Motion: The ground state of all that is pecieved.

[NonDualistic]

In the absolute of non duality there is no-thing, nothing. For there to be "something" to appear, it would seem after given contempaltion that there must be movement. If so movement itself would be the basis of all that is duality. Is it reasonable to see motion as the basis for everything percieved ? Lets see where this goes.

[thegnome54]

In the absolute of non duality there is no-thing, nothing. For there to be "something" to appear, it would seem after given contempaltion that there must be movement. If so movement itself would be the basis of all that is duality. Is it reasonable to see motion as the basis for everything percieved ? Lets see where this goes. What exactly is non duality?

[NonDualistic]

What exactly is non duality? No opposites. No here to be opposite of there, no me to be opposite of you, no light to be opposite of dark, no high to be opposite of low, etc etc. No opposite, no dichotomies, no duality.

[thegnome54]

No opposites. No here to be opposite of there, no me to be opposite of you, no light to be opposite of dark, no high to be opposite of low, etc etc. No opposite, no dichotomies, no duality. Opposites are a human construct, I can see that. But I don't see how this means that "there is nothing".

[Swank]

Im gathering you mean 'assuming there is an absolute' and Im not sure as to your meaning of non-duality, or your argument for that matter. non-duality Im sure, still means theres something there - energy, whatever it may be. Therefore I dont think theres a premise for the existence of that. Correct me if Im wrong.

[NonDualistic]

Nothing or something? Herein is our first point. For there to be perception, whether it is mental, physical, spiritual, or any other sort of perception, there must be "some-thing" to percieve. Correct?

[thegnome54]

Nothing or something? Herein is our first point. For there to be perception, whether it is mental, physical, spiritual, or any other sort of perception, there must be "some-thing" to percieve. Correct? There must be an entity to do the perceiving, but an actual object to be perceived is unnecessary.

[NonDualistic]

There must be an entity to do the perceiving, but an actual object to be perceived is unnecessary. Quite right, but, that enity has to "appear" to be able to percieve and thus by appearing would have itself to percieve, otherwise there is nothing to percieve. This is quite interesting in that subject and object would then be one in the same. Even more interesting is that the percieving itself would also appear to be not seperate from this subject/object union. Right...wrong?

[Swank]

Would you call consciousness, some-thing? This is beginning to get into one of those debates that circles around the exact definition of a term, which in all senses is only relative to the person who decided on that definition. Because I'd like to know what you define as a 'thing' - in day to day reality 'nothing' could be an answer in response to say, what is inside an empty box. There might be no physically dense enough items to be seen in the box by the perceiver using their eyes, but we all know there is oxygen, atoms molecules, probably invisible waves of say radio/sound/data information passing through. I know Im getting a bit too philosophical with this question but all of the words you used to describe your question are extremely fallible.

[NonDualistic]

Would you call consciousness, some-thing? This is beginning to get into one of those debates that circles around the exact definition of a term, which in all senses is only relative to the person who decided on that definition. Because I'd like to know what you define as a 'thing' - in day to day reality 'nothing' could be an answer in response to say, what is inside an empty box. There might be no physically dense enough items to be seen in the box by the perceiver using their eyes, but we all know there is oxygen, atoms molecules, probably invisible waves of say radio/sound/data information passing through. I know Im getting a bit too philosophical with this question but all of the words you used to describe your question are extremely fallible. You are making quite valid points. Everything concerning the "box" you mention applies to this discussion. Even consciousness on which perception is arising too. If it is percievable then it has to be "some-thing" regardless of physical or nonphysical. Perception in the context I am using is not necesarily limited to the five physical senses themselves either. Thoughts are percievable as well , so they too must be counted as some-thing. Referring back to the main inquiry, is motion the basis of all perception? ...regardless of the type of perception. We can start anywhere. Perhaps in the physical world we live in. We see a car moving down the road. Does it need to be moving to percieve it?

[Lseadragon]

You are making quite valid points. Everything concerning the "box" you mention applies to this discussion. Even consciousness on which perception is arising too. If it is percievable then it has to be "some-thing" regardless of physical or nonphysical. Perception in the context I am using is not necesarily limited to the five physical senses themselves either. Thoughts are percievable as well , so they too must be counted as some-thing. Referring back to the main inquiry, is motion the basis of all perception? ...regardless of the type of perception. We can start anywhere. Perhaps in the physical world we live in. We see a car moving down the road. Does it need to be moving to percieve it? Say you stop the car. You can see it. The atoms are still moving though. So you freeze it to absolute zero. Does it disappear? ... I was making this as an argument, but now I don't know if it disappears. We've never got to absolute zero. Well, that went nowhere.

[NonDualistic]

Say you stop the car. You can see it. The atoms are still moving though. So you freeze it to absolute zero. Does it disappear? ... Atoms moving is one thing, but if the particles that make up the atoms stop moving, then it would have to follow that the atomic structures themselves would cease to be cohesive and cease to exist, and thus such objects would "dissappear". Thoughts on this?

[ClouD]

There must be an entity to do the perceiving, but an actual object to be perceived is unnecessary. If the entity is the movement? Then it is non-existential. In response to non-dualistic's recent post... I don't think it's actually possible to do as such. To do so, means nothingness. I mean nothingness, beyond nothingness. Which is the same, but linguistics are making it so hard to explain -_-". If something exists, there is no possiblility for it not to exist. Energy, or "motion", is never destroyed, only transformed. Understanding, that motion is 'everything', essentially being nothing (sigh)... means understanding that nothing is everything, and 'not existing' is not possible. i.e. dying. OMG, this is so hard to explain... Heh.. i tried my best. Gosh that sounded dualistic. Then again, nothing really is dualistic, only maya. That being everything... being nothing. Wow. I just failed. Linguistically that is. Or did i. Meh... Not speaking is so much 'easier'(?). *,-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-,*

[NonDualistic]

If the entity is the movement? Then it is non-existential. In response to non-dualistic's recent post... I don't think it's actually possible to do as such. To do so, means nothingness. I mean nothingness, beyond nothingness. Which is the same, but linguistics are making it so hard to explain -_-". If something exists, there is no possiblility for it not to exist. Energy, or "motion", is never destroyed, only transformed. Understanding, that motion is 'everything', essentially being nothing (sigh)... means understanding that nothing is everything, and 'not existing' is not possible. i.e. dying. OMG, this is so hard to explain... Heh.. i tried my best. Gosh that sounded dualistic. Then again, nothing really is dualistic, only maya. That being everything... being nothing. Wow. I just failed. Linguistically that is. Or did i. Meh... Not speaking is so much 'easier'(?). *,-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-,*

[thegnome54]

I still don't understand non-dualism. So you don't have 'things'... the matter which we construe as 'things' still exists, does it not?

[♥Mark]

In before "there is no spoon".

[NonDualistic]

I still don't understand non-dualism. So you don't have 'things'... the matter which we construe as 'things' still exists, does it not? Here is the basic from Wikipedia: The term nondual is a literal translation of the Sanskrit term advaita ("not two"). The term implies that things remain distinct while not being separate. All that is matter, which we construe as "things" exist, but not as seperate stand alone "things". All are one, albeit seemingly distinct, but really all of one essence. One can choose to live the illusion percieving everything as seperate stand alone things, or one can see in the view or reality, the view of seeing all as one, the view of being the one. I realize this is probably going to leave you more confused. All I can say is . for the moment, maybe let go of the idea of duality/non duality and begin debating the subject of this topic and whatever else shows up due to it. Such a debate may lead right to a more decisive definition of non- duality and possibly more.. We will have to see where we go as we go. Everything is in motion, dont fight it, but try to flow with it. Nothing is impossible unless one makes it impossible. The key is to search for the possibilties and not the imposibilities. Doing so One will find what one is looking for.....

[thegnome54]

All that is matter, which we construe as "things" exist, but not as seperate stand alone "things". All are one, albeit seemingly distinct, but really all of one essence. One can choose to live the illusion percieving everything as seperate stand alone things, or one can see in the view or reality, the view of seeing all as one, the view of being the one. I understand that 'things' are a human construct. I actually arrived at that very conclusion not too long ago on my own. However, that does not lead to 'all is one' in my mind - just 'all is the same stuff'. Though all matter is composed of the same fundamental quarks and such, each individual quark is still an individual - they're not 'all one'. Right? It's like saying that if you make a village out of play-doh, then it's all 'one' since it's all made of the same stuff. I just don't follow that. I also see a problem with rejecting the human construct of 'things' and then recasting the universe as one BIGGER 'thing'. The idea of 'one' is just as much of a human construct as the idea of a 'thing'. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, no? Nothing is impossible unless one makes it impossible. The key is to search for the possibilties and not the imposibilities. Doing so One will find what one is looking for..... ...Or if it violates physical law. I'm not saying our laws are the true objective laws, but if we assume an objective reality, we can also assume objective physical laws - so impossible is quite a reality.

[NonDualistic]

Though all matter is composed of the same fundamental quarks and such, each individual quark is still an individual - they're not 'all one'. Right? It's like saying that if you make a village out of play-doh, then it's all 'one' since it's all made of the same stuff. I just don't follow that. Is motion relative to quarks? or.. is movement part of a quarks nature?

[♥Mark]

To say "Nothing is impossible" is to say "It's impossible for anything to be impossible".

[thegnome54]

Is motion relative to quarks? or.. is movement part of a quarks nature? All motion is relative, isn't it?

[Swank]

It is true that in essence everything is ONE. In that, we as humans are distinct from eachother (to put in nondual's way) but are also ALL humans, and all connected to the one consciounsness. This has been described as the Planetary Group Soul by authors like Stuart Wilde. If you have trouble thinking of the whole dual/non-dual concept, this is the one that helped me the most: Think of the air (oxygen, etc) in your house. There is living room air, bedroom air, bathroom air, kitchen air. They are all different, they are in different rooms. But it is also all air - it is all the same thing.

[thegnome54]

It is true that in essence everything is ONE. In that, we as humans are distinct from eachother (to put in nondual's way) but are also ALL humans, and all connected to the one consciounsness. This has been described as the Planetary Group Soul by authors like Stuart Wilde. If you have trouble thinking of the whole dual/non-dual concept, this is the one that helped me the most: Think of the air (oxygen, etc) in your house. There is living room air, bedroom air, bathroom air, kitchen air. They are all different, they are in different rooms. But it is also all air - it is all the same thing. No, I think the idea of non-dualism is to get rid of the concept of a 'thing'. A 'thing' is a human construct - all of the air in your house, every human that exists - we might call them 'things', but they're all really just a bunch of quarks arranged in different manners. There is no particular reason to distinguish between the quarks of the human being and the quarks of the chair it's sitting on, from an objective standpoint. However, just because everything is made of the same material does not make it 'one' - like I said with my play-doh example.

[NonDualistic]

All motion is relative, isn't it? Thats how we generally relate to motion as in that it is relative to some"thing". I just wonder if we have it backwards. Maybe its every"thing" thats relative to motion. When you boil it all down, is there really any"thing" percievable that does not move?..or that is not in motion of one sorts or another?

[thegnome54]

Thats how we generally relate to motion as in that it is relative to some"thing". I just wonder if we have it backwards. Maybe its every"thing" thats relative to motion. When you boil it all down, is there really any"thing" percievable that does not move?..or that is not in motion of one sorts or another? I don't understand how things can be relative to motion... the motion itself would still be relative to the things, wouldn't it? When you boil it down, everything and nothing is in motion - because motion is relative, so it all depends on your frame of reference.