Whole Self-Relation

Post Reply New Topic

if there are separate things, then they cannot interact, by definition, because they are separate.
if there are not separate things, they still cannot interact because they are just different parts of the same thing.
causality is incoherent.

the appearance of change is simply difference throughout a whole. difference is not the same as separation.
difference is relative variation, separation is independent origination and nature.
difference is coherent and it is a fundamental expression of reality. separation is incoherent and it is not real.

just as up and down can only exist in relation to each other and their midpoint, all things are patterns of self-relational difference. when self relates to self, a semi-permeable membrane of association exists between the considerations.

the semi-permeable membrane between up and down is the plane of the observer. the semi-permeable membrane is an X shape when left and right are added. we are at 2D. step into 3D with forward and backward and suddenly the semi-permeable membrane is a double inverted cone structure (think an X shape that is rotated around the vertical axis).
this is the fundamental core structure of the torus.
step further into dimensionality and suddenly the opening of the up cone leads back to the opening of the bottom cone, thus the true torus emerges..

within these structures of self-relational necessity you find the point, the bubble, the direction, the current, the galactic plane, the fountain or jet, the magnetic field, etc..

o ~ w

the 6 ways that make the 12 moves that make the 24 wave lay in emptiness so empty that it can fall into itself.
the eye seed of perfect nothing sees itself infinity.

so the seed is the flower and the tree. it be.

beware the cult of Fear Of Fear that compulsively seeks to feel in control, the parent of agriculture, the parent of industry, the parent of government, the parents of institution, the parent of lies.
how much innocence does it take to admit fear and sadness?

It’s more complicated than that…..

There is no “one truth.”

If my fingers are separate things, then they cannot interact, by definition, because they are separate.
If there are not separate things such as my fingers, they still cannot interact because they are just different parts of the same thing; Me.
If i am incoherent. It is because human language is imprecise, amorphous and not fit to describe quantum realities.

by the definition of being separate. it's not hard to understand. interact is just an inaccurate description of what exists. nothing ever interacts, you are just calling phenomena interaction, and I am clarifying that the word interact is inappropriate. your fingers can't interact, just like you and another person can't interact.

causality is simply not a real idea. it never has been. it is an empty imagining of origination.

all subjectivity is objective. that doesn't mean all subjectivity is the same, it just means that every different perspective is necessary as what it is and it is not defined by anything. all relativity is absolute.

consider that the dimensionality of time is part of reality. it is not something separate nor independent, that doesn't even make sense. the appearance of change is difference across time, but this is not a true example of change. all differences are necessarily as they are in their particular relation with the rest of the whole.

when you experience a fruit fall from its tree, the pattern of the fruit occupies a different location, related to the location you saw it previously, in each moment of time. the sequential experience of differences from an incomplete observation (a human experience) appears to be a process of development, but truly it is not. it is just an expression of what must be in that part of reality. there was no beginning, there is no end, there is no origin. there is only relational patterns of the emptiness so empty that it can fall into itself, which is identical to the fullness so full that it returns to itself.

aghogday, I didn't see your reply until after posting my last one.

I don't fully understand all of what you're trying to convey, but I do agree that the misunderstandings are real as misunderstandings; that the illusions are real as illusions in people's experience. that said, it is still necessary for those who see them as misunderstandings and want to present an alternative that is more accurate to be that, to express that alternative. it does not originate change, but it is possible that being this will be in relation to a difference in local humanity towards accuracy. or maybe that won't be here.

anyway...

Dao De Jing: 1 -
道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。
無名天地之始；有名萬物之母。
故常無欲，以觀其妙；常有欲，以觀其徼。
此兩者，同出而異名，同謂之玄。
玄之又玄，衆妙之門。

Derek Lin's translation:
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders"

I would suggest that perhaps the wording may be more precise if it was translated as

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the fundamental Tao,
The name that can be named is not a fundamental name.
The nameless is the truth of Fundamental Reality and Personal Experience,
The named is what gives rise to myriad things.
Thus, constantly without pull
ONE observes its mystery.
Constantly with pull
one observes its manifestations.
These two emerge together but differ in name,
The unity is said to be the mystery.
Mystery of mysteries, the door to All."

I don't have the capacity to change myself to fit how you want me to be. Maybe you should go talk to neurotypicals if that's what you're looking for. I selected my language with intention and I do not think it is unreasonable or difficult to understand if it is given real attention. This isn't a casual topic to distract from stress.

I almost feel odd mentioning this because I'm only 60-some pages into a 3000 page book but Iain McGilchrist's 'The Matter with Things' touts this issue as a major theme, particularly in dealing with individual 'things' as limit-cases of reality rather than reality itself.

Obviously that's a lot of reading (have yet to prove that I'll make it even 1/3 of the way through myself although I've taken on big reading tasks before), you might perhaps check out some of his interviews on the book and see if you can glean his meaning from some of those but this builds on Master and His Emissary and gets into how individual 'things' as more of a left-brained approach, holism as more of a right-brained approach, that we use each lens for different purposes (such as finding food/prey with the 'things' left brain and monitoring for novelty and predators with the right brain).

I can see where if it's like that, and we're trying to decide between two semi-opponent processes that our minds are divided into that the best we can perhaps do is establish meaningful things that can be said about things vs. wholes and the relationships to each other rather than saying which is more fundamental, IMHO that seems almost like a misuse of grammar - ie. like what's better, simple derivatives or using Euler's formula for complex numbers? Best answer perhaps - it depends what you're trying to do.

my point is not that there are no different things, my point is that different things are necessarily an expression of whole and that difference is not the same as separation. the expressions that are associated at the level of personal experience to be individual forms are not truly independent forms, they are part of a larger pattern. that doesn't mean that the pattern doesn't include those appearances, it just means that they are factually part of the larger pattern. there are plenty of meaningful things that can be said about things as they are experienced as different forms, and that is BECAUSE they are relational expressions of whole. if they weren't relational expressions of whole, then there would be no experience of them and they would have no relevance to anything else because they would be independent. wholeness is more fundamental because it is not an expression of personal experience, it is that which expresses ALL things, including all personal experiences and all emergences of difference.

that said, I do think that in some situations in the present, it is only possible to address phenomena at the human experience level by using language that frames things as cause and effect. that is not inherently necessary though. I would be interested to see what a culture would look like that spoke accurately without conflating correlation and causation.

thanks for the suggestion, I will look into his interviews on the subject.