Universal Language of Absolutes/Identity

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search




Identity[edit | edit source]



Giving credence to the possibility of division directly impinges negatively on any possible experience of Reality as a whole experience. All principles that we recognize as implicit standards in making Reality transparent (Archimedes--the principle of leverage et al.) are good testaments to the direct relationship between they who know and the known.

In this regard, complementary evident proof of realization the principle of leverage can stand as markers to our innate ability to recognize consistent standards eventually.

It is the quality of our inevitable experiences that dictates our ability to relate to ‘what is’. Conventionally we have presumed that our only means of defining ‘what is’ is generated by thought processes, and we have invested a great deal of human capital into securing that as the only way of experiencing Reality.

Equity means balance.Balance means agreement. Agreement means equity.

A true measure

The implicit ‘wholeness’ of all principles or absolutes lies in the fact that they are equally interchangeable. Reality is not composed of definitive answers - it is what it is.

But definitive answers answers act as stepping-stones toward real experience. When we cling to mind as the repository for actual knowledge, we then automatically set up a firewall to exclude any threat to its existence. It is the so-called ’mind’ that demands an exercise or involvement in some futile effort which propagates ‘more reasonable’ intractable theories.I experience, you experience, we all experience. To experience complete microscopic acts cannot be done in isolation. We do not observe in isolation; there must be a mutual connection.

The Reality of the full microscopic action is that it has connection with the macrocosm in that it has all the implicit information necessary to provide us guidance (principle of leverage et al.). You may liken the experience of realizing the properties of a grain of sand. In that instance, you then experience the stuff of every grain of sand.

So to extend the analogy, if we experience the complete innate properties of a human being, we share the essential properties of every human being. It is our fundamental connection and it bestows on us the potential ability to identify wholly, and ultimately ‘who we are’. If it were not within our innate capacity to know ‘who we are’, life, as we live it in contact with other homo sapiens, would be an impossible nightmare! Implicit within that pure experience, everything is. Because there are constants, we can keep at least a tenuous grip on reality.”

Observe human conformity at all levels, and there is the possibility that you will see that spatial dimension (expanse) in which all exist. That vision is not mind centered; it is part of the external spectrum. Instead of attempting to negate our very existence, let philosophy take its rightful place and address ‘what is’. The truth concerning the principle of leverage, measurements, etc., are not the personal property of Archimedes, or anyone else. They are Universal properties that we all equally share and consistently use. Principles do exist (experience understood), and it does not require a ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ to establish their Reality, however much you apply a ‘more reasonable’ standard of knowledge of their existence. All anyone can ever see is Reality in all its manifest forms. Never to see the principles operating in that Natural macrocosm is indeed a human tragedy.Reality is the principle - thought is a fictitious dichotomy. Whatever the truth that exists in Reality, we must learn to measure it. There is nothing else.

Share the real.

The human experience is premised on how we exist and concur with the principles of Nature. Despite that inescapable necessity, we seem to continue along a path that attempts to deny that we are of the properties of Nature. Our very appearance and existence are corrupted by a ‘mind’ that intrudes itself into our everyday operations and distorts the reality that exists.

Any proposition put forward based on the existence of a ‘mind’ must inevitably be flawed if any knowledge base lies in a restricted mythical location. The error comes about through believing that thought is an irrefutable process that can provide solutions. In effect, when we experience ‘that which is’ then the illusion (belief) is destroyed, and the illusory ‘I’ goes with it.

In that circumstance, any question on the existence of Reality, Nature, Wholeness, is irrelevant. We can point to all Matter, all Energy, all Space, and all Time, as being objective imperatives without imposing any personal claim on their existence. The mind is an ‘I am’ delusional concept that for its protection, refuses to admit the external of a Reality that exists, and of who ‘we are’. That Reality is not an incorporated projection of an individual imaginary life, but the vibrant relationship with everything that is. Our constant engagement with Science, Art, Education, Industry, etc., is testament to that relationship, and our adherence to the innate principles contained in Nature and ourselves. It is not ‘minds’ that ‘think alike’ to be aware of Reality; it is the experience of that which is true. We have the opportunity then to engage with their absolute intrinsic principles (the stuff of the Universe) of which we are the beneficiaries, and realize that personal relationship.”

As life begins in its mothers womb it will start ‘experiencing’ and continues on at birth.

That external contact at whatever level for anyone, starts a life of ‘experiencing’ for however long it lives.

All of that particular life can never be known to anyone else - it is sacrosanct.

Thus begins the Mystery of Life even to the owner, and we constantly reason by association with the presumption that we ‘know’ each other.

Any relationship that is of value can only be based on human reaction that measures its own feeling.

That feeling must also be determined by its own life ‘experience’.

And so our evolutionary lives and the historical structure of our existence seeks answers to address the ability we have

to write about life itself. Our need to sustain life itself and perpetuate new cultures and societies, points to how we communicate

the essential principles necessary to fulfil our obligations toward each other, and also our need to expose our personal nature.