It is practical to be directly aware of the source of your thoughts that is not itself a thought.
Well one’s brain is the source of one’s thoughts while “not itself a thought”. However that is a practical application of biology, physiology, anatomy and/or neurology not your “direct perception” or “OM”
Then you are able to establish theoretical and practical frameworks, which are tuned to precisely express the source of your thoughts without loosing your direct awareness of the source of your thoughts, also at the level of thoughts.
You must need more ‘tuning’ as you have failed not only to establish any “theoretical and practical frameworks” but continue to fail to even understand those already well established,
This finest ability to be directly aware of the simplest state of awareness, has a fundamental influence on any chosen framework, and in this thread the chosen framework is Logic and Mathematical Science.
A “framework” you have not only failed to “influence” but to simply understand as well.
By not loosing the direct awareness of its own simplest state, one is aware of both absolute and relative aspects of it, where the relative aspect is the expressed field of thoughts.
Field of dreams would be more accurate.
At the first level one gets the simplest state of awareness only at the personal level (I is that), such that the intellectual aspect (analysis or serial thinking) is fulfilled.
Well go back to “the first level” as that “intellectual aspect” is one of which you still remain demonstrably unfulfilled.
At the second level one gets the simplest state of awareness also at the non-personal level (You are that), such that the feeling aspect (Intuition or parallel thinking) is fulfilled.
Another level you fail at as you continually attempt to replace what others have said with your own “other words” and evidently lack any feeling about such unethical behavior.
At the the third level one gets the simplest state of awareness also at the non-personal level of also unaware things (All is that) such that the unity of both intellect and feeling ( (analysis or serial thinking) AND (Intuition or parallel thinking) ) are fulfilled.
“state of awareness” of “unaware things”? Well that one you might actually have a shot at as unaware seems to be your preferred “state”. So now your “parallel thinking” is just your “Intuition” or “feeling”, color me unsurprised.
Please pay attention that I use AND connective, which is currently understood only in terms to the first level.
Please pay attention that you use a lot of things that you don’t currently understand in any terms, even your own.
A AND ~A is a contradiction only by direct awareness' first level, which is characterized by personal (local) awareness of the simplest state of awareness (I is that).
No Doron, again it is specifically a contradiction only because it is statement that is always FALSE regardless of the truth value of “A”.
A AND ~A is not a contradiction by direct awareness' second level, which is characterized also by non-personal (non-local) awareness of the simplest state of awareness (You is that).
No Doron, again it is not a contradiction only if you are using “~A” to represent something other then the negation of “A” which is simply self-inconsistent.
A AND ~A is not a contradiction by direct awareness' third level, which is characterized also by non-personal (non-local) awareness of the simplest state of awareness also about unaware things (All is that).
No Doron, again it is not a contradiction only if you are using “~A” to represent something other then the negation of “A” which is simply self-inconsistent. Something you still simply remain unaware of.
Actually at the third level there is only Unity, which is beyond A;~A and logical connectives, which are first and second levels' concepts.
Furthermore, Unity is beyond any attempt to get it by Logic;Intuition or any distinction that is based A;~A and the intermediate states (serial or parallel) between A;~A.
Moreover, the use of concept like Unity can't capture that is naturally beyond any attempt to define it (it is naturally undefined and also "naturally undefined" can't capture it).
So your third level and your “concept like Unity” is just beyond you.
A lot of blathering on about your imaginary “levels” Doron but still no practical applications, so please get back to us when you actually have any practical applications.
Let us say it that way:
Emptiness is the totality of non-existence.
Fullness is the totality of existence.
Collection is a relative (serial and/or parallel) existence between these totalities.
Unity is beyond any definition, whether it is described totally or relatively.
Let us say “Doron, just answer the question asked”.
So now your “magnitude of existence” can have a negative value?
I hope that this post give some example of the gap of communication between you and me, about the Mathematical Science and the meaning of practical applications during our daily life.
Doron every one of your posts gives “some example of the gap of communication between you” and everyone else. Because you just make up nonesense and just confuse that with understanding then you just directly contradict your own nonesense.
IE:
“Unity is beyond any definition, whether it is described totally or relatively”.
That is just you claiming you don’t have any idea what your own concept of “Unity” represents in spite of your own attempts above to employ your indefinable “concept like Unity” to define your “third level” as the “the unity of both intellect and feeling”. The fact remains Doron that you just don’t like definitions or limits, least of all your own, which is why you still remain the staunchest opponent of just your own notions.
