Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

Such discussion can easily become mired in the conceptual and the abstract.

Concepts and terms have indication, they relate to other things including tangible objects.

The philosophy is not farfetched. It is not purely conceptual. To review:

Begin with the definition of existence, that which is perceived. 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. All parts are connected and share the commonality of being, of existence. That connection, that unity of parts indicates the whole. It reveals the connection among all through reason. Minus coercion, minus superstition.

The philosophy, existence is not simply abstraction confined to concept. It flows from conceptuality to physicality, from physicality to immateriality. It is observed at this moment, the connectedness of things, the interrelation of part and whole, of concept and object.

As conveyed in the original essay we are inclined to limit existence. Dwelling upon concept at the exclusion of tangible, easily accessible examples serves to do just that.

[Eodnhoj7]

Such discussion can easily become mired in the conceptual and the abstract.

Concepts and terms have indication, they relate to other things including tangible objects.

The philosophy is not farfetched. It is not purely conceptual. To review:

Begin with the definition of existence, that which is perceived. 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. All parts are connected and share the commonality of being, of existence. That connection, that unity of parts indicates the whole. It reveals the connection among all through reason. Minus coercion, minus superstition.

The philosophy, existence is not simply abstraction confined to concept. It flows from conceptuality to physicality, from physicality to immateriality. It is observed at this moment, the connectedness of things, the interrelation of part and whole, of concept and object.

As conveyed in the original essay we are inclined to limit existence. Dwelling upon concept at the exclusion of tangible, easily accessible examples serves to do just that.

I percieve contradiction where it is, perception, if truly percieved, is equally as fragmented as it is connected as the spontaneous nature of it is proof.

"Existence is infinite" puts existence in a box and this paradoxical nature leads to the only absolute nature of existence: occurence.

Where we differ is this:

You say: Existence is infinite.

I say: Occurence.

One word is far more simple with this simplicity allowing immeasurable flexibility.

[daniel j lavender]

What is intangible is not a thing as it is indistinct.

The quality of being intangible is what makes such distinct.

A pineapple is tangible. The thought, the conceptual instance of the pineapple is not.

An object is an object. A concept is a concept. Both are perceived. Both are existence.

As to something and nothing not being able to coexist:

1. There is nothing to coexist with absolute nothing as there is absolutely nothing for existence to coexist with in the absolute sense. Absolute nothingness is a term which is paradoxical.

Correct.

2. Nothingness as relative is merely potentiality as a means for existence to actualize through change inducing movement. An atom is 99.9999... percent empty. A simple point in geometry is also empty. The emptiness is void, nothingness.

Incorrect.

Nothingness is not relative. Nothingness is not and cannot be to any degree.

Emptiness indicates emptiness of something, in this case regions empty of matter. An atom contains mostly immaterial space. The regions in which there are no electrons or protons, etcetera are regions of immaterial space or immaterial expanse.

Immateriality is the opposite of physicality. Not nothingness. Immaterial space has no matter or resistance allowing material bodies movement.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Thoughts are bound to the physical and as such are tangible.

If thoughts are physical, as you imply, why are they bound to the physical?

It’s another way of saying thoughts connect to the physical. Because thoughts themselves are not actually physical.

Thoughts, ideas, concepts relate to the physical. One may even claim thoughts extend from the physical. However thoughts are thoughts and not themselves physical or tangible.

What is truly intangible would be unknown.

As illustrated thoughts are known, thoughts are acknowledged here in discussion. This illustrates that intangible things can be and are perceived or known and are distinguished from material, tangible objects.

Relative nothingness exists as the absence of a specific thing. Nothingness can be absolute (unchanging for there is no change or nothing to change, ie nothing is absolute) and relative (absence of a specific thing or an unactualized state).

Absence is absence, not nonexistence or nothingness. Absence refers to some subject, some time and some location. All things, all existence. In the event some thing is absent the situation still only concerns things. For example the student is absent from class. The student is still somewhere and the class is still filled completely with things be it air, desks, other students, etcetera. The issue of absence itself is a condition, a concept, a thing.

Nothingness is not and cannot be. To any degree.

[Eodnhoj7]

The quality of being intangible is what makes such distinct.

A pineapple is tangible. The thought, the conceptual instance of the pineapple is not.

An object is an object. A concept is a concept. Both are perceived. Both are existence.




Correct.




Incorrect.

Nothingness is not relative. Nothingness is not and cannot be to any degree.

Emptiness indicates emptiness of something, in this case regions empty of matter. An atom contains mostly immaterial space. The regions in which there are no electrons or protons, etcetera are regions of immaterial space or immaterial expanse.

Immateriality is the opposite of physicality. Not nothingness. Immaterial space has no matter or resistance allowing material bodies movement.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Thoughts are bound to the physical and as such are tangible.

If thoughts are physical, as you claim, why are they bound to the physical?

It’s another way of saying thoughts connect to the physical. Because thoughts themselves are not actually physical.

Thoughts, ideas, concepts relate to the physical. One may even claim thoughts extend from the physical. However thoughts are thoughts and not themselves physical or tangible.

What is truly intangible would be unknown.

As illustrated thoughts are known, thoughts are acknowledged here in discussion. This illustrates that intangible things can be and are perceived or known and are distinguished from material, tangible objects.

Relative nothingness exists as the absence of a specific thing. Nothingness can be absolute (unchanging for there is no change or nothing to change, ie nothing is absolute) and relative (absence of a specific thing or an unactualized state).

Absence is absence, not nonexistence or nothingness. Absence refers to some subject, some time and some location. All things, all existence. In the event some thing is absent the situation still only concerns things. For example the student is absent from class. The student is still somewhere and the class is still filled completely with things be it air, desks, other students, etcetera. The issue of absence itself is a condition, a concept, a thing.

Nothingness is not and cannot be. To any degree.

Thoughts cannot exist without the physical, they are inseperable thus making them tangible. Even the imagination is an amalgamation of the senses. Someone with brain damage or alteration has a change in thoughts.

If one points to an empty glass and says "nothing is in it" it is a relative absence of a thing, water or what not. If one's mind is empty is a nothingness relatively. Relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing.

Nothingness is a meaningless term that changes all terms around it. It is a contradictory and paradoxical term and contradictions and paradoxes exist.

How can something move if something is already there?

[daniel j lavender]

Thoughts are bound to the physical and as such are tangible.

If thoughts are physical, as you claim, why are they bound to the physical?

It’s another way of saying thoughts connect to the physical. Because thoughts themselves are not actually physical.

Thoughts, ideas, concepts relate to the physical. One may even claim thoughts extend from the physical. However thoughts are thoughts and not themselves physical or tangible.

What is truly intangible would be unknown.

As illustrated thoughts are known, thoughts are acknowledged here in discussion. This illustrates that intangible things can be and are perceived or known and are distinguished from material, tangible objects.

Relative nothingness exists as the absence of a specific thing. Nothingness can be absolute (unchanging for there is no change or nothing to change, ie nothing is absolute) and relative (absence of a specific thing or an unactualized state).

Absence is absence, not nonexistence or nothingness. Absence refers to some subject, some time and some location. All things, all existence. In the event some thing is absent the situation still only concerns things. For example the student is absent from class. The student is still somewhere and the class is still filled completely with things be it air, desks, other students, etcetera. The issue of absence itself is a condition, a concept, a thing.

Nothingness is not and cannot be. To any degree.

Thoughts cannot exist without the physical,

This statement implies distinction. The very next statement negates it:

they are inseperable thus making them tangible.

You are implying distinction while asserting uniformity. A contradiction.

As your argument from that position it is an inconsistency. In context of the philosophy presented here it is congruent.

Thought and physical, tangible and intangible are distinct as your statement incidentally reveals yet both are parts of and the same as existence. Materiality and immateriality. Both are. The presented philosophy allows for such nuance. Your position does not.

You claim thought is merely physical and tangible while hinting otherwise in your own statements.

If one points to an empty glass and says "nothing is in it" it is a relative absence of a thing, water or what not. If one's mind is empty is a nothingness relatively. Relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing.

If one points to an empty glass and says “nothing is in it” they are wrong.

How can something move if something is already there?

Immaterial space has no matter or resistance allowing material bodies motion.

Explained further on the previous two pages and here:

It’s apparent in the density variance of things. Air is less dense than quartz. Different objects, different regions of existence exhibit various densities due to various amounts of immaterial expanse.

It can be observed in the motion, in the interactions of things. Some things glide elegantly, effortlessly through low density air. Others dig violently into unforgiving, dense terrain.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Abstract
Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.


Eternal Life
As existence never began, as existence had no starting point things wouldn't need to advance or develop from a beginning. There wouldn't be a beginning to need to develop from. Things would always be existent and could exist at any level of development at any given time. This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal. This also relates to the premise that life may not have been [deliberately] created. Life, in the sense of being eternal, would not have been created nor would it have originated from a specific starting point.


Conclusions
The philosophy presented herein illustrates the commonality we all share. In fact the commonality all things share. As demonstrated throughout centuries past various religions, ideologies and ideologues have served largely to confound, to divide, to stoke the fires of conflict in the world rather than to unite. Optimistically philosophy, such as the one presented here, can serve to clarify, can serve to reconcile these ideas as well as improve understanding and community throughout the world and beyond.

I had argued your 'existence is infinite' is meaningless to humanity.
viewtopic.php?p=746539#p746539
Existence is merely a copula that connect the subject with a predicate which must be verified and justified as real; what is real is overriding.

In addition, I noted your
"This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal" is an oxymoron and contradictory;

Because 'life' as generally defined cannot be eternal.

Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not. It is defined descriptively by the capacity for homeostasis, organisation, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. All life over time eventually reaches a state of death, and none is immortal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Btw, what is the ultimate aim of your OP?
Is it, existence is infinite, so God exists?

In what way can your 'existence is infinite' contribute humanity's progress in general and progress toward perpetual peace?

[daniel j lavender]

Abstract
Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.


Eternal Life
As existence never began, as existence had no starting point things wouldn't need to advance or develop from a beginning. There wouldn't be a beginning to need to develop from. Things would always be existent and could exist at any level of development at any given time. This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal. This also relates to the premise that life may not have been [deliberately] created. Life, in the sense of being eternal, would not have been created nor would it have originated from a specific starting point.


Conclusions
The philosophy presented herein illustrates the commonality we all share. In fact the commonality all things share. As demonstrated throughout centuries past various religions, ideologies and ideologues have served largely to confound, to divide, to stoke the fires of conflict in the world rather than to unite. Optimistically philosophy, such as the one presented here, can serve to clarify, can serve to reconcile these ideas as well as improve understanding and community throughout the world and beyond.

I had argued your 'existence is infinite' is meaningless to humanity.

Existence, being infinite, encompasses meaninglessness. Existence also encompasses meaningfulness.

In addition, I noted your
"This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal" is an oxymoron and contradictory;

Because 'life' as generally defined cannot be eternal.

“As generally defined”.

You reference a somewhat scientific Wikipedia article for the term life. Existence extends beyond Wikipedia. Existence extends beyond science. That is not a dismissal of science, however.

Certain views involve eternal life. As stated existence extends beyond science.

In what way can your 'existence is infinite' contribute humanity's progress in general and progress toward perpetual peace?

Review this: viewtopic.php?p=747974#p747974

Do you think humanity is capable of perpetual peace? What does one mean by the term?

In a sense peace is simply being content with things as they are. Existence just is.

[Eodnhoj7]

If thoughts are physical, as you claim, why are they bound to the physical?

It’s another way of saying thoughts connect to the physical. Because thoughts themselves are not actually physical.

Thoughts, ideas, concepts relate to the physical. One may even claim thoughts extend from the physical. However thoughts are thoughts and not themselves physical or tangible.




As illustrated thoughts are known, thoughts are acknowledged here in discussion. This illustrates that intangible things can be and are perceived or known and are distinguished from material, tangible objects.




Absence is absence, not nonexistence or nothingness. Absence refers to some subject, some time and some location. All things, all existence. In the event some thing is absent the situation still only concerns things. For example the student is absent from class. The student is still somewhere and the class is still filled completely with things be it air, desks, other students, etcetera. The issue of absence itself is a condition, a concept, a thing.

Nothingness is not and cannot be. To any degree.

Thoughts cannot exist without the physical,

This statement implies distinction. The very next statement negates it:

they are inseperable thus making them tangible.

You are implying distinction while asserting uniformity. A contradiction.

As your argument from that position it is an inconsistency. In context of the philosophy presented here it is congruent.

Thought and physical, tangible and intangible are distinct as your statement incidentally reveals yet both are parts of and the same as existence. Materiality and immateriality. Both are. The presented philosophy allows for such nuance. Your position does not.

You claim thought is merely physical and tangible while hinting otherwise in your own statements.

If one points to an empty glass and says "nothing is in it" it is a relative absence of a thing, water or what not. If one's mind is empty is a nothingness relatively. Relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing.

If one points to an empty glass and says “nothing is in it” they are wrong.

How can something move if something is already there?

Immaterial space has no matter or resistance allowing material bodies motion.

Explained further on the previous two pages and here:

It’s apparent in the density variance of things. Air is less dense than quartz. Different objects, different regions of existence exhibit various densities due to various amounts of immaterial expanse.

It can be observed in the motion, in the interactions of things. Some things glide elegantly, effortlessly through low density air. Others dig violently into unforgiving, dense terrain.

No contradiction as you are taking it out of context. All concepts requires something physical, the distinction is simultaneous as both.

My position? You said mine is indistinct. Contradiction is an occurence. So is paradox. So is non-contradiction. So is non-paradox. I am relatively free, you unity of all things is not for it where you would have to acknowledge falsity as truth.

Empty glass wrong? Again you are taking things out of context as relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing or things.

If space is immaterial is fundamentally empty of substance and substance is what we infer as a thing. Space is relatively nothing.

[daniel j lavender]

Empty glass wrong? Again you are taking things out of context as relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing or things.

Nothingness is not and cannot be.

If space is immaterial is fundamentally empty of substance and substance is what we infer as a thing. Space is relatively nothing.

Thing is defined as 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.

Space is space. Immateriality is immateriality.

Something and nothing cannot coexist. Nothing is not and cannot be.

[Eodnhoj7]

Empty glass wrong? Again you are taking things out of context as relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing or things.

Nothingness is not and cannot be.

If space is immaterial is fundamentally empty of substance and substance is what we infer as a thing. Space is relatively nothing.

Thing is defined as 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.

Space is space. Immateriality is immateriality.

Something and nothing cannot coexist. Nothing is not and cannot be.

Relative nothingness is an absence, absence exists.

Something and relative nothingness can coexist as relative nothingness is the potentiality of movement induced distinction.

If all shares the quality of existence than there is a context that allows contextual equivocation of all things.

Space is not material, hence immaterial.

[daniel j lavender]

…you are taking it out of context.

You are taking things out of context:

Empty glass wrong? Again you are taking things out of context as relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing or things.

Nothingness is not and cannot be.

If space is immaterial is fundamentally empty of substance and substance is what we infer as a thing. Space is relatively nothing.

Thing is defined as 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.

Space is space. Immateriality is immateriality.

Something and nothing cannot coexist. Nothing is not and cannot be.

Relative nothingness is an absence, absence exists.

Something and relative nothingness can coexist as relative nothingness is the potentiality of movement induced distinction.

If all shares the quality of existence than there is a context that allows contextual equivocation of all things.

Space is not material, hence immaterial.

The terms are clearly defined and articulated in the original text.

Absence is not nothingness or nonexistence. Review the Nonexistence Cannot Be section of the essay.

Space could be considered material or immaterial. A solid object or material body such as a stone, its spatial extent, could be considered some volume of physical or material space. A volume with no apparent matter or material composition, such as the vacuum of outer space, could be considered immaterial space.

[Eodnhoj7]

…you are taking it out of context.

You are taking things out of context:

Nothingness is not and cannot be.




Thing is defined as 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.

Space is space. Immateriality is immateriality.

Something and nothing cannot coexist. Nothing is not and cannot be.

Relative nothingness is an absence, absence exists.

Something and relative nothingness can coexist as relative nothingness is the potentiality of movement induced distinction.

If all shares the quality of existence than there is a context that allows contextual equivocation of all things.

Space is not material, hence immaterial.

The terms are clearly defined and articulated in the original text.

Absence is not nothingness or nonexistence. Review the Nonexistence Cannot Be section of the essay.

Space could be considered material or immaterial. A solid object or material body such as a stone, its spatial extent, could be considered some volume of physical or material space. A volume with no apparent matter or material composition, such as the vacuum of outer space, could be considered immaterial space.

They are not clear at all, as your definition is subjective.

Relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing or things, as an absence relative nothingness exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Abstract
Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.


Eternal Life
As existence never began, as existence had no starting point things wouldn't need to advance or develop from a beginning. There wouldn't be a beginning to need to develop from. Things would always be existent and could exist at any level of development at any given time. This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal. This also relates to the premise that life may not have been [deliberately] created. Life, in the sense of being eternal, would not have been created nor would it have originated from a specific starting point.


Conclusions
The philosophy presented herein illustrates the commonality we all share. In fact the commonality all things share. As demonstrated throughout centuries past various religions, ideologies and ideologues have served largely to confound, to divide, to stoke the fires of conflict in the world rather than to unite. Optimistically philosophy, such as the one presented here, can serve to clarify, can serve to reconcile these ideas as well as improve understanding and community throughout the world and beyond.

I had argued your 'existence is infinite' is meaningless to humanity.

Existence, being infinite, encompasses meaninglessness. Existence also encompasses meaningfulness.

It is still meaningless, i.e.

"Existence, being infinite," which is meaningless encompasses meaninglessness??

Your "Existence, being infinite," is merely a linguistic statement, there is nothing substantive to it. It cannot be verified and justified as substantive.

In addition, I noted your
"This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal" is an oxymoron and contradictory;
Because 'life' as generally defined cannot be eternal.

“As generally defined”.
You reference a somewhat scientific Wikipedia article for the term life. Existence extends beyond Wikipedia. Existence extends beyond science. That is not a dismissal of science, however.
Certain views involve eternal life. As stated existence extends beyond science.

It is theistic and certain religious views that claim life is eternal, i.e. via a soul that can survive eternally after physical death.
In this case, you need to verify and justified your claim is real.
There is no convincing proofs [philosophical] that eternal life is real.

In what way can your 'existence is infinite' contribute humanity's progress in general and progress toward perpetual peace?

Review this: viewtopic.php?p=747974#p747974

Do you think humanity is capable of perpetual peace? What does one mean by the term?

In a sense peace is simply being content with things as they are. Existence just is.

I implied perpetual peace is an ideal which humanity must strive towards, i.e. there should be trend of continual improvements of good over evil.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

How can your 'existence is infinite' contribute to a trend of improvements towards the ideal of perpetual peace?

[Eodnhoj7]

I had argued your 'existence is infinite' is meaningless to humanity.

Existence, being infinite, encompasses meaninglessness. Existence also encompasses meaningfulness.

It is still meaningless, i.e.

"Existence, being infinite," which is meaningless encompasses meaninglessness??

Your "Existence, being infinite," is merely a linguistic statement, there is nothing substantive to it. It cannot be verified and justified as substantive.

In addition, I noted your
"This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal" is an oxymoron and contradictory;
Because 'life' as generally defined cannot be eternal.

“As generally defined”.
You reference a somewhat scientific Wikipedia article for the term life. Existence extends beyond Wikipedia. Existence extends beyond science. That is not a dismissal of science, however.
Certain views involve eternal life. As stated existence extends beyond science.

It is theistic and certain religious views that claim life is eternal, i.e. via a soul that can survive eternally after physical death.
In this case, you need to verify and justified your claim is real.
There is no convincing proofs [philosophical] that eternal life is real.

In what way can your 'existence is infinite' contribute humanity's progress in general and progress toward perpetual peace?

Review this: viewtopic.php?p=747974#p747974

Do you think humanity is capable of perpetual peace? What does one mean by the term?

In a sense peace is simply being content with things as they are. Existence just is.

I implied perpetual peace is an ideal which humanity must strive towards, i.e. there should be trend of continual improvements of good over evil.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

How can your 'existence is infinite' contribute to a trend of improvements towards the ideal of perpetual peace?

Very true, infinite existence is quite meaningless in many respects and the concept of infinity is neither truly axiomatic nor meaningful in its own terms.

[daniel j lavender]

I had argued your 'existence is infinite' is meaningless to humanity.

Existence, being infinite, encompasses meaninglessness. Existence also encompasses meaningfulness.

It is still meaningless, i.e.

"Existence, being infinite," which is meaningless encompasses meaninglessness??

That is your opinion. That is your statement. It is confined to your mind, perhaps some minds, the statement confined to the screen, to the forum which is merely part of existence, existence being infinite.

Even if one printed your comment and distributed it to Mars it would still be confined to the solar system, to merely part of existence.

How can your 'existence is infinite' contribute to a trend of improvements towards the ideal of perpetual peace?

Review: viewtopic.php?p=747974#p747974

The essay, as expressed, concerns the parameters of existence.

Additional topics are addressed here:

viewtopic.php?t=34999

viewtopic.php?t=39651

https://linktr.ee/daniellavender