The (impersonal) Process of Being

 
Relinquish
 
Avatar
 
 
Relinquish
Total Posts:  3
Joined  05-04-2015
 
 
 
18 October 2017 16:32
 

In truth, any given ‘particular thing’ (for example, a ‘tree’) is always constantly changing, which is to say that ‘the tree’ is in fact a ‘process’ rather than a ‘thing’. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are ‘not the tree’, and are naturally comprised of ‘other processes’, ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are ‘not those other processes’, and are naturally comprised of ‘other other processes’, ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, ‘the tree’ could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of ‘not the tree’ (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, ‘the tree’ naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it’s own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between ‘the tree’ and ‘not the tree’. As such, neither ‘the tree’ nor ‘not the tree’ exist in Reality. Exactly the same is true of ALL ‘particular processes’, including ‘Me’ and ‘Not Me’ (and ‘You’ and ‘Not You’).

This means that the fundamental distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not ACTUALLY exist in any way at all.

Fundamentally, all the different processes are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent ‘features’ of the eternally cyclic Process of Being (the only Process that ever actually occurs in Reality, commonly known as the universe).

If the ceaseless change that is this Process had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior ‘beginningless absence of change’. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent ‘endless absence of change’. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore, the Process of Being MUST be eternally cyclic.

An eternal ‘state of non-being’ would ALWAYS be a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. For this reason, the Process of Being can ONLY be the ‘structured ever-changing asymmetry’ that It is.

However, the true nature of Reality (that is to say, the actual reason why there is a Process occurring at all, why ‘experiencing’ happens at particular ‘times’ and ‘places’ within It, and in turn, why an illusion of separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable….

Thanks for reading.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
18 October 2017 22:52
 

Consider Parmenides.

 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1279
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
19 October 2017 12:09
 

Very well said.

‘Tis a pity we humans seem to be trapped by our biology – trapped by the imperative struggle to survive, mate, acquire power and status.

“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.” – Blake

But then again, if true, universal transcendence of the human mind was possible, this might lead to the death of our species.

I, like you, suspect that the universe, or multiverse, is cyclical. However, current Cosmology disagrees with this and is predicting a “Big Freeze” caused by the eternal expansion of the universe.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

 
 
dhave
 
Avatar
 
 
dhave
Total Posts:  284
Joined  25-09-2016
 
 
 
20 October 2017 17:38
 

Dude, this is lovely, I think.  I have trouble following at one point, help me out.

Relinquish - 18 October 2017 04:32 PM

In truth, any given ‘particular thing’ (for example, a ‘tree’) is always constantly changing, which is to say that ‘the tree’ is in fact a ‘process’ rather than a ‘thing’. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are ‘not the tree’, and are naturally comprised of ‘other processes’, ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are ‘not those other processes’, and are naturally comprised of ‘other other processes’, ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, ‘the tree’ could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of ‘not the tree’ (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, ‘the tree’ naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it’s own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between ‘the tree’ and ‘not the tree’. As such, neither ‘the tree’ nor ‘not the tree’ exist in Reality. Exactly the same is true of ALL ‘particular processes’, including ‘Me’ and ‘Not Me’ (and ‘You’ and ‘Not You’).

OK, fine, but we need to fork here into your Absolute reality and some Relative reality for dessert.  If we only include Absolute reality, then there is just Universe and not much else to be said.  It would be like the FarSide cartoon where the guy puts a dog-bark-translator on his head, walks around town, and just hears “Hey!”  “Hey, Hey!”  “Hey!” “Hey! Hey! Hey!”

Perhaps you prefer the Caps convention, so we can talk about Reality and reality or Self and self.  Either way, without some relative reality mixed in, we would not be able to enjoy your lovely prose.

This means that the fundamental distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not ACTUALLY exist in any way at all.

Concepts exist.  If it were not so, we would not be having this conversation.  I’m assuming, of course, that there will be a conversation.  wink

In the words of our illustrious JMD, another good teacher on this forum, relative and absolute are Different Categories of Existence.

Are you Hindu?  It is resembling a Vedanta view so far.

Fundamentally, all the different processes are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent ‘features’ of the eternally cyclic Process of Being (the only Process that ever actually occurs in Reality, commonly known as the universe).

If the ceaseless change that is this Process had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior ‘beginningless absence of change’. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent ‘endless absence of change’. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore, the Process of Being MUST be eternally cyclic.

OK, now it may be helpful for us to brush up on our Big Bang chops.  “Eternity” requires time and there isn’t any before and potentially after Something.

An eternal ‘state of non-being’ would ALWAYS be a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. For this reason, the Process of Being can ONLY be the ‘structured ever-changing asymmetry’ that It is.

However, the true nature of Reality (that is to say, the actual reason why there is a Process occurring at all, why ‘experiencing’ happens at particular ‘times’ and ‘places’ within It, and in turn, why an illusion of separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable….

Thanks for reading.

You’re welcome.  Please don’t hit and run.

Regards,
Dave.

 

[ Edited: 20 October 2017 19:48 by dhave]
 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
21 October 2017 08:43
 

Hard sciences say that every “thing” that’s conceptual is a system in it of itself, and a reliant part of both larger and smaller processes, ad infinitum (e.g. The Universe). Social and psychological sciences claim that there’s an axiom, that being that the human is the smallest system, and larger systems are operational processes willfully created by us (like groups and companies). The reasoning for this distinction is the theory that consciousness is a conceptual system in it of itself, and that its process removes its output (i.e. experience and some behaviors) from being attached to all regressive laws further down the chain. Or at least that it’s possible in theory with a competent understanding of how perceptions condition us. Is that just another rabbit hole? Or as Sam said, “is it tumors all the way down?”

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
21 October 2017 21:02
 
Relinquish - 18 October 2017 04:32 PM

In truth, any given ‘particular thing’ (for example, a ‘tree’) is always constantly changing, which is to say that ‘the tree’ is in fact a ‘process’ rather than a ‘thing’. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are ‘not the tree’, and are naturally comprised of ‘other processes’, ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are ‘not those other processes’, and are naturally comprised of ‘other other processes’, ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, ‘the tree’ could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of ‘not the tree’ (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, ‘the tree’ naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it’s own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between ‘the tree’ and ‘not the tree’. As such, neither ‘the tree’ nor ‘not the tree’ exist in Reality. Exactly the same is true of ALL ‘particular processes’, including ‘Me’ and ‘Not Me’ (and ‘You’ and ‘Not You’).

This means that the fundamental distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not ACTUALLY exist in any way at all.

Fundamentally, all the different processes are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent ‘features’ of the eternally cyclic Process of Being (the only Process that ever actually occurs in Reality, commonly known as the universe).

If the ceaseless change that is this Process had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior ‘beginningless absence of change’. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent ‘endless absence of change’. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore, the Process of Being MUST be eternally cyclic.

An eternal ‘state of non-being’ would ALWAYS be a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. For this reason, the Process of Being can ONLY be the ‘structured ever-changing asymmetry’ that It is.

However, the true nature of Reality (that is to say, the actual reason why there is a Process occurring at all, why ‘experiencing’ happens at particular ‘times’ and ‘places’ within It, and in turn, why an illusion of separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable….

Thanks for reading.


“The end is the beginning, and every point between” smile


I agree with a lot of this, although I think you go to an opposite extreme (I’m a sorta-Buddhist, so I look for ‘middle path’ in most things,) in denying that distinctions exist at all. Interconnectedness may mean that there is no real boundary between your existence and the existence of a tree (if you have not heard of this experiment before, I am fairly sure you’d like reading about Foucault’s Pendulum, which proves that the universe is inherently connected Because Math Reasons That I Do Not Understand), that one is not separable from the other. But it doesn’t mean that you literally ARE a tree. There is a middle path there between delineating and identifying with, I think.


I also think there is a very cyclic nature to most things in the universe in a relative sense, although I also think it’s possible that in some larger sense, the universe is comprised of infinite points of potentiality that exist in a sort of mathematical / potentate format. Meaning all possibilities are already contained within them and the idea of them playing out in cycles is true in a relative sense but illusory in the most ultimate sense.

 
 
dhave
 
Avatar
 
 
dhave
Total Posts:  284
Joined  25-09-2016
 
 
 
22 October 2017 19:23
 

I think Relinquish is just popping in and out for some free feedback on his new book idea, NL.

And we spend 10 minutes trying to provide helpful comments or questions.  We should get paid for this shit.

Relinquish probably doesn’t even support his local public radio station.  What a jerk.

Regards,
Dave.

 
 
Relinquish
 
Avatar
 
 
Relinquish
Total Posts:  3
Joined  05-04-2015
 
 
 
23 October 2017 15:03
 

Thank you all for the replies, people. Sorry I haven’t had a chance to respond before now. I definitely intend for there to be a lively discussion and/or debate in this thread, and will be responding to each of your replies very soon. Things are just a bit hectic right now.

However, just to keep the ball rolling, I would like to add that what I called in my OP the eternally cyclic Process of Being (which, as I said, is commonly known as the universe) can be more deeply defined as the eternal activity of Reality Itself.

As I inluded to in the last paragraph of the OP, the actual reason why Reality is eternally active (rather than being eternally inactive) is absolutely unknowable. Whatever the reason is, it is whatever the true nature of Reality is. This ultimate truth is fundamentally beyond the reach of any conceptualization whatsoever.

 
dhave
 
Avatar
 
 
dhave
Total Posts:  284
Joined  25-09-2016
 
 
 
23 October 2017 20:21
 

Lord R, you live!  I thought the Night Kings had recycled you.

Damn good news.  We shall eternally look forward to your return.

Regards,
Dave.

 
 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  80
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
29 October 2017 23:20
 
Relinquish - 18 October 2017 04:32 PM

In truth, ...

Herein lies the error.

Relinquish - 18 October 2017 04:32 PM

‘the tree’ naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it’s own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between ‘the tree’ and ‘not the tree’. As such, neither ‘the tree’ nor ‘not the tree’ exist in Reality.

That’s fine as long as you won’t irrationally deny that empirically one may climb up the tree.

[ Edited: 29 October 2017 23:28 by Ground]