Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

These are not the observer. These things are the observed.

Where is the exact location of the observer?

The location is myself, a conscious being, which is located in Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

[daniel j lavender]

Daniel..nonexistent exists as an idea.

Correct. And a word or term.

Yet more evidence for existence, not nonexistence.

Those who existed who have died are evidence of nonexistence.

Those who lived, not existed. They still exist as concepts, as memories. Additionally upon their physical death no gap of nonexistence was introduced. Things just more or less shifted around.

It is not evidence of nonexistence. It is evidence of the life cycle, that living organisms are mortal and eventually break down. Their lives, their deaths, their memories. All things, all processes, all evidence of existence, not nonexistence.

Those who are born, who pop aware to exist eventually become nonexistent….in death.

They existed previously just not necessarily in that form or consciously.

Who, what are “those”? They are complex arrangements of matter and energy. That existed before consciousness. That exists after consciousness. In a sense they were never nonexistent. Things are never nonexistent. Things just change, move, they shift around.

Things don’t just pop into being from nothing. Something cannot come from nothing or nonexistence. Something cannot turn into nothing or nonexistence. Death is not nonexistence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

The dead are not nonexistent. They are dead.

Both existence and nonexistence are ideas, that’s all.

Nonexistence is an idea, that’s all. And a word or term.

Existence is a word, a term, a concept which attempts to represent, to reference and describe what is. Words, language has limits, however, and can’t do what is justice.

All that is is existence, as you illustrate in your statement here. Even nonexistence, even nonexistent are things, are standing examples of existence. The ideas of nonexistence themselves can’t help but reveal the truth.

meaning both existence and nonexistence are one and the same phenomena, they just differ in appearance that’s all.

If there is something there is not nothing.

If there is existence there is not nonexistence.

Nothingness, nonexistence is not hiding behind the curtain of existence. All that is is existence. Nonexistence isn’t there.

Existence and nonexistence cannot simultaneously be. Nonexistence is not and cannot be at all.

[Dontaskme]

Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

These are not the observer. These things are the observed.

Where is the exact location of the observer?

The location is myself, a conscious being, which is located in Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

Yourself / myself must be everywhere at once then, to be located in all the places you’ve mentioned. In reality there is no known object observing itself, as concepts know nothing of their existence. America does not know of its existence it’s an idea…and what is an idea? I’ve no idea.

Nothing is everything and everything is nothing…..in this conception. . Albeit illusory.

[Dontaskme]

Things are never nonexistent.

No thing knows this because things have no awareness to know they exist or don’t exist.Things are being awared , they are being looked upon, being observed…by awareness that can never experience itself as the thing it is aware of.

[Impenitent]

everything is infinite, until it isn't.

-Imp

[daniel j lavender]

No thing knows this because things have no awareness to know they exist or don’t exist.

I have awareness, I am awareness and know, or at the very least can confidently claim, that I exist.

I am awareness. I am aware of awareness, I am aware of myself as awareness, I am aware of other things, I am aware of existence generally. I am a thing.

Both knowing and not knowing simultaneously…..a conceptual overlay upon the non conceptual. In the same context an image is an overlay upon a blank screen.

If there is an image there is not a blank screen. If there is a blank screen there is not an image on the screen.

They are not the same, they are not simultaneously. Just like existence and nonexistence. Existence and nonexistence are not the same, nor can they exist simultaneously.

However both the blank screen and the image are things, they are parts of existence whether they exist simultaneously or not. In other words it is all existence. There is always existence.

You try to convey evidence for nonexistence only to provide more evidence for existence.

Nothing and everything are conjoined twins infinitely for eternity inseparably one.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

If there is something there is not nothing.

If there are many things there is not nothing.

[Dontaskme]

You are never not existing.

It’s the divine paradox.

[daniel j lavender]

I can't show nonexistence

Correct.

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

Can you SHOW 'immaterial expanse'?

if yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

It’s apparent in the density variance of things. Air is less dense than quartz. Different objects, different regions of existence exhibit various densities due to various amounts of immaterial expanse.

It can be observed in the motion, in the interactions of things. Some things glide elegantly, effortlessly through low density air. Others dig violently into unforgiving, dense terrain.

As stated, immaterial expanse isn’t a typical physical object like a baseball bat. To see it, to understand it one must approach it accordingly.

I can't show nonexistence, I can only know it as a concept, as a concept, it is known

That is not nonexistence. That is a concept. That is part of existence.

What is known is existence.

A concept is. A concept exists. A concept is part of existence. It is obviously perceived, interacted with and acknowledged here in discussion. It has properties or qualities as it is conceptual. All of those are signatures of existence. All of those details concern being.

The reason you claim to “only know it as a concept” is because it is only a concept. Or word or term. Nonexistence does not actually exist.

All things, including the concept, are things, are parts of existence. All there is is existence. As you demonstrate here.

It's like how is existence even known if it has no counterpart that differentiates between the two known concepts?

Existence is known because it is perceived and affirmed by conscious entities such as ourselves.

Existence has no counterpart, existence needs no counterpart. Existence cannot have a counterpart. For if existence had a counterpart the counterpart would be as well, the counterpart would exist as well which would indicate existence which would be part of existence, which would be with and of existence, not a counterpart.

Can 'concepts' have counterparts?

Yes, concepts may have counterparts as they are parts of existence, concepts alone are not the entirety of existence.

Parts can have counterparts. Hence the term counterparts.

Existence in general, the entirety, cannot have a counterpart. It is the entirety. It is all. All is all.

And, could 'Existence' have a conceptual 'counterpart'?

Existence, as a concept, could indeed have a conceptual counterpart. And that conceptual counterpart would be, it would be part of existence, not nonexistence. Hence the contradictory concept nonexistence.

Again, parts can have counterparts. The word, the term, the concept existence itself is not all things, it is merely a part. However I use the term existence in representation of, in reference to all things including the term and concept itself. Language has limits but to convey the idea that’s the route one must take.

Then why speak of it? by speaking of it, it must already exist to be able to know it, else it would not have been known conceptually.

I’m not speaking of nonexistence. I’m speaking of and with words, I’m speaking of contradictory concepts nonexistence, nothing, nothingness. All are things, all are aspects of existence.

Is a 'unicorn' a 'thing'?

Are 'unicorns' an aspect of 'Existence'?

Yes, a unicorn is a thing.

It is a word, a term, a concept, a mythological creature. An animal which may actually exist on some planet or in some other realm. After all we have similar animals here: horses.

The word, the idea, the concept at least, is perceived. It has quality, if only conceptual.

So yes, unicorns are aspects or parts of existence.

A thing is a thing; every thing is some thing, not no thing.

But you could NEVER SEE, nor UNDERSTAND, ANY of 'this' BECAUSE you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that what you SAY and BELIEVE here IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. And, WITH absolutely NO 'counterpart' AT ALL.

Forwarding this to you.

[Age]

Correct.

You cannot show nonexistence because it is not and cannot be to be shown.

Can you SHOW 'immaterial expanse'?

if yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

It’s apparent in the density variance of things. Air is less dense than quartz.

But 'air' is a 'material thing', right?

Different objects, different regions of existence exhibit various densities due to various amounts of immaterial expanse.

But 'objects' and 'regions of existence' are 'material things', right?

And, 'to have density' would be a 'material thing' right? Or, can 'immaterial expanse' have 'density' also?

It can be observed in the motion, in the interactions of things.

Is 'this' 'it' which can be observed in motion, in the 'interaction of' 'material things' or in the 'interaction of' 'immaterial things'?

Some things glide elegantly, effortlessly through low density air. Others dig violently into unforgiving, dense terrain.

So, WHERE is the 'immaterial expanse', EXACTLY?

As stated, immaterial expanse isn’t a typical physical object like a baseball bat.

I would hope NOT, as the 'immaterial' word would be VERY CONTRADICTORY or at least VERY MISLEADING.

To see it, to understand it one must approach it accordingly.

One MUST approach 'what' 'accordingly'?

AND, what do you even MEAN by 'accordingly'?

In other words, 'what IS' 'the way way that is appropriate to the particular circumstance' OF 'approaching it', EXACTLY?

That is not nonexistence. That is a concept. That is part of existence.

What is known is existence.

A concept is. A concept exists. A concept is part of existence. It is obviously perceived, interacted with and acknowledged here in discussion. It has properties or qualities as it is conceptual. All of those are signatures of existence. All of those details concern being.

The reason you claim to “only know it as a concept” is because it is only a concept. Or word or term. Nonexistence does not actually exist.

All things, including the concept, are things, are parts of existence. All there is is existence. As you demonstrate here.




Existence is known because it is perceived and affirmed by conscious entities such as ourselves.

Existence has no counterpart, existence needs no counterpart. Existence cannot have a counterpart. For if existence had a counterpart the counterpart would be as well, the counterpart would exist as well which would indicate existence which would be part of existence, which would be with and of existence, not a counterpart.

Can 'concepts' have counterparts?

Yes, concepts may have counterparts as they are parts of existence, concepts alone are not the entirety of existence.[/quote]

Great. So, the 'counterpart' of 'Existence', which is 'nonexistence', is a 'concept', which ACTUALLY does exist, IN 'Existence'.

Parts can have counterparts. Hence the term counterparts.

Existence in general, the entirety, cannot have a counterpart. It is the entirety. It is all. All is all.

OBVIOUSLY.

And what is ALSO OBVIOUS is that there ACTUALLY IS a 'counterpart' OF 'Existence', Itself. Which as I just POINTED OUT and SHOWED DOES EXIST.

Or do you have ANOTHER 'view' here, which you would not like to POINT OUT and SHARE?

And, could 'Existence' have a conceptual 'counterpart'?

Existence, as a concept, could indeed have a conceptual counterpart.

What do you mean by the USE of the word 'could' here.

Either the conceptual counterpart of the concept of 'existence' IS the concept of 'nonexistence' or 'it' is NOT.

If 'it' IS, then there IS, indeed, a conceptual counterpart for the concept 'existence'.

And that conceptual counterpart would be, it would be part of existence, not nonexistence. Hence the contradictory concept nonexistence.

BUT as long as you ACKNOWLEDGE that the EXISTENCE of the 'concept' OF 'nonexistence', which is the conceptual counterpart for the 'concept' of 'existence', IS True and thus DOES EXIST, then that was ALL that was NEEDED to be SHOWN here that a counterpart of 'existence' does ACTUALLY EXIST, WITHIN 'Existence', Itself, of course.

Also, WHY do you propose that just AN 'opposite' or 'opposing' word or term for another word or term is 'contradictory' AT ALL?

Again, parts can have counterparts. The word, the term, the concept existence itself is not all things, it is merely a part. However I use the term existence in representation of, in reference to all things including the term and concept itself.

So WHY NOT just DO what I DO to REFERENCE, DIVULGE, and SHOW the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the two?

Doing so makes UNDERSTANDING, itself, FAR SIMPLER and FAR EASIER.

Language has limits but to convey the idea that’s the route one must take.

If one just USES 'older' language, for 'newer' ideas/views, then this WILL, obviously, MAKE EXPRESSING and SHOWING 'newer' ideas or views HARDER and MORE COMPLEX.

Also, is it NOT YET OBVIOUS that if one is MEANING two DIFFERENT 'things', by or with 'one word', then USING 'that word' in the EXACT SAME WAY would just be, literally, CONFUSING, for the reader/listener?

I’m not speaking of nonexistence. I’m speaking of and with words, I’m speaking of contradictory concepts nonexistence, nothing, nothingness. All are things, all are aspects of existence.

Is a 'unicorn' a 'thing'?

Are 'unicorns' an aspect of 'Existence'?

Yes, a unicorn is a thing.

It is a word, a term, a concept, a mythological creature. An animal which may actually exist on some planet or in some other realm. After all we have similar animals here: horses.

The word, the idea, the concept at least, is perceived. It has quality, if only conceptual.

So yes, unicorns are aspects or parts of existence.

A thing is a thing; every thing is some thing, not no thing.

SO, 'nonexistence', the word, the idea, the concept, IS A 'thing', and THUS an aspect or a part of 'Existence', Itself. Therefore, 'nonexistence', like 'unicorns' EXIST.

Or, do 'you' STILL DISAGREE?

But you could NEVER SEE, nor UNDERSTAND, ANY of 'this' BECAUSE you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that what you SAY and BELIEVE here IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. And, WITH absolutely NO 'counterpart' AT ALL.

Forwarding this to you.

IN REGARDS to 'what', EXACTLY?

Are you BRAVE ENOUGH to POINT OUT or NAME ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL, so that we can THEN LOOK AT 'it/them', and DISCUSS?

[Age]

Daniel..nonexistent exists as an idea.

Those who existed who have died are evidence of nonexistence.

Those who are born, who pop aware to exist eventually become nonexistent….in death.

Both existence and nonexistence are ideas, that’s all.

My own mother who gave me existence is now nonexistent…meaning both existence and nonexistence are one and the same phenomena, they just differ in appearance that’s all.

.

What does the 'mother' MEAN, or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?

And, are 'you' absolutely SURE that 'that one' is now 'nonexistent'?

[Age]

Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

These are not the observer. These things are the observed.

Where is the exact location of the observer?

At the One and ONLY 'Place' 'I' CAN BE, while USING the One and ONLY 'Thing' POSSIBLE to SEE ALL that 'I' CAN.

If 'you' are STILL NOT YET AWARE OF WHERE 'this Place' IS and/or WHAT 'this Thing' IS, EXACTLY, then just let 'Me' KNOW.

[Dontaskme]

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Ok, lets try another way of putting this into words.
Does not a blank empty screen and the moving pictures projected onto it not coexist together in conjunction with the knowing of these two concepts (empty and full) (no thing and some thing)?

The empty blank screen and the projected images upon it both arise at the same time together as existence, one doesn't come first and the other follow after, they both exist as the same time, namely, here NOW
Existence is BOTH the empty screen and the contents on it.

Existence is both a duality and nonduality, simply because existence appears as both empty and full, as images of the imageless.
Nonduality is duality, apparently, so it seems.

If there is something there is not nothing.

Some thing and no thing are still things. Some thing is known, and no thing is without concept. The thing without concept can be known conceptually and has to be already there in existence to be known. Existence is without concept. If the empty screen of no thing wasn't already here, no image on this screen could be known. This empty blank screen and it's contents are the conceptual overlay likened to a blank imageless movie screen ( no thing) that is totally embedded behind every known image ( some thing) Both no thing and something are the same one phenomena.

If there are many things there is not nothing.

But even no thing is a thing here as existence. In the same context, a no-nonbelief is still a belief.

We are dealing only with concepts, existence to be known can only be made of concepts, and that is only possible because existence already exists to become known conceptually, otherwise existence could not be conceptualised.

No thing can be known. But the known thing cannot know. In the same context, there can be awareness without consciousness, but there cannot be consciousness without awareness.

There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent.

[Dontaskme]

Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

These are not the observer. These things are the observed.

Where is the exact location of the observer?

At the One and ONLY 'Place' 'I' CAN BE, while USING the One and ONLY 'Thing' POSSIBLE to SEE ALL that 'I' CAN.

If 'you' are STILL NOT YET AWARE OF WHERE 'this Place' IS and/or WHAT 'this Thing' IS, EXACTLY, then just let 'Me' KNOW.

I the observer has no centre, it therefore, is everywhere at once, one without a second. Infinite.

It cannot be located because there is nowhere for it to place itself as it has no beginning nor end to pin or place it to a specific point.

The I does not observe, the I is being observed by no I

The I in finite apparently is finite...the I in finite is a finite appearance within the infinite.

The I is being looked upon, the I is not the looker.

Both the no I and I are the same one phenomena, as both the looker and the looked upon are inseparably one and the same reality.

[Age]

I’m my personal logic daniel the death of someone you once knew to exist is evidence of nonexistence.

If 'things', in 'your personal logic', are 'known' in 'concept' or 'ideas', and thus are 'existing', then WHY then does the 'thing', which is NOT existing in the EXACT SAME 'object/matter', BUT which IS STILL 'known existing in 'concept' or 'ideas' somehow NOT existing ANY MORE?

But only as a conceptual idea, since nobody has ever witnessed their own absence.

But the ONLY ACTUAL 'Thing', which ACTUALLY REAL 'witnesses', or 'BEARS WITNESS', and COMPREHENDS, UNDERSTANDS, and KNOWS, IS NEVER 'absent'. That is; thee One and ONLY 'I' IS ALWAYS HERE, and NOW.

The 'rest', of 'you', individuals, are JUST 'thoughts', (and 'emotions'), dwelling about within, individual, different human bodies, 'thinking' that 'you' ARE the 'Self', which, as some ALREADY KNOW, is just Truly ILLUSORY, and thus REALLY ABSURD.

It’s the same in existence nobody witnesses their own existence…how could they. They would have to split in two into witness and witnessed.

'Bodies', with 'eyes', may well 'witness' 'things', in that the 'body' 'sees' 'things', but 'those bodies' do NOT KNOW 'things'. 'They' are NOT 'witnesses' in the sense that 'they' can COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW.

The apparent division is simply illusory. Nonexistence IS existence….existence is nonexistence….it’s this immediate unknowing this notknowing.

'Existence', Itself, is composed of BOTH areas of a 'material thing', also known as 'matter', AND, areas of 'non material things', also known as 'space', or as some like to call 'this area' 'immaterial expanse'. Now, obviously, if there is 'space', or an area, with NO 'material things', then that is an area that could be called 'an area of non existence', and for 'matter' to be ABLE TO EXIST, in the shape and form that 'it' DOES, HAS, and WILL, then 'areas of non existence' HAVE TO, ALSO, EXIST.

Both knowing and not knowing simultaneously…..a conceptual overlay upon the non conceptual. In the same context an image is an overlay upon a blank screen.

When 'you' USE the words or term 'not knowing', then WHO are those words or term in relation to, EXACTLY?

Nothing and everything are conjoined twins infinitely for eternity inseparably one.

To me, BOTH 'nothing', that is; NO 'thing', AND, 'something', that is; some 'material thing', are CONJOINED and COEXIST. And, if at some point there IS 'Consciousness', then BOTH HAVE TO ALWAYS COEXIST TOGETHER, as One.

There IS 'Consciousness'. Therefore, BOTH 'space' AND 'matter' COEXIST ALWAYS and INSEPARABLE as One.

[Age]

Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

These are not the observer. These things are the observed.

Where is the exact location of the observer?

The location is myself, a conscious being, which is located in Tennessee, America, Earth, Milky Way, Existence.

The word 'myself' IS an oxymoron, a misnomer, a contradiction of terms, a self-contradiction, and even a self-refuting phrase. BUT, do NOT let 'this Fact' stop ANY of 'you' from continuing to USE 'it'.