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

[liminal_luke]

After pirate Mark left the seafaring life, our hero Daniel was, temporarily, mathematically marooned.  But Daniel was not sad, at least not infinitely so, because he knew he had a Self, god-dammit, a beautiful and unique frickin' self, and the world was full of wonder, not empty at all as some silly internet fools opined.  

[Daniel]

35 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

 

On the heads of pins, you know.

 

Ohhhhhh.  That went way over my head.  So, which definitions are divergent?  Or is it that you've lost interest?

[Daniel]

16 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

After pirate Mark left the seafaring life, our hero Daniel was, temporarily, mathematically marooned.  But Daniel was not sad, at least not infinitely so, because he knew he had a Self, god-dammit, a beautiful and unique frickin' self, and the world was full of wonder, not empty at all as some silly internet fools opined.  

 

... and then he realized ... his battle ship was just a dinghy.

[Cobie]

.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Cobie

[Daniel]

.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Daniel

[galen_burnett]

i'm busy with something else for a while. will reply afterwards.

[Mark Foote]

On 9/20/2023 at 8:37 AM, Daniel said:

 

... and then he realized ... his battle ship was just a dinghy.
 

It's enough to make a fella seasick.

 

 

[Daniel]

@Mark Foote,

 

Nah, we're just past the horizon line, approx 5 miles from the shore... we're far past the breakers but not "out to sea".  It's like glass out here...  you honestly couldn't have picked a better spot to drop anchor and get wet.  

 

But seriously, I wonder why these ideas are so nauseating to you?  Why not share?

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

@Mark Foote,

 

Nah, we're just past the horizon line, approx 5 miles from the shore... we're far past the breakers but not "out to sea".  It's like glass out here...  you honestly couldn't have picked a better spot to drop anchor and get wet.  

 

But seriously, I wonder why these ideas are so nauseating to you?  Why not share?

 

 

 

 

 

Jack the monkey had an upset stomach during filming. Picture: Elliot Marks/Disney

 

Kaya Scodelario said the monkey’s puking was ‘hilarious’. Picture: Disney via AP

“He had a very tiny stomach and when we were filming on the boat he would just projectile vomit in the middle of scenes, which I found hilarious.”

[Daniel]

@Mark Foote,

 

So there's really nothing different about our definitions other than bellyaching?  Heartburn?  You have an allergic reaction to conversations which show absolute literal infinity is plausible, possible, coherent, consistent, rational, etc?

[Mark Foote]

9 hours ago, Daniel said:

@Mark Foote,

 

So there's really nothing different about our definitions other than bellyaching?  Heartburn?  You have an allergic reaction to conversations which show absolute literal infinity is plausible, possible, coherent, consistent, rational, etc?
 

Shunryu Suzuki:  

To enjoy our life-- complicated life, difficult life-- without ignoring it, and without being caught by it. Without suffer from it. 
 

The sacred literature of the world is peppered with references to absolute literal infinity, to "actual infinity".  I'm suggesting constructed, potential infinity in that same literature is more useful to me, in finding the kind of enjoyment Suzuki is talking about.

But you got that awhile back, and I got that you believe in "absolute literal infinity" and think it's marvelous stuff.  Why not bottle it?




Ha ha!  Never a case of projectile vomiting on the part of any monkey, with Schmidlap's Miracle Elixir (TM)!
 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

Shunryu Suzuki:  

To enjoy our life-- complicated life, difficult life-- without ignoring it, and without being caught by it. Without suffer from it. 
 

The sacred literature of the world is peppered with references to absolute literal infinity, to "actual infinity". 

 

The first problem, IMO, is that you are equating something called "actual infinity" with something else which I am calling "absolute literal infinity".  I've made the distinction many times.  Why is this being ignored?

 

There have been many posts in this thread about ignoring distinctions between different concepts that perhaps sound the same or have similar nomenclature.  Do you acknowledge that there are problems when these distinctions are ignored? 

 

Quote

I'm suggesting constructed, potential infinity in that same literature is more useful to me, in finding the kind of enjoyment Suzuki is talking about.

 

I would very much appreciate hearing more about this contructed potential infinity and how it contributes to finding the enjoyment you described above.

 

Also, it would be great to read how you distinguish between the absolute literal infinity I am describing and this contructed potential inifinity that you find useful.

 

The reason I'm saying this is, you have said that our defintions are far apart.  I am not sure you are understanding what I've written.  Also, it could be there is a sort of allergic reaction happening which is making it seem as if the definitions are far apart, but, they aren't.  It's just causing an errant inflamation response.. 

 

Quote

But you got that awhile back, and I got that you believe in "absolute literal infinity" and think it's marvelous stuff.  Why not bottle it?

 

That's not my job.  The picture you posted is not me.    I defend it.  I'm an advocate for it, if it is attacked unjustly.  But I advocate for many that need advocacy.  Pro-bono, of course.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

7 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

The first problem, IMO, is that you are equating something called "actual infinity" with something else which I am calling "absolute literal infinity".  I've made the distinction many times.  Why is this being ignored?

 

There have been many posts in this thread about ignoring distinctions between different concepts that perhaps sound the same or have similar nomenclature.  Do you acknowledge that there are problems when these distinctions are ignored? 

 

 

I would very much appreciate hearing more about this contructed potential infinity and how it contributes to finding the enjoyment you described above.

 

Also, it would be great to read how you distinguish between the absolute literal infinity I am describing and this contructed potential inifinity that you find useful.

 

The reason I'm saying this is, you have said that our defintions are far apart.  I am not sure you are understanding what I've written.  Also, it could be there is a sort of allergic reaction happening which is making it seem as if the definitions are far apart, but, they aren't.  It's just causing an errant inflamation response.. 

 

 

That's not my job.  The picture you posted is not me.    I defend it.  I'm an advocate for it, if it is attacked unjustly.  But I advocate for many that need advocacy.  Pro-bono, of course.

 

 

 

I don't know, Daniel.  The concepts are fun, but limited without an anchor.  Do you feel absolute literal infinity moving your arm, when you lift a cup of coffee or tea to your lips?  

My idea is to let the theory of everything slide, and work on the pieces.  That's all I"m saying.
 

[Daniel]

14 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

 

I don't know, Daniel.  The concepts are fun, but limited without an anchor.  Do you feel absolute literal infinity moving your arm, when you lift a cup of coffee or tea to your lips?  

 

For me, it's not for feeling.  It's an intellectual concept.  If I wanted to feel something, I would probably do something else.   Regarding the anchor, well, I've mentioned it.  Not explicitly in those terms, but it's there.

 

The point, I really want to focus on the point.  Michael described the divine as infinite, something which could be forever approached, but never reached.   I disagreed.  If it is literally absolutely infinite then it is omni-present.  From here, there have been several objections from you that infinity cannot be omni-present for various reasons.  But that's not actually true unless infinity is limited to a specific version of numeric infinity, or to a "set of all sets".

 

These objections are fair, but since I answered them and have shown, contrary to popular belief, that there is a version of infinity which can indeed be omni-present without inconsistency or contradiction, I don't understand why we are arguing anymore.  That's where it becomes unfair. 

 

I made a statement about divine omni-presence; it's plausible, consistent, coherent, rational, etc.  There shouldn't be any more arguing about it.  Objections to using the primary definition of paradox, and repeatedly reducing infinity into something which is a sematic contradiction seems like perpetuating an argument needlessly.

 

If you are considering a "constructed potential infinity" that may be a close approximate to what I am considering, especially because....  at a certain point all versions of infinity become 1.  It depends on what you mean.

 

So why are you arguing with me about omni-presense?  Is it just the religious baggage that comes with those two words linked up?

 

Quote

My idea is to let the theory of everything slide, and work on the pieces.  That's all I"m saying.

 

Ok.

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Daniel

[Mark Foote]

54 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Quote

The concepts are fun, but limited without an anchor. Do you feel absolute literal infinity moving your arm, when you lift a cup of coffee or tea to your lips?  
 

For me, it's not for feeling.  It's an intellectual concept.  If I wanted to feel something, I would probably do something else.   Regarding the anchor, well, I've mentioned it.  Not explicitly in those terms, but it's there.

 

 

When fish swim in the water, no matter how much they swim the water does not come to an end. When birds fly in the sky, no matter how much they fly, the sky does not come to an end. However, though fish and birds have never been apart from the water and the air, when the need is great the function is great; when the need is small the function is small. Likewise, it is not that at every moment they are not acting fully, not that they do not turn and move freely everywhere, but if a bird leaves the air, immediately it dies; if a fish leaves the water, immediately it dies. We should realize that because of water there is life. We should realize that because of air there is life. Because there are birds there is life; because there are fish there is life. Life is the bird and life is the fish. Besides this we could proceed further. It is just the same with practice and enlightenment and the lives of people.
 

So, if there were a bird or fish that wanted to go through the sky or the water only after thoroughly investigating its limits, he would not attain his way nor find his place in the water or in the sky. If one attains this place, these daily activities manifest absolute reality. If one attains this Way, these daily activities are manifest absolute reality. This Way, this place, is neither large nor small, neither self nor other, has neither existed previously nor is just now manifesting, and thus it is just as it is.

(“Genjo Koan”, Dogen; tr. Paul Jaffe)

Mayu, Zen master Baoche, was fanning himself. A monk approached and said, “Master, the nature of wind is permanent and there is no place it does not reach. Why, then, do you fan yourself?”
 

“Although you understand that the nature of the wind is permanent,” Mayu replied, “you do not understand the meaning of its reaching everywhere.”
 

“What is the meaning of its reaching everywhere?” asked the monk again. Mayu just kept fanning himself. 

 

("Genjo Koan", Dogen; tr Tanahashi)

 

 

I'm with Dogen:  if you want to go through Dao Bums only after thoroughly investigating absolute reality, then you will need scissors, you will need construction paper, you will need white glue:

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Daniel]

14 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

, if there were a bird or fish that wanted to go through the sky or the water only after thoroughly investigating its limits, he would not attain his way nor find his place in the water or in the sky.

 

this breaks down, for me, with the words "only after".  I'm not doing that, or implying that, or writing that, in any way shape or form.

 

14 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

if you want to go through Dao Bums only after thoroughly investigating absolute reality, then you will need scissors, you will need construction paper, you will need white glue:

 

since i'm not doing that, this is irrelevant.

 

it's seven easy to understand terms.

 

1. was
2. wasn't
3. is
4. isn't
5. will-be
6. won't
7. could-be

 

done.

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Daniel

[liminal_luke]

....

Edited September 23, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Daniel]

15 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

This conversation about varieties of infinity is way over my head.  Perhaps galen_burnett will explain it for laypeople in his upcoming video.

 

When I was young, my friends and I would play a game, a stupid game, called "grosser-than-gross".  It was something to play in small groups, or maybe just as a pair while riding a bus, or on a long car ride.  One person turns to the other and asks, with a juvenile smirk: 

 

"What's grosser than gross?"  And the other person would say "I don't know."  The the first person would try to say something really-really gross the grossest thing they could think of.  Then the other person would turn to them and say, "What's grosser than that?"  And the first person would respond, "I don't know."  Then the other person would try to come up with something grosser than what the firt person said.

 

This goes on for a while until they run out of ideas.  It's kind of like that, but, in this case the question is:  "what's bigger than big?"  In the kid's version, inevitably there is potential for argument between the two "opponents" if there is a challenge, "that's not actually gross."  In the grown up version, "what's bigger than big?", the same thing can happen.  When a person uses the word "infinite", if it is missing something, then it's not actually infinite.  That's like the child challenging, "that's not actually gross".

 

So, one way to imagine infinity is to use numbers, and keep getting bigger and bigger.  But no matter how a person counts, there's always going to be numbers missing.  If I start at 1,2,3, etc... I've already lost the game, because 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc... are missing.  Does that make sense?  So the first person in the game asks, "what's bigger than big?"  The seccond person starts counting "1,2,3,4,..." the first person challenges "wait! you missed some numbers. that's not bigger than big.  I can come up with something bigger."  Then the person starts over and includes the half-digits.  But that doesn't work, because, now the sequence is missing the quarter-digits.  But including the quarter-digits doesn't fix the problem, because the eighths are missing, and the 16ths, are missing, and the 32nds, and the 64ths... see where this is going?

 

But! 

 

No matter what happens, if I count using only whole numbers and keep going forever I still get to the same place as if I had iincluded the half-digits.  Counting forever is stiill counting forever no matter how I do it.

 

Because of this, all those different ways of counting are kind of meaningless to the concept of what is happening at the extreme.  I've been using the words "when infinity is achieved" for this extreme.  Maybe anotther word from a cultivation context that can be used is "attainment".  The extreme is "when infinity is attained".  The distinction is how is infinity achieved / attained. 

 

The language here is tricky.  I can't say  "all those different ways of counting are kind of meaningless to the concept of what is happening at the end."  The word "end" is false.  If I am trying to play the game "what is bigger than big?" the minute I claim that it has "ended" or it has an "end" I have lost the game.  My friendly-opponent can easiy add something to the "end" and will have created something bigger.  This is a semantic fault.  I'm using the word "infinite", which means never-ending, but I am also using the word "end".  That's a fail.

 

So that's a basic explanation of the different versions of infinity.  They're all going to the same place and are all identical at the extreme.  They are all infinite.  One is not actually bigger or smaller than the other.  That's a misnomer.  It is correct that some versions have gaps.  The process of removing the gaps, IOW, including more and more, is what produces the ultmate answer to "what's bigger than big?"  But one has to be cauttious of any semantic fault which can be challenged.

[Daniel]

18 minutes ago, Daniel said:

It is correct that some versions have gaps. 

 

Correction.  They all have gaps except for 1.  Only one version is lacking any gaps.  The question is, is there a semantic fault which defeats it?  And, there isn't.   The version that is lacking gaps is the one which I described a few posts up.  It is 7 categories of: objects, actions ( or events ), ideas, and symbols grouped into a conglomerate.  Basically, this includes any and all possible numbers and much-much more without producing any semantic faults.  There are no gaps, there are no defeaters.  The game has ended.  It's absolutely the biggest no matter how "biggest" is defined.

 

That's it.

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Daniel