Are you applying distinctions with those questions?
One universe is distinct from multiple universes, and no universes, and itself given a pure unity is self-embedding.
Of which there are NONE.
So, once more, when I ask you ‘from what, exactly?’ I am referring to something that actually does exist. Distinct from what does not and could NOT exist. Can you see and spot the difference here? To some, the distinction is very obvious and clear.
Just like there cannot be ‘multiple universes’, ‘the way’ the Universe is, exactly, means there could never be ‘no universes and no Universe’.
None is a distinction, the one universe is distinct from that.
Thus, by degree of the one universe being distinct from the absence of one universe, what remains beyond the universe is the event of distinction…distinction which is pre/trans/post universal.
Your argument does not hold.
The one universe is not the ultimate.
I agree, but in concept ONLY, of course.
But there is NO ‘beyond’ the Universe, obviously.
But I do not have an argument here.
Really?
So, the very Thing that holds and is absolutely every thing, as the One Everything, is, well, to “eodnhoj7” anyway, not the so-called ‘ultimate’. Which leads me to now ask, “eodnhoj7”, what then is ‘the ultimate’, exactly?
You forgot, I am not going to respond to fifty subquotes. If you want to talk, and it seems you are convinced you do, then respond in paragraphs. As proof, I have not read past the first sentence, saw the whole and fragments, and my response should give some light to it.
You may value your thoughts, but that it just you.
So, in that spirit:
You claim a mind oriented universe. Mind is subject to distinction from non-mind, as mind occurs as and via distinction, thus your purely mind orientation is subject to distinction thus mind is not primary.
Why did you presume or believe I have forgot?
Where you under some sort of presumption that ‘I’ am going to change my writing to suit ‘you’ wishes?
What a completely absurd presumption, “If you want to talk, and it seems you are convinced you do, then …”.
Are you convinced that you want to talk?
By the way, I respond in ‘the way’ I want to, and NOT in ‘the way’ ‘you’ want ‘me’ to. Do you understand?
“As proof” of ‘what’, exactly?
Therefore, “eognhoj7” does NOT value its thoughts.
In ‘what spirit’, exactly?
Did I?
If yes, then WHEN and WHERE, exactly?
By the way, I NEVER DID.
If ‘this’ is what ‘you’ have chosen to believe is absolutely true, then okay.
Distinction is a feature of human thinking, it’s a bit weird to view that as God, isn’t it? It’s a bit like viewing grammar or pronouns as God.
Only from certain dualistic points of view, not from the nondual point of view. The whole point of nondualism is to not use actual distinctions (or alawys use infinitely many which we can’t process), and from there we see that nondual thinking encompasses everything, including dualistic thinking. The dual (and trial etc) is sort of a special case of the non-dual.
This is not bad at all.
Its distinction but with a certain edge. A specific type of distinction.
This edge is required to go from level 1 distinction top level 2 distinction upwards to dynamic constructs of distinction, and up to consciousness proper.
So it’s a distinction that reenforces its own capacity for distinction.
Distinction between cognition and non-cognition does not limit distinction to purely either.
The distinction of mind and no-mind reveals distinction as transcendental as both are mediated via distinction.
You cannot limit distinction to the human mind alone as the distinction of the limits of the human mind, its relative absence, necessitates a non-mind event.
I gave you rules about quoting fifty different segments with fifty different questions if you wanted to talk.
You did not follow them.
You can talk all you want from this point but you will no longer get a response.
Good luck with your…whatever it is you propose.
I did not read past the first few words.
So continue on your messianic mission…
This is not bad at all.
Its distinction but with a certain edge. A specific type of distinction.
This edge is required to go from level 1 distinction top level 2 distinction upwards to dynamic constructs of distinction, and up to consciousness proper.
So it’s a distinction that reenforces its own capacity for distinction.
You got the grounding of the argument yes. And the last sentence you wrote is spot on, distinction occurs via distinction as distinction; distinction is self-embedding.
As to God.
But it is not a specific type of distinction. It can be, but not in this specific context of the text.
And I can show you why with just the term you used “specific type of distinction”.
Specific
Type
These are both distinctions. So when you say “specific type of distinction” what you are observing a circumstance of distinction scaling further distinction as a distinction.
Yes there are different distinctions of distinctions. But what remains is a self-embedding scale of distinction itself.
A visual of this can be a tree. “Tree” exists in many variations but these variations are still “tree”.
Distinction, is the most fundamental event. It allows thought, absence of thought, emotions, absence of emotions, the physical, the non-physical, existence and non-existence as they are.
To arguing against or doubt distinction as fundamental is to observe a distinction of “counter-argument” or “doubt”…thus the counter-argument/doubt negates itself on its own terms and foundations.
Cognition using distinctions and cognition without using distinctions are both cognitions within the mind. A distinction between the human mind and the rest of reality, is drawn using cognition too, it’s fundamentally illusory just like all distinction.
Our minds are continuous with, one with all of the rest of reality, including all the other minds (probably, by Occam’s razor), that’s what Western philosophy doesn’t get. It’s Western philosophy’s blind spot.
Our minds are as “distinct” from each other and the rest of the world, as rocks in a river are. The universe doesn’t place some transcendental limit, barrier around the rocks. The rocks and the river are all continuous and one.
So what do you mean by distinction being transcendental? It’s not.
LOL Imagine believing that ‘you’ could give ‘me’ rules here.
Have you not made this claim before?
Which makes me wonder how this one knows what I say and write here if it really does not read past the first few words now.
And, let ‘us’ not forget “eodnhoj7” believes, absolutely, and claims that within this “tree” there are smaller trees and that this “tree” is also within a larger tree, somehow.
EXACTLY as I have been saying and pointing out here.
But some people do not read all of what I write here, so they miss this Fact.
Which is HOW and WHY “eodnhoj7” continually contradicts “itself” here.
No, I agree, But please, if you want to develop this argument, qualify ‘distinction’. See if you can specify it. Not just what it distinguishes, but how.
That’s the holy grail.
Its not an analytical specification. The secret to living logic is that it lives.
Gee…why does that sound so familiar?
“The only constant is change.”
Is this misrepresentation saying the only yellow is blue?
Aquinas’ “pure act of being” is (apparently, according to Copilot) Aristotle’s. “Energeia (ἐνέργεια) is not ‘being’ in the static sense. It is being‑as‑instantiating, being‑as‑doing, being‑as‑actualizing.”
But being is yellow (substantiating), action (enacting) is blue, quality (satisfying…fullness of potency from an eternal perspective) is red.
This isn’t a reductive/collapsing simplicity—it’s irreducibly complex triunity-in-distinction.
Cognition using distinctions and cognition without using distinctions are both cognitions within the mind. A distinction between the human mind and the rest of reality, is drawn using cognition too, it’s fundamentally illusory just like all distinction.
Our minds are continuous with, one with all of the rest of reality, including all the other minds (probably, by Occam’s razor), that’s what Western philosophy doesn’t get. It’s Western philosophy’s blind spot.
Our minds are as “distinct” from each other and the rest of the world, as rocks in a river are. The universe doesn’t place some transcendental limit, barrier around the rocks. The rocks and the river are all continuous and one.
So what do you mean by distinction being transcendental? It’s not.
+++
+++
+++
Cognition and it’s absences are both distinctions.
If cognition is purely the origin of distinction, than it’s absence, that allows cognition to be distinct, undermines cognition as being purely generative of distinction as it’s absence generates cognition by degree of the absence being the limits of what allows cognition to be.
In these respect both cognition and its absence are not only relative but effectively non-foundational as the event of distinction results in both and as such is both prior and mediative to both.
The continuity of the mind does not negate it’s limits as mind for continuity necessitates dimension as continuity is directed by nature. The nature of mind being directed reveals it’s limits.
Under the assumption everything is one, this everything becomes distinct by virtue of being one and as such is self-undermining as one in this respect.
The transcendental nature of distinction is by nature of each going beyond itself through further distinction as well as the nature of transcendence and immanence being subject to distinction thus distinction is mediative and yet beyond both.
No, I agree, But please, if you want to develop this argument, qualify ‘distinction’. See if you can specify it. Not just what it distinguishes, but how.
That’s the holy grail.
Its not an analytical specification. The secret to living logic is that it lives.
+++
+++
+++
Self contained self contrast via recursion.
Here is a visual and direct formulation at the most or primitive level possible:
There is void •
This void is indistinct potentiality, the space by which what is actualized is actualized.
This potentiality contains its potential to be distinct as potential, the distinction of potential is actuality of potential as potential, thus actually occurs:
••
Potential is distinct from potential as actual potential, the potentiality is recursive. This recursion is the contrast of • as • is indistinct until •• where it contrasts itself. •• is also the limit of • where • contains itself via ••.
In this respect •• is self contained self contrast.
Now • can be observed as:
0d point.
Point of attention.
Void as potentiality
Source\God
So what we know of distinction is self contained self contrast as recursion. In this respect both pattern and process are effectively one, patterned change.
Take for example the recursion of •
•• contains •, ••
••• contains •, ••, •••
•••• contains •,••,•••,••••
So while •…• may go on indefinitely, a pattern is always present simultaneously.
The response to Jakob covers what you claim. The response is to both of you at once.
You like fractals…so the response is a fractal.
Place yourself into the thing.