How would you counter this hypothesis to the ‘Enlightenment’ idea?

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 6:26 PM, stirling said:

This is an interesting point.

In this comment of yours you are trying to argue that an experience of union with the Non-Dual—synonymous with the Void—can be had, and that the Void is beyond all concepts; you are arguing this because your argument would then follow that such a union equates to Enlightenment or arrival in ‘perpetual-bliss’. I make points below in argument against.

 

No, nothing that exists can be without a concept, I’m afraid—if you are saying something exists then you have an idea of what that thing is and therefore it can be conceptualised, ‘idea’ being synonymous with ‘concept’. 

 

“We have experience of knowing things all the time that aren't conceptualized”. 

 

No, we don’t; we often come across things we can’t effectively describe nor understand, but that doesn’t in any way mean that those things are therefore without concepts or forms. 

 

“Any time the mind is quiet and we are present with what is happening there is knowing, but without the conceptual overlay.” 

 

No, you cannot know something without conceptualising it; one can have a vague sense of something with being able to grasp it, but that vague understanding is only due to the limitations of one’s intelligence and comprehension; even a vague understanding requires a rough conceptualisation of the object.

 

“Many of these are non-dual experiences […] “

 

No they’re not; what I’ve already said in this comment supports this rebuttal as does much of what I’ve said elsewhere in the thread.

 

“[…] we can see that time, space, and self are all missing from the moment of experiencing.”

 

No. Time continues whether you appreciate it or not, it waits for no man, for so sannyasin; not sure how you came to the conclusion that space itself could ever be invalid, nor do I see how that even supports an argument for Non-Dual experiences; the ‘self’ will always be necessarily present in any experience whatsoever, due to what I’ve said elsewhere in the thread about frames-of-reference.

 

“I have successfully guided many people to notice how this is and point it out (commonly called "pointing out instruction" in the Tibetan Buddhist traditions). “

 

You have provided an explanation for their experience when they could not describe it at all—that doesn’t at all mean your explanation is accurate: the residents of Roswell in the 1950’s couldn’t make head or tail of the UFO crash, that doesn’t mean the explanation the press gave of a ‘weather-balloon’ was accurate.

 

Honestly it sounds like you’re just repeating a lot of rhetoric that you’ve learned by rote from your ‘teachers’ without actually considering how incoherent it is to anyone outside the bubble in which that rhetoric is professed. I’m well aware of how romantic and impressive it sounds—but I can cut through that.

 

Regarding gnosis, one can receive ‘downloads’ from mysterious other-worldly sources—it happens. But you need to clarify how you get from referencing gnosis to the conclusion that all things are void, as both the way you’ve worded that final paragraph as well as the point you’re trying to make with it are obscure.

 

Having read a bit further in the thread I think I remember you saying to the effect of “no, form and void are equally valid”, pretending to agree with me, whereas here you are trying to imply really that Forms are subordinate to the Void by choosing the adjective “contrived” to describe Forms, with all the negative connotations that word possesses today. Furthermore, though I agree that all Forms are made of a fundamental ‘stuff’, that ‘stuff’ is not ‘void’, it is as real and as material as the Forms themselves.

Edited September 16, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 6:32 PM, Michael Sternbach said:

Not that I would agree to your assumption of the Buddha and other avatars having been non-humans

If you accept the extra-terrestrial world-view as David Icke and the Ancient Aliens series have predominantly worked to develop, what reservations could you have to doubt or deny the extra-terrestrial nature of the world’s religious icons?

 

I honestly thought his joke was disgusting, I don’t think any laughing emojis are appropriate at all.

Edited September 16, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 7:09 PM, stirling said:

I am sorry if I have come off in some strange way.  Not my intention.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. But I also need to deduce from this that you are oblivious to how obnoxious it is to say, without personal provocation, that someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about—“[…] who is trying so bravely to make sense of these ideas here […]”, no, I understand full-well what I am attacking here—which lack of tact raises some doubts about your character. 

 

“[…] number of problems with the initial proposition as it is presented that would require entirely re-stating the premise in a new way.”

 

Really don’t know what you’re trying to say here; what “problems” are there with the hypothesis of the OP? Why on earth does the OP need “re-stating”? The OP is written well, attacking the notion that ‘perpetual-bliss’ may be attained through spiritual-practice.

 

“[…] true curiousity and the intention to truly understand the topic.”

 

I don’t think you’re aware of how condescending you’re being here, and therefore how much you are undermining your own position in the view of anyone who is not one of the converted.

 

Your distinction between idealogues and seekers: you have determined me in your own mind to be someone ‘seeking the truth’; behind this labelling is an attempt to invalidate my argument by implying that I am a ‘lost soul’ who can’t see the truth, though they seek it, and will likely never find it without proper instruction, and so lashes out at things they don’t understand in their ignorance and bewilderment. You would offer a stronger argument if you resisted such temptations to undermine your opponent; the only points you’re scoring otherwise are with the converted. Meanwhile your seemingly kind and gracious wording of this is just an attempt to blind me to this strategy. On the other hand, you yourself are coming across very strongly as an idealogue: reiterating so much of the rhetoric that I have argued throughout the thread to be coming from an unreasonable and stubborn position of delusion.

 

“I wouldn't personally believe anyone who told me about some "golden heaven" that exists somewhere else either.” 

 

You’re saying in this paragraph that you yourself have experienced and seen what the philosophies talk about, including the ‘perpetual-bliss’ of Enlightenment, and so there is no need to believe in it, for you have seen it to be true. Well, I can only say that in fact you have not and are mistaking wonderful experiences you’ve had for what others have told you they are [see my point in a previous reply to you regarding the Roswell UFO]. I support my argument with everything I’ve said in the thread; you with your vouchsafe alone. Besides, how would you ever have had those spiritual-experiences in the first-place if you did not believe in what your ‘teachers’ had told you was possible! you only pursued the detailed practices set out for you by your ‘teachers’ because you believed in what they told you was possible—yet you try to invalidate the notion of belief.

 

“I DID express my opinion earlier in the thread.”

 

Cite it please.

 

“I don't buy a perpetual "bliss" exactly […]”

 

Explain your ambiguity there implied by “exactly” please. As for the rest of that paragraph: I agree, pleasant experiences can be had through spiritual-practice, though I absolutely deny that one can enter a state of ‘perpetual-bliss’ through such practise, in which one is happy 100% of the time, and I even deny that a state may be attained where the ratio of good-times to bad-times is anything other than 50/50; I still don’t believe that you deny the possibility of ‘perpetual-bliss’ so please elaborate on why you think it is fallacious.

 

Your final paragraph. You say the other Eastern philosophies are valid; well, yes, to an outsider, they are quite clearly all branches of the same tree, with the same degree of validity or invalidity. Yes they are all belief-systems, at least with regard to the ‘heaven’ of Enlightenment, which belief is a delusion. Having said that I admit that a lot of what is taught in those philosophies about life is true and can indeed be seen for one’s self; however, almost certainly some faith will be required from any novice in the honesty of any teacher of those philosophies if they are to commit enough time to the practice to see their first revelation for themselves.

 

“Understanding how things are doesn't require a massive crenellated concretion of beliefs, it just requires creating the space that allows the underlying nature of things to well up.”

 

That’s right. But the unpleasantness comes when the leaders of these philosophy-religions claim that ‘heaven’ can be conquered having firstly built the trust of their students through allowing those students to see for themselves real life-truths that those teachers have thitherto described to them.

 

“Nothing to buy, nothing to believe, nothing to worship.”

 

No. The deceived students give the guru their time and energy is pursuit of the fallacy of ‘heaven’; belief, as I have explained, is intrinsic to these teacher-student systems even if just in the initial stages of practice; in general, the guru definitely gets a power-trip from his adoring followers.

 

”You could decide that there are qualities of both agnosticism and gnosticism in this […]”

 

By agnosticism you are referring to what you have talked about regarding ‘seeing for one’s self the truth’ and not taking anything for granted. But taking “gnosticism” to refer to the esoteric Christian sect, I can’t see how gnosticism bears relevance; perhaps you were merely looking for an opposite word to ‘agnosticism’? in which case you just mean that ‘knowledge may be found through these practices’?

Edited September 16, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 7:12 PM, Daniel said:

 

I don't know what the author of the quote believes about perpetual-bliss, I can only comment on what they are denying.

Sorry Daniel, I don’t quite understand here. So, the Zen priest is denying that one ‘can become anything special’—that’s what “they are denying”, right? But that it is in contradiction to the ‘spiritual-heights’ that the priest is secretly aiming for, which would indeed make him very special; is that what you were originally commenting on?

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 7:23 PM, Daniel said:

Who bestowed this title on you?

Honestly I actually wouldn’t be surprised if he was being honest about this. I’ve yet to read ahead in the thread to learn more about this though…

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 9:09 PM, Michael Sternbach said:

Hi Stirling,

 

This sounds all quite interesting to me as I am currently "reviewing" my prior involvement with Buddhism, early on on my personal meandering path.

Note: the part I officially quoted has nothing to do with my reply here other than referencing the comment of yours that I am here replying to—I should rather have officially quoted the part that I have italicised just below instead… 

 

“But it goes without saying that some of the other Buddhist schools are more talkative in this regard, and they also take different stands on the nature of enlightenment and ultimate reality.”

 

Do you yourself have a take on “ultimate reality”? If so, is “ultimate” reality more valid than the “ordinary” or “non-ultimate” reality?

 

Have I got this right?: in this reply of yours to Stirling you are saying that indeed the notion of an attainable ‘heaven’ exists in Eastern philosophies—‘the pure land’; then you are saying that you are trying to work out for yourself what these philosophies mean by the Void, through comparisons with other philosophies like that of Plato, Socrates and Pythagoras, and, by extension from the Void, what is meant by the Non-Dual.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

On 11/09/2023 at 10:42 PM, helpfuldemon said:

end of intellect

 

Why would that ever be a desirable thing? 

 

“[…] it is the understanding of life and Order […]”

 

I understand life to a certain extent, I also understand the concept of ‘order’, I am also able to apply a certain degree of order to my life; does that make me Enlightened? What esoteric concept are you referring to by giving ‘order’ a capital-letter?

 

“[…] which does involve dualities […]” 

 

Many that have been in this thread would disagree with you and would tell you that ‘the Enlightened Mind’ is beyond Duality.

 

“[…] enlightenment of ALL […]” 

 

Very obscure, please elaborate.

 

“[…] engage in it, or withdraw […]”

 

This implies that it is not a place nor state one would want to stay in perpetually. 

 

“[…] for they see both the good and the bad […]”

 

So do I: am I a Buddha then?

 

“The Bliss that is described is essentially the satisfaction of knowing.”

 

Is that ‘perpetual-bliss’? or is it a ephemeral sensation of great happiness, transitory like any other feeling? I know things, but I can’t say contemplating my knowledge is always, nor even often, blissful. Why is it blissful for a Buddha to know things?

 

 

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 12:39 AM, Mark Foote said:

Here's Shunryu Suzuki, founding teacher of the S. F. Zen Center, on practice:

Right, so the first part of your reply in which you quote the Zen priest is describing a ‘preparatory’ practice to get to ‘shikantaza’. What is ‘shikantaza’? another word for Enlightenment to be added to the tags at the top of the OP?

 

In the two paragraphs that follow that part you talk about the challenges of that practice.

 

You then go on to differentiate between ‘bliss’, ‘happiness’ and ‘ease’. You now reject the notion of ‘bliss’ which is ironic as in the beginning of this thread everyone was rejecting the notion of ‘happiness’ in preference for ‘bliss’… So you’re not interested in ‘bliss’, but you seem to be saying that the ‘[permanent] cessation of determinate thought’ may be attained, and that with it comes a happiness—so if that ‘cessation of determinate thought’ is permanent then so would be the happiness that comes with it… and you then say that you are currently at a stage in your practice when you are “at ease”, like a sage; are you “at ease” perpetually, right now, then?

 

“[…] happiness has ceased apart from equanimity […]”

 

Please explain what is meant by this line.

 

“Gautama taught a way of living that included that "other things" experience.” 

 

Whatever do you mean by “other things”?

 

“I get it that things beyond the range of the senses can be involved in walking me around.” 

 

Please explain what you mean by “walking me around”.

 

“The notion that "I am the doer, mine is the doer with regard to this consciousness-informed body" has taken a hit, for me.”

 

Are you trying to describe the experience of ‘being breathed’ here?

 

“The cessation of ("determinate thought" in) feeling and perceiving, not likely for me.  You're right, doesn't sound blissful, the disturbances associated with the six sense-fields. He said there was a happiness, but I'm guessing it's like the happiness of the cessation of determinate thought in inbreathing and outbreathing--thin!”

 

‘Not likely for you’—so you don’t think you’ll reach Enlightenment in this lifetime? You don’t seem to have read my previous comment correctly: I said that you seemed to think that “cessation of determinate thought” was the desired Enlightenment; I didn’t really say anything pertaining to whether I myself thought “cessation of determinate thought” sounded blissful or not; and in the the “slight disturbances” bit of my comment I still was presuming that you would be getting 99% happiness in your Enlightenment. You’re really starting to confuse me: at the start of this quoted paragraph you are doubting that “cessation of determinate thought” would be nice; then at the end of the paragraph you are saying that “cessation of determinate thought” equates to happiness! Do you have many varieties of “cessation of determinate thought” then..?

 

“[…] and outbreathing--thin!” 

 

Was “thin” a typo here? otherwise what on earth do you mean by “—thin!” please?

 

You still haven’t answered with regard to why this “cessation of determinate thought”—which I am presuming is equated with Enlightenment (again, you haven’t commented on that point)—would be considered “ultimate”.

 

You seem to think attaining this “cessation of determinate thought” will bring you happiness—again, my question is how much happiness then?

 

I have to say that the last sections in which you quote August Sesshin and yourself, regarding the details of a certain practice, are at best obscure and at worst irrelevant to the questions I asked you in the comment to which you are here replying. 

 

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 12:42 AM, Daniel said:

The imagery is, just beyond the surface of the sun, the light is so intense that there is nothing else but light.

Ah yes I see now. Thanks. Yes that’s a pretty good analogy actually for the concept.

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 1:07 AM, Daniel said:

Omni-present = is + isn't. Those are the two smallest components of infinity.

 

I understand ‘omnipresent’ to be all-pervasive, at all places at all times; you are equating the word with everything that ‘is’ and everything that ‘is not’… I guess I can see that, ‘everything that is’ and ‘everything that is not’ makes up infinity, and an omnipresent being would pervade all of infinity and so would be one with infinity. Is that it? 

 

What did you mean by that second sentence though?

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 1:11 AM, stirling said:

though what I am saying does not particularly differ from what my teachers or primary texts might have said, what I am expressing is my personal understanding. 

 

So I think it does not differ from theirs because your own views have actually been entirely shaped by them, and that your own explanation for what you have seen for yourself through personal investigation is actually just your teachers’ and tradition’s interpretation of your experience.

 

“I can see how:”

 

You can see how the sages reconcile those ideas referred to in that comment of Michael Sternbach’s you are there replying to?

 

“…could be a provisional understanding used as a teaching scaffolding. My personal experience is that all abstractions such as realms or other worlds are empty of any reality of their own, incompatible with Nagarjuna's explanations of time, space, and self.”

 

Please explain this assuming your audience has no knowledge of Narajuna.

 

“[…] I can only see cosmologies as conceptual constructs, not really having any reality that we can truly experience ourselves.”

 

Well, I think you are forgetting that you definitely have your own cosmology as set out by your descriptions of Non-Duality and Enlightenment. A cosmology doesn’t have to be formed by purely intellectual speculation you know; a cosmology can definitely be formed out of one’s ‘real experience’. ‘Cosmology’ is synonymous with ‘ontology’, a world-view; you definitely have one of those. Is your own cosmology an empty useless conceptual construct as well then? or is yours a wonderful exception?

 

“Even those experiences have a certain relative reality of their own, though it is advisable to hold what is "real" lightly and without reification. “

 

Elaborate please. ‘To reify’ is to make an abstract concept more concrete or ‘real’—that second clause of yours is very obscure.

 

“[…] tightly held beliefs […]” 

 

I maintain that you seem to certainly have some of these.

 

“Experiencing them is the natural consequence of dropping tightly held beliefs and stopping the process of explaining them away. “

 

Do you mean that in order to experience deeper things one needs to open one’s mind and not try to ‘explain away’ the super-natural with ‘rational’ or ‘mundane’ reasoning (like saying a ghostly apparition was ‘just the wind’, or that a UFO was just a ‘weather-balloon’)?

 

“You can talk about it, but (as neo-Advaita chap Adyashanti says) you have [to] intend to "fail well" in the best case scenario. It really isn't expressible, primarily because our language, which depends on subject/object relationships, is not suited to the task. It isn't a subject/object "thing" to experience.”

 

No: either you can explain it or you can’t even have the faintest notion of it. Logic is maintained while it is talked about, clearly; if it is real or experienceable then that thread of logic that starts in talking about it may be maintained all the way up to the experiencing of the thing itself; there may be a point where one’s limited understanding and field-of-view prevent one from describing the thing any further, but there is no point where, given a great enough field-of-view, the logic-thread must necessarily break.

Edited September 16, 2023 by galen_burnett

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 1:25 AM, Daniel said:

 

OK, found it.  Not too difficult, for someone who wants to be sure their achievement is made public.  ...  a householder, lay entrusted.  In that same post, there's plenty of claims of empowerments being bestowed on them.

 

Can I have a link to this thread please Daniel?

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 1:31 AM, Daniel said:

 

Don't forget to tell us about your credentials in the next post too, OK?

Sorry to be dense Daniel, are you implying that he’s lying about his history, as it might be unfeasible to spend 20 years in one tradition (Tibetan)  and then go and reach the top-rank in another (San Francisco Zen)?

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 1:59 AM, helpfuldemon said:

Systems and their methods are endless, and it is a road to infinite comparison in order to fully catalogue them all.  In the end, it is Wisdom and not method, that matters.

“Systems” that have what function? to Enlighten? What is Enlightenment, please? “methods” don’t matter… so you yourself have no ‘system’ nor ‘method’, no practice, no spiritual-tradition you adhere to?

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 2:08 AM, Daniel said:

According to the Zen Soto tradition, it appears that the dharma transmission is supposed to be produced from working side by side with their teacher, and cannot happen as a householder.

I’d probably need to read the thread I asked you for to fully understand what you’re getting at in this comment Daniel, the ‘householder’ stuff, etc. 

 

As an aside: 10-20k hours is a general figure for the time it takes to get very good at something; which translates to really actually quite a manageable cost if one commits to something—like, it’s just 5 hours of practice in something a day for 10 to 15 years. Albeit sitting meditation would be much harder, I think, to practise 5 hours a day for than, say, a competitive video-game or playing a musical-instrument would be; but even if we halve that rate to just 2-3 hours a day that’s still only about 30 years… 30 years of a moderate daily commitment and you can become a Buddha! you can transcend existence and become one with God itself! BECOME THE NUMERO-UNO! glory awaits! I mean, there’s a bit of a disparity there between the enormously vast complexity of the thing one would be ‘conquering’—life itself—and the relatively meagre price of that achievement… a few hours a day for not even half of one life-time… it sounds a lot like an attractive offer at a casino honestly 🤩

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 2:24 AM, liminal_luke said:

 

I was just joking about the donut and enlightenment.  I do like to get involved in these discussions and know some of the lingo, but, honestly, it's a little above my pay grade.  Rather than aim for enlightenment, I'm just trying to be less nuts.  I'd like not to be so darn anxious all the time, to be more forgiving of foibles (my own and others), to overcome my addictive tendencies around food. Declining a donut won't get me enlightened but it does represent emotional growth.  For me, right now, that's enough. 

Regardless of what I’ve said before, honestly, good luck with your challenges, I can relate to addictions and anxiety (it’s horrible, I know) and I feel you there ✌️

[galen_burnett]

On 12/09/2023 at 2:37 AM, Daniel said:

 

I hear you.  I'm just wondering how far back this disconnect in the dharma transmission goes.  If it was broken when buddhism was brought to the west, that would explain a lot of what I am observing, and the OP is observing.  The dharma is not actually being transferred, but priests are being ordained anyway, and it's been happening for a long time?  If so, pretty much none of the priests and teachers are going to practicing dharma, teaching dharma, or living dharma.

 

Edit:  ... in the west.  pretty much none in the west.

 

Sorry again to be dense lol! That ‘edit’, you mean “pretty much” no Buddhism was brought over to the West?

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

Sorry Daniel, I don’t quite understand here. So, the Zen priest is denying that one ‘can become anything special’—that’s what “they are denying”, right? But that it is in contradiction to the ‘spiritual-heights’ that the priest is secretly aiming for, which would indeed make him very special; is that what you were originally commenting on?

 

1st, I don't even know who actually wrote the quote.  Is it the zen priest in the picture?  Is it the one whose name is written there?  I've seen quotes that are attributed to buddha, but, when I research them, it turns out that they are not.

 

2nd, I don't know how the author defines a "spiritual-height", or "perpetual-bliss", or if those words even have any meaning to them at all.  Do they speak english?  If I say the word "bliss" does this produce the same thoughts, emotions, and reactions in the author as they produce in me?  A great example of this is the word "God" captial "G".  Depending on the individual, for example, a Trinitarian Christian compared to a Muslim Fundementalist, the word "God" produces a significantly different reaction in their mind.

 

3rd, the quote itself could mean several things.  The original image which I commented on was deleted from the thread.  Using the words of the quote, and from memory of the picture, this is the closest I could find.  

 

 

Kodo Sawaki Roshi was a Soto Zen priest.  According to wikipedia, he ordained many but did not transmit the dharma to the vast majority of those.  LINK.  Again and again, the dharma transmission has been broken in this tradition.  Even in Japan.  This indicates to me that there is reason to doubt the authenticity of the quote. 

 

What is being denied?

 

"No matter how many years you sit doing zazen, you will never become anything special."

 

Means:

 

"Even if you never sit doing zazen, you will never become anything special."

 

In other words:

 

"No matter what you do, you will never become anything special."

 

"becoming anything special" is being universally and absolutely denied.  That's all I can comment on.  I've already stated my argument against making this sort of claim about another person's inner-experience.  That alone justifies ignoring anyone making such a foolish assertion. 

 

In addition, from the imagined "non-dual reality", there is no "you" there is no "other"  There is no audience to read these words.  There is no one to convince.  The author is projecting themself as "all that exists".  In this case the word "you" becomes "me", and they are actually talking about themself, to themself, the ultimate combination of confirmation bias combined with preaching to the choir.  If someone wants to imagine themself as all there is, and wants to talk to themselves, and convince themselves of this, that they are nothing special no matter what, that has nothing to do with me.

 

And this ignores that there is no "becoming" from the imagined "non-dual reallity" either.  What ever "was" or "will be" already is.

 

So the statement lacks credibility, but that doesn't automatically render it false.  This renders it false:

 

If I know my own inner-experience, then I know all that I am not.  And as I've been writing about in another thread, this sort of negation is infinite.  "all that I am not" is a never ending list.  This gaurantees that I am unique, and you are unique, and the author is unique, and everyone and everything is unique.  Even non-things are unique.  All of it is inherently unique and special.  It already is. They already are.

 

That's why I say, as soon as someone starts speaking like this, they can be ignored.  Time is better spent at the burrito cart. 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

On 9/14/2023 at 9:51 AM, Mark Foote said:

Gautama turned his focus to teaching his own way of living, after the suicide of scores of monks a day, as they reflected on the unlovely aspects of the body

 

What are the circumstances which culminated in these deaths?  Please.  This is very important to me. 

 

Is there anything else that is known besides their reflection on their body?  What sort of monks were they?

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

{ deleted - irrelevant }

Edited September 16, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, galen_burnett said:

Can I have a link to this thread please Daniel?

 

Here you:  https://www.thedaobums.com/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=51672&content_commentid=1004301

 

It is accessible from the little grey arrow on the top right corner of the quote:

 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

I understand ‘omnipresent’ to be all-pervasive, at all places at all times; you are equating the word with everything that ‘is’ and everything that ‘is not’… I guess I can see that, ‘everything that is’ and ‘everything that is not’ makes up infinity, and an omnipresent being would pervade all of infinity and so would be one with infinity. Is that it? 

 

Omni-present.  Literally.  In space and time.  Present = Here.  Present = Now.  Here-and-now = "what is" present-tense, or more simply "is".  "What is" is defined by its partner "what isn't", or more simply "isn't"

 

Omni-present = Here-and-now = is + isn't. 

 

Quote

 

What did you mean by that second sentence though?

 

Omni-present is 1 attribute of infinity.  In theory, it would be the smallest part.

 

In context:  It seems that Mark was ( hopefully no longer ) misunderstanding what Michael and I were trying to describe.  The divine described as infinite is not numeric infinity.  Although, it can be modeled that way for discussion.  The model, naturally, will need to be abandoned or adjusted though, if/when it ceases to match actual, absolute, literal infinity. 

 

Numeric infinity is, essentially, a one dimensional version of infinity describing a single attribute, quanitity.  A number line.  1 dimensional.  1 attribute. There are ways to expand it to multiple dimensions, and that gets fun, but, basically it's:

 

<---- ... -2 apples, -1 apples, 0 apples, 1 apple, 2 apples, 3 apples, 4 apples ... ---->

 

Even if the model is expanded beyond rational numbers, it's still just 1 dimension and 1 attribute.

 

<---- ... -2 apples, -1 apples, 0 apples, 1 apple, 2 apples, 3 apples, π apples, 4 apples ... ---->

 

What I was trying to say is the version of infinity, the divine, that I am describing, is much-much more than that.  And I gave examples.  It would include much more than numbers.  It would include all: objects, actions, ideas, and symbols.  And their negations.  Not just now, but in the past.  Not just now and in the past, but also in the future.  Not just now, and in the past, and in the future, but also the mysterious, everything that "could-be".

 

If I consider just the "here-and-now" which is omni-present, isn't it much much smaller than the remainder of absolute, literal infintiy?  It's just a snap-shot in time.  Omni-present = "what is and what isn't" in a specific moment called "now".  

 

If I consider what is and what isn't in a specific moment, isn't that much-much bigger than a 1 dimensional number line of a specific attribute, quantity?

 

So, what I'm saying is, "Mark, I am certainly not talking about numeric infinity no matter how it is constructed: using natural numbers, using rational numbers, using real numbers, using complex numbers... all of those are too small.  Why?  Because.  If I consider the smallest components of absolute literal infinity, which is just a snap-shot in time, "is + isn't", even this is much-much bigger than numeric infinity.  Any and all versions of numeric infinity are completely included and eclipsed by just a single moment of infinity, a snap-shot in time.  How much more so for absolute literal infinity which includes and eclipses "is + isn't"?  " 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Daniel

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 Time is better spent at the burrito cart. 

 

 

The burrito cart is nothing special.

[Mark Foote]

20 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Hopefully you saw my answer to this?

 

 

Because I am not limiting infinity to numbers. Once everything is included, then there really is only 1.  It literally includes everything, and every non-thing, and every possible thing.  There can only be 1 of those.  

 

Even if i were limiting infinity to a specific domain ( why would I do that? ) the broadband spectrum is a better analogy.  No holes.  Any spectrum is a better analogy than numeric infinity. 

 

And.  There are no holes in uncountable infinity.  Like I said.  I'm not sure why you're saying there is.

 

 

 

Cantor distinguished two types of actual infinity, the transfinite and the absolute, about which he affirmed:

 

These concepts are to be strictly differentiated, insofar the former is, to be sure, infinite, yet capable of increase, whereas the latter is incapable of increase and is therefore indeterminable as a mathematical concept. This mistake we find, for example, in Pantheism. (G. Cantor, Über verschiedene Standpunkte in bezug auf das aktuelle Unendliche, in Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen Inhalts, pp. 375, 378)

 

... For intuitionists, infinity is described as potential; terms synonymous with this notion are becoming or constructive.[12] For example, Stephen Kleene describes the notion of a Turing machine tape as "a linear 'tape', (potentially) infinite in both directions." To access memory on the tape, a Turing machine moves a read head along it in finitely many steps: the tape is therefore only "potentially" infinite, since — while there is always the ability to take another step — infinity itself is never actually reached.
 

Mathematicians generally accept actual infinities. Georg Cantor is the most significant mathematician who defended actual infinities. He decided that it is possible for natural and real numbers to be definite sets, and that if one rejects the axiom of Euclidean finiteness (that states that actualities, singly and in aggregates, are necessarily finite), then one is not involved in any contradiction.

 

(Wikipedia, "Actual Infinity")
 

 

The reason the intuitionists disavow "actual infinity" is because of the contradictions it allows.  That's mathematics, but I look at mathematics as the most reliable means we have for modeling the universe in a predictive manner.  Consequently, I expect that the assumption of an actual infinity in the physical or spiritual realm will in the end yield contradictions, and make whatever model is assumed based on the actual infinity subject to predictive failure.

Whaddya say, wantah give us a prediction, based on the omnipotence and transcendence of your actual infinity? 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

 

The burrito cart is nothing special.

 

How do you know?