(no subject)
ok someone tell me i'm not crazy or rambling. or both. i was reading tantra today and [i could have not read far enough or misinterpreted it completely] but it said something along the lines of 'everything amounts to nothing'. in other words, if you are completely balanced and totally in the middle you really are nothing.
and here are my thoughts:
is the ultimate truth really nothing? there would certainly be evidence to prove so. is that the appeal of the ocean, the night sky, endless space? the mere emptiness of it or its ability to be conquered? of course there are people who look at the sky and admire only it's conquest, but i admire its beauty.
then do i strive for emptiness? do they strive for glory? who is right? is one of us right? are we both the same?
let's dissect this feeling. when i look out on the ocean i admire, fear, and respect it for its vastness. it is nothing and it is something. it is nothing because it is a bunch of water and it is something because it is a feeling. the feeling i get can and will be an entirely different feeling from someone else even though we are looking at the same thing.
conclusion #1: we are the same. and we are indiviuals.
conclusion #2: the ultimate truth really is nothing because only out of nothing can we make something. once you have a universal nothing each individual can make it their own yet universal something.
and then i went off on a tangent...
i used to have this theory that infinity cannot exist. there have to be a bounds to the universe becase if infinity is real then mathematics isn't. and math has already proven itself to be true [most of the time].
i also had a theory that the bounds of the universe were based on the planes x, y, and z. for the x plane there was its bound, counter-x. for the y plane, there was its bound counter-y. same for plane z. however, i drew a diagram [which unfortunately i can't reproduce right now, but if you see me you can ask me to draw it for you]. when one draws a graph, they draw x bissecting y. they form a cross with x in the centre of y. therefore, y is in the middle of x. z works the same way. z is in the middle of y. y is in the middle of x. therefore z is in the middle of x as well. all are in the middle.
in a phrase: "there cannot be a bounds because there is infinity. there is infinity because there are no bounds, there is only the middle".
therefore the ultimate truth is the 'middle'. this is proven ethically [not too proud, not too humble], physically [not too much sugar, not enough sugar], spiritually [not completely without any belief at all (then you would cease to live) and not over-zealous], and now mathematically and metaphysically. you can then use this truth to discover that the ultimate truth is nothing which creates something.
it's all circular in a way. so it works?
too bad i've also proved math to be a bunch of bullshit. dammit.
and now my head hurts. comments?
and here are my thoughts:
is the ultimate truth really nothing? there would certainly be evidence to prove so. is that the appeal of the ocean, the night sky, endless space? the mere emptiness of it or its ability to be conquered? of course there are people who look at the sky and admire only it's conquest, but i admire its beauty.
then do i strive for emptiness? do they strive for glory? who is right? is one of us right? are we both the same?
let's dissect this feeling. when i look out on the ocean i admire, fear, and respect it for its vastness. it is nothing and it is something. it is nothing because it is a bunch of water and it is something because it is a feeling. the feeling i get can and will be an entirely different feeling from someone else even though we are looking at the same thing.
conclusion #1: we are the same. and we are indiviuals.
conclusion #2: the ultimate truth really is nothing because only out of nothing can we make something. once you have a universal nothing each individual can make it their own yet universal something.
and then i went off on a tangent...
i used to have this theory that infinity cannot exist. there have to be a bounds to the universe becase if infinity is real then mathematics isn't. and math has already proven itself to be true [most of the time].
i also had a theory that the bounds of the universe were based on the planes x, y, and z. for the x plane there was its bound, counter-x. for the y plane, there was its bound counter-y. same for plane z. however, i drew a diagram [which unfortunately i can't reproduce right now, but if you see me you can ask me to draw it for you]. when one draws a graph, they draw x bissecting y. they form a cross with x in the centre of y. therefore, y is in the middle of x. z works the same way. z is in the middle of y. y is in the middle of x. therefore z is in the middle of x as well. all are in the middle.
in a phrase: "there cannot be a bounds because there is infinity. there is infinity because there are no bounds, there is only the middle".
therefore the ultimate truth is the 'middle'. this is proven ethically [not too proud, not too humble], physically [not too much sugar, not enough sugar], spiritually [not completely without any belief at all (then you would cease to live) and not over-zealous], and now mathematically and metaphysically. you can then use this truth to discover that the ultimate truth is nothing which creates something.
it's all circular in a way. so it works?
too bad i've also proved math to be a bunch of bullshit. dammit.
and now my head hurts. comments?