Why do I want the experience and feeling of loving who I’m working with?
This includes coworkers, clients, business partners, partners, customers, etc. Seems very straightforward, isn’t that everyone wants?
What does love mean in this career context? Their energy. Their ideas. Their passion and purpose. Their compassion. Who they are.
Loving and liking who they are. Well, what’s the difference?
I’ve heard that I should love everyone, but I don’t necessarily need to like everyone. Well the world ‘like’ has the implication that I am identifying with this body and mind. That I am making myself finite. But is that necessary? Does it mean that when I like something, that automatically assumes there are things that I don’t like?
That’s one possible assumption / conclusion. Let’s assume the opposite. That I can like everything. But if I like everything, then does that even mean I like it? Isn’t that just being? If I don’t have an opinion, liking or disliking, towards it. So why then even use the word ‘like’ then?
It only makes sense when there is a reference point. In the case with ‘like’ and many other words, the reference point is the opposite.
OH SNAP. Numbers are a microcosm of evolution. We experienced the positive feelings first. Things like ‘like’, ‘love’, ‘happiness’, then the negative feelings - their opposite. But finally, we discovered Divine Happiness. Divine Love is not only ∞; it’s not only -∞. It’s 0.
Positive integers were the first numbers to be discovered. Then the rest of the rational #s. Then the irrational #s. Then negative #s. But the last thing among these to be discovered was 0.
That I believe is balance, nothingness, emptiness, infiniteness. The human mind has the condition to place things where none exists.
This is literally what we’ve done with math and numbers.
So if 0 was the last number to be discovered, then this ‘feeling’ of nothingness, a space where Divine Love exists, can ‘fill us up.’ Might be reaching here but what if rational number discovery is akin to the Age of Enlightenment to now? Irrational and negative #s are a semi-concurrent timeline that we’re living through right now. Dare I say our thoughts be described these days as negative and irrational?
So then the discovery of 0, metaphorically, is imminent. Can I help rediscover it societally?
So with the ‘like’ and ‘love’ discussion, where like disappears, love appears. So with the people who I’m working with I don’t want to ‘like’ them. I don’t want to have any liking or disliking towards them. They are simply who I work with. I shouldn’t have any feeling of working with them, with the boring or the negative connotations of work. I want to have a feeling of nothingness when I work with anyone. No clouds. Just a ‘clear sky.’
Ok, here’s a question. How are -∞, 0, and ∞ the same? They can’t be quantified on a numerical scale. Well that may be true with ∞ and -∞. Because if you have 1 million, that’s not ∞. 1 googol is not ∞. 1 googol googol is not ∞. When we ascribe and attach #s, then it ceases to be infinite. ∞ + ∞ ≠ 2∞. It doesn’t follow the rest of the rules of mathematics. You can’t prove that in the physical world. It doesn’t exist in the physical world.
Same with this theoretical -∞. It doesn’t exist in the physical world. Isn’t that the same with 0? By definition of being in the physical world, you can’t have 0. Being in the physical realm makes it finite. So if we had a number line, we could order it:
[see number line]
If ∞ and -∞ are the same, then it has to be connected, curved, which would go along with my circle / sphere theory / models.
So then it’s like [see pics]
If 0 was the last number to be discovered and it’s the ‘point’ of balance and nothingness is within us, then 0 is not on the outside of the sphere, but the very center. At the very core. “Center ourselves.”
But it’s not a physical point, because when we quantify the center point, it goes from nothingness to finiteness. At which point it ceases to be nothingness. Which puts us in a Catch-2. We can’t describe 0, ∞, or -∞ without some reference point of something finite. All ‘numbers’ outside of those 3 are in one class because they can be quantified in some sense or have finite reference points.
What if we put these 3 numbers in another ‘set of numbers’? Does that make them the same?
Let’s take a different approach and inject time, space, and causality into this. They are not the same if we operate under these 3 conditions. The Universe was effectively 0 at one point in time, and took up 0 space. Then over billions of years, it’s effectively ∞ly large at another point in time. But if there wasn’t time, the 0 is the same as the ∞ on the space-continuum. If there wasn’t space, then nothing exists in this space-continuum. So 0 is effectively the same as ∞, because there is no difference. Since time and space are projections of the human mind and there is no difference between 0 and ∞ when there is no time and space, and -∞ and ∞ are also the same, then 0, ∞, and -∞ are all the same.
Definitely don’t think that holds up in a mathematical journal as a proof but it makes sense to me.
Comments