Sanyu Nagenda

This conversation is closed.

Beyond just science and religion, let's converse about the INFINITE implications of the purpose of ALL life. What does Existence stem from?

When it comes to all of Existence, I must first recognize Infinity. Infinity - though seemingly (generally) agreed upon by those who are religious and those who are scientific - does not get its due. This is perhaps because as incarnate finite beings in heavy flesh & blood bodies, most of us are not even capable of fathoming the scale of what Infinity actually entails.

It seems to me that Infinity, by its very nature, is beyond time. As tiny, young, largely inexperienced, generally unwise developing beings; what our species chooses to conceive about Infinity is actually very limited. It is treated like a number even while it encompasses all possible numbers. It is considered a time unit, even as it outexists all of our conceptions of time. This is not only something to be noted, but something to be observed, reflected upon and revered.

If Infinity is, in fact, "a 'number' greater than any assignable quantity or countable number;" and if the Omniverse is Infinite; and if everything exists within the Omniverse; then as far as I'm concerned, Infinity is "a formed existence greater than any assignable measure or quantifiable expression." What is not needed, what is lost, what is not included, within Infinity? Infinity necessitates EVERYTHING because Infinity IS everything. Everything is needed within Infinity because Infinity negates nothing!

To me, all consciousness' are the result of Infinity experiencing itself. Consciousness is the ongoing result and experiment of Existence (Infinity) Experiencing Itself. Our species is but one form of Existence experiencing itself. Plants, our animal cousins, planets, dimensions, elements, galaxies, etc. are each their own manifestation of our infinite existence experiencing itself.

Our species has lived only thousands of years and we've developed what we consider an advanced form of consciousness: self-reflection, language, creation, etc.

What, then, do you suppose is the likely consciousness awareness of Infinity itself?

  • thumb
    Aug 18 2011: My human self is a finite aspect of an infinite consciousness. We all emerge from the same infinite source in the same now moment. Source energy knows no distinctions at all. This is unity consciousness.

    Like a crystal or a prism or light shining through a kaleidoscope, source energy is reflecting back upon itself from billions upon billions of different angles, each point of perception a different experience of the infinite whole.

    The infinite cannot be understood by mind. This is one reason we need music and art and those moments of sublime realization when our connection to the infinite is tacitly realized. There is no way to think through it or to puzzle it out or collect evidence or scientific proof. These are mental activities which all have their place in human endeavours, but they can never help us to realize the infinite. The infinite is not external to us - if it were it would not be the infinite.

    We are the infinite.

    Peace and love.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2011: Beautifully said, Michael Hey.

      Thank you for sharing! Agreed.
    • Aug 20 2011: Michael,

      I agree with Sanyu that what you said was poetic. But in my opinion reality can't be based on poetry alone. Beautiful literature, art and music enrich our lives, but emotional appeal is not the same as proof. Your beautiful words contain many unsubstantiated assertions. You say that there is an "infinite consciousness", but offer no substantiation for this, or for assertion that your human mind is a finite aspect of this infinite consciousness. You also assert that we all emerge from the same "infinite source". Again no substantiation. You had just mentioned "human self", so presumably "we" refers to humans. Saying that we all emerge at the "same now moment" ignores the fact that humans as individuals "emerged" at different times spread over hundreds of thousands of years, and that humans as a species emerged over a period of millions of years.

      Other postings in this discussion have explained that "infinite" does not mean "everything that there is". Conceptually a line is an infinite number of points, yet it does not include all the points on other lines. An infinite series of even numbers does not contain the odd numbers, not to mention irrational numbers, or imaginary numbers. So to say "The infinite is not external to us - if it were it would not be the infinite." is not just unsubstantiated, it is demonstrably incorrect.

      Peace and love is good. I agree with you there.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2011: On Cantor and infinity:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8492625684649921614

    I Think you misuse and confuse the concept of infinity with "everything"
    A finite line has an infinite number of points. And a square has an infinite number of lines and points as well.
    Even an infinite amount of dimensions doesn't mean everything.

    So for each infinity you need to assign to what the infinity relates to.
    Infinity is a number, a weird one, but it is a number.

    Concerning "all of existence": it is possible (and I think it's quite likely) that it is finite (at least our observable cosmos is, and we don't know; arguably can't know; what exists beyond, if there exists anything at all beyond it).

    If I think of what you call the omniverse, I use the metaphor of the library of Babel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel (by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Borges)
    here is the story:
    http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html

    My opinion is that our universe is just one book in that library, and I think many (most) of those books can't ever refer to any possible reality.
    • Jul 20 2011: The Library of Babel is what the internet will become; it will outlast humanity!
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2011: Haha, Richard. I like that.

        A lonely genius computer left on a planet a la Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

        'Tis possible!
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2011: Christophe,

      First, thank you! I appreciate your input. I have not had the time to check out Cantor & Infinity, but I have looked over the Library of Babel links. Interesting and humorous! I will take the time to read the actual story (thanks for that link) at a later time.

      As to what you've said about infinity, I actually think you only help further my point. I suggest, do I not, that we as finite beings have infinite possibilities and are aware (or at least can be) of the infinite possibilities? If I did not state it clearly enough, I think "finite and infinite" are not mutually exclusive, but mutually inclusive.

      Further, the fact that finite things have infinite potentialities, let's say, is exactly what makes Infinity so much more than I think we understand it as. How can such a concept NOT be more than a "weird number?"

      Are you suggesting that we (everything) may live in a finite Existence with infinite points/potentialities? If you are, that's quite a "mindfuck" - as we crudely say in the US.

      What I am suggesting, overall, is that Infinity is much more than we conceive it to be. Even in that it is involved with finite observations while refusing to be pinned down to a finite observation itself. I am speaking of Infinity relating to itself, because infinity is indeed an "it." Again, this may be one of those points we must agree to disagree upon.

      I accept your thoughts on what may very well be our (everything) eventually finite existence in this seemingly infinite Omniverse. As it is, who knows what will be around to determine the truth of that statement?

      As to your opinion of the Omniverse being like the "Library of Babel," I do not think anything "can't ever refer to any possible reality" in an (seemingly) infinitely purposeful Omniverse. "Everything" has a function and a form, right? How, then, can everything not refer to something actual? Everything stems from the root of some /thing/. That root is very real; its descendants, "realities. "
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2011: You are pushing the edges of my limited thinking too now Sanyu ;-)

        I wanted to clear up the understanding of infinity, and that it should not be used as a term to encompass everything (real, possible or imaginary and unimaginary), which seems is what you want to do: stretching the concept of infinity.
        Sadly I don't know a better word either, though omniverse or "everything" might approach it.

        As indeed infinity can be limited, and that we have some kinds of infinity in our finite known universe, is likely to be true.

        I don't know how some things can exist that are inconsistent or impossible in our known universe... so that's why I think there may be an infinite existing things, but even a greater infinity of inexisting things.
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2011: Haha, well then we at least agree that Existence in one wild hell of a ride! Seemingly contradictory but definitely doing what it is doing regardless of how we can conceive of it!

          I agree that perhaps a different word than Infinity might be used to describe what I'm describing. And I use Omniverse for that reason. Universe is true too, but I think that Existence is both one thing and all things, thus the use of Omni-Universe or Omniverse.

          Still, I'm happy to have pushed at the edges of your thinking. I think that is where innovation is born on this planet!
    • thumb
      Aug 1 2011: Great bbc link! Didn't know this existed.

      Great question Sanyu, here my modest attempt;

      Conscious awareness of infinity;

      place : potential : I guess I thrive in the idea everything is about 'reaching for earths, tribes and ones potential'. Our bodies are wired for growth and so are our minds.

      time : mobius : I believe we are on a mobius loop where time is 'only' a whole. We just move on the mobius strip like a needle does on a vinyl music disc.

      And our 'thought/being' is on the crossing of the two, relating what we sense on time and place now-now.

      Indigenous tribes; medicinemen, wisdom keepers, dreamtime, voodoo, shaman, still hold the knowledge and ability to detach themselves a bit from the needle on the mobius loop. Escaping conscious to see a bigger whole.

      If one knows the way a bit, dancing on Orbital, Moby or Tiesto with all your senses emerged, you can get there also a bit.

      'Infinity' and 'potential' work in mysterious ways, even beyond the mobius loop imagination I think. As 'we' are brainwashing all the tribe members to forget about the third act, so only consciously to only believe in 'science' and 'religion', we are pushing this collective knowledge of the cliff. The cool thing, like you asking this question, is we are finding it back, and a whole world generation wants more than the beats of tiesto 'elements of life' or moby's 'Go'. ;)
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2011: Hello Paul!

        How interesting to see you introduce tribes, medicine people, wisdom keepers, dreamtime, voodoo and shaman's here! Actually, I am descended from the lands of these traditions (my mother is from Belize, my father is from Uganda) and I have a great and growing connection with my ancestors.

        It is very true that so much wisdom and appreciation/harmonious cohabitation has been lost with the indigenous tribes, traditions, languages and knowledge. Interesting too because no "race" was skipped in this killing off: the Celtics, the Aborigines, the Mesoamericans, the Native Americans, Tibetans, Indians, the Bedouins, the Inuit and the native tribes of Africa. We, as a species, have killed off many populations and thereby deterred ourselves from much knowledge.

        But I agree that this knowledge is reemerging throughout the generations and that ultimately such knowledge is innate to Existence and can never be "lost." Music is certainly incredibly helpful in this regard. If you like what the vibrations of electronic music do for your consciousness, you should check out some live drumming from the Americas, Africa, the Islands (Polynesian, etc.) and India. If you haven't done so already, I think you would like the sounds very much.

        I really like your analogy of the vinyl disk. I think it is just so into Infinities!

        Thank you for your input!
        Sanyu
        • thumb
          Aug 2 2011: Live drumming indeed! I have been there a bit, each year there was the Big Bang Festival in Utrecht, Netherlands, inviting the best village and city drum/percussionists in the world.

          Poly-rhythmic drumming has my mysterious attention, would love to understand more of it one day, on the works on the brain and body.

          Great you have a connection with your ancestors, hope you will inspire us one day how better to relate our mind and body to 'infinity and beyond'!
  • Aug 19 2011: Sanyu, thanks for the link. Beautiful pictures, and an interesting story.
    • thumb
      Aug 19 2011: No problem! Thanks for your links and participating!
  • Aug 17 2011: Sanyu: "I see that you take things very literally and that for you things are very concretely one thing or the other."

    Carlin: You're probably right. My wife says the same thing.

    Sanyu: "It seems you think that "life" is an isolated thing for each living thing. I do not "see" things that way. A Sumerian is a Homo Sapiens Sapiens ..."

    Carlin: I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. My reference to a Sumerian was intended to relate to my earlier comment: "I agree that many things have lives, including plants, animals, ideas, solar systems and societies. " The lack of recent Sumerian sightings was my silly way of giving an example of a society whose life had ended.

    Sanyu: "I think you are also taking my reference to a sentient being a bit literally. To you, it would seem that a being must have a "body" and must have appendages and opposable thumbs. I do not see beings in this way. An atom is a being, as it IS being, so far as I'm concerned."

    Carlin: Yes, I believe atoms do exist. Their existence does mesh with my world view. The presence of protons, neutrons and electrons offers a verifiable explanation for how atoms interact to form molecules, which interact to form all the physical materials that we observe in the world around us. Perhaps some atoms in our universe or in some other universe, or some place in between are sentient, but I don't see any evidence that they are. Absent any evidence that suggests that our universe was created by a sentient being I see no reason to suppose that that is the case.

    By the way, I recently came across the following cartoon that somewhat relates to this discussion:

    http://www.daisyowl.com/comic_images/85.gif
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2011: Hey Carlin!

      Perhaps it is that you cannot "see" everything in order to determine the truth of it. Particularly, I do not think you would "see any evidence" of a sentient atom. I hardly think they care to communicate in that way, as it's quite laborious and even our species had to develop these complicated meat bodies in order to facilitate the auditory and visionary senses it seems we rely so heavily upon.

      Do you think that blind people are less knowledgeable as a result of being blind? Or perhaps less realistic? I don't. I think they just "see" things differently. I don't have any reason to believe that it's not the same for any living organism (and there are soooooooooooo many) even if they do not "speak my language."

      That comic is super cute, by the way, and I actually don't differ so differently from it either. However, a place where not even sadness can exist sounds like a kind of awesome place. A void can be a positive place, if it allows for the stillness of presence in the present.

      At the end of the day, I greatly appreciate my bodily senses and I value their usefulness; BUT I do not consider them the end all be all, or even the pinnacle, of my ability to asses truth.

      I've enjoyed our conversation, I thank you very much for jumping in and giving me insight into another worldview on this great planet in this vast and wonderful existence!
  • Aug 11 2011: Hi Sanyu,

    Actually "24" is not a unit of time. When you say that you are 24, I suspect you mean that you are 24 years old (rather than 24 months, 24 weeks, 24 hours, 24 minutes, or 24 seconds old, which are all units of time multiplied by the number 24).

    But let's talk about the purpose of life and where existence stems from.

    So what is the purpose of life? Many people want to believe that there is some exalted purpose. Why? Because it is emotionally satisfying to believe that. But why should there be any purpose to life other than perpetuating life? Does life exist simply so we could benefit emotionally? Or does life exist now simply because it existed earlier and managed to perpetuate itself?

    And why does anything exist? Throughout the ages people have wondered that and made up stories based on their experience. Alley Oop made a small fire. Somebody very very big must have made the big big fire that travels across the sky every day. Some of those stories persist to this day, and many people around the world still believe them.

    But I think a more promising line of pursuit is string theory. I wish I understood it. I recently read that the universe that we experience may be a holographic projection of a more complex reality. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2011: Hey Carlin,

      I see what you are saying about units of time. Noted.

      But let's talk about the purpose of life and where existence stems from!

      Do you really think it strange that people derive meaning from such a purposeful omniuniverse? Doesn't EVERY SINGLE THING in this existence serve a purpose in and of itself? By "exalted purpose" I imagine you mean some big dude in the sky with a beard, but I personally don't think it unlikely that "the Creator" - aka WHATEVER created this Existence - is sentient. I hardly think hominids are the only sentient species in the ENTIRE omniuniverse...I mean, if that were the case it would be a disappointment at best and a waste at worst.

      I also wouldn't say, "why should there be any purpose to life other than perpetuating life" as if that in itself is some SMALL task. I mean, PERPETUATING ALL OF LIFE? That's a LOT OF WORK! Assuming things are genuinely constantly expanding at an ever increasing rate and considering the technical details of creation from the atom to the galaxy system, I actually can't help but determine that perpetuating life is probably the most PURPOSEFUL thing that can be done in all of Existence. Many things have lives, after all. Sure there's us, the hominids, and bugs, plants, trees, healthy water systems and animals...but ideas also have lives and companionship takes on its own life and activities take on their own lives and planets, and solar systems and galaxies and dark matter and expansion and....I mean, you see what I'm saying here?

      It's no small task, it's not easy, it's an overwhelming responsibility for whatever decided to get this Existence party crackin' in the first place. Must be a lot of love innately built into Existence for some THING to perpetuate EVERYTHING. Especially considering how poorly our species does on the creation front...were I "the Creator" I probably would have ended our hominid lives here on Earth a whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillle ago. So whatever is putting up with us is a G!
      • Aug 13 2011: Re "Do you really think it strange that people derive meaning from such a purposeful omniuniverse?"

        No, I don't think it strange that people choose to attach meaning to the objects and events around them, even those that occur at random. People see mythological figures in the sky, banshees in the storm, and the future in tea leaves.

        Re "Doesn't EVERY SINGLE THING in this existence serve a purpose in and of itself? "

        I don't think that assertion is self-evident. Many things DO have an evident purpose, but what is the purpose of the coccyx, or the moons of Pluto or the dust mite in the corner? Perhaps they have a purpose, but it is not self-evident to me.

        Re "By "exalted purpose" I imagine you mean some big dude in the sky with a beard, but I personally don't think it unlikely that "the Creator" - aka WHATEVER created this Existence - is sentient. I hardly think hominids are the only sentient species in the ENTIRE omniuniverse."

        I agree that it is quite likely that there were and are and will be sentient beings at many times and places throughout this universe, and others, if they also exist. But these beings are unlikely to have created the very universe that gave rise to their own existence. But I suppose it is possible that this universe is the result of a lab experiment by seven-eyed, five-footed, and three-tentacled beings (beards or no) in some other universe. But there is no particular reason to suppose that it is so.
        • thumb
          Aug 13 2011: Are you implying that only what you can ascertain to have purpose has meaning?

          What about all the knowledge "we" haven't gained yet? Certainly greater consciousness cannot be reached without considering something other than what one has "known."

          While I appreciate Hitcherhiker's Guide to the Galaxyesque considerations of the infinite possibilities of the omniuniverse, and I truly do; I also recognize that a "lab experiment by a seven-eyed, five-footed, and three; tentacled being (beards or no)" is certainly possible (considering the infinite possibilities) but in comparison to a sentient creation "particle" or "thing" - the unifying basis of life, whatever it is - I consider the former to be less likely.

          It seems you do not, which is what it is and I don't have a problem with your opinion.

          I do thank you for sharing it and engaging in conversation!
      • Aug 13 2011: Re "PERPETUATING ALL OF LIFE? That's a LOT OF WORK! "

        Perpetuating life IS a lot of work. It's so much work that it takes most of the time of each individual plant or animal to perpetuate its own life, and to provide for its offspring. Some animals (such as humans) DO perpetuate the lives of other beings -- usually so that can cook them for food, but sometimes to keep them for work or for companionship. But there is no reason to suppose that the seven-eyed, five-footed, and three-tentacled beings are actively working to perpetuate our lives, or even those of their more favorite beings.

        Re "I actually can't help but determine that perpetuating life is probably the most PURPOSEFUL thing that can be done in all of Existence. Many things have lives, after all. Sure there's us, the hominids, and bugs, plants, trees, healthy water systems and animals...but ideas also have lives and companionship takes on its own life and activities take on their own lives and planets, and solar systems and galaxies and dark matter and expansion and....I mean, you see what I'm saying here?"

        I agree that many things have lives, including plants, animals, ideas, solar systems and societies.

        But not ALL life IS perpetuated. Have you met any Sumerians lately, or any Neanderthals (myself excepted)? Or the beings whose planet orbited the ex-sun, and recent supernova, in the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51)?

        Re "It's no small task, it's not easy, it's an overwhelming responsibility for whatever decided to get this Existence party crackin' in the first place. Must be a lot of love innately built into Existence for some THING to perpetuate EVERYTHING."

        I think the notion that some sentient being decided to create our existence is more of a crock than a crack. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) But even if some beings did cook up our universe in their lab flasks, what reason is there to suppose that they are still around 13.75 billion years later, and looking out for all life?
        • thumb
          Aug 14 2011: Hello Carlin,

          I see the you take things very literally and that for you things are very concretely one thing or the other. That is very likely necessary for whatever lifestyle and worldview you maintain, but it does not make getting my point across to you (in a way that computes) very easy. That is fine as I don't generally expect things to be easy, but I'm just prefacing what I'm to say next with that statement so that you know where I'm coming from.

          "But not ALL life IS perpetuated. Have you met any Sumerians lately, or any Neanderthals (present company excepted)? Or the beings whose planet orbited the ex-sun, and recent supernova, in the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51)?"

          It seems you think that "life" is an isolated thing for each living thing. I do not "see" things that way. A Sumerian is a Homo Sapiens Sapiens, as far as I'm concerned, so yes I certainly see that their lives are perpetuated by their ancestry. Their ancestry being their species, not their "race" or "nationality."

          It is true that Neanderthals were not so "lucky" in the perpetuation department, but allow me to borrow from the Lion King for a moment and say they paid their existence forward to future living things even in their death.

          Death and life are not mutually exclusive or isolated things. They each require the other to have definition to begin with, so they are mutually inclusive and very participatory as far as I have observed. Just because our species has chosen to live against sustainability and renewal does not mean that the rest of existence doesn't get along relatively nicely considering the circumstances.

          "I think the notion that some sentient being decided to create our existence is more of a crock than a crack."

          I think you are also taking my reference to a sentient being a bit literally. To you, it would seem that a being must have a "body" and must have appendages and opposable thumbs. I do not see beings in this way. An atom is a being, as it IS being, so far as I'm concerned.
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2011: Also, I agree with your thoughts on String Theory. As to the holographic projection, I actually talk a bit about that on my blog - though granted in ENTIRELY different language. You can check it out here if you would like: http://getattheroot.blogspot.com/2011/05/before-time.html

      At the least it will likely give you some insight into where my particular thinking stems from.
  • Aug 9 2011: "... what is not included, within Infinity? Infinity necessitates EVERYTHING because Infinity IS everything. Everything is needed within Infinity because Infinity negates nothing!"

    I agree with Christophe that infinity is NOT everything. Infinity is a number. Even if you talk about "infinity possibilities" you still cannot say that these infinite possibilities negates nothing, because by definition infinite POSSIBILITIES negates IMpossibilities.

    OK, now that I've gotten that out of my system, perhaps we could talk about the purpose of ALL life and where existence stems from. But could we leave the word "infinity" on its nice neat little mathematical shelf?
  • Aug 9 2011: "Infinity - though seemingly (generally) agreed upon by those who are religious and those who are scientific..."

    I think Christophe is saying that the meaning of "infinity" is NOT agreed upon. Mathematicians use the word differently than do theologians or philosophers. Much confusion is sewn by using a word that has different meanings to different people.

    "It seems to me that Infinity, by its very nature, is beyond time."

    To a mathematician that is like saying "7 is beyond time." Infinity, like 7, is a number. It doesn't make sense to compare a number to a temporal dimension (time).

    And to a cosmologist (an astronomer who studies the evolution and space-time relations of the universe) the phrase "beyond time" may suggest additional space-time dimensions. In some string-theory formulations, there are 21 space-time dimensions.


    "It [infinity] is treated like a number even while it encompasses all possible numbers."

    Yes, to a mathematician infinity IS a number. Infinity, by definition, is LARGER than any finite number just as 4 is larger than -3, but it doesn't ENCOMPASS all possible numbers any more than 4 encompasses -3. For instance the infinity that is larger than all ordinary integers is NOT larger than all imaginary numbers. It isn't even comparable to imaginary numbers, much less encompasses all imaginary numbers.


    "It is considered a time unit, even as it out exists all of our conceptions of time."

    Infinity is not a time unit any more than 24 is a time unit. Infinity is just a number. Infinity can be used to express a multiple of time units, just as any other positive real number can. For instance you can speak of infinite hours, just as you can speak of 24 hours.

    And infinite hours, or infinite seconds or infinite years are all the same amount of time, an infinite amount of time. And it doesn't "out exist" all of our conceptions of time. It IS a conception of time.
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2011: Hello Carlin!

      Thanks for jumping into the conversation! You make many good points, I will comment on what I would like to further discuss though please chime in on whatever!

      I am suggesting that infinity is more than a number. I discussed this briefly below with Christophe, but essentially I am using the conceptualization of Infinity, regardless of its forms (mathematical, cosmological), to describe something that I view as more encompassing about it. Naturally borrowing language from areas of knowledge that are already heavily delineated is problematic, but as I said below there is not quite yet a word for what I am describing in terms of the quality of the Omniverse (I "created" this term for the purpose of describing both ALL and ONE thing, which is what I essentially view Existence to be in the larger picture).

      I am indeed speaking of the potentiality of other dimensions, amongst the other infinite probabilities of a seemingly constantly expanding Omniverse! That's why I started this conversation topic!

      A number is a time unit, is it not? I am "24," for example.

      I would agree that infinity is a conception of time in that I agree that all language is a conception of something. Even the mathematical language. We are just one set of beings perceiving Existence is the "best" way we know possible. We are basically just making things up as we go along, gaining ideas and shaping them into form.

      Haha, I see now where you are coming from. I have had this conversation with "the scientists" about the word "animals." I don't know that it is conducive to leave such language on its allegedly "nice and neat shelf" of "origin." If I did would we be having this conversation? I think not. Also, language is an open source concept so far as I'm concerned. I do come from a land that speaks the bastard language of all languages. It is part of what makes poetry so nice to write in English! Myriad meanings and conceptualizations of the same word in different forms and contexts.