Asymmety is the 'dance' of the Causeless Symmetry

Man I like asymmetry rough geometry and fractals...yeah they all over and the Universe unfolds them everywhere...but what on hell are you talking about, and how does any of that relate to suffering ?

Amongst the myriad finite and temporary undulations that arise and dissolve within this divine celebration, there arise certain forms of such extreme physical complexity that they have the choiceless and effortless capacity to fall into a state of 'divine hypnosis'.

This makes it seem as if there is a uniquely isolated, finite and temporary consciousness functioning within each one of these extremely complex forms, which in turn gives rise to the illusion that they are all the autonomous originators of their own particular movements. As such, the fundamentally seamless perfection and harmony of the 'dance' (and the infinite, eternal completeness that is the 'Dancer') is temporarily veiled.

Hence, suffering.

Troll much ?

Nicely put.
I think the 'suffering' aspect is merely a subjective inference from the physically-attached persona, though.
The absence of which, would causaly negate the refinement of said dance.
The greater the negative - The greater the reach for the positive.

It might help you if what to many would appear your idiocentric random musings, were referenced to established publications such as 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' or 'The Tao of Physics'. Without such semantic contexts you will merely appear to be producing word salad.

How so? I explained what it has to do with suffering.

To further clarify, what feels to be all of our separate, isolated consciousnesses are infact all temporarily hypnotized parts of the one, extremely hypnotic cosmic dance.

The dance isn't a "reach for the positive". It is the celebration of causeless, boundless completeness.

It will certainly appear to be word salad. Just know that I'm not trolling. Simply ask me questions about my position (if you want to) and I will gladly attempt to answer them.

Also, really, word salad, if a bit more professionally produced. The first should really be called the Dancing Woo Li Masters, if you ask me ('Woo' as in pseudoscience). Peter Woit says: "The Tao of Physics was completed in December 1974, and the implications of the November Revolution [changes in high-energy physics following the discovery of the J/ψ meson - TYN] one month earlier that led to the dramatic confirmations of the standard-model quantum field theory clearly had not sunk in for Capra (like many others at that time). What is harder to understand is that the book has now gone through several editions, and in each of them Capra has left intact the now out-of-date physics, including new forewords and afterwords that with a straight face deny what has happened. The foreword to the second edition of 1983 claims, "It has been very gratifying for me that none of these recent developments has invalidated anything I wrote seven years ago. In fact, most of them were anticipated in the original edition," a statement far from any relation to the reality that in 1983 the standard model was nearly universally accepted in the physics community, and the bootstrap theory was a dead idea ... Even now, Capra's book, with its nutty denials of what has happened in particle theory, can be found selling well at every major bookstore. It has been joined by some other books on the same topic, most notably Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu-Li Masters. The bootstrap philosophy, despite its complete failure as a physical theory, lives on as part of an embarrassing New Age cult, with its followers refusing to acknowledge what has happened."

The 'scientific' status of those publications is not the issue here...merely their role in describing esoteric (New Age if you like) positions in which the OP seems to seek to wander. I suggest that only hard line scientific realists would be 'embarrassed' by such speculations which in spirit, at least, reflect some of Niels Bohr's own concerns with the counter-intuitive ('nutty' ?) nature of quantum physics (ref: Bohr's adoption of the Taoist Yin-Yang symbol as his coat of arms on the occasion of his knighthood).

Your buddhist leanings implied by your use of the word 'suffering' must surely lead to an 'ineffability' position! That means that no 'question' put to you will result in a 'coherent' answer. You have produced the equivalent of a Koan which can only ever 'point to' what you consider to be 'the case'.

I never stated that it was - I said that negation was causaly (Subjectively) conjoined to the positive.
Don't poeticise concepts if you desire critiques that suit your worldview. Is Inapt.
Want a conversation?
Stop complicating your propositions.

Relinquish wrote: "The overall causal flow of the universal unfolding is invariably that of a dynamic harmony of fractal asymmetry. This is because the unfolding is actually the necessarily coherent, choiceless 'dance' being done by the Causeless Symmetry in celebration of It's own infinite, eternal completeness."

There is no "unfolding" -- if the Causeless Symmetry had to unfold, it wouldn't be eternal and complete, but rather, subject to revision and in the process of becoming.

The Causeless Symmetry is beyond celebration. It neither celebrates nor not-celebrates. It cannot dance, because "dance" implies the existence of parts undergoing change in relation to both one another and their environment. The Causeless Symmetry has no parts and no environment, being infinite, eternal, and complete.

Relinquish wrote: "...the absolute harmony of it all is impossible to see."

The Causeless Symmetry is beyond harmony and disharmony.

You cannot comprehend the Causeless Symmetry. Nothing can be said about the Causeless Symmetry.

Does the Causeless Symmetry possess the perfect Fantasy Football League team? Mu.

Does the Causeless Symmetry have a preference between Kwanza and Festivus? Mu.

Are frivolous questions about the Causeless Symmetry a form of mockery or a deep teaching-tool designed to bring wisdom to the fool and to humble the wise? If you answer this question, will I reply "So saith the fool!" regardless of how you answer?

Here's my basic line of reasoning.

What we call 'change' can have no real beginning or ending. If it did have a real beginning, then that beginning would have also been the ending of a beginningless 'state' of changelessness, which is simply impossible. So because what we call 'change' must be beginningless, it must also be endless. This means that Reality itself never transforms from an absolute 'first' state to an absolute 'last' state, and therefore there is no actual 'change' in Reality. Reality itself is changeless. What we call 'change' is infact the eternal unfolding (or 'dancing') of changelessness (or Causeless Symmetry).

'Change' is only apparent from where what we call 'memory' is operating, and 'memory' is just another part of the dynamic harmony of fractal asymmetry.

Nice attempt at a 'God's Eye View' !
Does the argument still hold if you admit that words like 'change', 'reality' and 'symmetry' are merely human constructs whose meanings, like all words, are context specific ?
(philosophical reference - the non-representationalist view of language)

Of course it still holds. Pretty much anyone who would be on a forum like this one would know what I mean by those words in the context I'm using them in. I can give more specific definitions for my words, but I can only use other words (which suffer the same problem) to do it.

When all is said and done, what I'm saying needs to be intuitively 'felt', rather than understood by correctly interpreting words on a page.

When is a short stick not a short stick?

Answer: When it is a long stick (relative to a still shorter stick).

Motion is not a product of memory; motion is perceived in the now. Motion is not rest. Motion is not a series of still pictures. Motion is a distinct quality which is, in the now, different from non-motion.

The attempt to reconcile irreconcilables is merely contradiction. The attempt to conceal contradiction with vagueness is merely obscurantism.

Much of what I wrote in my previous response was mockery.