(10-17-2010, 10:05 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Exactly. Unity100, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in your metaphysics we boil down to discrete, finite units. Correct?
as far as what i understand, there can be neither total discreteness, or, total uniformness.
i understand it, like bumps, portrusions of 'waves' that happen to be on the surface of a flat body of water. each bump, portrusion, is, a discreteness. the level of discreteness may be high, or low. can increase, or decrease. can take numerous forms. they can even portrude downwards, like a hole.
and there is uniformity in still parts. the still parts may become bumpy, then again can go still. it can ever change.
logically, since all these upward and downward portrusions and stillness are coming into being from, and connected to the same stillness (the body of water), it could be said that those differentiations do not exist. logically as such indeed.
but. the thing is the concept of 'existing', is only as much as these portrusions happen. ie, something 'exists' because it portrudes from the stillness, and this is called 'existing'. and because no other concept of existing other than this exists, it is inevitable but to name these portrusions as existing. because, this is what existing is.
so, this is the multiple-beingness we are exploring, as an analogy. observing the concept of negative polarity, i think that total discreteness was attempted in this octave. ie, a portrusion totally leaving the body of water. but, since we know that that path has to return to the other one in early 6d, it is apparent that, a total portrusion, discreteness, cant happen.
that means that, the existence is both uniform and connected, and discrete at the same time.
in this manner, discreteness exist, and we are all discrete, as with ANYthing that exists. they are all deviations from stillness.
in another respect, all constitute the same body of water, and never totally become discrete, and also continually change, getting affected by each other. so, we are not discrete
duality.
Quote:Quote:Quote:You do not seem to even be attempting to understand another's point of view. You got your own idea and everything anyone else says is either evidence to support your idea or it is nonsense. Even Ra seems to fall in the role of supporting your point of view. Because dude, he's not saying what you think he is saying.
i cant even understand what the above means.
Seems pretty clear to me.
I'm wondering, unity100, if anything anyone has posted on here has ever changed your mind about anything?
that has happened with a number of intricate details i have missed to consider.
however what is more important is, a lot of what we are discussing here, and what i am proposing and describing, have occurred to me as the discussions go by. it feels like they were all waiting at the back of my head, waiting, me being unconscious of them, and they spill out when someone challenges something i said. some, i was aware subtly, occasionally coming up in the 'discussions' that go about at the back of my mind. i have accentuated some of them before participating in here. but a lot, have spilled into words and concrete thought and speech, during these discussions.
edit : there is also the feeling of them being 'manifested' as a 'knowing', as if someone talking them, but, more like 'mutually common knowledge revealing' thing, rather than waiting at the back of my unconscious
(10-17-2010, 11:36 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote:(10-17-2010, 06:56 AM)unity100 Wrote: was it ? you were arguing to the point that EVERYthing was an illusion, and, you were EVERYthing, in actuality. you have challenged the very 'existence' concept of everything, but the one single entity you were proposing too.I've been in a museum once as a kid where they put up straw men. In all kinds of positions. Arguing, playing, generally being goofy... I loved it... Talking to you takes me back there.. I keep seeing straw men. Just about everywhere... Goofy ones too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy
im content that you object to my above proposition. and because of that, i dont care if you call it a straw man. so be it. ill refer to this post if needed in future.