Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:59 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:57 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:28 pm
Beats anything you've said so far.

Congrats on beating me. You're the winner, whoopie doo!

Except I am only your projection. Have you ever experienced another mind, and if so where is that mind located. Or is this salady stuff all inside your own head?

Believe me, I couldn't come up with a projection like you even if I tried.

You have no idea how relieved I am to hear that. There's only room for one in here.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:59 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:57 pm
I see you still somehow managed to assume the opposite of what I meant.

All I know it that concepts known know nothing.

Well aren't you fucking smart. Everyone knows that.

Why ty, yes, everyone knows they know nothing.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 4:00 pm Why did Harbal go for a solipsist anyway?

Ask him yourself. If you are really that nosy, or even care.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:36 pm

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:33 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 2:41 pm Nothing cannot be located because then nothing would have to be seen.

Have you ever seen 'nothing'.

Or maybe you just know 'nothing'. Do you know 'nothing'?

Nothing cannot be located because nothing is not and cannot be.

Nothing is an abstraction conceived in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

Only existence, only things are seen or unseen.

To see or know, to not see or not know all concerns things, existence.

Location of nothing has not been provided nor even really attempted. Your statement serves as a subtle concession that it cannot be done.

Nonexistence, nothing is such an absurd concept it contradicts itself in plain sight:

Nothing? No thing? Not quite.

Someone show me nothing. Someone show me nonexisting. Someone show me nonexistence. Simply show me evidence of nothing, of nonexisting, of nonexistence. Not words. Not terms. Not concepts. It can’t be done. Nothing is not and cannot be.

Sounds very much like you know what nothing is though. So nothing can be. Even though nothing cannot be.

And by that metric the concept is understood to be a thing.

It isn’t no thing.

Nothing is a concept. Nothing, nothingness and nonexistence are conceptual mechanisms. Conceptual mechanisms employed by conscious beings, specifically advanced organisms like human beings, to help process information.

To review nothing, no thing, has not been located.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 4:23 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:36 pm

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 3:33 pm

Nothing cannot be located because nothing is not and cannot be.

Nothing is an abstraction conceived in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

Only existence, only things are seen or unseen.

To see or know, to not see or not know all concerns things, existence.

Location of nothing has not been provided nor even really attempted. Your statement serves as a subtle concession that it cannot be done.

Nonexistence, nothing is such an absurd concept it contradicts itself in plain sight:

Nothing? No thing? Not quite.

Someone show me nothing. Someone show me nonexisting. Someone show me nonexistence. Simply show me evidence of nothing, of nonexisting, of nonexistence. Not words. Not terms. Not concepts. It can’t be done. Nothing is not and cannot be.

Sounds very much like you know what nothing is though. So nothing can be. Even though nothing cannot be.

And by that metric the concept is understood to be a thing.

It isn’t no thing.

Nothing is a concept. Nothing, nothingness and nonexistence are conceptual mechanisms. Conceptual mechanisms employed by conscious beings, specifically advanced organisms like human beings, to help process information.

To review nothing, no thing, has not been located.

“Infinity” still belongs to the language of time, of continuation, stretching endlessly forward and backward. But the Absolute is not a line that stretches; it is beyond duration.

Therefore, Infinity still belongs to the realm of thought, because infinity implies a contrast with “finite.” The Absolute has no opposite.

Therefore, the Absolute does not need infinity. Infinity is only a shadow of the mind trying to imagine the limitless.

The Absolute is that which includes all infinites, all experiences, all rises and falls, all beginnings and endings. It is the ground in which both “finite” and “infinite” appear and disappear.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 4:30 pm“Infinity” still belongs to the language of time, of continuation, stretching endlessly forward and backward. But the Absolute is not a line that stretches; it is beyond duration.

Eternity is more closely related with time:

Eternity (noun)
1. Time without beginning or end
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/eternity)


However in a sense yes, you are correct. This is why in June of 2023 I expressed the following:

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:16 amPerhaps 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. Existence just is. All that is, is. Time is a construct. A quality associated with particulars or particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

I’ve created a Topic Index listing relevant discussion topics for efficient navigation. Many of the arguments have already been addressed and can be found there. Searching the index first is suggested, or even selecting a topic from the index to contend: viewtopic.php?p=753415#p753415

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 4:30 pmTherefore, Infinity still belongs to the realm of thought, because infinity implies a contrast with “finite.” The Absolute has no opposite.

Sand could be considered the contrast of water, are sand and water likewise confined to the realm of thought?

Concerning opposites, the very same could be presented for the Absolute, in the form of the Non-Absolute.

Again, existence is the focus here. Existence is infinite. Existence is finite, in part. This was discussed a few months prior:

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 1:18 amExistence is the subject matter, the focus. The term infinite is simply a descriptor.

Infinity is a noun, infinite an adjective. The term infinity often involves flimsy notions and other baggage thus infinite is the preferred term.

Existence has no opposite as any opposite would be, affirming itself as part of existence.

Infinity, or being infinite, or being unlimited, or unlimited existence is not some mystical idea. It simply means existence is not limited to any particular, which is observable.

Existence is not limited to only the color orange. Existence is also red. Existence is not limited to only orange or red, existence is also blue. Existence is not limited to colors, existence is also wildlife. Existence is trees and shrubs and flowers and thickets. Existence is not limited to any particular. This is readily observable.

To the contrary, I could argue your concept, the Absolute, is more abstract. Where is the Absolute? What is it, exactly?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 4:30 pmTherefore, the Absolute does not need infinity. Infinity is only a shadow of the mind trying to imagine the limitless.

The Absolute is that which includes all infinites, all experiences, all rises and falls, all beginnings and endings. It is the ground in which both “finite” and “infinite” appear and disappear.

I could easily proclaim your idea to be a concept, a mere facet of existence. Despite such claims the ontology presented easily assimilates your idea because it is not well-defined nor does it possess any solid structure. It’s two sentences, not even a concept, really.

Again, where is the Absolute? By what means is it identified or located?

The ontology presented here not only provides practical means of substantiation but also clearly and concisely presents a truly functional and foundational framework from which systems can emerge.

“Again, where is the Absolute? By what means is it identified or located?“

Same place consciousness is identified or located as Omnipresent.

In other words..Nothing is happening.

On the definitions

"Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. In context of this essay existence in the general sense."

Surely we would agree that not everything that exists is perceived or can be perceived. Not everything that exists is interacted with — that is especially true if we admit of abstract objects. I usually take existence as being a primitive, existence is existence, and that is all. Your "In context of this essay existence in the general sense" may hint that you are going with that, but I am not sure.

Infinite (adj.): Immeasurable; vast; unlimited or unrestricted.

Well, not everything that is unmeasurable is infinite. Infinite is simply that which has no end (in some particular direction), which I guess is what you are getting at. So no issues there presumably.

On nonexistence, what I said about 'existence' applies. I wouldn't say the term is contradictory, the concept perhaps.

Consciousness (n.): Awareness; process allowing feedback of existence.

Consciousness is hard to define, notoriously, but it is rather synonymous with awareness, yes. The process bit however is ambiguous. If any process allowing feedback of existence is consciousness, things such as tides and light are consciousness, unless you want to further specify what you mean by 'feedback'.

Intelligence (n.): Recognition of patterns in existence and their application for some benefit.

We can go with that.

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.

What I said about 'existence' applies here.

Eternity (n.): Synonymous with existence; that which is not limited by duration.

Well, it seems then that with this definition your thread guarantees its own success from the get-go without any need for elaboration. Since your definition of infinite is unlimited, and your definition of eternity is 'not limited', and eternity is given as synonymous of existence (I could argue against that setup but I will spare it), this means that "Existence is infinite" is something that follows by definition and not by reasoning.

Also, duration is in reference only to time. Is existence also limited by space or not limited?

Ultimately, I think simply borrowing the definitions from a dictionary would have been better.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:20 am “Again, where is the Absolute? By what means is it identified or located?“

Same place consciousness is identified or located as Omnipresent.

Unfortunately that doesn’t explain much.

Place doesn’t indicate how.

No terms have been defined. What is consciousness?

Does your idea or system produce any logical links?

One crucial aspect of philosophical systems is logical integrity. The ability of such systems to produce logical conclusions.

For example, existence is infinite, existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular, existence is all. There is no cause or reason beyond existence as any cause or reason would be existence. Thus, existence just is.

Two core principles of the ontology logically linked. This illustrates the integrity of the ontology. Does your system or idea produce any similar logical links among its core concepts or principles?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 6:20 amIn other words..Nothing is happening.

Nothing, as a concept, is perceived, indicating it as a thing.

Further “happening” indicates action which itself applies to some thing.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 2:07 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 10:15 amIf existence does not need distinction then your premise is an indistinct one by which anything can be derived.

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.

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

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 2:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 10:21 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 10:17 am

“Infinity” means the state of being infinite. “Infinite” means unlimited.

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. That simply means existence is not limited to any particular.

This is readily observable and easily confirmed. Existence is not limited to a tree. Existence is not limited to a single house. Existence is not limited to planet Earth. Things other than these are perceived. Existence is not limited to any particular. It isn’t a farfetched claim.




To further illustrate the previous point and in turn respond to the statement at hand I offer you the following challenge:

Simply locate nothing or nonexistence.

If you cannot, which I contend you can’t, what results is further evidence of the infinitude of existence. Not only is existence not limited to any particular, existence is not limited by nonexistence as nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Simple, observe a thought and then observe what it observing it....you will see nothing and yet observation of thought occurs nonetheless.

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.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:24 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 2:07 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 10:15 amIf existence does not need distinction then your premise is an indistinct one by which anything can be derived.

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:

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 10:08 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 3:15 amExistence 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.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:24 amIf 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.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:29 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 2:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 10:21 am Simple, observe a thought and then observe what it observing it....you will see nothing and yet observation of thought occurs nonetheless.

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.

So existence isn't distinct from non-existence?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 8:35 am 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:

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 6:38 pmA 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.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 12:25 amYes, 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.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 5:51 pmThe 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.