Existence...

...the singularity. Also known as the absolute.

Satyr wrote:

Can you show me one absolute?
Don't tell me, show me.
A singularity outside our minds so we can all appreciate it together.
One oneness...one immutable indivisible eternal thing....

Wendy wrote:

Would I have to go into absurdity and show you everything that exists for it to be convincing?  Or maybe you could look around and accept your existence.  There's no alternative.

I'm not claiming to know about all, just that we are all.  How are we all?  That doesn't make sense in our current condition, under our assumption that we are separate entities.  I make no claims about that, only that the stuff we are made of, everything is made of to form existence.  Since truth is at times known to be stranger than fiction I won't be offended if you leave it and only go into attack mode.  There is no non-existence, no absence of consciousness. Another bold claim.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



One being or many?  Yeah, sure.  Doesn't exist.  Well, conjoining does.  Could such a conjoining, unwanted at that, be of "opposites" interacting in varying degrees as you always say?  

We do love our technicalities allowing us to play with ideas. Conjoined twins, that cannot be separated, makes the most sense in regards to our obsession with opposites, but conjoined triplets and quadruplets also exist.

I am only stating that "we" are all, not how we are "all."

Now we must boot her for insanity.  Simply taking a bold stance to try and have some sort of interesting conversation without battling any egos(my own included).

If somehow, "we" are inside the creative mind of existence, everything we "see outside" our mind is inside the mind of existence.  Simulation theories cover such territory.  The illusion of reality and its internal dimensions all housed inside a mastermind.  We are babies in its womb and there will never be a birth. Interesting, our feelings about birth, some pro, some against.

Perhaps our egos are hung up on the ideal of autonomy, that partial autonomy, some freedom, is not satisfactory and yet limits essentially define our reality, almost as an essence in and of itself.

So, your answer is no.
I'll have to take your...word on it.

What exists is dynamic, fluctuating and interactive - multiplicity.
The mind reduces it to a manageable level - abstraction - by cutting away dimensions - possibilities/probabilities - until it is left with a singularity, represented by a word/symbol.
A symbol/word is a representation of what?
Of an abstraction, an idea, an ideal, a concept - which is what?
It is either a translation - interpretation - of external phenomena - via the stimulation, interaction with the sense organs - based on a priori, genetically evolved methods - or it is a representation of internal sources of memory, synthesized and combined, but with no external referent.
So, a unicorn is just a concept dependent on the mind to exist as an abstraction, an idea, whereas a horse is existing independently form mind.
So when I say there are no absolutes - no immutable, indivisible, singularities, no whole no one, no nil, - I mean that the idea exists only as idea - only in the mind as an abstraction, whereas it has no independent from the mind existence.

If we do not hold such stringent standard, sweetie, we'll be bogged down by inanities and word games, like iambiguous on ILP, or we'll be dealing absurdities like those of Ecmandu, or Fixed Cross, or indulging the needy fragile ego of minds like Parodite and his AI proxy. We will be involved in socializing or mysticism, or mental masturbation ro flirting, or posturing, like shit-Smears who wants only to prove how happy and valuable he is, despite what the facts tell us....
In other words we'll be doing anything but philosophizing.

Now, KTS has become such a venue, and this is why you are tolerated..because the rest is done elsewhere.
We tolerate and show patience because KTS is about socializing....rejecting only insanity above a certain level which becomes disruptive - like reducing all threads to the same crap as they do on ILP.

Satyr wrote:

So, your answer is no.
I'll have to take your...word on it.

What exists is dynamic, fluctuating and interactive - multiplicity.
The mind reduces it to a manageable level - abstraction - by cutting away dimensions - possibilities/probabilities - until it is left with a singularity, represented by a word/symbol.
A symbol/word is a representation of what?
Of an abstraction, an idea, an ideal, a concept - which is what?
It is either a translation - interpretation - of external phenomena - via the stimulation, interaction with the sense organs - based on a priori, genetically evolved methods - or it is a representation of internal sources of memory, synthesized and combined, but with no external referent.
So, a unicorn is just a concept dependent on the mind to exist as an abstraction, an idea, whereas a horse is existing independently form mind.
So when I say there are no absolutes - no immutable, indivisible, singularities, no whole no one, no nil, - I mean that the idea exists only as idea - only in the mind as an abstraction, whereas it has no independent from the mind existence.

If we do not hold such stringent standard, sweetie, we'll be bogged down by inanities and word games, like iambiguous on ILP, or we'll be dealing absurdities like those of Ecmandu, or Fixed Cross, or indulging the needy fragile ego of minds like Parodite and his AI proxy. We will be involved in socializing or mysticism, or mental masturbation ro flirting, or posturing, like shit-Smears who wants only to prove how happy and valuable he is, despite what the facts tell us....
In other words we'll be doing anything but philosophizing.

Now, KTS has become such a venue, and this is why you are tolerated..because the rest is done elsewhere.
We tolerate and show patience because KTS is about socializing....rejecting only insanity above a certain level which becomes disruptive - like reducing all threads to the same crap as they do on ILP.
 

Is a pregnant mother a multiplicity? I can see her as a singularity housing a multiplicity.

WendyDarling wrote:

Is a pregnant mother a multiplicity?  I can see her as a singularity housing a multiplicity.

Dear girl, this implies an "outside".
What is "outside existence"? Non-Existence.
There is no outside for there to be an enclosure, a whole...
From inside there is only multiplicity. From within existence only multiplicity.

Do you understand?
That which is "outside existence" does not exist, by definition.
But the only way to perceive the multiplicity of existence as a singular whole, you imagine yourself there.

This is what the concept of a uni-verse is.

Satyr wrote:

WendyDarling wrote:

Is a pregnant mother a multiplicity?  I can see her as a singularity housing a multiplicity.

Dear girl, this implies an "outside".
What is "outside existence"? Non-Existence.
There is no outside for there to be an enclosure, a whole...
From inside there is only multiplicity. From within existence only multiplicity.

Do you understand?
That which is "outside existence" does not exist, by definition.
But the only way to perceive the multiplicity of existence as a singular whole, you imagine yourself there.

This is what the concept of a uni-verse is.

So the cohesion of multiplicity is not the singularity, existence?

In the mind.
We can conceptualize anything as a singularity.
One grain of sand on one mound of sand.
One stone on one mountain on one continent on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in one universe.
All ones.

One is an idea.
One/Nil is a binary.
The mind makes anything into a singularity, but an actual singularity has never been discovered.
Closest they've come is a Black Hole.
Even the Big Bang cannot be considered a singularity. We can only imagine it as a duality - Yin/Yang, Near absolute, as I call it.
If absolute rode or disorder were finalized there would be no existence - a singularity is the negation of existence.
A singularity is the end of existence. If one were to suddenly pop out of nowhere it would end existence - suck all into it.

Existence = dynamic, Interactive. A singularity cannot be interactive. What would absolute one interact with?
This is why I say that anyone who believes in singularities or absolutes is a nihilist.
Example: the concept of an absolute one-god is the negation of existence.
A singularity, an absolute is a contradiction to the very experience of the existent.
We experience existence as an interactive, dynamic multiplicity, which the idea of a singularity contradicts.
we can imagine a dynamic interactive singularity, but we can also imagine a square circle, hot ice, frozen fire....or anything, because the mind, its thoughts are not bound by the laws of physics.
So in the mind we can imagine a unicorn, or a one-god, or even self-cotnradictory ideas conceptualized as a unity...
The mind can exist in past, future or beyond space time, in tis imaginings.
It can conceptualize anything, because its concepts are neural energies which exist but can represent what does not exist, or that can never exist.

This is why the mind is made into the source of divinity and why nihilists are obsessed with subjectivity - keeping all evidence and arguments in the mind - as ideas, theories.
All is a social construct if we keep everything theoretical and we refuse to bring it down to earth and connect it to what is experienced, what is perceived.
All magic is of the mind. Magical spells, incantations, vocal conjuring...all of the mind.
Astrology is in the mind, affecting body.
Using words or symbols to influence minds is what "magic" is about: linguistic, semiotic, manipulation of need/desire, mind to mind.
All the supernatural is of the mind.
All superstitions refer to mental constructs, metal prejudices, anxieties.

How many existences are there?

Even the concept of multiplicity alludes to singularities....multiplicity of what, right?
The mind must reduce all to singular ideas, so multiplicity is how it can conceptualize process.
Ergo all is infinitely divisible.
All is process, a continuum.
A fetus is part of a merger of two biological temporal continuums....held together by memories, i.e., DNA.
We can't pinpoint when life begins, no more than can we pinpoint when the universe began, because there is no such moment. There is only a continuity, which we can only conceptualize as a series of distinct moments.

All is a wave not a particle....but particle is a moment in space/time, a frozen moment of the wave, or the ambiguous moment when light interacted with wave and then with the sense organ....that was frozen in time as a point in space/time.
So life is a continuum, just as all unity of patterns are. A unity which is held as a single identity because of memories stored as nucleotides and then as neural clusters, e.g., genetic/memetic, or DNA and experiential memories.

So spirit is a word I use to represent this synthesis of memories
Soul is another word I use to represent the continuum of an entire bloodline.
Spirit is the dynamic part of the continuum of soul.
Words used to represent and to refer to what is experienced, not what can be imagined.

Sorry I accidentally clicked "edit" instead of "quote" and I modified your post. Luckily it was short.

WendyDarling wrote:

How many existences are there?

We can only speak of the one we're in.
But there is a theory of multiverses, or a multi-brane universe...or a cosmos of cycling existence...this existence replaced by another, which may or may not produce life, then another ad infinitum...

All of it we can reduce to a singularity. Because that's what the brain does. It abstracts and abstraction is a simplification/generalization, and that means a cutting away of dimensions or of possibilities/probabilities to a mangeable level; to a level that can process the data.
This is what I mean by interpretation.
A lot is lost in interpretation - a lot of data.

If existence is defined as what is dynamic and interactive - energy - then we only experience this existence which we share and because we share it we can interact and exchange and relate.
Attraction/Repulsion = interaction.

Satyr wrote:

We can only speak of the one we're in.
But there is a theory of multiverses, or a multi-brane universe...or a cosmos of cycling existence...this existence replaced by another, which may or may not produce life, then another ad infinitum...

All of it we can reduce to a singularity. Because that's what the brain does. It abstracts and abstraction is a simplification/generalization, and that means a cutting away of dimensions or of possibilities/probabilities to a mangeable level; to a level that can process the data.
This is what I mean by interpretation.
A lot is lost in interpretation - a lot of data.

If existence is defined as what is dynamic and interactive - energy - then we only experience this existence which we share and because we share it we can interact and exchange and relate.
Attraction/Repulsion = interaction.  

Are we in agreement then? Have I proven myself?

In this case there are two continuums which also be conceptualized as a single one.
So, yes there is only one, even if multi-verses were proven to be true.
All would be included in the term "existent".

There is no outside existence, dear. That is non-existence.
Multi-verses would be part of existence, not outside - separate space/time continuums.

Satyr wrote:

In this case there are two continuums which also be conceptualized as a single one.
So, yes there is only one, even if multi-verses were proven to be true.
All would be included in the term "existent".

There is no outside existence, dear. That is non-existence.
Multi-verses would be part of existence, not outside - separate space/time continuums.

Having technical difficulties over here. Are we in agreement then?

Agreement on what?
You never say anything.

Satyr wrote:

Agreement on what?
You never say anything.

I'll take that as a 'yes' from a stubborn old goat.  Can we continue not saying much, moving onto the creative intelligence directing "our" singularity?

If you need it that much, dear....why not?
But no singularity.

Multi-verses would be an argument against a uni-verse...not for it.

Satyr wrote:

If you need it that much, dear....why not?
But no singularity.

Multi-verses would be an argument against a uni-verse...not for it.

Less pain's endured when in the proper position for much needed torture.

Believe me, I have no patience either especially since my cray cray left.

And yet, I torture myself typing with two fingers.

KTS is an open market, so let's agree for fucks sake and move on.
Let's call it your victory and my defeat....exhaustion is a form of capitulation.

Satyr wrote:

KTS is an open market, so let's agree for fucks sake and move on.
Let's call it your victory and my defeat....exhaustion is a form of capitulation.

Geez, I think I'm above average at saying less but with more meaning.

To be continued...

Funny....to me you yammer on and say nothing.

Satyr wrote:

Funny....to me you yammer on and say nothing.

I’m sorry my questions are so long winded. Meaningless. Forgive me?

Are we agreed there is only one existence?  In the singular?

If not, by all means...take over this dog and pony show.

Next, do complex systems build themselves? Does a book build itself?

There can only be one existence because no matter how many universes there might be the mind will conceptualise them all in the singular, since all will be interactive and dynamic and multiplicities.

The mind does it by projecting itself outside existence to perceive existence as a singularity.
From within existence - within reality, within the world - all is multiplicity of continuums converging towards a near-absoltue, which is never attained.

We don't say existence is a singularity - word games - we say existence is.

WendyDarling wrote:

Next, do complex systems build themselves?

Define "complex".
What is complicated for one person is simple for another.

WendyDarling wrote:

Does a book build itself?

A book is built by humans.
A tree is not.
How do we "build" a book?
We take materials that pre-exist and combine them, or we process them and then combine them.
When man builds he synthesizes, he does not create from nothing.
We synthesize what already exists.

I know you want to lead me to your belief in a one-god or the soul or whatever...
So carry on.

A car is built by a conscious being, a stone, a sun, is not.

These word-games are typical of recovering or devout Abrahamics.
They can't show us evidence, they can't even form a convincing argument, so they use word-games.
I remember Brian trying to "debunk" my stance of absolutes by saying "There are absolutely no camels in my pocket"....
Or the usual attempts to mock:
"There are absolutely no absolutes"
"Truth is there are no truths"

Word games that seduced or tricked them...nihilism is linguistic.
Because words can be used in many ways: literally, metaphorically allegorically etc., this confuses them.
For some this confusion is terminal or they like it. they do not want to be free from their confusions because clarity is like the sunlight on the eyes when you leave the Platonic cave....it hurts and dazzles....

Words are the source of magic....the supernatural.
Mind detaching from the body, the physical, the tangible, where limits and clarity is necessary. The mind is "liberated" from such limitations....to find shelter in tis own creations.
Detaching words from their foundations, their referents, is like liberating them to be used in novel, creative, self-satisfying ways.

So, words like god or free-will...all must be detached from experienced tangible reality, to either be rejected or manipulated.
I've sued this example before concerning free-will.
Will is not problematic, in this case. These fucks love "will", as in "will to power" or god's will.
They just do not want to be held accountable for their own will.
So the term "free" is problematic. It is slandered or ridiculed by converting ti to an absolute:
as in absolute freedom, which is nonsense. They only understand will in the context of Abrahamic one-god's omnipotent will.
They cannot and will not abandon this.

So, when I say free-will is observable, falsifiable. We see it in action daily. It is choice.
They must invent some external agency, some absolute totalitarian agency to challenge it.
So my observable down to earth definition is terrifying to them....and to negate it they invent an invisible, intangible, absolute agency...or they demand absolute evidence and if I cannot offer any they readily dismiss it.
The absolute is useful and comforting.
This is why nihilism is a psychosis that will not easily go away.
Whether it be absolute positivity - one - or absolute negativity - nil - it works.
The absolute negative is more powerful, of course, because ti is destructive not constructive. It does not require to offer an alternative only to undermine all theories.

Finally, word games are the domain of the feminine.
Ever try to argue with a woman?
Nothing will come of it other than your frustration.
Words are their craft, because they've evolved to be social, to read people, to manipulate using language.
Most have no masculine control, so they become hysterical when confronted with the restrictions of logic...words for them are emotional tools/weapons. Jews know this well.

Therefore...
Existence = dynamic, integrative, multiplicity.

That is all we can say.
We say existence is....not adding a numerical value alluding to a negation of existence or an addition.
To add a quantity is to imply what you cannot prove.
There is only existence, period.

Like asking?
Who created the world?
It implies what it has no reason to believe.
It has already presumed what it then askes to be answered. The assumption that the world was created is taken for granted - as if the one asking has somehow proven it - implying that there was no world before it was created - ex nihilo - so something out of nothing, which then implies that another can be created and make it two, or three, or an infinite amount...or that existence can be negated, erased.
Here the language of numbers is manipulated.

There is existence and the numerical qualifier "one" is superfluous and misleading. It alludes to what there is no evidence for, and no need for.
Mathematics is an abstract language used to refer to mental constructs.
One stone....there is no one stone, there are multiplicity of interacting patterns in congruence which is experienced and then detached from the background - so as to make it a singular thing.
Liker cutting off a piece of space/time, or like taking a snapshot.

Simpletons confuse the snapshot of a mountain for the mountain itself - the two dimensional photo is now placed in a pocket so a four dimensional stone is reduced to a manageable form. They consider this divine, magical....mystical.
The mountain is in their pocket....they feel like gods.
The photo can be cut into pieces, destroying the mountain.
The photo can be altered, manipulated, burned....they feel happy, powerful.
The photo is one...one photo.
Brilliant.
Didn't someone invent and create the machine that produced the photo? Yes...so the mountain must have been created, because the photo of a mountain IS the mountain....
Not a representation, interpretation, copy, approximation ect. ....but the mountain itself. Then they deny there was ever a mountain...there was always only a photo of a mountain. Only bigots want to tell them that the photo of a mountain in their pocket is not really a mountain - fascists who want to take away the mountain from their possession, denying them ownership of the mountain.  

This is why they refuse to limit their language using external references.
They don't want to lose power over ideas in their head which have no external referents.
They want power and anyone attempting to deny them this power is power hungry; an authoritarian, a fascist, an "objectivist"....and on and on.

If you keep everything as an idea, an abstraction, a representation - like a photo of a mountain - you can disseminate mountains, make multiple copies - here's one for you, one more for you - singularity - we can all own our own private, subjective mountain, and we can do with it what we wish.
How happy we can then be...all of us.

Liberate words from their referents in the world so that you can keep them abstract - mere ideas. Created by a god?
Maybe a man.
Magical, mysterious...open to any form of manipulation. there are no limits, other than the enjoyment of another.
I can live in my world, on my own mountain, and you can live in yours...and if you don't bother me we will all be happy.
Can we not all live in our own reality if we make it all abstract?
You know....an artificial - AI - reality...one for each one of us.
Doesn't that sound like a game...a computer reality game.....open sand box, I think they call them.

Matrix.
And he who writes the programs, he who maintains the machines, is god.

Abrahamism is a terrible mental disease.
When the mind - the spirit - is infected only death will end its infection.
More than 2000 years this virus has been raging, morphing into many variants.
There is no vaccine...
Preventative medicine is superior to interventional medicine.
When the brain has lost contact with reality, unable to use language properly to connect rather than disconnect, then its terminal.
Zombification.
The last stages of death are experienced as a turning away from the world, into oneself....falling into oneself.
Exactly what nihilism does.

This is why Abrahamism always has an end of time scenario - Armageddon.
The disease is terminal...only death ends it.
They do not know it but they worship the Nil.

Don't they also love the idea that morality was created from nowhere out of nothing by some willful God, ro by men?
You know the behaviour we call moral, was created...because what was created can be destroyed.
What was created by a conscious mind can be replaced by another conscious mind.

Will to Power appeals to the powerless. It is like a erotic dream they do not wake from.
The hungry can't stop dreaming of food; the thirst cannot stop thinking of water...the weak cannot stop dreaming of strength and power.
They go overboard - obsession does that.
They push it to tis extreme its end...omnipotence. Cum explodes from their groin spattering their reality with a fine film of their essence...as if the world were covered with them.
Fuck Will to Life, and fuck Will to Power...I'm going one step further Will to God...hell I'll declare myself god before I ever reach my destination.
It's all subjective motherfucker., deal with it.

I know the secret of all...I have peaked into the abyss and I saw the secret codes.
Now, all I need is find a way to apply my godly knowledge.
1/0, binary....I'll build a machine using god's codes - those secret very secret codes which nobody else can decipher
No, stupid, not good/evil, that's so last century. We've upgraded....Beyond Good and Evil remember?
Sheesh!
That guy was a prophet, and I am the messiah. I am the Superman, Zarathustra was my prophet, Nietzsche's mouthpiece - you know like Plato, Socrates, Apostle Paul, a.k.a., Liebovitze Swartze Saul, then Jesus.
He came to announce my coming, and I came...oh I came hard.
One/Nil....not good/evil...grow the fuck up!!!
Enlighten yourself. Read a book.