tharpa,
I should and will chew on this further now the fundamental meaning and context of the terms has been clarified. That said, my initial reaction is twofold. First, that this is an accurate observation; and the way you tie it in with post-modernist apologetics is pithy; and the way it makes certainty within the context of a multiverse with multiple perceptions therein is nifty.
But in terms of the multiverse principle, second: two different beings perceiving the same 'thing' demonstrate the 'emptiness' of such a 'thing'. For example, man sitting by pond. To man the water is dangerous to live in and air is home, whereas for fish the water is home and air is dangerous. Furthermore, it is almost certain that to each the other's home element appears to have different qualities. The heavy solidity of water (compared to air) for the human is probably not experienced as such for a fish - who floats and swims therein almost effortlessly. Thus the appearance of Water to the Man is not the Appearance of Water to the fish.
A few points need to be said here:
- You have no way of knowing whether other conscious beings really exist, other than as appearances in your own consciousness. If it appears that a fish exists and has different perceptions than you, then that is the identity of that particular appearance which is presented to your mind.
- Even if you assume that other beings really exist, the fact that they might perceive the same object differently to you doesn't have any bearing on the identity of that object. For it is simply a case of the same object being perceived differently.
- And as you allude to further down in your post, each appearance of the object that appears to each being's consciousness has its own specific identity.
So A = A is true only with the a-priori of the particular existens making the statement. Which (I believe) goes back to Goedel's theorem, that all logical statements depend upon a prioris outside the logic itself. (I am not a mathematician or philosopher/logician so perhaps this is incorrect, but that is my understanding from previous discussion with mathematicians and philosophers elsewhere.)
Goedel's theorems don't really come into it. The logic that each appearance necessarily has its own identity doesn't need to be supported by additional facts. It is something which is inherent in the nature of appearance itself. It is impossible for anything to appear without an identity of some kind. That is literally what appearance means.
Finally, however, A = A works even with this example in terms of the realm of Logic alone, and I suspect this is the point you are making with it: A = A is true for the man, and A = A is true for the fish. The fact that this means that there is no constant, fixed water (or air) in the mix is irrelevant. Indeed, that's the whole point: because even though nothing solid exists necessarily, the appearance does and the appearance, being the product of observer/being and the entire matrix of causes and conditions which have produced this moment of perception, is thus true, accurate, complete and perfect, whether it is so-called enlightened perception or so-called confused perception. Which is why there can be hell and human realms, for example. They are both mere appearance but also both 'true'. So even though we cannot know the 'objective' essence of water because we can only analyse it within the context of our own level of appearance (i.e. Man cannot know what water in pond is like for a fish even though this is clearly a 'truthful' view of water), we can know how it appears to us and that is truth. So for both fish and man A = A holds true.
Also, the idea of water objectively existing, beyond the realm of appearances, doesn't really mean anything. There is no such thing as objective existence, at bottom. At best, objective existence can only ever exist as an appearance.
Now, if I am on the right track that this is what you are saying with this: so what? What's the real point here?
Three main things come from it:
Firstly, the concept of A=A enables us to ground logic in the very nature of existence itself. We can establish that logic isn't a process which is disconnected from existence with its own arbitrary rules and so on. It enables us to see that the very essence of logic - namely, A=A - is identical to the very essence of existence itself (and of consciousness too, for that matter).
Secondly, it enables us to bring every kind of existence in the Universe together into the one basket, where they can be examined under the same light. It allows us to uncover the core truths which apply to all things.
Thirdly, all logical errors, all delusion, all irrationality, etc, basically spring from mental violations of A=A. So it helps us to iron out any flaws we may have in our thinking, to develop and refine our thinking to perfection.
-
