Everything doesn't make any sense.

One thing of the set of all things doesn't "make sense" though. A sandwich alone doesn't make any sense, necessarily; it only makes sense when you eat it because you're hungry. Similarly the universe at a large doesn't make any sense. "I exist in the universe because..."...why?

You don't think the universe is difficult to apprehend? I would love an explanation, then.

I edited this to include this quote from Einstein which I think captures the gist of what I'm saying.

 

There are no discrete events. You find no sandwiches apart from the phenomena of reality. One thing in the set of all things is not representative of the set of all things but is representative of the shape of the membrane*, (could be coined member brain.) The whole defines the part but the part does not define the whole even though the part can all the same be witness to the whole as we become self reflective. Sense making is in every respect equal to our own regard.
The agglomeration you call you exists by virtue of conception. You persist because of a thought/emotion nexus that suggests it is good to be.
The ray of creation, for our purposes sense making, proceeds thought, word and deed. Conception is the progenitor of perception. Genetic code, experiential world view, becomes phenomenal behavior.

I do not but I do think we erect barriers to the perception of it like assuming a level of difficulty through conditional arrangements such as no one is perfect. If no one is perfect where does the metric for perfect come from? We believe to see and see to believe. There is no explanation that will satisfy anyone's understanding but the one they agree with. Not intending to ignore your desire for an explanation we inherit the world and our inheritance is not for us to determine but we can recognize it by being vigilant for the most apparent common denominators.

Albert speaks only to uncommon vocabularies. If you know the vocabulary of science as all words have their origin in some experiential conjugation, then descriptions can be accurate enough to get you to your destination.
We have in common thoughts and mammalian creaturehood.

 

And the ego is with words as without words, and the ego is ethical. No peace; no democracy. I still say this is main stream in Islam.

 

yeah.. also oppressing the women is mainstream too

 

The ego in some senses vain has an authority problem. The truth doesn't compel but liberates. I haven't investigated Islam except in passing Rumi-nation.

 

just try and divide the infinity with our mathematics and yooz gets multiple
infinites for the attempt .

the persistent pi is another inanity , its application being
eternally and wrongly inexact .

the language of math fails as a universal . it's too vain . could've
turned out better maybe if we had never started counting fingers
or on anything in particular .

 

Same with the division of the organic cell from a certain perspective but nuclear reproduction is an extension of like kind creating coordinates,(folding membrane.) This is the way we occupy space in time.

Exactly that?

Well it is not popular. Few care to fathom depth when charmed by a thrilling ride at the surface. As long as the metric is standard, applied in every instance and not withheld from any circumstance then it is the very measure. Thou art that.

Being a part we are never apart, appreciating the apparently empty space between a and part, being the not separately definable space that binds all things.
Communication is re-cognition.

 

you can't expect everything to make an homogenous sense. we don't live in an homogenous universe. we live in a statistical one who's nature is diversity.

we only confuse ourselves when we attempt to impose a linear normality, which is mythical.

 

is infinite an exactness ? perhaps when perceived with the steadfast mind for it
sees without pause . the everyday mind is blinky . it sees parts - this that this
that this that with a slight rest betwixt each notation . when you blink and
miss something , then please refer to the steadfast mind .

what is factual to the steadfast mind ? for instance : to dream of
a painting and study upon it . it never need be put to canvas . to
an artist though , this is not exact idleness . . the memory and influence
of that dream painting - transcendent .

the steadfast mind is respectable . when not respected there is trouble .

 

outside of mathimatics itself, exactness is a fantasy of the ego.

what is this "steadfastness of mind" of which you speak.
it is not a familiar term,
and sounds rather thoroughly like more of the same enforcement of shared fantasy, that the ego so easily addicts itself to.

 

Is our existence on planet earth a shared fantasy of the ego?

If not then the term steadfastness of mind may refer to being circumspect of our ongoing relationship with redundant, cyclical nature. In this sense a steadfast mind is not disturbed by the ego's defense of perceived inequity.

 

i'll say that the steadfast mind is firstly an aspect of perception .
it views the universal undivided . secondly as an aspect of being
useful it may focus upon meaningfulness and deliver a synthesized ,
compact , more understandable representation . it does not blink .

should the universe make no sense , i will wonder if the steadfast mind
has been repressed . peace to this .

 

I don't think it will be repressed. I don't think it will change all that much. People might become kinder and more laidback if they all understood that everything doesn't make any sense.

 

Aaaah, but for that to work at justly choosing a life of working you enjoy; one needs the acculturation and political upbringing.:biker:

 

who is this Everything . does she just make no sense or give
nonsense ?

 

She puts out at the slightest invitation

kinda slutty that way.

 

reality is neither redundant nor cynical, but IS independent of the ego of human perceptions.

 

We are real and our relationship to things is through creaturehood. I am not independent of reality even though I can imagine things that are not manifest, or existing in a state of abstraction.

 

Hm...I haven't thought about everything in terms of a "who." Though I suppose if I were the romantic type, which I am, I might say that someone meant everything to me. At the moment, though, no one fills this role.

Everything does create nonsense, but at the same time makes no sense. Which isn't, itself, nonsense.

 

pray , may sense not exclude good nonsense .