Nothing by Nobody Nowhere (No Where = Now Here)

[Mikal]

If you experience the spiritual, its not wishful thinking...its within us to reach and realize that possibility, probability and potential....its there, its part of us....


Mikal

[MJA]

I wrote this yesterday and think this thread is another good place to share it, See if you like it too.


Gold

The secret to turning nothing into something, and something into gold,
The secret of alchemy, the Universal solvent, is the simple missing ingredient of truth, the truth of equality.
Try it, you'll see.
Equal unites All and makes us truly One.
Truth solves everything and turns the whole Universe
Into the pure light of Gold.
Be true, be One,
Be the light,
Be Gold,

=
MJA

[austintorn@aol.com]

At this time of my parting,
Wish me good luck, my friends!
The sky is flushed with the dawn
And my path lies beautiful.

Ask not what I have with me to take there.
I start on my journey with empty hands
And expectant heart.

I shall put on my wedding garland.
Mine is not the red-brown dress of the traveller,
And though there are dangers on the way
I have no fear in mind.

The evening star will come out
When my voyage is done
And the plaintive notes
Of the twilight melodies
Be struck up from the King's gateway.

— Tagore

[melanie]

.



The I AM which is made of consciousness, when stayed with, discarding all else, leads to consciousness.

This leads to the apperception that everything is made of THAT ONE SUBSTANCE.

When the perceiver of THAT one consciousness, and the consciousness itself, are seen as the SAME SUBSTANCE
the NOTHING prior to consciousness is "realized" and all disappears.

[melanie]

Who Am I ? - you are the I AM



Who is the I AM ?

Lets take a peek ..........I hope you like what you see?

[melanie]

~

Where is the centre of a void that has no edge.
In and out exist only within relativity.
Relativity exists only between conceptual things.
'Conceptual Things' only exist in the knowing of them
that they 'appear to be things' is the dream.
Conceptual things exist only within the dream.

~

[Nobody Nowhere]

It's good to see we're all here because we're not all there...all locked up and nowhere to go!

[SteveA]

It's good to see we're all here because we're not all there...all locked up and nowhere to go!

I think it's good to see we're not all entirely here, but are able to share components of here to communicate. It's because we're not all in the same place that allows us to expand and not be locked up. "Here" includes a shared point of communication - a hub of the network.

We have both here and there ... that's better (IMO) than being just one or the other as then there's nothing else and things are "all locked up with nowhere to go!"

It's the open endedness and creative energies/entropies that keep it g(r)o(w)ing. There (be)comes here over time and a new there is found (relative to the change here).

Though in another sense, it's always been connected and on an "infinite" scale it could always be "here", but not connected in all respects ... or at least that's how it would appear to have to work to make sense to me. Quite an interesting view. There are at least 2 sides - not entirely connected, but not entirely disconnected either, but I think there's only one in a shared space on the interface at a time and that provides a logical disconnection so that the spaces can be altered freely and independently on each side and still be able to figuratively "e-mail" each other

[Nobody Nowhere]

I think it's good to see we're not all entirely here, but are able to share components of here to communicate. It's because we're not all in the same place that allows us to expand and not be locked up. "Here" includes a shared point of communication - a hub of the network.

We have both here and there ... that's better (IMO) than being just one or the other as then there's nothing else and things are "all locked up with nowhere to go!"

It's the open endedness and creative energies/entropies that keep it g(r)o(w)ing. There (be)comes here over time and a new there is found (relative to the change here).

Though in another sense, it's always been connected and on an "infinite" scale it could always be "here", but not connected in all respects ... or at least that's how it would appear to have to work to make sense to me. Quite an interesting view. There are at least 2 sides - not entirely connected, but not entirely disconnected either, but I think there's only one in a shared space on the interface at a time and that provides a logical disconnection so that the spaces can be altered freely and independently on each side and still be able to figuratively "e-mail" each other

I guess that's why you're a grandmaster and I'm just a nobody.

Just a couple things you pointed out: "the open endedness" to where exactly; and if infinite with respect to space, how would the absolute universe grow?

One of my premises is that absolute and relative are complete opposites, and the dictionary seems to agree. If the universe is absolutely everywhere the cumulative pressure from an “infinite universe” in motion would be negated omnidirectionally (motion from all directions simultaneously would negate motion in all directions). This is why I posit a static universe, without any literal motion whatsoever, and an illusory framework and timeframe based on relative interactions - like sending e-mails (information) via all them light carriers.

[SteveA]

(I'd thank your posts, but for some reason the button doesn't work on this computer)

I guess that's why you're a grandmaster and I'm just a nobody.

I was just trying to point out some more detail that appears to be needed. If we were truly all in the same location and a precise "one", then it would seem nothing "external" or undetermined would be available for any form of time or change to occur.

If we had a perfect crystal and watched it rotate, the motion doesn't arise anything viewable within the crystal itself, nor from an observer but instead the relative change between the two that is allowed by aspects that space allows to exist indepent of each other. Yes, space allows for communication to occur, but it doesn't rigidly connect things in all respects and that relative freedom and independence is what gives the diversity for the universe to see as expansive ... or as I said, that's how it appears things would have to be from my perspective.

Just a couple things you pointed out: "the open endedness" to where exactly; and if infinite with respect to space, how would the absolute universe grow?

The open endedness can be in 1 dimension alone - that's the perception of time as being in both one direction (toward the "future") as well as time being able to perceived in terms of motions in diverse physical aspects or dimensions. It's a "flexible" connection that allows us to share other properties that can make it appear bent or alterable into new aspects/dimensions of experience. (Those would appear to be similar to unknown aspects of neighbors in time)

One of my premises is that absolute and relative are complete opposites, and the dictionary seems to agree.

I agree. An absolute can't change and give us time. There is more than just a single absolute state. There is a growth and inclusion as well and then we have relative aspects in terms of growth as the "scale" is unbounded and infinite - the yin and the yang.

The interface between these is a common space of communication, like the physical universe, but there is additionally a depth that is not connected and doesn't seem to be well described entirely as "here" - it's only "here" in terms of unwitnessed possibilities in time.

I apologize for being a bit exuberant in my comments, but it was just recently that I found something that appears to provide a bridge between creative aspects of time and the forms and structures of objects we can find in space. It's a duality that's pervasive - even in thought or sentences in terms of nouns and verbs. The thing and how it changes. They never appear to mess precisely into a single thing unless the definition is left vague, but there might actually be some low level mechanisms that allow two or more relatively timeless entities to communicate and possess their own private spaces of freedom as well.

If the universe is absolutely everywhere the cumulative pressure from an “infinite universe” in motion would be negated omnidirectionally (motion from all directions simultaneously would negate motion in all directions). This is why I posit a static universe, without any literal motion whatsoever, and an illusory framework and timeframe based on relative interactions - like sending e-mails (information) via all them light carriers.

That sounds similar to my thoughts. There needs be only 1 dimension that is truly the infinite growth and this is perceptually folded/bent and fills space in other dimensions (and I believe it's partly the existence of multiple rather independent entities that allows this to be possible to provide for a diversity of qualities of experience to supply dimensional references for each other and in that sense, yes, we're all available "here" via a common/public area that's shared but how those aspects are individually/subjectively arranged into a perception of reality could be quite different and not be directly causally connected to anything else. So there can be the equivalent of different units of time that don't have a correlation with someone elses version of reality - notice that if photons show what space looks like, then they don't actually move through the space they portray, just like the computations of a computer don't move in the same space as is seen on a monitor. In that sense, photons don't move through space as portrayed by physics. Ones own space doesn't generate photons until allowed to be compared/communicated with another space and then the relatively differences generate visible energies and changes (the verbs) arising from the overlaps that reveal contrasts. The persistent and recognizable qualities/structures/laws (the nouns) reveal aspects that are available to or representative of oneself).

So figuratively, the nouns are components of self (or alternately attributes of others visible to self) and the verbs show how one is changed by interactions with others and the spaces in which each exist could even be entirely decoupled except for a single dimension of time between each (where the e-mailed perceptual qualities can be shared)



Maybe this image can help explain the concept better - everyone provides a different form of building block with some perceived property, such as a color or emotion etc.

Internally, we can duplicate and arrange these in any manner we want, but this requires an exchange. So we have a connection or common position between elements that allows a merged form of these to be accessed, but how, when, or even if they're arranged specifically for any individual isn't determined by anything outside that.

Another analogy could be similar to genetics - the seeds are all uniformly pooled as a common but "locally" replicated and combined. The common "here" is that pool or that manner by which "external" communication occurs, but it doesn't determine how an individual universe evolves.

(Again, sorry if it seemed I was trying to say your comments were wrong. I was trying to point out an area that seems to be overly simplified in order to discourage too literal an interpretation of the concept of oneness - yes, it would appear everything has to be connected, but the connections can be very loose, with diverse, independent and growing universes present that aren't immediately visible).