(this is a work in progress)
All is logically necessary as there cannot exist only a part.
All must have no limits otherwise it could not be All.
There cannot be many Alls as they would mutually exclude each other, not one would be All.
All cannot be defined because every definition/distinction is a limitation.
When you encounter a paradox you have only discovered the limits of a definition.
"dualism" is a euphemism for "logical contradiction", absolute truths are self evident.
For instance, if "there is no truth", the quoted statement couldn't be true either.
Truth just is - if what is experienced wasn't, it just wouldn't be.
However, all experiences are limited, and therefore incompletely true.
Non-existence, by it's own definition doesn't exist.
This is why there is always experience rather than no experience - there is no room for anything but existence.
So experiencing will always continue even after death.
"Nothing" is "not any one specific thing", and therefore, potentially "anything". So, in one sense, "nothing" = "everything".
Here's an interesting analogy that shows how everything is nothing.
Let's say you have a folder on your computer containing every single one second lossless sound file possible (all of the same bitrate, format etc.).
If you play them all simultaneously, what will you hear?
Well because there would always be one sound which would be the exact opposite polarity of another,
playing them all simultaneously would cause every sound to phase cancel and result in no sound at all.
As you can see, All as a summation, taken as a whole, has no existence, otherwise All would be limited to being a summation, a whole.
It is in this sense that All both is and is not simultaneously, it also means All neither is nor is not.
As we can see, logic only has significance when applied to the relative.
A relationship is percieved when two experiences recognized as seperate occur within the same memory context.
All meanings, concepts, definitions, descriptions, distinctions, measurements, etc. which are relationships are relative.
However, like the definitions of colors, the dividing line between experiences is arbitrary, so these relationships are purely virtual, illusory.
The limitations of a limited thing defines it's behaviour and therefore it's physics, which is why technology works.
If a limited thing was ever absolute, then All would be limited in some way.
So "no limits" necessitates the absolute impermanence of all limited experience.
This is why there is movement, as soon as there is no more limitation of experience there is no more movement.
This is not to say that "change is the only constant", All, "no limits", is the only constant as it cannot change.
What makes you you?
This article dispels the belief that you are a body, brain, or collection of data.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html
"I think therefore I am" implies a dualism in supposing that there is a thinker doing the thinking and not thoughts just being themselves.
You can go one step further here and say there is no experiencer of the thoughts and the thoughts just are.
But you can't say the thoughts don't exist because otherwise they just wouldn't be.
The experience doesn't even experience itself, it just is.
Individuated limited experiences exist because an experience of totality is not an experience.
The reason individuated experiencings don't bleed into each other is because they aren't collectively remembered.
I need to make my website more pretty, aesthetics are everything.
contact me here: nekobusses@cock.li or nekobusses@protonmail.ch