Nothing & Dot. Reorganization of reason. Sergey B. Konstantinov
that the current “Explicit Space” is not the only one. Objects contemplated mentally, as if “once again inside’ <for example, extracted from memory> – also three-dimensional, and are also located in space, but in some other one. However, in any case, we realize and “realize Ourselves’ in the “frame of explicit current reality”, and precisely in such conditions in which the use of Reason is possible – thinking, observation, analysis of the situation, we will include in the list meditative states, astral space, the state of sleep, hypnotic conditions, etc.
All this confirms our conclusion that it is “Consciousness’ that realizes a potentially unlimited number of necessary spaces – for the specific needs of the “I”, in this case for the realization of three-dimensional objects, but we do not doubt our ability to extract experience using higher-order dimensions (– any degree of dimensionality, if this turns out to be available). However, now we assert only the most obvious fact:
Space is not “Consciousness”;
This is a very important (for us) postulate, it will be useful not only in this study, but also in the life of someone who likes life :). Formulations and short theses that have a special meaning move us towards answers to the questions posed here; Considering that we can close our eyes – refusing to contemplate the situation, or deliberately fall asleep, of our own free will – ceasing the realization of reality, the question arises: Can the “I” be Self-sufficient?
A positive answer to this question, in the ideal conditions of existence established by us, would indicate the complete irrelevance of the “I”, which contradicts everything absolutely, that is, it is illogical and impossible, for a number of natural reasons. However, if “Any ideas, feelings, thoughts, data of memory, and anything contemplated, can exist exclusively in ‘Consciousness’, in the form which we consider actual and valid, then irrelevance implies the ‘One ‘I’’, and not in some Emptiness of the World, but namely as ‘There is only ‘I’’, including everything conceivable and inconceivable, together with Emptiness, if we admit that It is possible at all”. This means that “Consciousness” is inside the “I”, but has a direct relativity to the “I”. Also, in particular, that is – from the position of each living being in the World – this is so – taking into account all the facts about which we reasoned before;
Can it be proven that this is not so? (by disproving Solipsism)
We have found out before, we know, and have already said it many times, that we see everything we contemplate only in “Consciousness” (“I” see in Consciousness) and from the current position, “Consciousness”, as the Cause (processor, mean handler?), is around, and precisely outside. When “Consciousness” is around – this means that “I” is in the center of the current space (“within the frame”), extracts experience acting in its own body in the conditions of reality, represents Itself in this form (body);
Consciousness inside means what we point to when we discuss the mechanism of contemplation [from a photon, through a signal, etc.] and call it “the handler inside the Self” and then about “I”, but again inside, which contemplates “This same thing”, already as a result of processing and again – “Consciousness” turned out to be inside, this is what we focused on and discuss. You will say: – It looks like a trick. – The reaction is understandable, but let us maintain attention. Let us explain (even if it is early) that the cyclicity “to inside, inside, and inside,…” is due to the four-dimensionality, but the ambiguity arises due to the Duality of the “I”;
However, everything is solved quite simply: reasoning – we say that we are immersed inside, and to the “I”, but, at the same time, we are always inside the “Consciousness”. This is tracked very simply – any situation can be realized only in the corresponding space, in the “Consciousness” and by means of “It”. “I” acts as an active trigger and initiator, in the conditions of reality = in space, and realizing this space in the same time;
Consciousness is always outside (a priori, and in any case);
However, we would like to find a simpler scheme (concept) – in the hope of offering you more transparent examples, and to cite them as evidence as a consequence of other, more understandable, conclusions. Therefore, for now we will only assert the following – anything, anything, is and can exist only relatively. This has a special meaning. Let us recall the Harmony of the World (inner Balance). In connection with the established absolute impossibility of the unrelated existence of the “I”, an important conclusion follows:
“I” exists <mutually> relative with (-to) “Consciousness”;
According to the Fact of Being and the Act of Self-Validity – “I” is the Active aspect. From the position of any person – this is the Fact of Being “I” and “My life Activity” in this regard. “Consciousness” always seems static, and provides “I” with the opportunity to manifest Activity. This harmonious relationship is the fundamental basis – the mutual relativity of [“I” | and “Consciousness”] (also in accordance with the inherent relativity, this is a balance: Static | and Dynamic), which represents a Single two-aspect Entity:
[“Global aspect of the Entity” | and “Real aspect Entity”];
All this reliably proves that “Consciousness” is outside of everything Existing, and “I” – manifests “Its Activity” being inside the Static “Consciousness”. When trying to reason about this in relation to the “Global aspect of the Essence” to “Consciousness”, then Its position is abstract, and is everywhere, but “Consciousness” in any case <and logicaly> is outside of all;
We also ask that you take into account the fact that we are researching, although we think and are accustomed to conditions that literally do not correspond to what we are discussing here, therefore we sometimes have to, to tell the truth, be creative, consider the static in sequential dynamics, which in fact can be dynamic and static at the same time, and we include the Two-Aspect “I” among such “things”.
When we attribute everything static to the nature of Consciousness, we should take into account that Consciousness realizes Spaces that are static by definition, but the content located in them is contemplated as dynamic. On the other hand, any content is only contemplated as dynamic, showing the static state of the object at each point of the wave of its dynamic state, successively one after another (a paradoxical fact). This is not a factual dynamic, but in practice (and in experience!) it is contemplated and taken into account exactly this way, and not otherwise. The <as if> visible three-dimensionality is also doubtful, which in fact is two-dimensional images, and three-dimensionality, in their relationship, is only understood and realized, but we not seen, otherwise would see one side of the cube more, additionally, and could see what is “behind the high fence” :). So, we got one more very interesting postulate:
Unusual knowledge can only be obtained in the most unusual way;
For effective research it will be useful to keep in mind and take into account everything we already know – it will require a look at the studied picture as a whole, and from different positions. “Consciousness” is only intuitively and mentally understood as Space. To be more precise, “Consciousness” is primary, that is, as if “above space”, beyond, it is level (∞+1), and is implied by the fundamental “like hardware” part, while Space (like any objects) are some software realization of the “place for images” – no less ephemeral and virtual, which we mean an image on a monitor or a volumetric hologram (made of colored sparks);
“Space” (volume) – is realized only statically relative to everything that is contemplated ‘located’ inside. Any objects located in Space are