I’m talking about the entire universe or the whole, as well as about everything in it (its “parts”)… My theory is that the whole is a self-lightening which lightens itself into many self-lightenings: bodies which radiate space-light (vacuum-radiation), and space-light itself.
As I’ve said many times in the past, to say that the universe expands is logically equivalent to saying that everything in it contracts.
Is self-lightening a synonym for expression (Liebniz)?
So expansion is repulsion and contraction is attraction—and everything stays within the whole…
… but are you including every moment of the timeline (from beginning to end of this current physical mode) in the whole, or restricting the whole to one moment at a time (and also restricting it to this current physical mode)?
[And if you keep each moment distinct from each other as if it is some unbreakable law, how do we not stay stuck in a moment? To put the question another way, how do we communicate out of this moment into another one if each moment is/are completely distinct from each other?]
No, I don’t think so. Why would you?
I can see how expansion could be seen as repulsion, but how would contraction be attraction?
Every moment of the timeline, from the singularity of infinite density and temperature to the singularity of absolute zero density and temperature (but not including those singularities themselves).
[No Ma, they hain’t.]
This ain’t the Waltons, or Little House on the Prairie.
I’m not sure yet if I do, but… some context:
How can you see the former, but not the latter? P.s. This reminds me of black holes:
Ignore question mark. He’s arguing against steady/static (perpetual) state.
The Big Chill as I like to call it, rightly understood
High iq. A lot of “scientific” terminology seems to be just spat out after 1 minute of consideration and just causes confusion for no reason.
Most “scientists” lack any real understanding. Like if someone had to make a critical decision such as activating the Halo rings, most “scientists” couldn’t tell you with any real certainty if the big chill is really going to happen or not. Or if the multiverse exists or doesn’t exist. Or even if whether or not some brand new universe could big bang for no reason out of the blue.
Science is a very new discipline, humans are not cyborgs and it takes all their computation power just to remember a phone number. So I am quite skeptical of some of their scientific “facts”
I can’t tell if he is being serious. Sauw, that is.
The use of the term ‘value’ is intentionally misleading.
Your choice of words exposes your motives, and the foundations of your 'values."
A desire to be appreciated, is detected, expressing itself metaphysically.
“There is in a word, in a verb, something sacred which forbids us from using it recklessly.
To handle a language cunningly is to practice a kind of evocative sorcery.” –Baudelaire, Charles
When they speak of magic they speak of the psychosomatic effects of semiotics.
Magian powers come from their linguistic manipulations, their range of effect culturally determined, because language can only affect those who speak it and who have been taught to react to certain symbols/words, in specific ways. As such, feminine tactics are linguistic: affecting bodies through minds, triggered by specific sequential sounds (words).
Magical spells = ritualized semiotics – words in particular sequences, producing particular rhythms and rhymes, placing minds in a state of receptivity.
Politics is magical in that it uses semiotics to mesmerize the masses.
Cuz it works, cuz it’s a thing.
“No, Ma. They hain’t”
C’mon, Saully Bob, let’s get outta here. Heard Mr. Wilkins say he got some new orange soda pop in! Wanna go down to the store 'n giddus one?
F1, the waves would go all kaleidescopy, man. Throw the rings into … oh different rings.
F1, the waves would go all kaleidescopy, man. Throw the rings into … oh different rings.
?
What a strange way of describing entropy.
There is no ‘self’ outside living organisms. There is no ‘will.’ Schopenhauer’s use was also misleading, and could only have been claimed by a Germanic.
Will to Life would be ridiculous in Greek:
Βούληση προς ζωή,
Will to power.
Βούληση προς Δηναμη.
Nonsensical.
Particles have no Βούληση, no will.
They interact in accordance with power dynamics - harmonies.
The “discharge” you describe is part of how energies interact, every interaction gradually reducing their power - "lightening their energy loads. The cosmos cools and settles into a uniform state of chaos, from where a new beginning will arise.
Attraction/Repulsion of energies is how energies interact.. The degree of harmony determining the degree of attraction/repulsion, or discharge.
Chaos is missing from your cosmology.
Not all energies are ordered.
Life is defined by its intentionality. Its wilfulness.
This is why denying one’s own free-will, is a denial of one’s own life, reducing it to inanimate matter.
‘Will’ being used to describe non-life, is misleading, as is any term that alludes to consciousness and intent, like the poster that uses ‘value’ as his metaphysical grounding.
Value is meaningless outside an intentional living becoming.
Only life gives value to objects, , i.e., evaluates and appreciates, relative to its motives, because only life has objectives.
Particles have no motives and so have no intrinsic value.
Humans give them value, measuring their force, relative to a standard.
If value is used as a substitute for energy then it is unnecessary, and its use may be a product of the user’s intent.
All energy interacts based on power relationships - harmonics.
Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of Lord of the Rings.
Because what expands—into nothing—is then the same as what repels—repels nothing—; but what gets contracted—into itself—is not the same as what might get attracted—other bodies.
Why did you introduce moments “completely distinct from each other”?
Ok Satyr. Keep telling yourself that 
You deliberately missed the whole “valuing means selecting” thing and how this selection occurs at behest of that which a being is, regardless whether or not it is ‘alive’. Atoms select each other not because they have “conscious motivation” but because it is in their nature as the such and such thing-structure of energies that they are, to select for some things and select against other things. That is already the basis of what we call valuing. Valuing in human terms, in the terms of “motivated life” is this basic selecting-tendency thing taken to the nth degree. It has produced selecting-capable minds, it has produced selecting-capable motivations, etc.
If the use of ‘value’ is to imply an energy charge, then it is entirely unnecessary.
Energy powers and harmonics will suffice to explain how attraction and repulsion works.
But the use of ‘value’ implies that a particle can evaluate.
A ‘value’ is given to a phenomenon by a consciousness, using its objectives, itself, or a measuring standard.
Nothing has intrinsic value.
Life evaluates, not the non-living.
Only life has a will.
Only life can perceive and judge and choose.
All else works on power relationships - path-of-least-resistance.
Harmonics.
The term, again, is intentionally misleading, exposing the author’s own underlying motives, having to do with appreciation.
Allow me to be very slow and play very stupid. This is not difficult for me.
If all remains in the whole — which is something — and all expresses the whole — then expansion/repulsion is within the whole, and contraction/attraction is within the whole — the whole is limitless as a whole — the limits are subsumed in what expands/contracts within the whole. If you restrict the word whole to the physical, you can scrap it all & replace it w/o any issue, because there are infinite ways to tell the story/message (value/function… reason/why). The story is the thing. The story/message is never lost. You find it everywhere you look, once you have eyes.
Moments are introduced as “completely distinct from each other” so we can recognize when they… aren’t. Not my fault, obv.
So now I just sound weird again.
Select against the wind, if the wind violates self=other.
