Philosophy Now Forum

OP is pure nonsense and babble ..circular logic ad libitum!!

When we respect space, matter is respected. When we respect matter, space is respected. It is imperative that we respect both - matter and space. By matter I mean everything in space - life and things and issues and philosophies and ideas etc. By space I mean the space we occupy physically and also mentally. In so much as one can take over someone's space/territory/property, one can also play upon one's mind(mind space). When matter and space both are respected, then life is a happy life for all. Therefore we must not take over animals' right to land/space and food etc., and then our rights are not violated in that respect. It is already understood that we must not take over humans' rights to this and that. So respecting all, we are happiest. All I really wanted to say is that, as our Higher Consciousness commands, we must only have that much food, shelter, clothing - property basically. Where the voice of conscience says no, it should be a definite no. That is all. I know this did not pertain to the argument exactly, but why we argue/discuss is for this only, so this cannot be understated/undermined/null&voided.

HexHammer wrote:OP is pure nonsense and babble ..circular logic

That's because the mind is trying to catch a 'self' that doesn't exist apart from itself.



The eye sees everything except itself.

Greta wrote: Then again, you don't accept the reality of death either, which I suspect is at the crux of your fierce blocking out of all information that might destabilise your paradigm. I think your "all is oneness" line is about denying death as reality.

Generally when people have unusual or mystical beliefs the bottom line is a defence against an overwhelming fear of death.

The fact that I am alive right now, and know I am means I also know death...otherwise how could I know life? ...do you see the importance of that key understanding????

But WHO knows this? WHO WHO WHO? ...CAN THAT ONE BE KNOWN? have you ever asked the self that you think you are that question?
You only think you are going to die because you think you have been born.



What YOU are has never KNOWN death or birth. Except in this conception.

Birth and Death is not an experience.

This immediate LIFE/ALIVENESS/ONENESS is this inconceivable experience.

The experience of Oneness cannot substitute for the words that point at it, but an attempt is made anyway.

God lives. God is alive. I live in you, just as you live in Me. In every area of Life, We are integrated. I am not a pretty add-on. I am All. There is no beginning or ending because I am All, and you are All along with Me. Not sometimes, not only when you are all dressed up, but always all the time. You go nowhere without Me. Where ego I go.


I'm not going to argue this with you Greta, it is something you are going to have to realise for yourself when you are ready. You as the Greta character will never get this...this will get you.

You are entitled to your own beliefs about what you think you are. That's your prerogative, because what you think you are you will become.

As for me, I know I am not what I think I am....so I don't really care about what you think, because what you think is not my world.

I've got an amazing video if your interested, it's only 4 minutes...if you are interested ..I would like to hear your opinion ? I'm sure you've heard of Alan Watts. He says in the video that when we are born we are waking up from our death like we wake from our sleep every morning. And when we die we are going to sleep from our life until we wake up again. So death and life are merely illusory ideas? ....

I really wish for all humanity to see this simply beautiful truth of oneness.


The Real You


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMRrCYPxD0I

What does OP mean? I don't know, could someone tell me?
And I didn't understand the chart above, like what is it trying to say really, the blue and white chart?

So Dontaskme, what proof are you giving for - Matter is space. Space is matter? I see that you say a lot of things and they even seem very valid statements, but you don't really prove anything, so can you prove from now on? You are merely guessing that we come from space and are space and go back to it.

In fact, my argument is proof that matter and space may be inter-convertible, then matter and space is the same thing and is one. But even then in context, matter is matter and space is space. So when we are in space which we clearly are, then we are not space, otherwise whose oneness are you trying to prove? Something that is already one? So then, please keep definitions in context, and then meaning becomes clear. Also, life may be binary or not, a simulation or not, for we don't know if there is anything besides matter and space, what if there is? And what if that is the resolution to everything? The reason I say this is because space - empty space, we do not really understand, matter to some extent we do, and to some extent we don't, like the spirit that seems to occupy no space, what is it really, the mind as well occupying no space, that we can perceive but not see actually?

So then there seems to be something above physical matter and physical space, that, which does not seem to occupy physical space, yet is matter - spiritual matter. The reason I say, above space and matter, is because it is not physical matter and it does not occupy physical space and so it is not a part of physical matter or physical space, it does not partake of in those, it is above them being spiritual, being mind and so is spiritual matter occupying spiritual space. We all understand Gods/Goddesses and thoughts, ideas, philosophies, issues, word, meaning, spirit, mind etcertera, perhaps sitting above the all that is physical matter, physical space.

Dontaskme wrote:

Greta wrote: Then again, you don't accept the reality of death either, which I suspect is at the crux of your fierce blocking out of all information that might destabilise your paradigm. I think your "all is oneness" line is about denying death as reality.

Generally when people have unusual or mystical beliefs the bottom line is a defence against an overwhelming fear of death.

I've got an amazing video if your interested, it's only 4 minutes...if you are interested ..I would like to hear your opinion ? I'm sure you've heard of Alan Watts. He says in the video that when we are born we are waking up from our death like we wake from our sleep every morning. And when we die we are going to sleep from our life until we wake up again. So death and life are merely illusory ideas? ....

I really wish for all humanity to see this simply beautiful truth of oneness.

The Real You

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMRrCYPxD0I

Going to sleep is a lot easier than dying. Also, when I wake in the morning I am still me and I remember my life.

Just at the moment when my life winks out, no doubt somewhere in the world a little pair of eyes will open (probably Indian or Chinese) - and that "pair of eyes" will have to go through all the struggle that everyone else has to go through, with no benefit from my experience. In a practical sense that new life has precious little to do with me. I'll be gone. Maybe I'll exist in informational form at the Planck scale, maybe not.

Re: Alan Watts's observation that what each of us is doing is what the universe is doing here and now. We are also what our nation is doing, or our culture or subculture. We are what humanity is doing, what the Earth is doing, or the solar system, galaxy, etc.

While we are part of this incredible reality, most of the universe is profoundly uncaring, usually fatal. Perhaps in a hundred billion years' time, when super advanced post-life forms exist, then the universe will have the kind of integration that you are attributing to it today.

Alas, that level of total integration or "oneness" is a potential, but a very, very long way from actualisation. So there is both oneness and separation. On the plus side, oneness would be incredibly boring without separation.

Greta wrote: Going to sleep is a lot easier than dying. Also, when I wake in the morning I am still me and I remember my life.

You might not believe me, but since awakening to oneness, I have absolutely no fear of death whatsoever. I know it's easier to say that but I really do not care about dying, because I know it's not real. I also know that any sane person is not going to believe that, but other peoples belief is not my concern. I already know my truth.


You only remember the memory of what you think you are.
Only the memory of you is having a life. A memory is not you, you are that which is aware of memory ..which is emptiness awareness. While you slept, the memory of you was temporally offline. But your real self (awareness) wasn't asleep, awareness does not sleep or wake up, it's always self shining and present right now.

If some one calls your name while you are in deep sleep, who do you think is awakening from that sleep? all that happens is the memory of you comes back online, the memory of you doesn't wake you up, the awareness of the memory of you wakes you up...so because what you really are is awareness .. you were able to hear your name called while the memory of you was offline...because awareness is always present, with or without you which is only ever memory... so the awareness of your name being called is what triggered the memory of you to come back online. Your consciousness is recording your life as it goes along, and then awareness is witnessing that recording. This life is all a dream. What you think is your life, is the dreamer awareness having a dream. When the dream is over,(physical death) awareness has another dream (physical life)..and just as no dream is ever remembered, awareness doesn't remember it's dreams, and is why each new dream (physical life) is totally unique and brand new...

Greta wrote:Just at the moment when my life winks out, no doubt somewhere in the world a little pair of eyes will open (probably Indian or Chinese) - and that "pair of eyes" will have to go through all the struggle that everyone else has to go through, with no benefit from my experience. In a practical sense that new life has precious little to do with me. I'll be gone. Maybe I'll exist in informational form at the Planck scale, maybe not.

Re: Alan Watts's observation that what each of us is doing is what the universe is doing here and now. We are also what our nation is doing, or our culture or subculture. We are what humanity is doing, what the Earth is doing, or the solar system, galaxy, etc.

While we are part of this incredible reality, most of the universe is profoundly uncaring, usually fatal. Perhaps in a hundred billion years' time, when super advanced post-life forms exist, then the universe will have the kind of integration that you are attributing to it today.

Alas, that level of total integration or "oneness" is a potential, but a very, very long way from actualisation. So there is both oneness and separation. On the plus side, oneness would be incredibly boring without separation.

I agree, but oneness is far from boring...since every dream is unique, and is appearing just how it is designed to be, that being different every time around...there is a boundless eternity of experiences to be had in life. What would be boring would be for life to have the same dream over and over again, but that's not what's happening. And that is the separation you speak of, but that separation is not what you think it is, it's always and ever the one appearing as the many having multitude of experiences.

I don't know if you are able to grasp what I am saying, but it doesn't matter, it's what the sages call enlightenment, it is the death of the ego self and the subsequent awakening to oneness, but I cannot make you see or experience this by my words alone. It's experiential to the one who awakens.
I didn't get this for years and years of trying to understand it myself personally, it took me so long to figure this out with my mind, until one day it all clicked into place. It' not very easy to put into words though. But I'm getting better, I'm better at it than I used to be.

Proof that matter and space are inter-convertible is - it's all energy, and one energy can convert to another form of energy.

Dontaskme wrote:

Greta wrote: Going to sleep is a lot easier than dying. Also, when I wake in the morning I am still me and I remember my life.

You might not believe me, but since awakening to oneness, I have absolutely no fear of death whatsoever. I know it's easier to say that but I really do not care about dying, because I know it's not real. I also know that any sane person is not going to believe that, but other peoples belief is not my concern. I already know my truth.

You only remember the memory of what you think you are.

Actually I remember that happened in my past (obviously!) along with family, friends, home, environment, music and art - the list does on.

Dontaskme wrote:Only the memory of you is having a life. A memory is not you, you are that which is aware of memory ..which is emptiness awareness. While you slept, the memory of you was temporally offline. But your real self (awareness) wasn't asleep, awareness does not sleep or wake up, it's always self shining and present right now.

Nope, my consciousness goes dormant. Quiet and minimal, reduced to unconscious reflex actions. Note that the "hard line" between unconscious and conscious mind is deceiving because consciousness is a variable continuum.

The "hard line" we perceive between the conscious and unconscious is due to the instability of inbetween states, so we tend to quickly fall between one or the other - either falling into sleep or full wakefulness, and that is how we spend most of our days and nights.

Stable and persistent inbetween states - mindless waking states - can be achieved either via flow (Zen) states or meditation. Waking flow states would seem to be the very opposite to sleep and dormancy - the ultimate in 'aliveness" - but, in truth, those desirable states are less conscious than thinking states. The very basis of those states is the relinquishing of conscious control, fearlessly trusting the body to operate in an automatic (and hopefully well trained) manner. I say "fearlessly" because it takes some courage to fully let go of conscious control; it's often a significant social risk.

Dontaskme wrote:If some one calls your name while you are in deep sleep, who do you think is awakening from that sleep? all that happens is the memory of you comes back online, the memory of you doesn't wake you up, the awareness of the memory of you wakes you up...so because what you really are is awareness .. you were able to hear your name called while the memory of you was offline...because awareness is always present, with or without you which is only ever memory... so the awareness of your name being called is what triggered the memory of you to come back online. Your consciousness is recording your life as it goes along, and then awareness is witnessing that recording. This life is all a dream. What you think is your life, is the dreamer awareness having a dream. When the dream is over,(physical death) awareness has another dream (physical life)..and just as no dream is ever remembered, awareness doesn't remember it's dreams, and is why each new dream (physical life) is totally unique and brand new...

I'm trying to put my finger on the logical error you are making. I think it's an overly strong self focus, which is ironic since that's what you are saying doesn't exist. Many try to pin down the self as either a spirit or an illusion. Those who claim the self doesn't exist tend to fall into two camps - pantheists like yourself or fundamentalist rationalists who claim consciousness (and the self) doesn't exist, only experiences.

It's all too black-and-white. The individual self is something that varies like a flame from moment to moment. At times it's smouldering, at other times a roaring blaze, but constantly changing. You may then wonder why I would say the self is real rather than the unstable phantasm I described? Practicality. As noted earlier, one of us can be happy while the other is in agony. That is, we might all be one, but our bodies impose separate realities.

Funny thing is that I argue a similar thing to you in terms of biology and also get criticised. Rather than the universe or the whole of reality, I think about the "oneness" of the biosphere, actually the entire planet. It can be thought of as one cohesive entity with a natural path that is similar in nature to that of its living inhabitants - to persist, grow and develop. Given humanity's space programs, it appears that the biosphere is on the way to spreading out elsewhere.

Still, why should I only consider oneness at the planetary scale? The solar system too can be thought of as one thing. Why stop there? There's galaxies, galactic clusters and superclusters. We can pan out until we arrive at your much-touted "oneness".

So there we are. All is one. One big thing - a universe, multiverse, or maybe something else. So, sure, I agree. However, in practical terms, we are separate. Each organism's mental processes are largely opaque to those of others. Each organism's pain and pleasure is restricted to itself and, in the case of intelligent mammals, only felt in part by others via empathy.

Dontaskme wrote:... oneness is far from boring...since every dream is unique, and is appearing just how it is designed to be, that being different every time around...there is a boundless eternity of experiences to be had in life.

A contradiction. If "every dream is unique" then they must be separate. In true oneness there is no uniqueness, only one uniform, entirely smooth thing. Each and every ripple or variation is a separation, a breaking up of the unity. And that, according to the boffins, is the story of our universe. At one point there was almost no separation at all. Now we are all spread out through space and time. We are still theoretically all one thing, but the bits are a long way from each other and, more importantly, largely don't give a damn about each other (or anything).

So there is a sense of, yes, all is oneness, but so what?

Dontaskme wrote:I don't know if you are able to grasp what I am saying, but it doesn't matter, it's what the sages call enlightenment, it is the death of the ego self and the subsequent awakening to oneness, but I cannot make you see or experience this by my words alone. It's experiential to the one who awakens.
I didn't get this for years and years of trying to understand it myself personally, it took me so long to figure this out with my mind, until one day it all clicked into place. It' not very easy to put into words though. But I'm getting better, I'm better at it than I used to be.

Contradictory. Since we are all one, if you are enlightened then so am I, and so is everyone and everything. However, we are different and, according to some arcane and unsubstantiated scale of human merit, we have attained different levels of "enlightenment".

You have to acknowledge separation, even if you don't like it. Personally, I like being separate.

Dontaskme,

I understand some of what you are thinking and it is an appropriate question. The thing is this is precisely one of the questions asked and answered as you believe that also biases what the logic behind reality entails.

The FACT that we are 'alive' assures that we are biased to judge the very system from within the very system we are trying to interpret. Kurt Gödel devised a theorem called, the "Incompleteness Theorem" which indirectly addresses this. It initially addresses a form of Liar's Paradox:

"I always lie."

If the sentence is to be believed, then the meaning of that sentence by one asserting it should either be telling the truth about themselves or not. If they are telling the truth though, then we'd have to believe that even that sentence is a lie because it asserts that (s)he ALWAYS lies. But if (s)he is lying always, this should mean that this sentence is also a lie or false. But if it so, then it is NOT the case that "I always lie" is false since it just confirmed what (s)he is communicating. But this means (s)he told the truth.

So which is it?

Without going into the depths of the actual Incompleteness Theorem, this should be enough to make you intuit that (1) NO SYSTEM OF RATIONAL INSPECTION can completely explain ALL truths AND that (2) NO SYSTEM OF RATIONAL INSPECTION can be used to justify itself. That the sentence above cannot 'prove' the truth of itself without being conflicting infinitely, suggests that we as observers trying to inspect whether we originate from anything BUT a 'something' rather than a nothing is not possible. Thus you cannot actually assume we are ONE because we are biased to only witness that. If you are not alive outside of life, you lack life to DISPROVE whether ONENESS is absolute or not.

But you CAN infer that there is SOMETHING 'true' about ONENESS at a minimum.

You can in life be sure to determine that some "nothingness" exists and that there are an infinite such 'nothings'. All you need to 'know' is that to "know" requires change. If you could 'feel' anything without change, then this contradicts our understanding THAT 'feeling' is something that we experience THROUGH change. So at least any change assures that the LAST EXPERIENCE has STOPPED being. This 'stop' is the same as saying that the prior experience no longer exists....or has a quantifying value of being non-existent or a Nothingness.

But there does not seem to be an END to such possible nothingness. Thus there are an infinite Nothings. AND, since each Nothing is at least equivalent to all other nothings, than an ABSOLUTE NOTHING also is something equivalent in meaning to each of these and is thus 'true' as well.

So we have proven that ABSOLUTE ONENESS must at least coexist with ABSOLUTE NOTHING. NOW ADD that there are an INFINITY of such NOTHINGS. This then proves that we have at least these THREE factors necessarily 'true' about reality:

Absolute Nothing + Absolute One thing + Absolute Everything (INFINITY)

or

'0' and '1' and '∞' are all simultaneously 'true' in some way.

We also know that if we begin with ABSOLUTE ONENESS, it leads to a contradiction because it implies the logical laws of Identity (1 is 1), exclusivity of value (that it requires being 'T' or 'F' but never BOTH), and the law of non-contradiction (that if Absolute one thing is 'true' it cannot be allowed if anywhere it is defined proves that it lacks being 'true') So, when you BEGIN with absolutely ONE truth, it leads to nothingness and Infinity but BREAKS the rule of it remaining 'consistent'

This means that although 'true' sometimes, Oneness cannot ORIGINATE and be consistent at the same time. This is the same argument in kind to whether a god could be perfectly 'good' by default if it is also the creator of all things in reality....because it suggests that it is necessarily responsible for 'evil' to exist in some way.

So what about INFINITY? If infinity were absolute, then absolutely everything is 'true' everywhere. Of course while apparently troubling, this CAN occur IF we allow for many worlds and places that such realities could exist. So where something is 'false', it MUST be simultaneously 'true' in some other place with respect to the totality of everything. But it too cannot ORIGINATE, if there were something original. So assume that there is NO ORIGIN, perhaps, right? But NOW infinity WOULD be 'lying' about its nature to at least have some place in totality that assures this 'true'. Therefore Infinity is still absolutely 'true' but cannot be the 'origin' but assures there is one.

So we now have Absolute Nothingness. Can this be 'true'?

Yes. Because since its meaning also requires not even "laws" themselves are 'true', its 'lawlessness' permits it to break any 'law' arbitrarily because it is not defined nor confined by laws themselves. So Absolute Nothingness must also both be TRUE (and false, and true and false, and even neither) AND be our ORIGINAL source. That is, it can at least STAND ON ITS OWN. So you can have an origin of ABSOLUTE NOTHING that 'causes' ABSOLUTE EACH (ones) and ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (infinity, or infinity of infinities, etc).

Conclusion:
0, 1, and ∞, ALL 'true' necessarily BUT originate from 0.

0 = 0 and 1 and ∞
1 = 1
00 = 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or .....00

Notice I traded using the infinity sign with two zeroes? It helps recognize that infinity is made up of nothings. This is HOW I derive things as an initial start to further reasoning.

Greta wrote: Actually I remember that happened in my past (obviously!) along with family, friends, home, environment, music and art - the list does on.

Memory is what gives continuity to the idea that there is an entity living now. But it's just a thought arising within the mind body mechanism, there is no real separate entity inside the body, and there is no entity inside a thought... where is there room to be ..for this assumed living separate added on identity...entity...?....where is the exact location of that idea/ thought... in this already existing now. AKA this seamless infinity for eternity?

Greta wrote:Nope, my consciousness goes dormant. Quiet and minimal, reduced to unconscious reflex actions. Note that the "hard line" between unconscious and conscious mind is deceiving because consciousness is a variable continuum.

The "hard line" we perceive between the conscious and unconscious is due to the instability of inbetween states, so we tend to quickly fall between one or the other - either falling into sleep or full wakefulness, and that is how we spend most of our days and nights.

It's not your consciousness.. your, is a thought arising in it. No thing is conscious, consciousness is not a thing, yet things/thoughts arise in it.
Same one no thing.

When awareness knows sensation consciousness is born. Consciousness (awareness) is an aspect of latent Awareness..they're the same one no thing...alternating between two states, like a Necker cube. Latent awareness is not a state, it's the stateless state in which all states appear as illusory manifestations of the one stateless state.

Greta wrote:Stable and persistent inbetween states - mindless waking states - can be achieved either via flow (Zen) states or meditation. Waking flow states would seem to be the very opposite to sleep and dormancy - the ultimate in 'aliveness" - but, in truth, those desirable states are less conscious than thinking states. The very basis of those states is the relinquishing of conscious control, fearlessly trusting the body to operate in an automatic (and hopefully well trained) manner. I say "fearlessly" because it takes some courage to fully let go of conscious control; it's often a significant social risk.

No one is conscious. Everything is consciousness aliveness life flowing as one unitary automatic function - no thing is at the controls of life, no one is in charge... what ever arises, be it pain or pleasure or displeasure or what ever, there is no conscious controller of what happens, except the idea there is.... all arisings are expressions of oneness naturally appearing as and through every mind/body mechanism which is the instrument for activity. If screaming from pain happens, that's what will happen, there is no one here to stop it...and so includes every other expression. So what exactly you are trying to say here, I have absolutely no idea.

Greta wrote:I'm trying to put my finger on the logical error you are making. I think it's an overly strong self focus, which is ironic since that's what you are saying doesn't exist. Many try to pin down the self as either a spirit or an illusion. Those who claim the self doesn't exist tend to fall into two camps - pantheists like yourself or fundamentalist rationalists who claim consciousness (and the self) doesn't exist, only experiences.

There is no separate me talking, there's just silence sounding as and through this mind/body mechanism ...that phenomena can be called self since how else is this nothingness appearing as something going to make sense of what's not actually happening to it.?

Greta wrote:It's all too black-and-white. The individual self is something that varies like a flame from moment to moment. At times it's smouldering, at other times a roaring blaze, but constantly changing. You may then wonder why I would say the self is real rather than the unstable phantasm I described? Practicality. As noted earlier, one of us can be happy while the other is in agony. That is, we might all be one, but our bodies impose separate realities.

Only the identification with thought causes a separation. The self is ONE. The other is an illusion, that doesn't mean the other doesn't exist, to the mind of thought IDENTIFIED, the other does exist, but once again it's all mentally constructed BY ITSELF... As ONENESS.

The mentally constructed world makes up things, and each thing is a concept, and each concept is sourced from the same place as every other concept. The you and the me, and the us, and the them, they're all manifested from the exact same place, and that place is here now, and now is the only place and time there is.

Greta wrote:Funny thing is that I argue a similar thing to you in terms of biology and also get criticised. Rather than the universe or the whole of reality, I think about the "oneness" of the biosphere, actually the entire planet. It can be thought of as one cohesive entity with a natural path that is similar in nature to that of its living inhabitants - to persist, grow and develop. Given humanity's space programs, it appears that the biosphere is on the way to spreading out elsewhere.

Still, why should I only consider oneness at the planetary scale? The solar system too can be thought of as one thing. Why stop there? There's galaxies, galactic clusters and superclusters. We can pan out until we arrive at your much-touted "oneness".

One cannot arrive at oneness. Oneness already IS..IT is here right now in the only place THERE is which is (HERE)...one can't get there from here, there is only here.

Greta wrote:So there we are. All is one. One big thing - a universe, multiverse, or maybe something else. So, sure, I agree. However, in practical terms, we are separate. Each organism's mental processes are largely opaque to those of others. Each organism's pain and pleasure is to itself and, in the case of intelligent mammals, only felt in part by others via empathy.

Oneness is only experiencing life one life at a time. From the perspective of the Greta character's life, no other life is happening. Simultaneously, from the perspective of the Dontaskme character's life, no other life is happening. That Greta's character thinks there are other lives living separate from her is the illusion, because all other lives are the same oneness living lives from the perspective of those lives, those other lives are purely mental projections of the same one living mind, appearing to be living simultaneous lives...albeit illusory.

Greta wrote:So there is a sense of, yes, all is oneness, but so what?

Because it's a beautiful truth, separation is a lie. So we should be teaching it to our kids, and not polluting their innocent open minds with closed off restrictive false ideas about the true nature of reality, so instead of feeding their imaginary egos full of lies and crap that do not and never have existed, we should be teaching them the truth of their beingness, that of love and abundance and not breed fear, lack and misery by giving them the false idea of separateness.

Greta wrote:Contradictory. Since we are all one, if you are enlightened then so am I, and so is everyone and everything. However, we are different and, according to some arcane and unsubstantiated scale of human merit, we have attained different levels of "enlightenment".

No person or any other thing ever gets enlightened, everything aka oneness is already this self shinning enlightenment, that's what oneness means. The ego will claim I know I don't exist separate from the whole so I am enlightened...I'm merely using this idea as a pointer pointing us back to the already enlightened state we all are which is oneness. You're not really listening to what I'm saying at all, you keep referring to a separate self, looking for a counter claim to my claims...whereas I'm trying to point you away from the mental play of duality into the realisation of oneness, but that is the nature of the human mind, it's what is does...so be it.

Greta wrote:You have to acknowledge separation, even if you don't like it. Personally, I like being separate.

I never implied I didn't like separation. You also imply I have a fear of death which is wrong, you like to make false assumptions about this character here, simply because you are operating from the mode of a separately self identified character... and when you are in that mode you are unable to see any clarity in my words - the one that acknowledges separation is an appearance in this already here oneness that doesn't need to be acknowledged, for IT IS without doubt or error. If you prefer to identify with the wrong I then we have nothing further to discuss...else we cannot reach a mutual understanding of what's being pointed to here.

There's only one I..the other one is a phantom. It's nothing more than a fart in the wind.

Dontaskme wrote:

Greta wrote:You have to acknowledge separation, even if you don't like it. Personally, I like being separate.

I never implied I didn't like separation. You also imply I have a fear of death which is wrong, you like to make false assumptions about this character here, simply because you are operating from the mode of a separately self identified character... and when you are in that mode you are unable to see any clarity in my words - the one that acknowledges separation is an appearance in this already here oneness that doesn't need to be acknowledged, for IT IS without doubt or error. If you prefer to identify with the wrong I then we have nothing further to discuss...else we cannot reach a mutual understanding of what's being pointed to here.

There's only one I..the other one is a phantom. It's nothing more than a fart in the wind.

I see clarity in your words. The same idea repeated on a loop.

You entirely deny separation. You say it's a terrible lie we tell our children. You have spent months deriding the notion of separation on forums and now you feign disappointment at "wrong" assumptions.

You don't even try to understand others' ideas. Totally interested in sprouting forth, not in exchange. I see no point in continuing this interaction. I am interested in unity ideas but not your fundamentalist approach.

Greta wrote: I see clarity in your words. The same idea repeated on a loop.

I see the belief in your words. The same old ideas rehashed to look new, old dead ideas, that you have inherited from those who have come before either dead or alive, nothing new or original here, we're all like barking dogs going nowhere.

Greta wrote:You entirely deny separation. You say it's a terrible lie we tell our children. You have spent months deriding the notion of separation on forums and now you feign disappointment at "wrong" assumptions.

A lie is the truth.

And No, you only assume I deny separation, separation cannot be denied. Who would do that? .... a thought? an assumption?

Greta wrote:You don't even try to understand others' ideas.

There is nothing to understand of that which only exists as an idea. Real Understanding, is just what's silently being here right now not knowing. And yet at the same time knowing that's all that needs to be understood. What ever happens happens, it happens all by itself, and not to you.
I don't wish to complicate life anymore than that, by using high sounding words that make absolutely no sense to me. Rather, I'm all for about what's not happening to me, at the same time knowing that what's not happening to me, is still just what's happening. It's a happening.

Greta wrote: Totally interested in sprouting forth, not in exchange. I see no point in continuing this interaction. I am interested in unity ideas but not your fundamentalist approach.

Don't talk daft, you come to a meta topic on oneness, and I have done nothing but exchange with you. What did you expect, did this exchange not meet with your approval or ideal model of what constitutes reality from your limited separate perspective?
But the point your missing is that you only like one part of the story of oneness and that is your separate self that I say is an illusory aspect of this all inclusive oneness. So yeah, no point at all talking to each other if one of us is not going to acknowledge that all ideas are only illusory appearances in the unity of life.

Bye for now...Until we meat again, sound affects meat.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Notice I traded using the infinity sign with two zeroes? It helps recognize that infinity is made up of nothings. This is HOW I derive things as an initial start to further reasoning.

Scott, thank you for your amazing contribution to this thread.

Loved reading your musings. And thanks for being on topic, you say it all, and very well.

Look forward to reading more of your 8 stuff if you have any.

Scott Mayers wrote: Without going into the depths of the actual Incompleteness Theorem, this should be enough to make you intuit that (1) NO SYSTEM OF RATIONAL INSPECTION can completely explain ALL truths AND that (2) NO SYSTEM OF RATIONAL INSPECTION can be used to justify itself. That the sentence above cannot 'prove' the truth of itself without being conflicting infinitely, suggests that we as observers trying to inspect whether we originate from anything BUT a 'something' rather than a nothing is not possible. Thus you cannot actually assume we are ONE because we are biased to only witness that. If you are not alive outside of life, you lack life to DISPROVE whether ONENESS is absolute or not

I love those well thought out thoughts. This is the kind of stuff I like to get my teeth into.

So Isn't the proof self evident though? ..but to whom is it self evident?

When....

There is no one here to make claim there is proof of oneness, just as there is no one here to make counter claim and disprove oneness?

How do we get past this dilemma Scott?