The Tree of Life

[CCoburn]

The farther you regress from the beginning of existence towards the Ain the less and less sense everything is going to make, and you will even regress prior any logic and reason as those are 'things' that also need to be created in order to exist.

There aren't really many assertions that can be made here in this context but mostly assumptions and presumptions, or belief fortified via analogy et cetera. One might ask "What remains in the negation of space?" to which I might reply "The mind of God" which creates the space, and although I cannot assert this as a fact, I can believe it if I wish and include it as a presumptive aspect of my model.

[Ziran]

The farther you regress from the beginning of existence towards the Ain the less and less sense everything is going to make, and you will even regress prior any logic and reason as those are 'things' that also need to be created in order to exist.

Speak for yourself. Your limitations are yours.

There aren't really many assertions that can be made here in this context but mostly assumptions and presumptions, or belief fortified via analogy et cetera. One might ask "What remains in the negation of space?" to which I might reply "The mind of God" which creates the space, and although I cannot assert this as a fact, I can believe it if I wish and include it as a presumptive aspect of my model.

It's ironic that in the first paragraph you make an assertion about what makes sense, and then in the second paragraph you are discouraging making assertions. That's a classic double standard.

You can make the asseertions, but others can't. It doesn't make sense to you, so it mustt not make sense at all.

These sound like the words of seeker who failed and then is projecting their failure on all others.

[CCoburn]

It's ironic that in the first paragraph you make an assertion about what makes sense, and then in the second paragraph you are discouraging making assertions. That's a classic double standard.

Yes, because once the spacetime continuum has been transcended the physical(universal) laws no longer apply; this could be equated with a boundary that divides the beginning of order and the primordial chaos of which it was spawned, so, while the former will have some scientific backing, theories, and presumptions, the latter may tend more towards the hypothetical and assumptions, although there are other ways to fortify the latter, e.g., analogies and alignment across substantial models.

Therefore, why one could be said to be 'less'(or more) "assertive" than the other.

You can make the asseertions, but others can't. It doesn't make sense to you, so it mustt not make sense at all.

You may, but first you must take care in spelling it properly, and you can make all of the ass-ertions your little rambling heart desires, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with any of them.

These sound like the words of seeker who failed and then is projecting their failure on all others.

Quite the contrary, it would seem to me that with your recent shifts in demeanor(instability) and ad hominems here and elsewhere on this site that "Houston may have a problem." - paraphrased. Stop being a baby and suck it up; your juvenile behavior as of late has diminished your credibility even more, although on a positive note, your childish behavior may have entertainment value concerning the readership(what there is of it).

[Ziran]

..., while the former will have some scientific backing...

If you can't be consistent then you are deserving to be ignored. Your own "nothing is at the core" theory has ZERO scientific backing. So, you're flopping like a fish.

but that doesn't mean I have to agree with any of them.

You've yet again lost touch wiith the topic. It's not about you disagreeing. It's when you setup your virtual pulpit and start preaching, telling me what I must beleive.

Quite the contrary, it would seem to me that with your recent shifts in demeanor(instability) and ad hominems here and elsewhere on this site that "Houston may have a problem." - paraphrased. Stop being a baby and suck it up; your juvenile behavior as of late has diminished your credibility even more, although on a positive note, your childish behavior may have entertainment value concerning the readership(what there is of it).

I simply don't need to bow to your self-bestowed authority, and you crossed a line with me. You've been talking to me like you're my parent repeatedly. I was polite and that didn't work. Since you are continuing to tell me what to do like you're my parent, then I will reply to you in the manner that is deserving of that, which is, "back off".

And that's no different than replying to my posts with irrelevant contradicting nonsense in the form of a correction. If you post something stupid and irrelevant, referring to me or what I've posted, then, yes, you're going to get called on it.

[CCoburn]

If you can't be consistent then you are deserving to be ignored. Your own "nothing is at the core" theory has ZERO scientific backing. So, you're flopping like a fish.

I have repeatedly indicated to you that this is not the 'nothing' of layman terms, yet you persist in not comprehending and replying with nonsense over and over to the point much of it is currently being ignored.

Granted, some scientific theories may incorporate phrases such as "almost nothing", "as close to nothing as you can get", and some will just use "nothing" all by itself as I most often do. In essence, this is what I've been saying all along - a lot. When I use the term "nothing" I am referencing contemporary inflation/expansion theories leaning slightly more towards the Ain of Kabbalah, but yes, the term is most certainly applicable to both.

I could cite some sources, but at this current writing I'm going to pass on spoon-feeding the baby since I no longer consider you worthy of any effort unless it's at my own convenience.

"Be ignored"? "You really are a funny guy!!" - Goodfellas. You are the one who came to me posting in my threads. I didn't come to you. If my writing creates so much distress for you then you can leave just as easily as you came.

"Flopping like a fish"? With all of your typos I think the "fish" is "flopping" on your keyboard. Just take time out and relax. Take a few deep breaths. "Go for a walk in the park." - more Goodfellas.

[Ziran]

I have repeatedly indicated to you that this is not the 'nothing' of layman terms,

I have already addressed this. In order to approach any sort of the basis in science the word 'nothing' must be replaced with some version of 'everything'. Conflating 'nothing' with 'everything' is post ad hoc rationalizing 'nothing' as a supreme ideal which comes from a philosophy predating the big-bang theory.

You do not understand this, because, you have admitted to not knowing the history, roots, and evolution of the philosophy which idolizes 'nothing'.

"Nothing is at the core" = square-peg + round-hole. And that's fine if you believe it. I don't disregard it, I simply see it clearly for what it is.

You have been preaching it as the only truth. That is irrational and fallacious.

Granted, some scientific theories may incorporate phrases such as "almost nothing", "as close to nothing as you can get", and some will just use "nothing"

Until you produce these "scientific theories" I think they are figments of your imagination, perhaps delusions resulting from a strongly held belief in your own intellectual perfection. I looked for them myself. I found none that are viable or even close to what you described. You had an opportunity to do some good for a charitable organization of your choosing with zero risk on your part. All you had to do was bring an example of these "scientific theories" you seem to be conjuring up from 'nothing'. But it's likely that they only exist in your own mind and nowhere else.

Although, it is possible, due to your extreme reluctance to read and understand other people's writing, you have cherry picked or simply misunderstood, and it's not just something you have fabricated from wishful thinking. The way to clear this up is for you to put your money where your mouth is.

My offer still stands. $52 to the charity of your choosing with an online donation portal if you can bring a scientific theory where phrases such as "almost nothing", "as close to nothing as you can get" are "at the core".

Good luck. And it needs to be verifiable, not just something you have copied and pasted into the forum. I need to be able to read it myself.

[Ziran]

You are the one who came to me posting in my threads. I didn't come to you.

Dear-heart, These are not your threads.

This began as a reply to your post about the uncaused-cause, as a concept. You were and are wrong about it. Yes, that was me coming to you, but it was defintiely not me asking for your guidance or input. It was pointing out what I considered a gap in your reasoning. From there, you challenged what I wrote, and I answered all of your questions honestly, correctly, and coherently, without contradiction.

One of things you asked me during this conversation was "why?" Why even consider these things? I answered that too, correctly, honestly, coherently, and without contradiction.

If you scroll back and read ( which you've stated is not your intention ) you'll see that my participation in this thread ( this thread, not your thread ) can be useful and practical. But gaining that utlity comes with a small price of putting aside any self--bestowed inerrancy, and learning something. Since this thread is not "yours" but is for the benefit of the community and others, it doesn't matter if you don't appreciate it. I am confident that there are those that do.

Sincerely,

[Amor]

Debate without experiment may not be a path to knowing

[CCoburn]

Clear the Board : 0

Let's start with the Ain. What is it to you? A concise and straightforward reply consisting of a small paragraph or less;
I will formulate based on your reply

[Amor]

So find an example of the ToL at whatever scale is convenient, and pass your hand through the part allocated to Ain.

Feel what that it is like. Now try to match that sensation in other contexts

[Ziran]

Let's start with the Ain. What is it to you? [;

The partner of Ain-Soph after the first keser which is the binary choice "to create".

[CCoburn]

The partner of Ain-Soph after the first keser which is the binary choice "to create".

I suppose it's "concise", but it isn't exactly "straightforward" since Hebrew(keser) is not the native language for myself, nor others I would presume that might be reading this, so, the burden of description/explanation is partly shifted towards the integrity of internet search results or translators et cetera(not straightforward; possibly unreliable). If you are going to use Hebrew or elements of the Torah that's fine but please include your intended meaning to avoid possible discrepancies - straightforward.

Also, you are incorporating other of the three elements here atop keter(keser; crown) as well as keter itself in describing the one in question; I was hoping to isolate and discuss individual elements here before moving on to the next.

In any event, moving on with my own description:

To me the "Ain" is equated with temporal and spatial negation prior any singularity or inflation/expansion event; distinct of any divine manifestation.

The search results are varied on this. Ain, ein, or ayin are all somewhat synonymous and searching for one also returns the others. I'm looking for Hebrew/Kabbalistic meaning which is resolving to key words such as "spring", "eye", and from the Jewish to English lexicon: "None; we/I/you don't have any; there is none." Etymology of אין ein: "there is no" or "none" - source: https://jel.jewish-languages.org/words/1556

Google search: Ain returns Ayin: (Hebrew: אַיִן, lit. 'nothingness', related to אֵין ʾên, lit. 'not') is an important concept in Kabbalah and Hasidic philosophy. It is contrasted with the term Yesh (Hebrew: יֵשׁ, lit. 'there is/are' or 'exist(s)').

Google translator: Ayin/אַיִן: "nothing", and as stated above also means "eye".

[CCoburn]

This is the Tree of Life model I began using several years ago(not so much anymore); as can be seen the descriptors atop the crown are extremely "concise" and "straightforward" consisting of only one or two words.

[CCoburn]

Shimon Halevi says: AYIN means No-Thing. AYIN is beyond Existence, separate from any-thing.

I also recall coming across an excerpt last night that stated ayin/ein/ain as being above/beyond logic and reason which I was recently criticized for but am unable to locate that same result this morning, so I'll reserve the bulk of that one for another time as it also involves locating and quoting a post from here, and I should log off soon.

I also came across something last week that I've never seen before that I found intriguing : "Something from nothing and nothing from something" which appears to be a resolution(a returning; a reset) back to the ain as part of a perpetual cycle.

I have spent very little time on that last paragraph, but that's what get it from it so far.

I don't feel that my thinking is too rigid, so other ideas that I might be currently unaware could possibly be worked in here as well.

[Ziran]

The partner of Ain-Soph after the first keser which is the binary choice "to create".

I suppose it's "concise", but it isn't exactly "straightforward"

It's as straight forward as it gets.

since Hebrew(keser) is not the native language for myself

There are 2 hebrew words here: Keser and Ain-Soph. These are fundemental concepts in Kabbalah. Understanding Ain in the context of the Tree-Of-Life requires these other two concepts. You chose to start with Ain, it is not my fault, you did not start at the beginning. I recall going through this before. Specifically that the first keser was as far back as the human mind can go.

If you are going to use Hebrew or elements of the Torah that's fine but please include your intended meaning to avoid possible discrepancies - straightforward.

Are you telling me you do not know what I mean by Ain-Soph? Are you telling me you do not know what keser means? Again, the context is the Tree-Of-Life.

In any event, moving on with my own description:

To me the "Ain" is equated with temporal and spatial negation prior any singularity or inflation/expansion event; distinct of any divine manifestation.

One thing that sticks out to me is in the statement below:

"temporal and spatial negation prior" <----- there is no "prior" at this stage. Temporal negation would prohibit it. Concurrence. Simultaneity. Partners. These are important concepts to keep in mind.

[Ziran]

This is the Tree of Life model I began using several years ago(not so much anymore); as can be seen the descriptors atop the crown are extremely "concise" and "straightforward" consisting of only one or two words.

The diagram is NOT Kabbalah it is Qabbalah.

You can tell by the connections from netzach and hod which SKIP yesod. That's wrong. One can also tell by the letter arrangments on the linkages. Those are WRONG.

If your desire is one or two word understandings, then, your misunderstanding is a choice, which I consider L-A-Z-Y. And preaching your one or two word understanding AT me as the only truth is the epitome of foolishness. It is a choice to restrict oneself to one or two words. And I think it's beyond ridiculous to try to understand the source for reality using one or two words for concepts.

The wikipedia page on Qabbalah has it identified properly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Qabalah

Technically this is the Kircher Tree. Notice how there is all sorts of stuff added to it. This is an attempt by those who do not have the the actual details to fill in the blanks with whatever they have "lying around the house".

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.

[CCoburn]

The diagram is NOT Kabbalah it is Qabbalah.

The naming convention makes no difference whatsoever; neither does the particular model I posted as a variety of sources are referenced at any given time. I used any and all information that was available to me and fabricated this model that I have been writing about here and elsewhere.

The process manifested itself into a complete model of everything and nothing that operates within an eternal construct. This is where I am currently at. You underwent some process with a different result, and you think that your result is the correct one and that I am wrong. There are lots of theories at odds with one another, it's just two more.

But on top of all this I am also a writer, and writers write. I also like to try and work some musical pieces in as well.

[Ziran]

You underwent some process with a different result, and you think that your result is the correct one and that I am wrong. There are lots of theories at odds with one another, it's just two more.

Woah. I have not said YOU are wrong at all. I have repeatedly said it is a difference of perspective. But. It IS wrong to call what you posted and the concepts associated with it Kabbalah. That's a simple fact.

I showed you the pictures. The info is verifiable. I am not the only one on this forum that pointed out the diifferences between Kabbalah and Qabbalah to you. Qabbalah very much wants to show that there is no other perspective.

But, that is not the point of my objection. The point is, you are asking me questions, but complaining because the words used do not match a diagram from a different system. And that the actual Kabbalistic concepts take too many words to explain.

The distinctions in the form of the tree are important, and the incorrect letters on the linkages are important. But, neither of those things are involved in anyway with what you have written. They're just ways to indentify whether it is Qabbalah or Kabballh, and, if a person knows the difference. If they don't, then they're probably not a good source for information. It just so happens that when those letters on the linkages are correct, and everything is flowing through yesod, there is a perfectly coherent system which matches beautifully what I've written here, and what is in the Zohar.

The substantive difference right here, right now, is keser. It is NOT a divine spark. The divine spark in Kabbalah is the neshamah, it's the soul. Keser is something else. I can explain why it is considered by Qabbalah to be the divine spark. But anything I say is going to be more than two-words.

[Ziran]

fabricated this model that I have been writing about here and elsewhere.

That's perfectly fine and wonderful. Then why in the world are you pushing back on what I wrote? It's one sentence. I told you what the first keser is.

The partner of Ain-Soph after the first keser which is the binary choice "to create".

Those are english words. You're a writer. This should be simple.

Binary
Choice
To
Create

Is this actually confusing from a language perspective? Or is it just different and foreign, and "how could this be? First Keser? What???? "

[CCoburn]

This began as a reply to your post about the uncaused-cause, as a concept. You were and are wrong about it.

[CCoburn]

Woah. I have not said YOU are wrong at all. I have repeatedly said it is a difference of perspective.

[CCoburn]

I showed you the pictures. The info is verifiable. I am not the only one on this forum that pointed out the diifferences between Kabbalah and Qabbalah to you. Qabbalah very much wants to show that there is no other perspective.

Apparently any "differences" are negligible to me since I am using any and all information gathered from various sources to converge upon a single model largely focused on the initial stages of the tree; I don't see any differences in that context so you are being irrelevant again as usual.

But, that is not the point of my objection. The point is, you are asking me questions, but complaining because the words used do not match a diagram from a different system. And that the actual Kabbalistic concepts take too many words to explain.

The image I posted was used as an example; an exhibit in being concise and straightforward, albeit to an extreme, and the reason that I asked you to be concise and straightforward was to observe whether or not you actually had any clue what you were talking about, and in my opinion, you failed.

And to reiterate a quote by a man that is relevant in this context where the differences in credibility between you and he is utterly laughable:

"If you can't explain it to a six-year-old then you don't understand it yourself.".

At least you're writing though, and I wouldn't exactly call it gibberish; as I've said once before already "It's proficient in its own right.".

The Ain/Ein Soph should be coming up here at some point.

[Ziran]

This began as a reply to your post about the uncaused-cause, as a concept. You were and are wrong about it.

First, here's the full quote, removing the ending changes the meaning.

"This began as a reply to your post about the uncaused-cause, as a concept. You were and are wrong about it. Yes, that was me coming to you, but it was defintiely not me asking for your guidance or input. It was pointing out what I considered a gap in your reasoning. From there, you challenged what I wrote, and I answered all of your questions honestly, correctly, and coherently, without contradiction."

At the beginning of the conversation you said:

"You might think of "acausal" AS "first mover", but it's the enigma of cause without cause which defies reason along with a finger pointing at it and fabrication of terminology saying: I see this, and I name it, but I can't really explicitly define it or know exactly what it is."

So, what was I saying? I was saying that "acausal" does not defy reason, and it can be defined. I was not coming to YOUR thread as you kept saying, I was coming to "point out what I considered to be a gap in your reasoning".

Throughout the conversation, in summary:

You were saying: {paraphrasing} "It can't be, and there is NO way to make it rational and coherent."
I was saying: {paraphrasing} "Sure there is, but I understand your point of view."

When I said you were and are wrong about it, it is the absolute certainty about it that you are wrong about. It is no different than me saying you are wrong to position your persepctive as the one and only correct answer on any of these topics.

So, yes, there is a paradox.

It's wrong to assert there is only one answer in this context, with the one exception, which is the original assertion itself.

---

[Ziran]

Apparently any "differences" are negligible to me since I am using any and all information gathered from various sources to converge upon a single model largely focused on the initial stages of the tree; I don't see any differences in that context so you are being irrelevant again as usual.

You said just a few posts ago, that you have fabricated your own Kabbalah. Is that what you're doing or not? If so, then this thread should be called YOUR tree of life. That would resolve so so many problems. I would never impose on YOUR tree of life or YOUR kabbalah. YOU are fabricating it, make it how ever you wish.

That said, YOU asked a question. I answered it. The distinction between YOUR kabbalah is absolutely relevant, because of the question YOU asked.

The image I posted was used as an example; an exhibit in being concise and straightforward, albeit to an extreme, and the reason that I asked you to be concise and straightforward was to observe whether or not you actually had any clue what you were talking about, and in my opinion, you failed.

I gave you 4 words in english and you ignored them: "binary choice to create" It doesn't get any more straight forward than that.

You brought a diagram which instead has:

Ehyeh: I Am, Metatron
Chayot HaKodesh: Holy Living Creatures
Unison with God: Attainment: Yechidah
Divine Spark: Reishit Ha Gilgulim : First Stirrings

So let's compare:

"binary choice to create" compared to that ^^ mess. Which is actually more straight forward?

The Ain/Ein Soph should be coming up here at some point.

Oh, look. You've got them as a partnership. You understood what I wrote after all.

---

[Ziran]

And to reiterate a quote by a man that is relevant in this context where the differences in credibility between you and he is utterly laughable:

"If you can't explain it to a six-year-old then you don't understand it yourself.".

Practice what you preach:

You brought a mess
much more than 6 year old can understand, Hebrew concepts I doubt you understand.

Ehyeh: I Am, Metatron
Chayot HaKodesh: Holy Living Creatures
Unison with God: Attainment: Yechidah
Divine Spark: Reishit Ha Gilgulim : First Stirrings

I brought simple, concise, straight forward, 4 words:

"binary choice to create"

I win.