as half an ‘orange’ is a fraction of the seed, what is a whole orange?

[_Z_]

as half an ‘orange’ is a fraction of the seed, what is a whole orange? ~ an argument of epic ‘proportions’ [e.g. is god whole and complete or is he a part of the same universal we belong to].

half an orange is a fraction of an orange, which in turn is a fraction of the tree, which then is a fraction of an orange. although we think of the world in terms of wholes and fractions, this is simply a misrepresentation of the reality presented to us. primarily we must regard reality as only composed of fractions, infinitely divisible abstract entities, although they to are not descriptive as exact parts.

without further ado i think we can jump straight to the main principles...

i. there can be no examples of completeness.
ii. all things are part of another.
iii. the whole cannot be composed of any entities it may contain.

...i.e. no amount of abstract entities can add up to the whole, and the whole cannot be ‘of something’/an object. i would imagine this as an infinite block of stone, even if it were nothing it would fill the whole philosophical space.

so may we define reality as abstracts within an infinite ‘whole’, where abstracts cannot properly be defined as factions nor wholes, and where the whole may not be a ‘entire’ thing?

more to the point, we cannot have two wholes which compose reality! there can only be infinity and its expressions. the god of completeness cannot be beyond this and must either be a part of it or not at all - i state.

for me this brings us a living god, one that is part of us and we it, rather than some obscure occult deity beyond any horizon. not sure if we can rightly define infinite intelligence/consciousness as god yet, but it is something like what we visualise ~ or at least what i do.

what i mean by the orange analogy is that; half an orange [or anything] may be considered to be a whole entity. equally a whole orange [any given whole] may be thought of as part of a tree, or indeed the tree may considered as part of the orange from which its seed came from.
perhaps that idea just confuses things, what i am saying is that we cannot rightly define anything as either a fraction or a whole. in terms of ‘epic proportions’ we cannot thence have a ‘something’ god/infinite being/whatever that is a whole and complete thing, all we have is emptiness/infinity as not a thing, and abstract entities. these abstracts are so abstract that we cannot completely describe them mathematically ~ ergo math itself is abstract from reality.

i would go so far as to say there is no such thing as finite, empiricism seams to rely on objective/subjective arguments yet there are no ‘objects’ purely distinguishable as complete entities, this is due to many factors including uncertainty, quantum dynamics and relativity. so as there are no examples of completeness in finite terms and a whole and complete entity would consume the entire ‘philosophical space’ [not allow for anything else], we are left only with a universality to which both we and god [if existent] both belong.

there is an intimacy between infinities of a set and the whole set, this due mainly to the fact that there isn’t anything to divide them. so where does god fit in? infinity is incomparative, we cannot contrast it with anything else bar it, so we have to use a different language of explanation. in short god may be an infinity without cardinality, and we infinities with cardinality i.e. of the infinite set.

the point i am making then, is that god isn’t over there somewhere beyond the horizon, a whole and complete entity in and of itself, both god and we are both part of the greater universality that is reality without edges!


...or something like that.

 

[Paladin]

Very good Z, well thought out. It sounds very much like Advaita, no?
The problem as I see it is that whenever discussion of the whole is undertaken, a certain subtle duality nearly always presents itself.
Therefore oneness can never successfully be discussed and ironically only apprehended by and within an individual.

 

[_Z_]

hi paladin, and thanks

i don’t know who adviata is.

the duality is in our representation of reality not reality itself, which is where i am going with this. we start with the idea that all things are fractions then we blend it all until there is nothing separating entities/object/meanings. in the end there is only infinity and its expressions i.e. abstract reality.

Therefore oneness can never successfully be discussed and ironically only apprehended by and within an individual.

the truth is there to be discovered, if we all contain it within the individual, then nothing can be known nor affirmed.
i think also that it is important that we don’t have a dualistic vision of g?d, and that whatever it is out there we are part of it and it us.

 

[Paladin]

I agree, and yet to use the word God itself seems to invoke separation no?

Oh, and Advaita is a Hindu word meaning non-duality, though once steeped in religious garb the idea has caught on with many who simply use it to describe "things as it is" as Suzuki used to say.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Z

I've studied this concept of fractions in my study of cosmology. It really is quite interesting. These fractions make up the structure of the universe.

Colours are the deeds of light, its deeds and sufferings. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

Colors are fractions of white light. The universe is structured so that at the highest level it exists outside of time and space as ONE. It becomes THREE to initiate creation but still exists as one at the highest level of reality. Like colors, these fractions of the whole devolve into more and more colors or vibratory frequencies.manifesting on different cosmological levels or levels of reality. Their individuality is defined by what is directly above and below.

For example a musical seven tone scale has the notes do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, si, and do. The scale can be seen as a whole and the notes as lawful fractions of the whole. Do and do are limits. Re has no independant existance but is defined as the middle between do and mi. Mi derives its existence as the middle between re and fa. Fa is defined as the middle between mi and sol. On and on it goes. Do as a limit of one octave becomes the middle between si and re of a higher octave. Existence is connected in this way we see as a sequence of middles. Nothing is static but the universe is in constant motion. The involutionary flow is away from the white light into diversity and into colors of denser vibrations for example. Evolution is the flow from diversity of fractions into higher wholes and still higher wholes becoming closer to white light.

I've found that the more I learn of these things, the more there is to understand

 

[_Z_]

paladin

I agree, and yet to use the word God itself seems to invoke separation no?

thats excactly what needs to be addressed imho. indeed ‘things as they are’ have no duality.

nick a, hi

The universe is structured so that at the highest level it exists outside of time and space as ONE.

or it exists as one including time and space. i see what is meant though, i do think that there is a level where the union can be itself aside from its abstract contents. similar to how we view ourselves as whole yet actually are not. i think this is because consciousness has an infinite base and hence may extend fro 0 to X [any level] without effort, just as we can think in nothingness or in thoughts plurally, probably because all consciousness is the same in essence. hence the universe can work in this way physically and does so [e.g. from big bang to now, where the primary nature of the big bang would be emptiness].

Do as a limit of one octave becomes the middle between si and re of a higher octave. Existence is connected in this way we see as a sequence of middles.

interesting and i entirely agree, there are no fractions nor absolute wholes, just middles.

Evolution is the flow from diversity of fractions into higher wholes and still higher wholes becoming closer to white light.

hmm i suppose it does yes, although dinosaurs and elephants are greater wholes than we in the sense of size, we are a greater whole in terms of complexity working as a whole.

yes there is always more to learn.

 

[Nick_A]

paladin



thats excactly what needs to be addressed imho. indeed ‘things as they are’ have no duality.

nick a, hi



or it exists as one including time and space. i see what is meant though, i do think that there is a level where the union can be itself aside from its abstract contents. similar to how we view ourselves as whole yet actually are not. i think this is because consciousness has an infinite base and hence may extend fro 0 to X [any level] without effort, just as we can think in nothingness or in thoughts plurally, probably because all consciousness is the same in essence. hence the universe can work in this way physically and does so [e.g. from big bang to now, where the primary nature of the big bang would be emptiness].



interesting and i entirely agree, there are no fractions nor absolute wholes, just middles.



hmm i suppose it does yes, although dinosaurs and elephants are greater wholes than we in the sense of size, we are a greater whole in terms of complexity working as a whole.

yes there is always more to learn.

Quite true. Size doesn't necessarily equate with the quality of wholeness

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.]

Simone has this way of making the difficult easier by these images of hers.

God is the infinitely small because the matter associated with the pure conscious being of God is so fine and vibrates at such a rate that for us it isn't matter so doesn't take up space as we see the universe. Yet all the fractions comprising creation including the most dense qualities of matter create the infinite size of the universe. But all these infinite fractions together do not equal the infinitely small of God.

 

[_Z_]

nick a, hi

God is the infinitely small because the matter associated with the pure conscious being of God is so fine and vibrates at such a rate that for us it isn’t matter so doesn’t take up space as we see the universe.

i have different view, that gods ‘consciousness’ is literally infinity, to which we and all things are a part of also in our hearts and inner most self. infinitesimal is only an idea and perhaps a principle, all matter is of of god as all matter are expressions of the infinite.

the main point is that; we cannot draw any kind of line between everything and god, duality is only a false perception of things, nothing more. there is no way to qualify any kind of matter as belonging to anything other than the physical universe.

 

[seattlegal]

The thing I could never really understand about 'western philosophies' is the unusual (to me) obsession with form, rather than with function. "Being greater than the sum of its parts" relates to function. (Function being greater than form, in this respect.)

Can a thing be considered to be a 'whole' if it does not function? Notice how we consider things that serve a particular function that are smaller and more streamlined as an 'improvement' on older, bulkier models.

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

This comment also emphasizes function over form, imo. The 'life' over the 'body.' JMHO.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hmmmm ..... "Oranges are not the only fruit".
That might mean something...... it might not.

But it was an excellent film.


tao

 

[Paladin]

They made a film from that book?

 

[Nick_A]

The thing I could never really understand about 'western philosophies' is the unusual (to me) obsession with form, rather than with function. "Being greater than the sum of its parts" relates to function. (Function being greater than form, in this respect.)

Can a thing be considered to be a 'whole' if it does not function? Notice how we consider things that serve a particular function that are smaller and more streamlined as an 'improvement' on older, bulkier models.

This comment also emphasizes function over form, imo. The 'life' over the 'body.' JMHO.[/quote]

I agree. Would you say that consciousness without content is infinitely small since content is what requires mass?

 

[seattlegal]

The thing I could never really understand about 'western philosophies' is the unusual (to me) obsession with form, rather than with function. "Being greater than the sum of its parts" relates to function. (Function being greater than form, in this respect.)

Can a thing be considered to be a 'whole' if it does not function? Notice how we consider things that serve a particular function that are smaller and more streamlined as an 'improvement' on older, bulkier models.

This comment also emphasizes function over form, imo. The 'life' over the 'body.' JMHO.

I agree. Would you say that consciousness without content is infinitely small since content is what requires mass?

Actually the answer to your question would be MU! (Because smallness is a relativistic concept.)

 

[Tao_Equus]

They made a film from that book?

Sorry, my apology, it turns out it was actually a dramatised mini-series made by the BBC starring Charlotte Coleman, (most famous for her starring role in "4 weddings and a funeral" where she played the punkette lassy). Seems it merged into a single film in my memory. Regardless it was an excellent drama on how crazy religious people can be.

tao

 

[Nick_A]

Actually the answer to your question would be MU! (Because smallness is a relativistic concept.)

But then gain the universe would be MU since it functions by relativity. Nothing exists in isolation but everything is connected to everything else.

Infinite smallness to me means an undefinable or experiental limit. I define God as a limit. Creation is in six dimensions while God outside of time and space that includes existence within these six dimensions. We are limited to perception in three dimensions. I can understand this theoretically but not experientially. Sometimes a relatavistic concept is all we have.

 

[_Z_]

seattlegal, hi

i completely agree about function over form, or essential nature over both ~ like ‘you’ [soul/spirit/mind] over your human for and the functions thereof. ...or maybe you mean the same thing probably ~ life over body.
in this thread i think infinity is the life, the essence and its expressed nature its body. all i am saying is that if we consider g?d to be a complete whole we cannot consider it without its body also.

tao

haha i was wondering when someone would mention that ~ or if anyone else had watched it. beats lesbian porn anyday [so much is lost in the explicity], ‘the hunger’ has some rather splendid erotica in it too. oh and there was a story too apparently lols.

nick a

Infinite smallness to me means an undefinable or experiental limit.

hmm interesting idea! kinda like what we are, where we are part of the shared universe yet also distinctly individual [which goes against everything else].

I define God as a limit

i have been defining him as limitless, perhaps i am wrong in associating him with infinity? doesn’t that make infinity the greater? or would it somehow belong to god still as perhaps his body in some respect ~ and is the universe also his body?

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Z

i have been defining him as limitless, perhaps i am wrong in associating him with infinity? doesn’t that make infinity the greater? or would it somehow belong to god still as perhaps his body in some respect ~ and is the universe also his body?

Have you ever wondered what NOW is? From our limited perception we are either approaching it or have passed it. Yet NOW is all that really exists.

I'm suggesting that infinity is within NOW and the expression of NOW is the lawful expressions of God within vertical time which is perceptible to us as a linear flow of time. NOW is not bounded by time and space so for me infinity seems within the vertical expression of NOW.

It is actually existence in vertical time that produces the interconnected fractions of the whole on all levels of reality.

 

[_Z_]

nick A

Have you ever wondered what NOW is? From our limited perception we are either approaching it or have passed it. Yet NOW is all that really exists.

yes indeed i have, reality is now but at the same time it is ‘all’, i have asked people how all-time can exist? i.e. how can ‘events’ can be qualified as anything but present in the now! the now is built on the foundations of history ~ in a sense things are only solid when they are historical and then they don’t exist any more lols.

I’m suggesting that infinity is within NOW and the expression of NOW is the lawful expressions of God within vertical time which is perceptible to us as a linear flow of time. NOW is not bounded by time and space so for me infinity seems within the vertical expression of NOW.

whilst i don’t understand what you mean by ‘verticle’ i can understand what you mean by infinity existing within the now [and hence g?d is ever-present]. most people imagine infinity to extend forever as imagined in a 3D manner, however infinity is its own dimension not comparable to anything else. in a sense then, we may visualise infinity as ‘always local’ or omni-local.

‘to each belongs an infinity’ [Z]

It is actually existence in vertical time that produces the interconnected fractions of the whole on all levels of reality.
hmm are we imagining it as like a tree growing upwards from the base, yet we experience it as linear ~ is that what you mean?

interesting stuff!