Contradiction in the Law of Identity

[Kunga]

If two waves meet, and one wave has a peak, and the other wave has a dip then they add up to flat. It works with water, light, anything....http://astro-canada.ca/_en/a2313.php1 + -1 = 0So when you have a flat line between you, and something else, you are not passing a message to each other.

Yes...the message just goes right over their heads ! lol

So the principal of this, is when there is activity between 2 waves you will get wave activity[communication] [constructive interference]

When the activity is going in the other direction[dips and troughs] [destructive activity] their is no communication because they have merged as one ? [no message/no messenger] ???

:)

or the hole gets filled and then it is flat on top ? [one]

[Pincho Paxton]

If two waves meet, and one wave has a peak, and the other wave has a dip then they add up to flat. It works with water, light, anything....http://astro-canada.ca/_en/a2313.php1 + -1 = 0So when you have a flat line between you, and something else, you are not passing a message to each other.

Yes...the message just goes right over their heads ! lol

So the principal of this, is when there is activity between 2 waves you will get wave activity[communication] [constructive interference]

When the activity is going in the other direction[dips and troughs] [destructive activity] their is no communication because they have merged as one ? [no message/no messenger] ???

:)

or the hole gets filled and then it is flat on top ? [one]

Yes, so if your atoms flat lined they would fall apart, and you would not be at one with yourself. However air, and water, and gravity help you to retain flow through your body. Warmth from another person is a flow through the air. But the flow in space is much more limited, so it is harder to keep a message connecting everything together. If we were at one with the Universe we would carry some of its weight anyway. Even a flow of water from a hose is not joined together, it has gaps in it.

But I think that philosophically you can be at one with your environment. Perhaps a couple of miles. Scent, and warmth, and the butterfly effect.

[Dennis Mahar]

Not chair is something that we call a chair, and I can see emptiness.

Does chair exist or appear to exist?

[Pincho Paxton]

Not chair is something that we call a chair, and I can see emptiness.

Does chair exist or appear to exist?

It depends on scale. Water is wet to us, but sticky to a fly. A chair we can sit on, but an elephant can't, and at another scale a chair is home for woodworm. So Enlightenment includes being able to change your scale of vision.

[Dennis Mahar]

Does chair exist or appear to exist?

[Pincho Paxton]

Does chair exist or appear to exist?

Both at the same time, and neither.

[Kunga]

http://brewblog.beerbarons.org/label_images/porter.jpg

[Dennis Mahar]

Does chair exist or appear to exist?

[Dennis Mahar]

seeker,

how do you prepare a conversation about nothing as nothing and have it not mean something.

you can't.

I found out,
I am Spirit; a beautiful, shimmering nothing emptiness.
I am clear and formless.
I am not an epiphenomenon of matter.

Being mindful of myself as nothing in particular,
all labels assigned to me are like water off a duck's back.

I step forward into nothing.

I don't know how I came to be.
I know for certain who I am.

[oxytocinNA]

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Law-of- ... tradictory

Is Law of Identity really irrefutable?

I recently stumbled upon this article:

We hear this claim all the time:

“The Law of Identity A=A (A is A) is self-evident. Each thing is the same as itself. There is no way around it. All of existence depends on it. Without it, you wouldn’t exist, wouldn’t be able to think, wouldn’t be able to talk intelligibly, wouldn’t be able to blah blah.....”

I have been around long enough to see a variety of arguments on this - including the quoted article (which is poorly written). Frankly - too tired to read through all the replies - so I hope this isn't a repeat.

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.

To me this reads: A (the existent in question) is A (defined by that which characterizes it)

Not: A (an existent - i.e. a bird) = A (an existent - i.e. a bird)

You can quibble over the the structure - A is A, but at least get the meaning right.

From a human point of view...

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.

... but surely enlightenment means to see things as they really are? To be enlightened you would be able to see nature as it really is without delusion. And Aristotle was speaking of a delusion.

To see an existent as it is (it's specific nature - it's characteristics) - is the goal of a rational individual.

Please feel free to point out what is delusional about the quote:"Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is."

[oxytocinNA]

Not chair is something that we call a chair, and I can see emptiness.

Does chair exist or appear to exist?

It depends on scale. Water is wet to us, but sticky to a fly. A chair we can sit on, but an elephant can't, and at another scale a chair is home for woodworm. So Enlightenment includes being able to change your scale of vision.

Because the water is what we call wet - but is sticky to a fly - is not changing the nature / characteristics of water. You are merely pointing out that definitions are often incomplete.
The chair example: typically has four leg (but not necessarily), and back support - designed by homo sapiens for homo sapiens. Other animals might not be able to sit on it. It can be constructed from various materials ...etc. etc.

[Dennis Mahar]

Please feel free to point out what is delusional about the quote:"Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is."

Nothing exists independent of a mental act that designates the properties, characteristics and functions attributed to it.

To be rational is to have it in its ratio or correct perspective.
You cannot exclude the mental act.

Quit muckin' about.

[Leyla Shen]

To me this reads: A (the existent in question) is A (defined by that which characterizes it)

Not: A (an existent - i.e. a bird) = A (an existent - i.e. a bird)

OR:

1) A (the existent in question) is A (defined by that which characterizes it)

Thus:

2) A (an existent - i.e. a bird) = A (an existent - i.e. a bird)

Works the other way around, too; i.e., (2) thus (1).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Dennis,

Forever there is the experience of person and the assumption "I'm this person", but there is awareness only, no particular thing besides that which passes by.

And technically you do know how you came to be as you know you never came to be.

[Dennis Mahar]

you wouldn't want to play the nihilist card would you seeker?

watchin' the wheels go 'round.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I only use cards with proper explanations, not references to someone else's view when I'm sure those views are varying.

[Pincho Paxton]

Einstein used the term Relative. the chair is relative to whoever, or whatever is looking at it, and at what scale. If we were in a pub, and you pointed at a chair, and said "Does that chair exist?" I would say "Yes!" Because we are both relative to the chair in the pub, and looking at it with our eyes. So now we have the same information shared between us. But talking on the internet we are connected by minds, and no images. I do not know your relative thoughts of a chair, I do not know what scale your mind is looking at the chair.. it could be looking at the atoms for all I know. So without a relative shared dimension we cannot agree on whether the chair exists or not.

I can see the chair in many different ways at once. At the human scale the chair exists. At the molecular scale all you see are atoms. You can go smaller until all you see is time. Then you can study the mind that is viewing the chair. The chair is being calculated from different sets of rules.

So the answer to the question is that Enlightened minds look at a chair in all situations. No single question, and answer will fit all situations.

[Pincho Paxton]

seeker,

how do you prepare a conversation about nothing as nothing and have it not mean something.

you can't.

I found out,
I am Spirit; a beautiful, shimmering nothing emptiness.
I am clear and formless.
I am not an epiphenomenon of matter.

Being mindful of myself as nothing in particular,
all labels assigned to me are like water off a duck's back.

I step forward into nothing.

I don't know how I came to be.
I know for certain who I am.

Nothing doesn't exist. If nothing existed the Universe would not exist. You can't say that I have found a small piece of nothing, because it is surrounded by the Universe. Zero is not nothing, it is two things combined together. You can't have a conversation about something that doesn't exist.

We could have a conversation about your mind however. Why do you believe that you exist in nothing? What do you gain from saying that?

If you want to achieve real enlightenment you need to say that nothing doesn't exist. So you have gone in the wrong direction.

[Dennis Mahar]

infinite,
not a thing.
nothing.
recognise the spiritual nature of all beings please.
for the 24 billionth trillionth time infinite means not a thing.
a quality not a quantity.




does chair exist or appear to exist?

there's a growing trend in neuroscience these days conforming with Buddha's view,
that universe exists in the head as an unconscious projection believed in.

[Pincho Paxton]

infinite,
not a thing.
nothing.
recognise the spiritual nature of all beings please.
for the 24 billionth trillionth time infinite means not a thing.
a quality not a quantity.




does chair exist or appear to exist?

there's a growing trend in neuroscience these days conforming with Buddha's view,
that universe exists in the head as an unconscious projection believed in.

You can't just change words to mean whatever you want. Infinite does not mean nothing...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinite

If you are just changing words, how do you expect anyone to understand you?

does chair exist or appear to exist?

I've already answered that two or three times.

[Dennis Mahar]

infinite
not finite

I've already answered that two or three times

wrong answer
phone a friend

[Pincho Paxton]

infinite
not finite

I've already answered that two or three times

wrong answer
phone a friend

Not finite does not mean nothing either. This seems to be a Dennis Mahar only answer. A chair is whatever Dennis Mahar wants it to be. You seem to be positioning yourself above logic. Logic comes first, and whatever answers you want to hear will will have to obey logic.

The Dennis Mahar book of facts are all in Dennis Mahar's head.

Read what Infinity means...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

[Cahoot]

Seems like the concept of "chair" exists whether or not a particular person is aware of the concept.

After a particular person is aware of the concept, then chair can be facsimiled into form based on the concept of chair by arranging other forms into the chair form.

An existing form can also exist as a chair form without being altered, based on the concept of chair. Think, rock formation.

The form unrecognized as chair exists as undifferentiated form because it is not associated with the concept of chair form by the particular person who perceives the form, though it may actually meet the criteria of the unknown concept. Chair unrecognized as chair still exists as chair.

(Mountain or another noun, such as nihilist, may be substituted for "chair.")

[Dennis Mahar]

you already said Pincho, not chair is what we call chair.
chair happens as a result of an uncountable array of causes.

is the chair an uncountable array of causes or not.


the chair appears to be its own thing to the senses,
existing separately over there in the corner by itself

[Kunga]

Dennis...you sound like you're trying to train a dog.
What's next ?
The shock collar ???