Contradiction in the Law of Identity

[Dennis Mahar]

the electric chair

[Kunga]

.

[Kunga]

.

[Dennis Mahar]

good on ya' love,
thanks for setting it up for a joke to arrive.
what a team!

[Kunga]

.

[Dennis Mahar]

always already,
same shit different day

there seems to be an unspoken social contract people enrol in like a public mood.
put yourself in a box and keep a lid on it.

to look good is to look a certain way which looks aloof to me
spirit touching spirit is a no no

[Kunga]

.

[Dennis Mahar]

is that seeker?

[Leyla Shen]

Dennis:

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.

"Saint Max" (coined by Marx for Max Stirner):

I, for my part, draw the lesson from this and, instead of continuing to serve these great egoists, I should rather be an egoist myself!

Marx to St Max above:

Thus we see what holy motives guide Saint Max in his transition to egoism. It is not the good things of this world, not treasures which moth and rust corrupt, not the capital belonging to his fellow unique ones, but heavenly treasure, the capital which belongs to God, truth, freedom, mankind, etc., that gives him no peace.

St Max, further:

...on myself, on the I that is, just as much as God, the nothing of everything else, the I that is everything for me, the I that is the unique.... I am nothing in the sense of void, but the creative nothing, the nothing from which I myself, as creator, create everything.

Marx:

The holy church father could also have expressed this last proposition as follows: I am everything in the void of nonsense, “but” I am the nugatory creator, the all, from which I myself, as creator, create nothing.

[Leyla Shen]

Lol

[Dennis Mahar]

Leyla,
The point was how do you prepare a conversation about nothing as nothing and have it not mean something. can't be done.

Realising self is empty doesn't pull the pin on the enduring sense of self which persists.
Self is a context that demands content for communication to exist.
We speak from our content.

What is clear is that my prior self was defined for myself by culture.
those identities are forfeit.

Now is the possibility for self-in-the-world as a declaration I stand in as a commitment.

I cannot be 'boxed in' by the adjectives and adverbs distinguished upon me by all and sundry.

I am infinite (not a thing).

Surely you are of the same mind.

[Dennis Mahar]

Marx was a political act.
He saw suffering between self/other in the acquisition and distribution of material objects and came up with a winning formula for selfing.
sacrificing self in order to benefit the state.
self had to 'fit in'.

it led to the formation of a communist state
these winning formulas or projects don't work out sustainably.

Neitzsche had a winning formula for self as political act in the concept of Zarathustra.

[Pincho Paxton]

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

I don't think you know what you mean.

[Dennis Mahar]

You're saying form exists. I grant you that Sir.
I'm saying form lacks inherent existence.

The logic is if any form whatsoever is not existing in and of itself, is not its own soul,
that it is owing its existence to a play of causality.

then that form is not ultimately Real whilst appearing to be so.

This cannot be refuted.

On this matter a mind can be enchanted by form or 'get' form in its true nature.

Concur?

[Pincho Paxton]

You're saying form exists. I grant you that Sir.
I'm saying form lacks inherent existence.

The logic is if any form whatsoever is not existing in and of itself, is not its own soul,
that it is owing its existence to a play of causality.

then that form is not ultimately Real whilst appearing to be so.

This cannot be refuted.

On this matter a mind can be enchanted by form or 'get' form in its true nature.

Concur?

I never said that form exists, I said that form was relative to scale. You can either think of atoms, or the chair, so all answers are correct depending on scale.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm not sure that it mean much to say form exists; form is existence.

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm not sure that it mean much to say form exists; form is existence.

Form is shape, not existence.

[Dan Rowden]

No it isn't. What shape does your idea of shape have?

[Pincho Paxton]

No it isn't. What shape does your idea of shape have?

Well if we make form... existence.. then will it work with everything like Dark Matter?

[Dan Rowden]

Jesus, I think I feel another stroke coming on...

[Pincho Paxton]

Jesus, I think I feel another stroke coming on...

Keep things simple then. The Universe has no complex logic, so I prefer to stick to holes, and fillers. Where you guys treat the Universe as some complex machine.

[Dennis Mahar]

You're not applying any 'readership' to my argument P.

form is existence whatever characteristics, properties, functions are named for a particular form.
it doesn't concern what vantage point of scale form is viewed from in my argument.

the argument is that form did not create itself, nor acts under its own steam.

given that, any form cannot be ultimately Real.

don't worry about descriptions of form for a minute.
reflect on its nature please.
the true identity of form.

[Pincho Paxton]

You're not applying any 'readership' to my argument P.

form is existence whatever characteristics, properties, functions are named for a particular form.
it doesn't concern what vantage point of scale form is viewed from in my argument.

the argument is that form did not create itself, nor acts under its own steam.

given that, any form cannot be ultimately Real.

don't worry about descriptions of form for a minute.
reflect on its nature please.
the true identity of form.

Why can't particles be real? I explained how the ants carry stones in an exact circle. So energy travelling at an exact distance from a hole is a sphere. So the form of particles can be ultimately real without any conscious mind at work. You only have to wave a washing up liquid around to create sphere. No intelligence in the wand.

[Dan Rowden]

No it isn't. What shape does your idea of shape have?

Well if we make form... existence.. then will it work with everything like Dark Matter?

It's a little cheeky to edit a post in the middle of a discussion, but yes, it applies to dark matter. It has form because we experience it as differentiated from other things. What we can say about its properties and characteristics are its form. If this were not so we could never know it exists (btw, it hasn't be shown to exist yet - it's little more than a notion required for Big Bang cosmology to work).

[Pincho Paxton]

No it isn't. What shape does your idea of shape have?

Well if we make form... existence.. then will it work with everything like Dark Matter?

It's a little cheeky to edit a post in the middle of a discussion, but yes, it applies to dark matter. It has form because we experience it as differentiated from other things. What we can say about its properties and characteristics are its form. If this were not so we could never know it exists (btw, it hasn't be shown to exist yet - it's little more than a notion required for Big Bang cosmology to work).

I came up with it on this site, so it's a bit cheeky to tell me what it is. And I didn't use the Big Bang.