It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Non-Dual Is Best Understood Through Extreme Expression Of Polarity

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad
Neutrality is Zeroness.



Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
neutrality is of 1.


Ok my turn...

+1's dual is -1.

0's dual is infinity, both of which have no polarity (or both simultaneously depending on how you want to look at it).

Both 0 and infinity can be treated as the origin. Conventional mathematics only considers 0 as the origin but this logic can be inverted.

Neutrality is obtained by considering both dualities simultaneously. I personally think of ±1 as the middle.




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I think that any order or disorder or label you might put onto reality is your own mental projection. The truth, or source, is what comes prior to all of that.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by circlemaker

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad
Neutrality is Zeroness.



Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
neutrality is of 1.


Ok my turn...

+1's dual is -1.

0's dual is infinity, both of which have no polarity (or both simultaneously depending on how you want to look at it).

Both 0 and infinity can be treated as the origin. Conventional mathematics only considers 0 as the origin but this logic can be inverted.

Neutrality is obtained by considering both dualities simultaneously. I personally think of ±1 as the middle.



Well said!


Sumthing I haven't said in my 0 + 0 = 1 thread is this:

0 + 0 = ∞ = 1

Twin Inverted n0things coming together to form the One Infinity.


That's how 0 + 0 can equal One.


Ribbit



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by circlemaker
I personally think of ±1 as the middle.


I was in a hurry with my last post so I wanted to clarify: 0±1 is *a middle*, not *the middle*, since ∞±1 reflects it, as can be seen in the image I posted.

Based on my current understanding of math, I can't think of any number or limit that doesn't have a dual of some sort, which I find pretty amazing since I kept expecting to find it. Now I'm not even sure where to look!



Originally posted by ButtUglyToad
0 + 0 = ∞ = 1

I still don't quite get where you're going with this, in particular the 0+0 part, though I can imagine how the limits 0, ±1, and ∞ may be transposed by a change in perspective.

I CAN however understand how 0*∞ = ±1: diagram



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by circlemaker

Originally posted by circlemaker
I personally think of ±1 as the middle.


I was in a hurry with my last post so I wanted to clarify: 0±1 is *a middle*, not *the middle*, since ∞±1 reflects it, as can be seen in the image I posted.

Based on my current understanding of math, I can't think of any number or limit that doesn't have a dual of some sort, which I find pretty amazing since I kept expecting to find it. Now I'm not even sure where to look!



Originally posted by ButtUglyToad
0 + 0 = ∞ = 1

I still don't quite get where you're going with this, in particular the 0+0 part, though I can imagine how the limits 0, ±1, and ∞ may be transposed by a change in perspective.

I CAN however understand how 0*∞ = ±1: diagram



00 = Double-Ought

0 + 0 = 00 = ∞

+ = Time

Time is what links the two Zeros of Double-Ought together as the One Consciousness of Infinity.

0 + 0 = 00 = ∞ = One

0 + 0 = 1

That's the equation that defines the Universe and it's a Contradiction.


Ribbit



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by circlemaker

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad
Neutrality is Zeroness.



Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
neutrality is of 1.


Ok my turn...

+1's dual is -1.

0's dual is infinity, both of which have no polarity (or both simultaneously depending on how you want to look at it).

Both 0 and infinity can be treated as the origin. Conventional mathematics only considers 0 as the origin but this logic can be inverted.

Neutrality is obtained by considering both dualities simultaneously. I personally think of ±1 as the middle.



Well said!


Sumthing I haven't said in my 0 + 0 = 1 thread is this:

0 + 0 = ∞ = 1

Twin Inverted n0things coming together to form the One Infinity.


That's how 0 + 0 can equal One.


Ribbit


Ok so without addressing the craziness in which is your means of coming to this conclusion, 0 + 0 is now 1?

So now infinity is equal to 1 and to 0+0...

If 1 is a construct of 'polar 0's', 1 can be recognized as the neutral state of the two?

So then 1 is neutral, and not 0?

LOL!

::meow::
edit on 17-3-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional statement



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


I am fairly certain that we are not describing the same thing with different words. Does wisdom not give
premise towards a deeper understanding of self? Again, wisdom does not grow within a person because they understand themselves. Wisdom is that which allows a person to understand themselves. In other words; I am not able to see myself clearly because I saw myself, but I am able to see myself clearly because I have been made to see.

This womb of a universe is like a vine which produces fruit. We are growing on it and the promise is that the Maker/Gardener moves to consume the good fruit and, thus, brings the fruit into a greater communion. The common mindset has the situation reversed, believing that Man is intrinsically free and God is simply waiting and hoping that He gets a return on His investment. Again, not so. The Spirit of God does move and nourish Their Children. It has become rare again, as in the days shortly before Christ and as in the days of Noah. But this should not be surprising. In such a barren place, the Creator does still reap a magnitude.



Wisdom is a deep understanding and realization of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to apply perceptions, judgements and actions in keeping with this understanding. It often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that universal principles, reason and knowledge prevail to determine one's actions. Wisdom is also the comprehension of what is true or right coupled with optimum judgment as to action. Synonyms include: sagacity, discernment, or insight.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, attempt to explain the following....

How can someone develope a true understanding and realization of others, if they are not to compare and make correlations with self?

What is wisdom, if it is not expressed? ...Nothing, or is it inevitably expressed?
Wouldn't any expression after achieving this wisdom, inherently be a construct of this wisdom?

Which then brings me back to the definition...


It often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that universal principles, reason and knowledge prevail to determine one's actions.




Wisdom is also the comprehension of what is true or right coupled with optimum judgment as to action


If it then requires control of one's emotional reactions(deeper understanding of self), reasoning(cause and effect in relation to self), knowledge(construct of self), judgement(based on self applied values)...

Where does my saying that Wisdom gives premise towards a deeper understanding of self become false?

And now the kicker in all of this, all though be it, that you might not agree with him... Plato


By PlatoPlato employs the maxim 'Know Thyself' extensively by having the character of Socrates use it to motivate his dialogues. Plato makes it clear that Socrates is referring to a long-established wisdom.

en.wikipedia.org...

"...a long-established wisdom"
So, again.... deeper understanding of self is given premise, derived from wisdom.
Simply put, to express wisdom is to have a deeper understanding of self, or therefor it is not wise. You can quote that.

BTW, the philosophy in the NT is all good, and gives warm fuzy feelings... but know the origins, which are mainly Greek. And to that, your Christ or Jesus fellar is just a reiteration and mutation of Dionysus.
Even very limited research should make this abundantly clear.


It appears that the early framers and proponents of the doctrine of original sin did not use the Bible as their starting point. That is, the doctrine did not emerge on its own out of Biblical exegesis. Even though Tertullian objected to the influence of Greek philosophy on the Church, his stoic psychology was a tributary of the emerging new doctrine. The main stream, however, goes back to its headwaters in Plato and his notion of the fall of the soul. From this and from the ideas behind infant baptism, Origen contributed to the doctrine.

www.gospeltruth.net...

I'm not claiming that all of the philosophy is a direct origin from previous philosophers. Much was developed over time through mutating doctrines and conversations that followed. But hardly from some divine source, or the 'word' of God. And this is EXACTLY WHY, I prefer that using scripture is to be removed from providing sustenance towards any arguement, for the strength in which it's given is permitted via a false perception in regards to the origin of this doctrine.
edit on 17-3-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional statement

edit on 17-3-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional statement



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
If there's no such thing as zero emissions. For relation and influence is never linear, except in relation towards time.
Go and do the physics, imagine a baseball, it's energy, a bat swinging at it and it's energy, and then the result of the two coming together. Can you find all that energy in the baseball while it's flying? No. It's not linear


Nonlinear equations and functions are of interest to physicists and mathematicians because they can be used to represent many natural phenomena, including chaos.

en.wikipedia.org...
which has came up before, in a previous discussion with Toad

if...

“No such thing as ‘non-political’ – even in a conflict resolution process”

caucasusedition.net... /

The reason I bring up politics:


Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens") is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

en.wikipedia.org...

is because it's an examply of a collective and can be regarded as one, in which can never involve zero. And carriest a communication(influence) and observation aspect in which metaphysics is about.

Zero is a number that is only to apply to the material plane, and falls short in having any form of truth when relating to philosophy and psychology. You can have zero of something, but not zero comprehension, cognitive awareness, nor influence in both directions relative with the one earth, one universe, or anything.

What is there?
What is it like?

AKA, in terms of existence and possibility! AKA, no such thing as 0 in this discussion topic, for if there were, then observation and nonlocality(both classical physics, and quantum) would be false and not a construct of reality(in terms of metaphysics).

One question I have is...
How can the idea of infinite be proven? Kind of a random question, but I will make it relative once a supposed 'truth' is agreed upon.


edit on 17-3-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional statement



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


I believe that I have made myself clear regarding Wisdom and "it's" existence.
And accepting the poor correlation of Christ to Dionysus simply exposes your lack of understanding of Christ's teaching. That is not to say it is entirely your fault, the commonly held beliefs of Christianity are certainly similar in perversion to Greek mythology. What else could be expected from the Western Imperial Religion?

I am concerned for the weights on your ankles as it is not expedient to travel with such burdens. I did so for quite a while, and I am still shedding remainders of those traps. I do wish you well from here, but I will bow out of this now, I am not in a position to relieve you of what is causing you to feel delayed. That can only occur inside, in spite of you.
Cheers.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Here is a short video called 'What is Non-Duality?'
youtu.be...

Non duality can not be understood. To understand something it must be a thing of perception and it is not a 'thing' of 'perception', it is what percieves, it is what sees and knows, it is what contains all 'things'.
It is the mind that wants to understand because it is the mind that is confused. Non duality is the truth and is beyond the mind, the mind is secondary, the mind is an appearance. The mind is percieved.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


In this sense, Non-Duality is that which is not lacking. Our perceptions are lacking. It is impossible for our own perceptions to be Non-Duality. Non-Duality is that which expresses even us as a glimmer of it's perfection. We grow in perfection (tethered while in this realm), but upon "extraction" from this place, communion with "Lacking Nothing" is fullness, beauty, comprehension, expression, etc. in and through us. But, again, even now this is partly the case. This is how we differ in terms of our "programming" in relation to the animals which do not challenge their development as we do. Certainly it is becoming more commonly understood that it is not a superior brain that brings us to our position on this planet, it is our minds' kinetic power.

Every religion except Truth advocates that either we are inherently Creator, or that we can climb up over the fence into the Kingdom of the Creator. Neither are remotely logical, although even Truth itself is not bound by rationale as we might think.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


People believe they are born into a solid world that was there before they arrived and that the world is permanent and they are not. Really the world appears in you as you. You are permanent and the world of 'things' is constantly changing.

edit on 18-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


That which percieves (sees and knows) cannot be percieved.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Relative to Non-Duality, this realm is made up of it's shadows. It is fleeting. Yes, most people conduct themselves as though it is permanent. However, the correction to this confusion is not found in declaring one's self unbound, but by recognizing one's bondage and need to be satiated. Shadows cannot satiate. Only Truth can quench the life that They first put in us.

I am strictly stating again, although you did not address the ill-logic of the common views; We are not the Creator. We are created creators. This is not our end, it is our beginning.

In essence, we are the artificial intelligence of Intelligence. More so, we are the broken artificial intelligence of Intelligence. Thus, the irony surrounding Mankind's attempt to understand consciousness through calculators.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


There is no relativity in Non-Duality, relationship is illusionary.
Oneness is not two.
It may look like two but that is the illusion.
Without the seer of the illusion what would be seen?
edit on 18-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Again, you're not handling the issue of contradiction that permeates the construct you have built around the expanse of Life and it also seems that you are somewhat missing that I am supporting certain things you are saying. Most of your observations, most of everyone's observations are fine, it is what we ignore and create falsely that condemns us. But, in and by Truth we are provided for. Just as we were brought into this decaying life without first paying, we are brought into the next life by the same Creator.

So then, yes, by our communion with the Creator we are allowed a certain authority, but that is far different from the common doctrines which say that Man is inherently without decay (yes, even our immaterial perception) or that Man is able to overcome our decay without provision being made. What person perceives perfectly? None. Truth (Perfect Perception) is free, but we are bound. What person is able to overcome his bonds except that Truth heals them? None. Truth is free, but we are not.

Instead of claiming that such freedom is owed to us, let us be thankful for the blessing/gift of recognition and grow from it despite the decay that is draped upon all that we perceive.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


There is not more than one. So there cannot be 'next' life and 'we' were not brought into 'this' life. There is life and that is all.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I caution you to not be so bold as to place the importance of "beauty" on the act of perceiving beauty. That which expresses is not reliant on any perception except it's own. Our ability to perceive and judge is a borrowed gift. Those who claim it as theirs by right, will have it taken away. It is not a matter of injustice that that is the case.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


When was i so bold as to place the importance of "beauty" on the act of perceiving beauty? You are imagining.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


Seeing and knowing (percieving) is not about judging, it is the opposite. The ability to judge is what keeps the truth hidden, it is not a gift, it is a curse.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join