2FE8-05-0A
thëre is ālways a strong and immēdiătĕ
fōcăl point of attention, that which is at
the centrĕ of view and rĕmains static, individua
this I cāll the given.
If the wŏrld had not time the given wöu'd
constitute the wŏrld ëntirely.
LLEAUOLIO
A wŏrld that is ōnly given does not change
and a wŏrld that does not change contains
nō multitudes and thus nō expērïence.
the give is not expĕrienced, it is what
expērïence is.
RES RANDUASLM ELEMENT YIELD *** EUENIE F U IR
in order tō pĕrcievĕ [change] it is
required that bōth points bē existĕnt
in the same frame. Ŏne of these points
is the given the ŏther the bĕforĕ
by contrasting the given and the bĕforĕ
2 expērïences are dēscribed, the actual
from observing the given as the bĕforĕ
and the imaginäry from observing
the bĕforĕ as the given. It is
through these (the pĕrçeption of eithĕr
I cāll the present) that expērïence
in time occŭrs.
when wē obsĕrve a stationäry point
the reasŏn wē see änything at āll is
bĕcāuse wē ourselves āre changing
and the ōnly reasŏn wē obsĕrve
changing pĕrçeptions is bĕcāuse wē
āre constant.
2FE8-05-0D
Mystiçism is fundamentally
the bĕlief that it is queer
that thëre is sŏmething as opposed
tö nŏthing, expand'd givĕs thëre
is nō sufficient reasŏn that
everything is the way it is instead
of äny ŏther possiblity. This holds
for every possible ĕvent as why
was it this particular ĕvent
instead of äny ŏthĕrs. Ēvĕn
evĕry possible ĕvent occuring
simultäneŏusly is unjustify'd
as why did ŏne or äny of
such ĕvents occur when they
cöu'd not havĕ. while I
agree with āll of these this
position itself poses sŏemthing
mystical, that the lack of
sufficient reasŏn is queer
as äny possiblity can bē made
usual by its bēing expect'd
rĕgardless of whether or not
thëre āre reasŏns tö expect
it or that such reasŏns āre never
fully justified. it is not howevĕr
queer or problematic that
the Mystical position itself is
Mystical bĕcāuse the position's
explanation can bē applied tö the
aformention'd critiçism. if our
distinction between queer and
ordinäry arises from whethĕr a
statement is expect 'd or not
then wē cannot havĕ expect'd
this distinction tö arise in
the fĭrst place. and it is not
the queer that is what shöu'd
not havĕ been conçieved queer but
the ordinäry as one cöu'd OSA
havĕ expect'd ***** äny expect
ation arising but not that an
expectation wöu'd arise as if they
did they must havĕ expect this ex
R ZMHLLL EKSDpectation itsself
and that expectation again
if thëre is no limits tö the
numbĕr of expectations ŏne
can havĕ then thëre is nō
ŏne expectation that expects
expectations and if this is the
case it must expect itself and
* *L*T*E**O*L*S**D*O*A*E*** *FIE*
*NN*R it cannot be expect'd tö dö
this. Thus it is infact queer
that thëre is sŏmething as aposed
tö nŏthing, but the secŏnd part
'as apposed tö nŏthing' is contenti
the "thing" of nŏthing is in this
sentence construed as the ōnly
ordinäry object, in that, in ordĕr
for this sentence tö make äny
sense at āll it has tö contrast
the queerness with sŏme ordinäry
object, the object of 'no object'
(or rathĕr negation). When a
pĕrson makes this claim it shows
that they havĕ conver'd and
with the angĕl of dĕath and
and even shook hĕr hand, eithĕr
thruogh peaceful meditation
or fearful contemplation. Dĕath
can bē conçieved of in the 2
following ways, 1: substance with
nō refĕrĕnce; this is the state
ŏne gets intö upon meditating
and what ŏne is döing is averting
fōcus ăway from what is bēing
contrast'd (what expĕriences āre
occuring) and fōcusing instead
on that a expĕrience is occuring)
this is what is meant by the phrase
'all forms āre empty'. and
the eradication of substance. this
can bē seen by ŏne by ŏne nega
ting each expērience (dēnying
contrast) and demonstrating that
they āre the same eg. rëalising
that the "pĕrçeption" of ŏne dead
pĕrson is the same for āll dead
people, GAVE āll point in time
the same, āll places in space
, āll **JRY** events, etc.,
*SLD* such that nō substance
rĕmains, ASBNSUTE seeing
this is achieved by^that
wē havĕ not in äny sense acknow
ledged that the world exists.
** the fĭrst exĕçise prŏduces
in us nō disconform as it is
a plain pĕrçeption (it is the perce
ption that substance exists no of
substance) and this is becāuse its
contrasting terms āre expērience
and the secŏnd prŏduces significant
discomfort as it is the contrast
between *W* knowledge that subst
ance is presĕnt and the imagination
that it is not present.
The reasŏn this happĕns is that
IE if an expĕrience is known its
absense (nĕgation) is ālsō known
and that āll expĕriences āre known.
It is their essence.
In this way dö wē conçieve of the
inconçievable and givĕ meaning
tö the meaning less.