Indivitriality; The introduction to your universal self.

Simply; we as individual ones relative to our own body do not exist. This is the delusion. We are one eternal consciousness; or one eternal interaction and result of infinitely webbed and interdependent, instantaneously synchronized cause and effect divided into an illusion of indivitrio ones.

We are not individual, if anything we are indivitrio. There are 3 dimensions, that of which we are divided among as the illusion of ones.

Individuality is the delusion because it does not deal with the singularity of physical existence, rather it is subjective percipience, mostly that of optical aptitude and selfish egoism; viewing ones self relative to another self, object or another thing. You see 2 things and say, "ok... I'm an indiviDUAL." When those two things are really 3d, thus indivitrios in and of theirselves. You are an indivitrio vessel and only individual relative to another indivitrio object/vessel. That is there are two of you and you are one of them.

I really think a more accurate summation of what we are as Human Beings as singularities, is interconnected indivitrios. I can only come to this conclusion as the universe mirrors such, being that it is an eternal one of 3 dimensions comprised by and of eternal ones of 3 dimensions.

Indivitriality; get to know yourself.

We are individual unitrios (One 3 dimensional being) relative to each other! No?

[edit on 16-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Just curious: Any opinions, feedback?

What do you think? Right, wrong? Anything to add?

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Interesting idea LastOutfinite

Why is it that you can perceive of someone else's pain, but you can't actually feel that person's pain? There is some sort of barrier there, and that barrier makes us an individual.

What is the nature of that barrier? When that wall is removed, do we still have any self awareness?

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


While your theory does possess some remarkably valuable aesthetic qualities, do you believe it is entirely in keeping with the nature of a multi-dimensional universe?

Don't forget, there is obviously more than 3 dimensions.

Perhaps our true individuality lies without, in the way in which our fellow humans perceive us and our actions towards others.

After all, perhaps when one looks upon such great peoples as Ghandi - Who is to say that at heart, Ghandi was an extremily selfish person who was interested only in his own personal happiness?

I recall, for example; In Feudal Japan, the pursuit of Happiness was considered actually quite naive, even among those who practised Zen.

I think you've done some good work here, but as always there is a tendancy among individuals to cease upon an idea and claim as their own, and because of that tendancy, an inability to progress the intellectual possibility of a singular point which unites all living things in the universe becomes a reality.

Don't stop there, and don't forget to value in the possibility that you might be wrong about something, even if you are generally on the right track.



[edit on 17-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Perhaps our true individuality lies without, in the way in which our fellow humans perceive us and our actions towards others.

A single point to add on this;

Is it not true that our individuality is no more varied anywhere than in how others perceive us?

In the chaos of the different perceptions that one can view the world and the people in it, one can only find the truth by stilling one's perception - When one learns To Cease learning, Speculating, *Feeling*, One begins to understand the true meaning of Chaos, and how Chaos can be overcome.

P.S: Overcome one's own inbred necessity to learn, and one will understand what it is that drives people to learn the impossible.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

Originally posted by Buck Division
Why is it that you can perceive of someone else's pain, but you can't actually feel that person's pain? There is some sort of barrier there, and that barrier makes us an individual.

I'm not sure. I personally am a very empathetic person and I do feel as if I can literally experience people's emotions around me. This isn't just fantasy, it's psychological and scientific.

When subject to an environment we will be effected in some way or another, even if it is to ignore the environment(s) expected effects, that ignorance is still an effect that we take toward that environment and is because of that environment that we are subject to.

As far as individual and indivitrio. I would like it if the readers could focus more on the words first so that the concepts can sink in.

ONE Human Being in relation and reference only to its self, is one vessel/body of 3 dimensions. IndiviDUAL, is a contrast of two things. Everything is a unitrio (a singular 3 dimensional entity [of course interconnected as well])

What is the barrier? I don't know, I honestly don't know. Is there a barrier?
It would seem simple to just say that it's because we're two different beings, and probably that would be correct. But more elaborately and scientifically... what IS the barrier?! I don't know... Is there a barrier?

What is the nature of that barrier? When that wall is removed, do we still have any self awareness?

I'm thining the nature of this barrier is psychological and it exists only in the mind and once this block is removed we will have heightened self awareness and heightened empathy.

Thank you for your reply. Thanks for any reply. I'm looking for direction and conversation. I feel as if in a decade or so this could really expound into something paradigm shattering. I've been working in this field of psychological, philosophical abstracts on the foundation of physics for a few years now... started out slow... had a few eruptions of creativity here and there... and now this last one... but every so often it goes dormant and I find truly valuable information coming from those that question and give feedback.

So thank you all for your inqueries.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Don't forget, there is obviously more than 3 dimensions.

Can you please prove this? I'd appreciate it.

My universe, as I have proven over and over again, persistently and consistently consists of 3 dimensions and is one eternal mechanically biological organism.

Height, width, depth. One eternity, nothing outside of it. No beginning and no end. Transmutation of energy, eternally.

The universe IS multi dimensional, these multiple dimensions are 3; height, width, depth; but really existing as one as neither one of them can be separated. There is no such thing as 2 dimensional and 1 dimensional objects, they simply cease to exist and never did in the first place. They are only mathematically theoretical, and when graphed only exist because of a 3d piece of paper, 3d blots of ink, graphite, etc. These things simply do not exist, except for as invisible ideas within the mind. In effect, they are useless and completely meaningless.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


And thank you for your sentimism.

I don't believe it is mine, rather it is all of ours and is all of us. It has always existed. And what you say is true. When I find myself experiencing this selfish attitude.. which can happen at times, though I've been practicing for years now to get rid of this... it usually comes up in modes of defense against the faithful or religious... but yes... it does hinder any advancement... it is only when I give myself up do great feats of progress expose theirselves.

reply to post by Buck Division


I'd also like to add that in my previous relationship I definitely felt her pain. For one she asked me to. To me love is like a game of roulette, and everytime I stumble across it I go all in. One of these times I'll win.

I surely felt her pain as I allowed myself to love the things that she loved, to miss the things that she missed, and to cry over the things that she cried over. I can only explain that as a form of emotional dedication toward the goal of succeding in a mutual love; truly empathizing and sympathizing with another. To fill the void of another's weakness by exposing that, I too, could experience these pains with her, and grow out of them together. To not make another feel alone.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
It would seem simple to just say that it's because we're two different beings, and probably that would be correct. But more elaborately and scientifically... what IS the barrier?! I don't know... Is there a barrier?

There may very well be a barrier. That barrier may very well be a unique spirit signature within reality (any, all reality, projecting into any point, at any time, or all time) causing two different beings to actually be so. Perhaps "ascension" may be describing in error (when thought of, as to have been understood, by the general mass of the believing) an ultimate state of being, where self has dissolved into blissful Oneness.

As well, could not the ultimate Intended purpose of man and woman, land and sky, plant and cloud, bird and fish, all that exists be to ever search yet never find, then finally realize that all is mind? It is already known by some that One Mind comprises the many; do the many comprise the One?...neither somehow somewhere beyond the other, ever. I purposely intend to not identify any distinctive quality of the One intending, other than to ascribe it credit for apparently incomprehensibly-complex design as well as implementation of the known universe, or any unknown, as at this point I find First Source identity irrlelvant to the primary purpose of this particular paragraph.

Blissful Oneness, yes, unified with blissful Individuality. Always One, Always Many. I am, at this time, with absolutely no concept of how proof of this viewpoint should exist.

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
There may very well be a barrier. That barrier may very well be a unique spirit signature within reality (any, all reality, projecting into any point, at any time, or all time) causing two different beings to actually be so.

Well, as long as this spirit is something that is corporeal in nature and not some "invisible" religious force that I must have faith in.

I personally think there is a barrier but that this barrier can be removed by our "choosing". This barrier is a psychological evolution through our accumulation of objective knowledge. The thing is, we are two different beings while simultaneously two of the same being and one of the same being, this one being is the universe (that we are all interconnected through and as).

where self has dissolved into blissful Oneness.

Sure. I'd agree to that. The thing that wants to keep individuality is fear of losing self. Self will not be lost. What will be lost is the ability to deceive.

As well, could not the ultimate Intended purpose of man and woman, land and sky, plant and cloud, bird and fish, all that exists be to ever search yet never find,

I disagree here with your suggestion. The eternal universe can be known. It is knowledge that has always existed that we are remembering. When we study and understand, for instance, light. We haven't created anything, these are not man made laws, this is eternal knowledge. This is the way of the universe that always has been and always will be. When the "unified filed" is completely known... we will have ONE objective truth that is a SUBJECTIVE truth for ALL, everywhere in the universe. We will become aware that we are the mind of the universe, at which point we will become the mind of the universe.

then finally realize that all is mind?

CLOSE! But we WILL find! There is one truth for all of us! I am completely confident of this, so much so that no one can logically prove it wrong. Now I must seek the science.

It is already known by some that One Mind comprises the many; do the many comprise the One?...

Yes. Banda Atman (sp?). The soul and the oversoul. Though I would stray away from the word soul.

neither somehow somewhere beyond the other, ever.

Is neither really beyond or is it the cancelation of a an equally polarized negative and positive culmination?

First Source identity irrlelvant to the primary purpose of this particular paragraph.

First source there never was. Zero source there is.

Blissful Oneness, yes, unified with blissful Individuality. Always One, Always Many. I am, at this time, with absolutely no concept of how proof of this viewpoint should exist.

The universe is one eternal 3 dimensional Being, we are one 3 dimensional beings of the eternal. I, as myself, am not eternal. I, as the eternal mind, eternal energy and eternal laws of the universe... am eternal.

Thank you for the stupendously flavorable post. My cerebral tastebuds are enjoying the taste of this neurologically electromagnetic feast.

(P.s. Nice to see you around again!)

You noticed my absence...again impressed. You're welcome, glad to contribute to the workings of the plight of enormous thought in the search for why, though we already know; seeking when what may be, though no time exists. I would go as far to say that I seek not to understand why, really (now) but simply to understand. Just not sure why. Why is this structure, this protocol the way...obviously it is, and I can't seem to find the voting booth.

For example, if it is all mind, then is it really true that all is perception? Is "where" only a non-existent concept provided as a tool for navigation within the perception? If so, could I even comprehend the very answer I believe I would so desperately like to find? Do I want to find the answer--this ultimate Truth (is there really just one Aspect)--to experience it, or to tell everyone I know, "I've found it!"

I'm curious again: may I know why you refuse a universe that may be called God? I'm not preaching, and will not (requesting stand-down), because I respect your processes, and therefore you; what I may believe should not have bearing on colleagues in higher-level contemplation. If I knew everything, and had no need to understand anything, then I would be seeking nothing.

Which is, in some ways--yes, I agree--exactly what I am seeking, that "no-thing", out of which everything included within that which is called "something" has emerged. Dark matter? I think so, and if so, then certainly there is more nothing than something for our viewing pleasure in visible range.

The word "soul" defined fundamentally as "will" and "emotion"; however, you stray from the terminology...I tend to suspect for its ecclesiastical affiliation, though I think the definition would be found a bit more broad than that. I don't understand this, but again I respect a fellow seeker's point-of-view. I feel confident, somehow, that you will clarify.

And one more thing: how do I accept that an infinite and eternal (you didn't use "infinite" but it seemed encapsulated within the context; correct me, if need be) condition can be known. Will the universe cease to be infinite, once known?

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
You noticed my absence...again impressed.

Contemporaneously it is me recognizing my own; it's ours, is it not?

You're welcome, glad to contribute to the workings of the plight of enormous thought in the search for why, though we already know;

Thank you. Your sentiments are a mirror of beatitude and I reciprocate.

seeking when what may be, though no time exists.

Is sempiternal time, no time? Is time only defined as measurable? Time can be both eternal and preoccupied in its absence. As time does and does not exist, unasailably everything is and is not. A contradiction, but not a flaw at all, revealingly a perfection of a trichotomous perception; a mind of the universe, totally cinctured and synchronized to a simultanaeity of omniscient comprehension.

I would go as far to say that I seek not to understand why, really (now) but simply to understand.

I think you already do.

Why is this structure, this protocol the way...obviously it is, and I can't seem to find the voting booth.

Is why this structure?(Is the structure an ever question?) This protocol this way? Perchance it is terminable and soon it will go away. Or are we stuck in this perpetually impervious, therefore static curiosity?

For example, if it is all mind, then is it really true that all is perception?

If it is, then what is perception? And what is all? To observe the wholes the obvious perception, but you do also see the unchosen joint conception?

Is "where" only a non-existent concept provided as a tool for navigation within the perception?

A being once told me we are no-w-here. Now here. Non-local yet relative.

If so, could I even comprehend the very answer I believe I would so desperately like to find? Do I want to find the answer--this ultimate Truth (is there really just one Aspect)--to experience it, or to tell everyone I know, "I've found it!"

Either one would be the aspect of the experience of it, would not it?

I'm curious again: may I know why you refuse a universe that may be called God? I'm not preaching, and will not (requesting stand-down),

Stand-down granted. There is a stigma that coats this religious terminology, this associated institutionalized prejudicism surceases any futuristic and Humanistic value that would come from such a name, henceforth downplaying any singificant revelation conglomerated to such a name. The powers and history of this diety and its inscripted incantatories into its biblical text through men do not match with exactitude the attributes of the eternal unitrio.

because I respect your processes, and therefore you; what I may believe should not have bearing on colleagues in higher-level contemplation. If I knew everything, and had no need to understand anything, then I would be seeking nothing.

Per mod I also respect you more than you may know. Your esteemed intellect and fearless approach at using such renders me a joyous Man. I have sought nothing, and nothing I truly found to be something. I have sought energetical absence, and energetical absence I diligently uncover to be immeasurable presence.

Which is, in some ways--yes, I agree--exactly what I am seeking, that "no-thing", out of which everything included within that which is called "something" has emerged. Dark matter? I think so, and if so, then certainly there is more nothing than something for our viewing pleasure in visible range.

There was no emergence of everything, nor was there ever an emergence of nothing, but it can also be said that there was ever an emergence of nothing (absences are dichotomous). What you seek you have already found. Ask yourself how nothing can or could have existed in front of you... it can't, and it never did, and it never will. There truly is not a void of existence called a "nothing" and there never will be, for this to be it must be as follows: only if this nothing is indubitably known as the something and the everything, that which it truly is. This nothing is eternal, and this everything is eternal.

The word "soul" defined fundamentally as "will" and "emotion"; however, you stray from the terminology...I tend to suspect for its ecclesiastical affiliation, though I think the definition would be found a bit more broad than that.

Those who I ultimately wish to infinitely portion this knowledge to are the ecclesiastical. I agree and defer, the definition is found to be more broad, but for necessity of mental attraction and avoidance of foreseen consequences I will definitely suspend improvisation of such verbiage.

I don't understand this, but again I respect a fellow seeker's point-of-view. I feel confident, somehow, that you will clarify.

Respect and trust are earned and gained, not blindly given. You sir, currently have all of mine. I will always clarify with pedantic staunch for your pleasure and for your inquery as extended as this trust and respect should be proven to intermingle.

And one more thing: how do I accept that an infinite and eternal (you didn't use "infinite" but it seemed encapsulated within the context; correct me, if need be) condition can be known. Will the universe cease to be infinite, once known?

No. It is One Eternity. ONE eternity. There is no space/time for another eternity. There is only one eternity. This one eternity defines in itself that is simultaneously everything and nothing. Its perpetuity is static.

Think of it like this. Just because you may one day know all the laws of the physical universe doesn't mean that there are a finite number of things to see and places to visit.

Though the structural blueprints (laws of physics) be finite, the things that comprise it are infinite (planets, stars, people, life).

[edit on 28-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Yes. The father, son and holy spirit, so to speak. The holy trinity. It does make up one three dimensional bieng. I never really thought of it like that.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Contemporaneously it is me recognizing my own; it's ours, is it not?

Is sempiternal time, no time? Is time only defined as measurable? Time can be both eternal and preoccupied in its absence. As time does and does not exist, unasailably everything is and is not. A contradiction, but not a flaw at all, revealingly a perfection of a trichotomous perception; a mind of the universe, totally cinctured and synchronized to a simultanaeity of omniscient comprehension.

And a clearing of the mist: I should offer thanks for this vantage point. Duality persists strongly in sunlight, though effort to remain focused will be applied.

I think you already do.

My words told you that? Pinged against similarity, clarity . . .

Or are we stuck in this perpetually impervious, therefore static curiosity?

If one is this one, then one infinitely hopes not.

If it is, then what is perception? And what is all? To observe the wholes the obvious perception, but you do also see the unchosen joint conception?

I flew to the edge once, and failed to understand what I saw. I won't say that I like it better within, but I like it better within. At least I comprehend.

A being once told me we are no-w-here. Now here. Non-local yet relative.

Hold on, still climbing . . . I'll be up there in a moment. The echoes of what I think you said are reverberating in and out of my sensation of the pointless passage of time, shaking loose my reluctant grip on reality. (and what "reality" should I so firmly be gripping? . . )

Either one would be the aspect of the experience of it, would not it?

Sometimes I think you are so deep. The other times I'm certain of it. Yes, both apply! Why can I see this, but not that? Principles apply across the board, though the image may change.

Stand-down granted. There is a stigma that coats this religious terminology, this associated institutionalized prejudicism surceases any futuristic and Humanistic value that would come from such a name, henceforth downplaying any singificant revelation conglomerated to such a name. The powers and history of this diety and its inscripted incantatories into its biblical text through men do not match with exactitude the attributes of the eternal unitrio.

Man, you're using all these $80 words, and giving me a headache. But I understand, and appreciate where you stand.

Per mod I also respect you more than you may know. Your esteemed intellect and fearless approach at using such renders me a joyous Man. I have sought nothing, and nothing I truly found to be something. I have sought energetical absence, and energetical absence I diligently uncover to be immeasurable presence.

No one else sees this. Sentiment reflected. I have one solid-world acquaintance whom I more often than not feel is capable of comprehension, yet is so beyond self-absorbed that I am astonished the ego has not somehow materially manifested and weighted down and crushed through to the center of the earth. An amazement, this person, and irrelevant to my recurring need for contemplative exchange.

There was no emergence of everything, nor was there ever an emergence of nothing, but it can also be said that there was ever an emergence of nothing (absences are dichotomous). What you seek you have already found. Ask yourself how nothing can or could have existed in front of you... it can't, and it never did, and it never will. There truly is not a void of existence called a "nothing" and there never will be, for this to be it must be as follows: only if this nothing is indubitably known as the something and the everything, that which it truly is. This nothing is eternal, and this everything is eternal.

What I seek I have already found. I don't know what to say .. for now, I consider this page of the great inquiry balanced. Thought this once, a few years ago, but then released it to fly away so that I could continue looking for it. If I didn't already think that you understood I might be somewhat mid-brained embarrassed.

Those who I ultimately wish to infinitely portion this knowledge to are the ecclesiastical. I agree and defer, the definition is found to be more broad, but for necessity of mental attraction and avoidance of foreseen consequences I will definitely suspend improvisation of such verbiage.

Sir, yes, sir!

Respect and trust are earned and gained, not blindly given. You sir, currently have all of mine. I will always clarify with pedantic staunch for your pleasure and for your inquery as extended as this trust and respect should be proven to intermingle.

Who knows how long the logs brought together will ride the stream in unison, before the very current which placed them side-by-side will then divide, and cause them to drift apart and away? But until then let us enjoy today, and if you think like I think, then may today always be now.

This one eternity defines in itself that is simultaneously everything and nothing. Its perpetuity is static.

Perpetuity is static. Kikd @$$. I could see this on apparel.

Think of it like this. Just because you may one day know all the laws of the physical universe doesn't mean that there are a finite number of things to see and places to visit.

Though the structural blueprints (laws of physics) be finite, the things that comprise it are infinite (planets, stars, people, life).

A cosmic Galleria. Nice. But wouldn't the infinite qualities (the nouns within the structure) actually be part of the structure? Ex: I am not separate from the universe, so therefore my inherent connection to Infinite Mind causes a loop back out from participant to structure, which in turn causes structure to be found not yet deciphered-in-full if audited, if the quality of infinite comprises structure.

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
A cosmic Galleria. Nice. But wouldn't the infinite qualities (the nouns within the structure) actually be part of the structure? Ex: I am not separate from the universe, so therefore my inherent connection to Infinite Mind causes a loop back out from participant to structure, which in turn causes structure to be found not yet deciphered-in-full if audited, if the quality of infinite comprises structure.

Yes! I'll reply to the remaining text later!

Think of it like an all encompassing laungage (nouns). METAPHOR: The laws of the syntax (though created by "man", are the structure) are limited, though interchangable. Imagine that the universe is a perfectly written eternal book with infinite words (thrice in variation, language, and quantity), but you have deciphered its syntax! You know when and where punctuation marks will exist and why and what they mean. You understand the language, you understand the structure! You can now read it with ease and steadfast! But the book... the book is a never ending suspensful mystery full of tragedies, love stories, discoveries, explorations, etc... infinite elipsis.

One day soon, we will learn how to read. Right now we are putting the alphabet together. As soon as this acclimates, reading is an immediate follow.

We are deciphering an unknown language that already speaks us, we've only to learn to speak it and understand of what it speaks. Then we can know why it speaks what it speaks and how it speaks what it speaks.

It not only speaks us but speaks through us and us through it, but those of us that wish to comprehend must remember to not always talk because silently there is a language to be seen, so we must quiet ourselves every so often and listen to it.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

How do you explain NDE? I've had several and it was me, an individual, who experienced them. If you had a camera on me during these times you would only have seen a dead body, by your definition 3 dimensions, though much more was happening. Please enlighten us as I did not experience any sort of melding into some great whatever, I retained my individuality in the next "dimension" and was lectured about the situation by some very interesting "light" beings. Have you ever ventured beyond? What are your "beliefs" as to what happens to us when we pass and what "facts" do you base them on? Is it first hand info. or just theorizing?

STM

[edit on 6/9/2008 by seentoomuch]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
No. It is One Eternity. ONE eternity. There is no space/time for another eternity. There is only one eternity. This one eternity defines in itself that is simultaneously everything and nothing. Its perpetuity is static.

Think of it like this. Just because you may one day know all the laws of the physical universe doesn't mean that there are a finite number of things to see and places to visit.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Yes but those are the laws of this universe/reality or how ever you want to call it . But you cannot dismiss other realities/eternities with different laws of "physics/general ""conception"" of the grand design for that universe", which all come into the grand design . Or is there any grand design at this point in theory ?

I don't know from where you got this indiDUO as 2..
The etymology of the word is from Latin : indivisible

Released to flight, I continue to search, though when again once found may I learn again to love the mind so long ago once left behind? Will I be first in, only now silent today? Still wonder if there is always hope . . . certain, still, there must be.