With God’s help, 23 Kislev 5781

It seems that the respondent here acted with the trait of “unity of opposites.” On the one hand he admits that he does not know the context of Rabbi Kook’s words, and on the other hand he knows how to determine emphatically that the rabbi’s words are “nonsense.” Is it shameful to admit that you do not understand and leave it at that?

Best regards, Yaron Tzemach Fishel-Plankton Halevi

In general, regarding logical impossibilities, Rabbi Kook’s view is that the laws of logic are valid from the creation of the world and not before the creation of the world. See Dr. Y. N. Rubin’s book, What God Cannot Do, p. …

Perhaps Rabbi Kook’s words can be explained based on what Rabbi Michael David Abraham wrote, that there is not always “a choice of evil,” but rather “a choice not to think,” which in turn leads to surrender to impulses. When one repents and begins to think, the choice of evil is no longer possible. There is not really “a choice of evil” but rather “an absence of choice.”

Another direction that can be suggested is that the very granting of the possibility of failure is part of a divine plan whose purpose is to elevate man through “trial and error,” so that after a person has corrected his path and risen from his fall, the failure is revealed as an event that strengthens him for the good, in the sense of: “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”

These are rough directions that still require fundamental study of the text, its context, and parallels. And “give to a wise man and he will become wiser still.”

Best regards, Yitzpeh

Sh"tz
Why do you call Rabbi Michi Rabbi Michael David Abraham? What does that mean?

To Adiel — greetings,

Rabbi Michael David Abraham is the acronym for: “Rabbi Michael David Abraham” — that is his full name, given to him when he entered the covenant of Abraham our forefather, of blessed memory.

Best regards, Yitzpeh

Shatzal,
First, it’s David Michael, not Michael David. 🙂
Second, sir disqualifies by his own blemish when he wrote “knows how to determine emphatically,” whereas I wrote it with reservation.
Third, I explained what the two possibilities are regarding unity of opposites. There are no others. Therefore at most the context can show that this is the second type, and not nonsense. Not sure that’s any more flattering to Rabbi Kook.
And fourth, as you yourself explained in the best of your understanding, as one who knows Rabbi Kook’s teachings, this is indeed a statement that goes beyond logic, exactly as I understood. Which is to say: nonsense. In this, sir acted with the trait of unity of opposites, coming to disagree with me and ending up blessing me (that is, confirming me).
Except that now we must discuss which of the two types of unity of opposites sir employed. And since here I know the context quite well, my answer is: the nonsense variety.
And thus we have established that sir is a faithful student of his rabbi Rabbi Kook, and walks after him on the yellow brick road leading straight to the regions of the vacuum (where the wizard dwells in disguise, who for some reason is called by sir, without having wronged him at all, “the Holy One, blessed be He”).

With God’s help, 23 Kislev 5781

To Rabbi Michael David Abraham — greetings,

Regarding the rabbi’s words in Lights of Repentance, as a guidebook that seeks to explain the process of repentance in a way understandable to man, it seems more likely to me that the use of “unity of opposites” is in a borrowed sense, meaning “complexity,” a combination of opposing traits, along the lines I suggested in the second and third paragraphs. More on this another time, God willing.

In any case, repentance that repairs the past also contains an element opposed to the logic that denies the possibility of “a retroactive result,” and apparently we have to say that through repentance one returns to something that preceded the world, where, as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, recreates the world in a corrected form.

Precisely in physics there is an example of “opposites in one subject,” in that light can function both as a wave and as a particle, so physicists also hold to a “unity of opposites” even in the created world.

Best regards, Yaron-Dor Borlai-Shpigel

Shatzal, with all due respect, part of that same superficial and very characteristic use of unity of opposites is an inaccurate citation of an idea from quantum theory.
Nothing can be both wave and particle at the same time. Not even alive and dead at the same time (Schrödinger’s cat). And by the way, this applies to light just as much as to massive particles. There is nothing special about light in this respect.

Here Rabbi Michi really flubbed it badly (a lack of feel for metaphysics).

Rabbi Kook explained that in connection with a person’s evil deeds there is a change in reality after the person repents (and by the way he wasn’t the first to notice this. The Izbizer and Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin also discussed it). Before repentance, the bad choices belong to the person, and after he repents it turns out that the Holy One, blessed be He, did everything. That is, the choice of evil has a shell and a core: in the shell and the external layer, the person is the one who chooses, but after he repents and intentional sins are transformed into unwitting ones, then the past (which is connected to the present and interpreted — or changed — by it) changes, in the sense that the core begins to shine and purify the exterior, and through it is revealed that all this was God’s doing from the start. There is here a kind of connection between ontology — what is happening now — and epistemology — what we thought (and now know) happened in the past. I think the past really changes too. After all, we are not talking here about the physical act but about its interpretation (whether it was evil in God’s eyes or not), that is, about spirituality, and that certainly can change over time, if time even applies there. As for how this is connected to two opposites in one subject, in that God can tolerate it, I don’t have the energy to write.

By the way, this is not the end of the matter. There is a more advanced stage where intentional sins are transformed into merits — there again it becomes clear that the person was the one who chose, only that this was a choice for the good.

What I see here is letters flying in the air, and I have no energy to elaborate.

In any case, this is not nonsense but the second type. But the insight and the vision of this thing are such that Rabbi Kook does not need compliments from anyone, certainly not from Rabbi Michi, whose consciousness compared to Rabbi Kook’s is the consciousness of a worm compared to that of a human being. If Rabbi Kook decided to call this a thing and its opposite, I am convinced that from his perspective the language was successful, and how can one even say that he was lazy.

Emmanuel, Shlompartzion wrote well, and there really was no need to elaborate. Every reader sees it immediately. It’s been a long time since I read such a collection of words that are simply gibberish and say nothing. So it turns out this is indeed a nice explanation of Rabbi Kook’s words.
As for the relation between his greatness and my smallness, I see no point in addressing it, because that is an ad hominem remark, and it usually comes up when the arguments on the substance have run out.

With God’s help, 23 Kislev 5781

To Rabbi Michael David Abraham — greetings,

Just as light is not at one and the same time both wave and particle, so too in Rabbi Kook’s words in Lights of Repentance (and Emmanuel nicely pointed out their source in the words of Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin): there is a distinction between “before repentance,” when the choice of evil is attributed to the person, and “after repentance,” when it becomes clear that “God meant it for good.”

To explain this, one can say that sin has two components: the decision and the execution. The decision is man’s, but the execution cannot take place unless God allows it. When a person repents and uproots the decision to sin, only the fact remains that in practice a sin was committed, but the very occurrence of the sinful act is now attributed only to God, who allowed it to happen.

According to this explanation, the person’s decision to sin is uprooted because it is revealed to have been a complete mistake, uprooted retroactively like the annulment of a vow that turned out to have been made in error, and thus “intentional sins became like unwitting sins.” But one can say more than that: the fact that God brings before a person the inclination and the opportunity is itself part of a divine plan that lets a person advance morally by way of “trial and error.” The fall, which brings the person terrible pain over his failure and a strong resolve to improve his way, brings him a hardening and strengthening that immensely fortifies his will to do good. In that way the sin became the opening to a new birth, and it becomes clear retroactively that the “intentional sins were turned into merits.”

From a “plankton” swept along in the surging waves of the sea, the man became a mighty whale swimming boldly even against the current — and over his empowerment let Yaron rejoice and be glad!

Best regards, Yaron Tzemach Fishel-Plankton

Well, so what else can one write? Actually I was relatively clear. But when you’re standing מולך אוטיסט (and indeed most of the rabbi’s students are like that, including “every reader sees it immediately” — the problem is that an autistic person doesn’t know he’s such), then you really need to know how to communicate with him. So sometimes an argument about the person is relevant after all (he doesn’t understand your language), and the difference in smallness and greatness between him and Rabbi Kook is exactly in this matter: when it comes to spirituality, the rabbi is on the autistic spectrum. I won’t be the first or the last to say that.

All right.

Since Shlomper jabbed at me, I’ll write something on the subject. With respect to a thing and its opposite in God, I have a theory of how such a thing could be. The example is Newton’s differential (in practice it was Leibniz’s, but Newton’s mental process was similar, so I’ll call it his). Newton needed, for his calculations, to invent or use a kind of contradictory creature — a number smaller than all the (positive) numbers and at the same time greater than zero (that is, not zero). That of course “could not” be. So he said: let’s assume there is such a thing and see what can be done with it (that’s part of what is called an axiomatic approach). For the purpose of calculating the derivative of, say, the quadratic function, he used the assumption that it is not zero in order to divide by it in the first stage, and in the second stage used the assumption that it is smaller than any number whatever and in practice like zero, in order to throw it out of the remaining expression. The result he got — 2X — worked (it gave all the correct slopes for the quadratic function). When he continued to generalize, it worked. It took hundreds of years before they managed to formalize the differential. In any case, clearly the differential is not really a thing and its opposite. It was simply a new number that was smaller than all the reals (the numbers that had been built up until then). But that’s trivial. They didn’t know those were not necessarily all the possible numbers. As far as they were concerned, those were all the numbers greater than zero. And the differential was a creature that was greater than zero and at the same time did not belong to the set of all numbers greater than zero. That was Newton’s consciousness. And that was his greatness: to posit the existence of such a contradictory creature when he needed it, and not recoil in panic (as was very common among philosophers). In the end, after hundreds of years, the differential was accepted into the family of numbers on the number line as a kosher number with equal rights to every other number. Of course the key to both the difficulty and Newton’s greatness was that it is an infinite number (infinitely small, unlike every other real number). Perhaps that infinity is the “God” who can contain opposites and contraries within Himself.

In short, what I wanted to say is that unity of opposites is not nonsense, but neither is it laziness. It is not something trivial. And not everyone can say it.

There used to be someone here named Ilon or something like that who was really just like you (physics, Kabbalah, right-wing politics, inflated pomposity, a certain lack of self-awareness, needling, stinging, scratching). You should try finding him — maybe you’ll discover your long-lost brother.

To Shlomper,

Although one should not answer a fool according to his folly, one also should answer a fool according to his folly, and I say: don’t accuse someone who tells you that you lack self-awareness (that you’re autistic) of himself lacking awareness…. You can say that once. Unless you’re saying it in the sense that one who disqualifies does so with his own blemish. They teach that in kindergarten at some point. And rest assured — I’m very aware of how I come across here, and I do it by conscious choice. I have no patience for fake manners on the one hand, or on the other hand for trying to look fashionable and educated and proper and respectable. My words are not written for educated people like you but for people who are actually interested in the content and can ignore my style. As for the pomposity, I’m sorry, but it’s hard for me to give it up. I’m allowed to be a little condescending toward people too. What can I do — writing is hard for me and I need to enjoy something (even though pomposity is itself a kind of fakery, but nobody’s perfect).

Although you forbid saying something more than once (and see Bava Kamma 65b: “May the Merciful One save us from this opinion” — on the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion, and this requires further study), I am happy to set your honorable mind at ease and inform you that I too, the young one, likewise look down on you and barely know you, and also derive great amusement from estimating the alarming gap in the idea between pretension and gray reality — maybe Burj Khalifa, maybe only the Eiffel Tower. Also, everything you wrote in the last comment is as if nonexistent, and obvious. Just answer me honestly and directly on this: are you that Ilon who used to be here, and dynamic analysis over your behaviors produces the same patterns, or did the Holy One, blessed be He, see that the luminaries of the exile were few and arise and plant them in different periods to delight human beings with them — and let us say amen.

Friends, if these personal and irrelevant discussions continue, I’ll start deleting.

Following Emmanuel’s hint, and lest he feel his profound view was not fully appreciated, perhaps the rabbi will explain what the Talmud meant when it said that they sought to hide away the Book of Proverbs because its words seemed like a unity of opposites, for it says in two adjacent verses, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly,” and then says, “Answer a fool according to his folly” (and in the end they investigated and found an explanation). And I didn’t understand: even if it contradicts itself, why did they think to hide away the whole book and not hide away just those two verses, or one of them? After all, according to this bulldozing approach, that one flawed thing invalidates the whole book, they should also consider hiding away the Talmud itself (and all the messages of so-and-so son of so-and-so all over the site, and not only in this thread).

Maybe a contradiction means that there is certainly a mistake, and therefore the book was not written through prophecy or divine inspiration, and if so it can’t be written for the generations. But I don’t know why they would hide it away rather than leave it like other books.

With God’s help, 24 Kislev 5781

To Shapatz — greetings,

It seems that in a book about to be included in the sacred writings as a book written through prophecy or divine inspiration, there ought not be contradictions, for the divine will is not subject to changes. If there is a contradiction in a book that cannot be resolved, one must suspect one of two things: either the book is the wisdom of its author and was not written with divine inspiration, and therefore contradictions appear in it; or errors crept in during the copying of the book.

Either way, one must be concerned about everything written in the book: either it is not with divine inspiration, or it is not accurate. Therefore they sought to hide away a book in which contradictions were found, so long as no fitting resolution had been found for its words.

Best regards, Ami’oz Yaron Schnitzler

Regarding “Answer” as opposed to “Do not answer” — one might have said that the two directives are two sides of a dilemma. On the one hand, it is proper to answer a fool according to his folly so that he will not think he has won the argument. But on the other hand, the one answering is himself harmed psychologically when he descends to a low level of discussion, and therefore there is a difficult dilemma whether to answer or not.

In the Talmud they laid out the “golden path.” When the issue is the honor of Heaven, one should answer so that the listeners are not drawn after foolish arguments. By contrast, when the injury is only personal, and a person wants to answer in order to save his own honor — here the consideration not to answer prevails, so as not to descend to a low level of discussion, in the spirit of: “One who follows a thief into theft comes to taste the taste.”

This is also the approach taken by the site owner. When the discussion is substantive, he sees value in it even if the tones become sharp. But if the whole discussion is merely personal sparring — that is where it should be stopped, since the discussion has no substantive significance at all.

Best regards, see there

Many thanks.
Only, what you said — so that the listeners won’t be drawn after foolish arguments — the verse says, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes,” which implies that even merely dimming his eyes is enough. And with this I explain what they said: “You too blunt his teeth,” for seemingly it is puzzling what this “too” means. The wicked son asking the question did not blunt anyone’s teeth, so why should I do likewise? Rather, they meant to say: “You too” — become filled with wrath and fury, let your mouth consume fire and coals burn forth, and then naturally you will blunt his teeth. And this is what Scripture said: “Indeed they are not planted, indeed they are not sown, indeed their stock has not taken root in the earth”; and it called them “the territory of wickedness” and “the people against whom the Lord has indignation.”

With God’s help, 24 Kislev 5781

To Shapatz — greetings,

According to your view that “you too…” means to answer him with anger and fury — what will you say about the reply to the wise son: “You too shall tell him the laws of Passover”? Should one answer even the wise son with anger and fury?

In my humble opinion, “af” here simply means “also.” To the wise son, who asks properly, you too answer appropriately with words of wisdom. By contrast, to the son who mocks, you too answer with a barb.

It is worth noting that the response to the mocking son is not said directly to him, but in words said to the son who does not know how to ask. It may be that the reason is that the mocking son is not currently looking for an answer. Our concern is that through his mockery he may negatively influence the innocence of his younger brothers, the simple son and the one who does not know how to ask; and before them we must blunt the biting teeth of their defiant brother.

The defiant son hears the implied jab, and he has to decide whether he truly does not want to be part of the collective and leave, or whether after all he wants to be part of the family and sit quietly without provoking and agitating. If his patience holds and he waits until the end of the telling section, he will merit to hear the answer the Torah designated for him: “It is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord who passed over our houses in Egypt.” All of us were in Egypt little rascals like you and worse than you. We were sunk in the forty-nine gates of impurity like the Egyptians, and nevertheless the Lord had compassion on us and took us out from there. You too — the Lord will grab you by the sidelocks or the forelock and bring you out with all of us to everlasting freedom.

Best regards, Ami’oz Yaron Schnitzler

And if we are going to expound, let us say: “You too blunt his teeth” — grab him by his nose and pull him out of the mud 🙂

Paragraph 4, line 4-5
… the answer the Torah designated for him: “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord [not our invention…] who passed over the houses of the children of Israel when He struck Egypt and saved our homes.” All of us were in Egypt little rascals like you…

Refutation of my exposition indeed, refutation.

Michi,

Maybe one should distinguish between unity of opposites and “unity of contradictions”? The second concept is indeed nonsense, in which two different claims say at the same time a thing and its opposite. By contrast, I wonder whether the first concept — unity of opposites — applies to claims at all. It seems to me that it applies to a reality separate from those claims. For example, the pair of claims “space exists” and “space does not exist.” The concept of space (or absence) logically entails these opposed assertions. There may be a paradox here, but it is a necessary paradox. In any case, I do not see a contradiction here.

Now, if I understood your line of thought, you will claim (I quote you from memory) that we have no tools other than reason to deal with “things” in the external world. Consequently, you will say, even my reference to “things” (and space as an example) is formulated in words, that is, in the working tools of reason. As if I myself do not stand by what I claim to stand by. But if you argue like that, you condemn yourself to entrenchment in the analytic position, according to which everything is logic and nothing more. A kind of return to Parmenides and the tautologies in which he was trapped.

Hey,

I challenged you regarding your claims, but have not yet merited your response. Coincidence, or simply the return of my old, familiar, gloomy fate?

I did not manage to understand the distinction, nor the question. I suspect it is indeed our old familiar gloomy fate.

Instead of explaining again, I’ll focus on the concrete example I gave you about space.

First claim: “Space exists.”

Second claim: “Space does not exist.”

I think this is not a contradiction between these claims, but only a paradox.

Is it clear up to this point what I am claiming?

My reasoning is that by definition space does not “exist” by virtue of its very essence (it is empty).

Agree/disagree?

Now if you agree with this definition, then the very recognition of its nonexistence necessarily yields from within itself, dialectically, the fact of its existence.

To make my idea easier to understand, think of any other object besides space. If I say that at one and the same time:

“The banana exists and does not exist,”

then this is a clear contradiction and therefore also nonsense. There is no dialectical movement here between the banana’s existence and nonexistence (nor could there be).

That is not the case with space. There the dialectic is necessary.

With all due respect, but again when you try to explain and sharpen, I discover even more that there is here a collection of meaningless words.
Space does not exist because it is empty? By that logic, the box next to me also does not exist.
And if you reached the conclusion that it does not exist, then you cannot at the same time say that it does exist. And if you say both, that is just meaningless nonsense.
It turns out that it wasn’t that I didn’t understand — there was simply nothing to understand. 🙂

Listen, I don’t know exactly how things are over there in Lod, but usually boxes are entities that come with walls. Therefore a box, or any other material object (for convenience of discussion I’ll ignore for now the status of abstract objects, energy, etc.), is always given within space. Space itself, by contrast, is not given within any further, second-order space. Or have you in Lod come up with some other patent for this too..? Given the faulty analogy you made, I understand why you don’t see it.

Here it’s very easy to see that the concept of space is not positively defined, but is the result of abstraction and removal of all the entities within it. In that sense it is absolute “emptiness.” From here the dialectical move seems very simple to me: an entity defined as one from which all determinations have been removed — its essential definition is that it does not exist (in Fregean terms perhaps we would describe this as a “sense” without a “reference”; not sure about that).
But if it is defined as nonexistent, then it automatically fulfills the necessary and sufficient conditions for that very entity that does exist — namely, the one called “space.”

If you still didn’t understand, maybe jump over to Ramla; I’m sure you’ll find someone there who can explain it to you. ?

As stated, as expected we got stuck again. You don’t understand what I wrote. You wrote that space is empty and therefore does not exist. So I wrote that an empty box does exist. Now you revise and say that space does not exist because it does not exist. That is a valid tautology but of course a mistaken one.
Fine, we’ve exhausted this.

What a fascinating discussion.
I loved the definitions outside the discussion, definitions about nothing, dressed up in snark. Hahaha.
Because how can you speak about, describe, think — nothing?!?
And what kind of nothing, no less??? Nothing as a force that connects two opposites/contraries/contradictions??? Not even that!!!!
Nothing that at its root bears both of them as one. With no difference.

Your pattern in this discussion is:
– some people claim “unity of opposites”;
– add acronyms of nothing from nothing;
– add some Aramaic words as though an entire world is folded into those concepts — but then don’t even act consistently with the concept in the very same sentence;
– add a little Newton, seasoned with a differential — when in fact you mean imaginary numbers, which are roots of a negative number, and maybe add a little wave and particle existing in quantum superposition;
– and between the lines spice things up with a bit of self-loathing (because your fellow is like yourself, so when you loathe him what happens?) while disguising yourselves in “one who disqualifies does so with his own blemish,” so as to permit yourselves to jab at yourselves;

So what did we get?
A magnificent shell for the real discussion between us — which is about nothing.
Which cannot be spoken about at all with the ordinary primitive intellect, Nobel-prize-winning as it may be and full of doubts. Only with acquired intellect, or an intellect of faith.

A discussion about the First Cause,
a discussion about how “it arose in His will” and at the same time did not arise in His will, and He is subject to nothing, not even to His will,
a discussion about causality and randomness, and also other opposites — good and evil, hidden and revealed, and so on —
is a crazy discussion containing within it what is called “madness” to the human intellect.
Madness — expressed not only in taunts, but also in taunts, also in aggrandizement, also in showing the difference and the enormous gap between taunts and aggrandizement, also in showing that this has one root (just types of relations between people), and also in sailing off into madness all the way to the place where the gap, the difference between: the relative difference between taunts and aggrandizement, and the connection without distinction between taunts and aggrandizement — is nothing.

And more!
That a person, while discussing unity of opposites, about nothing, will agree to see in himself at the same time his own parts.

And I testify regarding what is pictured and imagined as “my self” (about which I truly have no real knowledge, only what I see in my perception of reality),
that my self, at this very moment, and now too, and now too:
I am also only stupid, and also only wise, and also the gap between my stupidity and my wisdom is vast, infinite, and also my stupidity and my wisdom are completely identical with no gap — a zero gap, and also the vast infinite gap and the zero gap are themselves the same thing, at the root.

So…
That, friends, is what is called the madness of music.
And I wouldn’t have bothered writing, were it not for your writing pattern that keeps repeating itself!!
In the most important discussion on earth, and also the most nonsense discussion on earth, and also the gap between the most important and nonsense is infinite, and also zero — and at the root, infinity and zero are borne united.

So,
good luck-in-failure,
because from too much success we failed, and from too much failure we succeeded,
and what’s so bad about failure? And what’s so good about success??
And homework for whoever wants and doesn’t want:
take success and failure, and describe them according to what is explained here.

Nice to meet you, and not nice to meet you,
Limor.

Limor, is there actually some claim here? One that can be formulated in a sentence or two, preferably simple.

Heaven forbid — a claim? In His blessed reality everything is whole, perfect, complete, and repaired from the outset and after the fact, from beginning and from end-purpose.

There is a digital board here that called for a response to the unity of opposites,
so I responded and asked:
Can anyone here take two opposites, for example success and failure — and present them in their united root?

And I even hinted that the answer is in the body of the message.
And if there is demand, and no one brings the opposites to the unifying root — I’ll answer and share here the answer to the question I asked 🙂

There is also humor here, Doron,
a lot of humor. Laughter — then our mouths will be filled with laughter,
in the light of the love within knowing.

And if you want,
I’ll relate to seriousness as against humor:

For there is also only seriousness, and also only humor, and there is an infinite gap between these extremes, and also a zero gap between these extremes; they are united at their root — and also!! there is no difference between an infinite gap and a zero gap. Everything is one. Everything is equal when I have set Him always before me. “I have not changed.” One.
Everything is one, Doron 🙂
All “I will be that I will be,”
unified.
Even a thing and its opposite 😉

L.

Ahhhh… why didn’t you say so earlier?

And what if there is no such phenomenon as “earlier” —
and time is present, becoming,
and all your history, your desires, your thoughts, your feelings — are distinguished within you right now. Without the ability to choose.
Nice, no?

And if there is such a phenomenon as “earlier” —
if there already is before creation and after creation,
and that is only like an imaginary number — in order to help understand what “running and returning” means.
And I already said earlier that regarding unity of opposites, this discussion is both the most important discussion on earth for the divine portion above (if there is time and place) and also nonsense.

So what is your answer?
How is the most important thing also nonsense — how are they one?
Or how are failure and success one?
Or how are there is something and there is nothing one?

And all this according to basic assumptions:
1. That everyone here knows “Hear O Israel… the Lord is One.”
2. There is none else besides Him.
3. That you came here to joke around and also to be serious, and there is no difference.
4. This is a discussion about unity of opposites, therefore every claim cannot be a thing without its opposite. Example: “Why didn’t you say so earlier?” stands by virtue of its opposite definition against it: “Why aren’t you saying it later?” or “Why did you only say it now?”

Warning:
Whoever deals inwardly with the unity of opposites is nothing less than the sanest madman, and the maddest sane person.

“Not for the faint of heart, as it were, supposedly :)” Go strengthen yourselves in understanding: that your heart is also only strong, and also only weak, and also there is a difference between strong and weak, and also there is no difference between strong and weak — and also there is no difference between there is a difference and there is no difference — all is united in the One.

So what’s so bad about being crazy? What’s so great about being sane?
Where is all your dichotomous sanity of good and evil leading you? What about a little madness of the empty space? It’s not so terrible if one really understands. If one truly seeks truth of truth.
Truth releases the doubts, the partial false definitions,
and this is not dialectic,
and truth has no paths at all,
and truth also has paths,
and if you haven’t found it, walk in your own paths, your inner paths —
because the way is the purpose.
The way on the way of truth.

Comprende???

Could be I’m not really in a discussion about unity of opposites, huh? So what 😉

Wow! You really cleared things up for me. I’m sold. Regards to the rest of the gang in the ward.

Gladly.

“They” also send regards,
and “they” also don’t send regards back — because they are not only “in the ward,” far from the far ones, separate from the separated 🙂 “They” are everywhere, just a little sleepy. So what.

And supposedly, as it were, you also “bought it,” and also “didn’t buy it.”

And you also could have chosen not to respond and to sit in the corner and keep sleeping, and nevertheless, you responded.

Do you understand yourself enough to understand why you responded??

I’ll help you answer by way of negation:
– You didn’t respond out of understanding the unity.
– You didn’t respond with the opposite perspective of your claim.
– You didn’t respond out of understanding your own order.
– You didn’t respond out of freedom.
– You didn’t respond out of boredom.
– And you also didn’t respond because you’re responsible for something here 😉

So why did you respond, Doron? Why don’t you shut up like the rest of those registered here? What do you want? And why do you have a desire to want things? Where does the desire to want come from? Why are you so afraid of the ward that only sends regards? Why do you think you’re only “buying and sending regards”? Maybe you’re not buying anything? And if you really bought it, what about transferring payment?? Do you understand how much you paid me?
And maybe, just maybe, you’re closer to the ward than it seems, so that when you imagine yourself to be “sending regards” from afar, it’s so funny and cute on your part. Truly sweet 🤣

How fun — out of all the heaviness, a little nonsense, and out of all the nonsense a little straight thinking is born.

🎭