12-16-2010, 10:06 PM
Sorry if the quotes that I keep putting around words are annoying, but I use them to show that when discussing infinity all labels we give it are based on our finite understandings and are thus inadequate. If someone was talking to me in person and doing air-quotes around every other word I'd probably want to slap them, lol.
I agree that those are concepts -> definitions -> finite, but I don't think that means they aren't applicable. The whole is infinity, and the not-whole is finiteness. My body is composed of virtually innumberable parts, but the conglomeration of them all as a whole is one body, and this is a primal paradox of the relationship of the many to the One.
IMhO, if there is any single truth it is that infinity is undefinable. That said, to speak of something you must at least have a concept, as incorrect as it may be since concepts are finite. As Ra said, "That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning." From my POV, the only time the One doesn't "exist" as its finite parts is when it returns to its state of unity and therefore has no relationship to any other things as the concept of "other" dissolves.
If entities only return to Intelligent Infinity, then where is the transition point between one octave and the next? My point is that there isn't one because such a transition would require the finite concepts of time and space. I believe, and I could be totally wrong, that the point "between" the highest level of 7th density and 8th/1st of the next octave is where Infinity "resides". In that sense you are right in that there can't be any entities in a state of infinite nothingness.
I know, based on your posts on this forum thus far, that you've studied the Law of One material in great detail, so I'm wondering why you would say that they are same and equivalent. One is embedded in the other, but I don't think that makes them same and equivalent, even though they both have the same source (infinity). A rough anology might be the baby in the womb. It is its mother in that it's attached and fully dependant on her, but it is also a separate being.
/:idea:
(12-16-2010, 06:31 PM)unity100 Wrote: another catch :
'sum of its parts', 'whole', 'not whole' have to be also mere concepts under the subset of infinity.
I agree that those are concepts -> definitions -> finite, but I don't think that means they aren't applicable. The whole is infinity, and the not-whole is finiteness. My body is composed of virtually innumberable parts, but the conglomeration of them all as a whole is one body, and this is a primal paradox of the relationship of the many to the One.
IMhO, if there is any single truth it is that infinity is undefinable. That said, to speak of something you must at least have a concept, as incorrect as it may be since concepts are finite. As Ra said, "That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning." From my POV, the only time the One doesn't "exist" as its finite parts is when it returns to its state of unity and therefore has no relationship to any other things as the concept of "other" dissolves.
Quote:i doubt that, entities go back to infinity at the end of octaves. i think they just return to infinite intelligence.
If entities only return to Intelligent Infinity, then where is the transition point between one octave and the next? My point is that there isn't one because such a transition would require the finite concepts of time and space. I believe, and I could be totally wrong, that the point "between" the highest level of 7th density and 8th/1st of the next octave is where Infinity "resides". In that sense you are right in that there can't be any entities in a state of infinite nothingness.
Quote:what i see from Ra's text, is intelligent infinity and intelligent energy are same and equivalent.
I know, based on your posts on this forum thus far, that you've studied the Law of One material in great detail, so I'm wondering why you would say that they are same and equivalent. One is embedded in the other, but I don't think that makes them same and equivalent, even though they both have the same source (infinity). A rough anology might be the baby in the womb. It is its mother in that it's attached and fully dependant on her, but it is also a separate being.
/:idea: