Awareness as Causality

[Eodnhoj7]

Causality is grounded in observation by nature of distinctions that occur through observation which furthermore is reflectively founded in the distinction of observation itself through the act of observation itself as observation makes the distinction of observation.

To observe is to make distinct, to make distinct is to change, for by distinction is potentiality actualized through the localization of a phenomenon, from all that is possible, so that the new distinction is the manifestation of some distinctions and the dissolving of others. For example to observe x is to see certain distinction actualize and others dissolve, this is change. This change is the contraction and expansion of distinctions in and out of reality with reality being the underlying distinction of 'occurence' for what occurs is a reality by virtue of it occuring.

Observation is the cause of change, by nature of awareness, for distinctions arise from observation that reflect back upon the awareness, as both a reality and the reality of the awareness, thus resulting in awareness being justified by nature of distinction which inseperable from existence for existence is distinction, what is not distinct does not exist relatively speaking.

Within the language of physics this is the "Observer Effect" and yet this Observer Effect goes beyond physics given the nature of distinctions occuring is universal across all things that occur, be it abstract or empirical, literal or symbolic.

By awareness being the occurence of distinction, for distinction arising from it, it acts as cause. By further distinctions arising from others not only is this cause ever present, by nature of awareness, but the effects, distinctions from distinctions, have a simultaneous nature superpositioned cause within them by nature of being further potential distinctions. In these respects potentiality is cause by nature of actuality arising from it and the emptier the awareness the more potential it has for distinctions to arise from it.

Potentiality is causality for actuality comes forth from it. Awareness is the potentiality by which distinctions emerge. Potentiality is everpresent for potentiality is the absence of actuality by which actuality has space to occur. Pure awareness is pure potentiality where a pure potentiality results in a paradox that it becomes actual by nature of it being distinct as potentiality for when potentiality becomes distinct it becomes actual for distinction is actuality.

This process of the potentiality of potentiality being actuality is akin to a double negation where potentiality, absence of actuality, negates itself by its own potential of actuality. In other terms, actuality occurs as the potential of potential and the potential of potential is the distinction of the potential and by nature of the distinction of the potential does the potential become actual for actuality is distinction.

1. This is recursive, potentiality of potentiality.

2. This is isomorphic, potential of potential is but potential as actual.

3. This is variable, potentiality manifesting all forms of actuality and yet always being potentiality.

Given awareness is the potentiality of distinction, all awareness is an ever present cause in one respect. In another respect potentiality births actuality as distinction thus extending the definition of awareness across all phenomena that have underlying potentiality.

Potentiality in these regards can be observed as synonymous to space for by space do things change as it is the means through which change occurs, and these things, or rather distinctions, are spaces within space or absences of absences, potentialities of potentialities that not only result in the continuation of absence and potentiality but the isomorphic occurerence of positive and actual relativistically.

Pure awareness, pure potentiality, is akin to pure space and can be literally or metaphorically be reduced to a single point. Given a single point cannot be observed until the division/mulitiplication of it by the distinction of form, such is the nature of distinction making where a single point not only represent pure consciousness but effectively is the empircal space by which things emerge. The awareness of awareness is akin to a point dividing/multiplying into a sphere.

Potentiality is the absence of actuality, actuality is distinction, thus potentiality is the absence of distinction. It is not a thing, hence nothing.

The negation of potentiality is the potentiality of potentiality by which actuality comes forth in two respects:

1. Potentiality is now actual as potentiality for the potential of potential is actual by nature of potentiality being a distinction.

2. Pure potentiality ceases for a pure potentiality would have the potential for an absence of potentiality, the absence of potentiality is actuality.

Now here is a corresponding argument that mirrors the negation of potentiality argument:

The negation of a point is a point through point by which definition occurs in two respects:

1. The point is now distinct as a point for the point through another point is definitive form by nature of the point being a distinction.

2. A single point cease for a single point would contain all points as all forms, the absence of a single point is definitive form.

Now here is another argument that mirrors the above two:

The negation of awareness is an awareness through awareness by which distinction occurs in two respects:

1. The awareness is now distinct as awareness for the reflection of awareness through awareness is distinction by nature of awareness being a distinction.

2. A pure awareness would cease for a pure awareness would be aware of the absence of awareness, the absence awareness is the distinction of awareness.

[Fairy]

Is the observer, or the observing, in and of itself, observable?

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the observer, or the observing, in and of itself, observable?

You answered your own question by making the distinction of "observer".

[Fairy]

Is the observer, or the observing, in and of itself, observable?

You answered your own question by making the distinction of "observer".

Yes, I concur I’ve answered my own question.

But what about the observer, does it have an image that appears to the observer as an observed object?

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the observer, or the observing, in and of itself, observable?

You answered your own question by making the distinction of "observer".

Yes, I concur I’ve answered my own question.

But what about the observer, does it have an image that appears to the observer as an observed object?

The distinction of the observer is the image for to observe observation is a loop. This loop is distinct as the observer.

[Fairy]

You answered your own question by making the distinction of "observer".

Yes, I concur I’ve answered my own question.

But what about the observer, does it have an image that appears to the observer as an observed object?

The distinction of the observer is the image for to observe observation is a loop. This loop is distinct.

I see, yes, I understand that, so thanks.

Very good!

[Fairy]

So Awareness as causality would be nothing effecting by distinction?

I mean the causer would be nothing and the effect would be everything?

[Eodnhoj7]

So Awareness as causality would be nothing effecting by distinction?

I mean the causer would be nothing and the effect would be everything?

Yes in many degrees.

Potentiality is the absence of actuality, actuality is distinction, thus potentiality is the absence of distinction. It is not a thing, hence nothing.

The negation of potentiality is the potentiality of potentiality by which actuality comes forth in two respects:

1. Potentiality is now distinct as potentiality for the potential of potential is actual by nature of potentiality being a distinction.

2. Pure potentiality ceases for a pure potentiality would have the potential for an absence of potentiality, the absence of potentiality is actuality.

[Fairy]

So Awareness as causality would be nothing effecting by distinction?

I mean the causer would be nothing and the effect would be everything?

Yes in many degrees.

Potentiality is the absence of actuality, actuality is distinction, thus potentiality is the absence of distinction. It is not a thing, hence nothing.

The negation of potentiality is the potentiality of potentiality by which actuality comes forth in two respects:

1. Potentiality is now distinct as potentiality for the potential of potential is actual by nature of potentiality being a distinction.

2. Pure potentiality ceases for a pure potentiality would have the potential for an absence of potentiality, the absence of potentiality is actuality.

Very good.

What do you think of this quote by Schopenhauer?

“To know causality is the sole function of the understanding, its only power... and all causality, hence all matter, and consequently the whole of reality, is only for the understanding, through the understanding, in the understanding."

Ultimately, It’s about “understanding” and that’s how we arrive at the absolute truth of beingness, right?

[Eodnhoj7]

So Awareness as causality would be nothing effecting by distinction?

I mean the causer would be nothing and the effect would be everything?

Yes in many degrees.

Potentiality is the absence of actuality, actuality is distinction, thus potentiality is the absence of distinction. It is not a thing, hence nothing.

The negation of potentiality is the potentiality of potentiality by which actuality comes forth in two respects:

1. Potentiality is now distinct as potentiality for the potential of potential is actual by nature of potentiality being a distinction.

2. Pure potentiality ceases for a pure potentiality would have the potential for an absence of potentiality, the absence of potentiality is actuality.

Very good.

What do you think of this quote by Schopenhauer?

“To know causality is the sole function of the understanding, its only power... and all causality, hence all matter, and consequently the whole of reality, is only for the understanding, through the understanding, in the understanding."

Ultimately, It’s about “understanding” and that’s how we arrive at the absolute truth of beingness, right?

Understanding has limits for understanding is contextual.

There is only awareness and the awareness of the limits of awareness as the act of awareness.

I say this because understanding being contextual necessitates reason.

Awareness is not limited to reason and yet observes it.

[Impenitent]

just because there is no observer, it doesn't mean it didn't happen...

that unicorn farted rainbows...

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

just because there is no observer, it doesn't mean it didn't happen...

that unicorn farted rainbows...

-Imp

Observation is proof, whether something occurs or does not occur outside of observation is unprovable.

[Fairy]

Yes in many degrees.

Potentiality is the absence of actuality, actuality is distinction, thus potentiality is the absence of distinction. It is not a thing, hence nothing.

The negation of potentiality is the potentiality of potentiality by which actuality comes forth in two respects:

1. Potentiality is now distinct as potentiality for the potential of potential is actual by nature of potentiality being a distinction.

2. Pure potentiality ceases for a pure potentiality would have the potential for an absence of potentiality, the absence of potentiality is actuality.

Very good.

What do you think of this quote by Schopenhauer?

“To know causality is the sole function of the understanding, its only power... and all causality, hence all matter, and consequently the whole of reality, is only for the understanding, through the understanding, in the understanding."

Ultimately, It’s about “understanding” and that’s how we arrive at the absolute truth of beingness, right?

Understanding has limits for understanding is contextual.

There is only awareness and the awareness of the limits of awareness as the act of awareness.

I say this because understanding being contextual necessitates reason.

Awareness is not limited to reason and yet observes it.

I really like the way you’ve described that. I concur

…..

Osho suggests that awareness can initially feel like a disturbance, but ultimately leads to a deeper experience of ecstasy.

Nice.

[Fairy]

just because there is no observer, it doesn't mean it didn't happen...

that unicorn farted rainbows...

-Imp

Observation is proof, whether something occurs or does not occur outside of observation is unprovable.

Wonderful!

[Fairy]

just because there is no observer, it doesn't mean it didn't happen...

that unicorn farted rainbows...

-Imp

Happenings require observation.


Most humans do not realise that Omnipresence has to be Absolutely True for anything to exist at all.
No Omnipresence = NO Existence.