|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 9, 2021 4:17:11 GMT
A bird changing into dirt observes the absence of the form of the bird. The bird becomes relatively formless in its own right and this formless allows it to change into another phenomenon. The change of one form into another is the absence of the prior form and this occurs through formlessness.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 9, 2021 12:21:31 GMT
Through deformation. Why the bird must be the one who does it? The whole universe changes, i.e. is being deformated permanently iff it has an observer who can signal about one phenomenon changes to another. With no registration of the fact of deformation there's nothing to claim positively: the universe can change itself as non-changing process, as not a process at all.
Doesn't "the processing" belong to humans only? How to claim about any processes with no man to register it?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 9, 2021 19:04:52 GMT
Through deformation. Why the bird must be the one who does it? The whole universe changes, i.e. is being deformated permanently iff it has an observer who can signal about one phenomenon changes to another. With no registration of the fact of deformation there's nothing to claim positively: the universe can change itself as non-changing process, as not a process at all. Doesn't "the processing" belong to humans only? How to claim about any processes with no man to register it? The bird is an example. Yes the whole universe changes unless taken as a totality of all moments, past, present and future in which the universe is a singular unchanging whole. Change is the observation of parts of the whole. These parts as form Invert to other parts through a gap which seperates them. This gap, as the absence of form, is formlessness. Formlessness is the change of one form into another as the absence of the previous form. This formlessness is universal as it exists through man but is not limited to man. This formlessness is the inherent gap which is the assumptive capacity of man. All that which is assumed does so by imprinting a form on the formlessness thus resulting in further forms. This formlessness can be evidenced in man when observing a thought process, in observing a thought one can observe nothing is behind it. In observing observation one can observe nothing behind it. Observation is rooted in formlessness, this formlessness is beyond man.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 9, 2021 19:40:15 GMT
Through deformation. Why the bird must be the one who does it? The whole universe changes, i.e. is being deformated permanently iff it has an observer who can signal about one phenomenon changes to another. With no registration of the fact of deformation there's nothing to claim positively: the universe can change itself as non-changing process, as not a process at all. Doesn't "the processing" belong to humans only? How to claim about any processes with no man to register it? The bird is an example. Yes the whole universe changes unless taken as a totality of all moments, past, present and future in which the universe is a singular unchanging whole. Change is the observation of parts of the whole. These parts as form Invert to other parts through a gap which seperates them. This gap, as the absence of form, is formlessness. Formlessness is the change of one form into another as the absence of the previous form. This formlessness is universal as it exists through man but is not limited to man. This formlessness is the inherent gap which is the assumptive capacity of man. All that which is assumed does so by imprinting a form on the formlessness thus resulting in further forms. This formlessness can be evidenced in man when observing a thought process, in observing a thought one can observe nothing is behind it. In observing observation one can observe nothing behind it. Observation is rooted in formlessness, this formlessness is beyond man. So, in time it doesn't change - of course taking the time as something monumental or a whole one? Do I understand it correctly: during the time I am (or anyone else?? I don't know that "one", but the one who's able to do it, I guess) observing the parts of the something and at the same time conceiving that what I am observing is something to be the whole one - then I start understanding that this whole one has some gaps** and because of this - the absence of something between the parts - I conclude that this whole one must be formlessness?? ** - when I'm moving from a part to a part I see just one part at a time, not all the parts. And that's why such a process forces me to make such a conclusion about the gaps, right? And - that I also find to be the important from your note - with no such formlessness no observation would be possible. - Yes, that I do agree. Despite such a speculation is metaphysical however the conclusion of it is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 10, 2021 0:44:17 GMT
The bird is an example. Yes the whole universe changes unless taken as a totality of all moments, past, present and future in which the universe is a singular unchanging whole. Change is the observation of parts of the whole. These parts as form Invert to other parts through a gap which seperates them. This gap, as the absence of form, is formlessness. Formlessness is the change of one form into another as the absence of the previous form. This formlessness is universal as it exists through man but is not limited to man. This formlessness is the inherent gap which is the assumptive capacity of man. All that which is assumed does so by imprinting a form on the formlessness thus resulting in further forms. This formlessness can be evidenced in man when observing a thought process, in observing a thought one can observe nothing is behind it. In observing observation one can observe nothing behind it. Observation is rooted in formlessness, this formlessness is beyond man. So, in time it doesn't change - of course taking the time as something monumental or a whole one? Do I understand it correctly: during the time I am (or anyone else?? I don't know that "one", but the one who's able to do it, I guess) observing the parts of the something and at the same time conceiving that what I am observing is something to be the whole one - then I start understanding that this whole one has some gaps** and because of this - the absence of something between the parts - I conclude that this whole one must be formlessness?? ** - when I'm moving from a part to a part I see just one part at a time, not all the parts. And that's why such a process forces me to make such a conclusion about the gaps, right? And - that I also find to be the important from your note - with no such formlessness no observation would be possible. - Yes, that I do agree. Despite such a speculation is metaphysical however the conclusion of it is necessary. The totality of all being, above past, present and future necessitates only one unchanging moment. Time is the approximation of one moment through many where the many is the one seemingly seperated into parts. These parts occur through gaps, these gaps are void. The gap between one form and another results in change, change is multiplicity, multiplicity is a veil to the one.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 10, 2021 5:28:07 GMT
So, in time it doesn't change - of course taking the time as something monumental or a whole one? Do I understand it correctly: during the time I am (or anyone else?? I don't know that "one", but the one who's able to do it, I guess) observing the parts of the something and at the same time conceiving that what I am observing is something to be the whole one - then I start understanding that this whole one has some gaps** and because of this - the absence of something between the parts - I conclude that this whole one must be formlessness?? ** - when I'm moving from a part to a part I see just one part at a time, not all the parts. And that's why such a process forces me to make such a conclusion about the gaps, right? And - that I also find to be the important from your note - with no such formlessness no observation would be possible. - Yes, that I do agree. Despite such a speculation is metaphysical however the conclusion of it is necessary. The totality of all being, above past, present and future necessitates only one unchanging moment. Time is the approximation of one moment through many where the many is the one seemingly seperated into parts. These parts occur through gaps, these gaps are void. The gap between one form and another results in change, change is multiplicity, multiplicity is a veil to the one. I guess I understand the point. Why time and space differs in its characters of gaps, or how their gaps work? Approximation of one moment seems to dissipate into myriads of parts with never uniting the one moment – there's no moment, but always only joining parts, right? However rocks or diamonds have strong concentration of formlessness or something that has some barrier (or is able to resist) to time – the force with no real uniting, right? The force in a rock is stronger, than the time's, because unlike the time the rock is joining many moments together (=centuries or years).
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 11, 2021 3:46:54 GMT
The totality of all being, above past, present and future necessitates only one unchanging moment. Time is the approximation of one moment through many where the many is the one seemingly seperated into parts. These parts occur through gaps, these gaps are void. The gap between one form and another results in change, change is multiplicity, multiplicity is a veil to the one. I guess I understand the point. Why time and space differs in its characters of gaps, or how their gaps work? Approximation of one moment seems to dissipate into myriads of parts with never uniting the one moment – there's no moment, but always only joining parts, right? However rocks or diamonds have strong concentration of formlessness or something that has some barrier (or is able to resist) to time – the force with no real uniting, right? The force in a rock is stronger, than the time's, because unlike the time the rock is joining many moments together (=centuries or years). The one unchanging moment is approximated through many moments with each moment as a fractal of the whole.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 11, 2021 9:52:37 GMT
I guess I understand the point. Why time and space differs in its characters of gaps, or how their gaps work? Approximation of one moment seems to dissipate into myriads of parts with never uniting the one moment – there's no moment, but always only joining parts, right? However rocks or diamonds have strong concentration of formlessness or something that has some barrier (or is able to resist) to time – the force with no real uniting, right? The force in a rock is stronger, than the time's, because unlike the time the rock is joining many moments together (=centuries or years). The one unchanging moment is approximated through many moments with each moment as a fractal of the whole. Why fractals?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 11, 2021 21:25:31 GMT
The one unchanging moment is approximated through many moments with each moment as a fractal of the whole. Why fractals? Each moment is a part of the whole. Each part is a variation.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 11, 2021 22:42:48 GMT
Each moment is a part of the whole. Each part is a variation. Oh, I see. You're right! One construction repeats another one. What would you say about "a dream in a dream (in a dream, in a dream...)..."? Do you think we can consider it as a fractal too? Or it concerns just geometry-type deities?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 11, 2021 23:42:25 GMT
Each moment is a part of the whole. Each part is a variation. Oh, I see. You're right! One construction repeats another one. What would you say about "a dream in a dream (in a dream, in a dream...)..."? Do you think we can consider it as a fractal too? Or it concerns just geometry-type deities? All fractals are variations of a prior phenomenon as repeated through a new form. Considering all phenomena are composed of forms this variation of forms ranges far beyond geometry yet geometry is the root of said phenomena given it is the study of forms.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 12, 2021 0:54:00 GMT
Oh, I see. You're right! One construction repeats another one. What would you say about "a dream in a dream (in a dream, in a dream...)..."? Do you think we can consider it as a fractal too? Or it concerns just geometry-type deities? All fractals are variations of a prior phenomenon as repeated through a new form. Considering all phenomena are composed of forms this variation of forms ranges far beyond geometry yet geometry is the root of said phenomena given it is the study of forms. If geometry is the key, why go around?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 12, 2021 1:31:46 GMT
All fractals are variations of a prior phenomenon as repeated through a new form. Considering all phenomena are composed of forms this variation of forms ranges far beyond geometry yet geometry is the root of said phenomena given it is the study of forms. If geometry is the key, why go around? True, all is reducible to geometry.
|
|