Pain, Bliss, Order, and Time

posted by keeb May 4, 2020

A conversation between two friends: Ulysses and Keeb  (Part 1)

Anxiety and pain should not define your character, but having anxiety in a new and uncomfortable situation is perfectly normal.

The trouble comes when you strongly believe that you know exactly what to do in most situations and you strongly believe that it defines your character.

If you find yourself in that situation, you aren’t learning anymore, you aren’t thriving anymore.

Ulysses Alvarez Laviada
Ulysses Alvarez Laviada

Pain develops character in both a progressive state and at times a regressive state, for some almost daily. These are not mutually exclusive. Nothing is fixed. It cannot be defined. Character develops not just according to attitude or translation of that sensation, pain can be so rudimentary that the models of pain specialists are almost comical.


Ulysses (U)

I meant character not just in a behavioural sense but in a proactive militant metaphysical stand. In that sense, pain or pleasure as defining a militant element of our character eventually become toxic and self-destructive.

Keeb (K)

What do you mean by this ‘proactive militant metaphysical stand’ please? Could you elucidate? Your second sentence I concur with. I am perplexed at the metaphysical insertion, please clarify?


That we let serendipity define our character and that we do not lock our character to a certain state of our development (an intensely painful or pleasurable experience) that overshadows our future or current situation because we militantly wanted it so.

I am using metaphysical in a pejorative way here. As you probably know it can be used in an uplifting manner too.


Intense pain at 8 or above on the pain scale serendipity is elusive regardless of one’s translation of that sensation. It is simply not possible. I chainsaw off your leg and the pain is so rudimentary and isolating. It is all-consuming and no amount of adjustment of the mind will change that. There cannot be a connection to anything remotely metaphysical which is not just a thought construction of the past, which means it is not metaphysical at all.

Many people in these pain scenarios simply chose to escape, they define themselves by it. It is a form of indolence. True will is to face pain squarely and meet it, to mitigate it if that is a possibility.


I am not referring to the direct pain itself but to the overarching blueprint, it can create in our character either by one extremely traumatic experience or by tiny persistent trauma over time. Our mind can overwrite our current and future experiences and thoughts not with current direct pain but with the overarching blueprint it has already created to keep messing up our lives. This overarching blueprint I call it a militant metaphysics of suffering.

Concerning serendipity, serendipity is just a tool against the overarching blueprint of suffering.


The dark side of the neuro-plasticity, how the brain learns pain, is undone by efforts to break down these neural networks. A large traumatic experience is reinforced by identification to that experience. Yet, everything can be unmapped.

Continuous tiny or significant traumas strengthen pain pathways and so the method of recovery is to find a means to weaken them such that they are replaced by healthy new pathways. This is not a meditation in the traditional sense, it is an active participatory meditation to work on ‘what is’ in the body or mind. The idiographic effort to the problem. A mind can mitigate on the path to recovery, yes, but it can only truly overwrite when it is in recovery. Recovery and serendipity are not causal in either direction. They are the same thing.

Recovery from trauma is beyond just a psychological methodology or approach. That is an initial step. The key is a philosophical awakening of the body to undo its scission from nature or the universal order. It is a metaphysics not defined by thought. Kantian and Platonic combined if you will such that their thought constructions become irrelevant. Kinaesthetic serendipity. If there is not bliss there is fragmentation, which is not recovery.

There is order or disorder. We cannot have disorder within order for then that order is itself disorder. Until conflict is resolved, conflict remains (which is obvious) … which means fragmentation. Epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics are often skewed in most philosophers. This is why when I critique a philosopher, I am always careful about which aspect I am analyzing. Most philosophers are exquisite in two areas and then weak in one.


Yes, the Apollonian and Dionysian as Nietzsche would have said when referring to the Greeks, but life, after all, shows to us some level of order and what I mean by order is some level of thriving order even when still in a big universe of entropy. Some level of order, which also means, some level of entropy is meant to thrive and evolve. Order is not itself disorder but rather a degree of disorder and so, a degree of order. Order and disorder do not exist just in abstract or only as abstractions.

I would even refer to epigenetic and the necessary work on our phenotype over a long period of time. The food we eat, including the daily input and output we expose our bodies and minds. However, if and when our overarching blueprints of trauma or bliss sabotage recovery and serendipity we can carry on living but we simply stop thriving, we simply give in to degenerative entropy.


“Order and disorder do not exist just in abstract or only as abstractions.” I agree with you, sir.

Is the abstract purely abstract, or do we merely assume it to be abstract due to Cartesian duality? When we start looking at the mathematical order which underpins and computes ‘ordinary appearances’, which is entropic, order is in that mathematics (it is perfect) and the disorder is what appears to us when looking at the universe through a fixed nodal point. Humanity is only just beginning to understand this. We have a very long way to go. Exciting. BUT also, sad that many of us will simply not have the time to think in these terms.

To deny a man his bliss. What do we say to a person who does that?


Math and Physics are intertwined. We have undetermined abstraction and determined abstraction. Infinite and finite are undetermined abstractions simply because they are uncountable and without a direct sensory referent. Natural numbers and letters in our alphabets are determined abstractions simply because they are countable but without a direct sensory referent to what they mean. We also have undetermined concretion and determined concretion. The universe, the sky, the ocean, the earth, or the forest are undetermined concretions simply because they are composite of different elements with direct sensory referents. A tree, a fish, or the sun are determined concretion simply because they exist with a direct sensory referent. Obviously, the concrete and the abstract is always so relative to something. Abstraction means, “to drag away, detach, pull away, divert.” Hence, something which is concrete has also been abstracted in the sense of being “detached”. We can look at the universe all the way we want from a fixed Math nodal point, but ultimately Math without Physics wouldn’t even pay great service to Math. The beauty of Math is that Physics makes it possible even when and right when it seems that it did not need of Physics all along.


What makes many abstractions undeterminable is because of a lack of direct reference in thought, such as relationship to other concepts rather than direct sensory reference. Is this your meaning of countability? Some can be referenced by both, some cannot. In the realm of matter, if we view the world through an Archimeidan point (using that metaphor) we must by definition have undeterminable and determinable things. We don’t have direct sensory reference of the whole world or universe, we only have reference to its observable elements, it is an undetermined concretion as you rightly say.

Determined concretion is what is viewable and countable. At the level of mathematics, it remains mathematical yet if it is observable in the physical world we perceive it as concrete. We see a combination of atoms and elements not standing in isolation. The math and physics have intertwined.

Regarding words-then-combining-into-ideas, there is an almost unlimited number of things to know and only a finite lifespan in which to know it. That’s stumbling block right there.

These epistemological problems are a function of what is perceivable because of intrinsic duality and so are only denotable or con notable according to a descriptive language that we are trying to perfect. But the word is not the thing, it is part of our means to know.

So the question I put forward is how is one to solve the problem presented in the 3rd paragraph? This is a question for the serious individual. A response to the call of Being, going to the very end of that.

Can infinite and finite have a direct sensory referent? Buddha’s principal teaching on Annata touches on this. It is not a question thought can answer.

How can we make all abstractions determinable? This is a larger question for what is indivisible.

What we are seeing here is how metaphysics is shaping an ability to know what we know or think we know what we know, beyond over-emphasis on epistemology per se.

The math physics relationship as separable or inseparable is something I would like us to explore if you are willing?


The determinated concrete cannot be reduced to the determined abstract because in a second negation through consciousness the determined concrete brings together in the concrete the determined and the indetermined of the abstract as live spirit. Nothing new here, this is paraphrasing Hegel.

The question of BEING is rightly posed in the iteration of the determined concrete as live spirit because is the live spirit what brings together all these relational connection of the real in its infinite dimension, always as a real in movement, evolving and irreducible to any Cartesian Cogito.


We seem to be switching between what is determinable by a human and what is determinable by thought. Although ultimately inseparable we humans do not have the capability of all existing thought on an everyday level.

Re: Mind at Large. Live spirit is not infinite, it is growing and learning. What is infinite is not thought. What is infinite is absence. What is a very high number but not infinite is thought. The determined abstract therefore is not fully known because it is a moving thing. This is part of Mind’s questioning of itself. What is concrete is part of that process, part of the exploration, again not fully determined. They go together in much the same way math and physics go together. We can talk about math prior to physics another time.

“always as a real in movement, evolving and irreducible to any Cartesian Cogito.” I agree with but not the infinite dimension part of that sentence. If it was infinite all growth would have already occurred which would nullify Hegel’s dialectic.

It’s 3.30 am, will think about your former paragraph more tomorrow pal. Nice exchange. Appreciate. Night and let’s progress again soon x


I will leave you just with this caviar. The infinite is also determined and undetermined in its evolving process as part of the relations between the abstract and the concrete.

Only when the infinite is trapped by its undetermined stand is that Hegel’s dialectic is nullified. That was Kant’s mishap: To understand the infinite and the “thing in itself” in its undetermined abstract state as if the infinite itself could not evolve into concrete determined state.

The live spirit is infinite undetermined and it evolves to infinite determined and concrete. We, humans, are just a concrete determination of it but such live spirit could have manifested or be manifested in other different forms to the human. Live spirit here is not only anthropomorphic, it rather means: maximum of material external connections encapsulated in a concrete determined internal space-time state in movement.

We do not need the capability of all existing thought on an everyday level. We can vibrate with all existing infinities with just one thought even if that thought were at times thoughtless. The infinite is with us through and through but in degrees, in time and in space. That is the marvel of our finitude. Sweet dreams my friend.


Morning my friend. (I am trying to fuse our nomenclature, our efforts to share)

What is determined cannot be infinite, any determination denies it. Thus, the infinite is undetermined in an evolving process as part of the relations between the abstract and the concrete learned over time, but it is not ever fully determined. 

In different parlance: The live spirit is exploring the infinite undetermined and it evolves to finite determined and concrete. This is always a very large number, though never infinite.  

I like this. “We humans are just a concrete determination of it but such live spirit could have manifested or be manifested in other different forms to the human. Live spirit here is not only anthropomorphic, it rather means: maximum of material external connections encapsulated in a concrete determined internal space-time state in movement.” That is nicely written, sir. 

Suggested combination to strengthen our combined efforts here. We do not need the capability of all existing thought on an everyday level. We can navigate within all existing large numbers with just one thought but to access there cannot be thought, any fragmentation whatsoever, for all thought is time as movement which is space-time. There has to be psychological death on the human level. A thought cannot be thoughtless, it can imagine thoughtlessness or try to explore thoughtlessness but as soon as it does it becomes a thought. The mid-point of presence between absence and consciousness some call emptiness. Presence can never be absence no matter what empty awareness tries, for anything within this emptiness is no longer just presence, it is consciousness. What is awake cannot be absence by definition.  

The infinite is within us through and through. What is a very large number exists in degrees, in a fractal holding structure of time and space. That is the marvel of our finitude.


The keyword here is degrees. Anything can be anything and nothing in degrees, even degrees of nothing. That is how our universe is ONE and move in ONENESS.

PART 2 – We begin with infinite discrete degrees within the finite. Quantum Computing in terms of pockets of discrete degrees.

You may also like