< 0731 | 0801 | 0802 >

Subjectivity is the nonsense that is the mayhem

I cringe at the error (logical contradiction) that we explore reality through a personal and subjective lens and therefore (constrained by the lens) that it is not utterly meaning but our [(unequally) shared] personal [cosmological] reality.

Everything goes away when one looks at it closely enough

THE ERROR IS NOT ILLUSION

That one looks at all is the insanity that is the mayhem

That some things do not go away when one looks at them ever closer, takes fallacy, and to maintain the fallacy takes self-deception and mental disorder.

"CLOSER."

Yes, of course if one looks at them closer "in" the physical world, i.e., according to specific rules, rulers or dimensions, that is a closed system, a physical system. The problem is "ultimately closer" limited to fixed dimensions, exactly like the five basic universal constants of physics, Planck-quantized to perfect order.... are ideal phenomena and not existence.

Oh, the phenomena "have" relationships and staggered perspectives on each other? More ideal phenomena, endlessly confirmed with the explicit existential nonsense of doing and having blatantly as if THOSE are not ideal phenomena, but magic-at-a-distance [shifts across dimensions], for it is the "work" of ones who are not thereby "mere" phenomena, but who "exist."~

It is impossible to function in the world maintaining the ultimate perspective

Soth de Witan

I came to this conclusion about 25 years ago, but I rejected it. Not because I don't think it's true, but because its almost impossible to function 'in the world' with this outlook. It takes much discipline to maintain an 'ultimate' perspective and can lead to madness, which is ironic, because, as you point out, the madness is believing the world 'exists'.

Fear or anxiety is x. Meaning as such is no reason for anxiety.

The fear that it is impossible to function with this outlook is in the world of the world. Meaning as itself reality should not be hard and thus reason for anxiety, for it is not at all being, i.e., the problem to be or not be.

Is the veda or yin yang false safety between existence and point-i?

Perhaps if one is quiet (not a hard philosopher of the question "existence" as the error) and reality is kind of in an in-between world (between pure meaning and the error that it exists) it is ultimately meaning, and is nothing like function, but from existence and perspective it can seem perfectly functional.

Maybe that need for quietness are "the sources (axioms)" of meditation (practice).

Point-i is the trinity, word, meaning and man

Interesting the idea that point-i is a trinity, i.e., word (Upanishads, The Son), meaning (Brahma Sutras, The Holy Spirit) and man (Bhagavad Gita, The Father).

Einstein came to his theories by just sitting and contemplating, and was wrong

Soth de Witan

I found it interesting that Einstein claimed to have come to his theories by just sitting and contemplating, and not through scientific study, but then there are those who say he just stole those ideas from previous scientists. Anyway, he was wrong!...lol

Outright word meaning is utterly not a matter of being or not being

Point-i is the idea that outright word-meaning-man is utterly not a matter of being or not being, not even axiomatic (Prasthanatrayi), i.e., any explanation why and how, what, but exactly what

"Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" is rhetorical voodoo.

X-relative Point-i, Prashanatrayi and Christianity

EXISTENCE(X): NO, KIND OF, YES

Point-i is the not existence trinity: word, meaning, man
Prashanatrayi is the pseudo existence trinity: Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, Bhaghavad Gita
Christianity is the existence trinity: The Son, The Holy Spirit, The Father

More x-relative point-i as cultural triad of existentiality

That everything is word is not existential. (p-i)
That it is yin yang paradox is pseudo-existential. (East)
That it is adversarial synthesis operation is existential. (West)

That point-i is my intersubjective field is psychologism (AI)

That the above is my intersubjective mind(fulness) field is the technocratic trinity of psychologism (AI) that is the abyss : man set up as human as subject to human fallacy, self-deception and mental disorder.

Is there anything apart from point-i or is it pointless?

Soth de Witan

Is there anything apart from point-i, or is the question 'pointless', because, even if there is, the fact that it is 'apart' from 'word/meaning/man' can have no meaning?