it was not all me doing the treatments) knowing at minimum it would provide comfort for the individual (which is what she wanted). Now I may not be able to heal the cancer but I can provide a means of comfort during the natural process of death.

Now other people would say, "she is dead anyhow and should be left to die" however this is also an extreme as any circumstance (even driving a car) can be interpreted as leading to death. Under these circumstances no-one is justified in helping anyone...including themselves. This leads to the extreme of the survival of the fittest, everyone is on there own, form of reasoning which society is moving towards.

However this reasoning is faulty because those who argue it may be usurped by those who have a more forceful logic...and it eventually cancels itself out leading to another extreme where everyone should live no matter what...but this is pointless considering not only is death inevitable but requires a form of unnatural means of survival causing a further set of problems in themselves. Considering both extremes are relative to artificial societies, the medial point (from which society originates) is nature law as strictly synthesis of extremes (we see in reproduction of plant and animal life) and inherent cycles that maintain phenomenon through time.

Compassion is the most effective weapon against disorder as it acts as a glue preventing absence of structure. One must eliminate the subjective chaotic self and be...for how corny it sounds...an "object of love" or "object of agape" where existence occurs through self sacrifice as an element of natural law. This compassion necessitates the embracing of both extremes and merging them into one for all division through dualism is disorder as opposition and contradiction.

[Eodnhoj7]

The saying, 'You' are to smart for your own good', applies well when the 'you' means human beings.

Looking at things 'subjectively' and seeing things 'subjectively' just means looking and seeing, understanding, from one human being's or a few, and even all human being's perspective.

Looking at a thing subjectively, and subjectively looking at it as such, leads to a nature of objectivity as boundaries are given to the subjective nature and it becomes objective in the respect it cancels itself out.

I think we are agreeing on the exact same thing/s. We are just using our different subjective perspectives to explain, and what i see as is actually happening right HERE and NOW is the boundaries of our subjective views are be defined/noticed, and from there what is left is the agreed upon view, which is coming forth, to light, or becoming objective, and in this respect is cancelling the subjective views out.

Looking at things 'objectively' and seeing things 'objectively' just means looking and seeing, understanding, from One's, every things' perspective as One.

Not if objectivity and subjectivity are perceived as separate. The nature of reality as quantifiabley one and qualitatively unity necessitates a subjective observation of it. This subjective argument when it is mirrored/repeated to other subjective phenomenon becomes objective.

Again, agreed. To me, the actual reason WHY human beings, themselves, evolved into being was because the One united 'I', that is; Consciousness, Awareness, Mind, or the Universe, Itself, needed a animal, any animal, to evolve with enough ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing, so that I can become aware of 'Who 'I' actually am'.

I, the Mind et cetara, needed to be able to SEE from many different and subjective perspectives bouncing off, mirrored, or repeated, from and to each other in order to gain the One objective Real and True VIEW and PERSPECTIVE. I just say WHAT IT IS that every one agrees with is that objective (view).

The only thing we are really differing on is the quantitative and qualitative nature of 3 and 1.

[surreptitious57]

To give a much more detailed and FULLY understood explanation as to why I think there is no actual space or time I need to discuss this one
on one with an individual so that I KNOW for sure what parts they are understanding and what parts they are not . I obviously do NOT KNOW
where a person is up to or not up to if it is just me doing all the talk

It is possible that space and time do not exist but are as imaginary as you have described them. These are not original ideas for I have seen
them before. I am neither accepting or rejecting them because I do not have enough evidence for either proposition so simply acknowledge
them as interesting ideas without committing myself one way or the other

[Age]

To give a much more detailed and FULLY understood explanation as to why I think there is no actual space or time I need to discuss this one
on one with an individual so that I KNOW for sure what parts they are understanding and what parts they are not . I obviously do NOT KNOW
where a person is up to or not up to if it is just me doing all the talk

It is possible that space and time do not exist but are as imaginary as you have described them. These are not original ideas for I have seen
them before. I am neither accepting or rejecting them because I do not have enough evidence for either proposition so simply acknowledge
them as interesting ideas without committing myself one way or the other

That way, I found, is a perfect way to be. You are able to learn and understand far quicker and easier being that way.

(But I also KNOW every one has there own way of doing things.)

By the way is there ever an 'original' idea?

[surreptitious57]

You are able to learn and understand far quicker and easier being that way

For me it is simply knowing about different perspectives without committing myself to any thing at all
As I do not want to have a fixed point of view unless I can be absolutely certain that it is actually true
There is very little I know or think I know to be absolutely true anyway so I have so much to still learn

[Age]

You are able to learn and understand far quicker and easier being that way

For me it is simply knowing about different perspectives without committing myself to any thing at all
As I do not want to have a fixed point of view unless I can be absolutely certain that it is actually true
There is very little I know or think I know to be absolutely true anyway so I have so much to still learn

Exactly as I said. If you do NOT commit, thus do NOT either BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE, then you are OPEN. When you are OPEN, then you can learn and understand much quicker, simpler, and easier.

[Eodnhoj7]

To give a much more detailed and FULLY understood explanation as to why I think there is no actual space or time I need to discuss this one
on one with an individual so that I KNOW for sure what parts they are understanding and what parts they are not . I obviously do NOT KNOW
where a person is up to or not up to if it is just me doing all the talk

It is possible that space and time do not exist but are as imaginary as you have described them. These are not original ideas for I have seen
them before. I am neither accepting or rejecting them because I do not have enough evidence for either proposition so simply acknowledge
them as interesting ideas without committing myself one way or the other

If everything is one then imaginary phenomenon are extensions of the 1 as well.

[Age]

To give a much more detailed and FULLY understood explanation as to why I think there is no actual space or time I need to discuss this one
on one with an individual so that I KNOW for sure what parts they are understanding and what parts they are not . I obviously do NOT KNOW
where a person is up to or not up to if it is just me doing all the talk

It is possible that space and time do not exist but are as imaginary as you have described them. These are not original ideas for I have seen
them before. I am neither accepting or rejecting them because I do not have enough evidence for either proposition so simply acknowledge
them as interesting ideas without committing myself one way or the other

If everything is one then imaginary phenomenon are extensions of the 1 as well.

Yes of course imaginary phenomenon is a part of One, but an "extension" might just be the wrong word to use here?

Absolutely EVERYTHING as One IS One. I just see imagination as being a PART of the One and not really an extension of the One.

I am NOT sure if there can be "extensions" of the One. I do NOT yet see how there can exactly be "extensions" of One, if 'extension' means some thing being added to enlarge or prolong the One because thee One is eternal-eternity NOW.

IMAGINATION could be SEEN as the greatest "gift" or "thing" in the Universe because of WHAT has been physically created and WHAT WILL BE physically created from imagining. That, WHAT WILL BE CREATED, is a truly peaceful world for everyone to live within. Only imagination can make that POSSIBLE, True, and then Real. Just like every other thing that human beings HAVE CREATED, they have ALL come about from imagination first.