Existence Is Infinite

[Martin Peter Clarke]

So existence isn't distinct from non-existence?

Certainly an understandable and appropriate inquiry as the concepts are indeed intricate.

I discussed this previously, if further clarification is required it shall be provided:

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.

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.

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.

The counterpart of the concept existence.

Yes. The concept, the term “nonexistence” is a concept. It exists. That would not be nonexistence or no thing. That is a term, a concept. A thing. Not no thing. Not nonexistence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.


Again, that is a conceptual counterpart of the concept existence, not a counterpart of existence in its entirety.

As stated, both the concept existence and the concept nonexistence are only concepts. Concepts are not the totality of existence and thus can have counterparts.

The totality of existence, which includes the concept existence and the concept nonexistence along with all other things, does not and cannot have a counterpart as it is all things. It is all existence. It is existence. The Infinite, which has no counterpart, which is not exceeded and which is unlimited.


The concept nonexistence is not a counterpart of existence.

The concept nonexistence is a counterpart of the concept existence.

They are not the same.

Again, existence, as the entirety, generally speaking, has no counterpart. It is all things. It is all. All is all.

Existence, the concept, has a conceptual counterpart, nonexistence. Both of those concepts are things, they are parts of existence.

However concepts alone are not the entirety of existence. The entirety of existence is the entirety of existence and by definition has no counterpart.

Yeah but, are they distinct?

[daniel j lavender]

So existence isn't distinct from non-existence?

Certainly an understandable and appropriate inquiry as the concepts are indeed intricate.

I discussed this previously, if further clarification is required it shall be provided:

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.

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.

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.

The counterpart of the concept existence.

Yes. The concept, the term “nonexistence” is a concept. It exists. That would not be nonexistence or no thing. That is a term, a concept. A thing. Not no thing. Not nonexistence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.


Again, that is a conceptual counterpart of the concept existence, not a counterpart of existence in its entirety.

As stated, both the concept existence and the concept nonexistence are only concepts. Concepts are not the totality of existence and thus can have counterparts.

The totality of existence, which includes the concept existence and the concept nonexistence along with all other things, does not and cannot have a counterpart as it is all things. It is all existence. It is existence. The Infinite, which has no counterpart, which is not exceeded and which is unlimited.


The concept nonexistence is not a counterpart of existence.

The concept nonexistence is a counterpart of the concept existence.

They are not the same.

Again, existence, as the entirety, generally speaking, has no counterpart. It is all things. It is all. All is all.

Existence, the concept, has a conceptual counterpart, nonexistence. Both of those concepts are things, they are parts of existence.

However concepts alone are not the entirety of existence. The entirety of existence is the entirety of existence and by definition has no counterpart.

Yeah but, are they distinct?

The concepts are distinct.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Certainly an understandable and appropriate inquiry as the concepts are indeed intricate.

I discussed this previously, if further clarification is required it shall be provided:

Yeah but, are they distinct?

The concepts are distinct.

Ta.

[Fairy]

So existence isn't distinct from non-existence?

Both are identical concepts, distinction is illusion.

Concepts known, know nothing, in this conception.

Nothing knows this.

[Eodnhoj7]

You’re conflating existence and my premise.

Distinction concerns conscious beings and their interactions with things. In other words with conscious beings, particulars and relevant interactions distinction applies.

However existence transcends distinction and indistinction. Existence simply is.

Existence is distinction and exceeds it. Existence is indistinction and exceeds it. Existence is both distinction and indistinction and all other variance and similarity which balances and simplifies as being. Existence.

"Is" is a distinction. If it is not a distinction then it is not a thing.

Existence does not require distinction:

Existence does not need to be distinct. That is a qualification you artificially place upon existence as a conscious individual.

Existence simply is.

Existence does not need to be distinct.

Existence does not need. Existence is.

The expression “existence simply is” or “existence is” is perhaps the best, or perhaps the only way to attempt to express such a basic principle or fact.

We are conscious beings using words and language as tools. It’s very difficult if not impossible to express that without, on some level, entangling in complexities such as distinction and indistinction.

Existence is not merely a thing.

If existence "exceeds", then it is a thing for only things act.

“Exceeds” is not meant to indicate action but meant rather as an expression of extent.

Existence exceeds distinction as existence is indistinction as well. No action is needed, existence simply is the other, too.

It isn’t about expansion or expanding but extent.

If existence does not require distinction than existence is not limited to things as it is not a thing. If existence is indistinct it is not a thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

The observer. Which is something, not nothing.

Atla adequately summarized.

Nothing has not been located.

Self observation is a loop, by observing observation a loop occurs which can be symbolically observed as a line occuring between points. Awareness, the 0d point, observing itself, results in the distinction of observation.

So you concede the observer is a thing, not no thing.

The observer is a distinction that occurs by the observation of observation...just line a line between two 0d points (nothing) is the distinction of the line.

A void of void is emergence. To observe observation is the emergency of the observer.

[daniel j lavender]

If existence does not require distinction than existence is not limited to things as it is not a thing. If existence is indistinct it is not a thing.

Not merely a thing nor merely things. Both. Recall the previous statement:

Existence is both distinction and indistinction and all other variance and similarity which balances and simplifies as being. Existence.

Hence existence simply is.

[daniel j lavender]

So you concede the observer is a thing, not no thing.

The observer is a distinction that occurs by the observation of observation...just line a line between two 0d points (nothing) is the distinction of the line.

A void of void is emergence. To observe observation is the emergency of the observer.

So yes.

just line a line between two 0d points (nothing)

The referenced is obviously not nothing.

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

[daniel j lavender]

Perhaps the idea of being eternal, of eternity is emphasized too much. The idea itself isn’t quite as significant as it may seem. The idea is concerned with time, with duration. As expressed in the original text existence just is. Existence, being, generally speaking, transcends what we perceive as time.

There are various definitions and explanations of time. One explanation suggests time is a measurement of sequences or events. Another suggests time is a component of spacetime. Regardless the definition time is part of existence.

However existence also transcends time; existence transcends temporal measurement. Time concerns particulars and is often conflated with existence in its general sense. Time or temporal measurement concerns progression, it concerns particulars, it concerns unfolding events. Existence is all, existence does not need to progress or unfold and as such has no need for time. Existence simply is.

Through progression, through change existence persists. Existence is. Existence is A. Existence is B. Existence is C.

Even in the physics domain of spacetime this applies. Existence is all; existence is all particulars thus transcends any such framing. The goal is not to dictate specifics of systems but to articulate an ontology or general framework within which systems can be understood.

[Eodnhoj7]

If existence does not require distinction than existence is not limited to things as it is not a thing. If existence is indistinct it is not a thing.

Not merely a thing nor merely things. Both. Recall the previous statement:

Existence is both distinction and indistinction and all other variance and similarity which balances and simplifies as being. Existence.

Hence existence simply is.

So "is" is not a distinction?

[Eodnhoj7]

So you concede the observer is a thing, not no thing.

The observer is a distinction that occurs by the observation of observation...just line a line between two 0d points (nothing) is the distinction of the line.

A void of void is emergence. To observe observation is the emergency of the observer.

So yes.

just line a line between two 0d points (nothing)

The referenced is obviously not nothing.

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

To observe observing is to see nothing and yet the observation is a distinct loop arising from nothing.

Existence is spontaneous, as evidenced by the distinction of observation in the above meditation, and this spontaneity leaves existence founded on nothing. The mere appearance of infinity from nothing justifies this spontaneity for the infinite occurs with no foundations and yet if it's foundations are itself than a finitude by degree of cyclicality occurs and yet this cycle 'just appears'.

[Age]

The observer is a distinction that occurs by the observation of observation...just line a line between two 0d points (nothing) is the distinction of the line.

A void of void is emergence. To observe observation is the emergency of the observer.

So yes.

just line a line between two 0d points (nothing)

The referenced is obviously not nothing.

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

To observe observing is to see nothing and yet the observation is a distinct loop arising from nothing.

Existence is spontaneous, as evidenced by the distinction of observation in the above meditation, and this spontaneity leaves existence founded on nothing.

How could an always eternally existing Thing be spontaneous? And, what do you mean by 'spontaneous', exactly?

If you do not even try to clarify these, then you are proving further that 'your words' are not able to be substantiated.

[daniel j lavender]

If existence does not require distinction than existence is not limited to things as it is not a thing. If existence is indistinct it is not a thing.

Not merely a thing nor merely things. Both. Recall the previous statement:

Existence is both distinction and indistinction and all other variance and similarity which balances and simplifies as being. Existence.

Hence existence simply is.

So "is" is not a distinction?

The expression “existence simply is” or “existence is” is perhaps the simplest way to attempt to express such a basic principle or fact.

We are conscious beings using words and language as tools which involve distinction by their very nature. It’s very difficult if not impossible to express that without, on some level, entangling in complexities such as distinction and indistinction.

[daniel j lavender]

The observer is a distinction that occurs by the observation of observation...just line a line between two 0d points (nothing) is the distinction of the line.

A void of void is emergence. To observe observation is the emergency of the observer.

So yes.

just line a line between two 0d points (nothing)

The referenced is obviously not nothing.

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

To observe observing is to see nothing…

To perceive, which includes observation, is to substantiate existence. By definition:

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

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.

Observing qualifies as an event, act or process. A thing. Not nothing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not merely a thing nor merely things. Both. Recall the previous statement:



Hence existence simply is.

So "is" is not a distinction?

The expression “existence simply is” or “existence is” is perhaps the simplest way to attempt to express such a basic principle or fact.

We are conscious beings using words and language as tools which involve distinction by their very nature. It’s very difficult if not impossible to express that without, on some level, entangling in complexities such as distinction and indistinction.

So the statement "existence is" is a basic principle to you, as a principle it is a distinction. So existence is subject to a principle: "is-ness".

If that is the case it is subject to a finite principle, and yet this principle exists thus is subject to existence. Under these terms existence is finite. It's infinite nature is simultaneously indefinite. Existence is thus both a thing and not a thing.