forum requests, suggestions and announcements

Is the ONE mutable and divisible?
Then it isn't a ONE.

If it is divisible it isn't A ONE, but one of many.
What did he say we are, in relation to this ONE, dear?
If it is mutable which version is the true ONE?
How, in his infinite wisdom, did he describe us mortals?
What did he say we are?

I know...the multiplicity of oneness.
Mental masturbation.

One implies WHOLE, completeness.
How does he describe it?
As suffering from its over-fullness.
So this completeness is suffering (anthropomorphic), it is overflowing (implying a containment), because it has boundaries, an enclosure. So it is not complete whole as it suffers from a lack of space to fit itself.  
Pretty imagery....
Universal expansion...overflowing.

Process is not a oneness, dear.
We can only conceptualize it as such, because we cannot think without our binary-logic...our 1/0 codes, reflected in our symbols and language.
We cannot conceptualize the fluid as anything but as abstracted wholes.



Reality is open-ended.....not enclosed. This openness cannot be called a one, but it must be conceptualized as one.
Its oness is in our head - idea.

When we use anthropomorphic metaphors and then believe them as being literal, rather than as representations that aid in our conceptualization, we project a belief we cannot substantiate and then declare it factual....like the universe having an intent, or consciousness, suffering, as if it were not unconscious but conscious of its own condition.
This is a ploy used by degenerates and hypocrites.

One refers to whatever we conceptualize at any given time.
We can say one particle in one liquid, in one river, flowing towards one ocean, on one planet, in one solar system in one galaxy....in one universe and on and on.
It is a mental snapshot.
But existence is dynamic. Which one are we referring to?
The answer is any one...as the mind cannot think outside binary codes - on/off switching that is then converted to 1/0.
This is a representation of the fluid....we call it 'one', or god, or truth, in the absolute sense.
If it is used as a metaphor, a representation of process, or fluidity, then we must remain cognizant of this fact.
The 'one' is our abstraction of the real, not the real itself.  

Even this multiverse can be conceptualized as a wholeness, a one, a unity...a completeness with boundaries. The human brain cannot think without boundaries. It is a product of setting up boundaries, like the exoskeleton, the membrane and skin.
But which one is the one we are referring to?
One is an abstraction. A vague one. It must be vague to reduce space/time dimensions to a singularity.
When I say 'self' I do not mean a singularity....but a continuum of which i am its manifestation as presence.
I am never the same one self, at any given time. I am process directed by memory....patterns.

Get it?
No, didn't think you would.
Return to emoting.
The Primordial One in you, is strong.

A painting of a tree on canvas, using brushes, colours to proximate what we perceive, has borders, and is three dimensional.
It represents the multi-dimensional nature of a tree by reducing it to a representation that has fewer dimensions - an implosion.
It is a one.
The word tree implodes the process of treness into a singularity. It implies specific traits which are shared by all versions of trees we've ever encountered - precedent. But no two trees are ever alike...not even the same tree is absolutely similar to what it was a millisecond ago. It is fluid.

The tree has changed by the time you finished painting it. It no longer is the same tree.
So the representation is not the same one as it was before.
This is why consciousness is continuous, and all is a matter of degree of accuracy, not absolute accuracy.
So what is it we refer to when speaking about a specific tree?
We speak of a continuum - a causal chain - in relation to other continuums - we juxtapose and differentiate this 'one' from that 'one'.
Some are directed by accumulated memory (DNA + experiences - nature + nurture), and we call those living organisms...and other causal chains have no memory, other than our own of them.
We then project into them our own memories as if they belonged to them.
A stone interacting with light retains no memory of the event. It has no mechanism to do so.  
It interacts as only it can interact, and with every interaction it is changed.

What do we do when we try to conceptualize the cosmos?
We are participating in what we must try to conceptualize in its entirety...even the attempt presupposes something.

We noetically (in our mind) project ourselves 'outside' existence, to then perceive it as a whole...a oneness.  
But there is no 'outside', other than in our mind, as is the wholeness we've presupposed. We can only perceive multiplicity...so amidst this multiplicity, we've reduce to things (abstractions) in our heads, we project outside them to contradict them by fabricating a wholeness - a one uni-verse.
To call this a 'one', a 'whole', is to project our abstraction as a literal fact and not a representation of our own binary methods.

Even our conception of 'Truth' is derived from the Latin veritas...and not the Greek aletheia.
Un-forgetting, un-covering....re-calling, re-membering.
Noumenon = abstraction - whole, one, word, symbol.
Phenomenon = fluid, dynamic....

We confuse our own interpretations of world for the world itself.
Once we've done so, shamelessly, with no integrity, we can fabricate any delusion satisfies our needs...even the need for absolute certainty.
We sacrifice to the god, the one, our pride, our integrity, our reason, and in return we are rewarded by comforting, hope, joy...blissful ignorance.
We forget - Lethe.
we forget to not suffer.
What is forgetting?
Dismissing memories. We sacrifice 'self' to hedonism.

satyr wrote:He says primordial ONE.

he meant to say the primordial 'dude', and this dude is a multiplicity of things... everything that is in space and time is part of his body. he's a big sonofabitch, man... inconceivably big. now technically when we say the 'dude' is 'one', we mean the sum total of all things added together to comprise a single number. so we'd say 'this one dude is comprised of a whole bunch of a stuff.'

now the reason we can call all this stuff part of 'one' body is because there can be no other 'dude' but this 'dude'. if there was another dude, either that dude or the other dude would be part of the dude... since nothing can exist but the total amount of energy in space and time. there can't be a line between two dudes here... only one dude, the dude that has all the properties that exist.

we can't directly observe the primordial dude. we can only logically deduce that the dude must exist. we know there can be no such thing as 'nothing', and we know there can be no such thing as bordered space, and we know that energy cannot come from without this space and time (from somewhere else... since there are no borders... no 'other' space 'over there' while this space has energy 'over here').

this primordial dude is ABSOLUTELY what he is, is both mutable (comprised of properties) and immutable (always and only the total of all properties), and divisible (hey, you got one right!).

you are part of the primordial dude, i am part of the primordial dude, we all are, except andy. andy doesn't exist because his memory is fallible and he's multivalued, meaning he is but he isn't at the same time. it's complicated, you'll have to get with him on that.

but there are no gods in the anthropomorphic sense or in the deistic sense. the dude is pure immanence, and his street name is 'nature'. in fact, he prefers to be called nature. if he was a rapper we'd call him DJ 'nefarious nature'.

you have to stop thinking about the dude as a 'god'. that's a vulgar simplification. the dude is beyond all that.

Zoot Allures wrote:

satyr wrote:He says primordial ONE.

he meant to say the primordial 'dude', and this dude is a multiplicity of things... everything that is in space and time is part of his body. he's a big sonofabitch, man... inconceivably big. now technically when we say the 'dude' is 'one', we mean the sum total of all things added together to comprise a single number. so we'd say 'this one dude is comprised of a whole bunch of a stuff.'

Yes...therefore it is A One, not THE ONE.

Zoot Allures wrote:now the reason we can call all this stuff part of 'one' body is because there can be no other 'dude' but this 'dude'. if there was another dude, either that dude or the other dude would be part of the dude... since nothing can exist but the total amount of energy in space and time. there can't be a line between two dudes here... only one dude, the dude that has all the properties that exist.

That which we refer to is never the same 'dude'.
So it's never the one, but a one.
The parts cannot contradict the whole.

They get around this by making the existent an illusion, or the one's fabrications.
We fabricate the one, not the one us.
There is no one, because there is no other.
We can only say 'is'...exists.
Existence is open-ended, not bounded, not contained.  
Not complete, not whole.

Zoot Allures wrote:we can't directly observe the primordial dude. we can only logically deduce that the dude must exist. we know there can be no such thing as 'nothing', and we know there can be no such thing as bordered space, and we know that energy cannot come from without this space and time (from somewhere else... since there are no borders... no 'other' space 'over there' while this space has energy 'over here').

To speak of a 'one' when there is no other, is incorrect.
We can only speak of what exists....and not of what does not.
What exists is multiplicity....what is outside does not exist.
The 'one' assumes an outside. An other.

There are no noes in existence, therefore existence cannot be one.
One is how we conceptualize fluid existence. A useful method.

Zoot Allures wrote:this primordial dude is ABSOLUTELY what he is, is both mutable (comprised of properties) and immutable (always and only the total of all properties), and divisible (hey, you got one right!).

Only in your mind.
There is no immutable, indivisible, whole.
A = A, only when A is a human symbol not existing outside a human mind and that can refer to anything and everything and nothing.
There is nothing outside multiplicity. You cannot show me a one.

Zoot Allures wrote:you are part of the primordial dude, i am part of the primordial dude, we all are, except andy. andy doesn't exist because his memory is fallible and he's multivalued, meaning he is but he isn't at the same time. it's complicated, you'll have to get with him on that.

I am imperfect, ephemeral, divisible, mutable....ergo I cannot belong to what is not so.
The parts cannot contradict the whole, unless the whole is noetic.
We are existing....we participate in existence....nothing more can be said.
Becoming...not being.

Zoot Allures wrote:but there are no gods in the anthropomorphic sense or in the deistic sense. the dude is pure immanence, and his street name is 'nature'. in fact, he prefers to be called nature. if he was a rapper we'd call him DJ 'nefarious nature'.

you have to stop thinking about the dude as a 'god'. that's a vulgar simplification. the dude is beyond all that.

No...I think of the 'dude' as I think of the one, and the god....as an absolute that only exists in my mind.
A dude is not immutable, indivisible, whole....not absolute.
The word 'dude' can be imagined in any way...including immutable, indivisible, whole.
The absolute is in my mind - either as representation, or as psychological expression of conviction, hyperbole, or as symbol/word.
It is theory. Whatever name you give this idea it is still not existing outside my mind.
One/Nil, God, Satan, Bill, Absolute Order/Chaos, Absolute perfection, whole, thing.
Ideas referring to phenomena, or to other ideas.
The mind cannot think outside binary code.

Absolute...one more time...is not an expression of conviction, not a word, a symbol, a statement, but it either exits or does not....show me an absolute.
Indivisible, immutable, whole...a singularity.
Do not tell me, show me.

If we call universe a one, then its continuous expansion and possibility of multiverses, refers to a different one, or ones, not the same one...therefore not THE ONE, but A ONE.
Process can only be conceptualized by converting it to abstraction...it is this abstraction we refer to.
Once you accept THE Dude as THE ONE, you've already accepted God, the Abrahamic one, who goes by many names.
Word games is how they insinuate what they cannot prove.
They change Marxism to post-modernity, or trans-humanism, and resell it to you as new and improved.

Goethe wrote:First came the act.  

do something for me, satyr. picture in your head a bunch of dots in a unenclosed space. just the dots... not a shape that the dots are in. don't draw any lines around them. now picture those dots moving all around bouncing off each other and clumping together to make bigger dots. don't imagine any of them disappearing. keep them all there.

you don't need to count them to know that how ever many dots there are, there are no more. that means that you can't add dots from some other space you are imagining, because you aren't imagining two or more spaces closed off from each other. there is no boundary for this space with the dots in it, so its all space, making it a single space.

now however you imagine these dots moving about and combining together, the process of this activity is qualitative, not quantitative. that means no matter what they do, they don't fundamentally increase or decrease in number. the number of shapes and sizes they make increases and decreases, but not the sum total of the dots that form these shapes and sizes.

now imagine splitting the dots into halves, and then splitting those halves in half, etc. you see that while the number of individual dots increases, the total mass of the the dots does not. that means that the same amount of energy (what the dots are made of) continues to exist.

the pieces of dots can't go anywhere... they can't just disappear... and if they did, they'd simply move to another region of the space you are imagining. at the same time, no new dots can enter this space from somewhere else... because this space is not enclosed by any lines.

so would you be able to picture this in your head and say 'this process is one process', and would you be able to add all the dots together and get one number? or should i say, would you be able to get one measurement of the total mass of all the dots?

probably not. but you don't have to, to know there is a maximum mass. you know this because more dots can't come from anywhere else, can't spontaneously materialize out of nothing, and can't dematerialize into nothing. you can infer this logically.

so you don't know the sum total... can't count it... but you know it isn't infinite in number. the only thing that is infinite is the space you are imagining, because it has no borders. but let's say you divided this space into two spaces by drawing an enclosing shape around the dots. now you have one space, and another separate space, each with some dots. can you imagine enclosing these two spaces in a bigger space? if yes, then i ask this question again, about the space you now imagine. if no, then, in fact, you don't have two separate spaces, but two separate regions in one space.

what do you have: a finite amount of energy in an infinite space. the amount of this energy doesn't change, and neither does the space it is in. ergo, there is ONE system in ONE space.

there are not two systems, because all the activity of the dots is causally related to the dots themselves... not any other dots in any other space.

there are not two spaces, because two spaces would only occupy a bigger, single space, and so on.

okay we're done. thank you for your time and attention.

Zoot Allures wrote:do something for me, satyr. picture in your head a bunch of dots in a unenclosed space. just the dots... not a shape that the dots are in. don't draw any lines around them. now picture those dots moving all around bouncing off each other and clumping together to make bigger dots. don't imagine any of them disappearing. keep them all there.

you don't need to count them to know that how ever many dots there are, there are no more. that means that you can't add dots from some other space you are imagining, because you aren't imagining two or more spaces closed off from each other. there is no boundary for this space with the dots in it, so its all space, making it a single space.

I understand the concept...dude.

Can you understand what I am saying?
The concept of a whole, is a human contrivance....there i sound like cAnus now.
There is no whole because there are now boundaries...and so no overflowing.
Existence is open-ended...not enclosed.

Zoot Allures wrote:now however you imagine these dots moving about and combining together, the process of this activity is qualitative, not quantitative. that means no matter what they do, they don't fundamentally increase or decrease in number. the number of shapes and sizes they make increases and decreases, but not the sum total of the dots that form these shapes and sizes.

now imagine splitting the dots into halves, and then splitting those halves in half, etc. you see that while the number of individual dots increases, the total mass of the the dots does not. that means that the same amount of energy (what the dots are made of) continues to exist.

the pieces of dots can't go anywhere... they can't just disappear... and if they did, they'd simply move to another region of the space you are imagining. at the same time, no new dots can enter this space from somewhere else... because this space is not enclosed by any lines.

so would you be able to picture this in your head and say 'this process is one process', and would you be able to add all the dots together and get one number? or should i say, would you be able to get one measurement of the total mass of all the dots?

probably not. but you don't have to to know there is a maximum mass. you know this because more dots can't come from anywhere else, can't spontaneously materialize out of nothing, and can't dematerialize into nothing. you can infer this logically.

Dots are how you perceive patterns interacting.
Points in space/time.
But, in fact, they are waves, or vibrations/oscillations.

These are continuously increasing....as a possibility, as space/time expands.
You are always counting them in the past....Their number is not fixed.

Zoot Allures wrote:so you don't no the sum total... can't count it... but you know it isn't infinite in number. the only thing that is infinite is the space you are imagining, because it has no borders. but let's say you divided this space into two spaces by drawing an enclosing shape around the dots. now you have one space, and another separate space, each with some dots. can you imagine enclosing these two spaces in a bigger space? if yes, then i ask this question again, about the space you now imagine. if no, then, in fact, you don't have two separate spaces, but two separate regions in one space.

Yes, and this description is of cutting-way dimensions of space to fabricate an enclosure.

Useful...but only as a method...a representation.

Zoot Allures wrote:what do you have: a finite amount of energy in an infinite space. the amount of this energy doesn't change, and neither does the space it is in. ergo, there is ONE system in ONE space.

Did you watch the cosmology vid I posted?
This finite energy is replaced by another finite amount....and the process does not end.
That you think it's the same energy is your opinion. It is not the same finite energy.

Zoot Allures wrote:there are not two systems, because all the activity of the dots is causally related to the dots themselves... not any other dots in any other space.

there are not two spaces, because two spaces would only occupy a bigger, single space, and so on.

okay we're done. thank you for your time and attention.

Space is possibility.
Dots are energy...en-ergeia...at-work, in-work - probability.

There is no one, or two, but only continuum...process.
We can only conceptualize it as a whole, or sequence of wholes. We are ordering, trying to make sense of disordering.

'One' refers to this abstraction....vague it must be because it is a simplification/generalization, or a reduction of dimensions (possibilities) so as to enable the mind to process the data.
There is no first one or last one...but an endless series of ones....some of which with no life.

now i'm seeing dots.

thanks a lot.

Those are the Primordial One's testicles. Do not, I repeat....do not open your mouth.

satyr wrote:He sent one to my as well.
Now he's got a beef.

oh dear... you picked a fight with satyr too, turd? it's over for ya, dude.

satyr, like saully, is the eastern sign of the horse, and the horse is known for it's extraordinary endurance. ever wonder why saully and satyr write these great walls of text? that's why. it doesn't even matter if they're wrong their posts are so goddamn long and numbered. you just can't keep up with em, man.

now you're fucked. you've got a beef with one bad horsie.

Horse is my Chinese astrology sign. I thought it was because of how well hung I was.

No more walls of text.
Those were cut & pastes.
Here I'll be cool and collected.
Too late for that...okay...
Aphoristic.....Spartan.....Laconic.

Turd was only telling me what he thought about 'you know who'.
I blushed. Told him to share it in public.

that's a good horsie. here, have an apple.

Thanks for not offering me THE Banana, but AN apple.

I won't go as far as to interpret what Saully, or what Nietzsche dor that matter, meant as primordial one. Perhaps they do mean absolute and indivisible, and all the perceivable universe is a dream or a hallucination or a piece of artwork... one can imagine things as one pleases in metaphysics. It is not verifiable, we are free to imagine.

What did cause me to break, and I had to step out and laugh for a while, was satyr's apparent complete forgetfulness of the mathematical concept of fractions.
Good show.

Zoot Allures wrote:the only truly original work that is possible is in science and mathematics, not philosophy. philosophy is a collection of language games that follows pre-established rules, or rather self-generating rules as the games are played. a theory in science and mathematics can come out of the blue. take einstein's relativity. newtonian physics didn't lead him to his idea... while ideas in philosophy are always led by already existing paradigmatic language games.

Newtonian physics didn't lead to Einstein's relativity but David Hume's and Ernst Mach's philosophy did.

Einstein wrote:Today everyone knows, of course, that all attempts to clarify this paradox [of light that leads to special relativity] satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, or of simultaneity, was rooted unrecognized in the unconscious. To recognize clearly this axiom and its arbitrary character already implies the essentials of the solution of the problem. The type of critical reasoning required for the discovery of this central point was decisively furthered, in my case, especially by the reading of David Hume’s and Ernst Mach’s philosophical writings.

a principle of reasoning might be considered and kept in mind by a scientist when he contemplates the nature of something, but it isn't philosophy that he's doing when he forms a theory and attempts to test it through observation.

whereas a (some) philosophical theory originates directly from other theory, theory which may not be verifiable to begin with. take kant's theory of transcendental consciousness. he proceeds from this to discern what he believes are deontological truths about morality. he proceeds from one philosophical theory to another.

in any case, supposing that einstein was moved by and had in mind hume's induction problem, for instance, it wouldn't be what proved his relativity theory was true. it would simply be a concept that inspired him to think critically about something.

though i suppose i could retract the statement that such a theory would 'come out of the blue' since he may have been inspired by hume, as you pointed out.

how about this then:

a scientific theory can be formed through the assistance of philosophical reasoning, but a philosophical theory formed through the assistance of another philosophical theory, and not a scientific theory, is one characteristic that makes philosophical speculation quite different from scientific.

Satyr wrote:Notice ILPers are darker...whereas Magnus and I are lighter.
Very demeaning.

Whatever.
No worries.

I've found out why.
Magnus Anderson must have been the only profile you visited.
When you click a user's name, and go into their profile, the forum software marks it as viewed, and thus from then on you see that user as light grey.
If you click all of them, they will all be light grey.

let's see... how can i do this.

it has been brought to my attention that some members are not posting because they want to avoid the ad hominem attacks that are often directed toward them. this is understandable, but i also don't want to discourage ad hominem attacks, because we all like a good fight. so i gotta figure something out here, and i think i've come up with a unique solution.

joe and bob don't like each other. in fact, they hate each other so much that neither one of them would cross the street to piss on the other, even if they were on fire. but joe and bob are both members of the same forum, and want to post... maybe even challenge each other and engage in debate about x once in a while.

joe often commits ad hominem attacks, but bob doesn't. so bob avoids posting.

how can i get bob to post again without hindering or restricting joe's ability to post. that's the million dollar question.

here's my solution: if bob engages joe in a thread, and joe attacks him with ad homs, the post will not be immediately moved/deleted. instead, a period of time will be allowed to elapse before it is moved/deleted. if during this time, bob responds to the post, it means that bob didn't feel insulted. if bob doesn't respond in the alloted time, it means he feels insulted, and the post will be moved/deleted.

this plan is a form of moderate moderation, if you will, that leaves open the question of whether or not a member feels insulted by a post. this decision should be left to the member, not the mod or admin. the best way to do this is to give him time enough to indicate by his activity, how he feels about a particular post/conversation.

this also provides an incentive to joe; if he wants to discuss something with bob, he'll be conscientious of this new rule and keep it toned down a bit because of that.

do i know how to solve em or do i know how to solve em? i have just revolutionized the nature of philosophy forum moderation.

i'll let this post simmer a while before any decisions are made. wanna see what you people think about the idea.

to be clear, an ad hominem attack is an act of discrediting a point or argument made by someone because of something about the person. for example, mary's argument that abortion is okay is wrong because mary is a giants fan, and the giants suck, therefore mary sucks... and somebody who sucks can't be right about abortion being okay.

so when bob says something joe disagrees with, joe can't use anything about bob to bolster his arguments.

Thanks for....'tolerating' me dude.
I guess providing a safe-space for insanity is the norm, these days.
Why post interesting realistic stuff when we can mind-fart our superstitious, naive, ramblings expecting to be taken seriously, and when we are not demanding that we be taken seriously?
None of that survival of the fittest here......a protective zone for all kinds of domesticated manimals.
I'm happy ILP is so free of ad homs since my banishment. Very interesting conversations happening there. Deep stuff.
Can't find a single insult void of substance in the entire forum.
But some insults are more hurtful than others....depending on who is doing the insulting, and how. Talents is devastating.

Don't ever call me a 'genius'. I forbid it!!!!....I'll tell you when.
I'll declare it and repeat it, hoping that some imbecile will buy it. Plenty of those around.
Until then consider me a nothing and a nobody....just Satyr.

We need to bring the 'magic' back to language and practice real mystifying philosophy: astrology, alchemy, voodoo, kabbalah...old wives tales....children's fairy-tales.....
Mind manipulating brilliant esotericism, for retards and other lost souls.....only boys.
We need to replicate ancient Greece's homo-eroticism with hypermasculine overcompensation hiding our bisexual, binary, bipolarity - half-witticisms for the half-breeds.

Help me help you make this forum retard safe so that Ollie can finally come out to play without his protective helmet, and encompassing bubble of names, referencing deference.
Let's make philosophy safe for children and women to participate.
Why not?
A New Age symposium where whores and the town's fool are also invited.
We've got plenty of time to waste in the slammer.

This forum was supposed to be a VO launching pad.....we've conquered Before the Light, ILP, KTS, and now Pathos of Distance, before we take over the world.
Everything is possible in our mind.
But we need quiet...no distressing dissenting voices, for it will shatter the magical spell and we will fail to hypnotize the boys.

Hypnosis requires the wilful participation of the hypnotized. We need the right ambience, the right cultivated mystical environment for the magic to have an effect.
Just like a psychologist cannot heal the patient without his participation....without his surrender to the doctor's authority.
The hypnotized, like the ill, must place himself in a hypnotic state.....or heal himself, under the direction of the hypnotist, faith healer.
An environment of seriousness is essential.
Cynical giggling will break the spell and ruin the process.