Space Solves the Body/Mind Dualism

[Eodnhoj7]

Form is axiomatic as it strictly "is". A set of phenomenon is composed of limits and these limits in turn form other phenomenon.

A tree is a form and this form unifies itself as a tree while separating itself from the back drop thus resulting in other forms.

The same occurs with any abstraction such as an image.

Even number, as grounded in counting, necessitates number as the observation of self contained forms. We quantify forms and these quantities, through number in turn exist as forms.

These forms are spatial.

When we count we are observing a self contained form with looping boundaries as 1. Two forms as looping boundaries as 2, etc. With the number line observing that all numbers are loops of 1 through itself and 0 negating itself as a loop equivalent to 1.

The abstractions are premised on spatial forms.
The empirical phenomenon are premised on spatial forms.

Thus empirical phenomenon and abstract phenomenon are United through there nature of forms.

Space is the common medium in the body mind/dualism.

[Dontaskme]

Eodnhoj7 good thread topic.

I was thinking that without space no object could be seen. Even if an object IS - object could not be seen without space.

Also, I was thinking how space appears to be formless and yet form as in an object is firmly planted within it and inseparable from it.

Making emptiness and fullness the same one thing...just alternating in it's appearance.

Just my usual ramblings ps, I do enjoy reading your threads, although I don't always understand their unique deepities. I do on the other hand kind of get the general gist as to what they are pointing to.

Thanks for being here Eodnhoj7 you are appreciated.

.

[Impenitent]

Kantian goggles be damned

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7 good thread topic.

I was thinking that without space no object could be seen. Even if an object IS - object could not be seen without space.

Also, I was thinking how space appears to be formless and yet form as in an object is firmly planted within it and inseparable from it.

Making emptiness and fullness the same one thing...just alternating in it's appearance.

Just my usual ramblings ps, I do enjoy reading your threads, although I don't always understand their unique deepities. I do on the other hand kind of get the general gist as to what they are pointing to.

Thanks for being here Eodnhoj7 you are appreciated.

.

And that alternation between appearances (forms), is in itself from a seperate timeline another form.

I can have a car drive around in circles in a parking lot. The car (image) is moving. From one timezone it is in multiple states as multiple position (the position of one form to another).

However from another timezone, a much larger one, the car is a circular form in the context of the parking lot when all of its movements are taking into account.


The car exists because it moves, but from a seperate timezone these movements are a loop form.

The question occurs: does the movement occur because of its potential form? As in, unless the form (car) has somewhere to move, it does not exist. But if it has somewhere to move that necessitates it existing through another form.

So we are left with forms within forms when understanding time, empirically. But this form within form, under empirical time, has the same nature in abstractions as well. One image progresses to another symbol and this progression from one symbol to another symbol takes on a linear form as well.

Again form within form.


Space is pure movement as being itself. Space is being.

[Arising_uk]

Kantian goggles be damned

-Imp

As if the loons would bother with understanding the view.

[Eodnhoj7]

Kantian goggles be damned

-Imp

As if the loons would bother with understanding the view.

As if the loon could understand anything.

Arising: "People who believe in made up things are loons, I believe in science!"
Person: "Is science made up?"
Arising: "Yes it is! It has been scientifically proven!"

[Arising_uk]

As if the loon could understand anything.

Arising: "People who believe in made up things are loons, I believe in science!"
Person: "Is science made up?"
Arising: "Yes it is! It has been scientifically proven!"

Not what I say tho' is it you loon.

What I say is that Kant's argument is right in that the noumena is a limiting concept of Reason and that there are phenomena of which we make models to explain them and that 'science', not that there is such a thing just subjects that use Mathematics as the main theoretical modelling tool and the experimental methods as the testing tools, has so far proven itself to be the par excellence route to making models that explain how phenomena work with the proof being that it has changed the world more in four hundred plus years than in all the thousands of years before it.
For example, if someone claimed that a metal pyramid affected electromagnetic fields and was measuring the effect by using dowsing rods the scientific approach would be to test if the rods actually worked whereas the loon would just make up excuses not to as they are just incapable of challenging their metaphysical dogma. Now who could that be?

The difference between 'science' and the other made-up stuff is that 'science' is always open to being wrong as it's in the main an epistemology not a metaphysic, add to that that it is also winnowed by testable repeatable experimental results and you have the best way we have, so far, of producing intersubjective agreement about external phenomena and if the subject is a true 'science' then we get an engineering wing, result!

[Eodnhoj7]

As if the loon could understand anything.

Arising: "People who believe in made up things are loons, I believe in science!"
Person: "Is science made up?"
Arising: "Yes it is! It has been scientifically proven!"

Not what I say tho' is it you loon.

What I say is that Kant's argument is right in that the noumena is a limiting concept of Reason and that there are phenomena of which we make models to explain them and that 'science', not that there is such a thing just subjects that use Mathematics as the main theoretical modelling tool and the experimental methods as the testing tools, has so far proven itself to be the par excellence route to making models that explain how phenomena work with the proof being that it has changed the world more in four hundred plus years than in all the thousands of years before it.

Accelerated change is not a determination of proof or no proof, what it shows is an absence of equilibrium or accelerated entropy. Change is entropy and the current models have increased it.

The problem occurs is that negentropy is a dual principle in the universe, science has not been able to deal with this problem effectively. A simple example of this is birth rates and natural resource consumption. Science has not created a valid manner of balancing birth rates without either causing tension (entropy) between value systems or giving a scientifically valid definition of what ethics is or is not.

Considering science is "not such a thing", according to you, and the primary driving force is mathematics a fallacy occurs as these mathematical models are grounded in counting. Numbers exist through counting, thus negating them as noumena as their identity is strictly tied to the quantification of empirical phenomenon.

This causes a further problem of the noumena, as these numbers which exist through "counting" are linked to empirical phenomena. These empirical phenomena, as grounded in particles, are 99.9999...% empty space and as such we are literally multiplying forms that are intrinsically empty,

The number is thus connected, as a means to quantification, to the objects which it quantifies spatial forms.

----Erwin Schroedinger: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space."

Physics is therefore leading towards some form of geometry as an explanation of it all, but it also points that number is inseperable from space and exists as a spatial phenomena.

The basic number line observed number as inseperable from number where the ratios of lines to lines exist as the inseperable proof which constitutes the nature of number. Add the fact the 0 as void negates itself into 1 as a loop, which loops recursively to form all other numbers, and quantity is inseperable from spatial quality.

The numbers are thus dynamic functions that project and loop, with the act of counting being the localization of some phenomena from a general state or field and observing it as a loop considering its spatial forms necessitate a loop. If I count a tree or a car, what I am observing is a set of curves looping through themselves to form the object. A basic 2d outline of any object shows a loop where you trace the object and end where you begin.

This phenomena as a loop in turn reflects the nature of 1 as a loop and the tying of these loops occurs through the subject resulting in a negation of the subject object dichotomy through a further form of looping.

To count multiple objects it's to observe the replication of these forms (loops fundamentally) with this repitition observing recurssion of an object within time an space. Thus one tree exists in many states as many trees and this repetition is the act of...again...looping considering you end with one you began with during the process of counting.

Thus when we count forms, we have 1 loop of the forms itself ("tree" we will use) and the multiple trees that loop through eachother in repetition.

So if you have 7 trees you have 1 loop of the form itself (the tree) where this form exists as a set, and the 7 trees as 7 variations of the loop/form and we observe 1 and many forms.

Each number as a loop is thus a set of loops.

Now this nature of the form is not seperate from the observer, as noumena, considering counting is a act of assuming loops. The act of assuming these forms requires an empty not judgemental mind. In simpler terms you learn best with an empty mind. This emptiness is how we assume phenomena.

Now this presents a major problem for the noumena a space is not seperate from the observer. Emptiness is the manner through which we assume reality, thus our basic state of self evidence is grounded in space. Emptiness is emptiness and all empty is space.

In the act of assuming the phenomena, we in turn cycle it through memory under continual repitition thus necessitating spatial forms as not just static but a dynamic process of reasoning. We see this dynamic process again in the act of counting where we diverge and converge phenomena no different than observing a point converge and diverge.

And that is another point...the point as the most basic axiom the human awareness accepts strictly as self evident: the point just "is". It and the line, as the projection of a point into form, are the fundamental symbols all counting is grounded in as number is inseperable from the object being counted...and this most basic form is space.

Even counting as an intuitive state necessitates that base emotions and reasoning are grounded in spatial ratios that we "feel". The feeling of dropping or fall, going left or right necessitates not just an emotional sensory element to space (reflected in the feelings of happiness as "up" sadness as "down", being ordered as "right", or chaos as "left") but even the emotions as alternating being subject to basic spatial forms.

In these respects, space acts as an underlying median to both subjective and objective states and as such connects both. There is no object that exists as seperate from the subject as both are grounded in space.

For example, if someone claimed that a metal pyramid affected electromagnetic fields and was measuring the effect by using dowsing rods the scientific approach would be to test if the rods actually worked whereas the loon would just make up excuses not to as they are just incapable of challenging their metaphysical dogma. Now who could that be?

Take it up with the russians and the Egyptians (and the proof ion beams and strange electromagnetic forces have been recorded with scientific instruments to radiate from them).

The difference between 'science' and the other made-up stuff is that 'science' is always open to being wrong as it's in the main an epistemology not a metaphysic,
Science is always open to being wrong because today's fact is tomorrow's falsehood....it doesn't even produce reliable facts and acts as a religion more than anything.

Even the speed of light, a supposed "constant", has been found to change.

The only constant is space.

add to that that it is also winnowed by testable repeatable experimental results and you have the best way we have, so far, of producing intersubjective agreement about external phenomena and if the subject is a true 'science' then we get an engineering wing, result!

Not really, many experiments are funded before the results are even received.
Money determines which experiments are decided, with many of this being driven by corporations whose soul motivation is profit through appetite manipulation of the people.

What you say as "true" is corporate driven.

Face it Atla...your not even wrong, your just lost, but why should I be surprised all of the west is falling apart and where has the religion of science saved them? It hasn't.

Science made up promises it could not keep, the proof is the dying of the west in light of it acting as a religious grounding.

Anyhow, form is not noumena as form is both subjective and objective. Even a person who is blind and deaf still navigates through curvature.

Your best bet is to lie and say you haven't read the above and/or to call it gibberish...cluck away chicken.

[Dontaskme]

The car exists because it moves, but from a seperate timezone these movements are a loop form.

The question occurs: does the movement occur because of its potential form? As in, unless the form (car) has somewhere to move, it does not exist. But if it has somewhere to move that necessitates it existing through another form.

Space is pure movement as being itself. Space is being.

Yes space is being.

Space is the mind of being. Movement is attention upon an object in relation to absolute stillness. Both movement and stillness is the same one space ( Being )

Space (Formless Awareness) and Object (Form) define each other in that they both have to exist in the exact same place and instant.

In essense both movement and stillness are one and the same being...grounded in groundless boundlessness.
Without space nothing can move, and without movement nothing IS everywhere at once undefinable. Movement is on contact with itself - as an automatic self-referential feedback loop.

Energy flows where attention goes. Nothing moves without the mind's intention / attention.

We normally think the car is moving, but it's not,the car doesn't know it's moving because concepts don't know anything or do anything.The mind moves the car, the mind is the doer.

The mind is the unmoved mover.The mind is just anothe word for space. Space empty and full at the same time. Space is dynamic.
Every particle of matter is literally made out of the space it's in, any differentiation is a mental concept, an illusory empty image appearing as if real.



.

[bahman]

Kantian goggles be damned

-Imp

As if the loons would bother with understanding the view.

As if the loon could understand anything.

Arising: "People who believe in made up things are loons, I believe in science!"
Person: "Is science made up?"
Arising: "Yes it is! It has been scientifically proven!"

Science is a made-up that fits the reality we experience.

[bahman]

Form is axiomatic as it strictly "is". A set of phenomenon is composed of limits and these limits in turn form other phenomenon.

A tree is a form and this form unifies itself as a tree while separating itself from the back drop thus resulting in other forms.

The same occurs with any abstraction such as an image.

Even number, as grounded in counting, necessitates number as the observation of self contained forms. We quantify forms and these quantities, through number in turn exist as forms.

These forms are spatial.

When we count we are observing a self contained form with looping boundaries as 1. Two forms as looping boundaries as 2, etc. With the number line observing that all numbers are loops of 1 through itself and 0 negating itself as a loop equivalent to 1.

The abstractions are premised on spatial forms.
The empirical phenomenon are premised on spatial forms.

Thus empirical phenomenon and abstract phenomenon are United through there nature of forms.

Space is the common medium in the body mind/dualism.

Space and time are both substances. They are parts of our experience.

[Eodnhoj7]

Form is axiomatic as it strictly "is". A set of phenomenon is composed of limits and these limits in turn form other phenomenon.

A tree is a form and this form unifies itself as a tree while separating itself from the back drop thus resulting in other forms.

The same occurs with any abstraction such as an image.

Even number, as grounded in counting, necessitates number as the observation of self contained forms. We quantify forms and these quantities, through number in turn exist as forms.

These forms are spatial.

When we count we are observing a self contained form with looping boundaries as 1. Two forms as looping boundaries as 2, etc. With the number line observing that all numbers are loops of 1 through itself and 0 negating itself as a loop equivalent to 1.

The abstractions are premised on spatial forms.
The empirical phenomenon are premised on spatial forms.

Thus empirical phenomenon and abstract phenomenon are United through there nature of forms.

Space is the common medium in the body mind/dualism.

Space and time are both substances. They are parts of our experience.

And yet our experience is grounded in forms as we project these experiences in forms.

For example the experience of a roller coaster may cause the child to draw his experience.

In assuming the experience as part of his psyche (the forms of the coaster, the rhythmic up and down motions, etc.) he takes one set of forms and converts them to another (the drawing).

In recieving forms we project forms, thus consciousness or rather the subconscious is fundamentally formless in nature as it Inverts one form into another. As formless, the subconscious of our awareness is void...thus spatial.

We experience space and this experience of space occurs through space.

All our senses recieve forms.
All our emotions follow a rising and falling.
Our intellect inverts one (set of) form(s) into another.

[bahman]

Form is axiomatic as it strictly "is". A set of phenomenon is composed of limits and these limits in turn form other phenomenon.

A tree is a form and this form unifies itself as a tree while separating itself from the back drop thus resulting in other forms.

The same occurs with any abstraction such as an image.

Even number, as grounded in counting, necessitates number as the observation of self contained forms. We quantify forms and these quantities, through number in turn exist as forms.

These forms are spatial.

When we count we are observing a self contained form with looping boundaries as 1. Two forms as looping boundaries as 2, etc. With the number line observing that all numbers are loops of 1 through itself and 0 negating itself as a loop equivalent to 1.

The abstractions are premised on spatial forms.
The empirical phenomenon are premised on spatial forms.

Thus empirical phenomenon and abstract phenomenon are United through there nature of forms.

Space is the common medium in the body mind/dualism.

Space and time are both substances. They are parts of our experience.

And yet our experience is grounded in forms as we project these experiences in forms.

True.

For example the experience of a roller coaster may cause the child to draw his experience.

In assuming the experience as part of his psyche (the forms of the coaster, the rhythmic up and down motions, etc.) he takes one set of forms and converts them to another (the drawing).

True.

In recieving forms we project forms, thus consciousness or rather the subconscious is fundamentally formless in nature as it Inverts one form into another. As formless, the subconscious of our awareness is void...thus spatial.

Conscious and subconscious minds are formless. Subconsciousness is not void though.

We experience space and this experience of space occurs through space.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

All our senses recieve forms.
All our emotions follow a rising and falling.
Our intellect inverts one (set of) form(s) into another.

True.

[Eodnhoj7]

Space and time are both substances. They are parts of our experience.

And yet our experience is grounded in forms as we project these experiences in forms.

True.

For example the experience of a roller coaster may cause the child to draw his experience.

In assuming the experience as part of his psyche (the forms of the coaster, the rhythmic up and down motions, etc.) he takes one set of forms and converts them to another (the drawing).

True.

In recieving forms we project forms, thus consciousness or rather the subconscious is fundamentally formless in nature as it Inverts one form into another. As formless, the subconscious of our awareness is void...thus spatial.

Conscious and subconscious minds are formless. Subconsciousness is not void though.
Consciousness, what we are aware of is form. Subconsciousness, what we are not aware of is formless and void. Any "form" we see energy from the subconscious is made conscious as we are aware of it.

We experience space and this experience of space occurs through space.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

We assume through a void of thought, ie we are formless when we assume phenomenon. We assume forms through void, space assumes itself.

All our senses recieve forms.
All our emotions follow a rising and falling.
Our intellect inverts one (set of) form(s) into another.

True.

[bahman]

And yet our experience is grounded in forms as we project these experiences in forms.

True.

For example the experience of a roller coaster may cause the child to draw his experience.

In assuming the experience as part of his psyche (the forms of the coaster, the rhythmic up and down motions, etc.) he takes one set of forms and converts them to another (the drawing).

True.

In recieving forms we project forms, thus consciousness or rather the subconscious is fundamentally formless in nature as it Inverts one form into another. As formless, the subconscious of our awareness is void...thus spatial.

Conscious and subconscious minds are formless. Subconsciousness is not void though.
Consciousness, what we are aware of is form. Subconsciousness, what we are not aware of is formless and void. Any "form" we see energy from the subconscious is made conscious as we are aware of it.

We experience space and this experience of space occurs through space.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

We assume through a void of thought, ie we are formless when we assume phenomenon. We assume forms through void, space assumes itself.

All our senses recieve forms.
All our emotions follow a rising and falling.
Our intellect inverts one (set of) form(s) into another.

True.

I don't think so. Conscious mind is formless. I don't really know what is subconscious mind, perhaps Devil.