Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:08 pm If God could not be a "man" then God could not be God because he would be limited by the smallness of his creation, hence not God.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:41 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:08 pm If God could not be a "man" then God could not be God because he would be limited by the smallness of his creation, hence not God.

God is not a created thing, neither has God created anything, creation is just an idea within the ocean of infinite formless energy that is constantly shape-shifting from one form to another without limit.

Shape shifting, is a form of creation, in the respect that it allow being to manifests itself through infinite movement with this infinte movement in itself appearing as no movement as what is infinite does not change. Infinite change is paradoxically no-change considering infinity acts as a binding median conducive to unity in the respect it expressed an inherent totality. In infinite limits manifests itself under a percieved no-limit, if viewed approximately, yet is a limit.

Shapeshifting, in itself, still requires a constant form of measurement as the shapes, or forms, which "shift" require boundaries that in themselves are based inevitably as lines (straight or curved). This in itself is unchanging and any approximation from this base universal form in itself is conducive to a form of "creation" as approximation where the forms or ideas, however complex they may be, are simple extensions of this fundamental geometric principle that in itself is active.

Creation is perpetually evident from a 1 dimensional perspective of "everything", while relativistically speaking it is still valid in its own right but as an approximation of greater scheme.



Concepts have no existence separate from Awareness in which they arise and are known.
Concepts exist through a limited awareness in the respect that all awareness that manifests a deficiciency inevitably create concepts or categories as forms of measurement. A universal awareness is evident to a universal awarness, but awareness (in the general human sense) while an "extension" under its own terms view things through approximation.


This I AM Presence Awareness is known to itself by Being itself - The Awareness that Knows is the Awareness that is Known.

It's SELF creating in the sense that 'No Thing' creates itself as a conceptual idea only.



Awareness is Everything which is metaphor for Infinity aka Nothing..so it's unlimited, boundless, unborn, undying, empty and free...the opposite is also true as appearances within boundlessness.

There is no ''man'' or ''god'' per-se, separate from the mental construction via the concept known, but while there appears to be the belief that I AM ''a man'', obviously that is a limiting belief...which is just an idea anyway within the all encompassing infinite awareness that is everything.

The problem occurs in the respect that these dialogues exist through men, as ideas which extend through men.

In truth there is no limit to Awareness and it's contents as they are inseparably one and the same no thing...the contents being known images of itself. There is no image of SELF except what is made up via concept.

Awareness is its own limit.

The SELF cannot approach nor step out of itself. IT'S 'ONE BEING'

The self steps out of itself when it says to itself "you exist" and in these respects seperates itself. While these "selfs" may be extensions of the "self", they are nevertheless seperate as "you's" in the respect they mirror a subjective nature that is not universal in the respect it is not objective.

Basically, I'm using concepts to point to ONENESS..all concepts are of this ONE PRESENCE, including the word God. In other words there is no GOD EXCEPT AS CONCEIVED in this inconceivable conception.

I am arguing, or have argued, that reality exists as 1 through 3 and 3 in 1...it is fundamentally trinitarian in nature. We see this mirrored within the basic common dimensions of man as mind, body, spirit and his universal nature to break reality into duals which synthesize a third reality.

A God, who cannot be limited or define, can express himself through the form and function of man considering man is neither limited or defined due to his continual creations through himself, from nothing, under the realm of idea. Idea is perpetually evident and created and in this manner, man is a an approximation or image of God, through which the limits of beginning and end manifests in such a manner where man is a mortal God and God an immortal man.

.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pm
The problem occurs in the respect that these dialogues exist through men, as ideas which extend through men.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pmAwareness is its own limit.

DAM:The SELF cannot approach nor step out of itself. IT'S 'ONE BEING'

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pmThe self steps out of itself when it says to itself "you exist" and in these respects seperates itself. While these "selfs" may be extensions of the "self", they are nevertheless seperate as "you's" in the respect they mirror a subjective nature that is not universal in the respect it is not objective.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pmI am arguing, or have argued, that reality exists as 1 through 3 and 3 in 1...it is fundamentally trinitarian in nature. We see this mirrored within the basic common dimensions of man as mind, body, spirit and his universal nature to break reality into duals which synthesize a third reality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pmA God, who cannot be limited or define, can express himself through the form and function of man considering man is neither limited or defined due to his continual creations through himself, from nothing, under the realm of idea. Idea is perpetually evident and created and in this manner, man is a an approximation or image of God, through which the limits of beginning and end manifests in such a manner where man is a mortal God and God an immortal man.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:07 pm We need to first establish what the properties of a god is.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:00 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pm
The problem occurs in the respect that these dialogues exist through men, as ideas which extend through men.

There is no problem with that when it is seen through that the ''man'' is an illusory characteristic idea known within awareness which is not any thing at all.
Then truth exists through "illusion" (man in this respect) which justifies the illusion as being a gradient truth in itself.


''Man'' being the character within the dream that no thing is dreaming.

"No-thing is" dreaming cancels out "No-thing" and "is" and leads us with "dreaming" as the active state of being. Considering a Negative cannot exist without a positive it would equate the "dream" to being the sole reality as "no-thing" is strict negation.

One can only know it has been dreaming by waking up from the dream and seeing that one is not the character in the dream, but the awareness in which the dream character is arising...and to see that the characters have no existence apart from the one dreaming the character which itself is not the character but the projector of the character on it's blank aware screen.
The individual becomes a means through which awareness arises and in these respects becomes a unique extension of the one.

It's easy to notice we are the immortal awareness and not the objective characters we are projecting ....for example,during night-time dreaming when the one seeing the dream characters in that night-time dream.. is seen to be the same one that is seeing the images, dream characters that appear in our awareness having awoken from the night-time dream into the the realm of the awake world. It's the same one seer in both waking and dreaming state.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pmAwareness is its own limit.

Awareness only becomes limited in the sense of the sensing of it's own presence as being an object perceived ..and in that sense moment there appears to be a damming up, a freeze framing of what is actually this constant flux, limitless in it's flow. If the source is coming from a limited view point only as it identifies itself with the object of perception then this object acts as a blocker veiling it's own inner light, it then becoming only a limited shadow of itself.

DAM:The SELF cannot approach nor step out of itself. IT'S 'ONE BEING'

A "flow" is a boundary of movement, hence what is infinite manifests itself through continual order as structural boundaries (in this case "flow"). A limit can exist through infinity, yet maintain its structure. A line extending ad-infinitum is an example of this.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pmThe self steps out of itself when it says to itself "you exist" and in these respects seperates itself. While these "selfs" may be extensions of the "self", they are nevertheless seperate as "you's" in the respect they mirror a subjective nature that is not universal in the respect it is not objective.

A mirror that reflects itself everywhere does not itself reflect anything but it's own self. Self cannot see itself until it looks into it's own self and sees it's own reflection looking back, it does this on multiple levels simultaneously appearing as a multi faceted being. Not knowing becomes Knowing on contact with a surface aka the mind's ..knowing is on reflection..when subject objectifies itself, becomes a mirror image of itself. An image of the opaque transparent imageless mirror...aka the colours of invisible light.

Reflection, or mirroring through repetition of symmetry as movement hence being, provides the dimensions of the "self" and "other" as a form of awareness in which the "one" maintains itself through extensions of the "one" (we can see this through the lenses of "self" and "other") with these extensions mirroring the same nature of the one in the respect they act as sole units in themselves. In these respects "multiplicity" is a result of "unity" mirroring itself through itself as an extension of itself. This multiplicity, with we observes at the "other" in respect to the "self", maintains the "self" as an extension of the "self" while simultaneously maintain a dual individual nature as its own self because of this very same extension through a mirror effect. In simpler terms other's are extensions of the self but maintain their own self-hood and individuality because of it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pmI am arguing, or have argued, that reality exists as 1 through 3 and 3 in 1...it is fundamentally trinitarian in nature. We see this mirrored within the basic common dimensions of man as mind, body, spirit and his universal nature to break reality into duals which synthesize a third reality.

No need to argue this ..it becomes self evident during conscious connection to ourselves through the recognition that reality is not "out there" - it's "in here" ..the central zero point of reference is everywhere within every thing, while the circumference is nowhere...any divide is illusory.

I am going to put this portion of the argument as a seperate post elsewhere considering it can be viewed as a subject in itself:

A "divide", which acts as a boundary of separation simultaneously maintains a dual role of connection in a separate respect. Take for instance a "point" in space. If it is divided into two points, it still maintains its nature as a point is still fundamentally the same. However this division observes a linear boundary between them which fundamentally connects them. So while the point may be divided into two points, because of a line, it is still connected because of this same line.

The problem occurs in the respect to how can "nothingness" as a zero dimensional point be divided unless division is its own form of movement, through relation, as "being". In simpler terms, division is an act of being when applied to nothingness. Metaphorically looking at the fraction 0/0, as an example, we can observe that the answer can very from "undefined", "1", "0", etc.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 715AAX7gmV

And even these "answers" are controversial in and of themselves, let alone the source.

But what we can observe in 0/0 is "/" and "0,0" where:

1) There is one function of "/".

2) There are two forms of "0,0", but "0" cannot be observed as nothingness unless being, quantitatively as "unit"/"unity", exists as "1".

3) Division is 1 in itself, hence inverts into a form through a function of division, because of zero existing if and only if there is one.

4) Division as 1, because of its active nature of division through 0/0, observes a simultaneous form manifest through an act itself (in this case "/").

5) Form and function are inseparable because of this, and "0/0" can be observed simultaneously as "0,-1,0" with "-1" being a "negation of nothingness" through being...this case division as a form of negation through "1".

6) A higher form/function (unified and simultaneous) exists as "mirroring" or "reflection" in which case a "form/function" exists because of its nature as "direction", which can be observe as "division" in itself being a "direction" of space that cannot be viewed in terms of strict "up/down, left/right, forwards/backwards" considering these "duals" of "direction" exist through a polarity defined through "/".

7) In these respects, while division acts as a form of separation, through a 0d construct (or maybe better put "nothingness") is acts as a form of being through connection as a projection of linear space.

This linear space, observed simultaneously as a infinite 1d line projecting through 0d space (we can observe this again in 0/0) requires the line to exist through itself. A problem occurs in the respect that a line cannot project through nothingness, in this case 0/0, as their is nowhere to go.

9) The line, if it is to maintain itself as infinite, must fold through itself in order to relate to itself if there is anywhere for it to project. This folding process of the line, as an act of division through nothingness, observes "division" inverting into "multiplication" as "0x0" where division as "one" form through function" becomes "two" symbolically as multiplication.
a) One line, projecting through space as division of nothingness through being, considering it must fold into another line if it is to relate to itself results in "two" lines that divide nothingness through being under a form of self-multiplication.

10) 0d space, observe being as a process of continual inversion as alternation, hence the act of division (and even multiplication) acts simultaneously as both "separation" and "connection", with this "separation" and "connection" being its own form of alternation as a form of "reproduction" through repetition.

The shift of perception from limited individual separate ''me'' is transformed and swallowed up by the recognition of our whole, where we become architects of our own lives and each participant is creating it's own truth, aka dream world. No dream is false or wrong, or untrue since it's all a dream anyway, there is no one to challenge truths from untruths, everything that happens ..is what it is because that's how isness/life has presented itself, has unfolded, and there is no time machine to go back and fix what is done..and there is nothing doing anything, there is only doing and what ever is done could not have been done any other way than how it was done.

A dream, in itself, is a deficiency in truth considering it is a subjective truth seperate from an objective whole (group subjectivity) unless actualized as objective in itself. Is a dream a truth? Yes. Is it a full truth? No, even when it is measured against itself it requires a continual redefinition of itself through objective input, where the dream requires objective truths to be continually integrated if its is to maintain itself. This dream, however, may cause a deficiency of the objective truths around it if it does not maintain a balance with them. For example a person may live under an illusion of grandeur which causes a pulling away of physical, mental, or emotional resources from the objective (group subjective) environment around the individual.

A dream is a dream, with a dream being defined by its nature of deficiency.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:05 pmA God, who cannot be limited or define, can express himself through the form and function of man considering man is neither limited or defined due to his continual creations through himself, from nothing, under the realm of idea. Idea is perpetually evident and created and in this manner, man is a an approximation or image of God, through which the limits of beginning and end manifests in such a manner where man is a mortal God and God an immortal man.

God has no image of himself except in this conception, aka as an object perceived, projected from no thing. There is no thing in a thing except the conceptual belief.
God images himself through man as a synthesis of "limit" and "no-limit", abstractness and materiality, etc. Man is the measure of all things considering Man is the medial point between "being" and "non-being" as evidenced by the conceptual relations of these extremes being mediated by man through the observation of reason and belief. Man's nature may be "illusory" in the respect it is deficient, but this deficiency cycles back to man himself as a mediator of this very same measurement.
.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:35 am Anthropomorphic God Being is a conceptual understanding of the divine I AM presence that is in itself SELF CREATING.

For any concept to be known - there first has to be a knower.

Both knower and known are the same ONE in the same moment NOW.

All concepts are essentially necessary for one to know itself.

.

Dontaskme wrote:
creation is just an idea within the ocean of infinite formless energy that is constantly shape shifting from one form to another without limits

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 6:45 am

Dontaskme wrote:
creation is just an idea within the ocean of infinite formless energy that is constantly shape shifting from one form to another without limits

All of existence is motion and transition and the changing of forms over time. For most of time there was no consciousness that was known
to exist.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 6:45 am But it is merely another level of existence that can exist. And at some point in the future it will no longer exist.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 6:45 amThere will still be existence but it will be existence without consciousness. And so while existence has to always be in one form or another this is not true for consciousness. Then in that respect existence is the more important of the two and so when consciousness ceases to be then so too will we