Denying A=A

[Kevin Solway]

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?
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?

Fear.

I think that's all it is. Fear of where it might lead.

The whole world is insane - so what will happen if you start thinking and finding absolute answers? You will be on your own, totally isolated from the rest of the world, and everyone will think you are insane.

If you're not strong enough to shoulder that, then you just have to go with the herd - and denying that A=A is one way to do that.

[Faust]

keenobserver pretty much answered his own question, it seemed like he implied it too.

[LooF]

let's say here comes a man that can do anything

he changes A to a B

then it becomes B=B, and A=A still remains true



but there is a way in which it can be changed

but it's a paradox that cannot be understood

can something that cannot happen happen?

[Kevin Solway]

I'm not sure what you are arguing, Loof.

he changes A to a B

This is the questionable part.

Once he has the "B", then that's all he has. (B = B).

What "B" used to be is only speculation.

[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?
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?

Fear.

I think that's all it is. Fear of where it might lead.

The whole world is insane - so what will happen if you start thinking and finding absolute answers? You will be on your own, totally isolated from the rest of the world, and everyone will think you are insane.

If you're not strong enough to shoulder that, then you just have to go with the herd - and denying that A=A is one way to do that.

Sure, we all have dealt with fear with various outcomes.
However, If the prize is very great and in sight friends do not compare.
So I reckon the prize is not very well in sight, and the curiosity is lacking to edge closer, balanced by fear.
Yeah, a lacking of the explorers heart, the investigator.
But many with a thirst for knowledge refuse ultimate knowledge, especially if that knowledge brought many gifts for the ego.
Seems like a combination of factors, traits. You got to have the right combination.
I used to need to belong, but I can say as you grow closer to God things and people become much less important (to the ego)
and life without them becomes finer in so many ways.
Yeah, balls come in handy, perhaps its the testosterone.

Theres a point where the view is too tempting to go back.
I suppose if you dont get that far you'll never go the rest of the way.

I could add, may be that fear would be much less by adulthood if a good masculine example was present in the early years.
The mammas-boys may have the hardest time of it.
With fathers absent so much these days its no wonder.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Feh. I've never seen anyone say anything about this "A=A" proposition beyond the fact that it's true. Pavlov would be quite fascinated by how well we've all learned to drool on command. Or, as the case may be, make the noises or pen the scribbles that we've been trained to do in response to the given stimuli.

I imagine it never occurs to some that asking if "A=A" is true is akin to asking if "cat" is true. We should certainly be compelled to respond to the later by asking what about cats we are supposed to be giving our opinion on. Yet, for some odd reason, we take "A=A" to be expressive of some fact that simply saying "cat" doesn't. We would certainly use more words to express that a cat is a cat, but how is it that a cat should ever not be cat? I cannot visualize such a thing. In fact, it could only be considered false if the meaning of "is" were different then we know it to be from our empirical observations.

There is, admittedly, something rather comfortingly simple about "A=A". You've got your equals sign being used in exactly the way that it's intended to be used. It seems altogether proper. We should want to say that it is "true" and "right", with no fear that someone should question it on the grounds that it is meaningless. It's just an assertion you can feel confident about, and perhaps a guideline for how we can make equally meaningless statements that are beyond question. To be genius is to know what is "true" after all, and who doesn't want to be a genius? If you can acquire for yourself the title without putting your balls on the line by saying something meaningful enough to be doubted, well, why not?

I don't know though... it seems rather (dare I say) "womanish" to me. No offense to any ladies reading this, of course, as I'm using the term "womanish" in a way that doesn't relate to women at all. I don't know why I'd want to do that, but I figure that it must just be ol' Pavlov ringing his bell.

[Faust]

Feh. I've never seen anyone say anything about this "A=A" proposition beyond the fact that it's true. Pavlov would be quite fascinated by how well we've all learned to drool on command. Or, as the case may be, make the noises or pen the scribbles that we've been trained to do in response to the given stimuli.

I imagine it never occurs to some that asking if "A=A" is true is akin to asking if "cat" is true. We should certainly be compelled to respond to the later by asking what about cats we are supposed to be giving our opinion on. Yet, for some odd reason, we take "A=A" to be expressive of some fact that simply saying "cat" doesn't. We would certainly use more words to express that a cat is a cat, but how is it that a cat should ever not be cat? I cannot visualize such a thing. In fact, it could only be considered false if the meaning of "is" were different then we know it to be from our empirical observations.

There is, admittedly, something rather comfortingly simple about "A=A". You've got your equals sign being used in exactly the way that it's intended to be used. It seems altogether proper. We should want to say that it is "true" and "right", with no fear that someone should question it on the grounds that it is meaningless. It's just an assertion you can feel confident about, and perhaps a guideline for how we can make equally meaningless statements that are beyond question. To be genius is to know what is "true" after all, and who doesn't want to be a genius? If you can acquire for yourself the title without putting your balls on the line by saying something meaningful enough to be doubted, well, why not?

I don't know though... it seems rather (dare I say) "womanish" to me. No offense to any ladies reading this, of course, as I'm using the term "womanish" in a way that doesn't relate to women at all. I don't know why I'd want to do that, but I figure that it must just be ol' Pavlov ringing his bell.

Oh shit, Wittgenstein's back...

[keenobserver]

I dont see how "cat" and a=a is the same, cat is just cat, a=a implies a thing is not something else but what it is.
A cat is not something else but what it is TOO, but that would be cat=cat, not just your "cat".

However meoooww=feed me

[ExpectantlyIronic]

keenobserver,

I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. It means nothing to say that a thing is what it is. To know that provides one with no additional knowledge about reality, except in terms of understanding the English language. It's true because of how the word "is" gets used, and has no real significance. Whereas, if I were to know that snow is white I'd have knowledge about something beyond simply how the terms "snow" and "white" are used. Certainly I'd need to understand them to express such a sentiment, but it's possible to imagine someone understanding that snow is white without knowing a language. Whereas I can't fathom someone thinking that a thing is itself without language. What would such a thought be like?

[Steven Coyle]

A=A, 0,1

Both describe how the mind operates. When you know how the mind functions, the process of opening up to the true nature of reality is made that much more apparent.

A=A > Causality > Emptiness, all ingredients in a formula, once properly understood, what remains is a mind that naturally operates as A=A.

There is a reason that Buddhists say "Your own mind is Buddha."

[clyde]

Since "Your own mind is Buddha," there is nothing to be enlightened : )

[Steven Coyle]

Well, not exactly :)

Recognizing that "the mind is Buddha" is an enlightening process.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Coyle,

Both describe how the mind operates. When you know how the mind functions, the process of opening up to the true nature of reality is made that much more apparent.

Okay. I have to ask. How exactly does "A=A" describe how the mind functions?

[Steven Coyle]

ExpectantlyIronic,

A=A represents the mind's ability to isolate phenomena.

What's brought to the mind excludes all else.

A=A.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Coyle,

A=A represents the mind's ability to isolate phenomena.

In that case A=A isn't an absolute truth by any shake of the stick. I can easily imagine why the mind might not go about isolating phenomena. For instance, I'd say that phenomena are simply pretty well isolated to begin with. Different things simply have different characteristics that result in different impressions being impinged upon our senses. Of course, to perceive a particular phenomenon triggers in our mind an idea of various characteristics that we infer said thing to have via automatic association, but those ideas were originally formed through interaction and thus perception of the object in question. It would seem that we should say we know that a tree is different from a rock because a tree is objectively different from a rock. Furthermore, I really don't see how "A=A" should stand for "the mind's ability to isolate phenomena" at all.

[Steven Coyle]

ExpectantlyIronic,

The mind naturally functions of its own accord. Its ability to "isolate phenomena" is how it operates, how it naturally distinguishes "tree from rock." This idenification process, while simple, is at the very heart of reality.

Now, when you add casuality and the empty nature of phenomena (which enables things to be idenified in the first place), you have yourself something indeed.

[iamsam]

a=b if you can truly believe it does, but nobody will ever be aware of that, exception yourself. ^--total nonsense
im glad you ended on the same topic that started, meandering pisses me off.

[Steven Coyle]

Thanks.

Sort of.

(How could A (any "thing") not equal itself?)