The Tale of Doctor Light~

The tale of doctor light~

So, Dr Light is a beam of, you guessed it, light, making its journey acrosthe cosmos. Firstly, as pure light, the Dr is completely incapable of understanding, or even thinking about darkness. Well, suppose that Dr light got it inhs head the simple fact, that you cannot be aware of nonawareness by its very definition. Following his scientific curiosity, he postulates that, it is not unfeasible to think, there is probably something, that I'm not. Dr light has never heard of anything like this, so he creates a concept for it, which he called datrkness: he postulates that this force, darkness, must run in inverse proportio to his own existence. Perhaps, darkness shows up on his instruments, and perhaps, he calls it 'dark matter'
Now, out of scientific curiosity, dr light decides to let go of all his previously held knowledge, let's go of any notion of the existence of light, which ls quite literally his entire existence, and he believes, for one second, not in light, but in darkness.

Is he not, for that second, existing inside of darkness, though he be light? Whence can this darkness occur, except outside of light? Therefore, for that moment, dr light effectively stepped out of his existence and into darkness. Thusly, Dr light just proved the existence of darkness as a mindset.
This proves, you see, that we truly do create our own realities, ans, simultaneously, proves that our realities exist fundentally seperate from the metapgysical construct that is our minds. After all, if thw concept of darkness originates in darkneas, as i posit, and the concept of darkneas resides in nothing, and we jave all these concepts clamoring in our minds for attention. Kinda makea you wary of all their intentions, no? We must, therefor, hepherd our thoughts with utnost diligence.I yell you truly, 'nothing ' is the same for us humans as 'darkness' is to dr light.

This is how one reciwvea verification from outside of his mind, and recognize it as such. I value your input highly, ATS. What say you?

a reply to: 5leepingWarrior

This is how one reciwvea verification from outside of his mind, and recognize it as such.

A verification from the mind wouldn't work because nothing can originate "outside" of one's mind, first.. The mind must manifest the verification first, never mind recognizing it.....

a reply to: donktheclown

You said it yourself! 'Nothing can exist outside of the mind'! It not only can, it does, because nothing is the nonexistance of everything, which by necessity includes the mind! So, if one has the concept of 'nothing' which you cannot deny. The only place this concept can originate from, is nothing! Nothing cant exist where something is, but something has to exist in nothing. Thats how it has meaning. Just like light and dark: dark cannot exist in light, but light must exist in dark, otherwise how would we know its dark? The only way to logically start and end everything, is with literal nothing! Only, nothing cant truly exist where something is, so it has to be conceptualized. Which is what the word 'nothing' is: a concept describing the nonexistance of concepts. So, by the very existance of this concept, we create a metaphysical construct where nothing truly exists, only in a limited form because of our awareness! Thus, the existance of the concept of nothing, means that nothing has to exist, else where would this concept have com from? So, if you have an idea in your head that nothing exists, that means then that to you, there is absolute nothing! Thats literally what the concept of 'nothing' is. But, just as dr light cant truly comprehend darkness, he has to approach this unkown from within the bounds of the known. By defining set parameter, in this case 'everything minus everything=0', we can conceptualize the impossible! This is how the unkown becomes known: not directly, but through the use of metaphyisical constructions of nonreality.

a reply to: 5leepingWarrior.

he biggest problem is that reality is objectively there. But, as a prerequisite for us to experience objectiveness we have to take and make it subjective, we have to format it in a way so it makes sense to us.

This is a major problem. because we exist as a part of objective reality, we are incapable of experiencing objectivity so long as the mind is trying to make all experiences about itself. This is the ego, this is why a one part of thewholen cant experiencbeing the whole as long as he insists upon his value being worth more, which is what we do when we make things relevant to us in order to try and understand them. But things don't exist(or not exist) relative to any one thing, they exist, objectively, or equally relevant to all things at all times. Which was the purpose of the thought exercise I made: by imagining nothing as best we can, we create s state of mind where, within this construct, there is no such thing as mind, or concepts, or words or anything at all, though paradoxically you have a construct of it. So if you create nothing, in your head, which is as simple as realizing that even everything has a limit, then you can be truly objective towards all things because you would exist separate to all, thus, be relevant to all things in the same exact manner.

Theoretically metaphysically speaking, of course

a reply to: 5leepingWarrior

Yes, but you left out where I stated "first." It has to come from your mind, first.

From the perspective of infinty, it has always been and always will be. Nothing can come before, or after. It is no less the same with our minds- unless we are willing to quite lierally give up everything in exchange for absolute nothing.

Again, frpm dr lights perspective, all there is, is light. One can start witg the existence of light and work backwards, supposing irs nonexistence, and only in this way can light know darkness.

Once mire: the only way infinity can be started and finished, is literally by nothing. a reply to: donktheclown