The Truth would have to be self-evident.
They have taken Godel’s challenge of proof, his so-called Incompleteness Theorem, (that incidently was referring to Russell’s and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica claim of “proofâ€), whitewash any declaration that is self-contained and obliterate any hope of a rational conclusion.
This is evident when they do come across a truth, such as A=A, they instantly dismiss it and call it a hollow tautology.
It would appear that the Academia have painted themselves into a corner.
No wonder Quantum Mechanics is so appealing to them, it gives them an "out" without having to rectify their original mistake.
A=A
subject
unknown!!!
i added you to msn about 20 years ago and you have not added me.. i am hurt!
i am ******2005@hotmail.com
anyway, stop your babbling, if you tell others to.
set a good example !
-SlooF~
i added you to msn about 20 years ago and you have not added me.. i am hurt!
i am ******2005@hotmail.com
anyway, stop your babbling, if you tell others to.
set a good example !
-SlooF~
zarathustra wrote:to show that I'm willing to learn, I would apprreciate it if you clarified the following for me dear berty..(1) is there a difference between 'the law of identity' and ultimate truth? please explain....(2) is it possible using the law of identity to discover ultimate truth? please explain...what is the difference between 'an ultimate truth' and ultimate truth. is ultimate truth singular or plural in nature - or both? (3) in terms of origin, or chronology, which preceeded the other: the law of identity or ultimate truth? please explain. you may need to factor in here not only the whole of human history, but history itself, as well as time and space.....it ok, I can wait...
thanks for your lesson in textbook logic berty, but you need to push the boundaries a bit ol' boy...isn't that what genius is all about?
written by zarathustra for your edification
the identity of 'the ultimate truth' is 'the ultimate truth.'
an equation always equal.
The beginning of knowledge.
I am the living thruth,but i can not speak of it.
How could anything be untrue?
Everything is about who we are.
The 'I am I' if 'you are you'
you just need the right kind of knowledge.
Our amnesia covers much.
I belief in the variety of interpretation.So our I and you must unite.Thus we gain affinity.
everything is for always complete.
are you a mackarel?Does this appear meaningless to you?
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Sevens wrote:
I'm not perfect, I admit that. However, the simple act of making blunt judgments upon situations and people isn't necessarily a sign of egotism. If that was the case, then great sages like Diogenes, Jesus, Hakuin, and Nietzsche would be incredibly egotistical beings.
I think you suffer from New Age syndrome when it comes to these issues. The naive belief that flowers are nice, and angry wolves are bad.
But you're missing the bigger picture!
I've heard you already. Flowers are nice and angry wolves are bad. Got it.
-
For a sage, you certainly still contain a fair amount of impurity, David.
I'm not perfect, I admit that. However, the simple act of making blunt judgments upon situations and people isn't necessarily a sign of egotism. If that was the case, then great sages like Diogenes, Jesus, Hakuin, and Nietzsche would be incredibly egotistical beings.
I think you suffer from New Age syndrome when it comes to these issues. The naive belief that flowers are nice, and angry wolves are bad.
No, you shouldn't take up molesting children.
But you're missing the bigger picture!
Detrimental ego projection eliminates the ego's ability to experience Unity.
I've heard you already. Flowers are nice and angry wolves are bad. Got it.
-
| | || | ||| | || || |
But David --
I'm only utilizing methods that you are advertising.
You know the slogan -
'Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom - Perfection'
Yes, I do love flowers. (Tiger Lillies and Dandy Lions, my fave)
Buddha loved flowers. Nietzsche, too. Bet Diogenes had something nice to say about them. Now, as for angry wolves. Well, how could I not love them? - Flowers only undress for those who've tamed wild beasts.
You met, Mara?
Really quite nice once you get to know her, David.
I'm only utilizing methods that you are advertising.
You know the slogan -
'Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom - Perfection'
Yes, I do love flowers. (Tiger Lillies and Dandy Lions, my fave)
Buddha loved flowers. Nietzsche, too. Bet Diogenes had something nice to say about them. Now, as for angry wolves. Well, how could I not love them? - Flowers only undress for those who've tamed wild beasts.
You met, Mara?
Really quite nice once you get to know her, David.
Last edited by sevens on Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:11 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
wisdom of Q ( latest version ):
emptiness (0) = absolute truth, (as opposed to ultimate which was where Q started ).
all things are causally created (i.e if Q bangs his head against a brick wall it'll cause a bump (QW=B).
all things are lacking inherent existence (<0>) therefore all things are empty and absolutely true
(0) = (QW=B) = (<0>) = (0) An atheist's position?
no, because you'd first have to remove 'causally' from the equasion which would then give you: (0) = (<0>) = (0). wow, geez, that's pretty fucking profound Q...or should I say pope Q. the first.
The very notion of cause presupposes a 'causer' because emptiness causes nothing...IT IS. so what?
you see my dear theist Q, this is the point where creationism and evolution intersect...for either position to be valid requires a FIRST CAUSE.
but how can that be so if (0)=(<0>)=0? And how can anyone logically and reasonably postulate a first from the above? they can't.to do so requires A LEAP OF FAITH...and you've jumped ol' boy....
as for me, I know I don't know and cannot know about such things, but what I do know is that it is a mystery which fills me with wonder and joy...which causes me to create.
FREE YOUR MIND NEOQ - THE MATRIX HAS YOU!!!
written by lightening for your edification
emptiness (0) = absolute truth, (as opposed to ultimate which was where Q started ).
all things are causally created (i.e if Q bangs his head against a brick wall it'll cause a bump (QW=B).
all things are lacking inherent existence (<0>) therefore all things are empty and absolutely true
(0) = (QW=B) = (<0>) = (0) An atheist's position?
no, because you'd first have to remove 'causally' from the equasion which would then give you: (0) = (<0>) = (0). wow, geez, that's pretty fucking profound Q...or should I say pope Q. the first.
The very notion of cause presupposes a 'causer' because emptiness causes nothing...IT IS. so what?
you see my dear theist Q, this is the point where creationism and evolution intersect...for either position to be valid requires a FIRST CAUSE.
but how can that be so if (0)=(<0>)=0? And how can anyone logically and reasonably postulate a first from the above? they can't.to do so requires A LEAP OF FAITH...and you've jumped ol' boy....
as for me, I know I don't know and cannot know about such things, but what I do know is that it is a mystery which fills me with wonder and joy...which causes me to create.
FREE YOUR MIND NEOQ - THE MATRIX HAS YOU!!!
written by lightening for your edification
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
unknown, for you...
time is a mirror for your soul
through which its journey
is perceived and reflected
looking in, do you see skin
cracking like a parched field
that once her caresses
harvested and revived?
are you no longer eros in her eyes
but a pitiful blundering thing
to appease and patronise?
what shall you do - what?
find jesus in the slogans
of some morbid evangelism?
read and re-read an acquired wisdom
beneath fading light?
be an observer where once
you were welcomed to feast?
written by lightening for your edification
time is a mirror for your soul
through which its journey
is perceived and reflected
looking in, do you see skin
cracking like a parched field
that once her caresses
harvested and revived?
are you no longer eros in her eyes
but a pitiful blundering thing
to appease and patronise?
what shall you do - what?
find jesus in the slogans
of some morbid evangelism?
read and re-read an acquired wisdom
beneath fading light?
be an observer where once
you were welcomed to feast?
written by lightening for your edification
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
POST-POST MODERNIST VIEW OF METAPHYSICIANS
it's not the truth you seek,
but converts to sip from
your unholy grail...
agreeing as they toast
that there's not much more to life
than meets the eye
whose blindness matches yours
with all the force of a conviction!
written by lightrening for your edification
it's not the truth you seek,
but converts to sip from
your unholy grail...
agreeing as they toast
that there's not much more to life
than meets the eye
whose blindness matches yours
with all the force of a conviction!
written by lightrening for your edification
Meta-Physics
Zara,
I'm gonna tickle your nose with a feather.
I'm gonna tickle your nose with a feather.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
Well, Bless You
daaahhhh!
:)
:)
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I love the way people's real natures are suddenly revealed under a little pressure. Put them into an environment where reason is applied consistently and deeply and the flakes all start falling apart. The only way they can cope is by sticking their tongues out and shouting out inanities. They switch their brains off and become allies of nonsense. It always happens, without fail.
It's hilarious.
-
It's hilarious.
-
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
zarathustra wrote:
If it is necessarily true that all things have causes, then there cannot be a first cause, by definition. The process of cause and effect necessarily goes back forever.
-
The very notion of cause presupposes a 'causer' because emptiness causes nothing...IT IS. so what?
you see my dear theist Q, this is the point where creationism and evolution intersect...for either position to be valid requires a FIRST CAUSE.
If it is necessarily true that all things have causes, then there cannot be a first cause, by definition. The process of cause and effect necessarily goes back forever.
-
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
fuck what some of the books say: IT GOES BACK FOREVER BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU KEEP PUSHING IT AWAY BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T FACE IT...IF YOU DID IT WOULD MEAN THE END OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY - BECAUSE THERE IS NO ANSWER ONLY THE QUESTION -YOU TWIT. There is cause but there is no first cause. this CANNOT BE PROVEN. there is first cause from which all other causes originate. this CANNOT BE PROVEN.
FAITH, MY DEAR Q POPE, THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL NEED TO GET AN ANSWER. WASN'T IT THAT OLD FASCIST NIETZSCHE WHO SAID THAT BELIEF AND FAITH - PROVE NOTHING....
FAITH, MY DEAR Q POPE, THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL NEED TO GET AN ANSWER. WASN'T IT THAT OLD FASCIST NIETZSCHE WHO SAID THAT BELIEF AND FAITH - PROVE NOTHING....
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
please enlighten me - answer the above questions. PROVE IT. A deal: if you can prove it, without resorting to metaphysics
belief, faith...I'll leave this forum. After all, being enlightened, I wouldn't really need to be here...time to put down your big stick
and put your thinking cap on JACK
cheap trick: there's even a latin phrase for it, which I don't remember....anyway, its when a person is attacked rather than their argument....
wish me happy birthday - I'm 19 tomorrow.
fascist!
belief, faith...I'll leave this forum. After all, being enlightened, I wouldn't really need to be here...time to put down your big stick
and put your thinking cap on JACK
cheap trick: there's even a latin phrase for it, which I don't remember....anyway, its when a person is attacked rather than their argument....
wish me happy birthday - I'm 19 tomorrow.
fascist!
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
zarathustra wrote:
To repeat, this is purely a logical issue. It has nothing to do with taking things on faith, nor is it an issue which can be resolved by conducting scientific experiments. It is beyond both faith and science. It's a matter of logically investigating what a "thing" is and seeing whether it can ever arise without causes. And the answer is, no, it can't.
-
You're not understanding what I'm saying. If it is logically the case that a thing necessarily has causes, then it is logically the case that case that cause and effect goes back forever.fuck what some of the books say: IT GOES BACK FOREVER BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU KEEP PUSHING IT AWAY BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T FACE IT...IF YOU DID IT WOULD MEAN THE END OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY - BECAUSE THERE IS NO ANSWER ONLY THE QUESTION -YOU TWIT. There is cause but there is no first cause. this CANNOT BE PROVEN. there is first cause from which all other causes originate. this CANNOT BE PROVEN.
FAITH, MY DEAR Q POPE, THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL NEED TO GET AN ANSWER. WASN'T IT THAT OLD FASCIST NIETZSCHE WHO SAID THAT BELIEF AND FAITH - PROVE NOTHING....
To repeat, this is purely a logical issue. It has nothing to do with taking things on faith, nor is it an issue which can be resolved by conducting scientific experiments. It is beyond both faith and science. It's a matter of logically investigating what a "thing" is and seeing whether it can ever arise without causes. And the answer is, no, it can't.
-