Thread: reality = perfect balance of order/chaos

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Blue is also a subjective interpretation. There is no intrinsic blueness without an observer.

There is nothing without an "observer." But that isn't the point.

"Reality is what is" = perfect, cosmological order. See what I mean?

Chaos and Order seem to be at battle with each other. But they only exist dualistically because of arbitrary parameters or expectations. Without them, there is no chaos. Order is all that is left; perfectly natural. When things are accepted, how is it that there no order? It could be that the problem arises from calling it "order"...

Originally Posted by really

"Reality is what is" = perfect, cosmological order. See what I mean?

No, I don't. You are deciding that reality is "perfect" and "orderly". Those are your subjective opinions. I can say Reality="Sunny side up eggs on golden brown toast" and your statement has no more intrinsic meaning than mine. Nothing is intrinsically perfect or imperfect. Nothing is intrinsically orderly or disorderly.

I think we are speaking on different levels of meaning, Xaqaria.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No, I don't. You are deciding that reality is "perfect" and "orderly". Those are your subjective opinions. I can say Reality="Sunny side up eggs on golden brown toast" and your statement has no more intrinsic meaning than mine.

Well "Reality is sunny side up eggs on golden brown toast" is definitely an opinion, whereas "Reality is what is" - is far less an opinion, and in addition, the former is relative to you, whereas the latter is universal to everybody. If Reality is perfect and orderly, all "happenings" are seen in context, and not according to my thoughts or opinions on the matters; not my perception.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Nothing is intrinsically perfect or imperfect. Nothing is intrinsically orderly or disorderly.

You have to elaborate further.

I'll explain. Without opinions and hindering perceptions; order and perfection are self-evident. Without the framework of false, perceptual parameters and arbitrary contexts, perfection is inevitable. The apple falls to the ground, and it is a perfect, orderly expression of gravity. You could say that this comment itself is an opinion, but that is beside the point in this case. If the apple fell into the mud, and if I said that was an imperfection or a chaotic event, then that would be a perception, a relative opinion, because it is I who desired the apple, and wanted it to stay clean. This only depends on my perception. Beyond perception, the apple perfectly fell into the mud, because that is exactly what happened; and now it is seen for that.

How is order not intrinsic? The very definition of "nature" is overwhelming, is it not? Do "accidents" really exist? However, I agree that once order and perfection is seen in everything, the words/concepts could be meaningless, because there are no conflicting imaginary opposites. Maybe you are hinting toward this.

Originally Posted by really

I think we are speaking on different levels of meaning, Xaqaria.



Well "Reality is sunny side up eggs on golden brown toast" is definitely an opinion, whereas "Reality is what is" - is far less an opinion, and in addition, the former is relative to you, whereas the latter is universal to everybody. If Reality is perfect and orderly, all "happenings" are seen in context, and not according to my thoughts or opinions on the matters; not my perception.



You have to elaborate further.

I'll explain. Without opinions and hindering perceptions; order and perfection are self-evident. Without the framework of false, perceptual parameters and arbitrary contexts, perfection is inevitable. The apple falls to the ground, and it is a perfect, orderly expression of gravity. You could say that this comment itself is an opinion, but that is beside the point in this case. If the apple fell into the mud, and if I said that was an imperfection or a chaotic event, then that would be a perception, a relative opinion, because it is I who desired the apple, and wanted it to stay clean. This only depends on my perception. Beyond perception, the apple perfectly fell into the mud, because that is exactly what happened; and now it is seen for that.

How is order not intrinsic? The very definition of "nature" is overwhelming, is it not? Do "accidents" really exist? However, I agree that once order and perfection is seen in everything, the words/concepts could be meaningless, because there are no conflicting imaginary opposites. Maybe you are hinting toward this.

I direct you now to the principia discordia, page 56-57

The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.

We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids.

A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.

Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.

The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.

Reality is the original Rorschach.

I direct you to page one of this thread...I already quoted that and nobody said jack about it lol.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I direct you now to the principia discordia, page 56-57

Most of that actually agrees with what I am saying, though I'm not sure about the "Pure Chaos" part. The grids, or arbitrary contexts, are relative, thus they're "truths". Now what I am saying is, the Truth, or Reality, is perfectly orderly and beyond the "grids". You may say that order must require a grid, or an opinion from which it is based, but I am saying that everything works and "happens" as a consequence of the infinite Reality, which is invisible. This is the "Divine Reality" you've heard about. An intrinsic grid is obviously intrinsic in the fact that everything does what it does according to its own "laws" within the framework of an infinite, nonlinear amount of others.

I'd like to go back here in question:

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Reality is what it is, there is nothing random or ordered about it. Some may look at reality and see order, and some may see chaos, but neither is an objective truth; they are both subjective opinions.

When you say "Reality is what it is", apart from the fact that it is a concept or comment, in essence does it not reflect a perfect Reality? What about the fact that all truth is subjective; including all knowledge of objects?

Originally Posted by really

Most of that actually agrees with what I am saying, though I'm not sure about the "Pure Chaos" part. The grids, or arbitrary contexts, are relative, thus they're "truths". Now what I am saying is, the Truth, or Reality, is perfectly orderly and beyond the "grids". You may say that order must require a grid, or an opinion from which it is based, but I am saying that everything works and "happens" as a consequence of the infinite Reality, which is invisible. This is the "Divine Reality" you've heard about. An intrinsic grid is obviously intrinsic in the fact that everything does what it does according to its own "laws" within the framework of an infinite, nonlinear amount of others.

I'd like to go back here in question:



When you say "Reality is what it is", apart from the fact that it is a concept or comment, in essence does it not reflect a perfect Reality? What about the fact that all truth is subjective; including all knowledge of objects?

The statement "reality is what it is" does not reflect anything. It is undefined beyond a vague understanding of a=a. Reality isn't perfect, and it isn't imperfect. It isn't ordered or chaotic, random or predestined, sacred or profane. It just is. You can call it perfect, but thats your own opinion; as you might say, its your own dualistic perception. Even if reality isn't what it is, you'd still call it perfect.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

I direct you to page one of this thread...I already quoted that and nobody said jack about it lol.

Just 3 more times, and someone might get it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The statement "reality is what it is" does not reflect anything. It is undefined beyond a vague understanding of a=a. Reality isn't perfect, and it isn't imperfect. It isn't ordered or chaotic, random or predestined, sacred or profane. It just is.

"Reality is what it is" is the same as "It just is", which is the same as "just perfect". What you said above seems a little contradictory. Everything is perfect, because everything is self-fulfilling as an intrinsic consequence and expression of what it is. Perfection abides in all things, because nothing needs to be anything else (because "God Created All Things Perfect") outside perception. In the case where "just is" equals "just perfect" is true, and outside it both statements are false and limited, but I doubt that is the point of this discussion or thread.

I'm talking on a deeper level here. Maybe I have to show you how perfection and imperfections arise. I understand how you see these terms as opinions, but I have to demonstrate how perfection is natural.

First of all, Reality cannot be defined. In saying that "Reality is what it is" is vague or non-reflective - perhaps you need to consider Self-effulgence or Self-radiance, which has been obstructed by dualistic perception. This is about recognition and revelation, which does not separate subjectivity from objectivity. Reality is beyond any definition, and as you say, it is beyond opinion. However, therefore it must be Perfect; because perceptions have no influence or actual objective purpose. The only reason something is imperfect or perfect is because of arbitrary perceptions. Yet, when perception is transcended and all conditioning is bypassed, perfection still remains. Of course, the word "perfect" itself probably doesn't mean anything anymore, but it is approximately most suitable.

Secondly, if nothing was perfectly orderly, that would negate Karma on the spiritual plane, and physical laws in the physical plane. It is orderly because everything works together and affects everything else! There is intrinsic order and equal "benevolence" because there is total unity. I think that ignoring the "grids" because they may be relative, is also ignoring the fact that they can be universally true and inescapable, and also united with that which is being observed. In the latter case, a "grid" is a linear term that has been worn useless.

There is no use ignoring the observer, for the observer is non-dualistically and equally the observed. Subjectivity is not an opinion, but may include opinions without actually being affected.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You can call it perfect, but thats your own opinion; as you might say, its your own dualistic perception. Even if reality isn't what it is, you'd still call it perfect.

If Reality wasn't what it was, it wouldn't have been. There is no hypothetical reality, much like perception is not Reality. In the traditionally enlightened state, there is no such thing as lack, separation, flaw or imperfection. It is simple to guess what this consequently brings about.


By the way, why is it in "Discordianism" there is something called Pure Chaos?

Originally Posted by really

"Reality is what it is" is the same as "It just is", which is the same as "just perfect". What you said above seems a little contradictory. Everything is perfect, because everything is self-fulfilling as an intrinsic consequence and expression of what it is. Perfection abides in all things, because nothing needs to be anything else (because "God Created All Things Perfect") outside perception. In the case where "just is" equals "just perfect" is true, and outside it both statements are false and limited, but I doubt that is the point of this discussion or thread.

I'm talking on a deeper level here. Maybe I have to show you how perfection and imperfections arise. I understand how you see these terms as opinions, but I have to demonstrate how perfection is natural.

First of all, Reality cannot be defined. In saying that "Reality is what it is" is vague or non-reflective - perhaps you need to consider Self-effulgence or Self-radiance, which has been obstructed by dualistic perception. This is about recognition and revelation, which does not separate subjectivity from objectivity. Reality is beyond any definition, and as you say, it is beyond opinion. However, therefore it must be Perfect; because perceptions have no influence or actual objective purpose. The only reason something is imperfect or perfect is because of arbitrary perceptions. Yet, when perception is transcended and all conditioning is bypassed, perfection still remains. Of course, the word "perfect" itself probably doesn't mean anything anymore, but it is approximately most suitable.

Secondly, if nothing was perfectly orderly, that would negate Karma on the spiritual plane, and physical laws in the physical plane. It is orderly because everything works together and affects everything else! There is intrinsic order and equal "benevolence" because there is total unity. I think that ignoring the "grids" because they may be relative, is also ignoring the fact that they can be universally true and inescapable, and also united with that which is being observed. In the latter case, a "grid" is a linear term that has been worn useless.

There is no use ignoring the observer, for the observer is non-dualistically and equally the observed. Subjectivity is not an opinion, but may include opinions without actually being affected.



If Reality wasn't what it was, it wouldn't have been. There is no hypothetical reality, much like perception is not Reality. In the traditionally enlightened state, there is no such thing as lack, separation, flaw or imperfection. It is simple to guess what this consequently brings about.


By the way, why is it in "Discordianism" there is something called Pure Chaos?

I feel like we're playing a game of role reversal here. I keep trying to tell you that a universal state of being cannot be accurately described with dualistic human concepts such as perfection (which requires imperfection to exist/make sense) or order (which requires disorder). The reason why "Reality is what it is" is the best way to describe the nature of the universe (IMHO) is because"IT" is a indestinct singular neuter pronoun that can be a generic label for anything and "IS" is the singular infinitive form of the english word be. It is the simplest way that I know of in the english language to just say that reality = reality. ANY other descriptions you may try to apply to it are based on your human perceptions and opinions.

Honestly, based on our previous conversations I feel like this should be easily accepted by you. You can't just tack the word "non-dualistically" on to an intrinsically dualistic scenario (like you tried to do with observer/subject) and have it be all okay with your monist belief set. There is no non-dualistic version of perfection. This is why monism is such a hard road to walk; you have to give up all of your ideas of relation in order to really reach any sort of understanding. A perfect reality only makes sense in a dualistic scenario that includes an imperfect one.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Just 3 more times, and someone might get it.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I feel like we're playing a game of role reversal here. I keep trying to tell you that a universal state of being cannot be accurately described with dualistic human concepts such as perfection (which requires imperfection to exist/make sense) or order (which requires disorder). The reason why "Reality is what it is" is the best way to describe the nature of the universe (IMHO) is because"IT" is a indestinct singular neuter pronoun that can be a generic label for anything and "IS" is the singular infinitive form of the english word be. It is the simplest way that I know of in the english language to just say that reality = reality. ANY other descriptions you may try to apply to it are based on your human perceptions and opinions.

Ok fair enough, I agree in that sense. Keep in mind that, once again, this articulation renders any discussion totally meaningless. Do you think so?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Honestly, based on our previous conversations I feel like this should be easily accepted by you. You can't just tack the word "non-dualistically" on to an intrinsically dualistic scenario (like you tried to do with observer/subject) and have it be all okay with your monist belief set. There is no non-dualistic version of perfection. This is why monism is such a hard road to walk; you have to give up all of your ideas of relation in order to really reach any sort of understanding. A perfect reality only makes sense in a dualistic scenario that includes an imperfect one.

I see what you're saying. Non-duality is ineffable, but if we take into account that all language is pretty much dualistic, it makes it a little easier to "grasp", so to speak. It's also problematic in describing that the states are of "infinite" quality, such as Love and Peace, but one could argue that these are also "dualistic terms".

Subject/Object is obviously a duality. It forms automatic sub-catergories such as observer/observed, inside/outside and here/out-there. The Ultimate Reality, however, would obviously be a totality, a oneness; a holographic Self-Identity.

Anyway, I think I'm comparing one enlightenment with another. Is that true in this case? I'm not very familiar with the reality/writings of Discordianism.

Well reality doesnt really have anything to do with chaos or order. Everybody has his own reality, it can be full of chaos, or it can have full order. In my little theory, Chaos is "out of control reality", and order is reality, which we control to our liking... hmm... I could think about this for a millenia...

If you wanna be an idealist then maybe a perfect reality is a product of perfect balance between order and chaos. Nothing is perfect though. But if you think of it, chaos is the more natural state of the universe whereas order is something we must strive to uphold.