/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11241396]

>tfw you realize the very nature of being is logically self creating
>the finite implies the infinite by necessity
>the only thing infinity lacks is finitude which necessitates the creation of the finite
>this is the birth of all polarity which constitutes being and we are god coming to know himself eternally
>tfw hegel, the kabbalists, the daoists and the mystics were irrefutably right
>there is a logical explanation for existence and it is ascertainable by the mind of man

Anyone else have this feel?

[Anonymous No.11241398]

this is the book board retard

[Anonymous No.11241410]

>>11241398
hegel and co. wrote books about it friendo

[Anonymous No.11241414]

>>11241396
get a fucking job

[Anonymous No.11241431]

>>11241410
I wrote extensively on your mum's arsehole, expect my thread regarding it momentarily

[Anonymous No.11241443]

>>11241431
bring it on, babe

[Anonymous No.11241500]

>>11241396
>tfw hegel, the kabbalists, the daoists and the mystics were irrefutably right

Advaita Vedanta explains everything you wrote way better than all those people btw

[Anonymous No.11241516]

>>11241396
Infinity?
What ill-formed nonsense is that?
Come find me when you've left the matrix, kid.

[Anonymous No.11241528]

>>11241396
requisite post

[Anonymous No.11241559]

>>11241516
infinity is that which lacks characteristics because all characteristics are bound to finitude. infinity is void is emptiness is dao is ein sof is limitless is nothing

[Anonymous No.11241562]

>>11241396
Read Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition.

[Anonymous No.11241566]

>>11241528
fuck off with this shit

[Anonymous No.11241578]

>>11241500
I'll have to chuck it on my reading list. I was just reading wikipedia when this all clicked for me and I've done no primary research.

>>11241528
based

[Anonymous No.11241582]

>>11241396
>there is a logical explanation for existence and it is ascertainable by the mind of man
where do I find it

[Anonymous No.11241593]

>>11241566
>fuck off with this shit
as opposed to the intellectual gold that is this thread

[Anonymous No.11241597]

>thesis next to anti-thesis
>higher unity
DUDE TRIANGLES

[Anonymous No.11241602]

>>11241396
based post OP. good luck

[Anonymous No.11241611]

>>11241396
infinite/finite is a brainlet subject and has little bearing on existence. Better to ask why there is a distinction between the material/objective and qualia/subjective

[Anonymous No.11241617]

>>11241582
The eastern religions, the kabbalists, the european mystics, the theosophers, and hegel all found it. It is ancient and absolutely true.

Basically all being is composed of the finite. It is bounded and restricted. The only reason good is good is because it is not evil. The only reason you are what you are is because you are not other things. So being comes into existence through negation. Now we may ask what is the negation of being itself? Well since being is finitude the negation of finitude is infinity. The infinite has no characteristics because any characteristic would limit it and then it could not be infinite. So the infinite is synonymous with emptiness or nothingness. It cannot be identified with anything because any kind of identification with something would restrict it and it wouldn't be infinite. Here is where it gets fucked up though. The one thing the unlimited lacks is limitation. So in order to become truly limited it must become limited. And in order for anything to be limited it must come into being. We are what being is. We are the finite beings spontaneously self generated by the very nature of our being. It is logically perfect and absolutely undeniable. We are the mind of god exploring itself eternally.

[Anonymous No.11241622]

>>11241396
At what point does the circle come back to its beginning? When does God finally know Himself, and what actions can we take to ensure the achievement of this universal goal? It is easy to imagine the beginning, but not the end. Surely everything does not repeat, and surely everything does not stop, so how does it progress infinitely? Is there no limit to consciousness? Are we mere worms compared to the super conscious beings of the future who will know God more than we can imagine?

[Anonymous No.11241630]

>>11241597
reality is just a big ass triangle

[Anonymous No.11241632]

>>11241396
Cool but like develop your ideas instead of making such grand claims you fucking teenager.

[Anonymous No.11241636]

>>11241617
>So in order to become truly limited it must become limited
I lost you there. I like the idea though.

[Anonymous No.11241638]

>>11241578
The one in that picture is actually a long text. It's good but it's a commitment to read, if you are interested in what that school of thought has to say though you should check out the short text in this link below, it's one of the more concise and clear explanations of it and can be read in an hour or two on a computer. You should be able to get it within a few minutes of reading.

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

[Anonymous No.11241642]

>>11241602
your picture indicating a downwards descent and your remark are concerning

>>11241597
you can't refute it.

[Anonymous No.11241647]

>>11241516 lol, and
>>11241559 whoosh
TANSTARN or how I learned there ain't no such thing as real numbers and math's bunk

[Anonymous No.11241648]

>>11241617
> all being is composed of the finite. It is bounded and restricted. The only reason good is good is because it is not evil.

Last sentence does not logically follow from the first two. How does finitude imply binary?

[Anonymous No.11241650]

>>11241636
I think he meant to say
>so in order to become truly unlimited it must become limited
because its new limitations remove the limits of its self-awareness. At no point was it ever actually limited, but it needs the limitations to fully develop itself and know itself.

[Anonymous No.11241652]

>>11241636
Typo. It should say "So in order to become truly unlimited it must become limited"

[Anonymous No.11241659]

>>11241648
Because if it were evil it would not be good. Things are only what they are because they are not other than what they are. The cup on your table can only be a cup by virtue of it not being other things.

[Anonymous No.11241684]

>>11241659
why binary and not 3ary or 4ary? This is a very unsatisfying world view, which for me at least is the purpose of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11241723]

>>11241684
I think I see your point. The domain of what something is not composed of contains more than what is regarded as its opposite.

[Anonymous No.11241742]

>>11241723
pretty much. This is a the most complete theory of being that I've seen but I just hope for the sake of my own contentment that it isn't all there is.

[Anonymous No.11241766]

>>11241611
form is emptiness emptiness is form brainlet

I know what youre talking about OP.

[Anonymous No.11241770]

>>11241396
>mfw I warned you fucks about this perverse Ontological monstrosity and you didn't heed me

[Anonymous No.11241780]

OP has taken the first steps on the path to ascension. all the arguments in this thread are semantics or incomprehension.

check it:


>The universe can be described as a cybernetic system in which freedom and constraint are counterbalanced. The constraints function as structure; thus, the laws of physics are constraints which define the structure of spacetime, whereas freedom is that which is bound or logically quantified by the constraints in question. Now, since there is no real time scale external to reality, there is no extrinsic point in time at which the moment of creation can be located, and this invalidates phrases like "before reality existed" and "when reality created itself". So rather than asking "when" the universe came to be, or what existed "before" the universe was born, we must instead ask "what would remain if the structural constraints defining the real universe were regressively suspended?" First, time would gradually disappear, eliminating the "when" question entirely. And once time disappears completely, what remains is the answer to the "what" question: a realm of boundless potential characterized by a total lack of real constraint. In other words, the real universe timelessly emerges from a background of logically unquantified potential to which the concepts of space and time simply do not apply.


>Now let's attend to your "how" question. Within a realm of unbound potential like the one from which the universe emerges, everything is possible, and this implies that "everything exists" in the sense of possibility. Some possibilities are self-inconsistent and therefore ontological dead ends; they extinguish themselves in the very attempt to emerge into actuality. But other possibilities are self-consistent and potentially self-configuring by internally defined evolutionary processes. That is, they predicate their own emergence according to their own internal logics, providing their own means and answering their own "hows". These possibilities, which are completely self-contained not only with respect to how, what, and when, but why, have a common structure

[Anonymous No.11241790]

>>11241742
It all only clicked for me a couple days ago while reading the wikipedia page for Ein Sof. I haven't read anything of the others who have discovered it save for what it took to know that they were on the same page as what I found out. I'm still hashing out the existential consequences of this. It directly implies reincarnation for one thing (because being is continually collapsing into existence the nothingness/infinity/void of death would collapse instantaneously into new being by principle.) I'm mostly still staggered that the cause for existence is ascertainable by the human mind. I never thought this was possible. Still reeling from it.

[Anonymous No.11241792]

we are the void's self-negation which (some) of the kabbalists rightly intuited as the tzimtzum. the identity of the Nothing with itself is Something, because the Nothing as pure negativity is nothing but its non-identity/difference with itself. being had to be because being was possible as that which had to be

[Anonymous No.11241795]

>>11241780
>cybernetic
stopped reading at that point

[Anonymous No.11241800]

Away with thee, satan.

[Anonymous No.11241801]

Is truth good and untruth evil, and therefore good is true and evil is false? If everything is based on what we don't know, and therefore false, when is anything true? Truth however must be nothing, and untruth everything. But if there is a one, will a one be nothing? And if there is a plurality of things, will it be as parts to a whole, the parts infinite plurality and the whole one? The one cannot be the parts, but the sum of the parts is a whole. And if this is so, the one must be the parts, for a whole is made up of parts. But a one cannot be many, and the parts are many, so the one cannot be the parts, nor in any one part and not in others. And if a one cannot be in the parts, must it also not be a whole? This being so, a one therefore must be a whole, the parts composing of a whole, and at once must not be a whole, nor be the parts of a whole.
>Undoubtedly Socrates, it must be as such
And if this is so, therefore a one is, and number must also be? But if there is number, there must also be many, and infinite multiplicity of being; for number is infinite in multiplicity, and partakes also of being. And if all number participates in being, every part of number will also participate? Then being is distributed over the whole multitude of things, and nothing that is, however small or however great, is devoid of it? And, indeed, the very supposition of this is absurd, for how can that which is, be devoid of being?
>I cannot conceive of that being the case
And it is divided into the greatest and into the smallest, and into being of all sizes, and is broken up more than all things; the divisions of it have no limit. It then must have the greatest number of parts, and is there any of these which is a part of being, and yet no part? No, but if it is at all and so long as it is, it must be one, and cannot be none? Then the one attaches to every single part of being, and does not fail in any part, whether great or small, or whatever may be the size of it? But reflect:-an one in its entirety, be in many places at the same time? And if not in its entirety, then it is divided; for it cannot be present with all the parts of being, unless divided. And that which has parts will be as many as the parts are?
>Yes
Then we were wrong in saying just now, that being was distributed into the greatest number of parts. For it is not distributed into parts more than the one, into parts equal to the one; the one is never wanting to being, or being to the one, but being two they are co-equal and coextensive.

[Anonymous No.11241803]

>>11241780
Based. Recommended reads?