Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 P: Interesting that identity comes from the Latin words idem (same) and the word identidem (repeatedly) An identity also denotes a particularization. So we can define an identity as a feeling of standing apart which is always felt as being the same. A particularization, a standing apart repeated again, and again when performing a social role. Can this identity be dropped when not acting socially? Yes, it can. The Alone needs no identity, it has no need to stand apart from itself to sense itself as itself. L: Have you thought of the model that the alone is the sole identity in universe ? " playing " every identity, ... Lulu repeating ... P: Yes, I have. The alone is the source of every identity, but not an identity itself, as light is the source of every shadow, but not a shadow itself. In the alone there is no discontinuity, therefore, no repetition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 if there is an 'interchange' of anything, we have at a minimum two entities that can do this 'interchange'....... >>> " interchange " is an interpretation (which presumes distinct parties). the same phenomena can be viewed as reciprocity or relationship (in a mathematical sense), which does not entail presumption of parties. it all comes down to patterns... that is descriptions come down to patterns. And descriptions as patterns need not entail a notion of entities. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > if there is an 'interchange' of anything, we have at a minimum two > entities that can do this 'interchange'....... > >>> > > " interchange " is an interpretation (which presumes distinct parties). > > the same phenomena can be viewed as reciprocity or relationship (in > a mathematical sense), which does not entail presumption of parties. > > it all comes down to patterns... that is descriptions come down to > patterns. And descriptions as patterns need not entail a notion of > entities. > > Bill patterns are themselves 'entities'........even in mathematics, which itself is pattern and entity. that which is before, and after, and in, and through, and by, and for, and beyond, and below, and is all things said and unsaid, is not defined nor exampled by pattern nor number. everything notionable is identity......even if only with self or number, or pattern. .........bob > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 .... the source of every identity, is not an identity itself. ... .... ... how does bob think and feel about that ? is the source of your identity no identity ? is no identity, no identity ? Lu L: Have you thought of the model that the alone is the sole identity in universe Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 " interchange " is an interpretation (which presumes distinct parties). why do you need distinct parties for an interchange with distinct parties there is no nonduality .... no oneness lu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 mathematics Is zero entity or not ? Is zero identity or not ? Bill, Bob ? Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > ... the source of every identity, is not an identity itself. ... > > > .... ... how does bob think and feel about that ? > > is the source of your identity no identity ? > > is no identity, no identity ? > Lu if there is a 'source', it's a 'source' to something. it identifies itself as that source or even just 'source'. > L: Have you thought of the model that the alone is the sole identity in > universe 'alone' is a term designating that which is without other...by such designation it belies itself as an identity of that which is other than 'not many, or few, or one or two...... " . it is neat, but as you say it is a 'model', and as such, it is a 'thing' in conception. where concept is....'something in identity is' .....bob > > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > mathematics > > > Is zero entity or not ? > > Is zero identity or not ? > > > Bill, Bob ? zero is an incredibly powerful idea that comes from Arabia, and has found infinite usage in mathematics since. in fact without it's use all modern math, science, engineering, archetecture and philosophy would fail. zero and infinity are strange in that though infinitely apart, they are infinitely the same and equal....the 'ends' meet as it were, though that is really incorrect as neither are 'ends' nor 'ends in themselves', as has been logically proven both mathematecally and in philosophy. but also 'zero' is an identification of 'without number' as is 'infinity'.......both are identity with themselves and a most peculiar fashion, with each other. .........bob > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > mathematics > > > Is zero entity or not ? > > Is zero identity or not ? > > > Bill, Bob ? > zero is a number your questions entail making the number zero a *metaphor*... i.e. a poetic usage... which is not a mathematical one. If by " zero " you mean " nothing " your question would be: Is nothing entity or not? And that depends on how you construe " nothing " ... you can construe " nothing " as an entity or not as an entity. Interestingly, though (and this is just a curiousity), in " abstract algebra " there is what is call an " identity element " . In ordinary aritmetic zero is an identity element for *addition* because any number x + zero = x. In ordinary arithmetic one is an identity element for *multiplication* because any number x times one = x. Nothing of metaphysical significance going on in any of this as far as I am concerned. More of interest to the spirit of your question is the work of G. Spencer Brown, which Bob is familiar with also. He has two different senses of " nothing " , one of which *is* an entity and one of which is not. [something like in databases where they have both null and zero.] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Thus, ... Zero and nothing as the source of all numbers and entities are both an identity and not, sounds like something we might be able to agree on. Lulu More of interest to the spirit of your question is the work of G. Spencer Brown, which Bob is familiar with also. He has two different senses of " nothing " , one of which *is* an entity and one of which is not. [something like in databases where they have both null and zero.] See the all-new, redesigned .com. Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > > So... > > if we are zero, than we don't know who we are, thus we have an identity. > > but if we are one or two or three or any other number without zero could not exist, than zero is no identity. > > correct? > > Lulu I think I can identify with this, yes. but I'm not absolutely sure, because I don't know who I am, and question even my agreements. just another way of identifying my nothingness...I guess. ......bob > zero is an incredibly powerful idea that comes from Arabia, and has > found infinite usage in mathematics since. in fact without it's use all > modern math, science, engineering, archetecture and philosophy would > fail. zero and infinity are strange in that though infinitely apart, > they are infinitely the same and equal....the 'ends' meet as it were, > though that is really incorrect as neither are 'ends' nor 'ends in > themselves', as has been logically proven both mathematecally and in > philosophy. but also 'zero' is an identification of 'without number' as > is 'infinity'.......both are identity with themselves and a most > peculiar fashion, with each other. > > .........bob > > > > > How low will we go? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > " interchange " is an interpretation (which presumes distinct parties). > > > why do you need distinct parties for an interchange > > with distinct parties there is no nonduality > > .... no oneness > > lu ahh, but thou forgeteth, oh puck, the music and the dance, the joy of the king's and queen's return...;-) > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong@> wrote: > > > > " interchange " is an interpretation (which presumes distinct > parties). > > > > > > why do you need distinct parties for an interchange > > > > with distinct parties there is no nonduality > > > > .... no oneness > > > > lu > > > ahh, but thou forgeteth, oh puck, the music and the dance, > the joy of the king's and queen's return...;-) > > of course, to the singer of dionysian ideals but to the apollonian: they never left .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong@> wrote: > > > > ... the source of every identity, is not an identity itself. ... > > > > > > .... ... how does bob think and feel about that ? > > > > is the source of your identity no identity ? > > > > is no identity, no identity ? > > Lu > > > if there is a 'source', it's a 'source' to something. it identifies > itself as that source or even just 'source'. > > > > L: Have you thought of the model that the alone is the sole > identity in > > universe > > > 'alone' is a term designating that which is without other...by such > designation it belies itself as an identity of that which is other > than 'not many, or few, or one or two...... " . it is neat, but as you > say it is a 'model', and as such, it is a 'thing' in conception. > where concept is....'something in identity is' > > .....bob Alone is something I feel...Because I am.... Anna > > > > > > > > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong@> wrote: > > > > > > ... the source of every identity, is not an identity itself. ... > > > > > > > > > .... ... how does bob think and feel about that ? > > > > > > is the source of your identity no identity ? > > > > > > is no identity, no identity ? > > > Lu > > > > > > if there is a 'source', it's a 'source' to something. it > identifies > > itself as that source or even just 'source'. > > > > > > > L: Have you thought of the model that the alone is the sole > > identity in > > > universe > > > > > > 'alone' is a term designating that which is without other...by > such > > designation it belies itself as an identity of that which is other > > than 'not many, or few, or one or two...... " . it is neat, but as > you > > say it is a 'model', and as such, it is a 'thing' in conception. > > where concept is....'something in identity is' > > > > .....bob > > > > Alone is something I feel...Because I am.... > > Anna > > because you're angry because your heart is only half open thus broken open it completely and you will be whole .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong@> wrote: > > > > > > ... the source of every identity, is not an identity itself. ... > > > > > > > > > .... ... how does bob think and feel about that ? > > > > > > is the source of your identity no identity ? > > > > > > is no identity, no identity ? > > > Lu > > > > > > if there is a 'source', it's a 'source' to something. it > identifies > > itself as that source or even just 'source'. > > > > > > > L: Have you thought of the model that the alone is the sole > > identity in > > > universe > > > > > > 'alone' is a term designating that which is without other...by > such > > designation it belies itself as an identity of that which is other > > than 'not many, or few, or one or two...... " . it is neat, but as > you > > say it is a 'model', and as such, it is a 'thing' in conception. > > where concept is....'something in identity is' > > > > .....bob > > > > Alone is something I feel...Because I am.... > > Anna Alone is something I feel ....Because I am.... Walking a Dead end street... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote: > > Thus, ... > > Zero and nothing as the source of all numbers and entities are both an identity and not, sounds like something we might be able to agree on. > > Lulu one view is that the first " something " is the congnizing of " nothing " ... i.e. in naming nothing the first something emerges. Bill > > More of interest to the spirit of your question > is the work of G. Spencer Brown, which Bob is > familiar with also. He has two different senses > of " nothing " , one of which *is* an entity and > one of which is not. [something like in databases > where they have both null and zero.] > > > > > > See the all-new, redesigned .com. Check it out. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong@> wrote: > > > > Thus, ... > > > > Zero and nothing as the source of all numbers and entities are > both an identity and not, sounds like something we might be able to > agree on. > > > > Lulu > > one view is that the first " something " is the > congnizing of " nothing " ... > > i.e. in naming nothing the first something emerges. > > Bill > > > > > > > More of interest to the spirit of your question > > is the work of G. Spencer Brown, which Bob is > > familiar with also. He has two different senses > > of " nothing " , one of which *is* an entity and > > one of which is not. [something like in databases > > where they have both null and zero.] > > > have you considered the general significance of paradox? specifically, its general effect of confounding thought thus liberating .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong@> wrote: > > > > > > Thus, ... > > > > > > Zero and nothing as the source of all numbers and entities are > > both an identity and not, sounds like something we might be able to > > agree on. > > > > > > Lulu > > > > one view is that the first " something " is the > > congnizing of " nothing " ... > > > > i.e. in naming nothing the first something emerges. > > > > Bill > > Cognizing is recognizing. You cannot cognize something totally unkown. If you original homeland was nothingness and you cognize it then you are at home again. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thus, ... > > > > > > > > Zero and nothing as the source of all numbers and entities > are > > > both an identity and not, sounds like something we might be able > to > > > agree on. > > > > > > > > Lulu > > > > > > one view is that the first " something " is the > > > congnizing of " nothing " ... > > > > > > i.e. in naming nothing the first something emerges. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Cognizing is recognizing. You cannot cognize something totally unkown. > > If you original homeland was nothingness and you cognize it then you > are at home again. > > Werner to recognize Guru Werner.... is only possible when the Guru of Werner is at Home.... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lulu Dong <lulu.dong@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thus, ... > > > > > > > > > > Zero and nothing as the source of all numbers and entities > > are > > > > both an identity and not, sounds like something we might be > able > > to > > > > agree on. > > > > > > > > > > Lulu > > > > > > > > one view is that the first " something " is the > > > > congnizing of " nothing " ... > > > > > > > > i.e. in naming nothing the first something emerges. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Cognizing is recognizing. You cannot cognize something totally > unkown. > > > > If you original homeland was nothingness and you cognize it then > you > > are at home again. > > > > Werner > > > to recognize Guru Werner.... > > is only possible when the Guru of Werner is at Home.... > > > > You are welcome Werner > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.