Absolutism – follow up 8

Absolute Is no-Absolute, [Absolute is no-Absolute Is no-[ Absolute is no-Absolute]], [Absolute is no-Absolute is no-[ Absolute is no-Absolute] Is no-[Absolute is no-Absolute is no-[ Absolute is no-Absolute]], And so on ….. This IS Infideficetion.

Everything Is Relative. Even this statement. So, not Everything is Relative. So this statement is not Relative, i.e. is Absolute, so Everything is Relative. And so on ….. This IS Infideficetion.

Everything is Relative. [Everything is Relative] Is Relative. [[Everything Is Relative] is Relative] Is Relative. [[[Everything is Relative] is Relative] is Relative] Is Relative. [[[[Everything is Relative] is Relative] is Relative] is Relative] Is Relative. And so on ….. This IS Infideficetion.

I.E.

Everything Is Relative. Everything is Relative Is not-[Absolute]. Everything is Relative is not-Absolute Is not-[Absolute]. Everything is Relative is not-Absolute is not-Absolute Is not-[Absolute]. Everything is Relative is not-Absolute is not-Absolute is not-Absolute Is not-[Absolute]. And so on ….. This IS Infidefiception.

Now consider:

Everything Is Relative. Everything is Relative Is [Absolute].

OR:

Everything Is Relative. [Everything is Relative] Is Absolute.

Or you can write redundantly:

Everything Is Relative. [Everything is Relative] Is Absolute. [Everything is Relative] Is Absolute. [Everything is Relative] Is Absolute. [Everything is Relative] Is Absolute. And so on ….. This IS Infidefiception.

This terminates here. Here, what’s happened is that a ground/foundation/Basis is found, and that Basis is, “Everything Is Relative“. This is the Absolute here, unlike in the above than this.

CONTRADICTION is the Key

CONTRADICTION is the limit/border/boundary of Space/State/Statement. Contradiction, with respect to, or relative to any space ‘S’, is the limit/border/boundary of, or with respect or relative to that space ‘S’.

This involves the Statement/State, the ‘Not’ or Not-State/Statement of or with respect or relative to that State/Statement. It involves, ‘Statement-Not-Statement’.

Now consider the fact, why Universe/Space has no central point? The point where the so called ‘Big Bang’ in the so called ‘Big Bang theory’ happened. Why?

Trying to find the Absolute or what is Absolute or the God or which God is Supreme, is like searching for the (spatio-temporal) central point of (spatio-temporal) Universe/Spacetime itself (from which it came into existence), while being an entity within, an entity that itself is spacetime, and that itself is a point, i.e. the entity within that point.

Inversely, trying to find the (spatio-temporal) central point of (spatio-temporal) Universe/Spacetime itself (from which it came into existence), while being an entity within, an entity that itself is spacetime, and that itself is a point, i.e. the entity within that point, is like trying to find the Absolute or what is Absolute or the God or which God is Supreme.

There is no centre, or rather, there is no Absolute center. It’s all relative. The “Big bang” point is the Universe itself. It’s all around you. In fact, it’s what you yourself are. So what are you searching for, yourself?

To find the centre of Universe, means to measure it. To measure it (the entire universe – the origin/the point), you have to measure it with respect to something, because measurement itself is a relative-act/thing.

To measure it is to observe it, and to observe this point of origin you have to observe this point of origin, which is the universe itself.

But, because the universe, by definition is ‘everything’, everything that you can measure it with respect to, or relative to, is within the universe, and the universe itself. There is no scale or even the notion of scale for measurement and measurement (comparison) itself, beyond the universe.

To observe the universe, you should be in some frame and have some scale ‘outside’ the universe. But there is no such frame. But there is no ‘outside’ the universe, universe is all there is. (Our universe with respect and relative to ‘us’ is the ‘all’, the Absolute with respect to ‘us’)There is no measurement, there is notion of measurement, no notion if no notion of measurement, and so on….., beyond our ‘Universe’ for ‘us’.

This is why, our universe is infinite for us. Measurement itself isn’t defined for the elements or creatures of that universe, when it comes to measuring that universe itself by the respective creatures of the universe.

Infinity is Relative.

Infinity, like Existence, like Everything and ‘every-thing’, and Nothing, and ‘Nothing’, is Relative.

This Idea is what’s actually revealed in the Vedas. Just replace the word, ‘Universe’ or ‘universe’ with the word Brahmm [i.e. Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म)] or Visñu (Sanskrit: विष्णु) or Narayana (Sanskrit: नारायण), above.

To define Brahmm, to define the ‘Complete‘, requires involving CONTRADICTION [Sanskrit: Virodhabhaas: विरोधाभास). It is defining CONTRADICTION. It requires something that is the ‘Not’/’Not-statement’ of the space or thing or entity to be measured or defined or observed. It is defining ‘STATEMENT-NOT-STATEMENT’.

[CONTRADICTION is the Key]

In this case, it requires one to be or be in or identify with the state or frame that is not, or ‘Not’ of or with respect to, the Brahmm, that is all-pervasive (i.e. Visñu) or ‘Universe’ or ‘Self’/’I’. Now, if it’s all-pervasive (Visñu), how can you get ‘rid’ of it? No matter what, it’ll be where you’re, in the frame, in the state that you’ll be in, in the state that you ‘are’.

So it’s impossible to measure it, there is no ‘beyond’ it. Nothing, and by that it means NOTHING, is relative to it, i.e. it is relative to NOTHING. It is ABSOLUTE. It is INFINITE. It is ABSOLUTE INFINITE. And by that it is not, and is, and not, is, is not, and so on….. This is INFIDEFICEPTION. It is INFIDEFICEPTION. And by that it is not, is, is not, is, is not, and so on ….. This is INFIDEFICEPTION. It is INFIDEFICEPTION

There is no measurement defined beyond it, there is no notion of measurement, because the frame or scale to measure it does not exist, is non-existent, is non-existence, is NOTHING

… Is EVERYTHING, i.e. is that ABSOLUTE itself

Only ‘that’ INFINITE can measure ‘that’ INFINITE

Words and Gods [Sanskrit: Devas (देव) or Devatas (देवता)] like ‘Visñu’, Rudra, Indra, Varuna, etc, are Statements/States, or are Statements-Not-Statements/States-Not-States. Statements/States are like the points in our Space-time, in our Universe that are ‘infinite’ in number. There are ‘infinite’ such points, there are infinite number of such points, of such Gods, words, of Statements/States.

Each is the Centre of the Brahmm/Visñu/Universe, None is the Centre of the Brahmm/Visñu/Universe.

Brahmm/Visñu/Universe is each Deva/Point, each Deva/Point is the (relative) Brahmm/Visñu/Universe.

[Each Deva/Point is the relative Brahmm/Visñu/Universe becasue each is the relative centre of the Brahmm/Visñu/Universe, and the Brahmm/Visñu/Universe is ‘itself’ its centre or its own centre]

The CENTRE is No-CENTRE. The PURNA (COMPLETE) is APURNA (INCOMPLETE). The ABSOLUTE is NO-ABSOLUTE. EVERYTHING IS NOTHING. This is INFIDEFICEPTION. This is STATE[MENT]VERSE

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On the nature of Nature

Image
  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...
Read more

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...
Read more