The affirmative nature of femininity

[keenobserver]

Yes

But you've been talking about it as though you know what it is and know that it exists. So your words above do not match with your actions.

I have a choice - I can go around whimpering "I'm not sure, I'm not sure" such that nobody will be particularly interested in anything that I have to say

And rightly so! - especially if you are saying things with confidence, but then saying that you aren't at all sure about what you are saying.

or I can - despite my uncertainty - venture boldness and confidence in the beliefs that I find most plausible and useful, and make a real contribution to the conversation.

There's another alternative, which is the honest approach. Instead of making bold statements about things of which you do not know, you can simply ask intelligent questions and see whether you can draw any useful conclusions from the answers.

Now that you know my position, is there really any need for me to preface each statement that I make with: "I'm not totally sure, but perhaps..."? Just know that it's perpetually implied.

You'd be better off framing your questions in the mode of "What if . . . ", as that way it would be less misleading.

In the modern, civilised world

That's a laugh.

do we still practice slavery? Do we still lock up the mentally deranged in straightjackets?

We do things equally bad.

What you are calling "civilization" is only a thin veneer.

The problem is not that people don't learn anything, but that we learn imperfectly.

As I say, I haven't seen evidence of that. What appears on the surface to be an advancement in civilization, is an illusion. At heart, people are the same animals they have always been. And in many respects, intellectually and spiritually, we are going backwards in great leaps and bounds.

The explanation I give: Sure, we are slowly advancing, but part of that advance (and i could add, at great cost to particular groups) has required or demanded this backstepping of modern times, namely and for the most part an attempt at the advancement of a huge segment of our race - females. Unfortunately the idea has been limited to the concept of "fairness" and such, and not a changing-into-men thing necessarily.

Our "slow" advancement finally reached consciousness of what we were doing to women and their hopeful potential, our self conviction and such. From here the powers that be had two choices and still do, either open the doors of opportunity to existing women and to their minds, or 2, consider a medical/scientific approach which is much more invasive and not seen as necessary or critical to most. Unless the wisest attain power no such thing is likely.

But the point is, yes we are oh-too-slowly advancing a bit but the path we have taken is costing us dearly and may turn out in the end to be a poor decision; that is to consider firstly the current crop of women, if you will, as opposed to considering most a total loss and investing energy instead in only the youngest hopefuls.
We've advanced enough to see that half of us should catch up, but not so much to know the best way to pull it off, at least those in charge dont know the best way.

Though most believe a truly fantastic world is eons away, and though that is probably going to be the case at best, those in the know already know and have always known that we are merely a generation or two from a fantastic life on earth, if only people would see the value in becoming enlightened.

"I AM the WAY, and the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except by me"
Jesus meaning those before him with an interest should not be swayed by the false teachers of his day but instead learn under him, because he achieved certainty.

[Shardrol]

I wonder if you ever heard this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3AvigRGakA

Heh :)

Good grief, Leyla, what is that?

It was quite bizarre, especially the juxtaposition of this black-leather-coated creature attempting to be sexy & his conservatively-dressed audience of trained seals. Looking into his utterly vacant eyes was not a happy experience.
.

Perhaps "vacant" should be listed under "masculine traits" as it is most easily observed in men.

observe

To an extent he must have been acting, but I'm not sure that much vacancy can be faked.

I don't know where you get this. The kid in the video was quite creative with stop-motion percussion. He didn't seem vacant at all, he seemed very much there. He was making silly faces but his eyes were lively even when he was deliberately looking dumb.

The singer in the video posted by Leyla had a lot of fake animation where he was trying to appear sexual but if you looked into his eyes there was nobody home. I've seen eyes like that before: once in someone who had cowed a whole restaurant full of people into listening to him rant; another time in a man who walked alongside me as I was going home & then asked to use my bathroom. I looked into his eyes & saw that ''nobody home' look & suggested he use a nearby park. I feel quite certain he had the intention of assaulting me in some way if I'd let him in my apartment.

It's disturbing because they look inhuman. This is probably how Ted Bundy et al looked as they were hacking people up. But I've also seen eyes like that in women. Probably that woman who drowned her 5 children in the bathtub after chasing them around the house & catching them had eyes like that.
.

[keenobserver]

What Id like to know is, why this clinging to (what to people like me seems) nonsense, not worth the trouble. Why this apparent hatred of Truth? To fight indefinitely the idea of a=a?
What in the psychology or experience of an individual would bring about this malady that we so often see from seemingly bright men, often good young men? And why they never convert?
Have you considered that, Kevin? Or anyone else who has thought about it, or faced similar resistance.
In a way, it appears a desire for certainty is there, for truth, but what has happened to the mind to make that which one desires so difficult to see?
It seems such a common phenomenon in our times, does it come from the teachings of academics, or do early negative experiences play a significant part?
Ive never seen one such as this good fellow ever flip, ever "see the light". why is that?
For myself Truth seems obvious as hell, though Im not so good at explaining it.
(OK to begin a new thread)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I've seen eyes like that before: once in someone who had cowed a whole restaurant full of people into listening to him rant; another time in a man who walked alongside me as I was going home & then asked to use my bathroom. I looked into his eyes & saw that ''nobody home' look & suggested he use a nearby park. I feel quite certain he had the intention of assaulting me in some way if I'd let him in my apartment.

It's disturbing because they look inhuman.

There's a difference between the vacant, has an IQ not much above some of the mentally retarded clients I used to take care of and the inhuman psychopath.

As far as the kid in the video trying to look dumb, there is only so much difference a person can make. I just did an example round, just for you. This morning, here I am not trying to look like anything as a baseline shot, here I am trying to look like I'm paying attention for one end of the intentional spectrum, and here I am trying to look vacant (the other end of the spectrum of intent). In comparison, here is one of the shots I took when people were talking about putting actual faces up as our avatars. I was dead tired after a streak of insomnia, and didn't want to post that because I thought I looked too slutty. Only so much vacancy can be faked, and the rest reflects an empty head.
.

[keenobserver]

Perhaps this would be a good time to work out what definition of "insane" we're using!

"The state where the apparently illogical is transcended by higher systems of rationality."

.

Laird,
Did you misread me?
Thats your working def of "insane"??

[Laird]

So if everything is interdependent, then why choose thought as your basis of reality as opposed to some other random conception such as "chemicals" or "quantum mechanics"?

All these things are thoughts.

there is no reality independent of this computer monitor.

All things are interdependent.

But why prefer the idea that all things are thoughts as opposed to all things are chemicals or all things are quantum mechanics. Why, in other words, did you not instead answer me with "All these things are chemicals"?

If your sole reason is that "All things are interdependent", then there would seem to be no solid basis on which to prefer thought as the fundamental reality versus, say, a computer monitor - they are equally "things" upon which all else is "interdependent".

Laird: And where do the contents of the mind come from, if not from observation?

Kevin: I don't know where they come from. But they certainly come from somewhere.

Laird: You don't know - so what happened to all of that 100% certainty?

Kevin: There are countless things I am uncertain of. For example, I don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow.

OK, but let's get back to the point, which is whether philosophy depends on observation. You prefer to state that it depends on the contents of the mind. Would you say that some of the contents of the mind come from observation? And I'm not asking for certainty on this one, but where do you think the rest of the contents might come from?

Laird: So we make a choice whether to invest our will-power in logic or in randomness.

Kevin: You may use logic to hand your will over, in part, to a random process like the throw of a dice.

Please provide a firm definition of logic here, because you seem to be stretching it from the simple law of identity that you place such value on and into a process of decision making.

I would argue that not all decisions are logical - that due to cause and effect there is probably an ultimate (set of) reason(s) for a decision, but that we probably wouldn't always classify that process of causality as "logical". But I'm interested to know how you define logic, given that it's the basis of your truth.

Laird: Once we've made that choice though, logic no longer applies.

Kevin: You have to make the choice continually, since you are making choices every single moment.

Some choices, whilst continual, are implicit and not re-evaluated until some defining moment occurs. I am constantly making the choice not to in this moment burn my library books, and not to swallow my tongue, and not to shave my head - but these are not conscious choices - they are the implicit result of not making a positive choice. In the case of the dice, the positive choice would be to revert your decision to follow the result of the dice.

Laird: we do not need to make any decisions about whether the dice returns a random result, we merely follow the result

Kevin: But if the result isn't random - let's say the result of a dice throw is controlled by another person - then we're merely handing our will over to another person.

How would the result be any less random merely because someone else throws it? I'm assuming that you're suggesting that this other person loads the dice in some way. Why would you bring that into the picture?

Kevin: I don't think ["The Diceman" by Luke Reinhart]'s interesting at all, because he didn't make all his decisions by the roll of a dice. [...] He limited the throwing of the dice to only particular decisions, and he himself determined what the various results would entail.

Sure, there are limits to the extent to which you can subject your life to random forces, but I found the book to be a fascinating exploration of a life that was led to a fairly extreme extent by random choices.

Laird: Do you see the self-referential problem here? [that being the problem with using logic to decide that logic is the ultimate tool to use]

Kevin: There is no problem.

The problem is that logic relies on basic assumptions. In using logic to "prove" that logic is the ultimate tool to achieve ultimate truth, you first have to make the assumption that it is the ultimate tool by which to prove itself to be the ultimate tool to achieve ultimate truth. You can never get away from that basic assumption, no matter how much you want to later pull up the ladder and claim that you are living in a self-sustaining system. All that you can hope to do is to prove that your logic is a logically consistent system. I can't see how you can prove that it is an ultimate system unless you use something outside of itself - but what outside of logic would you use?

If you think, you must use logic.

Some forms of thinking are not based on logic. What about imaginative thinking, or remembrances?

And if you don't think, then you're unable to make any decisions at all.

So it does seem that you hold logic to be the only tool worth using for decision-making. I tend to agree that it is the most useful one, depending on how you define logic. I suspect that the definition that we are starting to converge on is a lot broader than just A=A.

Laird: If it's so simple, then it's no skin off your nose to prove it to interested people like me.

Kevin: You have the mistaken belief that you are able to understand simple things.

However I don't have the mistaken belief that you are capable of dealing with all challenges to your "absolute truth" - you have shied away from enough of them to disabuse me of this notion.

Laird: if a thing does not exist independently of perspective, then it does not exist absolutely.

Kevin: It is an absolute truth that things do not exist independently of all other thngs.

It's a strong possibility. I can imagine other possibilities though. What if at the very fundamental level - whatever that turns out to be - is a particle that has absolutely no dependence on anything else and that occasionally "decides" to send out a signal that affects other such particles, but that some such particles simply exist without interacting with anything else? Then there would be something that exists independently of all other things.

Laird: Finally, an admission that your truth is limited.

Kevin: Truth can never be other than what it is, so of course it is limited.

Then perhaps one day you will find a less limited truth.

[Laird]

keenobserver: Perhaps this would be a good time to work out what definition of "insane" we're using!

Laird: "The state where the apparently illogical is transcended by higher systems of rationality."

keenobserver: Laird,
Did you misread me?
Thats your working def of "insane"??

keenobserver, I forget the exact context of these quotes and without a search function on this board I'm not motivated to read back through 11 pages to find it. I seem to recall that I wasn't intending to provide a strict definition of insanity, but of something that you were referring to as insane. I was trying to imply though, that by our current mental models of sanity - involving a certain requirement for rationality of a certain form - that this would be viewed as insane. I'm sure that there are many other ways to define the word "insane", and probably broader ways too. Here's one possibility: "insanity is an inability to comprehend and to interact functionally with reality".

[Jamesh]

What if at the very fundamental level - whatever that turns out to be - is a particle that has absolutely no dependence on anything else and that occasionally "decides" to send out a signal that affects other such particles, but that some such particles simply exist without interacting with anything else?

Such a thing could not be fundamental. Properties such as "occasionally decides to send out a signal" requires parts that would create timing. The content of the outgoing signal would also have to be from parts of the thing. It is just a matter of fact that anything with parts must have been caused, and if it is caused (and has more than one property, which your example clearly has) then it cannot be something at "the very fundamental" level.

[Kevin Solway]

But why prefer the idea that all things are thoughts as opposed to all things are chemicals or all things are quantum mechanics.

Because it highlights the fact that all boundaries - including those of your so-called "fundamental particle" - are created by thought, by processing.

Why, in other words, did you not instead answer me with "All these things are chemicals"?

See above.

let's get back to the point, which is whether philosophy depends on observation. You prefer to state that it depends on the contents of the mind. Would you say that some of the contents of the mind come from observation? And I'm not asking for certainty on this one, but where do you think the rest of the contents might come from?

I'm only interested in things I can be certain of, so I'm not going to speculate on where the contents of mind come from, other than to say "from somewhere else".

Kevin: You may use logic to hand your will over, in part, to a random process like the throw of a dice.

Please provide a firm definition of logic here

The process of identification.

I would argue that not all decisions are logical

If a decision is not logical (does not involve correct identifications) then it is only madness. So it's not really a thought, or a decision at all.

For example, if I said that I was thirsty because I was not thirsty, and I was hungry because I was not hungry, etc - and if I was not intending to speak nonsense or some kind of poetry - then I would simply be insane.

that due to cause and effect there is probably an ultimate (set of) reason(s) for a decision, but that we probably wouldn't always classify that process of causality as "logical".

I make many decisions based on intuition, and it is perfectly logical to do so if you know that your intuitions are trustworthy.

I'm assuming that you're suggesting that this other person loads the dice in some way. Why would you bring that into the picture?

I just illustrating that you can't avoid logic, no matter what you decide to do. Even if you want to hand over your decisions to the roll of a dice, you have to first convince yourself that the dice is not being fully determined by the will of another person.

Another example is the foolish Christian. If he hands his will over to God, then he first has to judge God fully and decide whether God's will, in every aspect, is worthy. So instead of God judging him, he is in fact judging God.

The problem is that logic relies on basic assumptions

Not when you understand what logic is, it doesn't.

Your above statement depends on basic assumptions which are false assumptions.

Think about it. What assumption does it make to say that a thing is none other than what it is?

You are repeating scripts without examining the question at hand.

In using logic to "prove" that logic is the ultimate tool to achieve ultimate truth

You can't "prove" that logic is the ultimate tool. However, logic indicates that it is (though it doesn't prove it).

Have a read of Weininger's chapters on logic if you're interested in an expanded discussion of it. And then, after you've done that, reply to the forum with any thoughts you have about it.

If you think, you must use logic.

Some forms of thinking are not based on logic. What about imaginative thinking, or remembrances?

As with dreams, all these thoughts are fully logical, so long as they are conscious thoughts.

However, even intuitive, "unconscious thoughts" are fully logical in the sense that they are caused and have effects.

Truth can never be other than what it is, so of course it is limited.

Then perhaps one day you will find a less limited truth.

Any truth will be equally limited in that it will always be unable to be other than what it is.

[Laird]

Laird: What if at the very fundamental level - whatever that turns out to be - is a particle that has absolutely no dependence on anything else and that occasionally "decides" to send out a signal that affects other such particles, but that some such particles simply exist without interacting with anything else?

Jamesh: Such a thing could not be fundamental. Properties such as "occasionally decides to send out a signal" requires parts that would create timing. The content of the outgoing signal would also have to be from parts of the thing. It is just a matter of fact that anything with parts must have been caused, and if it is caused (and has more than one property, which your example clearly has) then it cannot be something at "the very fundamental" level.

OK, so then science examines the "fundamental" particle and finds that the reason that it sends out a signal at a particular time seems to be random but tempered by levels of probability - that it seems that nothing, not even an omniscient observer, can attribute a cause of any sort to this signalling process. In other words, at a fundamental level there is a basic uncertainty to reality that is ameliorated by the probability at which events will occur. The particle in any event can be considered to be distinct from the rest of reality in some sense, which is the point that I was hoping to make.

[Laird]

Laird: But why prefer the idea that all things are thoughts as opposed to all things are chemicals or all things are quantum mechanics.

Kevin: Because it highlights the fact that all boundaries - including those of your so-called "fundamental particle" - are created by thought, by processing.

In the absence of evidence - which you have not provided - I'm inclined rather to regard that "fact" as a statement of faith. As I've already stated, I find it far more likely that at least some boundaries are inherent and are observed. Physics comes up with so many laws and facts about reality that it seems very likely that the manifestations of these laws and facts are what we perceive as boundaries. Sure, there are some more abstract concepts such as "life" where we play a role in determining boundaries. But as for something simple like a book, I find it hard to believe that the set of paper pages bound together does not have an intrinsic boundary that I recognise rather than create.

Laird: Why, in other words, did you not instead answer me with "All these things are chemicals"?

Kevin: See above.

To me that looks like an answer of "because I prefer to view the world in terms of thought". Fine, but then that's a faith-based perspective, not an absolute truth.

Laird: let's get back to the point, which is whether philosophy depends on observation. You prefer to state that it depends on the contents of the mind. Would you say that some of the contents of the mind come from observation? And I'm not asking for certainty on this one, but where do you think the rest of the contents might come from?

Kevin: I'm only interested in things I can be certain of, so I'm not going to speculate on where the contents of mind come from, other than to say "from somewhere else".

Forgive me if I find that a little disappointing. You're not even willing to concede that observation plays a part in determining the contents of the mind?

Kevin: You may use logic to hand your will over, in part, to a random process like the throw of a dice.

Laird: Please provide a firm definition of logic here

Kevin: The process of identification.

I agree that there is a process to logic. There is though also the question of "once identified, then how do we proceed?" Would you include that question and its answer as part of the logical process?

Laird: I would argue that not all decisions are logical

Kevin: If a decision is not logical (does not involve correct identifications) then it is only madness. So it's not really a thought, or a decision at all.

So you argue that a completely random decision made by the dice involves logic to the extent that the decision-maker has identified the dice as his/her means of decision-making?

Laird: that due to cause and effect there is probably an ultimate (set of) reason(s) for a decision, but that we probably wouldn't always classify that process of causality as "logical".

Kevin: I make many decisions based on intuition, and it is perfectly logical to do so if you know that your intuitions are trustworthy.

I agree that logic plays a major role in the human thought process - I wouldn't be able to engage you in a rational debate if I didn't. I argue though that logic is only as good as two things: firstly, its input assumptions and secondly, the rationality of the mind that implements it. Finally I argue that we don't (and as far as I can see, can't) know that there is not a higher logic of which we are unaware.

With regard to input assumptions, I argue that the human mind operates more in a feedback loop than in taking a straight line. It tests some set of input assumptions, sees where those assumptions lead, and depending on the result, modifies those input assumptions. That's very roughly expressed, but what I'm trying to say is that the human mind takes a position and is constantly engaged in trying to defend and evolve that position. The more minimalist the position, the easier it is to defend and the more open one is to evolution of one's ideas. That's why I make as few claims as necessary.

Another example is the foolish Christian. If he hands his will over to God, then he first has to judge God fully and decide whether God's will, in every aspect, is worthy. So instead of God judging him, he is in fact judging God.

Or perhaps he makes an initial assumption that by definition God's will is good, just as you make an initial assumption in your philosophy that a boundary of necessity requires something outside of the boundary.

Laird: The problem is that logic relies on basic assumptions

Kevin: [...] Think about it. What assumption does it make to say that a thing is none other than what it is?

I've already told you that I can imagine (if not implement) a logic where a thing can be other than what it is, so clearly in the absence of logical proof to the contrary, what you have just stated is an article of faith: an assumption.

Laird: In using logic to "prove" that logic is the ultimate tool to achieve ultimate truth

Kevin: You can't "prove" that logic is the ultimate tool. However, logic indicates that it is (though it doesn't prove it).

Right, well that's all that I'm trying to say: as far as we can see, there's no absolute truth, just a strong indication. (I haven't got around to reading Weininger yet, but I intend to)

Kevin: If you think, you must use logic.

Laird: Some forms of thinking are not based on logic. What about imaginative thinking, or remembrances?

Kevin: As with dreams, all these thoughts are fully logical, so long as they are conscious thoughts.

However, even intuitive, "unconscious thoughts" are fully logical in the sense that they are caused and have effects.

So now you're expanding your definition of logic to be "that which is a part of causality". So it seems that your earlier definition of logic as "the process of identification" was not the complete one - agreed?

Kevin: Truth can never be other than what it is, so of course it is limited.

Laird: Then perhaps one day you will find a less limited truth.

Kevin: Any truth will be equally limited in that it will always be unable to be other than what it is.

Perhaps there is a truth that goes beyond our idle speculations and into limitlessness. Perhaps not, but it's comforting to speculate.

[keenobserver]

Laird

Right, well that's all that I'm trying to say: as far as we can see, there's no absolute truth, just

!
Wrong!
As far as I can see, there is nothing but absolute truth!
Everywhere I look, there it is again, REALITY REALITY everywhere Ultimate Reality!

[David Quinn]

Laird wrote:

I've already told you that I can imagine (if not implement) a logic where a thing can be other than what it is,

What's an example?

-

[keenobserver]

Laird wrote:

I've already told you that I can imagine (if not implement) a logic where a thing can be other than what it is,

What's an example?

-

No, there's probably a misprint, because Laird actually wrote
"All that I can say is that I cannot yet imagine how.."
Unless he has a split personality, one having a better imagination than the other. That would explain everything.
Laird=Laird=P1
Laird=P2
P1=P2
P1=notP2

[Laird]

Laird: I've already told you that I can imagine (if not implement) a logic where a thing can be other than what it is,

David: What's an example?

I can't give an example of an exact system, because as I wrote I can't imagine it in enough detail to implement it (although as I've written elsewhere, George Orwell came up with a slightly scary one - the concept of doublethink in his novel, 1984). I've already given two examples that suggest the possibility to me at least though. The first was the dream state, where one thing (a chair) is simultaneously another thing (a chocolate rabbit). Kevin's response was that it isn't that they are two different things simultaneously, but that one thing morphs into another. Perhaps so, but I also feel that for a certain period of time the one thing is the other - that the object has no fixed identity.

The other example that I gave is in the perspectives that different people take on various situations in everyday life. To the one person, George was very angry under the surface and only just held it back, to the other person, George was the very essence of calmness - one situation, two different identities. (it's even more interesting to consider that George himself has a perspective on his own behaviour, and to speculate that even this perspective is not necessarily an absolute one - how well does he really know himself?)

[Laird]

Laird: I've already told you that I can imagine (if not implement) a logic where a thing can be other than what it is,

keenobserver: No, there's probably a misprint, because Laird actually wrote
"All that I can say is that I cannot yet imagine how.."
Unless he has a split personality, one having a better imagination than the other. That would explain everything.

The two statements aren't contradictory if you allow some leeway for interpretation: what I mean is that I can imagine the possibility of such a thing, but as to the details and form of it, I cannot imagine it, although I have some inklings.

[Laird]

Laird: Right, well that's all that I'm trying to say: as far as we can see, there's no absolute truth, just

keenobserver: !
Wrong!
As far as I can see, there is nothing but absolute truth!
Everywhere I look, there it is again, REALITY REALITY everywhere Ultimate Reality!

OK, cool - I see that too. But when you ask yourself the questions: how and why, in an ultimate sense - by what absolute truth do you answer? I haven't found any yet. There might be some, but I don't even know how I'd recognise it if I did find it - perhaps it wouldn't even be accompanied by one of those "aha" moments.

[Kevin Solway]

I've already given two examples that suggest the possibility to me at least though. The first was the dream state, where one thing (a chair) is simultaneously another thing (a chocolate rabbit). Kevin's response was that it isn't that they are two different things simultaneously, but that one thing morphs into another.

Actually, I didn't say that the first morphs into the second, but that first there is a chair, and then there is something else (a chocolate rabbit). The second thing may have nothing to do with the first.

Perhaps so, but I also feel that for a certain period of time the one thing is the other - that the object has no fixed identity.

The above words are meaningless, so can't be commented on. If the object had no fixed identity, it wouldn't even be an "object".

To the one person, George was very angry under the surface and only just held it back, to the other person, George was the very essence of calmness - one situation, two different identities.

No. Here we have two situations and two different identities. The first situation is what one person perceives, and the second situation is what another person perceives.

[Laird]

Actually, I didn't say that the first morphs into the second, but that first there is a chair, and then there is something else (a chocolate rabbit). The second thing may have nothing to do with the first.

So then how do you explain my confusion in the dream at finding that what I thought was one thing is another, if not that they refer to the same thing?

Laird: To the one person, George was very angry under the surface and only just held it back, to the other person, George was the very essence of calmness - one situation, two different identities.

Kevin: No. Here we have two situations and two different identities. The first situation is what one person perceives, and the second situation is what another person perceives.

I suggest the possibility that they refer to some happening in an external reality so that there is in fact one situation which takes on a different identity in different minds - and who is to know which identity is "absolutely true"?

[Kevin Solway]

Actually, I didn't say that the first morphs into the second, but that first there is a chair, and then there is something else (a chocolate rabbit). The second thing may have nothing to do with the first.

So then how do you explain my confusion in the dream at finding that what I thought was one thing is another, if not that they refer to the same thing?

You made the mistake of thinking that the two things were associated with each other.

Laird: To the one person, George was very angry under the surface and only just held it back, to the other person, George was the very essence of calmness - one situation, two different identities.

Kevin: No. Here we have two situations and two different identities. The first situation is what one person perceives, and the second situation is what another person perceives.

I suggest the possibility that they refer to some happening in an external reality so that there is in fact one situation which takes on a different identity in different minds - and who is to know which identity is "absolutely true"?

A "suggestion of a possibility" doesn't really mean anything.

Even if there is one object in the external world which is playing a part in causing the perception of different identities in different minds, so what?

[keenobserver]

Laird: I've already told you that I can imagine (if not implement) a logic where a thing can be other than what it is,

keenobserver: No, there's probably a misprint, because Laird actually wrote
"All that I can say is that I cannot yet imagine how.."
Unless he has a split personality, one having a better imagination than the other. That would explain everything.

The two statements aren't contradictory if you allow some leeway for interpretation: what I mean is that I can imagine the possibility of such a thing, but as to the details and form of it, I cannot imagine it, although I have some inklings.

No you cant imagine the possibility of such a thing.

Not anymore than I can imagine the possibility that Custards Last Stand occured yesterday, or the possibility that Elvis was really a woman, or the possibility that a circle is square in shape.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . or the possibility that Elvis was really a woman

. . . actually, you could imagine that Elvis was really a woman, since his face did have somethng of a feminine quality, and he may well have had a taste for fancy clothes, and he seems to have had little interest in philosophy.

But you are correct that you could never imagine that a circular shape had a square shape.

[keenobserver]

Laird: Right, well that's all that I'm trying to say: as far as we can see, there's no absolute truth, just

keenobserver: !
Wrong!
As far as I can see, there is nothing but absolute truth!
Everywhere I look, there it is again, REALITY REALITY everywhere Ultimate Reality!

OK, cool - I see that too. But when you ask yourself the questions: how and why, in an ultimate sense - by what absolute truth do you answer? I haven't found any yet. There might be some, but I don't even know how I'd recognise it if I did find it - perhaps it wouldn't even be accompanied by one of those "aha" moments.

No, you dont have any idea what Im talking about.

If ever that time should come for you - and dont bet anything that you cant afford to loose - then you will no longer ask how and why, you would have gained new eyes and realize immediately why there is no why.

But I promise that that time will never come for you if you remain unteachable.

[keenobserver]

. . . or the possibility that Elvis was really a woman

. . . actually, you could imagine that Elvis was really a woman, since his face did have somethng of a feminine quality, and he may well have had a taste for fancy clothes, and he seems to have had little interest in philosophy.

But you are correct that you could never imagine that a circular shape had a square shape.

He has, had a child, dont you know?
In those days a dick was still required.

[David Quinn]

Laird,

Laird: I've already told you that I can imagine (if not implement) a logic where a thing can be other than what it is,

David: What's an example?

Laird: I can't give an example of an exact system, because as I wrote I can't imagine it in enough detail to implement it (although as I've written elsewhere, George Orwell came up with a slightly scary one - the concept of doublethink in his novel, 1984). I've already given two examples that suggest the possibility to me at least though. The first was the dream state, where one thing (a chair) is simultaneously another thing (a chocolate rabbit). Kevin's response was that it isn't that they are two different things simultaneously, but that one thing morphs into another. Perhaps so, but I also feel that for a certain period of time the one thing is the other - that the object has no fixed identity.

Even in this situation, the thing is what it is in any given moment and not something else. Even a chair that is morphing into a rabbit is simply that - a chair morphing into a rabbit. Even a half-chair/half-rabbit is precisely that - a half-chair/half rabbit. So your example here is a poor one.

What you need to grasp is that it is impossible to point to examples of a thing not being itself without automatically confirming that the thing you are pointing is indeed itself. It doesn't matter what you point to, the thing you are pointing to will always be itself and not something else.

The other example that I gave is in the perspectives that different people take on various situations in everyday life. To the one person, George was very angry under the surface and only just held it back, to the other person, George was the very essence of calmness - one situation, two different identities. (it's even more interesting to consider that George himself has a perspective on his own behaviour, and to speculate that even this perspective is not necessarily an absolute one - how well does he really know himself?)

The one situation creating two different interpretations within two different observers is hardly an example of A not equally A. This is another poor example.

-