Existence Is Infinite

[Age]

Nonexistence, what the term or concept is attempting to represent, does not exist.

'What' IS the term or word 'nonexistence' so-called 'attempting to represent', which you CLAIM does NOT exist?

Nonexistence beyond the concept and term. Nonexistence in and of itself.

WHY do you KEEP WANTING TO DEFLECT AWAY FROM YOUR CONTRADICTION?

Is it BECAUSE you BELIEVE that you have NO CONTRADICTION here? Or, for some OTHER reason?

You have failed to identify any contradiction.

I KNOW.

And this is just because I have YET to do so.

[daniel j lavender]

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothingness. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually creates this abstraction of nothingness. Without consciousness nonexistence is not a worry. Without thought nonexistence is not a concern.

We do not even know what consciousness is

Consciousness is a chemical-energy process allowing feedback of existence.

consciousness is not something that can be tangible to touch or to be seen

Correct. It is more of a process than a physical object.

So we still have to deal with where concepts come from in the first place. Yes, there is existence, and existence obviously was here first before it was conceptualised. Now imagine what a non-conceptual existence would be like. There would be no words to describe of define it, it would just exist as a not known, nameless, indescribable, undefinable unidentified phenomena. Concepts arrived later on, they were overlaid upon the unspeakable mystery...and suddenly everything was known about this mystery. It's as if a mystery solved it's own mystery.

It could be argued that concepts don’t “come from” but rather are eternal aspects of existence. Like consciousness. Life, consciousness, concepts could be eternal aspects of existence.

All qualities, all identities, all concepts simplify into just being.

In a sense concepts extend from conscious beings and their interactions with the world.

In another concepts don’t come from. Concepts just are.

Animals do not know existence is infinite

Are you implying humans are not organisms?

…no thing can tell itself it is a thing… There is nothing there in existence that can know it exists.

Recall my earlier statement:

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.

[Dontaskme]

We do not even know what consciousness is

Consciousness is a chemical-energy process allowing feedback of existence.

But that's just a description of what it appears to be, not what it is.

What it is cannot be known by any thing. It's unobservable, we cannot see this process either, there's just no thing and no grounds for postulating consciousness at all. It's just another idea. It's only ever a description, and never a prescription.

It could be argued that concepts don’t “come from” but rather are eternal aspects of existence. Like consciousness. Life, consciousness, concepts could be eternal aspects of existence.

It could also be argued that concepts, words, human language etc...comes from sound. Which yes, is not from somewhere, but rather from what's always herenow.

Yes, Concepts just are...just as sound just is. Sound is known in the absence of silence, and yet both silence and sound are never absent. They both coexist herenow in this experiencing, and is knowing of each and every concept as and when it arises..in consciousness, pointing to the illusory nature of reality in that it's no thing being everything.

The mind cannot deal with the no thing being everything, simply because what can it do with no thing? it's of no use to it.
The mind is only interested in what is of use. But like consciousness no thing that is known has ever observed the mind or the consciousness.

Animals do not know existence is infinite

Are you implying humans are not organisms?

No, I'm saying animals haven't evolved the brain humans have, they haven't developed the capacity to conceptualise reality like humans have done with language.

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.

I am that I am..that's all that can be known about I am. I am is no thing knowing everything, and is the only knowing known. Knowing is not the thing it knows. If it was, then every object known would be able to know it exists, but objects know nothing of their existence, objects are simply known by that that can never experience itself as an object. Meaning, no thing knows every thing. It's an essential paradox that is necessary for organisms using language as language becomes a useful tool for knowledge to be a reality.

[daniel j lavender]

The mind cannot deal with the no thing being everything

The logical mind cannot because the statement is irrational.

Everything is everything. All things is everything. No thing is not everything.

“No thing” as a concept or term may be considered part of existence however no thing is certainly not everything.

No thing is no thing. No thing is not any thing at all, much less everything.

[Dontaskme]

The mind cannot deal with the no thing being everything

The logical mind cannot because the statement is irrational.

The mind is irrational because a concept known knows nothing, including the concept ''mind'' which is a myth, so it seems here that reality arises as both the rational and irrational. No thing knows that. I am that I am.

Everything is everything. All things is everything.

No thing knows that. I am that I am.

No thing is not everything.

No thing knows that. I am that I am.

“No thing” as a concept or term may be considered part of existence however no thing is certainly not everything.

Things exist only as concepts known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness this immediate unobservable observing of all things.

No thing is no thing. No thing is not any thing at all, much less everything.

No thing is everything. Meaning, everything is not a thing. Everything is consciousness, which knows all things as concepts as and when they arise in the only knowing there is which is consciousness, this immediate unobservable observing of all 'things' that know nothing, no-thing, not-a-thing.

There is no-thing knowing itself. Or, there is some-thing knowing itself, both the concepts ''NO'' and ''SOME'' are pointers pointing to this immediate unknown or unspecified unknowing reality, except in this conception, the illusory story arising in consciousness...the dream of artificial separation, within space-time duality, where reality is seemingly split into two, into knower and known, or the dreamer and the dream, apparently, albeit illusory.

[daniel j lavender]

The mind cannot deal with the no thing being everything

The logical mind cannot because the statement is irrational.

The mind is irrational because a concept known knows nothing, including the concept ''mind'' which is a myth, so it seems here that reality arises as both the rational and irrational. No thing knows that. I am that I am.

Were these not your premises? Now you claim them to be irrational? Even mythical?

Your statement considered how could any additional declaration be taken seriously?

No thing is everything.

No thing is not everything. Everything is everything.

Meaning, everything is not a thing.

Everything is a thing. A word, a term, a concept.

Everything is not just a thing. Everything is all things as expressed above. This is not the same as everything is no thing or everything is not a thing.

This is cast under the context existence and nonexistence are the same:

Nonexistence IS existence….existence is nonexistence…

If there are things there is not no thing.

If there is existence there is not nonexistence.

Everything is everything, not no thing.

All that is is existence. Existence is everything.

[Dontaskme]

Were these not your premises? Now you claim them to be irrational? Even mythical?

Your statement considered how could any additional declaration be taken seriously?

No thing is everything.

No thing is not everything. Everything is everything.

No thing knows that.

Everything is everything is known, but not by a thing. No thing knows this claim to know everything.

[daniel j lavender]

1. The totality of being is without compare otherwise it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. Without compare it is formless as comparison allows for form (i.e. the comparison of my hand and a table allows both respective forms to be observed). As formless it is no-thing, nothing. If all there is is being then this being is effectively nothing, i.e. not a thing.

It, the totality, is all things, not nothing.

As previously expressed, existence is omnifarious, existence is of all forms, not no forms. Existence is formless in that sense. Existence is formless, existence is not restricted to any particular form.

It’s simpler than that. Existence, being, simply is.

All contradiction, all distinction, all duration, all form dissolves into simply being. In that sense as well existence is formless.

As mentioned above just because a single thing is not every thing does not mean nothing or no thing exists.

If all there is is being then this being is effectively nothing, i.e. not a thing.

Being is all things, each and every thing. Not nothing, i.e. not a thing.

Nothing, as in the previous sentence, this sentence and all others, is not actually “not a thing”. It is a thing. A part of being. Observably. In other words, as you state, all there is is being. There is not nothing; there is not not a thing. All are things. All is being.

A few months ago you stated:

The totality not being independent of the part and the part not being independent of the totality results in equivocation of totality and parts thus leaving us with one phenomenon which stands alone. The totality is a thing in itself as all is parts equivocate in the respect they all share "as is-ness". This singular quality of being, which reflects across all of being, necessitates a universal equivocation which necessitates a stand alone single phenomenon which is a thing in itself.

You said then the totality was a thing.

You say now the totality is nothing, i.e. not a thing.

Has your perspective changed?

There is no need for nothingness as well as there is no need for being.

There is no need for being as there is not any thing beyond being to need it. All things are part of being.

Being still is, however.

2. Nothingness can neither be proven or disproven as to prove it would be to prove nothing and to disprove it would be to disprove nothing. Nothingness is beyond being.

Nothingness is not to be proven or disproven.

Nothingness is not to be beyond.

Nothingness is not beyond. As stated:

Nothing, nothingness is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness revealed through the term or concept nonexistence. Rather nothingness is an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

3. "Existence is" is a vague statement that effectively contains no distinctions as it is dependent upon absolute unity (i.e. all things share the same nature of existence).

Yes, “existence is” is a vague statement, a broad statement, a general statement. A universal statement. A versatile statement.

“Existence is” also concerns specifics. It involves particulars. Existence is blue. Blue is. Existence is green. Green is. Yet as emphasized in the original text and here in discussion “existence is”, existence is not restricted to specifics or particulars. Existence is hue. Hue is. Existence is color. Color is. Whatever it is, it is. Existence is.

Existence certainly concerns distinction. Distinction is part of existence. Hence parts and distinction or division. Nondistinction or unity is part of existence. All of these are dynamics, are aspects of existence. Existence is multiplicity. Existence is distinction. Existence is division. Existence is nondistinction. Existence is unity. Existence is infinite. Existence is.

However, in a separate respect, existence is divided against itself as one existence is distinct from another with this distinction being an existence as well.

Yes.

Under these terms existence is contradictory, i.e. self-divided, and from this anything can be said about it as it is irrational.

I refer to it as congruent contradiction.

Existence is both rational and irrational. United and divided.

It is the nature of existence. Existence is infinite.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. The totality of being is without compare otherwise it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. Without compare it is formless as comparison allows for form (i.e. the comparison of my hand and a table allows both respective forms to be observed). As formless it is no-thing, nothing. If all there is is being then this being is effectively nothing, i.e. not a thing.

It, the totality, is all things, not nothing.

As previously expressed, existence is omnifarious, existence is of all forms, not no forms. Existence is formless in that sense. Existence is formless, existence is not restricted to any particular form.

It’s simpler than that. Existence, being, simply is.

All contradiction, all distinction, all duration, all form dissolves into simply being. In that sense as well existence is formless.

As mentioned above just because a single thing is not every thing does not mean nothing or no thing exists.

If all there is is being then this being is effectively nothing, i.e. not a thing.

Being is all things, each and every thing. Not nothing, i.e. not a thing.

Nothing, as in the previous sentence, this sentence and all others, is not actually “not a thing”. It is a thing. A part of being. Observably. In other words, as you state, all there is is being. There is not nothing; there is not not a thing. All are things. All is being.

A few months ago you stated:

The totality not being independent of the part and the part not being independent of the totality results in equivocation of totality and parts thus leaving us with one phenomenon which stands alone. The totality is a thing in itself as all is parts equivocate in the respect they all share "as is-ness". This singular quality of being, which reflects across all of being, necessitates a universal equivocation which necessitates a stand alone single phenomenon which is a thing in itself.

You said then the totality was a thing.

You say now the totality is nothing, i.e. not a thing.

Has your perspective changed?

There is no need for nothingness as well as there is no need for being.

There is no need for being as there is not any thing beyond being to need it. All things are part of being.

Being still is, however.

2. Nothingness can neither be proven or disproven as to prove it would be to prove nothing and to disprove it would be to disprove nothing. Nothingness is beyond being.

Nothingness is not to be proven or disproven.

Nothingness is not to be beyond.

Nothingness is not beyond. As stated:

Nothing, nothingness is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness revealed through the term or concept nonexistence. Rather nothingness is an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

3. "Existence is" is a vague statement that effectively contains no distinctions as it is dependent upon absolute unity (i.e. all things share the same nature of existence).

Yes, “existence is” is a vague statement, a broad statement, a general statement. A universal statement. A versatile statement.

“Existence is” also concerns specifics. It involves particulars. Existence is blue. Blue is. Existence is green. Green is. Yet as emphasized in the original text and here in discussion “existence is”, existence is not restricted to specifics or particulars. Existence is hue. Hue is. Existence is color. Color is. Whatever it is, it is. Existence is.

Existence certainly concerns distinction. Distinction is part of existence. Hence parts and distinction or division. Nondistinction or unity is part of existence. All of these are dynamics, are aspects of existence. Existence is multiplicity. Existence is distinction. Existence is division. Existence is nondistinction. Existence is unity. Existence is infinite. Existence is.

However, in a separate respect, existence is divided against itself as one existence is distinct from another with this distinction being an existence as well.

Yes.

Under these terms existence is contradictory, i.e. self-divided, and from this anything can be said about it as it is irrational.

I refer to it as congruent contradiction.

Existence is both rational and irrational. United and divided.

It is the nature of existence. Existence is infinite.

1. And this sum of all things is without comparison for if there where comparison it would not be the sum of all things. Without comparison there is no contrast and without contrast we cannot have definition, i.e. thingness, thus the sum of all things is the same as nothing and is the same as saying nothing. As to the rest (your point of formlessness) we are in agreement.

2. Being just is but being is not a thing when viewed in the absolute sense. It is only a thing when we see it relatively but with relativity comes contradictions.

3. It expanded. The totality is without compare to anything beyond it thus is nothing. The totality compares only to itself and as comparing only to itself is a contradiction as it is self dividing. To say the totality is nothing results in an empty statement. To say the totality is a thing results in contradiction. As the totality is nothing everything and anything can be said about it as nothingness has no distinctions within it that separate it from thingness. As the totality is a thing divided against itself, considering it can be seen as self-referential through self-division as self-comparison, everything and anything can be said about it as with contradiction anything goes.

The totality is both nothingness and thingness and neither nothingness nor thingness. Reality just is.

4. Agreed. However, all parts are relative wholes and all wholes are relative parts. For example the whole of being, i.e. the totality, is a part of itself as the parts of the whole are in themselves relative wholes thus share the same nature being wholes as the whole itself. (This may be confusing, if you disagree or do not understand it is not on you, I may have to reword the statement). In shorter terms all wholes and parts being relative necessitates that all wholes and parts can be seen as each other thus are one.

5. Nothingness is not an abstraction for to have the abstraction of nothingness there would be no abstraction at all.

6. Existence is thus indefinite and as indefinite is without form.

7. Existence is also finite as well considering any portion of infinity shows infinity as composed of an indefinite continuum of finite things (an infinite line is composed of finite lines when localizing any portion of the infinite line). Thus the nature of contradiction goes further.

[daniel j lavender]

1. And this sum of all things is without comparison for if there where comparison it would not be the sum of all things. Without comparison there is no contrast and without contrast we cannot have definition, i.e. thingness

What do you mean “cannot have definition, i.e. thingness”?

The totality itself may be without comparison but it still concerns things, it is all things.

Existence is all things, existence is all definition.

thus the sum of all things is the same as nothing and is the same as saying nothing.

The sum of all things is not the same as nothing.

The sum of all things is the sum of all things.

The sum of all things includes or encompasses the concept nothing. That which is encompassed is overshadowed. That which is overshadowed is not equal. Nothing is not equal to the sum of all things. Nothing is not the same as the sum of all things.

The sum of all things concerns things, not no thing.

“Thingness” is an intrinsic aspect of existence, entirety or part. The entirety or whole can’t be without parts, without things. The entirety or whole necessitates parts, the entirety or whole necessitates things. It is that difference of things which balances as simply being. Thingness is implicitly acknowledged in the balance of being.

As defined in the essay nothing, nothingness and nonexistence are synonyms. They are nonbeing, no thing.

Our definitions are different so we will fundamentally disagree on basis of definition.

5. Nothingness is not an abstraction for to have the abstraction of nothingness there would be no abstraction at all.

Precisely the point.

That the abstraction nothingness is illustrates the point of existence.

It’s a contradictory abstraction. A contradictory concept.

An illuminating incongruence.

It is. Itself illustrating how nothingness, how nonexistence cannot be.

There is no evidence of nothingness, of nonexistence. No one has provided, no one can provide evidence of nothingness or of nonexistence. Nothingness is not an abstraction. Nothingness is not here. Nothingness is not there. Nothingness does not appear to be anywhere yet that is the very premise used to declare nothingness is. To the contrary. That is the very premise to declare existence is, that existence is all that is.

[Age]

The mind cannot deal with the no thing being everything

The logical mind cannot because the statement is irrational.

Everything is everything. All things is everything. No thing is not everything.

“No thing” as a concept or term may be considered part of existence however no thing is certainly not everything.

Are you saying and claiming here that there is ONLY One 'Thing'?

No thing is no thing. No thing is not any thing at all, much less everything.

Is 'this CLAIM' of YOURS here ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE?

[Age]

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

HOW can 'one' be what 'it' supposedly 'owns' or 'possesses'?

Also, do you 'know' that 'existence is infinite', or do you just 'confidently claim' that 'existence is infinite'?

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.

So, if as 'you' SAY and CLAIM here, the correct AND proper answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?, IS 'awareness', right? Well according to 'you' anyway.

[daniel j lavender]

The mind cannot deal with the no thing being everything

The logical mind cannot because the statement is irrational.

Everything is everything. All things is everything. No thing is not everything.

“No thing” as a concept or term may be considered part of existence however no thing is certainly not everything.

Are you saying and claiming here that there is ONLY One 'Thing'?

No.

No thing is no thing. No thing is not any thing at all, much less everything.

Is 'this CLAIM' of YOURS here ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE?

That is the term defined.

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

HOW can 'one' be what 'it' supposedly 'owns' or 'possesses'?

I am a conscious body, I am a conscious being. I am a body, a unit facilitating consciousness or awareness. I am the body, I am consciousness. I am the body and consciousness realized.

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.

So, if as 'you' SAY and CLAIM here, the correct AND proper answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?, IS 'awareness', right? Well according to 'you' anyway.

Wouldn’t “who” refer more so to the person? “What am I” seems more appropriate in this situation.

Yes I am awareness or consciousness. Fundamentally however awareness is being. I am being. I am a part of being.

You have failed to identify any contradiction.

I KNOW.

And this is just because I have YET to do so.

Why present additional questions when the supposed contradiction is yet to be identified?

[daniel j lavender]

Also, do you 'know' that 'existence is infinite', or do you just 'confidently claim' that 'existence is infinite'?

There is no substantial evidence or substantial argumentation suggesting otherwise.

We are operating from a position of limited observation even with advanced technologies. Limited observation is inclined to assume limitation so it is understandable that contention will arise.

Existence is infinite in extent. Only nothingness or nonexistence could limit existence however nothingness or nonexistence cannot be.

Nothing, no thing, nonexistence, nothingness, beyond the concept or term, is not and cannot be. All areas, all places, all thoughts, all concepts, all abstractions, all words are things, are aspects of existence, of being. Nothing itself, no thing itself, nonexistence itself, nothingness itself is nowhere. Nonexistence is not here, nor there, nor anywhere. All realms, all regions, all subjects concern materiality or material things, physical objects for instance, energy in various forms, and/or immaterial things, immaterial expanse for instance. No realm, no region, no subject concerns nonexistence or nothing.

Existence is infinite in extent; existence is not limited to any particular or any specific thing. This is self-evident.

Existence is infinite in extent. Only nothingness or nonexistence could actually limit existence however nothingness or nonexistence is not and cannot be.

[Age]

The logical mind cannot because the statement is irrational.

Everything is everything. All things is everything. No thing is not everything.

“No thing” as a concept or term may be considered part of existence however no thing is certainly not everything.

Are you saying and claiming here that there is ONLY One 'Thing'?

No.

Okay, so what, EXACTLY, 'separates' the 'different things' from each other?

No thing is no thing. No thing is not any thing at all, much less everything.

Is 'this CLAIM' of YOURS here ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE?

That is the term defined.

Is there absolutely ANY 'thing' that is NOT so-called 'term defined'?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY?

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

HOW can 'one' be what 'it' supposedly 'owns' or 'possesses'?

I am a conscious body, I am a conscious being. I am a body, a unit facilitating consciousness or awareness. I am the body, I am consciousness. I am the body and consciousness realized.

To 'you', 'I' am MANY DIFFERENT 'things'.

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.

So, if as 'you' SAY and CLAIM here, the correct AND proper answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?, IS 'awareness', right? Well according to 'you' anyway.

Wouldn’t “who” refer more so to the person?

NOT necessarily so AT ALL.

“What am I” seems more appropriate in this situation.

Or, 'this' could be just ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT DETRACTING or DEFLECTING.

Yes I am awareness or consciousness.

As well as OTHER 'things', as 'you' so CLAIM here above.

Fundamentally however awareness is being. I am being. I am a part of being.

So, now, 'I' am ALL of some 'thing' AS WELL AS just A PART of 'that thing'.

Also, in this situation 'Who am 'I'?' seems MORE APPROPRIATE.

But 'you' do have a tendency to TWIST, DISTORT, DEFLECT, and CHANGE A LOT here.

You have failed to identify any contradiction.

I KNOW.

And this is just because I have YET to do so.

Why present additional questions when the supposed contradiction is yet to be identified?

BECAUSE 'you' KEEP CLAIMING TO KNOW the TRUTH here. As such 'you' are NOT CURIOS NOR INTERESTED in LEARNING NOR UNDERSTANDING ANY 'thing' ELSE here. 'you' are just CONTENT on ONLY EXPRESSING what 'you' BELIEVE IS TRUE, ALONE.