|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 10, 2021 22:52:25 GMT
1. A belief is an assumption without knowing full facts.
2. Considering the fullness of being cannot be known within the constraints of time then beliefs are a part of the temporal nature of reality with this time being a fragmentation of the whole.
3. Illusion is observing a part of a whole as an illusion is built upon truths which disconnect yet exist none the same.
4. Time is a disconnect of the whole therefore time is an illusion.
5. Considering time is an illusion and illusions exist then time exists therefore beliefs exist as well.
6. Beliefs exists as grades of the eternal whole as part of this whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 19, 2021 15:30:27 GMT
Hmm... Beliefs seem to correspond or repeat the whole.
Here's another important thing: There's no need for assuming any whole as unreachable as soon as you've already introduced the illusion. Just look: you could grab the whole without notifying it. The illusion could make you believe that you had missed the whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 23, 2021 22:57:59 GMT
Hmm... Beliefs seem to correspond or repeat the whole. Here's another important thing: There's no need for assuming any whole as unreachable as soon as you've already introduced the illusion. Just  you could grab the whole without notifying it. The illusion could make you believe that you had missed the whole. Beliefs are seeing the whole in its fractal state as a belief is a localization of some group of phenomenon out of the whole. To belief "x" will happen is to seperate "x" from "y","z", etc. thus relegating it to a seperate phenomenon which is observed on its own terms (ie nothing else besides it). This necessitates the belief as illusionary by nature with illusion being a part thus an absence of the whole. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 27, 2021 4:52:20 GMT
Why should I accept some "fractal" nature of belief? Why no to compare it with an irregular sinusoid? No, I see nothing stable in this. However, the idea of separating "x" from y, z, etc is really good. And at the same time it is not necessary once you think about it: if being a child I accept something, does it mean I methodically separate "x" from y, z?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 30, 2021 20:36:36 GMT
Why should I accept some "fractal" nature of belief? Why no to compare it with an irregular sinusoid? No, I see nothing stable in this. However, the idea of separating "x" from y, z, etc is really good. And at the same time it is not necessary once you think about it: if being a child I accept something, does it mean I methodically separate "x" from y, z? 1. To believe in one thing is to view it as part of the whole, but not the whole. The act of belief is to observe some phenomenon as a fraction of the whole. 2. The revolution of atoms mirror the revolution of the stars. One act of revolution is a fraction of another. The cycles of nature reflect the cycles of the machine as both share the same nature of having cycles. One cycle is smaller and the other is larger. One cycle is a fraction of another. The input/output function is a fractal of the act of sex, ie something goes in and in turn something "pops out". The branching function, as in the shape of a "Y", exists in fractals throughout nature such as lighting, rivers, capillaries, veins, tree branches, etc. 3. To accept a thing as a thing is to localize it. To localize it is to separate it from the surrounding context from which it is derived. The thing thus exists in contrast to it surrounding context given it emerges from this context with the context in turn becoming ambiguous relative to the thing which is being focused upon. |
|
you could grab the whole without notifying it. The illusion could make you believe that you had missed the whole.