ABCs for QRS, X, Y & Z

[Beingof1]

Cause and effect is a concept that the rational mind uses to get at the lowest common denominator of existence.

It is like blowing into a balloon to see if it can keep expanding forever.

Eventually it pops and there is nothing left but that same air expanding beyond the boundary of the former balloon.

Soon the air is gone to.

[Sapius]

Rhett;

Since we know, and indeed you expouse, that causality exists as a thought, it is entirely inappropriate to refer to it as existing beyond thought, either in the past, elsewhere in the present, or in the future.

I think the crux of the matter lies in just this.

Sure, all of the above are thoughts, but what is it that facilitates the continuity of a thought? Are you saying that ‘thought’ does not exist? Or are you saying that ‘thought’ is not bound by time since it is all that there is, and all that there is, i.e. Totality, a thought, hence ‘it’ is not bound by time, since it is not an “it” at all, and hence cause and effect is irrelevant to a ‘thought’ itself? I could accept the latter, but what about the continuity of the thoughts as experienced interactively within the boundaries of textual meanings? What has the irrelevancy of cause and effect as applied to ‘thoughts’, ie Totality, got to do with the “internally”, logically deduced comparative approximations of things to come? Irrelevant of it”s empirical uncertainties. You do anticipate that I may or may not answer your post. Don’t you? Does the ultimately-ness of ‘thoughts’ nullify the “internal” logic of your anticipation? After all, which in the first place has indeed provided the logical understanding of the ultimately-ness of thought it-self? How else did you conclude what you have concluded? Not revelations I assume.

In my opinion, one cannot paint the whole of existence with a single stroke of brush; one needs to consider more than one “thing”, at the same time of course, to actually make some sense. For example…

After all, an appearance could not possibly occur in the absence of awareness. And neither could there be awareness in the absence of content - i.e. an appearance.

Two-in-One.

Or for example, one would need to logically conceptualize past, present and future, at the same TIME, i.e. NOW, to actually think anything about anything at all, relatively. It is a necessary part to understand the ultimately-ness of Totality, Thoughts; that would not mean that the NOW disappears along with its contents, or the awareness, logically existing as one interdependent harmony.

Keep going, you're doing well.

Seriously, am I? Well, my English is not what I would like it to be, but any ways…

[David Quinn]

Beingof1 wrote:

Cause and effect is a concept that the rational mind uses to get at the lowest common denominator of existence.

It is like blowing into a balloon to see if it can keep expanding forever.

Eventually it pops and there is nothing left but that same air expanding beyond the boundary of the former balloon.

Soon the air is gone to.

That's not a bad way of putting it. Cause and effect is a tool we can use to destroy everything in the Universe, and then, the moment this is accomplished, it automatically disappears itself, leaving nothing behind at all.

-

[Sapius]

Cause and effect is a concept that the rational mind uses to get at the lowest common denominator of existence.

It is like blowing into a balloon to see if it can keep expanding forever.

Eventually it pops and there is nothing left but that same air expanding beyond the boundary of the former balloon.

Soon the air is gone to.

Nice; but it makes me wonder where has all that air gone? What about the remnants of the balloon? What about my panting? Is it because all the air is gone or that I am exhausted from all that blowing? What about me who was actually outside the sphere of the balloon blowing the air? Where did that air come from? etc.

Mind you, I am simply wondering, not asking.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius wrote:

Or for example, one would need to logically conceptualize past, present and future, at the same TIME, i.e. NOW, to actually think anything about anything at all, relatively. It is a necessary part to understand the ultimately-ness of Totality, Thoughts; that would not mean that the NOW disappears along with its contents, or the awareness, logically existing as one interdependent harmony.

I'm thinking that the regular human being's life is a series of short, disjointed nows, whilst the genius's is an ever-expanding proposition. I reckon this is one way to explain the idea of an excellent memory coupled with the keen ability to reason.

[Rhett]

.

R: Since we know, and indeed you expouse, that causality exists as a thought, it is entirely inappropriate to refer to it as existing beyond thought, either in the past, elsewhere in the present, or in the future.

S: I think the crux of the matter lies in just this. Sure, all of the above are thoughts, but what is it that facilitates the continuity of a thought?

Continuity occurs between ideas that happen within a given thought. For there to be a sense of continuity, both ideas necessarily appear within a given thought. If there were only one idea within a thought, there would be nothing else with which it could be continuous. This continuity simply occurs, there is no need of causality.

One of the ideas may, for example, purport to be a representation of a previous idea, but whether it is or not is uncertain.

Are you saying that ‘thought’ does not exist?

No. Thought does exist. Remember that to appear is to exist.

Or are you saying that ‘thought’ is not bound by time since it is all that there is, and all that there is, i.e. Totality, a thought, hence ‘it’ is not bound by time, since it is not an “it” at all, and hence cause and effect is irrelevant to a ‘thought’ itself?

Thought is not bound by time or causality, because what is beyond thought is totally incapable of doing or being anything.

I could accept the latter, but what about the continuity of the thoughts as experienced interactively within the boundaries of textual meanings? What has the irrelevancy of cause and effect as applied to ‘thoughts’, ie Totality, got to do with the “internally”, logically deduced comparative approximations of things to come? Irrelevant of it”s empirical uncertainties.

Refer my first point in this post.

You do anticipate that I may or may not answer your post. Don’t you?

Occasionally.

Does the ultimately-ness of ‘thoughts’ nullify the “internal” logic of your anticipation? After all, which in the first place has indeed provided the logical understanding of the ultimately-ness of thought it-self? How else did you conclude what you have concluded? Not revelations I assume.

Any anticipation i have occurs in concert with the notion i am considering, so no, there is no 'nullification' of this logic by the nature of thought.

In my opinion, one cannot paint the whole of existence with a single stroke of brush; one needs to consider more than one “thing”, at the same time of course, to actually make some sense. For example…

After all, an appearance could not possibly occur in the absence of awareness. And neither could there be awareness in the absence of content - i.e. an appearance.

Two-in-One.

No, both appearance and awareness are one. When a flower is occuring, a flower is occuring, there is no duality. However, where causality is concerned, yes, there is two in one. There is a pool cue and a white ball, or a white ball and a coloured ball, or a coloured ball and a pocket, etc.

Or for example, one would need to logically conceptualize past, present and future, at the same TIME, i.e. NOW, to actually think anything about anything at all, relatively. It is a necessary part to understand the ultimately-ness of Totality, Thoughts;

that would not mean that the NOW disappears along with its contents, or the awareness, logically existing as one interdependent harmony.

When one thought is finished, it does disappear, along with it's contents. The awareness is gone, kaput. All that exists is the now. The King is dead. Long live the King.

.

[Sapius]

Rhett:

Continuity occurs between ideas that happen within a given thought. For there to be a sense of continuity, both ideas necessarily appear within a given thought. If there were only one idea within a thought, there would be nothing else with which it could be continuous. This continuity simply occurs, there is no need of causality.

You seem to have a strong dislike towards causality. :)

As a logically understanding thing, I cannot simply accept that continuity simply occurs. Did that conclusion simply appear? Or did you apply some causal logic to it? If the former, then I’m sorry, if the latter, then it would make me give some thought to it.

One of the ideas may, for example, purport to be a representation of a previous idea, but whether it is or not is uncertain.

What has that got to do with predictions of approximations?

Any anticipation i have occurs in concert with the notion i am considering, so no, there is no 'nullification' of this logic by the nature of thought.

So at least predictions are possible that are bound by this logic which deduce them through studying cause and effects.

No, both appearance and awareness are one. When a flower is occuring, a flower is occuring, there is no duality

Well, at any time, there is no just one idea in any particular thought. An idea of a ‘yellow flower’ cannot exist without the idea of what is not yellow, what is not a flower, that is, all its visual and mental contrasts which make you experience it as such. You could not think or talk about appearances if you were not aware of them. I consider awareness as logical deduction of appearances, not one and the same thing. If that is so, you need to logically explain me how, but then again, there is the factor of uncertainty, so never mind.

However, where causality is concerned, yes, there is two in one.

So what is causality actually concerned with?

[Rhett]

.

R: Continuity occurs between ideas that happen within a given thought. For there to be a sense of continuity, both ideas necessarily appear within a given thought. If there were only one idea within a thought, there would be nothing else with which it could be continuous. This continuity simply occurs, there is no need of causality.

S: You seem to have a strong dislike towards causality. :)

No, that's not true at all. Causality occurs in a conceptual manner within thought, and at its ultimate expression, is precisely what makes for genius. But causality does not inherently exist or exist outside thought. This truth does not mean i don't like causality.

I'll reply to the rest later.

.

[Sapius]

.

R: Continuity occurs between ideas that happen within a given thought. For there to be a sense of continuity, both ideas necessarily appear within a given thought. If there were only one idea within a thought, there would be nothing else with which it could be continuous. This continuity simply occurs, there is no need of causality.

S: You seem to have a strong dislike towards causality. :)

No, that's not true at all. Causality occurs in a conceptual manner within thought, and at its ultimate expression, is precisely what makes for genius. But causality does not inherently exist or exist outside thought. This truth does not mean i don't like causality.

That particular sentence did not warrant a response, hence the smiley. :) However...

Rhett, if you don’t mind me saying, we are actually simply going around in circles. Lets get to the point, shall we?

I understand your point of view regarding thoughts itself, but that is only one point of view as seen from the perspective of HOW do we meaningfully experience existence, unlike the animals or other “things” that possibly could be conscious of there existence. But, the human thought is such that it even questions as to HOW do the thoughts come to be? To simply say that they simply are, does not satisfy the logic, which the thoughts themselves recognize as a valid process based on comparative recognition. Can “thought” exist without comparative contents? Logically speaking, thought is a result of a certain process of recognition and deduction, a.k.a. thinking. If there is no “thinking” involved in your claim, say ultimately “no causality applies to thoughts”, then what is? You cannot escape thinking in thinking that too. It takes Two for One to exist, One cannot EXIST on its own. One-NESS of all does not mean ONE.

Further more, if you say that C&A does not apply to ‘thought’ itself, so be it, but still, what has that got to do with “internally” applying comparative recognition and logic to reach a most probable deduction? Which was the original point.

I am simply amazed to see how attached one can be, even after supposedly understanding the nature of existence to a great extant, the word and its ingrained meaning of being THE Absolute, God. In a way, you are giving that meaning to “thoughts”, David to “cause and effect” (however poetic that expression may be), and of course, other traditional ways. Why can’t one get over it already? Don’t answer that, I know. Just keep holding on, consciously, sub-consciously, or even transiently, that's all that I can say.

All that I know is, there be monsters on the either extreme ends of any spectrum, and all that there is, resides in the fraction of that everlasting moment of equilibrium. That does not mean that monsters do not exist, for the equilibrium cannot exist without having monsters at either end.

I'll reply to the rest later.

I will look forward to it isnce I have nothing better to do, for now.

[Sapius]

Sapius wrote:

Or for example, one would need to logically conceptualize past, present and future, at the same TIME, i.e. NOW, to actually think anything about anything at all, relatively. It is a necessary part to understand the ultimately-ness of Totality, Thoughts; that would not mean that the NOW disappears along with its contents, or the awareness, logically existing as one interdependent harmony.

I'm thinking that the regular human being's life is a series of short, disjointed nows, whilst the genius's is an ever-expanding proposition. I reckon this is one way to explain the idea of an excellent memory coupled with the keen ability to reason.

Leyla, I don’t really know about the intricate detailed differentiations as such, but I see that as long as one keeps giving inherent importance to any particular comparative deduction in its-self, rather than using it just as a tool, one will remain in the world of comparison itself. Now, recognizing the fact that there is no other world other than a comparative one, does not actually need the understanding of how excellent a memory coupled with a keen ability to reason must be working for a so called “genius”.

However, I’m not saying that you should not think the way you do, because eventually, it is what one is being exposed to which actually shapes the thinking. In my opinion, reasoning in itself is simply a process, what one thinks on or about, is a matter of cause and effect. Honestly speaking, who has that excellent a memory, at least not I.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius,

However, I’m not saying that you should not think the way you do, because eventually, it is what one is being exposed to which actually shapes the thinking.

And I would never understand you otherwise. :)

In my opinion, reasoning in itself is simply a process, what one thinks on or about, is a matter of cause and effect. Honestly speaking, who has that excellent a memory, at least not I.

One of the most impressive philosophic expositions I have read on the subject of memory is in Weininger's Sex & Character. (A revisit is well overdue on my part, I reckon. Perhaps I'll post some quotes for discussion.)

[Rhett]

.

R: Continuity occurs between ideas that happen within a given thought. For there to be a sense of continuity, both ideas necessarily appear within a given thought. If there were only one idea within a thought, there would be nothing else with which it could be continuous. This continuity simply occurs, there is no need of causality.

S: As a logically understanding thing, I cannot simply accept that continuity simply occurs. Did that conclusion simply appear? Or did you apply some causal logic to it? If the former, then I’m sorry, if the latter, then it would make me give some thought to it.

The conclusion did simply appear, and just afterwards, a verification of its logic simply appeared. Then, the two simply appeared melded together. The verification was that causality is wholly inapplicable to the hidden void.

R: One of the ideas may, for example, purport to be a representation of a previous idea, but whether it is or not is uncertain.

S: What has that got to do with predictions of approximations?

It shows that representations of what purportedly occurred previously, and predictions based upon them, are uncertain.

R: Any anticipation i have occurs in concert with the notion i am considering, so no, there is no 'nullification' of this logic by the nature of thought.

S: So at least predictions are possible that are bound by this logic which deduce them through studying cause and effects.

Yes.

R: No, both appearance and awareness are one. When a flower is occuring, a flower is occuring, there is no duality

S: Well, at any time, there is not just one idea in any particular thought. An idea of a ‘yellow flower’ cannot exist without the idea of what is not yellow, what is not a flower, that is, all its visual and mental contrasts which make you experience it as such. You could not think or talk about appearances if you were not aware of them. I consider awareness as logical deduction of appearances, not one and the same thing. If that is so, you need to logically explain me how, but then again, there is the factor of uncertainty, so never mind.

The experience i created and used as an example was the occurrence of a flower. There is every possibility of this occurring absent of any other phenomena. It may only be a brief appearance, but nonetheless, in that moment it is all there is.

The idea that all that is not the flower need also appear in that moment is flawed, as that would mean that an infinity of things occur in each and every moment. That certainly hasn't been my experience, and thank God for that.

R: However, where causality is concerned, yes, there is two in one.

S: So what is causality actually concerned with?

Causality is concerned with 'things', and the way they bump into each other over time.


.

[Sapius]

Rhett;

R: Any anticipation i have occurs in concert with the notion i am considering, so no, there is no 'nullification' of this logic by the nature of thought.

S: So at least predictions are possible that are bound by this logic which deduce them through studying cause and effects.

R: Yes

Well, that was all that I wanted to know, thanks.