Daniel

Hopefully you saw my reply before I wiped it out. I am not intending to apply my own ideas onto the DDJ. I want to learn, not to revise what is written.

.

.

I am listening to your answer, and I am not arguing...

hey hey and up they rises... earlay in the morning! All these "bum" jokes cause funny images in my mind. A bum rising in early in the morning. Hee-hee.

Thank you. This answer is very meaningful to me. However, that meaning is coming from my own cultural context and tradition. Would you please help me understand what you mean by human heart? I doubt it is literal. But understanding it as metaphor could mean several different things and have several different implications.

I think this supports case 1, BTW.

Agreed. I think that makes perfect sense. If this is the absolute beginning. The beginning of the beginning. Then I have a question: who or what named 無 and 有? I am not going backwards and supposing any sort of "spiritual" interpretation. I am asking, is the concept of "naming" here intended literally? I do not see how it could be intended literally, because there is no one and nothing to produce the name and label 無 and 有 in a literal manner. If so, then, something else is being described here? Something more mysterious and beautiful, in my option.

When something cannot be named, it is absolutely formless? As soon as a label is attached to it, even the if the label is "lacking-form" or "form-less" then a form exists for it in the mind and the game is over, a failure, for describing 道? In a way I feel like I have an advantage as an outsider right now. Because when I see 道 on the page or on screen, very little is produced in my mind. Nothing is formed at all. But this is not the same as 無. It has a name, it has a form, in my mind, as we've written about. It's form in my mind is negating a form.

Correction. They all have gaps except for 1. Only one version is lacking any gaps. The question is, is there a semantic fault which defeats it? And, there isn't. The version that is lacking gaps is the one which I described a few posts up. It is 7 categories of: objects, actions ( or events ), ideas, and symbols grouped into a conglomerate. Basically, this includes any and all possible numbers and much-much more without producing any semantic faults. There are no gaps, there are no defeaters. The game has ended. It's absolutely the biggest no matter how "biggest" is defined. That's it.

When I was young, my friends and I would play a game, a stupid game, called "grosser-than-gross". It was something to play in small groups, or maybe just as a pair while riding a bus, or on a long car ride. One person turns to the other and asks, with a juvenile smirk: "What's grosser than gross?" And the other person would say "I don't know." The the first person would try to say something really-really gross the grossest thing they could think of. Then the other person would turn to them and say, "What's grosser than that?" And the first person would respond, "I don't know." Then the other person would try to come up with something grosser than what the firt person said. This goes on for a while until they run out of ideas. It's kind of like that, but, in this case the question is: "what's bigger than big?" In the kid's version, inevitably there is potential for argument between the two "opponents" if there is a challenge, "that's not actually gross." In the grown up version, "what's bigger than big?", the same thing can happen. When a person uses the word "infinite", if it is missing something, then it's not actually infinite. That's like the child challenging, "that's not actually gross". So, one way to imagine infinity is to use numbers, and keep getting bigger and bigger. But no matter how a person counts, there's always going to be numbers missing. If I start at 1,2,3, etc... I've already lost the game, because 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc... are missing. Does that make sense? So the first person in the game asks, "what's bigger than big?" The seccond person starts counting "1,2,3,4,..." the first person challenges "wait! you missed some numbers. that's not bigger than big. I can come up with something bigger." Then the person starts over and includes the half-digits. But that doesn't work, because, now the sequence is missing the quarter-digits. But including the quarter-digits doesn't fix the problem, because the eighths are missing, and the 16ths, are missing, and the 32nds, and the 64ths... see where this is going? But! No matter what happens, if I count using only whole numbers and keep going forever I still get to the same place as if I had iincluded the half-digits. Counting forever is stiill counting forever no matter how I do it. Because of this, all those different ways of counting are kind of meaningless to the concept of what is happening at the extreme. I've been using the words "when infinity is achieved" for this extreme. Maybe anotther word from a cultivation context that can be used is "attainment". The extreme is "when infinity is attained". The distinction is how is infinity achieved / attained. The language here is tricky. I can't say "all those different ways of counting are kind of meaningless to the concept of what is happening at the end." The word "end" is false. If I am trying to play the game "what is bigger than big?" the minute I claim that it has "ended" or it has an "end" I have lost the game. My friendly-opponent can easiy add something to the "end" and will have created something bigger. This is a semantic fault. I'm using the word "infinite", which means never-ending, but I am also using the word "end". That's a fail. So that's a basic explanation of the different versions of infinity. They're all going to the same place and are all identical at the extreme. They are all infinite. One is not actually bigger or smaller than the other. That's a misnomer. It is correct that some versions have gaps. The process of removing the gaps, IOW, including more and more, is what produces the ultmate answer to "what's bigger than big?" But one has to be cauttious of any semantic fault which can be challenged.

this breaks down, for me, with the words "only after". I'm not doing that, or implying that, or writing that, in any way shape or form. since i'm not doing that, this is irrelevant. it's seven easy to understand terms. was wasn't is isn't will-be won't could-be done.

For me, it's not for feeling. It's an intellectual concept. If I wanted to feel something, I would probably do something else. Regarding the anchor, well, I've mentioned it. Not explicitly in those terms, but it's there. The point, I really want to focus on the point. Michael described the divine as infinite, something which could be forever approached, but never reached. I disagreed. If it is literally absolutely infinite then it is omni-present. From here, there have been several objections from you that infinity cannot be omni-present for various reasons. But that's not actually true unless infinity is limited to a specific version of numeric infinity, or to a "set of all sets". These objections are fair, but since I answered them and have shown, contrary to popular belief, that there is a version of infinity which can indeed be omni-present without inconsistency or contradiction, I don't understand why we are arguing anymore. That's where it becomes unfair. I made a statement about divine omni-presence; it's plausible, consistent, coherent, rational, etc. There shouldn't be any more arguing about it. Objections to using the primary definition of paradox, and repeatedly reducing infinity into something which is a sematic contradiction seems like perpetuating an argument needlessly. If you are considering a "constructed potential infinity" that may be a close approximate to what I am considering, especially because.... at a certain point all versions of infinity become 1. It depends on what you mean. So why are you arguing with me about omni-presense? Is it just the religious baggage that comes with those two words linked up? Ok.

Mirror-In-The-Sky, what is Love? ~Stevie Nicks~

It's very simple. And it's precisely as I described in my first reply. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider the difference between objective and subjective phenomena. However, a bit foolish to apply this globally. The observer is not the observed. The observer is the observation. Color exists outside the brain as an interaction of light waves with color receptors on the retina. Arguments against the existence of color are semantic. Nothing more nothing less. The analogies of the camera and the screen, a computer simulation, the picture of the pipe all have serious flaws when compared to the life experiences of most human beings. These analogies are fantasy not real world examples. When these faults are posted a statement of agnosticism is produced: "I operate under the assumption there is an external reality and the experience that is occurring represents it accurately (most of the time), but this is not something I philosophically defend." But this is inconsistent and contradicts the analogies brought. All of them REQUIRE external phenomena outside the mind. It is not an assumption. It also contradicts the video you brought from Anil Seth, and the links you brought about color, and several of the statements you have made. The assumption that perception is an accurate representation of phenomena outside the mind ( most of time ) is a huge departure from many of the things you've posted here. It is in direct opposition to Hoffman's theory. There is no reason to bring it. Based on the pattern of the posts here, I expect you didn't understand the theory when you posted the video. The bottom line is: If your position is: "I operate under the assumption there is an external reality and the experience that is occurring represents it accurately (most of the time), but this is not something I philosophically defend.". Then there was no reason to argue against what I posted on page 1. The reasonable explanation for this is that you have adjusted your point of view. I think that is a wise choice. Although it is difficult to believe this is the case considering the private conversation we had where none of the three real world examples I brought would be discussed. You would not even acknowledge that there are multiple individuals on a baseball team working cooperatively. The phenomena of pitching the ball, hitting it with a bat, catching it in a mitt, would not be discussed because you would not assume the perception was accurate. That contradicts with "I operate under the assumption there is an external reality and the experience that is occurring represents it accurately (most of the time)"

The first problem, IMO, is that you are equating something called "actual infinity" with something else which I am calling "absolute literal infinity". I've made the distinction many times. Why is this being ignored? There have been many posts in this thread about ignoring distinctions between different concepts that perhaps sound the same or have similar nomenclature. Do you acknowledge that there are problems when these distinctions are ignored? I would very much appreciate hearing more about this contructed potential infinity and how it contributes to finding the enjoyment you described above. Also, it would be great to read how you distinguish between the absolute literal infinity I am describing and this contructed potential inifinity that you find useful. The reason I'm saying this is, you have said that our defintions are far apart. I am not sure you are understanding what I've written. Also, it could be there is a sort of allergic reaction happening which is making it seem as if the definitions are far apart, but, they aren't. It's just causing an errant inflamation response.. That's not my job. The picture you posted is not me. I defend it. I'm an advocate for it, if it is attacked unjustly. But I advocate for many that need advocacy. Pro-bono, of course.

hmmmm.... I wonder if the accuracy of the english version can be evaluated, at least in a small way, based on whether or not it matches what was established here in this thread. In my own tradition, there are many faulty engish books about it, because, it has becomes trendy to learn "kabalah", and it's rather easy to tell if the book or source is good or not based on flaws that are in the book. A diagram will be incorrect, or a word will be translated wrong forcing it to match another "spiritual" tradition, presumably the author is applying, overlaying, their own ideas onto the text in translation. I wonder if that could be done here.

I have a question which will hopefully get the discussion started. From another thread: I notice the plural for enlightements. It seems reasonable to me that enlightenment should be plural. Each person is different, and has different capabilities, talents, flaws, etc. From this, I think it follows that there would be different types of enlightenment. Would you, or others, please elaborate on this? What are different types of enlightenment? Do they always follow a progession which is known? Are there different types of enlightement which are attained by different schools? Any additional details shared would be appreciated. Thank you,

Ok. This is the response to the actual quote from Hoffman ( below ). If you claim to understand it and the analogy of the desktop interface hopefully you can answer some questions about it. It has some major flaws approaching absurdity. "No features of the icon are identifiable with any features of the file in the computer’ [Hoffman et al 2015a: 1484]." Wait. A trash can? The icon on the desktop which resembles a trash can that exists outside the mind? Hoffman says "no features of icon are identifiable...". How does Hoffman identify the trash icon as the trash icon? If what Hoffman is saying is true, they would never find the trash icon. They would never be able to distinguish it from any other icon on the desktop. And even if they did, they would never know what it does. They would never know its function. It's true that it's abstracted. But Hoffman is claiming there is zero correspondence. And that is false. The file as an icon displays accurately what the file contains using file type extensions. The icon changes and is displayed differently depending on which software created it, basically. And if the file is a shortcut, a pointer, not the actual file itself, the icon indicates this accurately. If there is hard drive corruption, if one knows where to look, the icons are updated. If a network resource is unavailable, the icon is updated accurately. The inner mechanisms of the computer are abstracted. But they are exposed if s person knows where to look and has the tools / understanding to do so. The point here is, just as was identified by FK Jansen, the French scientist, these models are over simplified and do not match reality. Beyond that, this whole theory ignores that there are people, like me, who actually understand the inner mechanisms which are behind the abstraction. I am an IT pro. I do this sort of work professionally. Anytime I approach a desktop interface I can see, if I choose to, the underlying structures in my "mind's eye". That is how I fix stuff. And, I'm very good at my job. It's not just me. Anyone who fixes things operates this way. A car mechanic? Absolutely. It shouldn't take a mega-mind to realize the flaws in this interface model. Hoffman says "there are no identifiable features...". That's false. Perception doesn't work that way. I brought this up in our conversation. I used the examples of trees and their different properties when they are burned depending on their species. Oak to cedar to willow. One would never know their properties simply by looking at them. Until one employs a microscope. Now the perception is amplified and there is direct objective, repeatable phenomena which corresponds perfectly with the so-called icon in Hoffman's theory. One can predict how the wood will burn based on the cellular structure. The illusion that Hoffman is casting only works for those who don't understand how computers work, or how cars work, or how wood burns, or anything. From here, if the pattern holds from our other conversation, you will claim agnosticism. You don't know if how the computer works matches the icon. You don't know if the piston in the car is shaped like a piston, or if the cam shaft has a unique, precisely machined asymmetrical shape which is required for the engine to operate. And that's fair. However this sort of agnosticism, if it is consistent, must be applied to everything. And that is where the agnosticism collapses. If you, or Hoffman, were truly agnostic about your perception, you would never assume that I don't understand. You would never place your own understanding above anyone else's. It would be accepted that anyone you encounter, real or not, has access to the entire "source code of the matrix" and is able to perceive it clearly like Agent Smith, or The Architect, or The Oracle, or Neo. If you were truly agnostic about your perception you would not be behaving the way you are. And that's the same for Hoffman. If they're perception was actually just an interface lacking any identifiable features of phenomena outside the brain, they would never be able to produce a scientific theory of anything. So Hoffman's theory is absurd. It doesn't match reality at all. It's self defeating, and it's rather arrogant. It assumes that no one can have accurate perception about the inner workings of the desktop computer simply because they don't.

This looks outstanding.

@Mark Foote, So there's really nothing different about our definitions other than bellyaching? Heartburn? You have an allergic reaction to conversations which show absolute literal infinity is plausible, possible, coherent, consistent, rational, etc?

Naturalism also needs to be discussed a small bit, I think. In America spirits can and often are considered natural. This is common among druids, pagans, and pantheists, and, well, a lot of people. The idea, basically is, nothing is "super-natural". It's just natural "laws" which are not yet understood. At one point people did not understand illness and disease, gravity, or rotation of the contellations, or the sunrise, or sunset, etc. These were considered "super-natural" at that time and now they have been demystified. People who consider "spirits" and "ghosts" to be natural think these phenomena will at some point be understood at some later time in the same way that gravity, and illness, and constellations, etc are now understood. This is not intended to be a spiritual post, just providing some additional detail on why these terms need clarity from the perspective of a modern American, aka, me.

For me, only speaking for myself, I would want to go through all the chapters identified in the thread with the English word "spirit" chosen for the translation. And also the first reply to the thread included : "the only spirit in the TTC would be Tao". So, that, I think, leaves the issue of Laotze's position on "spirit" ambiguous. But I am not asking for an explanation of it. I think that's premature for me. Only speaking for me. I'm just writing this to hopefully explain why I asked what I did even though, as you said, the issue seemed closed.

In America, that would be a physicalist or a materialist. I know at least 1 atheist who believes in ghosts and spirits.

https://quatr.us/history/bellows-invented-bellows.htm By 400 BC, people in China used ox-hide bellows. They were using more efficient double-action piston box bellows by the early Han Dynasty, about 200 BC. These bellows blow air both when they’re opened and when they’re closed, so they’re more efficient than the pot bellows. Cobie also found a picture: