Imperfection manifests agitation/variance/value;existen

Imperfection manifests agitation ~ variance ~ value; existence…

Take one infinite space full of energy and an all permeating globally equivalent force [equilateral perhaps]. It has a problem, how can it fill that space equally? It can manifest volumes of pentagonal and hexagonal cube combinations, but not perfectly there would be curves between the points. The variety of those curves denotes an offset differential, where like bubbles forming together in a mass the structure is inherently unstable.

One could fill an infinite space with a grid but then you have to add points, ergo we have to first arrive at points. We cannot simply assume that there are points in infinity, especially when we don’t find them in existence [particles are not points, more epicentres of relating observing particles interacting].

First there must be imperfection to move from an infinite space of 0 value, to anything else. Perhaps in the attempt to be infinite, the infinite reality tries to form and cannot due to the imperfections of geometry and any math we care to attribute. A differentiation manifests where there will be a remaining value formed from the incongruity in the said attempt?

Seems we live in a reality which is always ‘in-growth’, perpetually trying to perfect itself whilst all the time having a fundamental imperfection in its heart. Sounds also like life and self to me.
_

No… if your getting agitated, you need to scale down dialectic to pure orientation sequences, like Pythagoras did with his tables.

mentalsymmetry.com/forum/?pa … -atlantis/

Find a aspect of each of these in thingness, and deconstruct the visual. Null it, knowing you can go Either-Or.

You need to be very careful, it can cause madness. As a child at the age of 3ish, I nearly went insane combining my OCD capacity… as you are doing, with Ideo-Kenetic Apraxia, in my case visual models.

I wrote about this to a philosopher who works in the same area I now work in, I’ve gotten considerably better since at knowing classical sources, this us a old post of mine describing my experiences [Contributor is his name for the two Supplimentry Motor Areas, just think myself or Shieldmaiden, perhaps you eventually if you ever get this problem solved, Exhorted would be Zoots or Ha Ha Ha in Basil Ganglia according to his system]

[/quote]

[/quote]
If you go on too one sided in Contributor thought, you can literally hurt yourself. Like I pointed out, compulsive patterns of Oughts and Is start to blur, and you very rapidly lose control.

A early 20th century philosopher Georg Cantor was driven to suicide trying to calculate basic infinity structures, similar to my toddler experience trying to control infinity. I figured it out, the same way they adapted the infinity of time as a chariot wheel… I got lucky in seeing it first as a wheel, and not as a linguistic or numerical abstraction. No matter what, your running such calculations through the visual imagination circuits, be it conscious or unconscious, and if your brain isn’t aware of how to say “stop” it becomes murderously painful. I honestly can imagine people killing themselves, and in Cantor’s case, he did. I lived.

Thats the difficulty with Apraxia… your mind doesn’t know how to coordinate this data… it has to go through the Supplimentry Motor Area, so it is a physical function, but you have every raw nerve and emotion being throw against you. It is a living hell if you can’t control it.

Your personality type likely just sits on the edge of mine. As I told you a few times, a few brain regions separate guys like Phonetic Ethics from you. I wouldn’t recommend toying with my area… that sense of agitation, until you have read up a bit, it’s a very painful, fast moving aspect of the mind, a living he’ll to learn to tame, like saddling a mad, feral horse. Its why we always like to be in control… we clamp down on all those impulses andbreign it in, but we do this young at life. Your trying to explore it as a adult.

And no, it’s not you. It has a few sense of selves, linked up both in the left and right. You can learn more by looking into that guts theories on the site provided in the quote above.

In the meantime, I recommend balancing a study of the effects of Pythagoras Tables of Opposites on Hypnogogic Visions (actively creating something from a Flux, Void always present in your vision) with someone like Parminides:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

In time, it evolved into Aristotle’s Square:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/

And Dignaga’s square for validity of inference:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetucakra

If you want to see layer on, expanded examples of the Pythagorean Table of Opposites, you can see the medieval scholastic, or the Buddhist-Vedanta tradition, which I’ve mentioned in this site occasionally (assholes here banned me for a while too, fucking idiots)

I recommend that translation, it’s easier to work with in making a mathematical map of cognition. If you look this book up on this site, you’ll see I was doing that alreadyba few years back.

Oh… remember the Hypnogogic Root… your trying to force full schemes of visual imagination via OCD parameters, you need to find the opposites, how the mind in the left hemisphere (voice saying do this, to that) links up with the ability to connect it all together. Take it very, very, very easy. If you do it wrong, it can literally kill you. Cantor died because he didn’t try to balance all the controls of the dialectic together. It is very much a danger if trying to access this part of the mind. It literally can be the cause of death, it can make you cruel, it can make you wonderful. But it’s deeply dependent on areas your already very active in, and has always been with you, lurking.

I recommended he change the name for this complex from “Contributor” to “Maelstrom of the Spirit”. Its a nexus for a lot of mental calculations, I spend most of my time in internal dialog with aspects of the mind as a result. Always very, very busy. Every mind does this, just not most consciously… most in parts, and they differ by the personality type.

I see it all as trinary and manifold though. Positive/negative/neutral = 3 interchangeable positions. People also aren’t binary, that’s why there are homosexuals and others with inside out socks etc [I do that a lot, I realised they are more comfortable like that anyway].

In my experience there are far worse things than thinking about infinity, and in fact I enjoy a bit of mind yoga as long as I give it a few days break here n there.

I understand this, and that is why I veer as far away from maths and language problems as I can. I also try to keep away from mental or mind issues, ~where if I think of these things in those ways, then the mind ends up wondering what kind of mental contortions it is expected to do. This is why I stick to visualisation based philosophy and converting ideas/schemata into instruments, and don’t enjoy scepticism and linguistic issues.

The problem is when explaining that e.g. in books or on forums, we have to use words. Philosophy is a problem with philosophy lol.

The latter is certainly true. My mind is a bit fast too, resolving it into visuals is my main release. I am schizoid with aspergers apparently, though the psychologists don’t know me too well and there are noticeably some weird agendas going on.

I have read a book called; the clear light of bliss, by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso [an intense description of Buddhism, dying, other realms, the chakras and 72,00 energy meridians etc], and the Analects by Confucius, Tao Te Ching by Lao-Tzu, the Egyptian and Tibetan books of the dead etc.

I try to be careful but the world doesn’t always let me, it seams to be challenging me as if the world can’t destroy me easily anyway. I equally sense a positive force, but like the news, one doesn’t notice the good as much as the bad, it just doesn’t have such impact.

Thanks for the chat. :slight_smile:

_

Your doing it by default, you just don’t realize it… you can’t even form this conclusion without already violating your supposed beliefs. Your constructed a theory of mind in the above OP, seen you do it over time in other posts too.

If you trace ideas down to how they are generated in paradox, like the Pythagorean table if opposites (not all dualities are really dualities, they only are if they break down into paradox, but can be built up using other concepts, and be seen as congruent and similar. Most linguistic and mathematical paradoxes are off a but, unbalanced, we can’t reduce them down, but when built up with other systems show increasingly similar elements. Means the dualism isn’t built into the mind, but bad theory).

Consider numbers.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7…

They also unfold 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…

For the longest time, we couldn’t count above 4… same as birds and animals.

5 was as big as a cognitive leap as 0 was, or negative numbers.

We can do the basic calculation because we can think visually “Left to Right, or Right to Left”, tracking visually.

Negative numbers exists because of this.

5, 4, 3, 2, 1, -1, -2, -3

But this assumption of Left to Right takes one out of visual abstraction of real things we can see, but explanations about possibilities. You require both hemispheres for this. Statements in the left, a overriding logic that connects it all together, a sense of multiplicities in the right, visualization in the right, causality calculations Left to Right.

Visualization is much more than merely the image, if your seeing anything at all. Your using “at rest” and “in motion” to move the “left right” line of numbers, good and evil to observe if it is correct.

You can’t do any of this without light/darkness… on a hypnogogic level, you can’t even do any of this until you can see something, and from that start doing your calculations using other measures.

Your already explaining a whole system, fully fledged. In order to make it work better, beyond the limitations you’ve noted, you gotta break it down to it’s more primitive elements, see what OCD restrictions are preventing you from progress, and work on it at that level.

Have you ever looked into Mnemonics? Pure Mathematics?

You can’t move forward from this state until you learn to control it. Lots of risk, but also lots of reward. I can produce far more complex visual systems as a result.

An acceptable critique, there would be and is mental linguistic activity most of the time, and if not conscious then subconscious. I don’t accept the latter because the op is not a theory of mind et al. My problem perhaps is more that I am not thinking in absolutes, when I describe thoughts as being visual it is because my conscious experience of them is majoritively that. Your sceptic approach is insisting that I cannot talk about things as ‘majoritively so’ ~ because naturally that would be a democracy. The ‘belief’ was as you stated; there is an attempt on my part to replace language and even symbols with more fluid visualisation techniques. Naturally in ‘an attempt’ there is already a flaw.

I wouldn’t know how to stop thinking about how the world works, but I have found that moving away from maths and language issues is easier on the mind.

the title of the thread is not meant to imply a randomness of mind, the imperfection is in the universe and I don’t think it is the same as randomness. I am not here thinking like a value ontologist or something, that there is an imperfection at root in the mind and hence the mind is in chaos. It primarily has nothing to do with the mind or a reality built up by the mind as with VO!

My brother was the physicist of the family, so I always felt a leaning toward other things. I think mathematical thinking is problematic, hence like language I steer clear of it.

I know I am arguing here, but I assure you I listen to what intelligent people say, and will give it further evaluation. …but I don’t think we should blend mind and metaphysics in all cases [like here]. It is strictly not how I am attempting to put the notion forwards. If the universe is imperfect or has imperfection, that doesn’t mean humans also have that as a basis of mind. This is because we are products of the macroscopic environment, and are no more limited to the state of base reality as robots will be.

for me the idea here promotes freedom, in that there can be no overlord or teleology. one could describe that as a road to nowhere, or as I would, a road to anywhere!
_