Contradiction and the Absolute

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Trevor Salyzyn » Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:21 am

Enlightenment is the realization that no metaphysical beliefs are ever certain. It is best expressed in terms of the tetralemma. For any truth statement x, there are four distinct truth values: x, not-x, not x and -x, and neither x nor -x.

We usually use the concept of selfhood to explain why this leads inescapably toward the third option, since selfhood is a fairly universal belief. As such, we have 4 options:

1) the self exists
2) the self does not exist
3) the self neither does not exist nor exists
4) the self both exists and not exists

The first two options do not prove anything logically about the self. It is an empty word, dependent on its definition. Both x and -x rely on the certainty that x and -x are true opposites, which is not always possible to prove. So long as we deal with empirical truths, finding true opposites is a pipe dream. The fourth option is a contradiction, so whatever value self-hood has, it would falsify itself.

The third option, however, is possible. It covers the range of all possible values in its web of meaning. However, it is singular. There is no duality, so calling it either a tautology or a contradiction would both be incorrect. But calling it neither is likewise incorrect. It is both absolutely true and absolutely false. It is, therefore, a true contradiction.

What this means is that metaphysical claims, which strive for the absolute, can only be proven by a circular argument.
A mindful man needs few words.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:46 am

True opposites cannot exist as the declared opposite is interdependent on the undeclared opposite. This is why contradiction appears in the consciousness of those who are ignorant of interdependent origination. And why circular arguments (and laughter) exist.

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:59 am

Pam Seeback wrote:True opposites cannot exist as the declared opposite is interdependent on the undeclared opposite. This is why contradiction appears in the consciousness of those who are ignorant of interdependent origination. And why circular arguments (and laughter) exist.
I don't understand why true opposites cannot exist. Would you elaborate?

I have the impression that true opposites are the only things that can exist because every thing needs an offsetting balance (aka opposite). The sum of everything in the universe must = zero or existence could have no explanation.

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:56 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Enlightenment is the realization that no metaphysical beliefs are ever certain.
I think "hasty generalization" is a better descriptor. The realization that no metaphysical beliefs are ever certain is itself a metaphysical belief. How can you be certain about something that you can't be certain about? If you can't be certain, then how can you be enlightened?

Further, I'm not sure I would describe a realization that nothing can be known for certain as "enlightenment" since the word "demoralization" exists as a better-suited characterization.

1) the self exists
2) the self does not exist
3) the self neither does not exist nor exists
4) the self both exists and not exists

1) x exists
2) x does not exist
3) Neither 1 nor 2 are true.
4) Both 1 and 2 are true.

3 and 4 are both contradictory. Only 1 or 2 can be true. Either x exists, or it doesn't. It can't both exist and not exist at the same time. Neither can it not exist and not not exist at the same time.

If your intention is to disprove duality, then you can *not* use constructs of imagination (ie logic) which depend on duality to exist (true/false) because you'd be using language to disprove the very language you're using. How can you use the thing that does not exist to disprove the thing that does not exist?

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:51 am

Trevor, I don't know how I could say the truth of no true opposite eany clearer than each opposite is dependent on the other for its appearance, nullifying the perceived absolute status of each. Have you received the insight of emptiness yet?

User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Trevor Salyzyn » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:17 pm

Serendipper wrote:I don't understand why true opposites cannot exist. Would you elaborate?
All knowledge is either empirical or absolute. The only knowledge that can show true opposition is absolute. Empirical knowledge, by its very nature, does not have a logical opposite. If you think that the only knowledge that can exist is absolute, you are trapped in a middle-ground where nothing is demonstrably true.

A pictorial analogy. Imagine that all propositions in the universe is "either p or not-p". In the middle is a Venn diagram. One circle is true propositions; another circle is false propositions. They intersect at "both p and not p".

Now, how did I prove that all knowledge is either empirical or absolute?
Pam Seeback wrote:Have you received the insight of emptiness yet?
Absolutes are empty. We only have empirical truths, but analysis of them shows them to be empty, as well. Black is the "opposite" of white, but that is a false dichotomy. Is that the insight?
A mindful man needs few words.

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:49 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:17 pm
Serendipper wrote:I don't understand why true opposites cannot exist. Would you elaborate?
All knowledge is either empirical or absolute. The only knowledge that can show true opposition is absolute. Empirical knowledge, by its very nature, does not have a logical opposite. If you think that the only knowledge that can exist is absolute, you are trapped in a middle-ground where nothing is demonstrably true.

A pictorial analogy. Imagine that all propositions in the universe is "either p or not-p". In the middle is a Venn diagram. One circle is true propositions; another circle is false propositions. They intersect at "both p and not p".

Now, how did I prove that all knowledge is either empirical or absolute?
Everything has a logical opposite... simply add a "not" to the front. On/not-on. Light/not-light. Is someone knocking at the door? Yes or not-yes? I observe that no one is at the door.

All knowledge is not empirical or absolute. Instinct is knowledge gained not through observation nor deduction nor is it absolute.

Glostik91
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Glostik91 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 pm

Is existence the only category by which one comes to an understanding of a thing? My educated guess is that you are conflating the idea of existence with that of the phenomenal or perceived objective being. If this is the case then allow me to modify your options.

1) the self is of the phenomenal
2) the self is of the noumenal
3) the self is neither of the phenomenal nor of the noumenal
4) the self is both of the noumenal and of the phenomenal

This way of charting your categories is more comprehensive and in my opinion easier to understand.

There is of course the first option, the phenomenal, the notion that a perceived object has an objective state of being (as it is cognized in the world). I define 'objective' here as the state of two or more conscious entities sharing a similar cognition of the object (possible cognition entailing that the object either exists or doesn't exist, that the object abides by causal process, that the object is spatially located and has a timeline, etc).

The second option, the noumenal, the notion that the object as it is perceived could indeed be 100% accurate to the object's actual state of being, while simultaneously recognizing one's inability to cognize an object as 100% accurate to the object's actual state of being.

The third option, neither phenom or noumenal, the notion that a perceived object is not perceived objectively (that being phenomenologically unverified by more than one conscious entity) as well as recognizing that the object as it is perceived may not be 100% accurate to the object's actual state of being.

The fourth option, both phenom and noumenal, the notion that a perceived object has an objective state of being and that the object as it is perceived could indeed be 100% accurate to the object's actual state of being.
a gutter rat looking at stars

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:57 pm

Glostik91 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 pm
Is existence the only category by which one comes to an understanding of a thing?
What about the view that existence is relative? For instance, this text exists relative to the digital universe. Speaking of existence abstractly doesn't seem to have much meaning given that we're always left with the questions of: what do you mean by existence and what do you mean by a thing?

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jufa » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:13 am

Serendipper wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:57 pm
Glostik91 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 pm
Is existence the only category by which one comes to an understanding of a thing?
What about the view that existence is relative? For instance, this text exists relative to the digital universe. Speaking of existence abstractly doesn't seem to have much meaning given that we're always left with the questions of: what do you mean by existence and what do you mean by a thing?
Relativity does not contradict nor ascertain anything, it only makes one aware of a line of thought which simulate images and word association. So then, does this text exist for me in a digital universe, or from indoctrination of word and imagery?

Thing then is perceived to me, if not by direct intuitionism, are words and pictures of imitation.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:16 am

jufa wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:13 am
Serendipper wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:57 pm
Glostik91 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 pm
Is existence the only category by which one comes to an understanding of a thing?
What about the view that existence is relative? For instance, this text exists relative to the digital universe. Speaking of existence abstractly doesn't seem to have much meaning given that we're always left with the questions of: what do you mean by existence and what do you mean by a thing?
Relativity does not contradict nor ascertain anything, it only makes one aware of a line of thought which simulate images and word association. So then, does this text exist for me in a digital universe, or from indoctrination of word and imagery?

Thing then is perceived to me, if not by direct intuitionism, are words and pictures of imitation.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
Well, things need a medium in which to exist like a wave needs a medium to travel. Things can exist in space. They can exist in thought. They can exist in cyberspace. So, existence is relative to the medium in which it can exist.

This text exists: gfedjska. But it does not exist as a word or imagery. It does not exist in spacetime itself, but only relative to cyberspace.

So asking abstractly if something exists is like asking if something is inside without specifying inside what.

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jufa » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:20 am

Serendipper wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:16 am
jufa wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:13 am
Serendipper wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:57 pm
Glostik91 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 pm
Is existence the only category by which one comes to an understanding of a thing?
What about the view that existence is relative? For instance, this text exists relative to the digital universe. Speaking of existence abstractly doesn't seem to have much meaning given that we're always left with the questions of: what do you mean by existence and what do you mean by a thing?
Relativity does not contradict nor ascertain anything, it only makes one aware of a line of thought which simulate images and word association. So then, does this text exist for me in a digital universe, or from indoctrination of word and imagery?

Thing then is perceived to me, if not by direct intuitionism, are words and pictures of imitation.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
Well, things need a medium in which to exist like a wave needs a medium to travel. Things can exist in space. They can exist in thought. They can exist in cyberspace. So, existence is relative to the medium in which it can exist.

This text exists: gfedjska. But it does not exist as a word or imagery. It does not exist in spacetime itself, but only relative to cyberspace.

So asking abstractly if something exists is like asking if something is inside without specifying inside what.
Should it be without contradiction thus with absoluteness, what is the medium for your existence before your birth? Surely logic and reasoning comes to one to answer this question when they step to themselves and are driven to ask, in all seriousness, what is the myth I am living relative of and to when there is nothing beyond the human mind to tell of such? In quote, I agree all people will say as C.G. Jung: "I found no answer to this question, and had to admit that I was not living with a myth, or even in a myth, but rather in an uncertain cloud of theoretical possibilities which I was beginning to regard with increasing distrust"

Relativism, from this perspective, does not present a medium in which to exist, unless it is of thought which has no definition nor volume to attest to.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:00 am

jufa wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:20 am
Should it be without contradiction thus with absoluteness, what is the medium for your existence before your birth?
Who is asking the question and to whom is it being asked? Answer that and you'll have your answer.
Surely logic and reasoning comes to one to answer this question when they step to themselves and are driven to ask, in all seriousness, what is the myth I am living relative of and to when there is nothing beyond the human mind to tell of such? In quote, I agree all people will say as C.G. Jung: "I found no answer to this question, and had to admit that I was not living with a myth, or even in a myth, but rather in an uncertain cloud of theoretical possibilities which I was beginning to regard with increasing distrust"
If Jung found no answer, then what good is his answer?
Relativism, from this perspective, does not present a medium in which to exist, unless it is of thought which has no definition nor volume to attest to.

How do you know that perspective is right? It's coming from a man who had no answer except to conclude there must not be an answer. He's appealing to his own authority.

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jufa » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:38 am

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:00 am
jufa wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:20 am
Should it be without contradiction thus with absoluteness, what is the medium for your existence before your birth?
Who is asking the question and to whom is it being asked? Answer that and you'll have your answer.

The issue here is not who, but what.
Surely logic and reasoning comes to one to answer this question when they step to themselves and are driven to ask, in all seriousness, what is the myth I am living relative of and to when there is nothing beyond the human mind to tell of such? In quote, I agree all people will say as C.G. Jung: "I found no answer to this question, and had to admit that I was not living with a myth, or even in a myth, but rather in an uncertain cloud of theoretical possibilities which I was beginning to regard with increasing distrust"
If Jung found no answer, then what good is his answer?

To agree is not an acceptance. Moreover, whether Jung found an answer or not has nothing to do with what I seek to discover, which is saying I cannot speak for Jung.
Relativism, from this perspective, does not present a medium in which to exist, unless it is of thought which has no definition nor volume to attest to.

How do you know that perspective is right? It's coming from a man who had no answer except to conclude there must not be an answer. He's appealing to his own authority.

To agree is not an acceptance or rejection, it is as all pointers, and if the pointer makes for a right or wrong insight, they are true for me to decide, but not no one else for all things are relative whether right or wrong.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Glostik91
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Glostik91 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:31 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:57 pm
What about the view that existence is relative? For instance, this text exists relative to the digital universe. Speaking of existence abstractly doesn't seem to have much meaning given that we're always left with the questions of: what do you mean by existence and what do you mean by a thing?
'relative' or relation i.e. causality. You are trying to understand existence via causality which is a rational thing to do.

Concerning existence and the other categories of understanding, it is a priori that they apply universally to all 'things' (objects of possible cognition). A manner in which one comes to an understanding of a thing is by understanding the thing as either existing or not existing. (Note I am not referring to a thing in itself)

For example, I have a phone on my desk. One mode in which I have an understanding of this perceived object concerns the fact that I recognize this phone exists. Another mode in which I have an understanding of this perceived object concerns the fact that I recognize this phone possibly does not exist.* Another mode in which I have an understanding of the perceived object concerns the fact I recognize that coming to a comprehensive understanding of this object (possibly cognized) necessarily requires a designation of either existing or not existing.

Existence, Possibility, Necessity. These along with the other categories describe the most pure and fundamental features of our concepts and understanding.

*The phone possibly does not exist because the phone could be dreamed, hallucinated, or it could be even as simple as a rhetorical device I imagined in order to serve as an illustration.
a gutter rat looking at stars

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:52 pm

Glostik91 wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:31 pm
'relative' or relation i.e. causality. You are trying to understand existence via causality which is a rational thing to do.
I think I was mainly challenging the existence of 'existence in an abstract sense'. It seems in order to exist, existence would need to be relative to some medium of existence.... or a container of existence. So to ask if something exists is akin to asking if something is 'inside' without specifying 'inside of what'.

Examples:
Does this make sense? Make sense in terms of what?
Does this exist? Exist as an aspect of what? Relative to what?
Is this hotter? Hotter than what?
Is this bigger? Bigger than what?
Are you north? North of what?
Concerning existence and the other categories of understanding, it is a priori that they apply universally to all 'things' (objects of possible cognition).

Ok, existence relative to cognition.
For example, I have a phone on my desk. One mode in which I have an understanding of this perceived object concerns the fact that I recognize this phone exists. Another mode in which I have an understanding of this perceived object concerns the fact that I recognize this phone possibly does not exist.* Another mode in which I have an understanding of the perceived object concerns the fact I recognize that coming to a comprehensive understanding of this object (possibly cognized) necessarily requires a designation of either existing or not existing.

Existence, Possibility, Necessity. These along with the other categories describe the most pure and fundamental features of our concepts and understanding.

*The phone possibly does not exist because the phone could be dreamed, hallucinated, or it could be even as simple as a rhetorical device I imagined in order to serve as an illustration.
You can't touch the phone because there is no phone there to touch. What you feel is the van der waals force between atoms (or other forces). You can't see the phone, but receive re-radiated EM radiation of a particularly small bandwidth which allows you to conceptualize a phone in your mind. The phone as a phone exists only in your mind and what exists relative to spacetime is just densities of energy.

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:06 pm

jufa wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:38 am
The issue here is not who, but what.
What's the difference? We can't have who without what nor what without who. How can you know what what is if you don't know what who is?

If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you.

So who is asking the question? If you can figure out who you are (or what you are), then you will know where you were before you were born. How can you know where you were if you don't know who or what you are?

Help me find this thing.
What does it look like?
I don't know.
Where do you think it is?
I don't know, but it's imperative that I find it so we must make haste!
To agree is not an acceptance or rejection, it is as all pointers, and if the pointer makes for a right or wrong insight, they are true for me to decide, but not no one else for all things are relative whether right or wrong.
If right and wrong exist, they are relative to something, no doubt.

Glostik91
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Glostik91 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:46 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:06 pm
challenging the existence of 'existence in an abstract sense'
What?
I think I was mainly challenging the existence of 'existence in an abstract sense'. It seems in order to exist, existence would need to be relative to some medium of existence.... or a container of existence. So to ask if something exists is akin to asking if something is 'inside' without specifying 'inside of what'.

Examples:
Does this make sense? Make sense in terms of what?
Does this exist? Exist as an aspect of what? Relative to what?
Is this hotter? Hotter than what?
Is this bigger? Bigger than what?
Are you north? North of what?

Ok, existence relative to cognition.
I'll try to overlook what appears to be nonsense and answer you as best I can.

Existent things must abide by relation, and non-existent things must abide by relation. Whatever non-existent thing I happen to cognize must abide by what you are talking about i.e. causality. Here’s a statement of fact. Unicorns do not exist. Even though the unicorn does not exist, whatever is cognized upon reading or hearing the word unicorn abides by causality.

My educated guess as to what you’re asking me is how do we come to an understanding of this concept called existence? (specifically concerning relation)

The understanding is a priori, meaning you simply understand that things either exist or don’t exist. I can say this with 100% confidence because if you did not have this understanding then you wouldn’t be able to understand me. If you understand me, then you understand that things either exist or don’t exist.

It seems you think that the concept of relation is more fundamental than the concept of existence in that the concept of existence must be verified by the concept of relation. If a category of understanding must be verified by the concept of relation, then what verifies the concept of relation (which is itself a category of understanding)?
You can't touch the phone because there is no phone there to touch. What you feel is the van der waals force between atoms (or other forces). You can't see the phone, but receive re-radiated EM radiation of a particularly small bandwidth which allows you to conceptualize a phone in your mind. The phone as a phone exists only in your mind and what exists relative to spacetime is just densities of energy.
A student of philosophy, eager to display his powers of argument, approached Glostik, introduced himself and said, “If it pleases you, sir, let me prove to you that there is no such thing as a phone.” Whereupon Glostik immediately posted this comment via android and left.
a gutter rat looking at stars

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:29 am

Glostik91 wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:46 pm
I'll try to overlook what appears to be nonsense and answer you as best I can.
I'm humbly indebted to your gracious overlooking of my nonsense and for the bestowal of brilliance upon the plebeians ;)
Existent things must abide by relation, and non-existent things must abide by relation.

How is that different from what I said? You know... the nonsense :)
Whatever non-existent thing I happen to cognize must abide by what you are talking about i.e. causality.

What is "causality"? In order to have causality, we must first have things, yet there are no things. If there were things, there would be a discontinuity in causality or else you'd have to rationalize how one thing affects another thing while at the same time having them maintain mutually exclusivity (the definition of a thing).

What you're likely referring to are arbitrary dissections of a larger thing. Causality is the desire to digitize the analog only to use a DAC to recombine (with error) back into the analog of understanding.
Here’s a statement of fact. Unicorns do not exist.
Image

Not as pretty as I imagined them to be. Sorry, I couldn't resist :)
The understanding is a priori, meaning you simply understand that things either exist or don’t exist
My understanding is that people who use the sesquipedalian vernacular of "a priori" are up to something egoic. I could be wrong, but all things considered...
I can say this with 100% confidence because if you did not have this understanding then you wouldn’t be able to understand me. If you understand me, then you understand that things either exist or don’t exist.
Things exists in relation to a medium of existence. Nothing exists as an abstraction. In order to understand you, I have to decipher your parlance in comparison with my experience with the realization that 100% fidelity isn't possible.

To assert existence of "a priori", you'd have to a priori accept that I could a priori reason at parturition or else concede that reason is based on experience since then. The value in the utilization of terminology such as a priori isn't apparent outside of the advertising of one's status of being well-read for the creation of an authority for which to appeal in lieu of counter-point conversation on a causal and fun level. But that's just my impression from experience.
It seems you think that the concept of relation is more fundamental than the concept of existence
Yes
in that the concept of existence must be verified by the concept of relation.

Yes. Existence has no abstract meaning. Something can exist in relation to, in a medium of, inside of, as a part of, etc.
If a category of understanding must be verified by the concept of relation, then what verifies the concept of relation (which is itself a category of understanding)?
By using another relation... the relation to abstraction... the relation to absurdity.
A student of philosophy, eager to display his powers of argument, approached Glostik, introduced himself and said, “If it pleases you, sir, let me prove to you that there is no such thing as a phone.” Whereupon Glostik immediately posted this comment via android and left.
Was it Glostik or Johnny Walker? ;) And how did you get your ego to fit through the door? If there was no door, then from where did you leave?

This is what happens when competition is made of academia... philosophical one-upmanship.

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jufa » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:32 am

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:06 pm
jufa wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:38 am
The issue here is not who, but what.
What's the difference? We can't have who without what nor what without who. How can you know what what is if you don't know what who is?

If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you.

So who is asking the question? If you can figure out who you are (or what you are), then you will know where you were before you were born. How can you know where you were if you don't know who or what you are?

Help me find this thing.
What does it look like?
I don't know.
Where do you think it is?
I don't know, but it's imperative that I find it so we must make haste!

That is what it being sought here, but you keep off tracking the question by interjecting an entire different subject.

In bringing this to your attention, the question is still before you to answer, and in the answering there will be no more 'if' personal infiltrating seeking find answers to ones self which no other individual can answer for you. One has to decide their own experience, for you are the one who wear the mask of a thousand face of Serendipper.

To agree is not an acceptance or rejection, it is as all pointers, and if the pointer makes for a right or wrong insight, they are true for me to decide, but not no one else for all things are relative whether right or wrong.
If right and wrong exist, they are relative to something, no doubt.
Whatever they are relative of, they are not relative to the statement and question I put before you. "Relativity does not contradict nor ascertain anything, it only makes one aware of a line of thought which simulate images and word association. So then, does this text exist for me in a digital universe, or from indoctrination of word and imagery?"

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:38 am

jufa wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:32 am
they are not relative to the statement and question I put before you.
Relativity does not contradict nor ascertain anything,
If relativity cannot ascertain anything, then what can be ascertained relative to your statement and question?

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by jufa » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:49 am

Serendipper wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:38 am
jufa wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:32 am
they are not relative to the statement and question I put before you.
Relativity does not contradict nor ascertain anything,
If relativity cannot ascertain anything, then what can be ascertained relative to your statement and question?
By taking away the 'if' you keep attempting to make relative to that which you have no knowledge of.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Pam Seeback » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:55 pm

Serendipper: If relativity cannot ascertain anything, then what can be ascertained relative to your statement and question?
jufa: By taking away the 'if' you keep attempting to make relative to that which you have no knowledge of.
My list of what we can be certain of this moment and this moment only is pretty short, feel free to add to my list:

1. There is awareness.
2. The distinctions made by awareness are not permanent.
3. The impermanent nature of its distinctions is why awareness reasons.

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Serendipper » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:38 am

jufa wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:49 am
By taking away the 'if' you keep attempting to make relative to that which you have no knowledge of.
I have no knowledge of what you're driving at, which makes me relatively confused, so I'm going to bow out of this one and observe from the sidelines.

Glostik91
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Contradiction and the Absolute

Post by Glostik91 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:18 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:29 am
I'm humbly indebted to your gracious overlooking of my nonsense and for the bestowal of brilliance upon the plebeians ;)
Existent things must abide by relation, and non-existent things must abide by relation.

How is that different from what I said? You know... the nonsense :)
I don’t understand how you can challenge the existence of the concept of existence. While challenging the existence of something, you have already conceived existence.

What is "causality"? In order to have causality, we must first have things, yet there are no things. If there were things, there would be a discontinuity in causality or else you'd have to rationalize how one thing affects another thing while at the same time having them maintain mutually exclusivity (the definition of a thing).

What you're likely referring to are arbitrary dissections of a larger thing. Causality is the desire to digitize the analog only to use a DAC to recombine (with error) back into the analog of understanding.
Causality is a way in which we come to understand the phenomenal world.

Are you talking about things as they are perceived, or are you talking about things in themselves (a thing as it truly is in itself)?

If the first, I am perceiving this phone. If I wasn't then I wouldn't be making this post, now would I?

If the second, you do not have knowledge of a thing as it truly is in itself. A thing in itself may exist. It may not. You don't know.
The understanding is a priori, meaning you simply understand that things either exist or don’t exist
My understanding is that people who use the sesquipedalian vernacular of "a priori" are up to something egoic. I could be wrong, but all things considered...
A priori is a term Kant used to refer to knowledge which is gained prior to an experience. For example, 2+2=4 is known a priori. I don't have to go to the other end of the galaxy and have an experience of 2+2=4 to know that 2+2=4 over there just as it does here.

Just because someone has read the critique of pure reason and uses it's terminology sometimes does not necessarily mean that someone is up to something egoic. It also doesn't stop you from asking me to explain what I mean by a word (or just googling it yourself). I don't go around telling buddhists to keep their ego in check because they have read books I haven't read and use words I'm not familiar with.
Things exists in relation to a medium of existence. Nothing exists as an abstraction. In order to understand you, I have to decipher your parlance in comparison with my experience with the realization that 100% fidelity isn't possible.

To assert existence of "a priori", you'd have to a priori accept that I could a priori reason at parturition or else concede that reason is based on experience since then. The value in the utilization of terminology such as a priori isn't apparent outside of the advertising of one's status of being well-read for the creation of an authority for which to appeal in lieu of counter-point conversation on a causal and fun level. But that's just my impression from experience.

Yes. Existence has no abstract meaning. Something can exist in relation to, in a medium of, inside of, as a part of, etc.
It seems to me that you are stuck on this idea of existence.

If it's the case that nothing exists then for the sake of understanding we need new terms for things which used to exist (things like phones, streets, plants, fingers, etc) and of course the rest of the nonexistent things (things like unicorns, fairies, gods, a space-elevator in my backyard, etc), because how else am I supposed to understand and communicate the difference between one thing (like a phone) and another thing (like a magic stone)? Clearly there's a difference between these two things (in that one exists and the other doesn't), but if I can't say that one exists and other doesn't, then what should I say about them?

Now I propose that we basically just keep the term as it is for the sake of communication and understanding, and have different terms for when we want to talk about the difference between a thing perceived and a thing in itself.
If a category of understanding must be verified by the concept of relation, then what verifies the concept of relation (which is itself a category of understanding)?
By using another relation... the relation to abstraction... the relation to absurdity.
So you're saying that the concept of relation doesn't need verification. There is no need to try and misdirect me by saying, just use a different relation. Fundamentally what you're saying is that the categories of relation need no verification because they are fundamental to our understanding.
a gutter rat looking at stars

Post Reply