Daniel

You asked "what if it's a lie?" I answered "it's not a lie, it's incomplete" I've given various reasons to support what I'm saying. You have ignored each and every one and restarted preaching from a pulpit. come down off the soap-box, and let's talk about the lies being told. Pick a lie. 1 statement. pick 1 thing, and let's see if it's a lie. Color? Shape? Scent? pick 1 and let's talk about it instead of preaching Buddha Buddha says...

Not true, I am understanding you perfectly you are denying a whole list of things. But the evidence does not support it. You are *telling* me and asserting. But the evidence does not support it. That is not a discussion. What follows is not a discussion. It is preaching. Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" As you have repeatedly stated it is a best guess. But how good is the guess? This is what is being ignored. Accuracy. It's a simulation. Is it a good simulation? what is wrong with the data that is being recieved and delivered in the mind. Per your on words, you don't know that. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Color could exist, but you would never know. In fact there are good reasons to trust that color exists. But you keep ignoring what I've said. No problem. Let's just go with what you are saying. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Color could exist. You would never know one way or the other. Per your on words, you don't know that. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Shape could exist, but you would never know. In fact there are good reasons to trust that shape exists. But you keep ignoring what I've said. No problem. Let's just go with what you are saying. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Shape could exist. You would never know one way or the other. Per your on words, you don't know that. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Scents could exist, but you would never know. In fact there are good reasons to trust that shape exists. But you keep ignoring what I've said. No problem. Let's just go with what you are saying. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Scents could exist. You would never know one way or the other. Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Not true. Your own diagram has the indivdual looking out. Your own video has the individual looking out. Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatedly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Not true. The shadows accuratey describe shadows. They are not an abstraction. How accurate is the mirror? Is the mirror warped or inverted? It doesn't happen that way in real life. That is a gross exaggeration. It doesn't happen that way in real life. That is a gross exaggeration. It doesn't happen that way in real life. That is a gross exaggeration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have repeated all of these points. But you are still not discussing the accuracy of this simulation. And you are still denying that color, shape, and scent exist in spite of claiming absolute ingnorance of anything outside your mind. It doesn't matter if Buddhism teaches it. Buddhism also teaches letting go of doctrine and dogma. Are you ready to discuss the accuracy? That means, you say something. I respond, then you respond to what I said, not just repeat the same thing over and over and over and over......

what would you like to discuss? maybe start a thread, list the ground rules at the beginning to prevent tedium?

26 is the gematria of YHVH.

Axiom #26: never argue against feminine logic.

The discussion of "when the end of consciousness comes, there’s nothing to be afraid of. Nothing at all." is a discussion about productive-emptiness, is everything just "deleted"?

Lolz.... but, but... we're discussing productive-emptiness in a thread titled 'deleted'.... ~intended in the most friendly manner~

I would not consider that 'nothingness'. I like your words "productive emptiness" or maybe "inversion"?

Nice! I was studying this chapter yesterday.

Lacking something, anything, infinite-nothing is no longer disjointed and dissappears in a puff of self-contradiction. Infinite-nothing NEEDS something, anything. And that is why I love it.

I only have the most trivial quibbles with this. I would use a different symbol. Either NULL or {} or ∅. infinite-nothing is disjointed from everything. Always and forever, in any possible world. Only when everything is included. Individually or in groups, each thing or group is itself and is not infinite.

.

0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 ... will never = infinity which is unlke any other number.

I would argue that the infinitely large is 1 not 0. As infinity is approached the distinctions that border each individual 'thing' become less and less significant. Eventually the distinctions which border seperate each individual "thing" become infinitesimal. when infinity is achieved the distinctions become 0, there are no borders, everything becomes 1. 0 is not included in infinity. infinity is 1. this is why mathematically infinity +1 = infinity infinity +10 = infinity infinity + 100 = infinity infinity + infinity = infinity it's the ultimate tautology / identity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof This is a pretty good description. First paragraph of the article: Ein Sof, or Eyn Sof (/eɪn sɒf/, Hebrew: אֵין סוֹף‎ ʾēn sōf; meaning "infinite", lit. '(There is) no end'), in Kabbalah, is understood as God prior to any self-manifestation in the production of any spiritual realm, probably derived from Solomon ibn Gabirol's (c. 1021 – c. 1070) term, "the Endless One" (she-en lo tiklah). Ein Sof may be translated as "unending", "(there is) no end", or infinity.[1] It was first used by Azriel (c. 1160 – c. 1238), who, sharing the Neoplatonic belief that God can have no desire, thought, word, or action, emphasized by it the negation of any attribute. Of the Ein Sof, nothing ("Ein") can be grasped ("Sof"-limitation). It is the origin of the Ohr Ein Sof, the "Infinite Light" of paradoxical divine self-knowledge, nullified within the Ein Sof prior to creation. In Lurianic Kabbalah, the first act of creation, the Tzimtzum self "withdrawal" of God to create an "empty space", takes place from there. In Hasidic Judaism, the Tzimtzum is only the illusionary concealment of the Ohr Ein Sof, giving rise to monistic panentheism. The important point is the "withdrawl" the "empty-space" is an illusion. It's not literally withdrawl, it's not literally empty-space. empty-space does not exist.

Ain-Soph literally means "without-end" or "never-ending". It's a term meaning infinite. The field that underlies the manifested world is, if I recall. ohr-ain-soph, never-ending-light. The qabalistic zero is 'Ain' unqualified.

Neitche knows: Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil I think the qualifier "lange" / "long" is very important here.

All my posts are in public, this is a public forum. Here in America, there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces, which, in general, within reason, means a person waives their right to privacy while in public spaces. However, I detected sarcasm in your post. Perhaps I'm wrong, or it's not clear to others, so maybe a simple confirmation of your intent would be good? Perfectly understandable. The forum permits it, anyone participating here should be OK with unlimited edits or deletes of posts. This sort of feature allows a lot of freedom to the poster to experiment with ideas, and then change their mind about posting it in part or in total. For what it's worth, no judgements from me.

Sorry. I saw the ~confused~ reaction to my post. What I meant to say is: "My question is: what is the connection between the chain cave and the shadows? There are none, right? The shadows are still shadows. The person is still a person." In context of the conversation, the OP was claiming that almost all humans are in some sort of 'chains' or 'bondage' in plato's-cave. My hope was that the OP and I would discuss the accuracy of the perception of these shadows. Accuracy is the key-point which is being ignored. So, in your question, you are asking about leaving the cave and returning. In this thought-experiment, what do you think happens when the person returns to the cave? Are the shadows still shadows? Is the person's arm still an arm? Is there any change in the individual's perceptions? I vote: no. There is no change in perception. Instead, there is a recognition that there is MORE than shadows. It's not that the shadows are false. It's that the perception has been proven to be incomplete. Then we can go back to the very first question typed in this thread... It's not a lie. it's incomplete. There's many many good reasons to trust our perceptions as accurate even though it can be fooled and impaired. But this does not discredit perception nor render all attributes and qualia void. That seems to be religious doctrine, aka dogma.

There's a converse argument made for the supremacy of 1. There's also an interesting discussion that can be had about 3s. The argument for the supremacy of 1 is very strong in my opinion. Naturally I'm biased though. It's very simple. All other numbers are constructed from the number 1. That makes it supreme. Simple, and lacking any counter-examples.

The concept exists. The content doesn't. The idea that was being introduced is the supremacy of 'zero', but zero requires at least 1 other number to define itself. That means that 0 is not and never can be supreme. If it is ever supreme, then it ceases to exist. Qabalistic zero defeats itself. Zero can only be lesser or equivilent. Perhaps it desires supremacy, but, it can't have it. So, mathematically, yes, 0 = 0 * infinity. But this does not render infinity into a subservient position. And this ignores all the counter-examples: 1+0 = 1 2+0 = 2 3+0 = 3 1-0 = 1 2-0 = 2 3-0 = 3 1/0 = infinity 2/0 = infinity 3/0 = infinity etc. "As per Crowley: "How then is the magician supposed to destroy himself"? This is how the magician destroys themself. It's a problem, or is it?

The problem is, qabalistic zero doesn't exist.

Crowley's Answer: "I ASSERT THE ABSOLUTENESS OF THE QABALISTIC ZERO."

https://genius.com/Rheas-obsession-hymn-to-pan-lyrics

Agreed. Then there's no need to talk about credentials, and how long someone's been doing this or that. No need to remind repeatedly of a title bestowed. Content defines credibility.