PDA

View Full Version : How does variation exist?

glenerson
02-27-2013, 05:06 PM
God is Nothing (Zero). Then It created Something (1). It then tried to divide the space between Nothing and Something infinitesimally. And infinity and variation came into being.

(You don't have to extend the number line infinitely to define infinity for Infinity can be defined between two whole numbers. in our case, zero and one. it is true. Proven by calculus.)

Bel Matina
02-27-2013, 07:16 PM
Also proven by calculus, if we remove the exceptions for zero: 1/0=∞ : 1=0∞ : 1=0

solomon levi
02-27-2013, 08:37 PM
Until it is proven that god is nothing, it is an assumption.
Objectively, the absolute lack of all things is the absolute lack of all things, not god.
One might as well say god is the number 298346754.

How does variation exist? You can't step into the same river twice.
It would be more incredible if variation did not exist.
Fibonacci is an example of why variation exists, and why nothing stays the same but always gets wiser,
more capable of adaptation, or it becomes extinct.

Variation did/does not exist in the void. When the void contemplated itself, or became self-aware, there were
two points in relation... there was no relation prior. If the void/unconscious point remains fixed and the conscious/light
part is mobile, we now have measure, ration, proportion... variation.
As i understand it, we are the conscious points of the void/god. We are supposed to measure - it's not a sin, it's our purpose.
We are the knowers, the planners, the creators... god, as the unconscious void, does not know (is not omniscient), does not have a plan,
and does not create other than that first act of self-awareness. Self-awareness, as you can experience yourself, is always expansive,
so light/consciousness expanded to "fill" the void. These lights, just like stars, evolve at different rates, and this creates variation...
some stars are much older than others... some souls "fell" much sooner than others... some gases evolve sooner than others... etc.

Bel Matina
02-28-2013, 01:18 AM
Variation exists in as much as being something can be defined only as not being not that thing.

The first principle has infinite ambiguity and zero specificity. As soon as being is something there is something it isn't, and this is the root of variation. Amen.

glenerson
02-28-2013, 01:53 AM
this could be easily solved by binary numbers

0 and 1. or 1 itself, which is from zero.

0 is not 1
1 is not 0

relative to 0, it is 0. it is not one.
relative to 1, it is 1. it is not zero.

this dichotomy posits the existence of 2 distinct entities. zero is zero and one is one.

it entails that zero describes only zero and exists to justify 1. vise versa.

then this is the time when you have to substitute. 0 = right, 1 = wrong or vise versa,

right is distinct from wrong. this distinction is really the basis.

which holds the right knowledge? One of them.

The fact that one of them holds the right knowledge is enough to know that the truth is out there.

Awani
02-28-2013, 01:54 AM
What if 1 is right and 0 is wrong?

:cool:

glenerson
02-28-2013, 02:05 AM
What if 1 is right and 0 is wrong?

:cool:

good question. For my post is not yet finished. I told previously that this dyad will eventually monad. For only one of the two entities will exist.

1 came from zero. I could safely say that zero created one and since one is created, it is also destroyed (by zero). So only One will exist.

And we've been indoctrinated by the ones before us that only the Truth will prevail. Only One will exist. So the existence of the wrong knowledge is just temporary and will trumped and destroyed by the right knowledge. Only right knowledge/Truth/God's Will/Mind of God will exist, with God. God will be the Truth and of Truth and is the Truth. For the wrong knowledge only existed to define the right knowledge.

thrival
02-28-2013, 02:09 AM
good question. For my post is not yet finished. I told previously that this dyad will eventually monad. For only one of the two entities will exist.

1 came from zero. I could safely say that zero created one and since one is created, it is also destroyed (by zero). So only One will exist.

And we've been indoctrinated by the ones before us that only the Truth will prevail. Only One will exist. So the existence of the wrong knowledge is just temporary and will trumped and destroyed by the right knowledge. Only right knowledge/Truth/God's Will/Mind of God will exist, with God. God will be the Truth and of Truth. For the wrong knowledge only existed to define the right knowledge.

How do you know you came from zero? Do you remember in the first person or is this just based on your theory? Is the universe a mathematical problem for you?

glenerson
02-28-2013, 02:17 AM
How do you know you came from zero? Do you remember in the first person or is this just based on your theory? Is the universe a mathematical problem for you?

This is how i can describe in familiar words my views about God. That God is the nothingness (Zero) that has the ability to create, destroy and is eternal and created His image/creations/us (One).

The universe could be operating in binary state, of which one of them only is the Truth. Between this 2 states, variation and infinity, which describes and evident in the universe at the moment, can be realized. the existence of the image is essential to define Himself.

Edit: when i said i came from zero, i meant i didn't materially exist before i exist. and i will go back to zero again when i will be materially destroyed/die.

solomon levi
02-28-2013, 02:36 AM
binary is simply one template, absolute by no means.
this proves nothing unless you first prove the universe is binary.
poker rules don't apply when playing 21.

Bel Matina
02-28-2013, 03:21 AM
Zero is and is not one.

Right and wrong assumes the separation. Zero is wrong to one; one is wrong to zero. "Right" or "Good" is a question of harmony, which is a function of the set, and the bias among the members. The simplest approach to understanding it mathematically is how many expressions it takes to define it as a subset of the universal (beyond e: Ǝe which is kind of a gimme) relative to the size of the universal set. Consider the context of the binary, where {0, 1} needs no further terms, but {1} or {0} respectively must be defined as e: e=1 or e: e=0. Either is infinitely disharmonious relative to the universal set (1/0=∞). Which I suppose is to say that either is evil in the absence of the other.

We should not, then, seek God in absence, or even the infinite, but in the unspecified. The state of universal potential, the only state of perfect harmony, lies prior to the distinction of there/not there.

Andro
02-28-2013, 03:37 AM
We should not, then, seek God in absence, or even the infinite, but in the unspecified. The state of universal potential, the only state of perfect harmony, lies prior to the distinction of there/not there.

I could hug you right now :o

solomon levi
02-28-2013, 03:46 AM
We should not, then, seek God in absence, or even the infinite, but in the unspecified. The state of universal potential, the only state of perfect harmony, lies prior to the distinction of there/not there.

nice. thank you for wording it that way.
lol. i hadn't realised Androgynous quoted the same portion.

Ghislain
02-28-2013, 12:20 PM
With the following assumptions:

0 x 1 = 0
0 x 2 = 0

Therefore

0 x 1 = 0 x 2

Then dividing by zero

1 = 2

Division is defined to be the inverse operation of multiplication.

Such as a/b = c and therefore bc = a or a/c = b

E.g. 12/3 = 4, 3x4 = 12, 12/4 = 3 QED

Now if we assume a=1, b=0 and c=∞ then we assume

1/0 = ∞

Therefore

0 x ∞ = 1

But we know that is not true as anything multiplied by 0 = 0 the mistake is to believe that Zero is something
when in fact it is not, it is our representation of nothing.

And this is why there can never be “nothing”, you may have something so infinitesimally small that it may
be perceived as nothing, but never nothing; and there is the creator, a singularity or a whole bunch of
singularities.

Imagine two singularities with infinite mass colliding; there you have the Big Bang and an infinite possibility
of ripple waves interfering with each other to create untold possibilities of interference patterns each having an
effect on the other finding harmony in patterns of spin, some spins attracting others repelling, and of which we
are just a bunch.

The Universe is just a thought/vibration of the singularity ever expanding on the surface of the pond of life.

Well...it’s one way of looking at it :)

Ghislain

glenerson
02-28-2013, 01:37 PM
Zero is and is not one.

Right and wrong assumes the separation. Zero is wrong to one; one is wrong to zero. "Right" or "Good" is a question of harmony, which is a function of the set, and the bias among the members. The simplest approach to understanding it mathematically is how many expressions it takes to define it as a subset of the universal (beyond e: Ǝe which is kind of a gimme) relative to the size of the universal set. Consider the context of the binary, where {0, 1} needs no further terms, but {1} or {0} respectively must be defined as e: e=1 or e: e=0. Either is infinitely disharmonious relative to the universal set (1/0=∞). Which I suppose is to say that either is evil in the absence of the other.

We should not, then, seek God in absence, or even the infinite, but in the unspecified. The state of universal potential, the only state of perfect harmony, lies prior to the distinction of there/not there.

But the binary exists to define one from the other. Once the right/true/good is known, wrong/false/evil is destroyed since it is of temporary existence.

We all want God to have a singular attribute. He cannot be Good and Evil for that will imply 2 headed God or even 2 Gods (This is why there are speculation that there exist a Female God but there is not for in his creation, He created woman from a man and didn't create them separately). We all want God to represent One for God is One.

it's either zero or 1. in my case, it's zero and it doesn't imply that God is in absence. if i say God is the nothing, i don't say God is non-existent or should be nonexistent. Zero implies its properties - eternal and the creator and destroyer of One.

Harmony is flawed and a dishonest representation of the Monad. Once God is defined as Only Good/Right/Truth/One Will, the other will cease to exist because the other IS NOT/NOT of God.

This is for us to realize. Of course, for the purpose of People to attain gnosis, it is essential for the Creator to say what he is and what he is not. And it is our responsibility to do one thing: To choose One and to reject the other, not find the harmony between the two.

Your last sentence struck me. Are you implying that there is something beyond 0 and 1? In my case, I defined God as the Zero, being eternal and the creator/destroyer of 1. There are no negative numbers. No numbers greater than 1. 0 and 1 perfectly addresses infinity and variation. What is not 0 and 1? What is not matter and spirit? What is not Good and Evil? I know. It is not of God. It could be 1 trying to convince you that Zero is not the Truth. It could be 1 trying to endanger and undermine the set. But in reality what is not 0 and 1 is to destroy the binary set, an act that can only be done by Zero. So it all boils down to zero. The potential will just be Zero, which is One (Singular).

To destroy {0, 1} will boil down to {0}. What is not {0,1} is {0}. So zero remains.

And yeah, what you are saying is analogous to an empty and null set? It is the Zero. But you are leading me to the "Beyond" the Zero. Or a system beyond Zero and 1.

There its. It's called infinity and variation. That exists outside the system, in negative and 2 < =x, in our case the unspecified. but it also perfectly exists between zero and 1. Variation is realized for are there are infinitesimal sections between 0 and 1. infinity is also realized between that 2 states.

and lastly how is this potential realize if it doesn't include the numbers outside {0,1}? the undefined is realized between 0 and 1 for the system only knows 2 numbers and not decimal numbers. I don't imply that decimal numbers cannot be known by the system (base 2 to base 10 conversion) if it wishes to, it's just the temporary state of the undefined potential is there. But this ignorance/unspecified is relative to the views of the outside looker. the system knows itself for it is omniscient. from base 2, other bases of numbers can be realize if the system wishes to go beyond base 2.

So zero perfectly addresses the creation of 1 and then variation, infinity and the undefined potential and solving the unspecified since it is self defining. If it is self defining, it is self aware. That means that while we define the system, the system has its own true definition. And this true or false game lies between you the definer and the self aware system. What is true is if your definition is what the self ware system says and the Truth will always be the Truth.

EDIT: Just to put my last thoughts, after rereading this post and your last statement, how could you make sense of the unspecified? We all capture things in words to make sense of it. We define things to resonate in our minds and eventually in feelings. We describe for our minds to make sense of it. Even illusions are specified. We are ought to experience God in our own way. This union of God is even embodied in rubedo, which is specified. The "unknowable" is embodied in 3 letter word called "God". So to experience the unspecified is to give it definition and to actually take the defined or captured image of this "unknowable/incomprehensible/unspecified" into our senses. That's how you break the puzzle of the adept. That's how you break the codes of the existing religions telling you that God is "unspecified".

Bel Matina
02-28-2013, 04:23 PM
Words point to experiences. In and of themselves they are empty gestures. Their comprehension depends on a common perspective, without which they bind to a different structure with the right shape (misunderstanding) or produce chimerae (imagination). I bring this up not because I think we disagree on the nature of the root, because I don't think we do, but because I'm trying to complement your description, in as much as I feel that there are some of those struggling for the root who might be alienated or mislead by the terms you use. I might probe for a "sticking point" in your understanding, which is to say an opportunity to help a brother along, but the One is present in all its derivatives, and it would be hasty at best to assume that you lack the relevant perspective just because I've seen others get stuck on the same body of terms (really has no bearing on whether you will) or because your terms fall outside those I use to achieve the proper perspective. I find most of the discussion between those who know on this forum has that complementary character, even where there appears superficially to be disagreement, and it's one of the main reasons I stick around. I feel like this format could use some more explicit acknowledgement.

That said, words are not experiences. It's not your senses into which you capture the image, but your mind. As soon as an image is formed (palingenesis!), we have 0 and 1, the referent and its image. This is no longer the unspecified. The promise of the art is precisely that the image can be resolved with its referent and this status prima can be experienced. This has the same significance as the prophetic riding in the chariot, the yogic samadhi, etc.

My sense of irony also demands that I point out that I'm not aware of any current religion with a doctrine of God as "unspecified" in those terms, and I don't feel like I can let you get away with ascribing my words to "existing religions" without making fun a little when you invoke at least as much orthodoxy as I do.

glenerson
02-28-2013, 05:03 PM
Words point to experiences. In and of themselves they are empty gestures. Their comprehension depends on a common perspective, without which they bind to a different structure with the right shape (misunderstanding) or produce chimerae (imagination). I bring this up not because I think we disagree on the nature of the root, because I don't think we do, but because I'm trying to complement your description, in as much as I feel that there are some of those struggling for the root who might be alienated or mislead by the terms you use. I might probe for a "sticking point" in your understanding, which is to say an opportunity to help a brother along, but the One is present in all its derivatives, and it would be hasty at best to assume that you lack the relevant perspective just because I've seen others get stuck on the same body of terms (really has no bearing on whether you will) or because your terms fall outside those I use to achieve the proper perspective. I find most of the discussion between those who know on this forum has that complementary character, even where there appears superficially to be disagreement, and it's one of the main reasons I stick around. I feel like this format could use some more explicit acknowledgement.

That said, words are not experiences. It's not your senses into which you capture the image, but your mind. As soon as an image is formed (palingenesis!), we have 0 and 1, the referent and its image. This is no longer the unspecified. The promise of the art is precisely that the image can be resolved with its referent and this status prima can be experienced. This has the same significance as the prophetic riding in the chariot, the yogic samadhi, etc.

My sense of irony also demands that I point out that I'm not aware of any current religion with a doctrine of God as "unspecified" in those terms, and I don't feel like I can let you get away with ascribing my words to "existing religions" without making fun a little when you invoke at least as much orthodoxy as I do.

It appeared to me that you were putting much significance on God being "unspecified". I told you that "existing religions" such as Hinduism which has the concept of the Brahman, the is "unknowable, incomprehensible",and the Judeo Christian God the father whose nature is "unknowable and incomprehensible." has the ultimate God that is close to unspecified, undefined for it cannot be/not yet still defined. I asserted that God is perfectly defined/self-aware and this being "unspecified" is part of our unraveling of the "unknowable and incomprehensible" God in our life/experiments. We define him and part of finding the Truth if what God is concurs with our definition of God. Sorry if it sounded like a harsh disagreement on my part. And i agree with you that I think we're on the same page here, with very minor differences that can be reconciled (or prolly this minor difference just represent our unique individual insights/experience)

This disagreement might be of language barrier. I might not be using the correct translation or not using the right words (and i thank you, a linguist, for your views) for English is not really my first language (you could notice on my grammatical mistakes and sentence formation) but i try my best to describe what i want to describe truthfully. Or probably my experience is not yet complete and your complement is a part of its completion. I thank you for your views.

glenerson
02-28-2013, 05:57 PM
With the following assumptions:

0 x 1 = 0
0 x 2 = 0

Therefore

0 x 1 = 0 x 2

Then dividing by zero

1 = 2

Division is defined to be the inverse operation of multiplication.

Such as a/b = c and therefore bc = a or a/c = b

E.g. 12/3 = 4, 3x4 = 12, 12/4 = 3 QED

Now if we assume a=1, b=0 and c=∞ then we assume

1/0 = ∞

Therefore

0 x ∞ = 1

But we know that is not true as anything multiplied by 0 = 0 the mistake is to believe that Zero is something
when in fact it is not, it is our representation of nothing.

And this is why there can never be “nothing”, you may have something so infinitesimally small that it may
be perceived as nothing, but never nothing; and there is the creator, a singularity or a whole bunch of
singularities.

Imagine two singularities with infinite mass colliding; there you have the Big Bang and an infinite possibility
of ripple waves interfering with each other to create untold possibilities of interference patterns each having an
effect on the other finding harmony in patterns of spin, some spins attracting others repelling, and of which we
are just a bunch.

The Universe is just a thought/vibration of the singularity ever expanding on the surface of the pond of life.

Well...it’s one way of looking at it :)

Ghislain

I ascribed the number Zero to God just to be consistent with his eternality. Nothing certainly is not something because it is nothing and before something, there is nothing, which is perpetually existing/eternal.

I don't intend to associate Zero with absence and imply that God is nothing or God doesn't not exist. He exists as the nothingness and the properties of Zero is a perfect definition of God. It is eternal, creates and will destroy 1.

Infinity and variation realized between two states is mathematically proven and is real. To imply that there is infinite sections between zero and one is to realize variation and infinity. I don't intend to prove Zero using the numbers in between because to prove Zero, you must destroy One (what is not). For destroying One will destroy variation and infinity and will put us back to Zero. Zero, the singular, is God. Zero, being the all pervasive and all eternal nothingness is God. Again, nothing can't be something for it is not something. it is something else, unique to something and that is nothing.

You're a pantheist. You imply that the universe and God are the same. But I'm close to a panentheist. That the universe is unique image of God, but is not God. If you maintain that the universe is God, then God is not eternal, for the universe can be destroyed. But maybe you're right. That God and the universe are eternal. Or God can be destroyed, just as the universe.

But my view is that God is unique. The mirror of God which God created and God will destroy, which is not God (universe/Creation), is unique. God is Zero, the mirror of God is One. One existed to define the Zero and when the Zero is defined, One will cease to exist for only the Zero to remain.

Bel Matina
02-28-2013, 06:15 PM
I think it's important to be clear that unspecified and infinitely (or maybe better universally) specified end up meaning the same thing in terms of the set of experiences they point to. This comes down partly to the same proofs for 1=0=∞ etc, but it can be put in more accessible terms as well. Full specification of all possibility results in a representation that is ambiguous between (applies equally well to) anything as long as it's possible - in other words, the statement has the same domain (meaning) as no statement at all. If everything is specified the meaning is the same as if nothing is specified. Daoism expresses this well, putting everything on a scale from "not there" to "to an inconceivable degree", the poles of which (wuji and taiji) are said explicitly to be identical.

I've studied linguistics for years, and I had no inkling that you weren't a native speaker (please do take that as a compliment :)). The issue is not the translation, but that our first matter can't be captured with words. We each have our demonstration, and will open different doors in different experiences (including our own) and that is perfectly traditional and appropriate and correct. We're all cooking here. Thank you for cooking with us. :)

glenerson
02-28-2013, 07:17 PM
I've read Tao Te Ching and I'm pretty confident that it influenced my views about God and everything.

While Tao Te Ching is true, it is incomplete or almost there. Daoists prescribe harmony between the two to exist as Whole. Whereas in my case, i think that Only One of the Two (the Zero/the nothingness/Truth/Good/Spirit) will exist because the other (One/Creation/False/Matter) only exists temporarily and be destroyed/cease to exist to define the One. For the One, that is the Zero, will be in truest sense, One/Singular. Or maybe Daoism leaves to its adherents the next logical step to do. But that's just my speculation.

While i maintain this view, i see that what your saying is very close or similar. For the unspecified is just a unique mirror of the other. That essentially the other (unspecified) and infinitely specified are the same. But i tend to be particular and rigid in defining and individuating the two.

As the Axiom of Maria of Mary the Jewess puts

"Out of the One comes Two, out of Two comes Three, and from the Third comes the One as the Fourth."[2]

Out of Nothingness comes Nothingness and Something, out of Nothingness and Something comes Nothingness and Good and Evil. And from Evil comes Nothingness/(Evil goes to Nothingness).

Now only Good and Nothingness exist. Evil is gone and Nothingness is now defined as Good, since Good only reflects what nothingness is.

Nothingness, being God, is only Good(the Zero/the nothingness/Truth/Good/Spirit).

Ghislain
02-28-2013, 07:39 PM
Glenerson

I think that using the words “zero” or “nothing” are little misleading as we created the word to mean what it
says.

You say, “God is Zero”, therefore we are in agreement as I only see “what is” and don’t comprehend any
duality and therefore I see no God as a separate entity, hence without “what is” there is nothing in the true
sense of the word.

Having said that I think the “what is” is eternal, what state that eternal “what is” is manifested at any given
moment I have no idea, but what I think is that it is indestructible and eternal.

Going back to my last post...that was just a proposal as I have no beliefs to speak of. Everything changes
moment by moment and that includes what I think, but if we stay, for a moment, with the proposal in my last
post then there are two ways of looking at it.

1. That the singularity was left intact and the Universe is just a vibration of the impact, in which
case we have the Universe and the Creator; duality.
2. As the singularity collided it fragmented into what we call the Universe and thus everything is still a
singularity albeit a bigger one.

I could go with either, but if there is matter (possibly the Higgs Boson) then it can only be number 2.

I guess we could call either God and that’s easier than writing “what is”

In the divide by zero situation there is no answer only an assumption that zero is something for as the
divisor “tends” to zero so the result becomes larger, but at zero the argument loses substance.

Ghislain

glenerson
02-28-2013, 08:03 PM
To realize infinity in a system wherein there is only 2 states is to divide One by Zero. To realize infinity is also to extend the whole number line endlessly. The first only require 2 numbers. The other, a lot.

This is just to prove that variation and infinity in a dualistic view (Creator and Universe) can be realized. One implication of this is that there is One universe and Infinite Varieties in God or there is One God and infinite varieties in the Universe. It's either one or the other. There is polytheism and there is monotheism. It's up to you to choose.

But it is more likely that the latter is natural for varieties are seen in the universe and the elements of the periodic table rests on One proton/is a combination of one or more protons. Variety arises from the combination of one. Everything rests on top of one.

The reason why I kept on using the word "Zero" i can relate to its properties. It is the metaphorical description of where i was before i was born ( we were born actually) and where will we go when we die. it is also because that it unique (1 and -1, not unique essentially), it is pervasive, eternal, indestructible and it is synonymous with nothingness, the state of what will become if anything within it is destroyed. it will be the only thing that will remain if something is destroyed. Numerically, Zero is what all be when One is gone in a binary universe.

Sure there is the secular definition of Zero as absence, non existence, non material. But if you followed my other posts that this absence is also eternal and ascribed with the ability to create or destroy. This absence created presence, which is temporary for it is marked with death and decay and will eventually return to absence.

But im also open to refer to what i refer to as "what is" thanks for the suggestion.

Bel Matina
02-28-2013, 09:52 PM
The daodejing tends to be horribly translated, in no small part because the language is so archaic that they've found Han-era graves with versions translated into the contemporary language.

Restored through careful reconstruction, the first chapter reads like this:

That you can do something a way doesn't mean it's always done that way.
That you can call something a name doesn't mean it's always called that name.
The world is inherently nameless.
The presence of names is the mother of the myriad categories.
Accordingly under any circumstances the absence of intention conditions one to perceive its subtleties (etymologically *mew refers to things too small to see, that is things that are invisible but real)
And under any circumstances the presence of intention conditions one to perceive (only) what things are called.
Dualities manifest as a unit, different words have the same meaning, to obscure this is to obscure the door to a crowd of subtleties.

solomon levi
03-01-2013, 05:11 AM
to me this thread is like an argument for the sake of argument, not an argument for the sake of reality. we must consider that it was agreed to IGNORE everything outside of 0 and 1... that doesn't make the universe binary, nor everyone to want god to have one quality. you can ignore me too, but i want god to have one, none, and all qualities, and any i didn't mention or am incapable of thinking of as well. my god is not part, not good, not just one but also all and none, etc... but we can pretend i don't exist or matter or count due to error, and call that 'truth', even though no child is taught to count '0, 1' and then stop...
the universe isn't binary. binary is a filter, a lens, one description among infinite descriptions. every alchemist knows we can see 1 or 2 or 3, 4, 5.... it's relative.

solomon levi
03-01-2013, 05:22 AM
to ignore or cast out in any fashion - 'wrong, on drugs, a witch, devil worshipper, ignorant, unripe, not elect, etc...' - is nothing new nor the direct/straight path to god. it's something old and boring and the cause of all conflict, war, judgement, bigotry, etc... binary is a step in the path. it's weird to me that people would worship it as the truth.

glenerson
03-01-2013, 06:55 AM
if i can realize infinity, variation, undefined and the rest of the bases of numbers, God and creation, their nature and properties and what they should be, using 2 numbers, isn't that the truth? For what i just mentioned is the All and i can even realize the opposite of All, using 2 numbers. if you mean that the all is infinite, how did you capture that infinite? how would you even define your version of all? I told you how i made sense of the All and None by using 2 numbers.

Andro
03-01-2013, 09:53 AM
In the 'past', I wrote quite a bit here about Something/Nothing... If anyone is interested, it can probably be searched, because it's on different threads.

I don't see a division, but rather that all numbers (including Zero) are the same, but in different states... Just like all matter/spirit/etc...
The 'Spirit World' is also material to itself (differently experienced), just much more subtle, but ultimately not very different in principle.
Spiritus Mundi may be an exception of sorts, because it is not a 'Spirit' in the sense that we're accustomed to the word, but rather the unspecified potential Bel was mentioning earlier.

One could be regarded a 'manifest' state of Zero (just saying, for the sake of example), Two can be regarded as the sum/relationship of Zero and One ('Nothing' mating with itself, which is also its offspring state-wise :)), Three is their relationship, Four brings us back to 10 (1 and 0, Pythagoras, etc...). The basic count children learn is from 1 to 10 (or I to X), if I remember... ('X marks the spot' L:)L)

This is an extract from another post I made quite a while back:

Some Qabalistic Images by David Chaim Smith:

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab172/androgynus_album/Genesis.jpg

These images are artistic depictions (speaking to the analogical mind) of the way the Immaterial Spirit becomes 'reflected' (and thus 'corporified') into the realm of the 'Manifest'.

An interesting quote from the Author of the drawings, David Chaim Smith:

The Ourobouros appears as the specter of ADaM in a world of dreams.

Its seal is the non-dual union of the breath and ground of the most sublime paradox.

Behold the mirror of 0=1. It consumes and digests of the vain myth of god!We should, however, keep in mind that drawings and interpretations such as these are somehow still expressed though 'learned' 'filters' of various traditions.

Further UN-Learning can take us even deeper down the Rabbit Hole, seeing this 'Sublime Paradox' in much more 'simplified' ways.

There 'is' only 'Nothing', completely Abstract and Incomprehensible.

We may view this 'Nothing' as infinitely compressed 'Everything'.

And because of that, there 'is' (inevitably) also its polaric Oppo-Same counterpart: The equally Abstract and Incomprehensible 'Something'.

Although the 'two' are actually 'None and the Same'...

We could regard those as the Primordial 'Parental Archetypes'.

Behold the mirror of 0=1
None is One and One is None,
Two is Three, and Tree is One
One and Two and Three and Four
Equal One, n'Evermore.

And at the 'Nil Point'/'Axis' generated by this completely abstract 'Tension Field' between 'Nothing' and 'Something' (its offspring, state-wise) - the 'Dream Particle' is IMAGINED.

It is what the Emerald Tablet refers to as the 'One Thing'. Some even refer to this IMAGINED 'Dream Particle' as the 'God Particle'.

And via what appears to us to be a 'manifestation' - we perceive this Dream as 'coming true'.

But 'We'/'Nothing' never stop(s) 'dreaming', and there is no place or state to awaken to or from, except from one dream-scape to another... Unless... (to be continued...)

Quoth David Chaim Smith:

Even if salvation were possible, a true gnostic would have no need of it.__________________________________

From another past-post:

'Now', for example, could be perceived as all possible pasts/futures solved and coagulated into the 'Zero Point' of the 'NOW' moment - the Eternal Present.

Identifying oneself as a 'dreamer' (particular/specified) - one can perceive only fractions of the Eternal Now.

But by releasing the 'Dreamer ID' and realizing one IS the Dream - one is 'one' no more, but 'one with the dream' (or one with 'The Force', as they say in Star Wars).

Theoretically, one may only know 'Nothing' (which is the same as knowing ''The Absolute') by BECOMING this 'Nothing'/'Absolute', BUT, then there wouldn't be any-one to 'know' anymore... No Knower...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoth Walter Russel:

Creation is not more, nor is it less than it has always been from the beginning.
[It] is an apparent integration in continuity of that which already exists in substance.
It is a periodic change of state of the One unchanging substance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-creation is an apparent disintegration in continuity of apparently integrated things returned to that substance. It is dissolution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit and Matter are the same substance.
---------------------------------------------------------
There are not two substances in the universe.
There cannot be two substances in the universe.
---------------------------------------------------------
There are not two of anything in the universe.It's fascinating to contemplate this Sublime Paradox that 'Absolute Truth' is also the 'Ultimate/Absolute Lie' (the illusion of the dream dreaming itself, and 'telling' itself that it's 'real').

'Nothing' lying to itself that it is 'Something' and believing it as 'Absolute Truth'.

'Nothing' lies to 'itself', and 'is' an excellent liar, as well as infinitely gullible :cool:.

And so, by this 'Lost Word' of Imagination, 'Nothing' beLIEves (and therefore becomes) 'Something'.

And the result of all this - is this very moment.

Bizarre, bizarre - yet here we are... It's all 'Smoke and Mirrors', really :)

The Smoke is the Dream, the 'First Matter' of the Alchemist.

And the 'Mirror' is what 'Zero' (0/Nothing) looks into and sees 'One' (1/Something).

0 = 1

So I can't eat my 'Primordial Soup' if 'There is no spoon'... But then again, I can tell myself anything and believe it :cool:...

Quoth 'The Soup Nazi':

No Soup for you!___________________________________________

"Where's the meat?"In common terms - It's Everywhere :)

If you don't eat your Meat, how can you have any Pudding? How can can you have any Pudding if you don't eat you Meat?But the Meat just keeps on coming (keeps being dreamed up) and we can't seem to get enough of it :), so we never get to the Pudding...

I want my Pudding! Forever! I want Perpetual Desert! (pun intended)

So if any'ONE' needs 'proof' - it's in the Pudding! (But the Pudding has no need for proof :cool:)

Without intending to offend any Dreamer ID in particular, I personally find it hilarious (in this context, not in general, unless this context IS general) that some people want to extend their physical lifespans to fulfill their 'Soul Contracts'... And simultaneously talking about breaking addictions... Funny, that... I wonder if this condition is contractible... (Rhetorical question. It's this 'lawyer' mentality propagated by some groups, and it's Epidemic.) Besides, if you have a 'contract', your exact needed lifespan is already in there... If it's not, get a better lawyer (and fire your current one :p)

We should never underestimate the imagined 'power' of Belief, DeNial (not just another river in Greece :)) and especially of Rationalization.

Words, language and communication are overrated! We mostly fill them with our own 'Dreamer ID Projections' anyway :)
_________________________________

And finally, if you bothered yourself to read this far, please note that all that shit I've put together in this post, only reflects my own projection/reflection of said shit.

Of course I am right in everything I wrote, but that's the beauty of subjectivity...

For me to be 'right', I don't need someone else to be 'wrong', even if they vehemently disagree to the extent of thinking I should be hanged by the neck till pudding...

glenerson
03-01-2013, 03:33 PM
I could make sense of 1=0 in this way.

1.) That the image of God and God itself is the same. That Matter = Spirit. That means the Creation/Universe is eternal and its subset is under the control of the all. This is supported by the usual laws. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, Energy will be always be in the system and this energy is not destructible. Very similar to the idea of the Zero that i'm holding to, only tangible and can be realized by the senses. I could safely say that the prima materia is Energy, in a universe that emphasizes the preservation and giving importance to matter. Maybe only matter exist and not the spirit and spirit is just an internal manifestation of matter, and is temporary.

If this is the case, then the scientists are correct, God is the universe and material existence is the only truth.

But see, i couldn't swallow this because i realize myself. My life is temporary. I see people come and go. I was created with precision. You could argue that the universe works in mysterious ways. That the universe is thinking, has its own blue print. There are laws to be followed by the material for life to be ongoing.

Spirit, may be was created, because the mind cannot fully comprehend what matter is. Sure modern technology exist and attempt to explain what matter is but it is not enough. Everything is still yet to be make sense of. And it is patched up by the spirit concept.

Seems that i pulled down my flag that 1 is not 0? But no.

1.) I'm part of the Universe. In essence i could work my way up to be the center of the universe and be the universe itself. That it could be that everything in the universe emanated from my mind (solipsism) and yet i see that i am mortal. With this i could say that the universe is mortal, if i am the universe. But what defines those who die or self destruct? those who exist. Permanently. This is solved by realizing the concept that an all pervasive "thing" which is truly eternal will remain after i self destruct along with the universe. that is nothingness.

You could argue that me being the dominion of universe, all of the universe's creation are mortal and the universe is immortal. I could take this. but there is problem.

E=mc2. Science tells me that what constitutes me constitutes the universe. So again, i could claim that i can be the universe itself. And for this connection, i could claim that i could be the universe and i could be God for God is the universe.

But again im mortal. and it implies that the universe is mortal too. And to define me or the universe, there should be something that is not me.

This made me arrive to the concept of God, which is not me and not the universe. Composed of not matter, but something else, which in our convention we call the Spirit.

So there are 2 entities that are unique to each other, defining each other.

You call the universe and God are one. That 1=0. But I call that I and the universe are one and there exist God, which is not me/universe. I/the universe are the same and God is unique of me so that makes us 2 distinct entities. that is 1 is not equal to 0.

But it is not permanent. Just like my life is not permanent.

For I am meant to "unexist" to unite with God (that is for 1, which is temporary, to be NOT 1 and be equal to 0 such that 1 becomes 0 to arive in only One Truth that consists of Only One -> 0 = 0)

Therefore the prima materia is not energy, but it is the composition of God/thenothingness/theTruth/Spirit. 2 states is temporary and all will boil down to One. And this One could be make sense of and expressed mathematically as Zero.

Ghislain
03-01-2013, 05:24 PM
I really enjoyed the last two posts and it does seem to be steering to agreement.

Glenerson you mentioned E=mc^2, but that goes out the window if "m" doesn't exist. Just a point for another
discussion :)

Perhaps we all live in our own unique world, each different from one another. . . Perhaps there is no singular
truth to find, but a multitude of truths. Is one person’s truth more real that another’s? When one disagrees
with another’s reality maybe we should be aware that they can't explain theirs to us, and we can't explain ours
to them. The problem is that if our realities are too different then we have a communication breakdown...
here lies the difficulty in pursuing the conversations we do, like this one.

“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of
power and not truth.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

Lao Tzu said,

“Because one believes in oneself, one doesn't try to convince others. Because one is content with oneself, one
doesn't need others' approval. Because one accepts oneself, the whole world accepts him or her.”

I have a long way to go :( and as there are others here discussing and attempting to make the others see
it “their way” I assume their journey is not yet completed either.

So taking the above into consideration I have to say that I cannot conceive of “nothing” (nil, nada, nought,
naught, zero...) as “nothing” is just a placeholder for something yet to be; just the thought of “nothing” is
something.

Take the number 101 that is one hundred, no tens and one unit, or 1 hundred + 1, there are no tens and thus
we put “nothing” in the place where it could be if there were. Hence zero is a potential for something that
isn’t yet and so “nothing”, in itself, is “something”

I wouldn’t say that anything is created from “nothing”, I would say that nothing is something that allows
room for another something.

Getting back to the original theme of this thread, “How does variation exist?” think variation exists by
interference.

If I were the only person to post in this thread then, right or wrong, it would be only my opinion present here
and thus my opinion would be the answer and truth going by the content of the thread. However I am not the
only person posting here and as we can see we vary in our directions, sometimes colliding and veering off on
new paths. That is the creation of “variation”.

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about Binary representation of 1 and 0. I think there has been a
misconception because Binary is only a mathematical notation and is known as “base 2”

In the use of this 1 and 0, I think “1” was used to represent everything and “0” represents nothing or perhaps
the absence of everything, can’t remember.

The thing is it may be wrong...let’s look at the properties of some binary numbers.

If we take 101 and 101, I could then take 100 and fill in the 0’s in the first two numbers giving me 111 and
111 because the “1” in “1”00 has double the value of the possible “1” in the position I replaced it. That is 1”1”1

To make it simpler the binary 10 = 2 x 1 and 100 is 2 x 10

Keeping to the same format if I had 110 and 110 I could not replace the “0” with the “1” from my 100 as this
would give me 1000 and 1000, so 1 in binary notation is not everything.

If you want 1 to be everything then you have to use probability and this is where 1 = every probability and 0=
no probability, all that “is” comes somewhere between the two.

So the Universe is a place equal to one where every probability is possible and we see these probabilities
as “Varience".

I think I am safe in saying that there is no zero probability for anything...there may be infinitesimally small
probabilities, but a probability all the same and hence everything is a possibility.

Hehe... sorry if that was a bit gobbledygook, but I found it convincing :).

Ghislain

Bel Matina
03-01-2013, 06:06 PM
Binary is a system of notation, and doesn't actually change the properties of numbers in any way.
The significance of 0 above is that nothing is there, and 1 that something is there.

To reconcile what you've been saying about "zero" or "God" with what I've been saying, I would put it as truth, and point out that only tautology is true for all universes. It exists or it doesn't. Perfect ambiguity.

The only thing you've said that I think leads to misapprehension is that "God" is separate from the universe. Our stone is our chaos. They are identical, even though the stone doesn't move and chaos can't be fixed.

Understanding this will bring you to the root.

glenerson
03-01-2013, 06:54 PM
Binary is a system of notation, and doesn't actually change the properties of numbers in any way.
The significance of 0 above is that nothing is there, and 1 that something is there.

To reconcile what you've been saying about "zero" or "God" with what I've been saying, I would put it as truth, and point out that only tautology is true for all universes. It exists or it doesn't. Perfect ambiguity.

The only thing you've said that I think leads to misapprehension is that "God" is separate from the universe. Our stone is our chaos. They are identical, even though the stone doesn't move and chaos can't be fixed.

Understanding this will bring you to the root.

But I provided a solution to eventually reconcile everything. That while i maintain that 1 is distinct from zero, that while 1 is not equal to zero, there is still a process to be done. The separation of God and his creation is a transitionary state. That there is the final act to be done, for the sole reason that you can only tell.

Alchemy only tells you God's nature. But it won't tell you the Why|What goes through the mind of God|Will. Religions have proposed what the Why could be. Salvation. Reunion with God, End of the World, Second Coming. Though they attach a myth story to it, it could be broken down to fundamental terms which could complete the picture .

The "transmutation" of 1 to become Zero could be the plot of God's story. That is Zero created One to define Zero and now that Zero is defined, One will cease to exist for Zero to be One/Singular/Monad again, now fully aware from the inside but also from the outside. It could be that God wanted to see Himself outside of Him, for how could One would see Himself without a mirror? Creation could be God's mirror to just take a glimpse what It looks like. In my case and for my benefit, i proposed that nothingness is God and the next logical step to propose that the creation is of temporary existence for nothingness to arise from its destruction. So nothingness It made sense of from the inside and the outside, from 2 distinct states which will be one for they are indeed the of same nature, substance.

So now I can put in my alchemist notebook that the purpose of my Life is to "transmute 1 to 0 so that 0 = 0 for only 0 to exist.". I could die now, to be honest.

glenerson
03-01-2013, 07:10 PM
I really enjoyed the last two posts and it does seem to be steering to agreement.

Glenerson you mentioned E=mc^2, but that goes out the window if "m" doesn't exist. Just a point for another
discussion :)

Perhaps we all live in our own unique world, each different from one another. . . Perhaps there is no singular
truth to find, but a multitude of truths. Is one person’s truth more real that another’s? When one disagrees
with another’s reality maybe we should be aware that they can't explain theirs to us, and we can't explain ours
to them. The problem is that if our realities are too different then we have a communication breakdown...
here lies the difficulty in pursuing the conversations we do, like this one.

“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of
power and not truth.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

Lao Tzu said,

“Because one believes in oneself, one doesn't try to convince others. Because one is content with oneself, one
doesn't need others' approval. Because one accepts oneself, the whole world accepts him or her.”

I have a long way to go :( and as there are others here discussing and attempting to make the others see
it “their way” I assume their journey is not yet completed either.

So taking the above into consideration I have to say that I cannot conceive of “nothing” (nil, nada, nought,
naught, zero...) as “nothing” is just a placeholder for something yet to be; just the thought of “nothing” is
something.

Take the number 101 that is one hundred, no tens and one unit, or 1 hundred + 1, there are no tens and thus
we put “nothing” in the place where it could be if there were. Hence zero is a potential for something that
isn’t yet and so “nothing”, in itself, is “something”

I wouldn’t say that anything is created from “nothing”, I would say that nothing is something that allows
room for another something.

Getting back to the original theme of this thread, “How does variation exist?” think variation exists by
interference.

If I were the only person to post in this thread then, right or wrong, it would be only my opinion present here
and thus my opinion would be the answer and truth going by the content of the thread. However I am not the
only person posting here and as we can see we vary in our directions, sometimes colliding and veering off on
new paths. That is the creation of “variation”.

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about Binary representation of 1 and 0. I think there has been a
misconception because Binary is only a mathematical notation and is known as “base 2”

In the use of this 1 and 0, I think “1” was used to represent everything and “0” represents nothing or perhaps
the absence of everything, can’t remember.

The thing is it may be wrong...let’s look at the properties of some binary numbers.

If we take 101 and 101, I could then take 100 and fill in the 0’s in the first two numbers giving me 111 and
111 because the “1” in “1”00 has double the value of the possible “1” in the position I replaced it. That is 1”1”1

To make it simpler the binary 10 = 2 x 1 and 100 is 2 x 10

Keeping to the same format if I had 110 and 110 I could not replace the “0” with the “1” from my 100 as this
would give me 1000 and 1000, so 1 in binary notation is not everything.

If you want 1 to be everything then you have to use probability and this is where 1 = every probability and 0=
no probability, all that “is” comes somewhere between the two.

So the Universe is a place equal to one where every probability is possible and we see these probabilities
as “Varience".

I think I am safe in saying that there is no zero probability for anything...there may be infinitesimally small
probabilities, but a probability all the same and hence everything is a possibility.

Hehe... sorry if that was a bit gobbledygook, but I found it convincing :).

Ghislain

Yeah, if m is not doesn't exist, then E doesn't exist. Universe is filled with E and matter is condensed E. i've been reading from the likes of solomon levy ideas such as Matter is condensed form of the Spirit, which leads me to think that they are implying that Spirit is Energy. I don't subscribe to this view for this "Spirit" is not of material/Energy/volatile matter.

If m doesn't exist and E doesn't exist. What exists? "Spirit"

Thank you, you just destroyed matter.

Thank you for your post about binary. But in a binary state, there is only 2 numbers. 0 and 1. we cannot go to 10 or 3 or greater. or negatives. so the representation/use of 0 and 1 in a nonbinary representation (base n) is for the purpose of representation only. That's how i view it. but i will make sense and meditate on what you posted and hopefully will help me shape my views.

But in a binary system, the rest of the numbers can be realized in its infinitesimal divisions between them. so all is represented between the confines of 0 and 1. it is because that this 1 could represent everything.

I appreciate your post. As Bel says, we are all cooking here. All posts views disagreements agreements are important.

Bel Matina
03-01-2013, 09:26 PM
Alchemy doesn't address God's mind/will? You must be reading different books than I am. Look a little more closely at tradition regarding the "noble" or "philosophical" metals (as opposed to the "vulgar" embodied metals) and you may find what you're looking for.

The shortcut being that God/Mind/Will too are distinctions, specifications that lead away from the root.

Bel Matina
03-01-2013, 09:30 PM
Just barely on topic, let me say regarding the whole apparent conflict/occult concord thing in the context of a forum that Fire may be what drives the work, we must keep our flames hidden XD Wouldn't want to torture the children in their prisons, now would we?

glenerson
03-01-2013, 09:49 PM
Honestly, All I got from alchemy really is the nature of God, which was supplemented and complemented what I read from religion. Which is what I was trying to express in uniform and consistent manner through out my post. But alchemy was incomplete. It didn't tell me "what for?", "why gold is 79?", "why there is matter and spirit?", "why is it necessary to be in union with God/rubedo?". The moral reason why chemical reactions occur. These are the fundamental concepts in alchemy to understand and master without asking why. Went back to religion and it gave me options such that, "Save humanity from sins.", "Do the right thing.", "Be good to others."

How could i make sense of "Save humanity from sins" to alchemy? No alchemist will tell you for they are concerned about Spiritus Mundi, its nature. The Prima materia, its nature. Transmuting lead to gold, to get rich or to prove a point.. I had to decipher it all myself by reading, meditating and praying. Then Aha moments. "Destroy matter, which is of sin." "Transmute matter to Spirit, which is of good.". Make Two to One, for it is the Truth. Now the terse alchemy had a purpose. Thanks to religion.

Yeah, religion, that tyrannical and bad religion that only control the masses and killed people in the past hundreds of years. That religion made me say what I just said.

It is in religion that I tried to find out what God's will is because they are blatantly and literally are talking and describing God, referring to Him as God and not veiled words such as "the benevolent Mercury." Or the all merciful - "Sulfur."

I could talk like how alchemist's veiled the Truth. That the Philosophers Stone transmutes base metal to gold. Meaning that Jesus Christ = the Philosopher's Stone showed us the key to transmute his humanity to divinity. That the Word is the Philosopher's Stone for us to successfully destroy/transmute matter and realize the Spirit = the substance of God. Gold is the metaphorical materialization of the substance of God for it is not Lead, not matter.

So alchemy is finding out the True substance that constitute God, which in our case nothingness. What makes up nothingness? I propose that there is that substance that is not of matter, is not of universe.

To be composed and to make sense of the substance of God while living is only to have a docetist worldview, that is thinking that matter is an illusion.

See, I could not make sense of that using alchemy alone. I had to go to religion and other channels. Why did I do all of this? Because it is my purpose. I believe I must do it because it is Good.

Thus to show that the Will of God i didnt find in alchemy.

glenerson
03-01-2013, 10:51 PM
My contribution to the Art is basically this,

"Destroy matter, which is of sin.
Transmute matter to Spirit, which is of good.
Make Two to One, for it is the Truth."

For there is only One Truth

That is..

"NOT(1) = 0"

My Alchemical Work is done.

glenerson

[Yes this is my last post on the forums. Need to take a very long long long rest.]

solomon levi
03-01-2013, 10:55 PM
if i can realize infinity, variation, undefined and the rest of the bases of numbers, God and creation, their nature and properties and what they should be, using 2 numbers, isn't that the truth? For what i just mentioned is the All and i can even realize the opposite of All, using 2 numbers. if you mean that the all is infinite, how did you capture that infinite? how would you even define your version of all? I told you how i made sense of the All and None by using 2 numbers.

no. it's A truth. are you saying no one can show this with 3 numbers? 11 numbers? you are only showing a small part... one possibility. why be satisfied with that one template? challenge yourself. is binary all you know?

solomon levi
03-01-2013, 11:16 PM
glenerson said ''But in a binary system, the rest of the numbers can be realized in its infinitesimal divisions between them. so all is represented between the confines of 0 and 1. it is because that this 1 could represent everything.''

this 'representing' is like me humming a tune and saying i represent all music. the space between two numbers or two anythings does represent AN infinity, but it doesn't represent the All which is all infinities. for me, there is a real difference here. for you there is too or you would not have bothered ignoring everything but 0 and 1. the fact that you intentionally did that proves you know more exists. ignoring is not truth. your black and white world would agree.

solomon levi
03-01-2013, 11:34 PM
g said, 'But alchemy was incomplete.'

so are you certain it is not your comprehension of alchemy that is incomplete? do you realise you are claiming to understand all that alchemy knows? is that the truth?
my reason for insisting on more than binary comes from alchemy.
1 'god'
2 male and female
3 mercury, sulphur, salt
4 elements
5 quintessence...

alchemy is not just binary.
if you would call unity truth, i'd be more sympathetic.
but you want to say god is just the good, which means you are aware of the bad. you love duality enough to talk about destroying something. that's religion, not alchemy. you tried to make alchemy fit your religious views. you don't see alchemy for what it is.

glenerson
03-01-2013, 11:54 PM
i had to make this THE Most and Lastest Final Post because Solomon didn't give me a friendly farewell. This is not to get even or do the finishing blow but just to clarify a bit.

1.) Do i need to eat the whole cake to know what the cake tastes like?

2.) Only zero and one exists because the rest of the numbers is nth illusionary iterations/copies/accumulations of one. 0 to 10 is essentially 0 to 1 with numbers in between that is divided to 9 parts and this parts can be blurred out for it is not fixed. infinity honestly tells what is in between 0 and 1, not a fixed number.

3.) If your God and the universe are the same, certainly that my God can destroy your God for my God can destroy the universe and He will only remain.

That's it. Thanks and see you in the Zero, where everyone is One and the Same (In the Spirit)!

This is the End for my purpose is done.

glenerson

solomon levi
03-02-2013, 01:32 AM
i wasn't giving a farewell. and i wasn't unfriendly. truth isn't personal. i'm offerring views as you have.
in a trinity template, there is the known, the unknown, and the unknowable. if ihad to choose just one, i'd have to equate god with unknowable. but unknowable does not equate nothing. unknowable can also be more encompassing than the instrument of knowing and still be something. if the instrument of knowing is mind or knowledge or mathematics, we must surrender them for 'god', the unknowable.
i love you glenerson. i honestly do.

Bel Matina
03-02-2013, 02:20 AM
Ora lege lege lege et invenies

zoas23
03-02-2013, 03:06 AM
The thread made me remember something I liked in a book by Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, it was in his book On Numbers.
This is my terrible translation from Spanish (the version I have) to English:

"Nothing can exist without its own number, even God has his number. But the number of God is not God, this same distinction is applicable to all beings. None of them can exist without its own number, since the number is their guide, their pivot and the first character of their existence. But never the number should never be confused with their being".

(Pardon the horrible translation)

I like this idea... because quite often in the "hermetic conversations" I see people getting a bit mixed up and arriving to strange ideas.
I.e, that God is the number Zero.

And I do agree with that... as long as you don't get too literal and start thinking "God is the zero, then something multiplied by God is God... and something divided by God becomes infinite, etc"... and nothing in the universe works in such a literal way.

glenerson
03-02-2013, 04:00 AM
As a token of my appreciation for the views, comments, disagreements, reconciliations from my fellow alchemists, I would like to present my Binary Cosmology,

http://0.tqn.com/d/chemistry/1/0/N/f/sphere.gif

1.) 0 and 1 is projected to 3d thus the complete representation of the binary cosmology is the perfect sphere.
2.) in this sphere, there is only one center, which is Zero, and One is plotted in the infinite axes in space.
3.) One has infinite occurences, while Zero is only Singular.

So in this projection of the Binary cosmology in 3d, we can still see the duality of One and Zero but now One is represented Infinitely. And in this binary Cosmology, if the infinite 3d plots of One approaches and sets to Zero, the cosmos will represented as a single point @ Zero.

Thus while One can be used to represent infinity, this infinity is destroyed if all the points contract to Zero and will exist as Zero.

Implications: While I maintained a linear relationship of 0 and 1 in my previous posts, Zero being God and One being the universe, my Binary Cosmology posits infinite existence of universes under the guidance of singular God. So it conflicts the idea that God is the universe for if that idea is represented in a 3d plane, there should be many instances of Zeroes. But visually, we only see one Zero.

Thus a singular God can make and be in dominion of infinite numbers of universes.

Another implication, there are infinite manifestations of You/Us/I/Creation/Universe and still God is a single entity.

This is to show you that One is not Zero. One, which is infinity, is not Zero, which is One.

Only God is Absolute and Singular. His creation/the universe(S), is not God. there are infinite Ones, but there is only One Zero.

Yes, this is part of the promise that i posted in the Alchemist-Messiah thread. That we are infinite and unique. That each of us have our own universes. That solipsism is true. That each individual operates a distinct universe. That each individual is unique. That each individual will come back to a singular same point of origin, that is God and be One with God. In the end, we see each other in the Zero. What you have is not a shared universe, but we share the Same God. What goes inside your head and where you operate is a unique universe and you own that yourself and each of us has one of our own. For every person, one unique universe. Shared by all person is One God.

1 person owns 1 universe. infinite number of persons entails infinite universes. Under 1 God.

So you/I and the universe are One. There are many Ones, under 1 God.

glenerson
"Thank You, Lord"

glenerson
03-02-2013, 04:29 AM
The thread made me remember something I liked in a book by Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, it was in his book On Numbers.
This is my terrible translation from Spanish (the version I have) to English:

"Nothing can exist without its own number, even God has his number. But the number of God is not God, this same distinction is applicable to all beings. None of them can exist without its own number, since the number is their guide, their pivot and the first character of their existence. But never the number should never be confused with their being".

(Pardon the horrible translation)

I like this idea... because quite often in the "hermetic conversations" I see people getting a bit mixed up and arriving to strange ideas.
I.e, that God is the number Zero.

And I do agree with that... as long as you don't get too literal and start thinking "God is the zero, then something multiplied by God is God... and something divided by God becomes infinite, etc"... and nothing in the universe works in such a literal way.

It is fine that you associate something with something not of its nature. It's not specifying, but closely approximating the essence and let the rest of the unspoken word to make sense of it.

As the Taoist says, "It's not the Tao if it is put to words." Meaning it is not the eternal Tao if you specify. Tao can be realized and felt if it is given closest approximation by association. Association and specifying are different. For association will give you the closest approximation and let the rest of its nature feel you.

I could say God is Zero. For others it's specifying. But for me it's finding the closest approximation and let the association describe each other, honestly and the rest of its meaning you feel. For the knowledge and feeling to kick in. This is when learning is complete.

This is really my LAST POST. Thank you all.

Rebus7
03-02-2013, 04:43 AM
This has been a very excellent discussion on “variation” (adaptation), God, zero, infinity, one, the manifest and the unmanifest and even alchemical theoria.
But this is not Alchemy. Alchemy can only be understood via the praxis informing the theoria, through the laboratory, and in my limited experience, the same applies to understanding the whole former discussion. The mental abstraction, the conceptualization, the intellectualization, is only half the story. I cannot count the number of times my projected theories have been destroyed in the laboratory.
Another energy, another gnosis, another understanding, arrives in the laboratory from a non-mental occult source. The current theory goes out the window or else has to be heavily modified, usually simplified, and a radical new light is shone. If we equated theoria with spirit/ mercury, then the laboratory is our sulphur. They inform each other.
So to suggest that Alchemy is limited in any way, unless you have made the PS and lived out its meaning and purpose, is short-sighted to say the least.
Finally, I also, find that my favorite quote from this thread is….
“We should not, then, seek God in absence, or even the infinite, but in the unspecified. The state of universal potential, the only state of perfect harmony, lies prior to the distinction of there/not there.”

Rebus7
03-02-2013, 06:31 AM
Ora lege lege lege et invenies

Actually, the real quote is from Mutus Liber:

Ora lege lege relege labora et invenies

An important distinction.

Ghislain
03-02-2013, 07:58 AM
I have no objection to using 1 to denote all and 0 to represent the lack of all but I do object to calling
it “binary” for 1 and 0 are just the same in any other numerical notation. Perhaps “object” is too strong a
word, “confused” may be better.

Is it because binary only uses 1’s and 0’s in its notation that someone has decided it would be a good idea to
call using 1 and 0 binary. It is not binary in the sense it is being used in this thread because as with any other
base it does not equal one if it is moved to another column. Also I could put the exact same arguments used
in this thread using the 1 and 0 from base 10 and say it is a decimal system.

In Base 2 binary 1=1 and 0=0, only in the unit column 10 = 2
Base 3 ternary 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column (also trinary) 10 =3
Base 4 quaternary 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column 10 = 4
Base 5 quinary 1=1 and 0=0, only in the unit column 10=5
Base 6 senary 1=1 and 0=0, only in the unit column 10 = 6
Base 7 septenary 1=1 and 0=0, only in the unit column 10 = 7
Base 8 octonary 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column (also octal, octonal” or “octimal) 10 = 8
Base 9 nonary 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column 10 = 9
Base 10 decimal 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column 10 = 10

In none of the above does 1 in the second column = 1, and it is the second column that gives each its name.
Does that explain my concern clearly enough?

In percentages 1 is 100%, but you can have more than 100% as in “200% interest” so there could be
confusion there.

This is why I suggested that the 1 you need to be thinking of in the sense it is being used in this thread should
be “probability” as you cannot have a greater probability than 1 and a probability of 1 encompasses all
possibility.

The thread is about variation and why it exists; a tool to find the answer may be in probability. I.E. what is
the probability that a thing will be either this or that...what is the probability that everything is
evolutionary...what is the probability that everything was created by a greater being...what is the probability
that anyone will ever know the ultimate truth...etc...ect.

It also makes things a lot clearer in this thread as everything in the Universe has a probability factor involved
in it. And IMO that is all there is...a probability.

There is a probability that someone will disagree with what I have said...:)

Is the aversion to using probability perhaps that in probability there are no absolutes?

Ask yourself, what is the probability that you are wrong? for no matter how certain I am about something I
know there is always this probability.

What is the probability that the Philosophers Stone does not exist?

What is the probability that God does not exist?

What is the probability that you are God?

What is the probability that we created God?

What is the probability that God created us?

I hate probability as the maths is too complicated for me, but I do like the questions it brings about.

I have one final question for this post and it is to Glenerson as the creator of the thread...if you will honor us with one more post.

When you mention “variation” what exactly do you mean by it? Perhaps I have not understood.

Ghislain

Bel Matina
03-02-2013, 10:54 AM
Actually, the real quote is from Mutus Liber:

Ora lege lege relege labora et invenies

An important distinction.

Yes, I gave away my copy and I had to rely on the internet for the quotation.

The internet has failed me.

Feh.

Case in point, in a sense.

It's never quite how you remember it, or even what you see.

Maybe the past changed while you weren't looking.

glenerson
03-02-2013, 06:43 PM
I have no objection to using 1 to denote all and 0 to represent the lack of all but I do object to calling
it “binary” for 1 and 0 are just the same in any other numerical notation. Perhaps “object” is too strong a
word, “confused” may be better.

Is it because binary only uses 1’s and 0’s in its notation that someone has decided it would be a good idea to
call using 1 and 0 binary. It is not binary in the sense it is being used in this thread because as with any other
base it does not equal one if it is moved to another column. Also I could put the exact same arguments used
in this thread using the 1 and 0 from base 10 and say it is a decimal system.

In Base 2 binary 1=1 and 0=0, only in the unit column 10 = 2
Base 3 ternary 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column (also trinary) 10 =3
Base 4 quaternary 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column 10 = 4
Base 5 quinary 1=1 and 0=0, only in the unit column 10=5
Base 6 senary 1=1 and 0=0, only in the unit column 10 = 6
Base 7 septenary 1=1 and 0=0, only in the unit column 10 = 7
Base 8 octonary 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column (also octal, octonal” or “octimal) 10 = 8
Base 9 nonary 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column 10 = 9
Base 10 decimal 1=1 and 0=0 only in the unit column 10 = 10

In none of the above does 1 in the second column = 1, and it is the second column that gives each its name.
Does that explain my concern clearly enough?

In percentages 1 is 100%, but you can have more than 100% as in “200% interest” so there could be
confusion there.

This is why I suggested that the 1 you need to be thinking of in the sense it is being used in this thread should
be “probability” as you cannot have a greater probability than 1 and a probability of 1 encompasses all
possibility.

The thread is about variation and why it exists; a tool to find the answer may be in probability. I.E. what is
the probability that a thing will be either this or that...what is the probability that everything is
evolutionary...what is the probability that everything was created by a greater being...what is the probability
that anyone will ever know the ultimate truth...etc...ect.

It also makes things a lot clearer in this thread as everything in the Universe has a probability factor involved
in it. And IMO that is all there is...a probability.

There is a probability that someone will disagree with what I have said...:)

Is the aversion to using probability perhaps that in probability there are no absolutes?

Ask yourself, what is the probability that you are wrong? for no matter how certain I am about something I
know there is always this probability.

What is the probability that the Philosophers Stone does not exist?

What is the probability that God does not exist?

What is the probability that you are God?

What is the probability that we created God?

What is the probability that God created us?

I hate probability as the maths is too complicated for me, but I do like the questions it brings about.

I have one final question for this post and it is to Glenerson as the creator of the thread...if you will honor us with one more post.

When you mention “variation” what exactly do you mean by it? Perhaps I have not understood.

Ghislain

hello Ghislain. i don't want to ignore your request (for i indicated that my last post is my last) with one more post. i'd be happy to address your concern.

i've used binary for it represents the fundamental objects in existence and express the dualistic view. male/female, true/false, right/wrong, etc. i don't intend to imply that im using binary just like how the computers use it.

fundamental binary (stick notation) is this

0 is zero
1 is one
11 is two
111 is three
1111 is four
11111 is five.
.....

see, the rest of the numbers is realized by accumulating Ones. And this itself is variation which is realized by accumulating ones. which in my opinion is illusionary. this accumulation of one can be done infinitely thus it is safe to say that 1 can represent infinity, which i've demonstrated in my "Binary Cosmology."

While we can represent infinity this way, we can also represent infinity by infinitesimaly dividing the space between Zero and One, which in my "Binary Cosmology" can be done infinitely, (this is to address solomon's remark that the linear 0 to 1 can only represent 1 infinity.)

So what is variation im talking about? this variation is a by product or if not infinity itself. Infinite numbers imply infinite variations. Once there is infinity, there is variation, for variation is the presence of uniqueness. 0 is not 1. 11 is not 1. 11111111111111 is not 1. dot dot dot.

once if you have probability, you imply uncertainty and certainty. that one is right and one is wrong. that one is and one is not. binary notation perfectly addresses probability. that one is and the other is not. dualistic probability. toss a coin. probability exists in 2. but once the monad is realize, everything and nothing is 100%. there is only one nature, one truth, one substance. Only One. And I associate that to Zero.

how we calculate probability now is to consider infinity, accumulation of 1 and what not. it is illusionary, imo.

Thank you..

And this picture below is to address what Bel is teasing about. Yes, I know what the root (of the dualists) is.http://i.imgur.com/0NrJmwM.gif

Moral lesson: In harmony you will still see division. In choice you will see the Whole.

Farewell.

Kiorionis
03-03-2013, 12:14 AM
fundamental binary (stick notation) is this

0 is zero
1 is one
11 is two
111 is three
1111 is four
11111 is five.

I thought binary notation was as follows:

0001 = 1
0010 = 2
0011 = 3
0100 = 4
0101 = 5
0110 = 6
0111 = 7
1000 = 8
1001 = 9

based on exponential growth and read right to left. First place is one, second place two, third place four, fourth place eight.
Or more simply:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 &etc.

I did notice you said you use binary differently, but in that case I would hesitate to call it binary...

Basically I'm confused with your binary system. It would be just as good to notice how variation comes about through proper binary notation.
The more 1's you have, the greater the variation from 0.
Or, the more of Something, the greater the fixation of the manifest Nothing. :)

Other than that I have been enjoying your posts glenerson.

glenerson
03-03-2013, 12:20 AM
incorrect. Binary notation is as follows:

0001 = 1
0010 = 2
0011 = 3
0100 = 4
0101 = 5
0110 = 6
0111 = 7
1000 = 8
1001 = 9

It is based on exponential growth.

i said stick notation.

0 = 0
1 = 1
1+1 = 2
1+1+1 = 3
1+1+1+1 = 4
1+1+1+1+1 =5

i just removed the pluses. that is to show that the rest of the number is the accumulation of 1.

I am aware that that is the conventional binary notation. I do computer programming.

thank you Korionis. I just want to address all the questions coz i want the ideas that i presented to be solid.

Now I will really self destruct. Bye everyone. See me in 2016.

solomon levi
03-03-2013, 01:58 AM
as far as I was concerned, binary simply refers to twoness, trinary threeness, quaternary fourness...
not binary notation necessarily.

I was made aware of humans being "third-force blind" by Gurdjieff years ago. That's why this dualism is so lacking for me, not to mention alchemy and all the other trinities. What I observe, observing life, my own and others, is the action of a third, reconciling force, as alchemy teaches. Many people are fixed on dualism, but the universe doesn't work that way when we observe it. We have to be aware that what we see is equal to what we are aware of and open to seeing. Three is not the "be all, end all" either. It is just simple enough to see and evolve from two. Without three, the androgyne, salt, reconciliation, alchemy simply wouldn't work.

Anyway, binary, trinary, are templates, ways of talking... not proof of anything objective. Certainly not evidence that god is "this, not that". THINKING is "this, not that".

"The three realms can be understood as three forces of Holy Affirming, Holy Denying, and Holy Reconciling. Only by the action of third force- going beyond- can the three realms be brought together within the manifestation of sentient (three brained) beings. Just like Gurdjieff, Dogen indicates that we are third force blind- we don't understand going beyond. This blindness towards third force is both a central tenet of Gurdjieff practice and an overarching theme in Buddhism."
http://zenyogagurdjieff.blogspot.com/2012/01/three-realms-dogens-genjo-koan-and.html

The thread is about variation, not duality. Duality is one step in variation.

I completely understand the dual view and it's usefulness - no argument. It's still one description among billions. I've learned about lots of different religions and philosophies so I can talk to different people. Dualism is just one language. It's not THE way it is. It's a view. I wouldn't hinge everything on one view, knowing there are others. Everyone knows we find what we look for, we see what we expect to see. Dualism/binary is not THE truth or even the best way of speaking of god. It's great for people who think dualistically. So much for variation. :)

Clarified all I care to. I'll say no more on it here.

glenerson
03-03-2013, 02:59 AM
Riddle:

"First there was Zero then it realized the Third
And One was created, Infinitely."

Third force you're talking about is simply the Z-axis. After the basic X, Y, Z dimensions, infinite dimensions can be realized since One can be plotted infinitely in a Perfect Sphere.

But this Z axis is not unique since it is Either the Y or the X axis rotated at 90 degrees.

Solomon, As I've Said, Variation is just an illusion.

One Truth, infinite Falsities.. There is only One Truth because there is only One God.

EDIT: I won't be back. Farewell my brothers/sisters.

Ghislain
03-03-2013, 09:57 AM
Glenerson

I have to smile at your attempts to say goodbye :)

This is a forum and as such you need not say goodbye, just pop in when you can.

I have put together some of your goodbye’s from this thread so you can smile too ;)

• [Yes this is my last post on the forums. Need to take a very long long long rest.]
• This is the End for my purpose is done.
• As a token of my appreciation for the views, comments, disagreements, reconciliations from my
fellow alchemists, I would like to present my Binary Cosmology,
• This is really my LAST POST. Thank you all.
• hello Ghislain. i don't want to ignore your request (for i indicated that my last post is my last)
with one more post. i'd be happy to address your concern... Farewell.
• Now I will really self destruct. Bye everyone. See me in 2016.
• EDIT: I won't be back. Farewell my brothers/sisters.

So I’m taking an educated guess that you’re still here :)

Thanks for your explanation, but I am none the wiser for it.

I guess your proposal has a probability, though I wouldn't know how to calculate it.

Perhaps I don’t have the capacity to understand your argument, so I cannot agree or disagree.

I will say that the example you are using is not Binary and there is no proper base notation for "1", although
there is the Unary numeral system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_1), but perhaps calling it stick notation would do as in the Unary system there
is no zero. IMO calling it Binary confuses the point you are trying to put forward, but I could be
wrong, it may be just me.

In your explanation to me you wrote:

fundamental binary (stick notation) is this

0 is zero
1 is one
11 is two
111 is three
1111 is four
11111 is five. fundamental binary (stick notation) is this

All I saw was

0 is zero
1 is one
11 is three
111 is seven
1111 is fifteen
11111 is thirty-one

Because you are talking about binary.

Bear with me on this...

I could put 1111 and say it was four in decimal (stick notation)

I am not arguing ad hominem, I genuinely feel it would be better to use another name that better describes

Looking at “1”(one) from a general perspective:

1 is a number, a numeral, and the name of the glyph representing that number.
It represents a single entity
(Source: Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_(number)))

In your last post you start by writing, “"First there was Zero”. That would imply a beginning and, for me,
there is no beginning or end. “What is” has always been...it didn’t start with the Big Bang it was already
there, if there is a "there".

To see a scientific explanation of our connectedness watch “A Night with the Stars ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZhZYtbPnag)” with Prof. Brian Cox
The explanation is at 33:56, but if you haven’t seen the program then watch the whole thing; it is very
interesting.

At this moment in time I think that all is one, separateness is illusion. If you feel God is separate from you,
and that is what you are comfortable with then, for you I guess, that is how it is. For me God, I and
everything I am aware of, Probably a lot more than I am aware of, is all one and the same thing. I am
part of "what is"

But I'll keep searching.

I won’t say goodbye I’ll just say until we speak again.

Ghislain

zoas23
03-03-2013, 02:59 PM
BTW:

There is a great, amazing, fantastic, superb, excellent, marvelous book by Henri Bergson titled "The Creative Evolution".

The book is mostly Bergson explaining.... how variation does, indeed, exist...
and how variation is actually the main "activity" of God.

Ghislain
03-03-2013, 06:13 PM
Thanks Zoas

I only had time to read the introduction and a few last chapters, but now that my appetite has been moistened I can’t wait to eat. :)

The EBook is available online in many different formats...

Creative Evolution by Henri Bergson (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26163)

I have to admit the language is a little heavy for my colloquial brain and I do find myself referring to the dictionary every two minutes,
but it’s worth it.

Ghislain

solomon levi
03-04-2013, 12:54 AM
Third force you're talking about is simply the Z-axis. After the basic X, Y, Z dimensions, infinite dimensions can be realized since One can be plotted infinitely in a Perfect Sphere.

But this Z axis is not unique since it is Either the Y or the X axis rotated at 90 degrees.

Solomon, As I've Said, Variation is just an illusion.

One Truth, infinite Falsities.. There is only One Truth because there is only One God.

EDIT: I won't be back. Farewell my brothers/sisters.

So now you're admitting 3 dimensions?
There's nothing unique about three dimensions compared to two?
That's just words and rationale... not truth, not experience.
You experience it uniquely. We wouldn't be arguing if we didn't vary. :)
You still want to deny/ignore what is and call that truth...
which means your "god" is somewhere else, some other conditions... not here,
not omnipresent.

You can call it illusion. Binary is equally illusory. God is "good" is just as much an illusion.

Truth is One - ok. Just don't put it into any words, and I'll agree.
Don't claim you can possess the One (have the truth, understand it) and I'll agree. :)
You need two for understanding - that's very simple... the understander and the thing understood...
you actually need three - this is where people are third-force blind - and the understanding.
All events are three forces, not two.
Relationship is three, not two.
Relationship is illusion? Ok. So variation exists as an illusion... all creation is illusion.
I understand that argument. I don't fully agree with it. A lot of people can SAY that and not
understand what they're saying. Saying it isn't proof of anything except that we can say ANYTHING,
we can believe anything.
So nothing isn't an illusion? Why? You've claimed it, argued it... you haven't proven it.
Nothing only exists for us relative to something. It's a twin, not a unity.
For me, math will prove nothing either. Math is one more language among millions.
Is it closer to objectivity? Usually.
Is it THE truth? No.

I have seen as Krishnamurti... "truth is a pathless land". You have a path, and I disagree with it
because I have seen that truth is pathless. That you see good and bad (in a universe of illusory variations??)
is all I need to hear to know that you don't see truth. It doesn't mean I reject you or won't listen or talk
with you. It just means we have different frames of truth. But the more objective encompasses the less objective... or the more encompassing is more true. Whatever you put in words will be encompassed by silence. Whatever you put in binary will be encompassed by unity. Whatever you call "good" will be knowable only through bad and will be encompassed by their reconciliation/union - "good-bad/bad-good",
which means "it just IS"/justice.

Anyway... third force is not the z axis... it is an evolution, not a mimicking of x and y.
Evolution is variation.
If you don't experience 90 degree rotation as unique, you haven't experienced it.

I think I see what you're saying by illusion and not unique, but for me illusion doesn't equal unreal.
Real is what we agree upon. It only takes two people agreeing to make something "real".
This is magic/shamanism... maybe you haven't experienced it that way.
I see a universe of agreements.
Nothing isn't nothing unless two agree on it, and then it's still subjectively real, not objectively.
There is no absolute objective that you or I as individuals could know.
You can believe in it. But then we're back to agreement makes reality.

I am humble enough to know what I can know and what i can't.
Knower, known, knowing... that's three, not one (or two).
Every thing is composed of three. It takes three to know that two exists.
It takes two to know that One exists...
That's as objective as knowledge gets.
You want to be more objective than that, you have to not exist and merge back into the One
where nothing is known, nothing is good or bad, nothing is god or not god, nothing is variation or same...
You can't have thoughts of comparison in that. Comparison = two at least. Good cannot exist isolated from it's opposite which defines it. Neither can you, or me... at least not AS you or me.

Do we need to put that into a mathematical equation to make it true?
It seems plain enough to me.

Maybe we see the same and are just arguing about words, phrasing.
In some ways I want to agree with you, but the way you say it, I cannot agree.
I am sitting at a desk with a variety of objects on it. You deny that in argument, in theory.
You have escaped into mind to do that. As if mind is real/objective/not illusory.
The present reality I experience is variation and sameness/generic/homogeneous...
the variations are the same and yet they are different. I like to be able to perceive both options -
not to think that I must choose only one as real. There is NO THING dictating to me that
I must choose only one. Is there to you? What is it? Who says you must?
Not god. Knowledge. Knowledge tells me all kinds of things. I've learned not to believe in it...
I've learned to use knowledge when I want and not use it when I don't want.
Knowledge is always incomplete, so I don't have to imagine it is the voice of god.
In complete knowledge, there is no choice, and there's no need to worry about making the
right choice there.
These are not my beliefs. This is my experience, as objective as I can be.
My science is detached... I am not trying to force the outcome of my experiments to fit my beliefs
or preferences. I'm just witnessing as objectively as I can.
Who, without knowledge, has witnessed antimatter? :)
There's only one answer to that question if you understand "without knowledge"... no one.
If objectivity is your aim, you must renounce knowledge.
Only knowledge says "true" or "false". That is subjectivity. There is no objective true or objective false.
How would you measure it?

glenerson
03-23-2013, 09:09 PM
Glenerson

I have to smile at your attempts to say goodbye :)

This is a forum and as such you need not say goodbye, just pop in when you can.

I have put together some of your goodbye’s from this thread so you can smile too ;)

• [Yes this is my last post on the forums. Need to take a very long long long rest.]
• This is the End for my purpose is done.
• As a token of my appreciation for the views, comments, disagreements, reconciliations from my
fellow alchemists, I would like to present my Binary Cosmology,
• This is really my LAST POST. Thank you all.
• hello Ghislain. i don't want to ignore your request (for i indicated that my last post is my last)
with one more post. i'd be happy to address your concern... Farewell.
• Now I will really self destruct. Bye everyone. See me in 2016.
• EDIT: I won't be back. Farewell my brothers/sisters.

So I’m taking an educated guess that you’re still here :)

it is unconscious but i attempted to say goodbye seven times. 7 times. 7 is an important number in my own quest.

Thanks for your explanation, but I am none the wiser for it.

I guess your proposal has a probability, though I wouldn't know how to calculate it.

Perhaps I don’t have the capacity to understand your argument, so I cannot agree or disagree.

I will say that the example you are using is not Binary and there is no proper base notation for "1", although
there is the Unary numeral system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_1), but perhaps calling it stick notation would do as in the Unary system there
is no zero. IMO calling it Binary confuses the point you are trying to put forward, but I could be
wrong, it may be just me.

it's the honest binary system, consisting only of zero and 1. what you're saying is the notation, that is using 2 numbers to represent the accumulation of 1. this won't give meaning to zero and zero is just used as a placeholder to represent variation.

Binary system, for me at least, is only zero and one. that's it. the rest of the number on the left of 1 is just an infinite accumulations of 1 which is technically 1 times infinite divisions. and the rest of the number on the right of one is just the same, that is 1 times infinite progressions

In your explanation to me you wrote:

All I saw was

Because you are talking about binary.

Bear with me on this...

I could put 1111 and say it was four in decimal (stick notation)

I am not arguing ad hominem, I genuinely feel it would be better to use another name that better describes

Looking at “1”(one) from a general perspective:

1 is a number, a numeral, and the name of the glyph representing that number.
It represents a single entity
(Source: Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_(number)))

one represents a single entity, yes. also zero represents a single entity. in a sphere where 0 is not equal to 1, i can plot multiple instances of 1 in all axes and dimensions converging to zero. zero is singular and one is singular if the relationship is linear or one is infinity if plotted on a sphere.

In your last post you start by writing, “"First there was Zero”. That would imply a beginning and, for me,
there is no beginning or end. “What is” has always been...it didn’t start with the Big Bang it was already
there, if there is a "there".

"What is?" is the Zero. it has always been Zero, eternal and has the ability to create and destroy.

Big bang is just an event. Scientist postulated that it begin with a singular superatom. And that superatom in my opinion is created by something that I could describe as the Zero. Creo ex nihilo.

it would be dishonest on your part to assume that there is no beginning and end. scientists say that there is. your own existence has your birthday and your day of your death. of course there is a beginning and an end, for all the creations of God. only God is eternal.

To see a scientific explanation of our connectedness watch “A Night with the Stars ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZhZYtbPnag)” with Prof. Brian Cox
The explanation is at 33:56, but if you haven’t seen the program then watch the whole thing; it is very
interesting.

At this moment in time I think that all is one, separateness is illusion. If you feel God is separate from you,
and that is what you are comfortable with then, for you I guess, that is how it is. For me God, I and
everything I am aware of, Probably a lot more than I am aware of, is all one and the same thing. I am
part of "what is"

All is one is an illusion of the previous alchemists trying to feel, know and become God. This is not the case. All is not One because One is One and All is all. They are not the same. Why? Because God is God and his creation is not the same nature with God. God is distinct from his creation. If a person claiming to realize, know and be the one, he would have the mind of God and he will know his divine will. He will know what numbers that will come out from the lottery. He can tell beforehand or in realtime all the news that is happening. No one can do that, for no one can have the mind of God. Sure you will know his nature but his mind is more important that his nature. In my opinion, only death will return you to God. that's it. The only destiny of man is to return to God after realizing that he's separate from and he can't be God.

How do I approached this.

Imagine that you're in the perfect sphere with radius = 1 where the Zero is God and An instance of yourself is one. As you approach Zero, you will just become close to it, but you won't become Zero itself. I could say this in my own dogma that "Jesus, being the one, can just seat on the right side of the Father, which is Zero". The only way to be the Zero is when a transmutation of numbers happen. That is when One becomes Zero. This transmutation of 2 natures was performed by Jesus when He died on the cross and his human nature become divine. This could happen also to us when we die, for if we die, we will be destroyed and become one with God.

"All is one and one is all" is BS, illusionary and not true. for if you don't recognize that you are distinct from God, you won't see God. if you say that you are God, you just feel God, but you won't see Him outside of you.

Just popped in coz i just want to address the "Unary notation claim" I just want to make it clear. Other opinion emerged so i hope things were clarified.

solomon levi
03-24-2013, 06:24 PM
so many partial truths from your inexperience glenerson...
you believe in an outside perspective of god, and so you have it. the error is to think you will ever know god from the outside. all your descriptions are lacking because of this. at least scientists who study life from outside with microscopes, telescopes, surgical knives, do not claim to know it all through this method like you do. you never completely know your best friend from outside/seperation. this seems so obvious, but a cup that is already full...
being separate and seeing god is only half, the easy part. the world already believes they are separate, not god, not responsible... there's nothing spiritual about that materialistic view. it is those who have realised union that are the greatest influence... jesus, buddha, lao tzu being some popular examples.
dualism is only possible as an experience because it springs from the one root of unity. a dualistic view of unity defines it as existence,
continued below

solomon levi
03-24-2013, 06:52 PM
automatically assuming it against nonexistence. that's dualism seeing dualism, not unity. unity is the whole of existence and nonexistence. unity includes 0. like a fish that leaps out of the water and tells his friends air is god... not even beginning to be aware of all the other possible gases and stars producing them... that is separation.
you speak of some future god event... always the future! god is now. and nonexistence is here, as well as existence, for those who can see. it's a future event for those who serve time... a now nonevent for those whom time serves. what you perceive macro as an universal event is happening in the micro thousands of times a second. it is the dot of yin in the yang, etc. zealots sell this as a religious event - end times, second coming, whatever. tomorrow! tomorrow!
the wise say it is here, now, always.

glenerson
03-24-2013, 09:32 PM
no. people like you believe that union with God is the absolute thing to do. But not me. while i contend that union with God is imperative, it is equally imperative to recognize that you are distinct from God. For this recognition will make you realize that you are not God and there is a God that is not you. You will see Him in Third person PoV. This is important. Just as what they say, "You will see the Kingdom within and without you."

The root of unity is an illusionary BS that will not make you see the Creator. It will make you believe that you are the Creator but you won't be sure if you and the creator are represented. No. I won't fall on that trap for it is an illusion. Teasing me that there is the root of shit.. it is not the root.

Don't lecture me about inexperience solomon. For pulling something from a website or from a person named deepak or someone or referencing the kundalini or in short, trying to pose that you know it all because it suits your definition of all encompassing knowledge makes you a charlatan. I would categorize you as someone who pulls out "noise" to confuse and to not help others to see the right path. For all i get from you is negativity and you don't attempt to reconcile our views. So I categorize you as an "adversary".

solomon levi
03-24-2013, 09:54 PM
no. people like you believe that union with God is the absolute thing to do. But not me. while i contend that union with God is imperative, it is equally imperative to recognize that you are distinct from God. For this recognition will make you realize that you are not God and there is a God that is not you. You will see Him in Third person PoV. This is important. Just as what they say, "You will see the Kingdom within and without you."

The root of unity is an illusionary BS that will not make you see the Creator. It will make you believe that you are the Creator but you won't be sure if you and the creator are represented. No. I won't fall on that trap for it is an illusion. Teasing me that there is the root of shit.. it is not the root.

Don't lecture me about inexperience solomon. For pulling something from a website or from a person named deepak or someone or referencing the kundalini or in short, trying to pose that you know it all because it suits your definition of all encompassing knowledge makes you a charlatan. I would categorize you as someone who pulls out "noise" to confuse and to not help others to see the right path. For all i get from you is negativity and you don't attempt to reconcile our views. So I categorize you as an "adversary".

lol! You can't speak for people like me when you ignore my words. I just finished saying unity is both separation and union... you ignore me or can't hear me.
"people like you believe that union with God is the absolute thing to do."
I never said that. Stop misrepresenting me/lying about me to win a silly argument.
Anyway, you are far too personal. Anymore posts like this and you will be banned for intolerance to others views and making things personal and swearing, as we have warned numerous times.

Like I say, you are taking this far too personally. All knowledge is partial and inexperienced. Yours, like everyone else's, including my own.
Knowledge is not wisdom, not gnosis, not being.
You want to say being is a trap, a tease? Ok. You still exist.

So you say unity is not the root of duality? Please explain instead of just exploding irrationally and name-calling.

You pull from gnosticism or whatever suits you. How I am different?
These websites are not the source of my experience; my vision is. If I use other info to support what i have seen myself, where is the harm?
I never said I know it all, not "pose" in any manner. That is your projections on me, your obsession with me, which is not allowed at this forum.
I don't attempt to reconcile? It's already reconciled and I've pointed it out many times, even in my last post, and you ignore it. As if you are
reconciling, calling me your adversary! lol. Are you judging me or yourself for these "crimes"?

Listen friend, this is my utmost knowledge... Infinity is all inclusive, which includes excluding something.
What is left unreconciled by that definition? I've reconciled everything and nothing. You just refuse to listen/see, busy fantasizing we are enemies.
You want to talk about me, my views, people like me... refer to the bold when you do. Everything else i say is partial and incomplete, charlatanised admittedly. :)

glenerson
03-24-2013, 10:24 PM
lol! You can't speak for people like me when you ignore my words. I just finished saying unity is both separation and union... you ignore me or can't hear me.
"people like you believe that union with God is the absolute thing to do."
I never said that. Stop misrepresenting me/lying about me to win a silly argument.
Anyway, you are far too personal. Anymore posts like this and you will be banned for intolerance to others views and making things personal and swearing, as we have warned numerous times.

Like I say, you are taking this far too personally. All knowledge is partial and inexperienced. Yours, like everyone else's, including my own.
Knowledge is not wisdom, not gnosis, not being.
You want to say being is a trap, a tease? Ok. You still exist.

So you say unity is not the root of duality? Please explain instead of just exploding irrationally and name-calling.

You pull from gnosticism or whatever suits you. How I am different?
These websites are not the source of my experience; my vision is. If I use other info to support what i have seen myself, where is the harm?
I never said I know it all, not "pose" in any manner. That is your projections on me, your obsession with me, which is not allowed at this forum.
I don't attempt to reconcile? It's already reconciled and I've pointed it out many times, even in my last post, and you ignore it. As if you are
reconciling, calling me your adversary! lol. Are you judging me or yourself for these "crimes"?

Listen friend, this is my utmost knowledge... Infinity is all inclusive, which includes excluding something.
What is left unreconciled by that definition? I've reconciled everything and nothing. You just refuse to listen/see, busy fantasizing we are enemies.
You want to talk about me, my views, people like me... refer to the bold when you do. Everything else i say is partial and incomplete, charlatanised admittedly. :)

whatever dude. but this is the only thing that you should know about me. I've presented almost all the important concepts of what alchemy aims to be using simple concepts. understandable, sure if you believe. shocking and blaspemuous, sure, if you're a charlatan.

i've tried to read some your posts. almlost all gibberish, maybe trying to capture the essence of the "All" maybe and trying to pose as someone who has the All encompassing knowledge. Nice try.

I'm not attacking you as a person. I'm attacking you as an alchemist.

solomon levi
03-24-2013, 11:06 PM
whatever dude. but this is the only thing that you should know about me. I've presented almost all the important concepts of what alchemy aims to be using simple concepts. understandable, sure if you believe. shocking and blaspemuous, sure, if you're a charlatan.

i've tried to read some your posts. almlost all gibberish, maybe trying to capture the essence of the "All" maybe and trying to pose as someone who has the All encompassing knowledge. Nice try.

I'm not attacking you as a person. I'm attacking you as an alchemist.

No you're not. You have no idea what my alchemy is... how can you attack it?
My alchemy is not what i write here, it's what i practice.
Action/practice can reconcile all kinds of things that words cannot.
For example, existence is unexplainable and paradoxical, yet we exist in practice effortlessly.
Sure, you can claim to explain it. But it won't satisfy everyone.
You call me a charlatan because i don't satisfy you/everyone? Who does?
We're all charlatans when it comes to words, by definition.
If you imagine you are exempt, you are a greater charlatan than I who admit the limitation of words.

Your understanding is simple relative to you - of course!
So is mine to me, and everyone to everyone. Somehow you think you're special or right
because you understand yourself! I understand you too, enough to say it is partial.
But that is not so difficult to see... anyone excluding something/someone else is partial!
You exclude those who see unity, so I know you don't have the whole picture which is all-inclusive.
I don't need an equation for such simplicity. It's inherent in the definition.

You say "sure if you believe".
Well, many people here realise the sillyness of beliefs. There's a thread on it - check it out.
So stop isolating me and acting as if I am alone in my seeing and everyone else agrees with you.
Obviously they don't. Ghislain makes sense to me, is simple and understandable, WITHOUT ASKING ME TO BELIEVE.
This is a significant difference. Alchemy is not putting beliefs in a flask. You are religious by my definition, not spiritual...
religion says "believe", but God says "behold". I am a seer, a beholder, not a believer anymore. I worked hard to be free of belief.
You don't see that aspect of my alchemy. Why you would try to speak of me at all is amazing. All you know is what you read
and misinterpret - this is less than 1% of who I am. You don't know that?? It's so obvious. I don't claim to know you.
I claim to know infinity. Nothing I say here is proof or disproof of that claim - I don't know It through words.

This is why it has been deemed unproductive to talk about people here. Talk about the philosophy of Oneness all you like.
Just don't claim to represent me. Your understanding of Oneness is not my understanding of Oneness. When you speak
of Oneness, you don't speak of me. Knowing these differences/distinctions gives one credibility. That you ignore them or
act as if they don't exist takes away from your credibility... that you imagine you know me or represent me because I use a
word you are conditioned to react to... silly.

glenerson
03-24-2013, 11:53 PM
I could explain everything by only using 0 and 1. You attempt to explain everything, by pulling concepts/ideas from all over the place and fitting them in a jigsaw puzzle called "the all" (e.g. http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/).

So whose alchemy is better? mine or yours?

solomon levi
03-25-2013, 12:31 AM
I could explain everything by only using 0 and 1. You attempt to explain everything, by pulling concepts/ideas from all over the place and fitting them in a jigsaw puzzle called "the all" (e.g. http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/).

So whose alchemy is better? mine or yours?

Neither is better. This is another silly question that discredits your claim of being knowing.
Everything is relative. Alchemy teaches that. Life teaches that. And you appear to be blind to it.
Cannot dark skin tolerate more sunlight than pale? Don't some plants need more water than others?
What is toxic to some species is edible to another...

"Mysteries are not to be solved: The eye goes blind when it only wants to see why." - Rumi
Relative to Rumi, you explaining everything by using only 0 and 1 is blindness, not alchemy. :)

This is all you're doing - acting like these comparisons are absolute or objective instead of relative.
And the result is you see me as an enemy. You are what the world needs? You're The example of truth?
No. You are making the same mistake as most of the world does and creating war because of your beliefs.

Why shouldn't the truth be "all over the place"? Why do you say that like it's a bad thing?
I am not attempting to explain everything. That is a false assumption on your part. Does it say
on my blog, "here is where i attempt to explain everything"? Then stop inventing lies, it ruins your credibility.
How can you expect us to believe you see The Truth when you can't even read the words in front of you
without embellishing?

Your "alchemy" is "better" if you're waiting for the destruction of existence, which most people are not.
My blog says what it is about at the top. Don't read it if you don't care about those things.

Again, I told you to refer to the bold and you of course ignore me because you can't win that way, and winning is
your interest. If your point is that the simplest is the best, then what i wrote in the bold is simpler than 0 and 1 by definition.
"And" is a conjunction joining TWO things - 0 and 1. One thing is simpler than two things. My Infinity is one thing-non-thing.
Within this One, many complexities occur.

sim·ple [ símp'l ]
easy: able to be done or understood quickly, or with very little effort
not elaborate: lacking decoration or embellishment and therefore plain in appearance
not complex: made up of or having only one part or element

My One is not your 1 relative to 0.
My One is relative to nothing. I tell you that, but people will insist on seeing
it relative to something, not listening to me. My Infinity is not existing relative to the finite.
So be sure to use my definitions, if you want to compare us.
To hear me, one has to stop thinking.
Since so few do this, who will represent me, speak for me, about me?

If you really want to talk/discuss/argue with me, that would be interesting.
But arguing with your image of me is pointless/one-sided.

solomon levi
03-25-2013, 06:32 AM
What do you call the both of them together? I call that "One", "Infinity".
What do you call it? Is it not more encompassing than 0 alone? Of course it is.
My simple logic is that the more encompassing has the greater power and scope.
Obviously to be able to be 0 and 1 is greater than to be just 0 or just 1.
The greatest of the great one must call "God", not any division or lesser part.
Is that not simple? Mathematical? Logical?

If, however, one says 0 alone is God and 1 is ??? devil? unreal? temporal? sinful? not good?...
Whatever you say about it, you have acknowledged it. If it didn't exist, there'd be no point in naming it 1.
To deny or cast out a thing is not practical/realistic.
We see this in Jung and the shadow, in alchemy and the stone the builders rejected, in life as dreams trying
to resolve what we wouldn't reconcile consciously... this dualism is not the way... people are evolving beyond that.
So many are transcending the dualism of good and bad, right and wrong, us and them...
There is no point in singling me out as an oddity, a charlatan. It is you who are the minority, bringing up the rear.

Yes, dualism is a fact, an experience. It does not, however, deny the other fact/experience of Union which has been
around as a teaching well before Gnosticism

glenerson
03-25-2013, 03:41 PM
http://library.thinkquest.org/20991/media/geo_sphere.gif

Zero is Singular, the God, the Monad. The Center of the Sphere.

One is plotted infinitely on the surface of the sphere (@ r = 1). The infinite instances of one in infinite axes and the infinite divisions between the radius is infinity and variation. When you realize infinity and variation, you will make sense of the why. Why do infinite forms exist? Because of variation. Why do colors exist? because of variation. Computer science perfectly demonstrates this, albeit in the raw.

Negative numbers are just numbers in a different direction. Since a sphere represent infinite dimensions, directions won't matter anymore. And also as i've said, Numbers greater than one are only one multiplied by an arbitrary iterations of 1.

Zero is the State of God. One is the multiple instance of creation. It could represent different minds.

As One approaches Zero, One can only see again the sphere for it cannot be zero but it can only be closer to Zero ("Jesus at the Right hand Side of the Father, not the Father Himself")

The only thing that could happen if One transmutes itself to become Zero. This transmutation i posit can only happen in death.

But I believe that an instance of One can become Zero without undergoing death while the rest of the instances remain One. If this happens, this person will Lord over all the instances of Creation.

This is to add to the previous axioms that I laid upon, which you can back read by clicking my username. You will notice that I've been consistent all through out in my posts.

z0 K
03-25-2013, 05:38 PM
http://library.thinkquest.org/20991/media/geo_sphere.gif

Zero is Singular, the God, the Monad. The Center of the Sphere.

One is plotted infinitely on the surface of the sphere (@ r = 1). The infinite instances of one in infinite axes and the infinite divisions between the radius is infinity and variation. When you realize infinity and variation, you will make sense of the why. Why do infinite forms exist? Because of variation. Why do colors exist? because of variation. Computer science perfectly demonstrates this, albeit in the raw.

Negative numbers are just numbers in a different direction. Since a sphere represent infinite dimensions, directions won't matter anymore. And also as i've said, Numbers greater than one are only one multiplied by an arbitrary iterations of 1.

Zero is the State of God. One is the multiple instance of creation. It could represent different minds.

As One approaches Zero, One can only see again the sphere for it cannot be zero but it can only be closer to Zero ("Jesus at the Right hand Side of the Father, not the Father Himself")

The only thing that could happen if One transmutes itself to become Zero. This transmutation i posit can only happen in death.

But I believe that an instance of One can become Zero without undergoing death while the rest of the instances remain One. If this happens, this person will Lord over all the instances of Creation.

This is to add to the previous axioms that I laid upon, which you can back read by clicking my username. You will notice that I've been consistent all through out in my posts.

The Universe Alchemical Number Theory Equations
The Unified Field Equation
I wish to share with you the Nature of the Universe that you may ponder what you are; what you are not and where you may be.
The mathematical formula emminating the Universe is 1/0. The Nature of One is X(to the 0 power) = 1.

If X(to the 0 power) =1
Then any number (X) to 0 power equal one.
If 1(to the n power) = 1 where n is any number
Then 1(to the 0 power) = 1
X(to the 0 power) = 1 and 1(to the n power) = 1 and 1(to the 0 power) = 1
If 1 x 2 = 2 and 1 x 3 =3 and 1 x 4 = 4
Then 1 x n = n
If X(to the 0 power) = 0
Then 0(to the n power) = 0
If 0 x 1 = 0 and 0 x 2 = 0 and 0 x 3 = 0
Then X(to the 0 power) = 0/1
X(to the 0 power) = 1 = manifests Information System Universe = one thing, any thing, all things
X(to the 0 power) = 0 = manifests No-thing
X(to the 0 power) = 1/0
1/0 = There/Not there = Cosmos/Chaos = Order/Disorder = Information System = IS

Things are there when you observe them and not there when you don’t observe them. Otherwise everything ever observed would be observed continuously IS (information system) Chaos (disorder); No-thing is there when you do not observe IS (information system) Cosmos (order).

We are all alive and dead in every moment in the unfolding infinitude of time like Shrodinger's cat before observation. The Uncertainty Principle Saturates the Projected Macrocosmos.

solomon levi
03-25-2013, 06:35 PM
glenerson said, "For all i get from you is negativity and you don't attempt to reconcile our views. So I categorize you as an "adversary"."

thanks for not answering any of my questions in my last post. maybe if you open your eyes and heart and mind you might see what you didn't see before.
now you've made it clear that you're not really interested in reconciling anything. yes, you're consistent in not perceiving me accurately.

btw, you do know that God is not actually a zero, right. nor creation a 1? you're just assigning numbers to ideas. just as i assign "One" to the whole created and uncreated Infinity. to name or assign glyphs doesn't prove anything. perhaps "God" is only meant to be known subjectively and all forms of objectifying It are charlatanism/"sin"/idolatry...

3*“You shall have no other gods before Me.
4*“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; continued

solomon levi
03-25-2013, 06:41 PM
3*“You shall have no other gods before Me.
4*“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5*you shall not bow down to them nor serve them....
7*“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

i was never fond of obeying commandments, but perhaps this is what was meant... God cannot be imaged, cannot be confined to name or number or image. to attempt to do so is an error which causes one to fall short God.

thrival
03-25-2013, 07:23 PM
Never fond of obeying commandments? Wow, that says SO MUCH about you, Sol. But feel free to explain yourself more fully. As for me, I must be going.

solomon levi
03-25-2013, 07:39 PM
Never fond of obeying commandments? Wow, that says SO MUCH about you, Sol. But feel free to explain yourself more fully. As for me, I must be going.

and this says much about you.
so you like obeying commandments?
i prefer free thinking and dicovering for myself firsthand.
life has shown me that secondhand knowledge is a cancer of the mind. it's pretty obvious... look at 9/11 for example. do you BELIEVE what the news told you, or do you have a brain of your own?
without intending to be insulting at all, it makes scientific sense viewing our positions... you two stress duality/separateness which i have observed firsthand is directly related to belief in the ego. when one looks firsthand, sincerely, to find this 'ego', this identity of a separate individual self, it cannot be found because it has no actual existence, only psychological, ie belief. what one sees instead are memories, the past, knowledge, thought... there is no living present separate ego. continued below

thrival
03-25-2013, 07:53 PM
And you are free to do so. What I "like" isn't relevant in terms of principles, truth or universal reality or citizenship. So what has cursing, idol worship, lying, stealing, killing, fornicating and coveting taught you so far? It seems like you're practicing a backward method. Generations before you, got it very well. Maybe you are the person who lacks understanding of the laws God wrote into the tablet of men's hearts.

You have not transcended ego, Sol; you've become one with it so you can no longer distinguish it. You have become one with your feelings and eschew thinking, you've said that in more than one way and more than one place on this board. Many of us have previous experience with "thoughtless" people, nothing like the many thought(ful) geniuses who left a posterity to this earth.

solomon levi
03-25-2013, 08:19 PM
well my friend, what does it matter what we know in our hearts when you can't go when you say you must? :) look at it. painful truth, simple. besides , you are assuming God writes the same thing on everyone's heart. there is a reason no two people are the same. what i like isn't relevant much either. God/life pushed me this way. I aquiesced. God wrote in my heart to be my own authority or die. I was already dead sooo...
continuing...
the ego is already dead, memories, past. look for yourself. i didn't say "think". i said "look". or don't. either way it is clear why we view things differently. it's been clear. at least you admit to being believers. i admit to not being one, God commanded it to me, obviously. noone is acting against the true God. that's impossible. while even every religious person acts against their "Gods". :) funny huh.

solomon levi
03-25-2013, 08:38 PM
You have not transcended ego, Sol; you've become one with it so you can no longer distinguish it. You have become one with your feelings and eschew thinking, you've said that in more than one way and more than one place on this board. Many of us have previous experience with "thoughtless" people, nothing like the many thought(ful) geniuses who left a posterity to this earth.

I never said i've transcended ego. are you resorting to inenting false statements about me to "win"? please quote where i claim such. I already know i never have.
listen, if you're capable... seeing what the ego actually is changes things. it frees one from beliefs. that doesn't mean you never believe again... being free means it's optional... not you never touch it again... people who never drink again aren't free of it... just the opposite. that's why they avoid it... it would own them: it does own them. ego doesn't own me... i've always said i still have one.
continued...

solomon levi
03-25-2013, 08:57 PM
you did finally get something right/accurate about me, though it is still only half of me and you think it is all of me... i have ALSO become one with ego. Have i not repeatedly said Infinity includes everything? It's not that i am incapable of distinguishing... i am free to not distinguish... i have that option. i don't judge options as bad, as you do. options/freedom is God's unconditional love. for me, it would be sacrilage to judge God, which is what it appears you do. but judging God is part of God, so it isn't noteworthy. i see both, not just one side. forgive me. i do not condemn you.
no, you confuse thoughtless people and thought-optional people. genius is thought-optional.
thank you sincerely for this opportunity to clarify. i am grateful for your patience.

solomon levi
03-25-2013, 09:17 PM
So what has cursing, idol worship, lying, stealing, killing, fornicating and coveting taught you so far? It seems like you're practicing a backward method. Generations before you, got it very well.

now this is foolish because to say it is to pretend it's not you, and i've seen you curse, and i pray you have fornicated or that would explain alot. you've lied many times just in your short time at this forum. the only questionable item at all is if you have killed anyone in this life. so do you assume it has gotten me less than it's gotten you?
it's gotten me love, compassion, understanding, patience, a greater vision of God... do you condemn that i grew through firsthand experience? that God discovers Itself through this process called "life", or Zoe if you know your gnosticism?

Awani
03-25-2013, 09:29 PM
So whose alchemy is better? mine or yours?

Absolutes is a dangerous thing.

:cool:

Bel Matina
03-25-2013, 09:57 PM
לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת-שֵׁם-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לַשָּׁוְא

"You are not to take the name of Yahu your god vacuously"

Taking the name in the sense of "in the name of the King I claim this land" etc. That is to say, for the purposes of a verbal gesture I am the person whose name I take.

In other words, don't represent God's words if they weren't handed to you personally to deliver.

thrival
03-25-2013, 10:01 PM
Sol:

The universe is built on underlying principles that can be discovered. And there are spirits who have gone beyond, who you can discover, or who can discover you. They even wrote things down to make it easier for you. Its not about belief for me any more, it's about corroborations. I've actually had a few, and will leave it to you to guess what that means. Unfortunately it's not transferrable, any more than a drivers license. You've got to get it for yourself, and God (the personal entity, not the stuff He created) has His rules. Obviously you have a hard time learning because you already think you know it all. And I am not the one who presumes to teach it (I really don't have the patience to deal with obstinacy.) It's just a matter of doing one's own homework. Obviously our study notes do not comport

thrival
03-25-2013, 10:10 PM
I'm saying it to make the point that it's a very slow a way to enlightenment, like bashing one's head against the wall just because it feels so good when you stop. In fact your method has become mostly the norm, because people seem to be missing the insight NOT to sin anymore. God doesn't discover "Himself," that's a speculation on your part. You might discover Him, that's a speculation on my part.

I've lied on this forum? Oh, do point that out! "Thought-optional?" Now that is really funny. In the old days it was called "taking leave..."

now this is foolish because to say it is to pretend it's not you, and i've seen you curse, and i pray you

have fornicated or that would explain alot. you've lied many times just in your short time at this forum. the only questionable item at all is if you have killed anyone in this life. so do you assume it has gotten me less than it's gotten you?
it's gotten me love, compassion, understanding, patience, a greater vision of God... do you condemn that i grew through firsthand experience? that God discovers Itself through this process called "life", or Zoe if you know your gnosticism?

solomon levi
03-26-2013, 02:54 AM
oh, too easy. i won't even go back to the bigger lies i had in mind... here's one in this very post (btw, i can find one in practically every post where you try/fail to describe others)...
"In fact your method has become mostly the norm, because people seem to be missing the insight NOT to sin anymore."

there's one lie... you say i have a method. i don't. this is one of those things perhaps you can't relate to, not living in the present. to be present is anti-method, something you might find interesting since you like antimatter, as do i.
that sentence contains a double lie since you compare me to others. are you aware of the view that comparisons are lies/false?

solomon levi
03-26-2013, 03:17 AM
Obviously you have a hard time learning because you already think you know it all. And I am not the one who presumes to teach it (I really don't have the patience to deal with obstinacy.)
that's cute. i understand why you see that. i don't understand why you don't see the same can be said about you and demonstrate compassion instead of judgement.
i am learning always... just not what you are trying to teach. :) but i am learning much from you. if you can read, you would have gathered that from the recent post where i spoke my appreciation.
yes, my cup, which is Infinity, is full/pleroma. you should understand the difference. there is infinite learning in this full cup. what you try to teach me is not news. you are my past, so i must show more compassion for you.
i love you. in your near future, you will happily surrender your knowledge. fear not.

solomon levi
03-26-2013, 03:41 AM
God doesn't discover "Himself," that's a speculation on your part.
"Thought-optional?" Now that is really funny. In the old days it was called "taking leave..."

i disagree. i know when i'm speculating... it involves thinking. you don't even have a clue what i'm saying since your male god is not my god, so why try critiquing what you don't comprehend?
i honestly think we would agree more if you could let go of your image of me, interpretating me through that dirty filter i call knowledge. try to hear this please:
optional... do you understand the root of that word? op, opulence... options are freedoms, potentials... the opulent Pleroma... or as alchemy encoded it, Aethiops, the black/burnt face...
anyway, you are a child and it's funner for you to imagine yourself special and superior... i get it. i know you feel threatened by me and have thus invented an unnecessary competition. it's ok. when you mature, we'll have a laugh together.
i love you.
sol

Bel Matina
03-26-2013, 03:57 AM
Everyone is entitled to their own gnosis. To claim ownership (the ability to determine) another's experience is to betray flaws in one's understanding of the nature of being.

glenerson
03-26-2013, 04:29 AM
glenerson said, "For all i get from you is negativity and you don't attempt to reconcile our views. So I categorize you as an "adversary"."

thanks for not answering any of my questions in my last post. maybe if you open your eyes and heart and mind you might see what you didn't see before.
now you've made it clear that you're not really interested in reconciling anything. yes, you're consistent in not perceiving me accurately.

btw, you do know that God is not actually a zero, right. nor creation a 1? you're just assigning numbers to ideas. just as i assign "One" to the whole created and uncreated Infinity. to name or assign glyphs doesn't prove anything. perhaps "God" is only meant to be known subjectively and all forms of objectifying It are charlatanism/"sin"/idolatry...

3*“You shall have no other gods before Me.
4*“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; continued

and i feel that my views are still antagonistic to your views.

so let's just keep it that way.

My position is that Zero is not the One while your position and others position is that the One equates to Zero. If you followed my posts, I've explained that when 0=1, you will see two spheres plotted with radius = 0 and 1 and the center is at 0.5. This perfectly represent the dualistic view of Taoism and visualizes the equality of Spirit and Matter/Fullness and Nothingness while existing separately.

While I subscribed to that view, I was more comfortable with the idea that the Zero is not the One.

why?

Say linear...

0 --------------- 1 = I could explain this as Zero being the Spirit and 1 Being the Matter, distinct. or Zero is the God or 1 as his creation. Zero as Singular (Note not 1, but singular) and 1 as Infinity (Because we can arbitrarily divide the line between Zero and 1 infinitely and the numbers will still resolve to 0 and 1 when those numbers are blurred. You contend that it just represents one infinity.

Thus i rotated 0---------------1 to make a circle. and i rotated the circle to make a sphere.

And this sphere now represents and infinity of infinities. infinite Ones plotted as radius and/or as the infinitesimal divisions of the infinite instances of 1. Now infinite of infinite to infinity is realized.

While the infinity of infinites are realized through 1, the center of the sphere is still singular @ Zero and the sphere is a singular sphere. So Zero is the Monad. There is still One God via the Zero resting upon Infinity of infinities of One. This is perfectly compatible with monotheism.

I didn't make an idol. I just explained God in very basic and simple terms that can be understood by a child as well as adults. Just like Jesus said, "The Kingdom of God belongs to the children."

solomon levi
03-26-2013, 08:13 AM
Everyone is entitled to their own gnosis. To claim ownership (the ability to determine) another's experience is to betray flaws in one's understanding of the nature of being.

appropriate for a thread on variation. :)

solomon levi
03-26-2013, 08:18 AM
quote glenerson
"and i feel that my views are still antagonistic to your views.
so let's just keep it that way."

it's not that way for me. but i'll honor your wish.

bleeding yolk
09-03-2014, 06:31 PM
.....the number 0 , is useful in abstract conceptions , as a placeholder and for the calculations of algebra and calculus......however , to grant it any kind of definite metaphysical character in relation to one is probably a mistake.......

......according to pythagoreans.....1 is number from which all else originates and proceeds.......2 is the number of indefiniteness and separation.......

....the difference between 0 and two is the difference between reckoning the cosmology as chaotic vs. purposeful.......just my opinion......

DonSweet
09-04-2014, 05:36 AM
As a reminder, here's the original post ...

"How does variation exist?

God is Nothing (Zero). Then It created Something (1). It then tried to divide the space between Nothing and Something infinitesimally. And infinity and variation came into being.

(You don't have to extend the number line infinitely to define infinity for Infinity can be defined between two whole numbers. in our case, zero and one. it is true. Proven by calculus.)"
___________________________

In about 1995, I wrote the passage below in my book, "A Way of Walking: An Introductory Perspective of Native American Philosophy and Spirituality Through One Person's Eyes" ...

The Principle of Duality

In a Public Television program called "The Creation of the Universe", it was said that prior to the "Big Bang", Existence was described as "perfect symmetry", everything in balance, everything perfect and without flaw or recognizable difference. In other words, no "thing" was any different than any other "thing" to the point where there was no such thing as a thing.

Light could not be distinguished from dark, nor up from down, nor here from there. The Christians say, "and God said 'Let there be Light and there was Light". The television program described it similarly by saying that there was this perfect condition of "nothing somethingness", an inconceivable perfection of balance to the point of being indistinguishable. Perfect symmetry. Suddenly, without the cause to be known, there was a "something", a flaw in the perfection.

At that point there was a "here" and a "there". There was a "not here" and a "not there". Out of flawless perfection came the first concept of the Universe - the concept of Duality.
________________________

The core concept brought up by the original post/question clearly establishes the starting point for every existence in the Universe, whether physical or esoteric, as dualistic in nature.

Whatever variant that may exist after duality, whether a concept, physical thing, idea, ideal, fact, fiction, product of imagination or merely imagination itself, will have its root existence in duality.

Without duality, there is nothing ... or more accurately, there is perfection through singularity.

All existence is [merely] a divine study of imperfection ...

... which is interminable.

bleeding yolk
09-04-2014, 09:06 PM
As a reminder, here's the original post ...

"How does variation exist?

God is Nothing (Zero). Then It created Something (1). It then tried to divide the space between Nothing and Something infinitesimally. And infinity and variation came into being.

(You don't have to extend the number line infinitely to define infinity for Infinity can be defined between two whole numbers. in our case, zero and one. it is true. Proven by calculus.)"
___________________________

In about 1995, I wrote the passage below in my book, "A Way of Walking: An Introductory Perspective of Native American Philosophy and Spirituality Through One Person's Eyes" ...

The Principle of Duality

In a Public Television program called "The Creation of the Universe", it was said that prior to the "Big Bang", Existence was described as "perfect symmetry", everything in balance, everything perfect and without flaw or recognizable difference. In other words, no "thing" was any different than any other "thing" to the point where there was no such thing as a thing.

Light could not be distinguished from dark, nor up from down, nor here from there. The Christians say, "and God said 'Let there be Light and there was Light". The television program described it similarly by saying that there was this perfect condition of "nothing somethingness", an inconceivable perfection of balance to the point of being indistinguishable. Perfect symmetry. Suddenly, without the cause to be known, there was a "something", a flaw in the perfection.

At that point there was a "here" and a "there". There was a "not here" and a "not there". Out of flawless perfection came the first concept of the Universe - the concept of Duality.
________________________

The core concept brought up by the original post/question clearly establishes the starting point for every existence in the Universe, whether physical or esoteric, as dualistic in nature.

Whatever variant that may exist after duality, whether a concept, physical thing, idea, ideal, fact, fiction, product of imagination or merely imagination itself, will have its root existence in duality.

Without duality, there is nothing ... or more accurately, there is perfection through singularity.

All existence is [merely] a divine study of imperfection ...

... which is interminable.

.......hey there , have any way i can access your written material ??......

......your initial premise......that god is 0.....is really just an arbitrary assumption.......prior to the invention of the concept of 0 , the monad or ineffable unity was conceived as the source of all being and what becomes.......

.......i really have no problem with either.......in that the ineffable cannot be reduced to a number and is nothing other than a symbol useful in the explanation of a bastard conception of such an unknowable thing........

...however ....in conceiving of it as one , ....one attains the the convenience of grasping the ineffable as a single unity that is utterly simple , powerful , and sovereign.........when conceiving of it as 0.....you can grasp its infinite and eternal mysteriousness........

DonSweet
09-07-2014, 07:58 AM
Bleeding Yolk ...

More later ... but a correction ... the initial post wasn't mine.

I only repeated it for the edification of thread viewers.

Also, my book is no longer in print, not posted online and I've even given away my last copy ... although all of this could change sometime in the future if and when I acquire better resources for such things. Thanks for asking, though.