Twoness: A Theory for the Basis of Order found in Ancient Wisdom

[sameandnot]

because "I" exist and the One necessarily exists, it follows that the perceptions that I have which involve beginning and end and change, do not apply to what "I" really am.
"I" is the primal, most essential nature of being, for "I", so it seems that it must be in accord with the One, since the one is the most essential nature of being.

so "I" is omnipresent, and eternal and unchanging... essentially it is That, which is the One.

again: please note the flaws of this logical excercise. all are welcome and never turned away.

so, if we are talking about order or chaos, we are speaking entirely of the Two. Twoness, then, is the basis of order and the One is entirely transcendant of order and chaos.

order and choas are polarities and are therefore properties of the Two. they seem to go hand in hand. For "order" there is "chaos" and for "chaos" there is "order."

 

[Les Sleeth]

The problem is such a substance could not be the basic building block of the universe.
If it has one property, you can cut it in half.
You say where it appear to be space there's just esse, but how does that make any sense?
Esse must have some sort of dimensions, in its own logical or the universes logical space.

I think you have left the path of logic we've been following. What is the logic of saying you can cut a property in half? Can you halve infinity?

Why must esse have dimensions? If it is infinitely extended, then it is immeasurable.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey Les,
I am curious as to how an uncreated, unlimited, unbounded plane of esse could ever become concentrated in the first place? Once esse is compressed I can begin to imagine how it could take on the properties you describe. . . . But what I still don't understand is what caused the compressive forces, or dynamics that led to one substance exhibiting multiple forms.

Yours is a good question because I can use it to demonstrate the modeling technique I’m relying on. Let me first define how that technique is used :

1. Assume something unknown is true; in this case, an uncreated ground state substance that composes and determines all existence (esse).
2. Imagine what esse must be like to produce conditions we find here in our universe.
3. To help with envisioning what esse must be like, search for traits that run throughout the universe.

What I’ve suggested is that unless there is some plane of existence that is an uncreated, uncaused substance and set of conditions, then we cannot escape the logical dilemma of infinite regress.

Three traits I’ve identified that run throughout the universe are oscillation, polarization, and compression-decompression.

To account for oscillation with esse, I’ve proposed esse is inherently vibrant, and that vibrancy is accentuated by compression to become “vibration.” What is the source of the compression?

Keep in mind there are really two major factors present in the ground state. There is the nature of esse, and then there is the ocean aspect of esse. Just like a water ocean, water has characteristics as H2O and it has characteristics because it resides as a volume of water (e.g., eddies, waves, etc.). Similarly, there is the inherent characteristics of esse, and there are esse ocean dynamics. Since compression is an elementary dynamic, and esse is essentially energetic (vibrancy), it is a simple matter to imagine that the ocean of esse is turbulent and that part of that turbulence is compression. Let’s call the point where compression occurs in the esse ocean a “position.”

See Diagram 4 (click to enlarge)

What might go on at a position under compression?

See Diagram 5

The idea is that it creates an discrete oscillating point, or position, within the whole of the esse ocean. Notice in the drawing I called the position a “balance point” because it is midway between the compression phase and decompression phase.

Simple compression might explain how oscillation comes about, but what about polarization? For that it seems that oscillation will have to endure. Assuming we have an infinite ocean of esse, and eternity, then it isn’t a stretch to imagine that at times multiple compressional forces surround a single position, which would keep the pressure on. With sufficient duration and enough pressure, might a position differentiate into stabilized modes, thus creating a self-sustaining “entity”?

See Diagram 6

Why suppose such an occurrence in the esse ocean? The ability to distinguish an entity within the oneness of the esse ocean is crucial if we are to somehow move from undifferentiated oneness to manifold reality. If that first step out of oneness is the establishment of some sort of polar entity, then we should have the means for further development.

Getting back to the modeling demonstration, the idea has been to imagine base conditions of esse and the esse ocean that lead to what we find here in the universe. Polarity and oscillation are key to the existence of the universe, so we have reasoned “backwards” from that trying to envision the primordial or “ground” state.

 

[octelcogopod]

I think you have left the path of logic we've been following. What is the logic of saying you can cut a property in half? Can you halve infinity?
Why must esse have dimensions? If it is infinitely extended, then it is immeasurable.

Yes but I already said in my earlier post we will never know if it is infinite, because the esse doesn't carry any characteristics that would indicatei t being eternal or infinite.

You are applying properties to it, like polarities and vibrations, which must have some sort of dimensions, you can't have a vibrating nothing.
The opposite of nothing is something, and immediately when you have something, it has a property, and that property must always be existential, as such an existential property means that it must have a dimension, at least a dimension of existence, which is a property in itself, if that's the only property it has, then there's no indication that it will start to vibrate.

 

[sameandnot]

The ability to distinguish an entity within the oneness of the esse ocean is crucial if we are to somehow move from undifferentiated oneness to manifold reality. If that first step out of oneness is the establishment of some sort of polar entity, then we should have the means for further development.

i don't think that we are really thinking about the nature of such an esse. the One is not such that it is Two. Unless what we mean by esse, is the sea of vibration, which is the Two. The One cannot vibrate. This is essential to understand. THe One is One and is whole and undifferentiated; this is why it is the One... because it is not divided any where. are we seeing it more clearly now?
there can be no entity within the Oneness; that makes it Two. This is a very simple logical prerequisite of the One, but is not understood, here.
When we talk about the One we are talking about an undifferentiated wholeness, with no other present.
To admit the existence of the One is to submit to its being the Only existence. Two, is naught, when One is.
This is to say that, were we to Know the One and thereby be aware of it's being, Two must necessarily be naught. do you see?
this is like saying that the Two is shadow; once one sees the light, directly, the Two (shadow) is not.
To talk about oscillation or becoming signifies that the One is not known. The One completely destroys the idea of Two; in it's very nature.

I think that the problem here, is that we are considering a linear movement of physical events, proceeding from the One; where the One is some primordial state, which then develops the Two. It seems that we are thinking of this wrong.

The One can be nothing other than the beginning, the middle and the end.

It would be just as logical to talk about the Two developing into the One.
Both ways of talking, thinking (Two from One, One from Two) would both be missing the point of what the One is. If we accept the One then we must not accept such conditions of becoming, which are inherent in the Two. as the One is neither becoming nor changing.

The Two is the One.

this means that the perception and consideration of the Two is shortsighted; limited within the realm of the Two.

As was said in a previous post, about rationality, one must "go beyond"/"transcend" reason to see what reason is and be able to reason effectively, ultimately. in the same way, it appears, one must go beyond the Two, in order to see the Two most clearly; having known what is not the Two.

I do hope that people are reading this and really thinking about it, rather than just thinking of ways to "come back" or carry on as though it was not fundamentally important information.

I am calling into question the very idea of Esse which has hitherto been present in this discussion. namely, it's vibratory nature (which immediately calls into necessary existence the ideas of dividuation, space, time, and change... all are properties that can not be of the One.

please condider this before talking about the One or the Esse again, as the discussion will need to adapt, i am certain.

i may have been somewhat over-zealous in some previous posts, but it is only because i see this quite clearly, apparently.

we must re-consider the One and the Two and how the Two stands in relation to the One.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Yes but I already said in my earlier post we will never know if it is infinite, because the esse doesn't carry any characteristics that would indicatei t being eternal or infinite.
You are applying properties to it, like polarities and vibrations, which must have some sort of dimensions, you can't have a vibrating nothing.
The opposite of nothing is something, and immediately when you have something, it has a property, and that property must always be existential, as such an existential property means that it must have a dimension, at least a dimension of existence, which is a property in itself, if that's the only property it has, then there's no indication that it will start to vibrate.

Now you are thinking completely outside of this reasoning exercise. Nothing you are saying shows you understand what we are doing. If that isn't so, then how can you possibly say "there's no indication that it will start to vibrate"? We have already reasoned that because everything in this universe vibrates, and polarizes, that for a monistic modeling exercise the idea is to propose some more basic condition(s) which could lead to that. So there is every indication that our theoretical esse is vibrant, and that something in the theoretical esse ocean causes it to vibrate.

If you want to call a property a "dimension," fine, but that's not how it's normally used. I've clearly stated esse must have properties. It is sometlhing, it is uncreated stuff that can become all that we find here in this universe. You might have missed where in my explanation to Roamer that I said vibrancy is a secondary trait, that esse's most basic nature is that of homogeneous "illumination." I arrived at that from evidence and logic. Evidence-wise, that is a common report of the most successful meditators (that they join with an ocean of light). Logic-wise, as the universe radiates away its mass, light is what departs matter.

You know, if you don't like thinking about how it might be possible for a universe to narturally arise from esse, then you don't have to participate. I'm inviting people who to contribute who find the idea interesting.

 

[Les Sleeth]

i don't think that we are really thinking about the nature of such an esse. the One is not such that it is Two. Unless what we mean by esse, is the sea of vibration, which is the Two. The One cannot vibrate. This is essential to understand. THe One is One and is whole and undifferentiated; this is why it is the One... because it is not divided any where. are we seeing it more clearly now?

Is it more clear now? Yes, it’s clear you aren’t following the discussion and think you can pontificate on a subject which nobody really knows anything about. This is not the place for you to lay your realizations on us. You might be the seer you think you are, but it isn’t relevant to this discussion.

In THIS discussion, the idea is to assume there is one substance that makes up everything, and then use universal conditions we find in creation to imagine what that one stuff is like. I am not saying the one stuff actually exists, I am not expecting anyone to believe anything. This is just a “what if” and then an application of logic.

In the context of the theme of this thread, logic-wise your statements don’t make the slightest sense. For example, if the one cannot vibrate, then what is all the vibration doing here in creation? The idea of the one is that is encompasses all, it is the one reality, the one basis of all existence . . . So whatever forms we see must be a form of the one.

If vibration isn’t provided by the one, then there is no such thing as the one. In that case, what you are calling “one” is really just one of many different things that exist. But if it is THE one, then all that we see are manifestations of that one.

As I said to octelcogopod, this thread is just for people who are interested in participating in the monistic reasoning exercise. If you aren’t interested, then there are other venues, including starting your own threads, where you can do your own thing.

 

[sameandnot]

upon contemplation, it appears that this question is already closed. if we can stop deluding the process with false views about the One.

we say that the esse is the eternal flux of the Two, polarity/duality; that this cycle and play of the poles/duality never began and shall never end; beginningless/endless contraction and expansion, vibration, and cycle of dualities.

in duality is included the duality of matter/energy (which are neither created nor destroyed, but transmuted between the two) and we have our "stuff." oscillation from pure energy to matter is a natural course of the properties of the Two/"esse", so it is not illogical to consider energy to be the essential "stuff", though it might be perceived by some to be inconsistent; once energy is transmuted into matter, by reslut of the properties of oscillation that matter is subject to polarity and from there we can see an "obective" universe arising from even the smallest, most seemingly insignificant "specks" of matter.

we know the Two to be fundamentally and endlessly united as One; the Two are/is One, in essence.

The One, then, is the total unity of the Two.

it is easy to see how the play of duality/the poles/the complementary parts constitute the manifold forms of Reality, in time, and also how they are united, in the totality of time (and space), eternity, as One.

we do not have to think, it appears, about how the Two was derived from the One, but only how the Two is One.

The perception of the Two, then, is the crude perception of what is only One; a perception which is limited from its "being within."

the initial post points to this clearly and directly; particularly by way of the yin-yang image.

a "beginning" and "end," then, are the perceptions one has from "being within" a single framework of expansion and contraction. (say, a universe is said to have a beginning and end, because we are "within" it, but we would know, via the necessary eternality of the Two, it's beginning and end to be one of an eternal process of fluctuations between expansion and contraction)

So, then, the One is the Knowing of the Reality of what the Two is; the endlessly united/connected Nature of the Two; that the Two is only One, essentially.

so, it seems, we need only discuss how the Two has manifest such manifold forms, if we find it necessary to do so. It might, simply, be more fruitful to understand how the Two is One.

it appears to be a mis-guided search, if we are trying to determine how the One became Two, but I know that you want to know the "essential stuff" of creation, so you probably want to see what came before polarity; from whence polarity issued. you may find it insatisfactory to think that the essentail stuff is really of a dual nature, although it explains the fundamental "structuring" quality of creation.

in this way, we know the trinity of "creator, creation, creating" as being One and the same, along with the duality of the "opposites"/complements as One, as well. That the identification of the trinity, and duality as being Absolute Truths, are really "half-truths", if you will, in light of the essential unity that is Reality.

so, if the issue is "how the One became Two", we might be looking at it wrong, in light of the fact that the Two is, really, only One.

The oscillation of the Two is eternal in and as the One.

 

[octelcogopod]

Now you are thinking completely outside of this reasoning exercise. Nothing you are saying shows you understand what we are doing. If that isn't so, then how can you possibly say "there's no indication that it will start to vibrate"? We have already reasoned that because everything in this universe vibrates, and polarizes, that for a monistic modeling exercise the idea is to propose some more basic condition(s) which could lead to that. So there is every indication that our theoretical esse is vibrant, and that something in the theoretical esse ocean causes it to vibrate.
If you want to call a property a "dimension," fine, but that's not how it's normally used. I've clearly stated esse must have properties. It is sometlhing, it is uncreated stuff that can become all that we find here in this universe. You might have missed where in my explanation to Roamer that I said vibrancy is a secondary trait, that esse's most basic nature is that of homogeneous "illumination." I arrived at that from evidence and logic. Evidence-wise, that is a common report of the most successful meditators (that they join with an ocean of light). Logic-wise, as the universe radiates away its mass, light is what departs matter.
You know, if you don't like thinking about how it might be possible for a universe to narturally arise from esse, then you don't have to participate. I'm inviting people who to contribute who find the idea interesting.

If I didn't find it interesting I wouldn't have participated.
I'm just trying to figure out if my questions fit in your theory.
It seems we have completely different ideas on how the universe works, so I don't think we will ever come to an understanding.

 

[quantumcarl]

You missed the point big time here. No wonder you object. No one is saying that esse created the universe. We're saying that esse IS the universe

If "esse" is the universe then that would suggest a sort of "oneness".

However, in "twoness" it is required that esse be observed to exist.

ie: observer + observed = "twoness"
(however, again... the interdependence between these two elements creates a "oneness"... so its all very confusing)

Without being observed esse cannot be said to exist. This includes the act of esse observing itself and this is still a "twoness" system.

One is comprised of many parts

eg: 1 = .0000001 + .005 + .8 + .00000500000100000008 etc...

How can we call this oneness?

 

[sameandnot]

consider how the totality of existence is present in every moment.
consider the endless interconnection, of all parts, across the totality of time and space.
consider how the different parts of an orange are only one orange; the parts are nothing without the whole. (parts of an orange don't grow seperately, there are "parts" of an orange because an orange develops.)
so, we must concede that the Two (duality: up/down,expand/contract,energy/matter,positive/negative polarity, etc...) is really only One; there could be no positive, alone, without the negative. they are mutually dependant, so they are One; a unity of force.

 

[roamer]

I have to say that I am as confused as most others in understanding esse. I have many speculations on why this is and I'm certain I could come up with a bunch of hypothetical what ifs that we could use in debate against Les, but I'm uncertain if that is the best way to go about determining what it is Les is trying to say, after all Les is proposing an emperical model. I remember going through some modern physics classes, first the theory was explained, and almost everytime I just couldn't believe things could be that way. I even came up with a great number of arguments against thinking about things in that manner, but ultimately what mattered was how well the theories model agreed with observation. Obiously this situation is slightly different we are after all well beyond what we can physically verify, hence metaphysics, but still Les has proposed a model and at the very least the model can be judged on how well it explains things we do know about, like physical phenomenon. So I would actually just like to hear specifics on how this theory can model the physical universe. After this is explained then maybe philosophical exchanges would be more productive.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If "esse" is the universe then that would suggest a sort of "oneness".
However, in "twoness" it is required that esse be observed to exist.
ie: observer + observed = "twoness"
(however, again... the interdependence between these two elements creates a "oneness"... so its all very confusing)
Without being observed esse cannot be said to exist. This includes the act of esse observing itself and this is still a "twoness" system.
One is comprised of many parts
eg: 1 = .0000001 + .005 + .8 + .00000500000100000008 etc...
How can we call this oneness?

I am being 100% honest when I say I sure wish I could figure out what is confusing everybody. To me it seems simple, but then maybe that's because I've been thinking about it so long.

Your questions indicate you haven't accepted my definition for "twoness."

It doesn't mean observer and observed, for example. Just having two related things juxtaposed in some way doesn't create the kind of twoness I am talking about.

Twoness refers only to one dynamic, oscillation; plus, the fact that oscillation can lead to polarity. I often refer to twoness as "oscillatory dynamics." That's the reason I have talked about yin-yang philosophy.

If you pluck a taunt string, have you noticed how when vibrating it looks like there are two strings? That's because at the extremes of the oscillation points, the string stops and moves in the opposite direction. Because the string is vibrating so fast, relative to a slower observer that vibrating string actually establishes a bit of constancy in the polar positions.

Let's apply that example to esse. Esse is proposed to be a substance, a ground state substance which composes everything. It is the essence of existence, so to speak. If that is so, then all forms we see like a planet or a fork or hydrogen or consciousness . . .everything . . .is a form of esse.

If we imagine what esse is like before it takes form, we have to include potetials and properties that can become what we know to exist (like matter and consciousness). So in this thread, I suggested that because all of the universe vibrates and tends to exist in polar ways, and because if you notice how matter has a lot of energy compressed into it, possibly the ground state substance (esse) is vibrant, and the ocean where esse resides has compression-decompression dynamics going on all the time that would cause esse to compress.

So twoness is simply esse vibrating, under compression, so fast that two phases are established. In a compression-decompression oscillation cycle, there would be a compression phase and a decompression phase which would appear to a (relatively) non-moving observer to be simultaneously present. A hydrogen atom, for instance, has a dense concentrated center and a filmy cloud around it. Might it be a single polarized concentration of esse?

 

[Les Sleeth]

If I didn't find it interesting I wouldn't have participated.
I'm just trying to figure out if my questions fit in your theory.
It seems we have completely different ideas on how the universe works, so I don't think we will ever come to an understanding.

Sorry for letting my frustration show. The issue isn't so much "how" the universe works as it is "why." No one knows that, which is why we have string theory and the rest.

It seems you don't want to leave the safe realm of what we know exists, which makes you keep making points like "we can never know if it is infinite." But we aren't talking about what we can know right now, we are talking about what everyone agrees is unknowable at the moment.

Talking about what we don't currently know is what theorization is all about. All I have done is say, how about the type of theory where we start with an uncreated base substance and set of conditions. Let's see what that concept produces in the way of accounting for what we find here in the universe.

So my statement about you not being interested had to do with the fact that you keep saying "we don't know that." Well, of course we don't know it or why would be we be attempting to theorize? It doesn't make sense to join a theorization exercise and keep making the point about what we don't know.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have to say that I am as confused as most others in understanding esse. I have many speculations on why this is and I'm certain I could come up with a bunch of hypothetical what ifs that we could use in debate against Les, but I'm uncertain if that is the best way to go about determining what it is Les is trying to say, after all Les is proposing an emperical model. . . . I would actually just like to hear specifics on how this theory can model the physical universe. After this is explained then maybe philosophical exchanges would be more productive.

I am guessing I am just not providing enough information, and I can't do so in the short span of a thread. Did you see from my last post to you (plus the diagrams) at least how esse ocean dynamics might compress esse?

 

[roamer]

Hey Les,
Yeah I did see your last post, and I also found it somewhat informative. I was just hopeing that you might take those diagrams a bit further. Since I don't really grasp the idea of esse and especially esse dynamics I wanted to see it in use. I was thinking you might be able to propose how this model of esse might line up with current theory like quantum mechanics and relativity. So what I'll do is just kind of take my wildest guess at how esse might model some physical properties. Bear in mind this is just an excercise in no way do I think this is right, I just wanted to show a crude speculation to see if it would stimulate people to try to model with esse.
So in your model oscillation is the result of compression, more compression equals faster oscillation. You also have in your model that many compressive forces can create a more stable symetrical oscillation that is polarization. So could radiation be described as a stable symterical oscillation or a polar entity losing some amount of compressive stability. The result would be that the esse formerly held in symetric compression is now less symetrically compressed and thus degrades to an oscillation. Perhaps the rate of this oscillation could be determined by the amount of compression that it is seeing. So if I were to draw an analogy to an atom, which is a polar entity in this model emitting an photon. I would conclude that rate of the oscillation of the photon would be a result of the amount of compression it sees. I would also conclude that some sort of breakdown of symetrical compressive forces on the atom must have occurred for the photon to be emitted. When I think about what causes oscillation in current science theory it seems that really intense compressive forces like those seen in stars can create radition or oscillations in this model. It also seems that higher compression of the stars results in emission of faster oscillations, or high energy radiation. Anways considering I really don't have a background in physics I'll stop rambling I just wanted to see if anyone else more well informed is trying to create a model.

 

[sameandnot]

i see how the concern here is really about the Two/esse. we are concerning ourselves with the ideal speculation about the Two, rather then the Philosophizing about how the Two is, in its essence. rather, we are more concerned with the mechanics of vibration rather than what the Two really is. The initial post, by les, was sufficient two show the nature of the esse as a vibratory existence; uncaused and uncreated; eternal, but were are still concerning over its mechanics, which is one endeavor we can choose to embark on. my concern is over the essence of the esse, being that which is One.

we are not different than the theoretical physicists in this regard, except that they have physics knowledge. It appeared to me that we were after Knowledge, in the greatest sense, rather than knowledge in the particular (dare i say, trivial) sense.

i do not find value in the quest of understanding the mechanics of the Two, beyond the fact that it is vibratory, and issues all forms from it's essential form; vibration/oscillation. (we can never say that the esse is formless, because it always has, as it's base, the form of vibration/oscillation.)
i see this understanding as sufficient, and am not concerned with developing more theories based on speculation, which are of no immediate concern to the Being of beings; being actualized through Knowledge of what the "biggest picture" is; Knowledge that actualizes as right action based on right Knowledge of Being.

this thread is concerned with "mind play", rather than how to be, in the face of the facts. Knowledge that leads to right action is the knowledge that I perceive as having value. the rest is complicating and seems to cloud virtue in a sea of confusion.

Philosophy has meaning only from a life lived philosophically. if we think that we are doing philosophy, by trying to determine the mechanics of that which is expressed by "yin/yang" and other such symbols, then i fail to find a true virtue in it. such a practice, it appears, is grounded in sophistry and is bound to produce empty rhetoric. but that is philosophy and perhaps i was wrong to think that that's what we were doing here.

i will sign off from this thread, unless someone is concerned with understanding the "big picture," as a whole, rather than tediously examing the particulars of the "big picture", for the sake of expounding theories, meant to bring one acclaim in "academic circles".

Real Knowledge is found in that which is absolutely uniting, rather than that which divides and sub-divides existence into smaller and smaller "parts", it seems to me. unfortunately, for those seeking acclaim in the academic field, this knowledge will not provide you will professorships or asteem of collegues but it will align the earnest seeker with Truth, and provide the ability to "see the forest through the trees".

good luck, lumberjacks. (pst... these trees are actually a forest...)

 

[roamer]

sameandnot,
Believe it or not I actually consider myself to be a person that does try to look at the forest and not get stuck on a tree, but I always seem to find that there are times when one tree can teach me a great deal about the forest, they are after all aspects of the same thing. I do like your reply about "...Knowledge that actualizes as right action based on right Knowledge of Being. " I too like to think that knowing the big picture will create beneficial actions, but even if you do know this "big picture" how are you going to explain it, maybe you should just start your own thread and explain the big picture, I'm certain people would be interested. I for one think it is at least helpful to try looking at the details even if they are always by going to be a tree in the forest. I don't think this is a problem as long is we both know its a tree.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So in your model oscillation is the result of compression, more compression equals faster oscillation. You also have in your model that many compressive forces can create a more stable symetrical oscillation that is polarization.

Here’s a case where my familiarity with this subject made me fail to explain totally. A crucially important part of the model is that the successive compressions that I hypothesized might accidentally take place in the esse ocean (Diagram 6 two posts ago to you) result in a self-sustaining “entity.” This entity is sustained by two factors.

First, compression has packed the entity with energy, and that ensures it has the power to endure (in this model, compression is energy). So the “multiple waves of compression” is a one-time thing that creates an entity, it isn’t maintained.

Second, it has two counterbalanced modes that have, through differentiation, achieved simultaneity of the modes. If you study the resulting entity in Diagram 6 you can see the two modes are a converged aspect counterbalanced by diverged aspect. That counterbalanced aspect is clearly structure, whereas esse before it participates in the “entitization” process is formless and unstructured. This is how I am suggesting structure, form, and order might arise from chaotic conditions.

If you recall, for this thread I asked if oscillatory dynamics might be the basis of order in the universe. An oscillatory entity will have not only a well-defined structure, but will oscillate rhythmically too, both of which are order. Further, fields generated from oscillatory dynamics also behave predictably, so fields too contribute to order.

So could radiation be described as a stable symmterical oscillation or a polar entity losing some amount of compressive stability. The result would be that the esse formerly held in symmetric compression is now less symmetrically compressed and thus degrades to an oscillation. Perhaps the rate of this oscillation could be determined by the amount of compression that it is seeing. So if I were to draw an analogy to an atom, which is a polar entity in this model emitting an photon. I would conclude that rate of the oscillation of the photon would be a result of the amount of compression it sees. I would also conclude that some sort of breakdown of symmetrical compressive forces on the atom must have occurred for the photon to be emitted. When I think about what causes oscillation in current science theory it seems that really intense compressive forces like those seen in stars can create radiation or oscillations in this model. It also seems that higher compression of the stars results in emission of faster oscillations, or high energy radiation.

That’s mostly right (intense compression can cause heavier matter to form, such as how helium is being formed from hydrogen in the interior of the Sun). The atom in our universe is THE main stable oscillatory entity. I’ve pointed this out before, but look at what determines the differences in types of matter. Mass. That is, as you move up the elemental chart, more and more mass is packed into each element. You can see the atom get more and more complicated in an oscillatory way too, with the basic counterbalanced unit (electron-proton differentiation) stabilized by a “neutral” unit (a neutron weighs almost exactly the same as a proton-electron).

Radiation, in this model, would be seen as waves of decompression, which the universe is doing as a whole too (expansion). If you look at background microwave radiation, as the universe expands, it is “stretched” and its oscillation rate slows down. And yes, the shorter (more compressed) the wavelength, the faster it oscillates. That’s why I say compression is energy. A photon is said to “lose” energy when its wavelength lengthens.

To be accurate, I can’t make sense with this model unless the entire universe is itself inside a polarized field; that’s needed to explain gravity and light speed, which I would represent as related in a polar way. It is complicated to explain, so I won’t try, but maybe intuitively you get a hint of what I mean.

You asked me to account for specifics in physics. One observation I can account for rather simply is matter and anti-matter. If you think about what an oscillatory entity is (like an atom), it has two primary directions of movement: the movement toward compression, and the movement toward decompression. Since the universe is decompressing overall, the rhythm of decompression-stage movement in particles prevails.

But if we could create a condition where the compression stage was emphasized (say, in a universe where compression was happening overall), it’s rhythm would be opposite a normal particle. If a particle whose orientation was that of moving toward compression were to meet up with a particle whose orientation was that of moving toward decompression, you can imagine what would happen. Diagram 7 represents the two orientations a simple hydrogen atom would assume oscillating between full convergence and then unfolded as an “atom.”

 

[Les Sleeth]

i see how the concern here is really about the Two/esse. we are concerning ourselves with the ideal speculation about the Two, rather then the Philosophizing about how the Two is, in its essence. rather, we are more concerned with the mechanics of vibration rather than what the Two really is. The initial post, by les, was sufficient two show the nature of the esse as a vibratory existence; uncaused and uncreated; eternal, but were are still concerning over its mechanics, which is one endeavor we can choose to embark on. my concern is over the essence of the esse, being that which is One.

we are not different than the theoretical physicists in this regard, except that they have physics knowledge. It appeared to me that we were after Knowledge, in the greatest sense, rather than knowledge in the particular (dare i say, trivial) sense.

i do not find value in the quest of understanding the mechanics of the Two, beyond the fact that it is vibratory, and issues all forms from it's essential form; vibration/oscillation. (we can never say that the esse is formless, because it always has, as it's base, the form of vibration/oscillation.)
i see this understanding as sufficient, and am not concerned with developing more theories based on speculation, which are of no immediate concern to the Being of beings; being actualized through Knowledge of what the "biggest picture" is; Knowledge that actualizes as right action based on right Knowledge of Being.

this thread is concerned with "mind play", rather than how to be, in the face of the facts. Knowledge that leads to right action is the knowledge that I perceive as having value. the rest is complicating and seems to cloud virtue in a sea of confusion.

Philosophy has meaning only from a life lived philosophically. if we think that we are doing philosophy, by trying to determine the mechanics of that which is expressed by "yin/yang" and other such symbols, then i fail to find a true virtue in it. such a practice, it appears, is grounded in sophistry and is bound to produce empty rhetoric. but that is philosophy and perhaps i was wrong to think that that's what we were doing here.

i will sign off from this thread, unless someone is concerned with understanding the "big picture," as a whole, rather than tediously examing the particulars of the "big picture", for the sake of expounding theories, meant to bring one acclaim in "academic circles".

Real Knowledge is found in that which is absolutely uniting, rather than that which divides and sub-divides existence into smaller and smaller "parts", it seems to me. unfortunately, for those seeking acclaim in the academic field, this knowledge will not provide you will professorships or asteem of collegues but it will align the earnest seeker with Truth, and provide the ability to "see the forest through the trees".

good luck, lumberjacks. (pst... these trees are actually a forest...)

It is hard to listen to a 22 year old with the belief he can lecture people on what is Truth. I"ve lived well over twice that long, studied much of the world's wisdom literature, and meditated daily for 30 years (longer than you've lived) yet I don't believe I am qualified to act like an all-knowing wise person. What qualifies you?

If you are so wise, then why are some of your assumptions downright silly? For example, because some of us talk about mechanics, why would you assume we aren't concerned about more important things. Geez, if all I ever did was go on about the ultimate I'd starve to death, and bore my friends to tears.

There is the ultimate thing, and there are manifestations of it. Both exist. This is just an exercise in exploring the possibility of a particular link between the two realms. Yet for you it seems it's been an opportunity to pontificate, and now in your final remarks to condescend.

I suggest dropping the all-knowing mystical baloney and get real.

 

[sameandnot]

from the first, not another is.

 

[Royce]

If "esse" is the universe then that would suggest a sort of "oneness".
However, in "twines" it is required that esse be observed to exist.
IE: observer + observed = "twoness"

If the universe is all that there is, and the universe or esse is being observed, then the universe is observing itself at least in part. There is nothing outside of the universe and the universe is made entirely of esse in it various forms or modes of vibration. There is One universe or if you prefer one universal set that contains and is made up of all that is, that exists.

(however, again... the interdependence between these two elements creates a "oneness"... so its all very confusing)
Without being observed esse cannot be said to exist. This includes the act of esse observing itself and this is still a "twoness" system.
One is comprised of many parts
eg: 1 = .0000001 + .005 + .8 + .00000500000100000008 etc...
How can we call this oneness?

Yes it is confusing and it takes practice in thinking this way. I can't really say that I have a good handle on it, but I am learning. The one I can understand. The Two is more Eastern thinking and while I recognize the thinking I can't say that I understand or accept complete other than as a metaphor.

 

[quantumcarl]

So in this thread, I suggested that because all of the universe vibrates and tends to exist in polar ways, and because if you notice how matter has a lot of energy compressed into it, possibly the ground state substance (esse) is vibrant, and the ocean where esse resides has compression-decompression dynamics going on all the time that would cause esse to compress.

Perhaps and maybe.

Compression? "Dynamics going all the time that would cause esse to compress"

Where does the compression come from? Dynamics? For esse to compress or be compressed would require a secondary force apart from esse (whatever esse is).

For Sameandnot.

Interestingly enough an orange is the product of sunshine, soil, water, a tree, photosynthesis and a host of other processes that go into the "manifestion" of an orange.

The more interesting part is that an orange depends wholey on these processes yet, the processes are not dependent on the orange.

Utilizing this model, please explain where the "mutual dependence" exists between an orange and... say... water.

I don't think you'll find a mutual dependence because water will carry-on and exist splendidly without the orange where the same is not true for the orange w/o the water or whathaveyou.

 

[octelcogopod]

Perhaps and maybe.
Compression?
Where does the compression come from? Dynamics? For esse to compress or be compressed would require a secondary force apart from esse (whatever esse is).

This has been my main gripe with this all along.
Les Sleeth, I think it's kind of crude to say "you don't want to leave the safety of what we have" or whatever you said.
You have absolutely no idea what kind of philosophies I've been into or what I have encountered and contemplated.
Believe it or not, all my questions for you were valid ones.

You have a basic substance, that you say is uncreated and eternal.
Fine. But where would the dynamics come from to make esse move and evolve?
Also, I don't believe this asks the question "why", the "why" question is something you cannot answer like this.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can never fully understand a system from within that system.
Meaning we may be able to explain how the universe functions, but we will never know "why."

Here are my main questions for esse:

1. If esse is eternal, how can we ever know that it is eternal? (Since esse apparently has only a few basic properties)
2. How can something with properties be eternal? (if something has a property, it seems unlikely or even impossible that such a substance would be eternal. This is because a property by default needs to evolve, and with that comes a timeline.
3. How can something with a timeline be eternal? (Since esse can compress and decompress, and it can create polarities, it seems like it must have at least some sort of inner timeline, or time dimension, if this timeline has been eternal, we end up with infinite regress like in our own universe, "what happened before that then?")

4. How can something with properties be infinite?
(Infinity leads to infinite regress, your thesis that esse is infinite doesn't answer anything. If a property exists, then that property must have some sort of time dimension to be abkle to move and be animate, but how can we call such a thing infinite and leave it at that? There will always be the question "what happened before that particular event?")

These are all valid questions, and I'm not trying to move away from or stay in the safety of the discovered sciences, this are all pure logical questions.

 

[Royce]

This is just some random thoughts brought to mind while reading all of the above.

Consider the absolute vacuum of quantum physics. It has no physical matter yet it is not completely empty of nothing as it has energy and that energy creates virtual particles. How can this be. Where does the energy reside? What does it act on? How can something that is essentially nothing still have properties and energy? How can there be any dynamics if there is nothing to be dynamic?

This is not a perfect example or metaphor as even in a vacuum there is still physical space/time and possibly/probably a Higgs field, but will have to do for the moment.

Now consider that this vacuum while devoid of physical matter is still filled with esse that is by its very nature vibrant and dynamic. The dynamic vibration of esse would fill the void with potential energy which would in turn become kinetic energy in the form of virtual particles.

Look at it in a different way. We have to pump tremendous amounts of energy out of a closed system to make a vacuum. The greater the vacuum, the greater that amount of energy we have to expend. Yet there is still more energy within the systems even though there is no longer any matter to hold that energy nor any way to remove or pump out that residual energy.

Not as an actual example but as a way to better try to understand, we could think of the vacuum as still being full of esse but esse under decompression. Here we supplied the energy to decompress esse locally in a closed system. To decompress one locality we had to compress another or wider area outside of the closed system.

Esse is everywhere and always the same and ever unchanging, the One.
Esse is in its nature vibrant and dynamic.
There is no inside or outside, or negative or positive or, high energy or low energy, or high compression or low compression. These are only metaphors used to help us physical being to understand.
Try to think of esse and pure energy itself. We don't know what pure energy is nor any of its properties, yet we know that it effects all of space/time, mass and matter and we can measure those effects. We also know that there is no place in the universe where there is no energy.
Esse is not energy but energy is a result of the vibrancy and dynamicness of esse.

 

[Royce]

Another thought to try to tie this in with the physical universe.

It is said that the universe is a sum 0 system. Matter and energy is positive and gravity is negative and summed together equal Zero. Yet the universe is an extremely varied and complicated system where forces balance other forces and energy is constantly being radiated and absorbed. Still this is in perfect balance over all. This could be another way to help understand the dynamic balance and oneness of esse.
If it happens in the physical universe, why not, because it is a property of the universe, of esse.

This is not meant to be real physical evidence of esse but just a way to get ours minds see it in a better light. If we can accept the physical evidence of these types of phenomena then it should be easier to accept the metaphysical contemplation of some of the properties of esse.
Every where I look I can see this all could be the property of esse.
(Of course everywhere I look I see the hand and mind of God too so this is probably just the random rantings of an old fool. Unless, of course, God is esse; esse is God)

 

[quantumcarl]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can never fully understand a system from within that system.

We might break the limb with both of us out here.

This idea supports what I say when I say our prejudicial bias dictates what we are conscious of and what we are able to observe.

Furthermore, the type of interdependence I have mentioned elsewhere in the philosophy section refers to the interdependence between consciousness and all things;

ie: the universe is not there without being observed = observation doesn't occur without the universe.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Believe it or not, all my questions for you were valid ones.

But see, your main point hasn't been the slightest bit valid (logically speaking) and I can prove it. Before I do, let me answer a couple of things you've said.

Les Sleeth, I think it's kind of crude to say "you don't want to leave the safety of what we have" or whatever you said.
You have absolutely no idea what kind of philosophies I've been into or what I have encountered and contemplated.

It doesn't matter much what you've contemplated since that's not my criticism. My criticism has been that you are labeling stuff as "unknowable" when I have already agreed to that. You are acting like this is a "proof" thread when it is a theorization thread. You can't change the focus of a thread that you didn't start.

You have a basic substance, that you say is uncreated and eternal. Fine. But where would the dynamics come from to make esse move and evolve?

Here's another problem, it doesn't seem like you are paying attention to my answers; I've already answered this, more than once in fact and complete with diagrams.

The dynamics I'm proposing are uncreated and eternal too. They have to be in order to avoid infinite regress.

You could conceivably accuse me of conveniently attaching every quality under the sun onto esse and the esse ocean to explain creation, but in actuality I have limited it to a very few traits.

There is esse, and it exists in an ocean. Esse itself is energetic in nature (vibrancy), and like an ocean of water, the ocean where esse resides is turbulent. Part of that turbulence results in compression of "positions" in the esse ocean.

Now tell me, how much more simple can one get in terms of postulating an uncreated ground state? I mean, existential stuff and turbulence, and from that I am ready to model every feature of existence! (Though not here, but I have been providing a sampling which you seem to ignore).

Also, I don't believe this asks the question "why", the "why" question is something you cannot answer like this.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can never fully understand a system from within that system.
Meaning we may be able to explain how the universe functions, but we will never know "why."

Here you go again with the knowing thing. I’ve already acknowledged we can’t know the key issues being discussed in this thread! In fact, look back a few posts and you’ll see I was the first one to say we will likely never actually know the origin of the universe. Geez, why should I respond to you if you aren't going to listen to my answers?

Do you understand the difference being logical and knowing (no criticism implied)? In case you don't, let me first define the difference between valid and sound logic to help me explain.

Consider the statement: all dogs are white, Jack has a dog, therefore Jack’s dog is white. The logic of that statement is perfectly valid, but it is not certain that Jack’s dog is white. The problem of course is that the statement’s opening premise is erroneous (all dogs are not white), which makes the statement logically valid but logically unsound.

But whether something is logical or not may have nothing to do with knowing. Today the standard for knowing is to experience what we hypothesize to be true. Using Jack’s dog again, if we believe Jack’s dog is white, how do we confirm it really is? If Jack tells us his dog is white, and we have deep faith in Jack’s statements, and we know every dog Jack has had in the past was white, and all the other men in the world named Jack who’ve ever had a dog has had a white one . . . then can we know from those circumstances that the Jack we are acquainted with has a white dog now? No. In other words, knowledge is not produced by logic, believing, faith, reason, statistical probabilities or any means other than through direct experience. In the case of Jack and his dog, all the facts logically indicate Jack’s dog is white, but we can only know if our belief is true if we observe Jack’s dog, or if someone else experiences what Jack’s dog looks like and makes an accurate report.

In terms of this thread, I am quite aware we cannot know the “why,” or observe eternity or infinity or conditions outside our universe. Try to understand what I am suggesting here. Since we cannot see those conditions which have created the system we are within, the idea of this inductive reasoning exercise is to try to imagine the fewest, most simple set of conditions possible that could cause what we find in this creation. Our clues are taken from traits that seem to run throughout creation, such as vibration, compression, energy.

That's it, that's the whole deal right there. If you don't like to play this sort of logic game, then don't. If you do, then please have fun. But stop telling me we can never know etc. when I already understand that and have admitted it repeatedly.

Here are my main questions for esse:

1. If esse is eternal, how can we ever know that it is eternal? (Since esse apparently has only a few basic properties)
2. How can something with properties be eternal? (if something has a property, it seems unlikely or even impossible that such a substance would be eternal. This is because a property by default needs to evolve, and with that comes a timeline.
3. How can something with a timeline be eternal? (Since esse can compress and decompress, and it can create polarities, it seems like it must have at least some sort of inner timeline, or time dimension, if this timeline has been eternal, we end up with infinite regress like in our own universe, "what happened before that then?")
4. How can something with properties be infinite?
(Infinity leads to infinite regress, your thesis that esse is infinite doesn't answer anything. If a property exists, then that property must have some sort of time dimension to be abkle to move and be animate, but how can we call such a thing infinite and leave it at that? There will always be the question "what happened before that particular event?")

These are all valid questions, and I'm not trying to move away from or stay in the safety of the discovered sciences, this are all pure logical questions.

Okay, so let's get to your claim that these are all valid and "pure logical questions." I am going to demonstrate to you that your points are neither logically valid or sound. Your first question:

“1. If esse is eternal, how can we ever know that it is eternal? (Since esse apparently has only a few basic properties)."

Again, I’ve repeatedly acknowledged we can’t know it (nor can we know about infinity). The eternal trait is a logic thing, not a knowing thing. I've answered the logic aspect before too, but I will give you the reason again.

If esse isn’t eternal, then something has to have created it, and we are either stuck with something from nothing or infinite regress, both of which are considered logical problems.2. How can something with properties be eternal? (if something has a property, it seems unlikely or even impossible that such a substance would be eternal. This is because a property by default needs to evolve, and with that comes a timeline.

This logic of yours about properties is fatally flawed. There is absolutely no reason to conclude properties limits esse as you say. Let me state your logic in a syllogism:

Anything with properties cannot be eternal or infinite, esse has properties, therefore esse is not eternal or infinite.

That logic is circular, nothing in your statement justifies anything whatsoever about properties. What are your reasons for assuming anything with properties cannot be eternal or infinite?

My logic is based at least on a bit of observation. In creation, there are traits which are just here (we have not seen them created) and which run throughout all aspects of the universe, such as vibration. The traits of uncreated-ness and ubiquitous-ness can be related to eternal and infinite respectively. Also, it is logical to assume anything in creation which appears not created by anything within creation derives from outside the universe.3. How can something with a timeline be eternal? (Since esse can compress and decompress, and it can create polarities, it seems like it must have at least some sort of inner timeline, or time dimension, if this timeline has been eternal, we end up with infinite regress like in our own universe, "what happened before that then?")


Logically you derailed there by confusing the creating force with what’s created. If compression creates a polarity, that polarity may indeed be temporary. But that has nothing to do with the dynamic I have said is uncreated and eternally acting as part of the esse ocean’s turbulence (compression-decompression dynamics). If something is occurring repeatedly forever then that process has no timeline whether or not what it creates does.

You know, I am starting to think you don’t understand what determines infinite regress. I’ve seen you apply it incorrectly several times. For example . . .4. How can something with properties be infinite?
(Infinity leads to infinite regress, your thesis that esse is infinite doesn't answer anything. If a property exists, then that property must have some sort of time dimension to be abkle to move and be animate, but how can we call such a thing infinite and leave it at that? There will always be the question "what happened before that particular event?")

You have shown absolutely not the slightest logic to propose, much less conclude, that something with properties can’t be infinite. In fact, if you understand the concept of identity in philosophy, then nothing can have identity unless it has properties. Logic demands that anything we are going to identify, including “infinite” and “eternal” have properties.

But why exactly would infinity lead to infinite regress? This really makes no sense because the two concepts are unrelated. Infinite regress is a problem that arises with creationary forces, which is why thinkers ask “but where did THAT come from.” But infinity doesn’t have to “come from” anything else, and neither does eternity.

It’s true, you can ask that question of esse, but the entire purpose of suggesting esse was to propose as a theoretical reasoning exercise a substance and set of conditions which are uncreated but which can accidentally create conditions that would lead a universe like ours.

It isn’t proper therefore to ask where esse came from in this particular discussion since it is being offered as the savior from infinite regress. By the way, you didn’t respond to my rather bold declaration earlier that:

There is no possible way to escape infinite regress unless there exists an uncreated ground state out of which all things arise.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Perhaps and maybe.
Compression? "Dynamics going all the time that would cause esse to compress"
Where does the compression come from? Dynamics? For esse to compress or be compressed would require a secondary force apart from esse (whatever esse is).

Not so. Esse of course is not a "force" it is an essence, a substance. The "force" of compression comes about due to turbulence. In a water ocean, water is the essence and waves of water exert force. It's all water. I do understand that force in waves in a water ocean come from somewhere else, but I've proposed that esse is naturally energetic, so an infinite ocean of chaotically energetic stuff could have force dynamics. See my answer above to octelcogopod.

 

[octelcogopod]

OK.
You have some good points, but it feels more like you are evading my answers than actually replying to them.
Since you put it in bold at the bottom I will answer it first.

/There is no possible way to escape infinite regress unless there exists uncreated ground state out of which all things arise./

This is a good point, maybe. But what if this way of thinking is only human?
I mean can you really say you know ALL possible solutions to the universes creation (meaning infinite regress or infinity/eternity)
I believe there can be other logical solutions, maybe not even logical.
Maybe this logic we have of time space and cause and effect is only our limited minds way of thinking.
Maybe there is some "other way" to solve the problem.

But I think I get your point now.
After your posts I sort of see esse as some rigid ocean, lying "underneath" the universe, untouched by it.
It "spawns" dynamics, but remains untouched by them.
This process of how the universe arises from esse, while esse itself remains static, uncreated and eternal, is something I haven't fully grasped yet.

You say in your later post to quantumcarl:
/I do understand that force in waves in a water ocean come from somewhere else, but I've proposed that esse is naturally energetic, so an infinite ocean of chaotically energetic stuff could have force dynamics./

My problem with this is that you yourself haven't come up with any reason why esse should be naturally energetic, and should this be taken seriously, you really need one.

Finally, about the properties of esse..
My logic wasn't as you stated, rather I can turn it around on its head and say the opposite; Can anything that DOESN'T have some sort of time dimension even move at all?
Can this esse ocean really exist without an inner logic?
If so where is this inner logic?
You simply say "it is eternal so the question where is logically invalid."
The problem with that is that you yourself have no idea what eternal means. Even if this is just a logical reasoning experiment, you still need some sort of halfway empirical logic to fit in with the view.

Take for instance the universe itself, if I ask you, "where is my apple?"
"That's a logically invalid question, the universe is eternal so the apple is everywhere, or it is nowhere" or something.
I mean it just doesn't cut it.
I can apply this logic because you yourself said that we could never see if esse was eternal, so thereby from logic we can deduce that anything in the esse ocean can be applied coordinates.
As such the question "where is my apple" is a logical one, FROM INSIDE TH E ESSE ITSELF.

Which is part ofm y point, simply saying that it is eternal doesn't help, especially when we can't prove it.
And please don't come back and say "but it is eternal and infinite, and this is just a reasoning experiment, I have nothing to prove, and esse is eternal so your question is invalid."

If that is the case, then we don't have much more to discuss.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is no possible way to escape infinite regress unless there exists an uncreated ground state out of which all things arise.

This is a good point, maybe. But what if this way of thinking is only human?
I mean can you really say you know ALL possible solutions to the universes creation (meaning infinite regress or infinity/eternity)
I believe there can be other logical solutions, maybe not even logical.
Maybe this logic we have of time space and cause and effect is only our limited minds way of thinking.
Maybe there is some "other way" to solve the problem.

But see, what other explanations there are is irrelevant. I have simply offered you a chance to contemplate THIS explanation. I am not saying it's the true answer, or that others are wrong. This is just a thinking exercise to look at a very ancient idea by including modern discoveries in the model.

But I think I get your point now.
After your posts I sort of see esse as some rigid ocean, lying "underneath" the universe, untouched by it.
It "spawns" dynamics, but remains untouched by them.

You are getting closer, but not quite. You might use the term "rigid" to describe the fact that esse's base nature as vibratory illumination cannot essentially change. However, according to this model it is so flexible and malleable that it can take the shape of, say, atoms. Since the atoms are made out of esse, and are fully within the ocean of esse, they aren't exactly untouched by it, they are one with it. It's just that we, using our bodies to look at things, cannot see the subtle esse ocean that we are part of, made of, and within. So if you are using "underneath" metaphorically okay; but really esse is just so much more subtle and undifferentiated we can't see it. It is omnipresent.

If our universe arose from esse, then I don't see why other universes couldn't arise from esse, so I don't think you can say it is exactly static.

I suspect you forgot I said this, but there is a class of meditators who regularly experience a vibrant light in the deepest meditation. There is a long history of this experience (called samadhi in the East, and union in the West). Personally I don't see why that experience shouldn't be considered as evidence. In science only sense experience is allowed, but when we are contemplating things that science can't seem to answer, then it seems to me that all experience should be considered.

This process of how the universe arises from esse, while esse itself remains static, uncreated and eternal, is something I haven't fully grasped yet.

Compression at specific "positions" in the esse ocean. That position takes form as a polarized entity (which, for instance, I am saying is what an atom is). Where compression hasn't compressed and polarized a position in the esse ocean I have referred to as the "ground state." You might want to study the diagrams I provided again.

You say in your later post to quantumcarl:

I do understand that force in waves in a water ocean come from somewhere else, but I've proposed that esse is naturally energetic, so an infinite ocean of chaotically energetic stuff could have force dynamics.

My problem with this is that you yourself haven't come up with any reason why esse should be naturally energetic, and should this be taken seriously, you really need one.

But I have. You need to understand the inductive technique I am applying of reasoning "backwards" from ubiquitous traits we find in our universe that have no known source. Vibration is exactly that. It is here, it is everywhere, but there is no known reason for that. Why aren't you concerned about explaining that mystery? As far as I have seen, science says of the universiality of vibration "it just is." So you allow it here to exist without an explanation, but balk when I say maybe that really is "just how esse is."

Remember, my entire point is to postulate uncreated traits needed to form the foundation of creation. Vibration is most definitely part of the foundation of our creation.

Finally, about the properties of esse..
My logic wasn't as you stated, rather I can turn it around on its head and say the opposite; Can anything that DOESN'T have some sort of time dimension even move at all?

What is time? You have to be crystal clear on that question before you start limiting things because of it.

I say, time is the rate of change, nothing more. In this universe, we have matter, and it is being converted to energy and expanding. Entropy rules, so the universe is changing from order to disorder. But the rate of change is not the same everywhere in the universe. The rate of change on an accelerating spaceship is slower than on a non-accelerating space ship, so "time" is said to slow down, but really it's just the rate that entropy occurs has slowed.

In the esse ocean, esse itself is uncreated, indestructible, and existing everywhere homogeneously. At a "position" compression might generate a polar entity that is self-sustaining and vibratory. Let's say it's a hydrogen atom. How many vibrations and photon emissions does it have before it melts back into the esse ocean? We know it can vibrate faster or slower. If it vibrates and emits photons faster, then it has to return to formlessness before a neighbor atom which is vibrating and emitting slower.

That's all time is, and obviously it isn't a problem for esse, which is not subject to entropy in the ground state, to exist without time.

Can this esse ocean really exist without an inner logic?
If so where is this inner logic?

? What is internal logic? Logic is a process of consciousness, why would something unconscious need logic?

The problem with that is that you yourself have no idea what eternal means. Even if this is just a logical reasoning experiment, you still need some sort of halfway empirical logic to fit in with the view.

Of course I have an idea of what eternal is. It's utterly simple as an idea. Now experientially of course I don't know it fully, and never can since I am a created thing. On the other hand, if I could learn to experience esse directly, then I would be experiencing the one true absolute, and therefore might get a taste of the infinite and eternal.

Take for instance the universe itself, if I ask you, "where is my apple?"
"That's a logically invalid question, the universe is eternal so the apple is everywhere, or it is nowhere" or something.
I mean it just doesn't cut it.

What are you talking about? I've never said anything close to that nonsense either in substance or form. I've said that to avoid infinite regress and something from nothing, there cannot be a beginning or end of esse. If it had a beginning, then infinite regress results because you'll ask what gave it a beginning. It has to be infinite logically because if you reach the end of it, then there follows the question of what's beyond esse, and duality results.

My reasons for postulating eternal and infinite are 100% logic, and nothing more. They are there to avoid the logical contradictions that have plagued this metaphysical issue since humans first started thinking about our origins.

I can apply this logic because you yourself said that we could never see if esse was eternal, so thereby from logic we can deduce that anything in the esse ocean can be applied coordinates.
As such the question "where is my apple" is a logical one, FROM INSIDE THE ESSE ITSELF.

Lol . You really lost me with that one.

Which is part of my point, simply saying that it is eternal doesn't help, especially when we can't prove it.
And please don't come back and say "but it is eternal and infinite, and this is just a reasoning experiment, I have nothing to prove, and esse is eternal so your question is invalid."

If that is the case, then we don't have much more to discuss.

Sorry, but I am saying it. Take it or leave it. If you can accept energy just is or vibration just is or order just is etc. in this universe, then you can if you want temporarily for the sake of discussion accept eternity and infinite just are in the esse ocean. You simply choose to fight the notion. Why aren't you harrassing the string theorists over in physics? No one can prove much of that theory.

 

[octelcogopod]

// But see, what other explanations there are is irrelevant. I have simply offered you a chance to contemplate THIS explanation. I am not saying it's the true answer, or that others are wrong. This is just a thinking exercise to look at a very ancient idea by including modern discoveries in the model. //

But you did say that we couldn't escape infinite regress without esse, or something akin to it.




// You are getting closer, but not quite. You might use the term "rigid" to describe the fact that esse's base nature as vibratory illumination cannot essentially change. However, according to this model it is so flexible and malleable that it can take the shape of, say, atoms. Since the atoms are made out of esse, and are fully within the ocean of esse, they aren't exactly untouched by it, they are one with it. It's just that we, using our bodies to look at things, cannot see the subtle esse ocean that we are part of, made of, and within. So if you are using "underneath" metaphorically okay; but really esse is just so much more subtle and undifferentiated we can't see it. It is omnipresent. //

I imagine a rigid ocean yeah, and then some floating mass on top of it.
I do know the real implementation of it though.


// If our universe arose from esse, then I don't see why other universes couldn't arise from esse, so I don't think you can say it is exactly static. //

I meant static in the way that sincei ti s eternal, it's always there, always constant.

// I suspect you forgot I said this, but there is a class of meditators who regularly experience a vibrant light in the deepest meditation. There is a long history of this experience (called samadhi in the East, and union in the West). Personally I don't see why that experience shouldn't be considered as evidence. In science only sense experience is allowed, but when we are contemplating things that science can't seem to answer, then it seems to me that all experience should be considered. //

I'm not familiar with meditation or its implementation or value in pilosophy and science so I won't reply to the validity of this.

// Compression at specific "positions" in the esse ocean. That position takes form as a polarized entity (which, for instance, I am saying is what an atom is). Where compression hasn't compressed and polarized a position in the esse ocean I have referred to as the "ground state." You might want to study the diagrams I provided again. //

Ok. Nice.

// But I have. You need to understand the inductive technique I am applying of reasoning "backwards" from ubiquitous traits we find in our universe that have no known source. Vibration is exactly that. It is here, it is everywhere, but there is no known reason for that. Why aren't you concerned about explaining that mystery? As far as I have seen, science says of the universiality of vibration "it just is." So you allow it here to exist without an explanation, but balk when I say maybe that really is "just how esse is." //

I am too concerned about this mystery.
All I'm saying is we might never know, but you already refuted the "know" thing so..
I believe science is the way to explaining things, not philosophy.
And while I do enjoy philosophy a great deal, I feel like a theory such as this of esse, seems hard to accept because the problem seems to be much more difficult than you say it is.
It seems to be as difficult as the consciousness problem.

// Remember, my entire point is to postulate uncreated traits needed to form the foundation of creation. Vibration is most definitely part of the foundation of our creation. //

Yep, I agree. I have actually agree'd with everything you have said, except that it is eternal and infinite.
The polarization, the compression, the vibration, all great concepts, but the problem of realizing what eternal means is what bugs me.



// What is time? You have to be crystal clear on that question before you start limiting things because of it.
I say, time is the rate of change, nothing more. In this universe, we have matter, and it is being converted to energy and expanding. Entropy rules, so the universe is changing from order to disorder. But the rate of change is not the same everywhere in the universe. The rate of change on an accelerating spaceship is slower than on a non-accelerating space ship, so "time" is said to slow down, but really it's just the rate that entropy occurs has slowed. //

I believe time is more than the rate of change. I believe it is a dynamic dimension that can control the way the atoms move in space.
The problem I have with esse and time, is that i nour universe, the atoms themselves shouldn't be able to move without a time dimension, which means time is more than just mere rate of change.
It seems as if time is actually some sort of ocean in itself, balls in water or something. I dunno.

// In the esse ocean, esse itself is uncreated, indestructible, and existing everywhere homogeneously. At a "position" compression might generate a polar entity that is self-sustaining and vibratory. Let's say it's a hydrogen atom. How many vibrations and photon emissions does it have before it melts back into the esse ocean? We know it can vibrate faster or slower. If it vibrates and emits photons faster, then it has to return to formlessness before a neighbor atom which is vibrating and emitting slower.

That's all time is, and obviously it isn't a problem for esse, which is not subject to entropy in the ground state, to exist without time. //

But where does this compression come from?
Sorry if this seems dull to you, but you said earlier that esse is naturally energetic.
In terms of time, I meant, how can something compress without a time dimension to allow it to change?
How can ANYTHING change without some sort of time?



// ? What is internal logic? Logic is a process of consciousness, why would something unconscious need logic? //

When I say logic, I mean the basic rules that are unbreakable.
I should have said that though.



// Of course I have an idea of what eternal is. It's utterly simple as an idea. Now experientially of course I don't know it fully, and never can since I am a created thing. On the other hand, if I could learn to experience esse directly, then I would be experiencing the one true absolute, and therefore might get a taste of the infinite and eternal. //

Once again I'm not too sure about meditation since I've barely done it myself so I won't comment.
However, I doubt a human mind has the capacity to experience infinity by itself, even if it involves "experiencing the absolute."





// What are you talking about? I've never said anything close to that nonsense either in substance or form. I've said that to avoid infinite regress and something from nothing, there cannot be a beginning or end of esse. If it had a beginning, then infinite regress results because you'll ask what gave it a beginning. It has to be infinite logically because if you reach the end of it, then there follows the question of what's beyond esse, and duality results.

My reasons for postulating eternal and infinite are 100% logic, and nothing more. They are there to avoid the logical contradictions that have plagued this metaphysical issue since humans first started thinking about our origins. //

Ahhh.. OK.
So you are just saying it as an alternative solution to those two problems.



* I can apply this logic because you yourself said that we could never see if esse was eternal, so thereby from logic we can deduce that anything in the esse ocean can be applied coordinates.
As such the question "where is my apple" is a logical one, FROM INSIDE THE ESSE ITSELF. *

// Lol . You really lost me with that one. //

Meh.

// Sorry, but I am saying it. Take it or leave it. If you can accept energy just is or vibration just is or order just is etc. in this universe, then you can if you want temporarily for the sake of discussion accept eternity and infinite just are in the esse ocean. You simply choose to fight the notion. Why aren't you harrassing the string theorists over in physics? No one can prove much of that theory. //

My whole point was the following:

Esse is something that is eternal and infinite, but since we cannot observer infinity from the esse itself, shoudl we ever observe it in a lab, the idea is useless.
So you said that it is just a logical reasoning experiment, so then I say OK, I'm all for that, but I won't "believe" in it, I won't trust it as true, I won't teach it to my children. If youy get my point.

I still have some issues with the general logic of it, but those involves dragging in empirical evidence and such, so I won't go there.

 

[quantumcarl]

Not so. Esse of course is not a "force" it is an essence, a substance. The "force" of compression comes about due to turbulence. In a water ocean, water is the essence and waves of water exert force. It's all water. I do understand that force in waves in a water ocean come from somewhere else, but I've proposed that esse is naturally energetic, so an infinite ocean of chaotically energetic stuff could have force dynamics. See my answer above to octelcogopod.

You must be referring to fluid dynamics which rely on gravity as a secondary force to its own "turbulent" dynamics. Gravity is a result of the mass of the fluid. Gravity increases in intensity as the mass causing the gravity grows in size. An analogy between what you call esse and fluid will fall short of being an efficient metaphore.

Defining what you call esse and what I call the unnamed way is not easy and may be impossible because, as sameandnot and I agree upon, one cannot see the edges of the system one relies upon. Perhaps because it's better not to look a gift horse in the mouth, even if you can. But mostly because trying to see the uncarved block is impossible because it is uncarved and without definition and without description.