The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

Taking a break from the soapbox, eh layman ?
Sorry...we don't serve coffee here...them there turtles have gone and drunk it all.

If there was never any Reality, the inherently remaining absence would itself be irreducibly present, and as such, would be the Reality. The same is true before and after a temporary Reality.

Reality itself is therefore eternally irreducible, and so 'causeless', without a real beginning or ending.

In the same way, the absence that would inherently lie boundlessly beyond the edge of a spatially finite Reality would itself be irreducibly present, and as such, this boundless absence would be irreducibly included by the Reality.

Reality itself therefore has no real spatial edge.

A causeless, boundless presence does not qualify as a 'thing', or as any (necessarily finite) number of 'things'.

Word salad . . . babble speak . . . none of based even on bad logic.

Oh come on! It's AT LEAST bad logic!

I, for the record, feel that my logic is utterly bulletproof, thank you very much.

For what it's worth, I think it was a good idea to change your avatar.

Well....I agree, but why do you think so?

"The only thing constant is change." (Heraclitus)

"All is Being. Becoming is simply an illusion" (Parmenides)

You can take your pick.

Or, you can claim that, somehow, both are right.

Needless to say, you can also conclude that both are wrong.

“Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.” (H. L. Mencken)

While I can see where BOTH are coming from and why, I would say that fundamentally, Reality is neither changing nor changeless.

In truth, this is not actually the paradox that it appears to be to the mind.

Well, I guess that puts you in the "both are wrong" camp, eh?

What you attempt to say here is equivalent to the functioning of a Zen koan. It is unfortunate that you use words like "truth" and "reality" which have absolutist/religious connotations. Remember the "pointing" analogy. If you lose sight of that, you will continue to merely produce linguistic crumbs to feed the birds.

Its a pity that Mencken died before the rise of postmodernism and linguistic non-representationalism. It is interesting to speculate what he would have made of iconoclasts such as Rorty.

"Babble speak" and "word salad" are accurate descriptions if Religuish's purpose is to communicate with the likes of Setanta. If that were his purpose Relinquish has clearly suffered a failure to communicate. But if his purpose is to express his intuitions it is merely incidental whether or not most people are able to decode his language effectively. As a nonrepresentational abstract painter I have resigned myself to the reality that some people will respond aesthetically to some of my works sometimes but not always. It depends largely on their frames of mind. What I am saying is that most people will not respond to Relinquish's phraseology; it is clearly--perhaps I should say unclearly--esoteric. But it is more likely to "communicate" to others with the appropriate background in mystical principles.

Don't target me by drawing on your own preferred babble. The OP states that he is outlining his own "theory of everything," and he then goes on to make statements about the nature of reality, and continues by making more claims about the nature of reality which are only supported by his ispe dixit statements. As i have pointed out more than once, he doesn't even support those statements with bad logic.

I'm sure he communicates well with the likes of J L Nobody, whose world view seems to be that if one can imagine it, it must be true. That's the only "background in mystical principles" at work here. You, like the author, simply assume a circumstance ("mystical principles") without bothering to provide any substantiation, not even bad logic. You remind me of Whackeye here, who states he doesn't need evidence for anything he says, because, as he puts it, "I am zen," and therefore he just knows it. Sounds a lot like you, you snotty, fuddle-headed bullshit merchant.

Yeah, you can see greasy types in shabby clothing standing on the street shouting out their "intuitions" in any large city every day of the week.

The following is an edit of a post I made on page 2 that I didn't realize until now I had left an important word out of.

@carloslebaron,

What I mean here is that there isn't an ACTUAL distinction between these 'two', whether they be opposite OR complimentary, because one will truely NEVER be found in the absence of the other. Like 'up' will never be found where 'down' is not present, and vice versa. Because it isn't ONLY true that the 'the tree' needs 'the right conditions/not the tree' to be present. The reverse is also true. That is to say, 'the right conditions' can not be present WITHOUT 'the tree' coming into being as a result. If 'the tree' ISN'T there, 'the conditions' CAN NOT POSSIBLY be 'right', and we could *NOT* call the remaining state 'not the tree'. If 'the conditions' ARE 'right' (i.e. if 'not the tree' is present) there is no way to stop 'the tree' being there.

This being the case, whatever is either side of this distinction (that isn't really there) can't really be there either.

Well, at least that post made concrete to me, and, if I have to hazard a guess, probably to Setanta also.

Edit: I meant to say "concrete sense."

One way to look at Plato (and others), for me at least, is to recognize that for such thinkers, the more "abstract" the proposition, the more likely it was to be "true" (or even capable of being assessed as true or false).

Although empirically perceived objects were mere "shadows of shadows" (a form of abstracton) for him, and therefore illusory and false; if enough of the concrete, physical qualities were abstracted out, the essence of the perception might become "true."

For Plato, it seems, the more abstract, the more better. That's one reason I don't really get Plato.

You don't "get" Plato because of his grammar?

I really have no idea what you're asking or even talking about, unless maybe you are trying to make an issue out of my playful use of the "more better" phrase.