Philosophy Now Forum

We are literally made out of the space we're sitting in.

Matter is space. Space is matter.

We are not in space, we are space.

We cannot get outside of space. There is only space.

There is no inside of you.

There is no outside of you.

There is only you.

Inside of you is you. Outside of you is you.

You can't find you anywhere. You are everywhere.

You are what you are looking for.

What's looked for is what's looking.

Everywhere you go there you are.

There is nowhere to go.

Nowhere is always here. There is nowhere else.

Where does space begin, where does space end.

Is space in matter or is matter in space. Neither, they are ONE and the same.

Space doesn't change. Matter changes.

Space has no shape. Matter is shape.

Space has no colour. Matter is colour.

Space has no taste. Matter is taste.

Space has no feeling. Matter is feeling.

Space as no odour. Matter is odour.

Space doesn't age. Matter ages.

Space is infinite. Matter is finite.

Matter appears in space(is born) and disappears in space(die) The space in which birth and death happen doesn't age,move, change, it's unborn and cannot die.

Matter is an illusion. Space is real.

Real could never be known, without knowing illusion.

Reality is both real and illusory, it's a real illusion.


We are emptiness and fullness at the same time.

We are nothing and everything.

Space can't be seen without seeing matter.

Matter can't be seen without seeing space.


No space - no matter.

No matter - no space.

Every thing is ONE

One = Zero

Zero = One

Life is binary.

Life is a simulation.


Everything is the same as Nothing. The only difference is in how they appear.

Appearances define space.

Space defines appearances.

Space the never ending place where endless dreams appear and disappear.

To be continued ....

-Imp

I think you wrote it wrong, it's onanism,no "oneness", and you should say "including my proof".

Dontaskme wrote:We are literally made out of the space we're sitting in.

Space is a relation--it's the extension of matter, and the extensional relations between occurences of matter.

Matter is space. Space is matter.

Matter necessarily has extension, but matter and extension are not identical.

We are not in space, we are space.

That's the closest statement to being right to this point. Space isn't some sort of "container" that things are in.

We cannot get outside of space.

That's the only thing that's spot on so far.

There is only space.

And then oops again.

There is no inside of you. There is no outside of you.

A big oops again. You start going way off the rails at this point.

There is a paradox. Everything is one, yet separate. Those who cannot accept paradoxes will tie themselves in metaphysical knots trying to argue for one aspect or the other.

Pragmatists claim that oneness is illusory because most parts of the universe don't communicate with each other. Romantics claim that separation is an illusion because all parts of the universe are connected, even if only with "neighbours". Each side makes correct observations but incorrect resultant assertions.

The human example suggests that, over time, reality is becoming more interconnected (at least within galaxies) as it cools.

Quarks bond to form protons and neutrons, which bond to form atomic nuclei, which bond with electrons to form atoms, which bond with each other to form molecules. Atoms, ions and molecules in larger numbers bond into a considerable variety of organised matter forms - clouds of gas, liquids and solids of various sizes, from dist to planetary subsystems, to planets, stars and galaxies.

The living cell is an aggregate of atoms and molecules in a bonded structure of liquid-solid form. Cells bond to form colonies, organelles, organs and organisms. Organisms of a given species bond to form breeding groups and societies. Human organisms bond to form polities and civilisations.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ii ... &q&f=false

I would also add that civilisations are bonding via telecommunications and the internet into something that I don't think we have a name for yet, other than "humanity" (or some epithet). Barring accident, it would seem that galaxies left alone for a long time will tend to become ever more integrated, more "one". "Oneness" in a meaningful / practical sense seems more an ideal or future possibility than a current reality.

Greta wrote:There is a paradox. Everything is one, yet separate. Those who cannot accept paradoxes will tie themselves in metaphysical knots trying to argue for one aspect or the other.

Or they can solve what you call a paradox, a contradition in your thought. There is only one thing, the Universe. We, as humans, as a part of the Universe, separate to think. For example, we have the hand, and then we separate in fingers, because we think better that way. And not, there isn't a "paradox" when you say that there is "I" and there is "the rest of the Universe". I is a concept too.

Greta wrote:Pragmatists claim that oneness is illusory because most parts of the universe don't communicate with each other. Romantics claim that separation is an illusion because all parts of the universe are connected, even if only with "neighbours". Each side makes correct observations but incorrect resultant assertions.

I'm a pragmatic. Every "part of the Universe" (Part of your knowledge about the Universe) comunicate with each other. It's not tomantic at all, it's how we work, with conclusions based in what we already know, every concept is made of concepts.

Greta wrote:There is a paradox. Everything is one, yet separate. Those who cannot accept paradoxes will tie themselves in metaphysical knots trying to argue for one aspect or the other.

Pragmatists claim that oneness is illusory because most parts of the universe don't communicate with each other. Romantics claim that separation is an illusion because all parts of the universe are connected, even if only with "neighbours". Each side makes correct observations but incorrect resultant assertions.

Oneness IS Life...that is known, Life has no opposite, because death is unknown, death known is just a concept/idea ...Concepts create the illusion of opposites. The Self or Oneness is definitely ON-E....ON Energy. Concepts are an energetical phenomena too.
There can only be ONE energy.
Life doesn't belong to any conceptually created illusory entity, Life belongs to death. Life and Death are the same One alternating as two polarities, on or off....within the big infinite ocean of energy. There is no life or death, and yet here they are conceptually known.

The only paradox in reality is the word ''separation'' . . Words are an auditory illusion of sound. A foreign language is sound to the mind. Therefore, we speak sounds and not words, but hear words and not sounds.

What does the word ''separation'' mean in Swahili?

Totally meaningless! ...but since there's nought else a happening, might as well make up some fictional story out of illusory sourceless sound.

TSBU wrote:

Greta wrote:There is a paradox. Everything is one, yet separate. Those who cannot accept paradoxes will tie themselves in metaphysical knots trying to argue for one aspect or the other.

Or they can solve what you call a paradox, a contradition in your thought. There is only one thing, the Universe. We, as humans, as a part of the Universe, separate to think. For example, we have the hand, and then we separate in fingers, because we think better that way. And not, there isn't a "paradox" when you say that there is "I" and there is "the rest of the Universe". I is a concept too.

I can't speak for my hand and fingers but I can sense my separateness from the environment, even though I intellectually know that I am part of it. Nonetheless, the separation is made clear by our senses. If I hurt, other people don't and vice versa. We don't see, hear or feel the same things - our senses are separate.

TSBU wrote:

Greta wrote:Pragmatists claim that oneness is illusory because most parts of the universe don't communicate with each other. Romantics claim that separation is an illusion because all parts of the universe are connected, even if only with "neighbours". Each side makes correct observations but incorrect resultant assertions.

I'm a pragmatic. Every "part of the Universe" (Part of your knowledge about the Universe) comunicate with each other. It's not tomantic at all, it's how we work, with conclusions based in what we already know, every concept is made of concepts.

We each only communicate with a small part of the universe. Most of it is so remote from us that it in effect only exists for us in abstract terms.

Dontaskme wrote:Oneness IS Life...that is known, Life has no opposite, because death is unknown, death known is just a concept/idea ...Concepts create the illusion of opposites. The Self or Oneness is definitely ON-E....ON Energy. Concepts are an energetical phenomena too.
There can only be ONE energy.

I'm pragmatic. If your arm was chopped off it would be catastrophic to you. However, I wouldn't even know it happened unless you told me, and I would feel nothing of the the problems you experienced.

That's separation. If we were truly "one" then any pain that you felt I'd also feel, as per my above reply to TSBU.

Greta wrote:There is a paradox. Everything is one, yet separate. Those who cannot accept paradoxes will tie themselves in metaphysical knots trying to argue for one aspect or the other.

Pragmatists claim that oneness is illusory . . .

I don't say that it's illusory. I just can never quite figure out what "everything is one" is even supposed to be claiming, really. It's difficult to say that something is illusory when I don't even know just what's being said, exactly, in the first place. "Everything is one," for me, might as well be "Everything is shmegle" or "Everything is booparfee." Who knows what we might be saying?

TSBU wrote:...And not, there isn't a "paradox" when you say that there is "I" and there is "the rest of the Universe". I is a concept too.

Greta wrote:I can't speak for my hand and fingers but I can sense my separateness from the environment, even though I intellectually know that I am part of it. Nonetheless, the separation is made clear by our senses. If I hurt, other people don't and vice versa. We don't see, hear or feel the same things - our senses are separate.

You can sense your separation of enviroment, and you can sense the separation between two dogs. But that's all part of the mental process, "you" is that process. Thinking is the process that happens between the time you get the input and the time you make an output. But, now that you go to subjetivism, I can say this: There are not just two options in what you call a paradox, I can solve what you see as a contradiction, maybe because "we don't see, hear or feel the same things" (and we don't have the same logic), there are cats, there are dogs, there is me, and there is a tree... and they are all part of the same, like hands and fingers. We make a separation (but that "we", the individual, is a separation itself) I can't explain better. So,now that it's said that I see it different, it's enough.

Greta wrote:

TSBU wrote:

Greta wrote:Pragmatists claim that oneness is illusory because most parts of the universe don't communicate with each other. Romantics claim that separation is an illusion because all parts of the universe are connected, even if only with "neighbours". Each side makes correct observations but incorrect resultant assertions.

I'm a pragmatic. Every "part of the Universe" (Part of your knowledge about the Universe) comunicate with each other. It's not tomantic at all, it's how we work, with conclusions based in what we already know, every concept is made of concepts.

We each only communicate with a small part of the universe. Most of it is so remote from us that it in effect only exists for us in abstract terms.

We can't "communicate" with Universe. And the part of the Universe wich is not "remote" exists for us in the same terms, that is, the only kind of terms, abstract terms.

Last post in this thread.

Greta wrote: I'm pragmatic. If your arm was chopped off it would be catastrophic to you. However, I wouldn't even know it happened unless you told me, and I would feel nothing of the the problems you experienced.

That's separation. If we were truly "one" then any pain that you felt I'd also feel, as per my above reply to TSBU.

Any separation is illusory, how many times do you want me to tell you?

Lets break it down a level.

Your body parts are inseparable from your whole being. They're all interconnected. Now imagine your 'whole being' is also a body part inseparable from the whole known universal body. Parts will always be illusory. A perfect analogy would be a Russian Doll with lots of other Russian dolls stacked inside within each other.

So back to the whole human body... the body can represent the Oneness I am talking about. So in your logic,separation means not feeling another bodies pain. And you're asking.. why can't we feel another bodies pain if we're all One.... Well the short answer is there is no other body separate from your body, because what's seeing the other body is inseparable from the body seen. You wouldn't even know there is another body if you couldn't see it or feel it, even the feeler would be inseparable from what's being felt.
Pain is like the seer, it cannot be located except in the assumed focal point of an experience, but the idea that there is a you having the experience is an illusion, there is just the experience. Can that focal point of you be located exactly? ...no it can't, the you is just an idea arising nowhere.

Any body can experience pain because that's what the body does, it's the instrument of sensation to be experienced, sensations arise and fall away, pain is transient and free, it's an energy that's not confined to any separate body. Anywhere there is a nervous system there is pain, if anything it should be the nervous system that's experiencing the pain not the person... the person doesn't experience the pain, in the same context the heart doesn't experience a heart attack.

Asking why we don't feel another's pain is like saying ... why isn't my big toe feeling my toothache. After all, my body is one living organism, so how come when I get a pain in my head, my fingers don't feel it...

Pain is, pain happens, but it doesn't happen to a concept/person, no person experiences pain, the person is the pain. There is the experiencing of pain, known by the awareness of the pain, ''experiencing'' is one with the awareness, but there's no person in awareness, awareness is a verb. Unless you've personally seen this awareness yourself, which I doubt very much since you are IT and every other apparent body is it too.

So in a nutshell. There is awareness of pain as and when it strikes - And that awareness is everywhere and nowhere. We've all got the same awareness because it's inseparable from what it's aware of.

TSBU wrote:
Last post in this thread.

Take it easy, you can't know what's going to happen next, tomorrow you may feel like posting here again.

I've loved reading your posts, they're on topic and very lucid, so thanks for your contributions.

Terrapin Station wrote:I don't say that it's illusory. I just can never quite figure out what "everything is one" is even supposed to be claiming, really. It's difficult to say that something is illusory when I don't even know just what's being said, exactly, in the first place. "Everything is one," for me, might as well be "Everything is shmegle" or "Everything is booparfee." Who knows what we might be saying?

Then perhaps you should jog on and find a topic you can figure out. There's plenty of other thread topics here, I'm sure you'll find something else to wrap your mind around and sink your teeth into.

Dontaskme wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:I don't say that it's illusory. I just can never quite figure out what "everything is one" is even supposed to be claiming, really. It's difficult to say that something is illusory when I don't even know just what's being said, exactly, in the first place. "Everything is one," for me, might as well be "Everything is shmegle" or "Everything is booparfee." Who knows what we might be saying?

Then perhaps you should jog on and find a topic you can figure out. There's plenty of other thread topics here, I'm sure you'll find something else to wrap your mind around and sink your teeth into.

At least you're admitting that you're incapable of explaining it in a coherent manner.