No. For non-existence to be actualized, existence would have to cease. Since existence exists, non-existence is only an understanding of nothingness, an idea, not an actuality. Everything perceivable exists and combined is known as existence. Ideas exist as well, but are not perceivable in both the internal(mind)and external(outside the mind in this space/time dimension)sense. When an idea becomes totally perceivable internally and externally, it is said to become a part of actualized existence.
Your premises do not talk about "actualizing". They simply lead to the conclusion that non-existence exists. Again: B asserts "Non-existence" as an idea. A asserts "ideas" are part of existence. Thus, Non-existence is part of existence. You will have to accept that conclusion or you will have to revise one or more of those assertions.
A work in progress, naming and defining aspects of consciousness in relation to us and the overarching consciousness. Only started mulling it over a couple weeks ago. Getting the kinks out is necessary as I mentioned in an earlier post about doing such to make it clearer. Where it becomes even stickier, the term actualized is not a good enough word to describe semi consciousness, inside of absolute consciousness. Super messy.
A short recap: This thread started off with a lot of baseless decrees. Like, a lot. When challenged, you doubled down and, rather than acknowledging a "work in progress", you accused others of not "practicing philosophy". You blamed the education of others - rather than your own - for the misfires in understanding. And then fancied you were enlightened and we could "ascend" if only we would release ourselves to your wisdom. I'm with C C on this: are we supposed to trust that you've dropped the ego-wall to expose enough humility that some constructive discourse might occur?
If you want to go "one step at a time" you shouldn't have posted a multitude of steps and unsupoorted assertions from the get-go. What on earth does ascension have to do with anything here?? Understanding or agreeing with? I certainly understand what you are saying. Do you? A simple syllogism to help parse what you have written: P1: Ideas exist P2: Non-existence is an idea C: Non-existence therefore exists. Following so far? Is this what you meant? I doubt it is, so maybe you should be more precise with your language so that your thoughts are communicated more coherently? However, what do they have to do with what I posted, and which you seem to be doing your best to ignore/evade? I am specifically questioning your (so far) unsupported assertions: "To think and feel. That is why we exist so it would only make sense that is why the conscious Absolute Singularity known as Existence exists." Are you going to address the questions/issues I raised?
Ascension is a play on the word steps. Geez. I will address one at a time not 10 or 30 accompanied with insulting accusations. I thought you all already understood all that stuff, so I was rattling off the lot of it, to move into new territory hopefully. Yazata understood. No accusations, no finger pointing, no rudeness. It is in my arrogance that I am not more precise. Happy?
I returned and engaged you in your argument. I did not attack you the arguer. You took it personally. That's endemic of the whole thread. It was not until post 39 that I had any point-of-order to say about the validity of the discussion. You set the tone of the thread. This is on you. I gave you another chance to defend your arguments. You're still more interested in defending your ego than in discussion. Want you're looking for is an echo chamber. I'm not it.
Then stop reading and rejoining only to show your true colors. I had already checked my ego, accepted your recommendations, but that wasn't satisfactory, you had to carry on with your own ego. Happy?
Question; Are we able to perceive all that exists, to begin with? Moreover, when we perceive it does it become part of actualized existence or was it part of actualized existence before we perceived it? AFAIK, humans do not create objective reality, we create our subjective reality......difference.
Review posts 103 through 106. The order of events is on-record. Nowhere in here does my ego make an entrance. Look, if you have any interest in the thread topic, show more interest in that than in defending your bruised ego against me. You're using me as an excuse. I'll have to step back (again) just to help you focus. You're welcome.
Part of the problem you possibly fail to acknowledge is that topics like consciousness, unconsciousness, existence and nonexistence etc have been a big part of the philosophical debate for literally thousands of years. I can assure you that there is little chance of espousing something new, that hasn't already been part of the debate for that time. Every word used must be thoroughly dissected, fully explained so that the debate can move forward to hopefully accomplish something. Every argument made needs to be addressed and most importantly every contradiction or inconsistency be exposed and cleared up. To throw in the word "ascension" with out explanation, for example, immediately denigrates/destroys all your good work and opens you up to ridicule, one, because it suggest a high degree of arrogance on your part and two, it fails to add to the topic but only detracts from it. DaveC has done you a favor by highlighting a serious logical inconsistency. Baldeee has further added to the favor and more formally clarified the massive problem you have dug for your self. The problem above is extremely important to clear up because, amongst many things, it naturally concludes that if a religious God is an idea then God exists which implicates another few thousand years of philosophical thinking and thoroughly destroys your initial assertion concerning non-existence not existing. So with all due respect I would recommend that you clarify your thoughts on the issue before you post them and dump the arrogance, find a little humility and acknowledge your mistakes, offer some gratitude, if you wish to improve your philosophical contribution.
Hi-D, Can I ask if something is zero dimensional, that is to say has no size dimension can it or does it exist? The reason for the question is that the terms "Absolute Singularity" highly suggest zero dimensional-ism.
Not necessarily that usage. "Technological singularity", for instance, simply marks a point in time; and mathematics and physics didn't always have such pop-market ownership of the term's meaning. But anything fully without spatial attributes and relationships (extension, size, shape, location, etc) could qualify for being immaterial. Reason might argue for _X_ concept being a regulating or generative principle prior in rank to space/time, in terms of making Nature possible. But _X_ would not subsist as an empirical presence and arguably would not be recruitable for practical industrial endeavors. (And thus is speculative, can be dismissed by material slash phenomenal thought orientations.) Any appearance _X_ makes in perception would be just that -- a phenomenal representation as either technical description or allegorical object (not the thing in itself). Although repeated appearances (in certain ways) probably could convince a few less deeply seated skeptics.
Wow, I actually bought the above load of dung for a hot second. I'm losing my edge. The above example signifies modern logic, ie. word games. For those who can only think in terms of word games, I'll make a concerted effort to provide entertainment in the form of what you can appreciate.
While taking our cues from what we observe is wise and can serve us well, if we are in fact inside a part of a mind, do thoughts have dimensions?
I'd also follow with, is a thought energy? Different thoughts, different energies. Then extrapolate, does energy constitute a dimension? How to sort it out?
The fact is that it was you who introduced the modern logic, in post 99, that we are simply analyzing. Here it is again: A)Existence=perceivable/observable stuff and imaginings/ideas B)Non-existence is only an idea. Are you understanding those assertions, A and B? You introduced these "word games", as you call them - also apparently considered by you as "dung". The OP has acknowledged that his/her own arguments are merely "word games" and are wrought with "dung". And I heartily agree. There's no constructive content here to interfere with.
