Thread: Synchromysticism

Two people are discussing an event that had just taken place. There is duality, because:

Within the infinite Reality, there are people dividing eternity into pairs (e.g. past/future, referring to present) in order to discuss something specific. This is dualistic. Encompassing the context of the discussion is the absolute, non-dualistic Reality. Within only the context of the discussion however, there is duality. That is because discussion is also dualistic itself; has divisions (me and you/them). The discussed is also dualistic, because it is separated from everything else in subject.

Below is not a list of opposites, but a list of relationships: Relating to the absolute non-dualistic context, you might end up with this:

(Where ">" indicates "greater than", "prior to", "beyond" etc.)

Context>Content
Infinite>Finite
Absolute>Relative
Essence>Appearance/Seeming
Heart (Mind)>mind
Love>Ignorance
Non-local>Local
Witnessed>Experienced
Reality>Hypothetical/Illusion/reality
Understanding>Mis-understanding
Being>Thinking
Stillness>Movement
Non-verbal (or no words)>Verbal
Ineffable>Describable
Silence>Noise
Peace>Suffering
Nonlinear>Linear
Timeless>Time
Everlasting>Temporal
Oneness>Separation
Non-dualistic>Dualistic
Power>Force
Potential>Actual
Unfoldement>Cause
Knowledge>Information
Self>self

You might see that, referring to these contexts, their seeming dualities disappear.

Originally Posted by really

Two people are discussing an event that had just taken place. There is duality, because:

Within the infinite Reality, there are people dividing eternity into pairs (e.g. past/future, referring to present) in order to discuss something specific. This is dualistic. Encompassing the context of the discussion is the absolute, non-dualistic Reality. Within only the context of the discussion however, there is duality. That is because discussion is also dualistic itself; has divisions (me and you/them). The discussed is also dualistic, because it is separated from everything else in subject.

Below is not a list of opposites, but a list of relationships: Relating to the absolute non-dualistic context, you might end up with this:

(Where ">" indicates "greater than", "prior to", "beyond" etc.)

Context>Content
Infinite>Finite
Absolute>Relative
Essence>Appearance/Seeming
Heart (Mind)>mind
Love>Ignorance
Non-local>Local
Witnessed>Experienced
Reality>Hypothetical/Illusion/reality
Understanding>Mis-understanding
Being>Thinking
Stillness>Movement
Non-verbal (or no words)>Verbal
Ineffable>Describable
Silence>Noise
Peace>Suffering
Nonlinear>Linear
Timeless>Time
Everlasting>Temporal
Oneness>Separation
Non-dualistic>Dualistic
Power>Force
Potential>Actual
Unfoldement>Cause
Knowledge>Information
Self>self

You might see that, referring to these contexts, their seeming dualities disappear.

Hahaha love and ignorace opposites? Sigh...

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

01010100011010000110010100100000011100110111010101 10001001101010011001010110001101110100001000000110 10010111001100100000011101000110100001100101001000 00011011110110001001101010011001010110001101110100 00100000011011110110011000100000011010010111010000 10011101110011001000000110111101110111011011100010 00000111001101110101011000100110101001100101011000 11011101000110100101101111011011100010111000100000 01010100011010000110010100100000011011110110001001 10101001100101011000110111010000100000011010010111 00110010000001110100011010000110010100100000011100 11011101010110001001101010011001010110001101110100 00100000011011110110011000100000011010010111010000 10011101110011001000000110111101110111011011100010 00000110111101100010011010100110010101100011011101 00011010010110111101101110001011100000110100001010 00001101000010100101011101101000011000010111010000 10000001111001011011110111010100100000011000010111 00100110010100100000011011000110111101101111011010 11011010010110111001100111001000000110011001101111 01110010001000000110100101110011001000000111011101 10100001100001011101000010000001101001011100110010 00000110110001101111011011110110101101101001011011 100110011100101110

01001100011010010110101101100101001000000110000100 10000001100010011000010110010000100000011000110110 00010111001101100101001000000110111101100110001000 00011100110111010001100001011011000110101101100101 0111001001110011001000000011101000101001

Originally Posted by really

Two people are discussing an event that had just taken place. There is duality, because:

Within the infinite Reality, there are people dividing eternity into pairs (e.g. past/future, referring to present) in order to discuss something specific. This is dualistic. Encompassing the context of the discussion is the absolute, non-dualistic Reality. Within only the context of the discussion however, there is duality. That is because discussion is also dualistic itself; has divisions (me and you/them). The discussed is also dualistic, because it is separated from everything else in subject.

Below is not a list of opposites, but a list of relationships: Relating to the absolute non-dualistic context, you might end up with this:

(Where ">" indicates "greater than", "prior to", "beyond" etc.)

Context>Content
Infinite>Finite
Absolute>Relative
Essence>Appearance/Seeming
Heart (Mind)>mind
Love>Ignorance
Non-local>Local
Witnessed>Experienced
Reality>Hypothetical/Illusion/reality
Understanding>Mis-understanding
Being>Thinking
Stillness>Movement
Non-verbal (or no words)>Verbal
Ineffable>Describable
Silence>Noise
Peace>Suffering
Nonlinear>Linear
Timeless>Time
Everlasting>Temporal
Oneness>Separation
Non-dualistic>Dualistic
Power>Force
Potential>Actual
Unfoldement>Cause
Knowledge>Information
Self>self

You might see that, referring to these contexts, their seeming dualities disappear.

This entire post is nonsense. I don't mean nonsense like I don't agree with something. I mean nonsense like I can't fucking make heads or tails of all this jibberish.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

This entire post is nonsense. I don't mean nonsense like I don't agree with something. I mean nonsense like I can't fucking make heads or tails of all this jibberish.

That's because you're thinking in heads and tails and not seeing the coin!

Originally Posted by Mark75

That's because you're thinking in heads and tails and not seeing the coin!

No, it's because the poster made no effort to translate their raw, unfiltered thoughts into a form that can be read by someone else.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Hahaha love and ignorace opposites? Sigh...

I did mention that they were not opposites, but certain contexts - absolutes and their content.

Without Love, for example, nothing would exist. If you are unconscious to this, it does not mean existence is not existing, but rather there is ignorance of what Is. At the same time, it is in the context of Love, so essentially it is not ignorance. Very hard to explain.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

This entire post is nonsense. I don't mean nonsense like I don't agree with something. I mean nonsense like I can't fucking make heads or tails of all this jibberish.

I underlined the top part of the list for the main example. Context is prior to content, yes?

Following on, Absolute must exist prior to relativity. Stillness must exist prior to movement (how can you see movement?); Locality is essentially in the middle of nowhere (omnipresence) without drawing imaginary relationships, etc.

Originally Posted by Mark75

That's because you're thinking in heads and tails and not seeing the coin!

That's an interesting comment.

Originally Posted by really

Following on, Absolute must exist prior to relativity. Stillness must exist prior to movement (how can you see movement?); Locality is essentially in the middle of nowhere (omnipresence) without drawing imaginary relationships, etc.

Gibberish. I won't respect you or take this crap seriously until you make some visible effort to make it readable.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Gibberish. I won't respect you or take this crap seriously until you make some visible effort to make it readable.

So you can't ask a specific question? No specific answer...

Originally Posted by really

So you can't ask a specific question? No specific answer...

Specifically, take that crap you posted and translate it to something someone else can read and comprehend. But of course you can't do that, because you would realize that you said nothing at all.

Here's what he said "context>content".

I think he was also saying that dualities apply to content, however not to context (which is what I was saying earlier with dualities are not objective).

To Really: Are dualities just pairs of related items which are not neccisarily opposites? Are they only opposites at times because it often creates a balance? I only began really looking at duality in the past 3 months so I don't have too deep an understanding.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Here's what he said "context>content".

I think he was also saying that dualities apply to content, however not to context (which is what I was saying earlier with dualities are not objective).
.

"context>content" makes no sense. What the fuck is a greater-than sign doing in a discussion not involving, uh, numbers? This may be below or above what you think your level of understanding is, but I honestly would just like someone to speak in plain English and common sense instead of what I've seen thus far, which I would call "word vomit". Please, make some sense.

Do you understand what I'm asking? Here's an analogy: Suppose I was trying to explain how a field effect transistor works to a bunch of laymen. Would the following help them understand anything at all?:

"transistor>calculations
magnetic field>electric field
large>small
electron>hole
silicon>phosphorus"

Do you now understand what I mean?

Context is greater than (means it has more meaning) content. Like expression has more meaning than that which is used to express it.

Like if I play you a sad song, the sadness(context) of the song is more important(greater than) the notes and rythms(content) which make up the song.

And, yes drew I have understood for a while now that you have no intention of understanding what I'm saying. I just like explaining it to you because it helps me to understand it better.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Context is greater than (means it has more meaning) content. Like expression has more meaning than that which is used to express it.

Like if I play you a sad song, the sadness(context) of the song is more important(greater than) the notes and rythms(content) which make up the song.

First you say meaning, then you say importance. Be specific.

Originally Posted by stonedape

And, yes drew I have understood for a while now that you have no intention of understanding what I'm saying. I just like explaining it to you because it helps me to understand it better.

Intention has nothing to do with it. If something is well-written, I should have no choice but to understand it once I've read it.

emotions are more meaningful than notes, which are m

If you go into a discussion with the mindset that the other person is wrong(which you do in every religious discussion I 've seen you have on this website) you are going to be less likely to understand what they are trying to say. Whenever I make a point you either change the line of questioning or say that it makes no sense, along with the occasional spaghetti monster reference. Can you honestly say your trying to understand what I'm saying? I'm sorry if you are, I just find some of this to be quite obvious. Things like emotions and patterns.

Context(emotion of sadness) has meaning, thus it is more important than content(the notes) wich by themselves(whithout you attaching some kind of meaning based on your personal experiences) have no meaning(other than maybe numeric).

The context of any situation is created by you placing it's content in comparison with your past experiences. Becasuse we are all human, we all have at least some common experiences. Things like love, hate, pleasure, suffering. These things are common to us all.

Ok. You've now explained the meaning of the arcane notation "context>content". Now please explain the rest of them, namely:

Infinite>Finite
Absolute>Relative
Essence>Appearance/Seeming
Heart (Mind)>mind
Love>Ignorance
Non-local>Local
Witnessed>Experienced
Reality>Hypothetical/Illusion/reality
Understanding>Mis-understanding
Being>Thinking
Stillness>Movement
Non-verbal (or no words)>Verbal
Ineffable>Describable
Silence>Noise
Peace>Suffering
Nonlinear>Linear
Timeless>Time
Everlasting>Temporal
Oneness>Separation
Non-dualistic>Dualistic
Power>Force
Potential>Actual
Unfoldement>Cause
Knowledge>Information
Self>self

I could, but I really don't feel like. It would take a long time and besides, it would be much more beneficial for you to take some time and hink about the concepts in the post and how the relate to one another(I know, you can't do this because it would show how duality is useful, thus proving you wrong).

Life can often be viewed as circles which fit within other circles. Thats what I think the greater than thing is about. All the things on the right side of the equation can only exist within(or are dependent on) the things on the left side.

None of the things on that list are dualistic or opposites.
Something, and the lack thereof; are not opposites.
That's like saying 0 and 5 are opposites.
I personally think no one can claim to know the truth about anything, that includes people who claim that everthing is dualistic.
(Don't get me wrong I also dislike people who think they find "absolute truth" by using science)

Are you sure your not just being to lazy to learn the truth about your Self? I useually am so I probably shouldn't be criticizing but....

I wouldn't say that no truth can be known, but maybe that objective truth cannot be known(or at least not expressed with words, I think it is possible to experience This though I'm not sure). But It is possible to gain subjective understanding or understanding of the Self(or Oneness or the I(Eye) in I or God whatever you wanna call it because most people how talk of God seem to know little of it).

Also something and nothing may or may not be opposites, but they are a duality. Which is what makes me think this question which will certainly be burried before seen so I'm gonna post it again here. To Really: Are dualities just pairs of related items which are not neccisarily opposites? Are they only opposites at times because it often creates a balance?

In some context, 0 and 5 are a duality as 0 represents nothing 5 represents something. When Examining a duality in order to make sense of it you must look at meaning(context) rather than symbols(content).

Why should I think about a list of random words spouted by someone on the internet? You have to convince me first that it isn't nonsense.

What happened to the fancy artwork in this thread? I want more vids and colorful yet meaningless drawings!

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Why should I think about a list of random words spouted by someone on the internet? You have to convince me first that it isn't nonsense.

You are the one who asked for the meaning or why for an explanation on how the list isn't nonsense. I already said the list is just examples of dualities.

The main point was that context>content. This principle is a duality. This principle is useful in making sense of things in that it divides something that expresses meaning(any experience) into two parts(duality of context and content). I showed you how this priciple can give one insight in a specific study(music). This was the question you asked was it not?

Until you accept that the idea context>content is true and shows how dualities can be useful, you aren't going to be able to make sense of the rest of that post as that is what the rest of the post is in part trying to show(though I think only some of the examples show how context>content).

But I guess everything is nonsense until you experience it.

I asked for a concrete example of dualistic treatment giving new information. Your music example wasn't anything new.

Let me give you an example in math. Just recently in my real analysis class we proved a theorem called the "Contraction Mapping Principle", which is a very general statement relating to metric spaces. And most importantly, the proof of this theorem requires only a basic knowledge of analysis. However, this theorem can be applied to give a criterion for when a differential equation has an explicit solution, which would otherwise be difficult or impossible.

This is an example of a very general idea giving new information about a seemingly unrelated field of study. Note that to prove the theorem requires no requisite knowledge of differential equation theory, yet the theorem gives mathematicians an extremely powerful tool to use when solving differential equations.

Now you're claiming that viewing the world in a dualistic frame can give new information, or in other words, new insights that don't require having that knowledge in the first place. In light of my example, could you perhaps give a similar example of how the philosophy of dualism gives new information?

Alright, if that examples not good enough I'll give you a more specific one when I get out of class at 9, but I don't have time right now.

As far as new info , no, I never said it was useful at gathering new information, I said it was useful in understanding current information know. At making sense of things. This is why I recomend it to you so strongly, you seem to be having quite a difficult time making sense of this. It is a way of organizing one's thoughts to better understand the underlying meaning expressed(or the experience of life).

I am of the thought that science is used to gather information and philosophy is used to make sense(understand?) of that info.

By the way information can only be gained through experience, and not in any way through thinking. "New information" gained through thought would have to have already been obtained, only not understood. It would not be any new pattern, but rather the combination or organization of previous patterns.