Existence Is Infinite

[promethean75]

Your mom is infinite

[Demon]

@Sculptor

@Demon

What is written is reality,

IN the beginning was the word???

You made me laugh. ‘And the word was Nonsense’? But seriously, do you really think that two different forms of the same existence (Consciousness and Being) should compete in an imaginary contest of primacy?

[anon51310602]

@Sculptor

Are you for real?
Just because a word exists does not mean it makes sense or is real.

Yes, just like the word.

[anon51310602]

@Demon

Ideas are an expressed call to action. You don’t understand what ideas are and are trying to shift that onto me?

Not necessarily. An idea is simply a thought or a concept:

Idea (noun)

1. a formulated thought or opinion
2. whatever is known or supposed about something
   (Idea. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idea)

Idea (noun)

1. Something, such as a thought or conception, that is the product of mental activity
   (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company https://www.thefreedictionary.com/idea)

The terms and definitions you use bear little relation to standard terms and definitions.

@Demon

are you about to try to prove that beyond existence there is still something else that exists?

Existence is all.

Existence is eternal, without beginning or end, beyond life and death. Existence simply is.

[anon51310602]

From the essay:

@anon51310602

Existence just is. We, as conscious individuals, create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.

@anon51310602

All variance balances as simply being. All difference, all variation, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

The idea is illustrated in this image:

Simplified:

The images should clarify the philosophy presented.

The same theme is found in Leonardo’s Last Supper:

The Da Vinci Code: Last Supper Symbolism

The Da Vinci Code: Last Supper Symbolism Daniel J. Lavender [image] ”…all differences, all variations, all opposition, all contradiction ultimately balances as simply being… as simply existence.” We all know Dan Brown’s bestselling novel and the subsequent blockbuster film. Part of the investigation focused on Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper painting. However the ideas conveyed within the book and film are a bit misleading. The symbolism depicted is a bit inaccurate. It’s time the true sy…

[Demon]

@anon51310602

Not necessarily. An idea is simply a thought or a concept:

Idea (noun)

1. a formulated thought or opinion
2. whatever is known or supposed about something
   (Idea. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, IDEA Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)

Idea (noun)

1. Something, such as a thought or conception, that is the product of mental activity
   (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company Idea - definition of idea by The Free Dictionary)

The terms and definitions you use bear little relation to standard terms and definitions.

Decided to argue by pointing to deceitful, nonsensical dictionaries? Fine. On the first quote and the first objection — how to formulate, if not to express? To separate, to highlight? And what’s the point? The form of the word must be applied, necessarily expressed, spoken, written. An idea is a vector. The direction itself has no power. An idea without power is just a thought.

The second definition is quite pathetic. You’ve learned something, assumed something, but what next? Will there be movement necessarily? No, of course, so where is the sign, the consequence, of any idea?"

Let me know if you’d like any adjustments!

[Demon]

@anon51310602

Existence is all.

Existence is eternal, without beginning or end, beyond life and death. Existence simply is.

Existence is a form. But it has no beginning, only an end. It’s hard for you to grasp that the end is the Apocalypse, when further existence becomes impossible because the goal has been achieved? And the reason there is no Beginning is different. ‘Beginning’ is a temporal category. But if there was no time itself, then how could its categories arise? And here’s something even funnier. Life and death don’t just exist; they define, as signs, the very existence. It is alive, changing, rational—not just rationally organized and dying, losing the meaning of life.

[Demon]

Isn’t it funny to ask, have you ever wondered what negation is? And how about the concept of ‘negative numbers’? What is being negated, and who benefits from it? Facts are denied with the intention of lying. But why? Denying a lie is amusing, in that case, the lie multiplies as justification. But why deny facts and live in a lie? Who needs it, and who benefits from it?

[Sculptor]

@Demon

You made me laugh. ‘And the word was Nonsense’? But seriously, do you really think that two different forms of the same existence (Consciousness and Being) should compete in an imaginary contest of primacy?

You have some crazy ideas.
How th F did you get to that from what I said?
LOL
You present 2 linked concepts and imply they could be “in competition”
These are just differences in POV.
ANd I was commenting on the abstruse and rather absurd idea that if there is word it is true, which you more than implied.
Are you even bothereing to follow what is being said?

[Sculptor]

@Demon

Isn’t it funny to ask, have you ever wondered what negation is? And how about the concept of ‘negative numbers’? What is being negated, and who benefits from it? Facts are denied with the intention of lying. But why? Denying a lie is amusing, in that case, the lie multiplies as justification. But why deny facts and live in a lie? Who needs it, and who benefits from it?

WHy not ask Theorore Adorno - you’ll get lots more obscurantist word salad to keep you happy for days as to insist upon a separation, whether as a description of the world or only for the purposes of analysis, between a ‘sphere of social action in general’,'? and a pre or a social natural world,
reinforces culturalism. For a materialist theory, to dominatc other
humans - since humans are not pure culture - is dready domination of naturr as well as social domination, not social domination instead of or ‘modelled upon’ domination of nature. Only a theory which itself presupposes mastery of nature can regard intersubjectivity as a separate sphere which has somehow separated itself from the natural.

[MagsJ (Surya Loka.. triumvirate)]

@anon51310602

@MagsJ

…that doesn’t cease it to be so, in being a conundrum… for me.

It’s easy to become entangled in complexity as conscious beings.

..the matter is a musing and not an entanglement in complexity, for me.. my mind, wondering and pondering, as it pleases..

.

@anon51310602

@MagsJ

…and yet… these multiple universes would all exist, so all be part of existence, no?

Yes. Existence isn’t necessarily confined to the universe.

There are also creator-creation systems and theological frameworks to consider.

Universe is an inclusive term however existence is more comprehensive. More practical as well.

With the terms and definitions provided one could point to a palm tree, or any other item, and easily claim existence. However one could not point to a palm tree and easily claim universe. Universe is a relatively restrictive term.

I see existence as a totality of all that has been called into being, so.. seamless, simple, serene.

[Demon]

@Sculptor

WHy not ask Theorore Adorno -

To ask a Theorore Adorno about lies? Well, in fact, people generally lack true understanding of what a lie is. For example, Truth cannot be distorted — it can only be slandered. A lie is not opposed to Truth itself, but to truthfulness.

[Sculptor]

@Demon

To ask a Theorore Adorno about lies?

You were talking about “negation” .

LOL Do you think negation is lies??

[Demon]

Existence is complete in the present moment, and incomplete in relation to the next.**
This is the mark of a lie.
Existence, as a whole, is deceitful.
So why talk about its fragments at all?

[anon51310602]

The Term Existence

Terms and definitions are crucial for any topic of discussion.

I contend the terms and definitions presented within this philosophy are more practical and more coherent than standard terms and definitions, specifically the term “existence”.

Standard definitions of existence are convoluted and circular. They provide no means of substantiation.

Existence is commonly defined as:

Existence (noun)

1. a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
   (Existence. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence)

Existence (noun)

1. The fact or state of existing; being
   (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence)

Existence (noun)

1. the fact or state of existing; being
   (Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence)

Existence is defined as being.

Being is defined as existence:

Being (noun)

1. a : the quality or state of having existence
   (Being. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being)

Being (noun)

1. The state or quality of having existence
   (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/being)

Being (noun)

1. the state or fact of existing; existence
   (Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/being)

The terms and definitions are circular. Existence is being, being is existence. The terms form a circular loop.

If existence is being, and being existence, what is being or existence? They are undefined.

The philosophy presented, however, precisely defines what existence is:

@anon51310602

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

There is no circular loop. Existence is explicitly defined with a practical, coherent definition.

With the standard terms existence is ambiguous; existence is being which is existence.

With the term provided existence is defined; existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part.

Not only are the standard terms circular, they also fail to provide any substantiation of existence as the term presented here.

With the definition provided one could point to a tree, or any other item, and easily declare existence. The tree would be perceived or interacted with substantiating it as existence. With the standard definition one would likely be rather perplexed.

The dual-nature definition, involving both perception and interaction, frees the philosophy from a purely biological, conscious perspective of perception.

The philosophy presented not only offers a comprehensive, comprehensible ontology it also offers clearer, more practical and more coherent definitions of key terms as illustrated here.

[felix_dakat]

With all due respect, your definition is wrong. Existence or being( synonyms) is one. By attempting to capture it in language, which is unavoidably dualistic, you have erred. Language must always point beyond itself or else be meaningless.

You made existence dependent on perception or interaction. That’s backwards. Existence the brute fact upon which perception and interaction depend.

Of course the dictionary definitions of existence or being are circular. For being to say anything about itself it must at least seem to split in two, that is, make a self reference. So, its definition must unavoidably a priori and tautological. Your definition isn’t tautological which proves it’s a mistake.

[anon51310602]

@felix_dakat

With all due respect, your definition is wrong. Existence or being(synonyms) is one.

That existence and being are synonymous is acknowledged within the definition of existence itself:

@anon51310602

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

Furthermore the fact that existence and being are synonymous is precisely what renders them circular terms.

@felix_dakat

By attempting to capture it in language, which is unavoidably dualistic, you have erred. Language must always point beyond itself or else be meaningless.

Is language referencing language meaningless? Grammatical discussion pointless?

Definitions, words are language. Using language to convey such ideas is rather unavoidable.

However I am not attempting to capture all that is in a single word. A word is only a word. I am using a word, I am using language to express that beyond language itself.

@felix_dakat

You made existence dependent on perception or interaction. That’s backwards.

Existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, in part. It is that which is perceived or interacted with, not simply perception itself or interaction itself. It alludes to that beyond simple perception or interaction.

Perception and interaction substantiate things or existence as explained in my previous comment. The definition concerns us, our knowledge and substantiation, not the dependence of existence on us. This is discussed in the Significance Of Perception section of the original essay.

A human interacts with the atmosphere of Earth, the air or the breeze. That atmosphere merges or interacts with outer space and so on. Those qualify as interactions, as existence, even if not directly experienced by humans.

Identify something not perceived or interacted with. Even potentials and imperceptibles are in a sense perceived.

@felix_dakat

Existence the brute fact upon which perception and interaction depend.

Existence is all. There is no other aspect of which to depend.

@felix_dakat

Of course the dictionary definitions of existence or being are circular. For being to say anything about itself it must at least seem to split in two, that is, make a self reference. So, its definition must unavoidably a priori and tautological. Your definition isn’t tautological which proves it’s a mistake.

The issue isn’t simply circularity. The standard terms and definitions fail to substantiate, or provide any means of substantiation, for existence.

Every part of the definition itself, and every other thing it refers to, is existence. Existence refers to itself. In that sense it is circular, you are correct. However it is grounded in actual instances of existence, not only abstraction. All is existence. Existence is unavoidable.

[felix_dakat]

@anon51310602

Is language referencing language meaningless?

Yes.

@anon51310602

Is language referencing language meaningless? Grammatical discussion pointless?

Yes and No. You give it meaning when you enter the discussion. Apart from consciousness there is no meaning.

@anon51310602

The philosophy presented, however, precisely defines what existence is:

@anon51310602

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

There is no circular loop. Existence is explicitly defined with a practical, coherent definition.

Therein, lies the problem. You have defined being as an activity which is extrinsic to it and depends on it. Whereas, being or existence cannot be defined by anything extrinsic to itself. It is the undefinable substratum of everything defined.

[anon51310602]

@felix_dakat

You made existence dependent on perception or interaction. That’s backwards.

From the essay:

@anon51310602

Existence is that which can, at least partially, be perceived, but it does not necessarily need to be perceived. Things can be without being perceived. Likewise things can interact without awareness, such as waves crashing onto the shore.

@anon51310602

Perception or consciousness is part of the basis of defining existence because conscious entities, such as ourselves, are who this issue matters to. Existence, things can be without consciousness or awareness, but consciousness or awareness must be included because that’s what we are. For our purposes existence is that which is, or can, at least partially, be perceived. It involves perception both because perception or consciousness is part of existence and because the issue intimately concerns conscious entities. It implicitly involves perception or consciousness because that is the process used for such inquiry and exchange.

@anon51310602

Existence just is. We, as conscious individuals, create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.

Existence simply is. Perception is a means of substantiation concerning conscious beings.

Perception and interaction are epistemic tools, not ontological requirements.

[anon51310602]

@felix_dakat

Therein, lies the problem. You have defined being as an activity which is extrinsic to it and depends on it.

Existence is defined as that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part. That does not necessarily indicate activity.

Interaction and perception themselves may be viewed as activity, however, they are not beyond existence, they are parts of existence. Both interaction and perception are perceived substantiating them as things, as existence.

@felix_dakat

Whereas, being or existence cannot be defined by anything extrinsic to itself.

Again there are no extrinsic or external aspects beyond existence, existence is all.

The standard terms, being and existence, form a circular loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world examples.

The definition presented resolves that issue. The definition is functional and operational; one could see a tree, touch a leaf, hear a bird, smell a flower and easily declare existence.

The definition presented maintains abstraction while also breaking free from the circularity and convolution of standard terms.

@felix_dakat

It is the undefinable substratum of everything defined.

By declaring this you are defining existence. You are defining existence as an “undefinable substratum”. You violate your own terms.

Existence is all. Existence is infinite, unlimited. Existence is not limited to some substratum.