death of the Übermensch

[_Z_]

death of the Übermensch

Übermensch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nietzsche spoke of this ‘superman’ ideal; " All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…"

random zero
here i want to use the notion [perhaps out of context] to represent everything which puts one man above another in any way whatsoever. i agree somewhat with Nietzsche’s ideal that we can become above our current status, yet at the same time there is no ‘us’, no ‘you’ of which to become above anything.

of being unequal.
are we to judge by the given or the attained? i would attest that at most we can only credit ourselves with the attained i.e. that which we achieve beyond what we are. the ‘given’ is our genetic form + its environment, we are born into the world with let us say, a value of zero. our births are completely arbitrary, you could be born to any family in any country and at any societal level [e.g. rich poor]. from there on any kind of privileged education and general upbringing adds nothing to the given. so far then nothing has been attained, if you are intelligent or a skilled craftsman etc, it is purely due to your genetic disposition. if you are lucky and things come your way like good business propositions etc, then again this is purely arbitrary. if you invent or discover something, this is built on the discoveries of the past and your genetic ability to solve problems.
thus politically and socially, no one is superior or great, and a society based on reward and punishment [especially according to or with respect to position] is false.

uber-buddhism
now we have killed the earthly superman, let us kill any others. i contest that there are any aspects outside of the circle of the manifest world/existence. upon this premise, the Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed [and all similar types one tends to look up to], also have an attained value of zero.
if we strip buddhism back, get rid of all the deities, the spiritual realms and even buddha being, what do we have left? 0 karma and hence dharma is also false i.e. there are no right and wrong ways of living and of doing things, other than the self attested correct way of doing a given thing; note that this is individualistic, there is no general right way!

on the mental plane we may strip it all back and note that everything we can think of belongs to the manifest world [existence]. so nirvana is not Buddha being it is just infinity, we enter the world as 0, as do we leave it. nirvana is not bliss as this has associations with the manifest elements of existence, the same goes for consciousness and awareness. perhaps some ‘enlightened people’ have glimpsed eternity and perceived it as bliss, yet this is felt on this side of the divide not the other [not that there is a divide as such], everything of the infinite = 0. perhaps not being affected by anything would be bliss, but it would not be a feeling.

by exiting the world as 0 there can be no rebirth nor reincarnation, simply because there would be nothing to return with. if we re-entered this world it would be as 0, hence there would be nothing else to distinguish one 0 from another. this being so a given 0 would not be you or someone else, it would just be 0.

universal principle: all things come into this world ‘as’ zero, as do they exit ‘as’ zero.

this then applies to all manifestation, i would thus posit that there is no difference between you, an animal, a germ or an atom [or a universe]. everything begins and ends at 0, and has this base value throughout.


thanks

 

[nativeastral]

phew thank goodness 0 was invented by the Indians!

 

[_Z_]

as a mathematical concept it was, what it came from is shared by many cultures. actually quite a lot of math esp the math of infinity came from india.

i presume you lub the indians, a fascinating culture for sure.

 

[nativeastral]

l like the fact that they honour shakti and are tolerant of all variations [despite their communal wars!!]

 

[_Z_]

...and caste system. but yes the religion is tolerant in many ways even if hierarchic.

generally speaking i go by the idea; we aint got it right as yet.

 

[Nick_A]

I guess this is what distinguishes man from animals. The quality of animal life is assured by the survival of the fittest. Yet Z you believe that beyond animal life there is no qualitative distinction and everything is the same. Now that's depressing. No more search for wisdom.

 

[nativeastral]

...and caste system. but yes the religion is tolerant in many ways even if hierarchic.

generally speaking i go by the idea; we aint got it right as yet.

fitting to talk of 0 at this time. it is the fool in the tarot, which as you say in OP quote:
'universal principle: all things come into this world ‘as’ zero, as do they exit ‘as’ zero.'

the fool gets disparaging press, but the king always listened to the fool.
'his lack of experience in the ways of society is seen on the surface to be a disadvantage ,but in reality it ensures that his mind is not closed to unusual experiences that are denied to ordinary men' [alfred douglas the tarot].

'he is the green man harbinger of a new cycle in existence, the herald of new life and fresh beginnings' ibid

On the downside this naivety, chaos before reason, like a child who is not yet responsible as an individual, can bring unexpected reckless action.

mad spring hares n all that. happy spring!

 

[Nick_A]

In the world everything follows the cycles leding from dust to dust. But that is not to say it is impoossible to become a human being. Buddha asserts it is possible though quite rare.

The Buddha said that it is more difficult for a being to obtain human birth that it would be for a turtle coming up from the depth of the ocean to put its head by chance through the opening of a wooden yoke tossed around by huge waves on the surface.

Imagine the whole cosmos of a billion universes as a vast ocean. Floating upon it is yoke, a piece of wood with a hole in it that can be fixed around the horns of draught oxen. This yoke, tossed here and there by the waves, sometime eastward, sometime westward, never stays in the same place even for an instant. Deep down in the depths of the ocean lives a blind turtle who rises up to the surface only once every hundred years. That the yoke and the turtle might meet is extremely unlikely. The yoke itself is inanimate; the turtle is not intentionally seeking it out. The turtle, being blind, has no eyes with which to spot the yoke. If the yoke were to stay in one place, there might be a chance of their meeting; but it is continually on the move. If the turtle were to spend its entire time swimming round the surface, it might, perhaps, cross paths with the yoke; but it surfaces only once every hundred years. The chances of the yoke and the turtle coming together are therefore extremely small. Nerveless, by sheer chance the turtle might still just slip its neck into the yoke. But it is even more difficult than that, the sutras say, to obtain a human existence with the eight freedom and ten advantages.

 

[_Z_]

nick a
i can see how in the context of the text it may seam depressing, however there are subtle ideas in there which bring it to life. just by saying ‘we come into this world ‘as’ 0’ i am saying that we have an infinite base.
remember that i am a druid so there is a magical essence to this, imagine merlin disappearing in a puff of smoke, then reappearing as an owl. without the infinite base [0] how could one do this! obviously i don’t take such stories and myth generally as literal, but they do point to elements of our nature. perhaps the universe itself does this vanishing and reappearing act.

i have always strongly felt that we are not tied to anything, that our inner core is free, hence this thread is a way of encapsulating that idea. it is but one model, we could easily replace ‘0’ with ‘1’ and get a whole different perspective.

But it is even more difficult than that, the sutras say, to obtain a human existence with the eight freedom and ten advantages.

haha i don’t know why but i find it funny how buddhists always have these ideas, everything is like this amount of that, sleep like so, eat like so, act like so, then the fool comes along and dances all over them. [the buddha was a gren man/fool too, just as all spirtual leaders are imho].

if we add the idea ‘like attracts like’ then it is the very simplest thing that a human soul would be born as a human soul. i see it all as measures of expansion, sure a germ has the same infinite 0 at its base, then via evolution it has expanded to the human shape. like a jigsaw puzzle with no edges, when we die that shape fits straight back into infinity nice n snuggly. everything has its eternal variant but nothing is tied, there simply are no natures with which to bind the soul.
duality does not exist.

nativeastral
read above, then note that the fool can be considered at both the beginning and the end of the major arcana [as well as throughout]. it has a free-form nature which refuses to be bound, this can give the untrained version naivety and the trained version immense wisdom. it will as you say never be in concord with the world, for the world has its ways and they are binding [according to the world].

 

[Nick_A]

nick a
i can see how in the context of the text it may seam depressing, however there are subtle ideas in there which bring it to life. just by saying ‘we come into this world ‘as’ 0’ i am saying that we have an infinite base.
remember that i am a druid so there is a magical essence to this, imagine merlin disappearing in a puff of smoke, then reappearing as an owl. without the infinite base [0] how could one do this! obviously i don’t take such stories and myth generally as literal, but they do point to elements of our nature. perhaps the universe itself does this vanishing and reappearing act.

i have always strongly felt that we are not tied to anything, that our inner core is free, hence this thread is a way of encapsulating that idea. it is but one model, we could easily replace ‘0’ with ‘1’ and get a whole different perspective.



haha i don’t know why but i find it funny how buddhists always have these ideas, everything is like this amount of that, sleep like so, eat like so, act like so, then the fool comes along and dances all over them. [the buddha was a gren man/fool too, just as all spirtual leaders are imho].

if we add the idea ‘like attracts like’ then it is the very simplest thing that a human soul would be born as a human soul. i see it all as measures of expansion, sure a germ has the same infinite 0 at its base, then via evolution it has expanded to the human shape. like a jigsaw puzzle with no edges, when we die that shape fits straight back into infinity nice n snuggly. everything has its eternal variant but nothing is tied, there simply are no natures with which to bind the soul.
duality does not exist.

nativeastral
read above, then note that the fool can be considered at both the beginning and the end of the major arcana [as well as throughout]. it has a free-form nature which refuses to be bound, this can give the untrained version naivety and the trained version immense wisdom. it will as you say never be in concord with the world, for the world has its ways and they are binding [according to the world].

If what you say is true and the universe does this vanishing and appearing act without intent or universal design, what is the source of the logic of mathematics and what purpose does it serve? If something comes from nothing and returns to nothing without conscious intent, why is this something logical? How do mathematical relationships appear from chaos or nothing without intent?

 

[_Z_]

If what you say is true and the universe does this vanishing and appearing act without intent or universal design, what is the source of the logic of mathematics and what purpose does it serve?

now your talkin’ [i.e. excellent reply]. its a bit like tapping your heels and thinking of home [wizard of oz]. math is abstract and has nothing to do with the process, it is just a way to define the expressed.

without writing a few pages; you have infinity, thats all there is, all things are infinity expressing itself, atoms are relationships acting by principles, mass is empty etc etc. you know the stuff, we have talked about it in many ways before. manifestation is like infinity throwing its arms open wide and shouting hey i am alive, it then simply folds into itself and becomes completely empty/goes to sleep kinda...

If something comes from nothing and returns to nothing without conscious intent, why is this something logical?

does it have to be logical? it may be conscious intent that drives it, i do not know, or it may be purely mechanistic ~ or both. as the base nature of reality is infinity as empty [everything else is infinity as manifest, or 'tying to be everything'] then given an infinite amount of time [which it doesn’t even need], the cycle must resume to ‘0’, emptiness must be found that it exists to begin with.
remember tha infinite cycles would always return to any given point.

How do mathematical relationships appear from chaos or nothing without intent?

chaos? i see none. intent is quite another matter, maybe it does have intent...

universal principle; ‘‘it’ is’ thus ‘it’ must continue to be so. ~ there must be always something, hence there is the continuum.

we cannot arrive at a point where there is nothing ~ an absolute end. this would mean that history and existence never actually happened, which is of course false.
upon this we may say that even upon entering the void there cannot be an end and we come straight out of it again.

 

[Nick_A]

Z

Actually we are not as far apart as it appears at first sight. However, I'd like to ask you if you believe my definition of "nothing" is at least possible for you.

Nothing or more precisely no-thing" in its pure state is consciousness without content. No-thing is pure potential which is distinguished from "nothing" which contains no potential. Would you accept this as a possible necessary distinction?

I'm also a believer in alchemy. Since I believe in levels of reality one within the other, I must also assume that there are densities of matter, one existing within the other that lawfully define each level of reality. This would also include the smallest particles where they exist as a relationship one within the other.

If this is true, there is less empty space then presumed but actually what appears as space for us contains materiality beyond our means of perception.

The idea I'm getting at is that consciousness without content though imperceptible for us exists and no-thing can involve in a lawful and alchemical fashion into every-thing within the space we refer to but normally underestimate as infinity. Can you see it as a possibility?

 

[_Z_]

nick a
please read through then view the whole, that way we may agree more than you may at first think.

Nothing or more precisely no-thing" in its pure state is consciousness without content.

hmm, does space feel like that to you? i think we must go one step further, where you have inifnity [‘0’] and that can be manifest as consciousness. in some way then i agree, as infinity has all the 0 properties of its manifest/expressed version. that is not the same thing as consciousness or awareness though, as it is also the 0 of everything else. so what we have is X that becomes a given thing.

No-thing is pure potential which is distinguished from "nothing" which contains no potential. Would you accept this as a possible necessary distinction?

good distinction, i see it as having no potential; potentiality exist where things exist, we take an example of a thing and note that it will become another thing, hence it has potential to be that next thing. potentiality is thence a part of the world-sphere. now i will contradict that and say that potentiality the II is fundamental to infinity, it is just not potentiality in the scientific sense. it is not something which makes all things come into being, like a creator god renamed as ‘0’, it isn’t linear. almost impossible to define really.

If this is true, there is less empty space then presumed but actually what appears as space for us contains materiality beyond our means of perception.

edit; see below, atoms are polarised energy which forms a pattern, those patterns equate as the periodic elements. mass and energy are empty, this is why we can see these patterns and polarities as ‘relationships’, indeed we can see einstiens all-time as changing relationships rather than linear time. then that time is the perspective of those changing relationships as seen in linear form... or

The idea I’m getting at is that consciousness without content though imperceptible for us exists and no-thing can involve in a lawful and alchemical fashion into every-thing within the space we refer to but normally underestimate as infinity. Can you see it as a possibility?

interesting. i am beginning to see where you are going i think. why is infinity an underestimate though? ...are you getting rid of all the lines and even throwing infinity into the bag, its a very interesting idea for sure. so we have a kind of blobbyness lols a mass of nothing which is 'material' and also malleable like plasticine, yet is nothing to such a degree that it may not even be called infinity?

great thinking there! i also often wonder what the actual impact or solidity of a thing is, in a similar way, as like perhaps the weight of your 'material' y'know, what actually makes it solid [and that is with knowing a certain amount about energy].

 

[Nick_A]

Z

We have some basic differences but we still can communicate.

hmm, does space feel like that to you? i think we must go one step further, where you have inifnity [‘0’] and that can be manifest as consciousness. in some way then i agree, as infinity has all the 0 properties of its manifest/expressed version. that is not the same thing as consciousness or awareness though, as it is also the 0 of everything else. so what we have is X that becomes a given thing.

Since I don't believe Man in the fallen condition on earth is conscious but rather only becomes conscious at times, we really cannot feel it anymore than a dog would. However there are these times when we become conscious or rather aware that we are aware. At these times we can also sense higher consciousness. But this is a perception within our inner space. The experience of awe in relation to the external world can also lead to the inner experience of consciousness greater than our own.

Consciousness for me then becomes a relationship between three variables when they appear. I become conscious of my reactions to the external world, and this quality of consciousness provides the experience of something becoming conscious of me.

good distinction, i see it as having no potential; potentiality exist where things exist, we take an example of a thing and note that it will become another thing, hence it has potential to be that next thing. potentiality is thence a part of the world-sphere. now i will contradict that and say that potentiality the II is fundamental to infinity, it is just not potentiality in the scientific sense. it is not something which makes all things come into being, like a creator god renamed as ‘0’, it isn’t linear. almost impossible to define really.

potentiality exist where things exist, we take an example of a thing and note that it will become another thing, hence it has potential to be that next thing. potentiality is thence a part of the world-sphere.

I guess this is a basic disagreement between us. Since I hold that consciousness without content exists and includes the potential for the manifestation of every-thing.

I define adaptation as you've described things changing. Evolution or involution is the change of something's "isness."


"Isness" adapts but evolution or involution is the process of "being" change. Nothing remains the same. Everything is changing. Everything is either participating in the process of involution or evolution. What we measure is adaptation.

edit; see below, atoms are polarised energy which forms a pattern, those patterns equate as the periodic elements. mass and energy are empty, this is why we can see these patterns and polarities as ‘relationships’, indeed we can see einstiens all-time as changing relationships rather than linear time. then that time is the perspective of those changing relationships as seen in linear form... or

I see what you mean but I take matter and energy as essentially the same. The difference is in vibration. There is a lot in this short article but you seem interested in these things. Defining everything from the point of view of vibration we can see the relationship between matter and energy is really just vibratory rate.

The Kybalion: Chapter IX. Vibration

interesting. i am beginning to see where you are going i think. why is infinity an underestimate though? ...are you getting rid of all the lines and even throwing infinity into the bag, its a very interesting idea for sure. so we have a kind of blobbyness lols a mass of nothing which is 'material' and also malleable like plasticine, yet is nothing to such a degree that it may not even be called infinity?

We underestimate infinity since we perceive it in three dimensional form. I've come to accept the old idea of the universe as a six dimensional reality. I could explain if you are interested but most are not really interested in these things and scoff at them.

great thinking there! i also often wonder what the actual impact or solidity of a thing is, in a similar way, as like perhaps the weight of your 'material' y'know, what actually makes it solid [and that is with knowing a certain amount about energy].

I appreciate your thoughts as well. You reminded me of the classic movie "Mindwalk." It is not for most but for those interested it's a real mind stretch. If you've never seen it, you probably will enjoy it. It comes on cable on occasion. I checked and discovered that it can be seen on google. The small screen makes it hard to enjoy since once it starts getting heavy, it is easy to lose the depth. Here is the link to the google site but it really is better on a large screen with a tall scotch..

Mindwalk by Bernt Capra

 

[_Z_]

I guess this is a basic disagreement between us. Since I hold that consciousness without content exists and includes the potential for the manifestation of every-thing.

consciousness or awareness? i would think we have awareness as the only non material aspect, and that runs parallel with the workings of the brain, together they are consciousness. take the brain away and there is no consciousness. awareness needs a medium for it to become consciousness, and that is where the books of the dead come into it ~ as ways of achieving that.

the same thing applies to awareness too, at zero there is nothing there to be aware, so again it needs a medium of which to become aware. this is where life/manifestation comes into it, it gives infinity a medium by which it can express itself and become alive, aware and then conscious.

Defining everything from the point of view of vibration we can see the relationship between matter and energy is really just vibratory rate.

sure, thanks for the link. ..it may also be described as relationships of energy, energy is not just waves and particles, but fields also. not to mention it to has an infinite base of 0. in fact i would go so far as to say, that energy does not exist there are only relationships as expressions of infinity.

We underestimate infinity since we perceive it in three dimensional form. I’ve come to accept the old idea of the universe as a six dimensional reality. I could explain if you are interested but most are not really interested in these things and scoff at them.

absolutely, did i not say that infinity is not big or small, it does not operate by any other dimension bar itself? this is why everywhere is the centre and infinity is omni-local.

thanks for the film link, sounds interesting.

 

[Nick_A]

Z

A clam has reactive awareness but is not conscious. The same is true with a dog and even a person during the majority of their life. Reaction is based upon mechanical awareness which doesn't require consciousness. When you came into the room you are in and sat at the computer, it didn't require conscious self awareness. It just a product of habit.

Consciousness begins when we experience that we are aware. It is the vertical awareness of our habitual linear reactions. It could be called the higher within us becoming aware of the lower

Imagine yourself on a street with friends next to a building. You are walking around interacting with this gathering. Now imagine a part of you goes up to the first floor and stands on the porch watching you interacting with others. This would be the conscious awareness of your reactive awareneness.

We are like a building where reactive awareness is on the lowest floor, We have the potential to become consciously aware by activating a higher part in our collective presence that is capable of consciousness. Then the second floor can become aware of reactive life on the first floor.

I see your zeros as similar to what I know of as points or "limits" lacking dimension.

Now a line of points stretch out into infinity and this line is the first dimension. Now a series of lines emerge from these points at right angles into infinity producing a plane or the second dimension. Lines now expand out at right angles from each of these infinity of points within the plane into infinity producing a three dimensional infinite cube. We know this as three dimensional space. Now extend lines into infinity at right angles beginning from each side of the cube. What does it produce? It is beyond our comprehension since we are limited to three dimensional comprehension.

Existence isn't in three dimensional space but rather in the fourth dimension or the first dimension of space/time. Existence is the repetition of a moment. A moment in time that manifests in the fourth dimension or the first dimension of space/time is the repetition of a moment beginning for us at a higher level of reality. But life is more then one moment but a series of repeating moments that taken together comprise the fifth dimension, the second dimension of space/time or "eternity." This is why it is said that a man's life is in eternity. But as we know there are many possible eternities and taken together produce the sixth dimension or the third dimension of space/time. Science defines what I've learned as the sixth dimension as parallel universes.

This is of course very brief and I only wanted to create a brief sketch. But I think you get the picture that as we are, we are incapable of these higher dimensional experiences so naturally put ourselves in the center as we are.

Now as enormous as the six dimensional universe is, God as the source of Creation is said to be outside time and space so is without dimensions. For us then God is infinitely small or also your zero.

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:
"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."
[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

So infinity within six dimensions is less then the point that is God without dimensions and beyond space/time.. From a three dimensional perspective it is absurd but it does connect zero with zero and reveals our limitations.
Now you can see why Nietzsche went mad delving into Eternal Repetition. Sometimes we must admit that as we are, we can only understand to a small degree.

 

[Francis king]

gotta make way for the Homo Superior!!!!

the ubermench is not dead- he is very much alive- he lives next door to me... I like to watch his red underpants flutter on the washing line...

I have to disagree with your zero beginning...

shabda, sound, the word, thought itself is the beginning... in hinduism and christianity both the beginning was - activity, noise, creation, word, sound, thought...

number one... the primordial point...the point within the circle...

of course, there is a zero, a nothingness, but there is nothing there, so could be said to be void, or a vaccuum...

there is an "us", a "you", a them"; to think otherwise is to fall into a trap dreamt up by fools who cannot concieve of themselves being anything other than mere humans...

our philosophies, our truths, are often not- they are just lies, built on lies...

being meek, humble, a good and faithful servant- this too is a lie...

we canot possibly be born at zero, either- we are born with no value? come on...

the child born to the rich and intelligent is not the same child born to the poor and idiotic...all the child will learn WILL add and subract from his value... even the poor and idiotic child has a chance to be great, a world beater, a leader, an intellectual, should he learn the right things, the same too can be said for the rich child- he can become poor, dispossessed, idiotic, should he learn that which will make him so...

you say "thus politically and socially, no one is superior or great, and a society based on reward and punishment [especially according to or with respect to position] is false"

-yet I say you err...

the majority of mortals are peasants... they may even manifest as great thinkers, yet have no original thought... they may be successful in business and still be poor, lacking in will, individualism, intellect, creativity- all these things make us great, seperate the greats from the dross...

The Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, none of these characters would have a value of Zero... we should instead give them 100%, or 10/10...

why? because they are all self realised beings- men who have transcended the state of simply human, men who had goals which they achieved, men who go beyond the humble descriptor- men...

they are indeed supermen...

we too could be that great, we are told... yet I feel this is a lie... we cannot all be great... greatness is beyond most; most instead are caught up in lies...

... if we strip buddhism back, get rid of all the deities, the spiritual realms and even buddha being, what do we have left?

...we have philosophy... we have word, action, thought, we have existence...

and like all our philosophies, when we strip them back to their bare bones we see..?

we see a group of men, ordinary men, who are trying to somehow solve the problems experienced by man. We see ordinary men try to give us hope, and succour, and some direction...

...we see teachers...

teachers whose value, irrespective of their manifestation is something beyond Zero, something of value, something which does not end at death, something which transcends time, and space, and is immortal...

much like we, or at least, our souls/spirit/consciousness is...

so... we do not arrive as Zero... nor do we leave as such... we can be born at minus 20 and die at 10/10, we can be born at 10/10 and become degraded by existance until we become insubstantial...

there is never nothing... unless we are dead, and even then, well, to get nothing... tough break...

there is no nothing, no zero; zero is just a concept... there is no hero called Zero...

 

[Nick_A]

A while back I posted a thread on what happens between nothing and no-thing and how the overman spoken of by Nietzsche that is everything at one level of reality becomes nothing at the next. The true overman awakening then is willing to sacrifice his supremacy for the pearl of great price in his return towards the direction of no-thing.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/jesus-nietzsche-and-simone-9311.html

 

[_Z_]

nick_a

i'll have a look at your thread, thanks for the link.

i would say consciousness is equal to the degree of utility we make of its resource [which = 0], then that utility is governed on arbitrary factors!

Now a line of points stretch out into infinity and this line is the first dimension. Now a series of lines emerge from these points at right angles into infinity producing a plane or the second dimension. Lines now expand out at right angles from each of these infinity of points within the plane into infinity producing a three dimensional infinite cube. We know this as three dimensional space. Now extend lines into infinity at right angles beginning from each side of the cube. What does it produce? It is beyond our comprehension since we are limited to three dimensional comprehension.

an infinite inverse cube. i contend that you can have such an infinite line to begin with, this is stating that you can have an infinite amount of finite and you cannot. infinity doesn’t have any edges and is not countable even using calculus. math is abstract as concerns the finite, so why do mathematicians think it is not abstract for the non finite?

This is why it is said that a man’s life is in eternity.

eternal time is a broad subject which deserves its own thread! i think you could be onto something there, we can take our equality inferred in the ‘0’ = all beginnings and endings model of the op, then add its contradiction which resides between the zero’s.

Now as enormous as the six dimensional universe is, God as the source of Creation is said to be outside time and space so is without dimensions. For us then God is infinitely small or also your zero.

as you would expect from me by now, i see no god whatsoever. ..and i refuse to say we cannot understand it, what is there to not understand that cannot be found!

francis, hi

shabda, sound, the word, thought itself is the beginning... in hinduism and christianity both the beginning was - activity, noise, creation, word, sound, thought...

all of those exist within the manifest worldsphere, if you can name any given thing which has exact edges [i.e. is absolute], or beginnings and endings [terminal points], then i will redraw my theory. ..but you cannot as you know.

there is an "us", a "you", a them"; to think otherwise is to fall into a trap dreamt up by fools who cannot concieve of themselves being anything other than mere humans...

as i was saying to nick_a, overall, and thinking in non-linear terms there maybe an overself ~ or an eternal ‘all-time’ entity, a ‘you’. this existing outside of linear time, may be the net result of all that you are and have been in life. perhaps that net is then which begins when your earthly life begins, in a strange turning of the circle!

hmm, perhaps then, there would be a complete overself or god as a result of the universe [if we consider that to be its body].
*gasp* i will have to find an alternate theory i should hate to bring god to life, 5 minutes and the inquisition would be insulting the very person of jesus, and people like me would be tortured and burned!

hmm, everything still has the ‘0’ base, even with our overselves, so the theory is still correct. not to mention that there may not be overselves at all?_!

so supermen? nah, can’t see it. we may build our towers as high as we wish, they will just fall harder.

there is never nothing... unless we are dead, and even then, well, to get nothing... tough break...

well thats kinda the point here ~ that we do become 0 or dead if you like?

there is no nothing, no zero; zero is just a concept... there is no hero called Zero...

'_Z_' te he ...and infinity of course. energy has a base value of zero. mass = 0, seams to me that emptiness is everywhere!!!

 

[Francis king]

..but we only become zero in your opinion... I find it foolish to think we cannot exist beyond form... and , if I am right and we can exist beyond form, then how can there ever be a zero? and, more to the point, if there is only zero, then what is the point?

if everything is reducible to this non-point, then why not just be an atheist and a hedonist?

for, if nothing has any intrinsic value everything is worthless except the moment to moment, and if that is all that matters, why study philosophy? or religion? or indeed anything? If neither the past or the future has merit, then let's rid ourselves of history, let's rid ourselves of art, let's rid ourselves of theories and maxims and tenets. Let's rid ourselves of maths, and science.

Yet what shall we live for then?

That we and the world exist is an absolute. There may be a million theorists who suggest this is error, but that would be to ignore reality for the sake of theory.

As for building tall towers simply for them to fall more heavily... why do they have to fall? You may consider yourself and the world to amount to zero, yet I value myself and the world more. If consciousness remains there has to be a value to it; that fired and pounded and drenched thing, how it shines! How fine the blade yet so sharp and strong. It's not the kind of blade for commoners and peasants. They could never afford the price.

the consciousness, the soul, the ego, call it what you will, it exists, even if only on paper and celluloid. To wake up to the self, to take the self and modify and shape it like tempered steel, to achieve your aims, to become immortal- are these not the actions of supermen?

yet they do not exist?

for everything is nothing, a big fat zero...

mmm...