Existence Is Infinite

[Fairy]

OK. But aren't you using words and knowledge to construct this picture that you are constructing? Or are you constructing nothing at all?

What is knowledge but sound heard as words.
The construction of a picture painted by words that are believed to be real, are likened to a model or a map, which is an artificial illusory secondary photocopy of an original picture superimposed upon the blank screen of awareness.

A photocopy isn’t actually there. What’s actually there, is not what the paintbrush of thought has constructed.The secondary imposed construction is likened to a phantom signature written by a ghostwriter.

So

knowledge = "sound heard as words"

Does knowledge = knowledge?

Knowledge = knowledge, yes.
What else could knowledge possibly be?

[Fairy]

OK. But aren't you using words and knowledge to construct this picture that you are constructing? Or are you constructing nothing at all?

What is knowledge but sound heard as words.

Or, symbols seen as words.

Or, a construct of said words held in thought as a conceptualized depiction of 'what is'.

The construction of a picture painted by words that are believed to be real,

ONLY IF one CHOOSES TO BELIEVE that their own PERSONAL VIEW is the REAL one. See, there are others who, like me, CHOSE TO NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY 'view' 'we' have. 'We', instead, just KEEP LOOKING, and just KEEP REMAINING AWARE OF, 'what IS' 'layed out' BEFORE 'us', ONLY.

are likened to a model or a map, which is an artificial illusory secondary photocopy of an original picture superimposed upon the blank screen of awareness.

How are you defining the 'illusory' word, here?

To most people because they CAN see, feel, and/or smell models, maps, paintings, and/or the secondary copies of the so-called 'original picture', those models, maps, et cetera are NOT 'illusory' NOR 'illusions' but are ACTUAL 'real things', in and of themselves.

A photocopy isn’t actually there.

A photocopy may not be a 100% Accurate copy, but to most people if an actual photocopy exists, then 'it' IS THERE.

WHY do you KEEP SAYING and CLAIMING that an actual photocopy is NOT 'actually there'

What’s actually there, is not what the paintbrush of thought has constructed.

BUT, if the so-called 'paintbrush of thought's has, ACTUALLY, constructed or created some thing, then 'that thing' IS THERE.

WHY do you INSIST an 'ACTUAL thing' is NOT THERE FOR, EXACTLY?

Again, and obviously, 'the constructed paintbrush of thought' might not be an Accurate interpretation, but 'it' IS THERE, or IS HERE, in this Only and ONLY place called the Universe.

The secondary imposed construction is likened to a phantom signature written by a ghostwriter.

Is the so-called 'phantom signature', written by a 'ghost writer' THERE, or HERE?

There is no there there.

There is no here there, either.

[Age]

What is knowledge but sound heard as words.

Or, symbols seen as words.

Or, a construct of said words held in thought as a conceptualized depiction of 'what is'.

The construction of a picture painted by words that are believed to be real,

ONLY IF one CHOOSES TO BELIEVE that their own PERSONAL VIEW is the REAL one. See, there are others who, like me, CHOSE TO NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY 'view' 'we' have. 'We', instead, just KEEP LOOKING, and just KEEP REMAINING AWARE OF, 'what IS' 'layed out' BEFORE 'us', ONLY.

are likened to a model or a map, which is an artificial illusory secondary photocopy of an original picture superimposed upon the blank screen of awareness.

How are you defining the 'illusory' word, here?

To most people because they CAN see, feel, and/or smell models, maps, paintings, and/or the secondary copies of the so-called 'original picture', those models, maps, et cetera are NOT 'illusory' NOR 'illusions' but are ACTUAL 'real things', in and of themselves.

A photocopy isn’t actually there.

A photocopy may not be a 100% Accurate copy, but to most people if an actual photocopy exists, then 'it' IS THERE.

WHY do you KEEP SAYING and CLAIMING that an actual photocopy is NOT 'actually there'

What’s actually there, is not what the paintbrush of thought has constructed.

BUT, if the so-called 'paintbrush of thought's has, ACTUALLY, constructed or created some thing, then 'that thing' IS THERE.

WHY do you INSIST an 'ACTUAL thing' is NOT THERE FOR, EXACTLY?

Again, and obviously, 'the constructed paintbrush of thought' might not be an Accurate interpretation, but 'it' IS THERE, or IS HERE, in this Only and ONLY place called the Universe.

The secondary imposed construction is likened to a phantom signature written by a ghostwriter.

Is the so-called 'phantom signature', written by a 'ghost writer' THERE, or HERE?

There is no there there.

Okay, but it was 'you' who said that there are 'things', that are actually NOT 'there'. So, if there is NO 'there', then why SAY and CLAIM that there are 'things', which are NOT 'there'?

Also, and let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'you' did also SAY and CLAIM that, ' what is actually 'there' ', is some thing, as well.

There is no here there, either.

Okay.

But, then again, EVERY thing is RELATIVE TO 'the observer', is it not?

[Fairy]

Or, symbols seen as words.

Or, a construct of said words held in thought as a conceptualized depiction of 'what is'.


ONLY IF one CHOOSES TO BELIEVE that their own PERSONAL VIEW is the REAL one. See, there are others who, like me, CHOSE TO NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY 'view' 'we' have. 'We', instead, just KEEP LOOKING, and just KEEP REMAINING AWARE OF, 'what IS' 'layed out' BEFORE 'us', ONLY.


How are you defining the 'illusory' word, here?

To most people because they CAN see, feel, and/or smell models, maps, paintings, and/or the secondary copies of the so-called 'original picture', those models, maps, et cetera are NOT 'illusory' NOR 'illusions' but are ACTUAL 'real things', in and of themselves.


A photocopy may not be a 100% Accurate copy, but to most people if an actual photocopy exists, then 'it' IS THERE.

WHY do you KEEP SAYING and CLAIMING that an actual photocopy is NOT 'actually there'


BUT, if the so-called 'paintbrush of thought's has, ACTUALLY, constructed or created some thing, then 'that thing' IS THERE.

WHY do you INSIST an 'ACTUAL thing' is NOT THERE FOR, EXACTLY?

Again, and obviously, 'the constructed paintbrush of thought' might not be an Accurate interpretation, but 'it' IS THERE, or IS HERE, in this Only and ONLY place called the Universe.



Is the so-called 'phantom signature', written by a 'ghost writer' THERE, or HERE?

There is no there there.

Okay, but it was 'you' who said that there are 'things', that are actually NOT 'there'. So, if there is NO 'there', then why SAY and CLAIM that there are 'things', which are NOT 'there'?

Also, and let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'you' did also SAY and CLAIM that, ' what is actually 'there' ', is some thing, as well.

There is no here there, either.

Okay.

But, then again, EVERY thing is RELATIVE TO 'the observer', is it not?

Not contrived silence, is the immense silence in which time, space is not. Then there is that which is unnameable, which is divine, eternal.

[Age]

There is no there there.

Okay, but it was 'you' who said that there are 'things', that are actually NOT 'there'. So, if there is NO 'there', then why SAY and CLAIM that there are 'things', which are NOT 'there'?

Also, and let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'you' did also SAY and CLAIM that, ' what is actually 'there' ', is some thing, as well.

There is no here there, either.

Okay.

But, then again, EVERY thing is RELATIVE TO 'the observer', is it not?

Not contrived silence,

If 'you' saying that 'contrived silence' is NOT relative to 'the observer', then WHO deliberately created 'that silence', EXACTLY?

is the immense silence in which time, space is not.

'Time' is just the word used to describe 'the measuring of duration between perceived events'. But, REMEMBER, there are NOT ACTUAL 'events', (with an 's'), as there is ONLY the One 'Event', ONLY, happening and occurring, HERE-NOW.

Also, there is no ACTUAL 'space', like there is NO ACTUAL 'time'. 'Space' is just a word used to describe 'the distance between and around 'matter', itself'.

And, for FURTHER CLARITY ABOUT there being NO ACTUAL 'space', read up on "obvious leo's" views.

Then there is that which is unnameable, which is divine, eternal.

But 'that Thing' has MANY, MANY names, and labels, ALREADY. So, WHY do you KEEP BELIEVING, and INSISTING, that the ALREADY NAMED 'Thing', is so-called 'unnameable' for, exactly?

[Fairy]

Okay, but it was 'you' who said that there are 'things', that are actually NOT 'there'. So, if there is NO 'there', then why SAY and CLAIM that there are 'things', which are NOT 'there'?

Also, and let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'you' did also SAY and CLAIM that, ' what is actually 'there' ', is some thing, as well.


Okay.

But, then again, EVERY thing is RELATIVE TO 'the observer', is it not?

Not contrived silence,

If 'you' saying that 'contrived silence' is NOT relative to 'the observer', then WHO deliberately created 'that silence', EXACTLY?

is the immense silence in which time, space is not.

'Time' is just the word used to describe 'the measuring of duration between perceived events'. But, REMEMBER, there are NOT ACTUAL 'events', (with an 's'), as there is ONLY the One 'Event', ONLY, happening and occurring, HERE-NOW.

Also, there is no ACTUAL 'space', like there is NO ACTUAL 'time'. 'Space' is just a word used to describe 'the distance between and around 'matter', itself'.

And, for FURTHER CLARITY ABOUT there being NO ACTUAL 'space', read up on "obvious leo's" views.

Then there is that which is unnameable, which is divine, eternal.

But 'that Thing' has MANY, MANY names, and labels, ALREADY. So, WHY do you KEEP BELIEVING, and INSISTING, that the ALREADY NAMED 'Thing', is so-called 'unnameable' for, exactly?

I’ve responded to you the only way I know how. If you are not content with my response, then there’s nothing I can do about that.

If you are content, then so be it.

You are simply repeating the obvious truth to me that I already know. It’s boring.

[Age]

Not contrived silence,

If 'you' saying that 'contrived silence' is NOT relative to 'the observer', then WHO deliberately created 'that silence', EXACTLY?

is the immense silence in which time, space is not.

'Time' is just the word used to describe 'the measuring of duration between perceived events'. But, REMEMBER, there are NOT ACTUAL 'events', (with an 's'), as there is ONLY the One 'Event', ONLY, happening and occurring, HERE-NOW.

Also, there is no ACTUAL 'space', like there is NO ACTUAL 'time'. 'Space' is just a word used to describe 'the distance between and around 'matter', itself'.

And, for FURTHER CLARITY ABOUT there being NO ACTUAL 'space', read up on "obvious leo's" views.

Then there is that which is unnameable, which is divine, eternal.

But 'that Thing' has MANY, MANY names, and labels, ALREADY. So, WHY do you KEEP BELIEVING, and INSISTING, that the ALREADY NAMED 'Thing', is so-called 'unnameable' for, exactly?

I’ve responded to you the only way I know how. If you are not content with my response, then there’s nothing I can do about that.

If you are content, then so be it.

You are simply repeating the obvious truth to me that I already know. It’s boring.

So, if 'you', supposedly, ALREADY KNOW that what you call the 'unnameable' HAS ALREADY BEEN NAMED, then OKAY.

My job, here, IS DONE.

[Gary Childress]

What is knowledge but sound heard as words.
The construction of a picture painted by words that are believed to be real, are likened to a model or a map, which is an artificial illusory secondary photocopy of an original picture superimposed upon the blank screen of awareness.

A photocopy isn’t actually there. What’s actually there, is not what the paintbrush of thought has constructed.The secondary imposed construction is likened to a phantom signature written by a ghostwriter.

So

knowledge = "sound heard as words"

Does knowledge = knowledge?

Knowledge = knowledge, yes.
What else could knowledge possibly be?

"sound heard as words"

[Fairy]

So

knowledge = "sound heard as words"

Does knowledge = knowledge?

Knowledge = knowledge, yes.
What else could knowledge possibly be?

"sound heard as words"

And that would be knowledge. So of course knowledge = knowledge. What else could knowledge be?

[Eodnhoj7]

The thing of a tree does not lack a thing. It is a thing.

I am stating a tree is a thing and a car is a thing. All things utilized to distinguish other things.

You are attempting to limit existence to one thing or one location then using that as excuse to introduce nothing or a “relative no-thing”. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to only one thing or only one location thus there is no excuse to introduce nothing.

Again with your own example you can’t help but acknowledge a thing to acknowledge another indicating presence while also indicating multiplicity of things. Your own example reflects infinite existence.

You are referencing multiple things in attempt to introduce no thing.

You are attempting to explain existence through nonexistence. That does not clarify understanding that convolutes understanding. Existence is explained by what is, not by what is not.

Relative nothingness is an awkward, silly concept. There isn’t really relative nothingness. There are simply relative qualities and relative things.

If a thing such as a tree does not lack a thing than it does not lack the thing of a car.

A tree is a thing. That is thingness. Not nothingness.

A car is a thing. That is thingness. Not nothingness.

In comparison and in contrast both remain things. They are simply other things. Not no things.

A tree, part of existence, is part of a grove, a larger part of existence, which is part of a planet, a larger part of existence. All is existence.

Just because a tree isn’t a grove or a town doesn’t mean all aren’t [parts of] existence.

I do not know what you said and write,here, has to do with what I said and write, which you are responding to, here. But, anyway, if 'things' are finite, like you say and claim they are, then, if you also claim that 'existence', itself, is not finite, which you did, then, logically, you will also have to admit that, to you, 'existence', itself, is not a 'thing'.

Existence is a thing. And all other things.

Existence is a term, a concept. A term or concept indicating itself and all other things.

The unlimitedness of existence includes the limitedness of a thing.

"The use of nothing is sloppy language" is a subjectively oriented interpretation and subjective opinion. You are making an emotional argument...and that is just one example.

Address the arguments linked and not merely the subtitle: viewtopic.php?p=742705#p742705

Additionally the subtitle is misquoted and should read “Use of the term ‘nothing’ is often indicative of sloppy language”. The words “term”, “often” and “indicative of” make a difference.

And absence is a lack of a thing. This lack is a thing. One thing is not the other thus not only is a thing an absence of absence, which is a self negation, but a thing is defined by not being another thing. A thing is defined as 'not another thing'.

This has already been addressed:

Absence is not necessarily lack of a thing. Absence concerns a subject, time and location. All things involved are still things and present in some capacity.

Thing (n.): An existing, material or immaterial; a part of existence. That which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, in some way. E.g. a word, an object, matter, energy, consciousness, a concept, an event, a process, etc.

A tree, part of existence, is part of a grove, a larger part of existence, which is part of a planet, a larger part of existence. All is existence.

Just because a tree isn’t a grove or a town doesn’t mean all aren’t [parts of] existence.

And one part is defined by its absence of being another part...

Parts are distinguished by their qualities in relation to other parts and their qualities. Hence relative.

There are things and other things. Simply things and other things. They are relative. They are relative things. They are not relative no-things. They are not relative nothingness.

Such concepts and notions can be entertained and even have claimed context however as illustrated nothingness is not actually involved. That such a concept is simply acknowledged indicates it is not actually nothingness.

“Infinite” implies that without end, that which never completes, meaning never ending potential.

Infinite is defined in the original text.

A tree is thus a car? Or is a tree the absence of the thing of the car, ie "no car"?

I think you fail to see that asserting statements does not necessitate truth, but if it does than everyone is correct thus making you simultaneously wrong and a paradox results.

Is existence justification of a truth value by mere occurence?

[daniel j lavender]

A tree is thus a car? Or is a tree the absence of the thing of the car, ie "no car"?

I think you fail to see that asserting statements does not necessitate truth, but if it does than everyone is correct thus making you simultaneously wrong and a paradox results.

Is existence justification of a truth value by mere occurence?

A thing is thus a thing.

A tree is a thing. Regardless what a tree is claimed to lack a tree remains a thing. The same applies for a car or any other thing.

Show where nothing actually is in the equation. The tree is a thing. The car is a thing. In comparison and in contrast both remain things.

A tree is not a car and a car is not a tree. However a tree is a tree and a car is a car, both things. “Is not”, “are not”, etcetera, are mechanisms of language and do not actually indicate no thing.

Claiming a tree is not a car thus nothingness arises is nonsensical. As illustrated nothingness is nowhere in the equation. Nothingness is not masquerading as a tree because a tree is a thing.

The idea or concept of nothingness itself is a thing. Attempting to attach such to some situation inevitably invokes something, contradicting the concept altogether.

To demonstrate relative nothingness two things are required. The tree and the car, for example. However two things do not equal no thing. Two things equal two things. This is basic math. Two items would be further from no thing, not closer to no thing much less equal to no thing.

Or is a tree the absence of the thing of the car, ie "no car"?

See how awkward that premise is? That is the type of rigamarole one must employ in the attempt to invoke nothingness.

You acknowledge multiple things in attempt to introduce nothingness through absence. There is no need to do that. Only things are involved. Multiple things are already present yet you seek to add another, the contradictory concept of nothingness, while claiming no thing. It’s convoluted, it’s cluttered. It’s nonsensical all the way around.

Relative nothingness utilizes nothingness as a concept in the process of comparison of things. In its strongest case relative nothingness still concerns things including the concept of nothingness which is also a thing. Only things are involved. All things being existence. Nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

[daniel j lavender]

“Whole” implies a complete steady state, meaning nothing more to add or achieve.

“Infinite” implies that without end, that which never completes, meaning never ending potential.

Whole or complete, in the sense used in relation to the philosophy, simply means all or entirety; whole or complete simply means all things including the connectedness of things.

Existence, generally speaking, is not just an object. Existence as a whole is not an object or thing like a pizza or a pineapple. Although existence will never end, although things will never cease, although things are connected, this does not mean to imply existence as a single thing or a single object.

Although existence will never end, although things will never cease this does not mean to imply all things are not all things. Nor does it serve to sever the connectedness of things. Although all things may not appear to be present at this moment does not mean all things are not all things.

That existence does not cease, that there is no edge to existence, no gap of nonexistence between things or existence, illustrates the completeness or wholeness of existence.

[Phil8659]

Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender

Why do you spend so many words on an illiterate statement?

You have quoted an equality, of which there are two kinds. Arithmetic and Geometric, aka, literal and metaphorical, etc.

Grammar is effected by Binary Recursion, that recursion is of things.
A thing is defined as a binary relative and correlatives.

So, if you equate two words, as you demonstrate, does that equation comply with a naming convention? Can you predicate existence? Absolutely not. Can you predicate infinity, absolutely not.
Now, show that you know, of the two parts of speech, how these words, by grammatical fact, can be used in a sentence. I recommend that you study Plato very vigorously. Both Plato, and in the Bible, it will recommend that you use the Grammar System of Geometry.

Draw this statement. You will find it impossible simply because you do not know what part of speech each is.

A relative is not a correlative and recursion is achieved by assigned a correlative to contain a relative and correlative grouping. Tom is a Cat.
A descriptive sentence is not definitive, nor is a definitive sentence descriptive.
In Theaetetus, you might learn how definition is achieved, for definition exhibits one unit of recursion.

If you need a clear pointer into philosophy, make a long study of Confucius's statement about the Rectification of Names.

[daniel j lavender]

Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender

Why do you spend so many words on an illiterate statement?

The statement is valid.

Judging a text by its title is akin to judging a book by its cover.

The essay is rather brief.

Draw this statement. You will find it impossible simply because you do not know what part of speech each is.

There is no need to draw it. It is readily observed as expressed here:

This text is part of existence. Existence is the text. Existence flows as the text, as the background of the forum, as the background border, as the edge of the screen of the device. It continues as air, the breeze flowing through backyards, as towns, as cities, as continents, as oceans, as space, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond.

All this, all that is existence. It’s observed. Felt. Heard. Thought. Perceived. Readily perceived. It’s all around and it’s all connected as illustrated above. It’s easily confirmed at this moment right where you are. One thing flows seamlessly into the next. It isn’t limited to the screen. It isn’t limited to the device. It isn’t limited to the town. Or the planet or the solar system. Existence is infinite.

You have quoted an equality, of which there are two kinds. Arithmetic and Geometric, aka, literal and metaphorical, etc.

Grammar is effected by Binary Recursion, that recursion is of things.
A thing is defined as a binary relative and correlatives.

So, if you equate two words, as you demonstrate, does that equation comply with a naming convention? Can you predicate existence? Absolutely not. Can you predicate infinity, absolutely not.
Now, show that you know, of the two parts of speech, how these words, by grammatical fact, can be used in a sentence. I recommend that you study Plato very vigorously. Both Plato, and in the Bible, it will recommend that you use the Grammar System of Geometry.

A relative is not a correlative and recursion is achieved by assigned a correlative to contain a relative and correlative grouping. Tom is a Cat.
A descriptive sentence is not definitive, nor is a definitive sentence descriptive.
In Theaetetus, you might learn how definition is achieved, for definition exhibits one unit of recursion.

If you need a clear pointer into philosophy, make a long study of Confucius's statement about the Rectification of Names.

Your focus is narrowed to linguistics and formality.

Your approach attempts to confine existence to formal systems. Existence is not confined to such systems.

[Phil8659]

Your approach attempts to confine existence to formal systems. Existence is not confined to such systems.

You seem to be on the wrong website, This one concerns Philosophy, not mystic bullshit.