GENIUS FORUMS

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:26 am**

Leyla Shen wrote:
Bobo wrote:Take the statement 'x is true', that means that x must be an antecedent properly tied to a consequent. With true as a consequent we have that '(x is true) is true' and x must be an antecedend with a proper consequent... And so on. So x doesn't have a proper truth value.
Taking the statement 'this statement is x' 'this statement' is not a statement that can be regarded as equivalent to the sum of it's parts. Since this statement can be referring to 'this statement' or 'this statement is x'.
Right, because “this statement” is not a statement in itself by definition since it doesn’t express anything—it’s not actually stating something. “This statement is true”, however, is exactly a statement of integrity, i.e. if it is a statement by definition, then it is necessarily a true statement. Therefore, if you treat the said statement as a proposition, it is false exactly because it is not proposition. If you treat it as a statement, however, it is necessarily true.

If you treat as a statement it is necessarily true... What about the statement 'this false statement is true' it is a statement and it is necessarily...? (Also 'this statement is red' is it necessarily red?)

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:51 pm**

If you treat ["this statement is true"] as a statement it is necessarily true...

Yes.

What about the statement 'this false statement is true' it is a statement and it is necessarily...?

No, that's a contradiction.

(Also 'this statement is red' is it necessarily red?)

Only if you've defined red to be true. (It is true, though, that it's a statement.)

That is: this statement is red

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:28 pm**

Ah, so it is meant as "this statement has no contradictions in it". Well only if 'contradictions' isn't a contradiction.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:45 pm**

It means A=A.

Ah, so it is meant as "this statement has no contradictions in it". Well only if 'contradictions' isn't a contradiction.

You appear to be uncertain. Are you?

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:48 pm**

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Dennis Mahar wrote:Bouquet and brickbat. The point of Kierkegaard is the only possibility for authenticity is to admit your own inauthenticity. Meaningmaker.
Now that's trolling, Lilalee. Remember the difference!

The difference between your probing and Dennis’s is so marginal that I consider it insignificant. Where he makes multiple, singular allusions to wisdom, you make a multitude of them in a single post.

If one wants to penetrate the depths of any thing rather than conjure the myriad probeable reflections on the surface of them, one needs eventually to move beyond the illusion of allusion and data collection.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:09 pm**

Well if we assume that 'contradiction' is a contradiction the statement is false. While if we assume that 'contradiction' isn't a contradiction why would we assume that 'true' is true?

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:19 pm**

Leyla Shen wrote:If one wants to penetrate the depths of any thing rather than conjure the myriad probeable reflections on the surface of them, one needs eventually to move beyond the illusion of allusion and data collection.

That's exactly the illusion you keep playing with, that you can move beyond it or get "real". The more you do it, the more you wrap illusion around yourself. What's in a name, after all?

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:00 pm**

What's in a name, after all?

About as much as that which is in a Platonic Form, Your Eminence.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:01 pm**

Bobo wrote:Well if we assume that 'contradiction' is a contradiction the statement is false. While if we assume that 'contradiction' isn't a contradiction why would we assume that 'true' is true?

And yet, what was in your statement is "no contradiction".

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:03 pm**

Should we assume "no contradictions" is a contradiction?

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:20 am**

Leyla Shen wrote:
What's in a name, after all?
About as much as that which is in a Platonic Form, Your Eminence.

Lolita, it is as with the name givers, or like the daimonion in Cratylus, they can tap intuitively into the essence of any context. Then the world runs with it a ten thousand miles.

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:17 pm**

But a contradiction is a statement or it is not a statement? If it is a statement it is a true statement or a false statement. And if it is a false statement it is true false statement or a false false statement.

Kierkegaard wrote: In logic they use the negative as the motive power which brings
movement into everything. And movement in logic they must have, any
way they can get it, by fair means or foul. The negative helps them, and if
the negative cannot, then quibbles and phrases can, just as the negative
itself has become a play on words.* In logic no movement can come
about, for logic is, and everything logical simply is, and this impotence of
logic is the transition to the sphere of becoming where existence and
reality appear. So when logic is absorbed in the concretion of the
categories it is constantly the same that it was from the beginning. In
logic every movement (if for an instant one would use this expression) is
an immanent movement, which in a deeper sense is no movement, as one
will easily convince oneself if one reflects that the very concept of move-
ment is a transcendence which can find no place in logic. The negative
then is the immanence of movement, it is the vanishing factor, the thing
that is annulled (aufgehoben). If everything comes to pass in that way,
then nothing comes to pass, and the negative becomes a phantom. But
precisely for the sake of getting something to come to pass in logic, the
negative becomes something more, it becomes the producer of the
opposition, and not a negation but a counterposition. The negative then
is not the muteness of the immanent movement, it is the "necessary
other," 8 which doubtless* must be very necessary to logic in order to set
things going, but the negative it is not.

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:00 pm**

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:
What's in a name, after all?
About as much as that which is in a Platonic Form, Your Eminence.
Lolita, it is as with the name givers, or like the daimonion in Cratylus, they can tap intuitively into the essence of any context. Then the world runs with it a ten thousand miles.

Intuitively? Thanks, Ping Pong. :D

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:15 pm**

But a contradiction is a statement or it is not a statement?

Why, yes, Mad Hatter, a contradiction is a statement, but not every statement is a contradiction!

If it is a statement it is a true statement or a false statement.

That depends on the statement, and its contradiction... :D

And if it is a false statement it is true false statement or a false false statement.

Any true false statement is a truly false statement, and any false false statement is a truly false statement!

As for the quote (which bears what relevance, do you think?):

Not really surprising the same pivotal insight jumps out in Kierkegaard, Marx and Nietzsche (given the particular epoch), though they come at it from different angles. Certainly, Marx was not the only critic of the Hegelian dialectic. For Marx, Hegel needed to be “put on his feet”. For Nietzsche, the Hegelian culmination of the man-god “synthesis” into the modern (bourgeois/secular), “People’s” State bore as much spirituality as Christianity without Christ (“God is dead!”); form without content.

Kierkegaard tackles it differently again. I’ll get back to you with more on this once I've given it due consideration.

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:25 pm**

Kierkegaard's apophantic mode is practically identical to Nagarjuna.

for K, 'God' is hidden.
for N, interdependent origination.

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:56 pm**

Leyla Shen wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:
What's in a name, after all?
About as much as that which is in a Platonic Form, Your Eminence.
Lolita, it is as with the name givers, or like the daimonion in Cratylus, they can tap intuitively into the essence of any context. Then the world runs with it a ten thousand miles.
Intuitively? Thanks, Ping Pong. :D

In the sense of the eminent Spinoza and how he mapped the "three types of knowledge". Every word has in that sense many possible contexts but can they always be supplied every time? That would defeat the purpose of the "bulletin" in bbs world. So like with every communication, some kind of understanding and relationship to meaning is assumed or implied. This problem is well described in linguistic theory. The problem even rises in Christian parables, when Pilate, when "washing his hands" in one version, he's also contemplating in another version the purity of any self-claimed witness of truth, wondering "What is truth?".

Anyway, intuition also means generally just looking "inside" or "contemplation" but I'd describe it as getting the unity, the connections between knowledge, sense and wonder in some particular instance. It drives the sciences just as much as any philosophical or spiritual leaps. But it can and will get messy, naturally.

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:06 pm**

Leyla Shen wrote:Any true false statement is a truly false statement, and any false false statement is a truly false statement!

A statement is false if it contradicts the context it refers to, which it depends on. It's meaningless to say a "true" or "truly" false statement just as "super duper more than truly" would add anything but undefined qualities stressing the falsehood. Actually the word "truly" means just "indeed" and serves as emphasis. We could just as well write false statement. It's to attract attention. Hmm. Which is all what you appear to be doing anyway. If you have a point to make with this thread, why not just flesh it out in one larger piece of text? You know, supply a bit of context since it doesn't seem obvious. Instead you launch ambiguity and criticize people for supplying "wrong" context or not explaining the way they use words. Technically a troll thread so far.

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:14 pm**

Hm, yes. Kierkegaard makes a true and clear point here on the Hegelian dialectic (Abstract-Negative-Concrete). He is arguing that, at best, the term “Negative” is a misnomer in light of what we understand already as the classical Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis dialectic, and that it’s certainly not a refutation of it.

Thus when a person entitles the last section of his Logic "Reality," he thereby gains the advantage of appearing to have already reached by logic the highest thing, or, if one prefers to say so, the lowest. The loss is obvious nevertheless, for this is not to the advantage either of logic or of reality. Not to that of reality, for the contingent, which is an integral part of reality, cannot be permitted to slip into logic. It is not to the advantage of logic, for if logic has conceived the thought of reality it has taken into its system something it cannot assimilate, it has anticipated what it ought merely to predispose—Kierkegaard

If Hegel’s “Negative” was a negation (and it must at least pretend to be since it proceeds from the necessary assumption that a negation is an abstract not a concrete nullification -- I'd call that annihilation), a transformative effect could only be produced in reality if the abstraction was an intrinsic part of reality itself; in which case, we would simply see things go “poof!”, and disappear entirely out of existence ("concretisation") at the moment of negation. (Lol I wish -- Diebert, you'd be the first to go! And Dennis a very close second, and then... the world!)

I am, of course again, reminded of Marx putting Hegel on his feet when he identified the concrete, developmental relation between capital (Abstract) and labour (the “necessary other”).

The negative then is not the muteness of the immanent movement, it is the "necessary other," which doubtless-must be very necessary to logic in order to set things going, but the negative it is not—Kierkegaard

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:28 pm**

Bobo wrote: And if it is a false statement it is true false statement or a false false statement.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:Any true false statement is a truly false statement, and any false false statement is a truly false statement!
A statement is false if it contradicts the context it refers to, which it depends on. It's meaningless to say a "true" or "truly" false statement just as "super duper more than truly" would add anything but undefined qualities stressing the falsehood. Actually the word "truly" means just "indeed" and serves as emphasis. We could just as well write false statement. It's to attract attention. Hmm. Which is all what you appear to be doing anyway. If you have a point to make with this thread, why not just flesh it out in one larger piece of text? You know, supply a bit of context since it doesn't seem obvious. Instead you launch ambiguity and criticize people for supplying "wrong" context or not explaining the way they use words. Technically a troll thread so far.

I'll give you a multiple choice answer to this post:

1. You're in love with Bobo, aren't you?
2. Kiss my arse.

Posted: **Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:13 am**

There's not much time left to kiss your butt as it's inherent existence is negated.
poof.
a tiny window of opportunity.

Posted: **Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:52 am**

Leyla Shen wrote:
Bobo wrote: And if it is a false statement it is true false statement or a false false statement.

Yes, I was pulling your chain but come one. You are both playing in your own fashion with the word "true" and "truth" inside different contexts. It's never-ending maze of mirrors inside mirrors. This ambiguity will never stop: conclusion forever forgone. This inability is build-in, into the way the questions are framed - or perhaps left unframed. And I will keep repeating this criticism as often as the mirror reflects inside the mirror.

Posted: **Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:52 am**

There's always a tiny window of opportunity, to save a topic at least. Today I was reading an interview with Gerard Visser (some philosophy professor) about Heidegger who wrestled with the notions of truth and individuality a lot. Dennis his favorite perhaps! Visser said:

As powerful can be the light of a philosophy, just as deep is also the darkness surrounding it. Every philosopher of stature has only one thought. A prime intuition. He's completely ruled by it. He must and will work it out. Around this activity the philosopher stops seeing all kinds of things.

Also a criticism on Heidegger you might find of interest, Dennis:

He breaks open the riddle of Self but takes this riddle not seriously enough

Posted: **Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:03 am**

Also a criticism on Heidegger you might find of interest, Dennis:

He breaks open the riddle of Self but takes this riddle not seriously enough

Heidegger knew how to cause the direct experience of emptiness in others.
He and Arendt, in the late 20's, booked assembly halls and caused that experience in the attendees listening.

The Zen guys were amazed that he could pull it off.

It wasn't ever touted to be more or less than 'in the experience of Beginner's Mind'.
As you call it, that opening where conditioning breaks down, where 'groundlessness' shows up and 'fixed conditions as a belief' evaporate.
the experience of no-mind.
a viewing point from which the mind is noticed as a plotting, scheming thing putting 'ground' in to walk on.

The mind, on the surface, looks like ' a gap in reality'.
a tool-being for splitting up a continuous, undivided whole.
a project,

I reckon Alex had cottoned on to it with his 'platform' speeches which seemed to indicate the general understanding.
It's time for Alex to be resurrected (Easter and all that).

What does Visser want?
What does Visser think is missing?
1/2 a cake?

Posted: **Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:07 am**

Dennis Mahar wrote:[He and Arendt, in the late 20's, booked assembly halls and caused that experience in the attendees listening. The Zen guys were amazed that he could pull it off.

I got that from listening to Terence McKenna and not just because of content was that great although not bad either. It's a subliminal thing, a slight hypnagogic cadence laced with pseudo-philosophical farsightedness. It's a gift some particular minds have when speaking, it's a seductive thing but combined with philosophy it's priceless! It ain't Zen though but don't tell that to the Zen guys.

It's time for Alex to be resurrected (Easter and all that).

He's doing quite well and found some new friends and interests. It's too quiet now here for him anyway. But no doubt he still peeks.

What does Visser think is missing?

It was just a short text but I think he was referring to Heidegger's suggested embrace of some kind of destiny of ones "own people", in some national-socialist sense. And the whole provincialism, Germanism, antisemitism of that. Like so many Western philosophers, some comical attempt to apply, to embody the bodhisattva.

Posted: **Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:54 am**

Heidegger hangs out where the rubber meets the road.
Total revhead.
V8, 4 speed gearbox.
Accelerator.

The Boss.

GENIUS FORUMS

Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

I breathe when I sleep is the same as I sleep when I breathe

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: I breathe when I sleep is the same as I sleep when I bre

Re: Truth

I eat what I see is the same as I see what I eat

Re: Truth

Re: I eat what I see is the same as I see what I eat

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth

Re: Truth