Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dennis Mahar wrote:forget your persistent preference for shockingly bad poetry for a minnie.

attend to the argument.

the spatial properties of an object cannot be essential.
For it would be absurd to suppose that the spatial location of an object could exist without the object itself—
or, conversely,
that there could be an object without location.
Hence, location and object are
interdependent.

From this it follows that there is no characterized
And no existing characteristic ultimately.
I said scale, and you refer to location. The scale that I am talking about is magnification. If you magnify a wave in the sea you will see particles, and the curve will be straight lines between each particle. So there is an invisible connection that tells the particles to bend in a certain direction to create a wave. The chair has properties that vanish from magnification. So forget location.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

oxytocinNA wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote:Enlightenment is too easy in this case. A child... (according to giving things names A = A).. is Enlightened. At least give yourselves a goal of achieving the Genius that the site suggests. Become aware of the Identity of metamorphosis of scale...

Chair becomes ragged becomes atomic, become spacial, becomes photons, becomes time.

Not the childish A = A.

For example the waves of the Ocean cannot be waves at the Quantum level. There should be straight lines, so how do they know when to curve? It is the genius that sees the metamorphosis of scale.
OK this has now gone off the rails.

Throwing words around in manipulative ways instead of valid argument.
The dishonest argumentative violation (inference bullying, and aggrandizement) - attaching "child" to A is A. Then attaching the word "genius" to your scale argument (which is pointless, and not clever). I won't get into where you make a critical mistake in your thinking (I probably wouldn't do it under the best of circumstance - but the sheer dishonesty of this post - wow - you just dumped yourself to the lowest level with this). I don't mean to be rough about this, but this was really weak. Yeah I know there are some outright juvenile posts in this forum (just plain attacks or insults etc.), but those are so pointless that one can just ignore them.
And you must learn to understand valid arguments, instead of changing a valid argument into something in your own mind.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Jamesh »

Last week when I was on the scotch I decided to get some fun out of talking to myself and started to respond to something Pincho said last week.
[You just have to accept that nothing doesn't come from anywhere. Two particles create nothing, they don't need to come from anywhere]
You have no basis for saying that.

Via extrapolation of everything I’ve seen, via correlation, I can know that everything physical is caused. People say that “Correlation does not imply causation” – but ultimately it does. We can only identify or name things via the memory creating links with what it already knows. What we first know, what the correlational foundation is, are memories resulting from sensations identified by recurrence.

Your theory is just wrong dude. Your theory is my theory from a few years ago, I think my theory pre this version of the Genius forum.

I used to believe that it was logically necessary for there to be two underlying forces that would create the holes and cogs you speak of. They were essentially non-dimensional ie emptiness, but purely due to the fact they were opposite, they were absolutely polarised, thus both infinite and still bounded.

They were bounded by the necessary existence of the opposite. This combination of infinity (which being nameable is an effect thus also a cause), and this infinity being bounded, as in made finite, by the negationary opposite pole factor, resulted in the necessary possibly of expansion (your cog) into “emptiness” (your hole).

Nothing can happen unless there is the freedom for it to happen. Even though causality clearly exists, it is an effect of what already exists, “it is the past”, it is not the other side, it not what it has the freedom to become. This freedom to become is time.

What I eventually realised though is that duality is built into the Oneness, duality is built into, is intrinsic within non-duality. The Oneness is expansion, and the ultimate affect of this is for us to sense this as time passing.

So you ask, What is Expanding?

I say, how the fuck would I know. It doesn’t really matter. All you have to understand it that it must be something, and something alone, that is expanding. This is not an expansion by stretching, but one by creation of more of the same.

The problem with your theory is that at the fundamental level you have cogs and holes with multiple properties. Everything with multiple properties is divisible ie made of parts. You cannot have a shape without parts inside that shape holding that shape. You cannot have a shape form from nothing, it must evolve. All Form is an effect, that is it is an outcome of causality (thing mixing via an equalisation process). The curves in the holes are complexity, a multiplicity of forces are shaping the holes and cogs. These things have multiple properties – they were caused.

What follows is me going off on my Time theory, yet again

Calling expansion “Time” does not require invoking multiple properties.

Until just now I thought Time had a speed limit on the rate of expansion, and that that was a threat to my theory that time=expansion, as it would mean that there were two properties - both expansion + a speed limit on that expansion, a boundary on that expansion. I forgot about relativity [Edit: actually maybe I didn't forgot, might have just forgot I'd already thought of this]. I did say that the speed of times expansion was relative to the past, but I did not take it further and realise that this form of relativity is absolute. The speed of time will always give measurements of being constant, although it must always be slowing (albeit slowing relative to infinity - so not slowing other than from a fixed frame of reference). By expanding it is slowing (on a net basis) as it is continually creating more of what it expanded from. This is an internal boundary. From observation we can see that no thing can occupy the same territory as another thing, without causing both things to change form. We can extrapolate and say this is a necessary outcome of “nature’.

This means that what already exists is a boundary for Expansion/Time. What already exists is a place it cannot occupy without merging and where it already exists it has both a back (what it expanded from) and a forward boundary (the most current continuous expansion, the virginity of now) to merge with.

This is where finiteness becomes intrinsic within the concept of non-duality.

The temporariness of things does not make finitenesss of lesser stature logically speaking than infinity. Rather it proves that finiteness is as intrinsic as infinity.
All that is intrinsic is of equal importance.

The finiteness we observe is a slowing down of the flow of the universe.
The universe is quantified both at the macro and micro level, but not at the casual level. The action of expansion intrinsically creates smaller-bigger, thus the effects will have the same basic level attribute, amplified by each layer of complexity.

The very most basic concept of the big bang is correct. One just has to reorganise that mental fucker into being an endless spectrum of bangs.

No thing can affect another without there being a causal connection between them.
Expansion is only ever expansion, but it is still caused, by itself in this case. If the sole property of Expansion is expansion, then that means that what it expanded from is no different than what it expands to become. Ie it is still expanding within. Bringing into the equation the fact of observable quantum commonality differentiated by spatial territory, as is separation resulting in a lessening of direct causality, to me one could then conclude that firstly external shells are created, and then, those shells must periodically be broken and reform with different form.

The total most recent layer of expansion of the growing universe occurs within an already fragmented universe, thus it is indistinguishable from “cause and effect”. So it has been always, but lets pretend that was not the case, as is currently the prevailing view within science. Which is: Non-existence – point – broken point – expanding many points and waves – gravity - evolution.


With my theory the first cause issue is a total furphy. It is the same whether it (impossibly) started from nothing (lol) or is continuous. It happens now and that is all that counts. The nature of all things is to expand from within. There is no gravity there is just differences in the rate of expansion, combined with differences in the way quantum levels equalise due to fewer emergent properties.

The totality is a bursting bubble universe. Particles evolve, every thing evolves.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I hope someone else reads that because if its only Pincho, well...


This forum is completely dead, does anyone have an interest in actually discussing something related to enlightenment? Something interesting or beneficial perhaps (and yes beneficial discussion exists)
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Jamesh wrote:Last week when I was on the scotch I decided to get some fun out of talking to myself and started to respond to something Pincho said last week.
[You just have to accept that nothing doesn't come from anywhere. Two particles create nothing, they don't need to come from anywhere]
You have no basis for saying that.

Via extrapolation of everything I’ve seen, via correlation, I can know that everything physical is caused. People say that “Correlation does not imply causation” – but ultimately it does. We can only identify or name things via the memory creating links with what it already knows. What we first know, what the correlational foundation is, are memories resulting from sensations identified by recurrence.

Your theory is just wrong dude. Your theory is my theory from a few years ago, I think my theory pre this version of the Genius forum.

I used to believe that it was logically necessary for there to be two underlying forces that would create the holes and cogs you speak of. They were essentially non-dimensional ie emptiness, but purely due to the fact they were opposite, they were absolutely polarised, thus both infinite and still bounded.

They were bounded by the necessary existence of the opposite. This combination of infinity (which being nameable is an effect thus also a cause), and this infinity being bounded, as in made finite, by the negationary opposite pole factor, resulted in the necessary possibly of expansion (your cog) into “emptiness” (your hole).

Nothing can happen unless there is the freedom for it to happen. Even though causality clearly exists, it is an effect of what already exists, “it is the past”, it is not the other side, it not what it has the freedom to become. This freedom to become is time.

What I eventually realised though is that duality is built into the Oneness, duality is built into, is intrinsic within non-duality. The Oneness is expansion, and the ultimate affect of this is for us to sense this as time passing.

So you ask, What is Expanding?

I say, how the fuck would I know. It doesn’t really matter. All you have to understand it that it must be something, and something alone, that is expanding. This is not an expansion by stretching, but one by creation of more of the same.

The problem with your theory is that at the fundamental level you have cogs and holes with multiple properties. Everything with multiple properties is divisible ie made of parts. You cannot have a shape without parts inside that shape holding that shape. You cannot have a shape form from nothing, it must evolve. All Form is an effect, that is it is an outcome of causality (thing mixing via an equalisation process). The curves in the holes are complexity, a multiplicity of forces are shaping the holes and cogs. These things have multiple properties – they were caused.

What follows is me going off on my Time theory, yet again

Calling expansion “Time” does not require invoking multiple properties.

Until just now I thought Time had a speed limit on the rate of expansion, and that that was a threat to my theory that time=expansion, as it would mean that there were two properties - both expansion + a speed limit on that expansion, a boundary on that expansion. I forgot about relativity [Edit: actually maybe I didn't forgot, might have just forgot I'd already thought of this]. I did say that the speed of times expansion was relative to the past, but I did not take it further and realise that this form of relativity is absolute. The speed of time will always give measurements of being constant, although it must always be slowing (albeit slowing relative to infinity - so not slowing other than from a fixed frame of reference). By expanding it is slowing (on a net basis) as it is continually creating more of what it expanded from. This is an internal boundary. From observation we can see that no thing can occupy the same territory as another thing, without causing both things to change form. We can extrapolate and say this is a necessary outcome of “nature’.

This means that what already exists is a boundary for Expansion/Time. What already exists is a place it cannot occupy without merging and where it already exists it has both a back (what it expanded from) and a forward boundary (the most current continuous expansion, the virginity of now) to merge with.

This is where finiteness becomes intrinsic within the concept of non-duality.

The temporariness of things does not make finitenesss of lesser stature logically speaking than infinity. Rather it proves that finiteness is as intrinsic as infinity.
All that is intrinsic is of equal importance.

The finiteness we observe is a slowing down of the flow of the universe.
The universe is quantified both at the macro and micro level, but not at the casual level. The action of expansion intrinsically creates smaller-bigger, thus the effects will have the same basic level attribute, amplified by each layer of complexity.

The very most basic concept of the big bang is correct. One just has to reorganise that mental fucker into being an endless spectrum of bangs.

No thing can affect another without there being a causal connection between them.
Expansion is only ever expansion, but it is still caused, by itself in this case. If the sole property of Expansion is expansion, then that means that what it expanded from is no different than what it expands to become. Ie it is still expanding within. Bringing into the equation the fact of observable quantum commonality differentiated by spatial territory, as is separation resulting in a lessening of direct causality, to me one could then conclude that firstly external shells are created, and then, those shells must periodically be broken and reform with different form.

The total most recent layer of expansion of the growing universe occurs within an already fragmented universe, thus it is indistinguishable from “cause and effect”. So it has been always, but lets pretend that was not the case, as is currently the prevailing view within science. Which is: Non-existence – point – broken point – expanding many points and waves – gravity - evolution.


With my theory the first cause issue is a total furphy. It is the same whether it (impossibly) started from nothing (lol) or is continuous. It happens now and that is all that counts. The nature of all things is to expand from within. There is no gravity there is just differences in the rate of expansion, combined with differences in the way quantum levels equalise due to fewer emergent properties.

The totality is a bursting bubble universe. Particles evolve, every thing evolves.
The problem with your theory is that at the fundamental level you have cogs and holes with multiple properties. Everything with multiple properties is divisible ie made of parts.
That's not a problem though, it just means that you don't understand zero. If 1 + -1 = 0, so two opposites make zero, then you can make those parts from the same parts. All that you are changing is scale. Scale is relative, so you need to compare two objects to have a scale of which is bigger. And so scale in a black universe is relative to nothing. It means that you can make the parts from a different scale of the same parts.

And if this was your old theory, then you should know all of this.

Anyway, haven't you ever wondered why things would be a certain size? An atom should be any size, because the Universe cannot make a decision, so to decide on a size is impossible. It means that scale shouldn't really exist. But scale does exist so things must be made from parts that start with no scale, and yet have no choice but to stay the same size.

The reason for things having to stay the same size is restriction. Atoms are restricted from scale change. Pressure around a body can restrict its movement. So the infinite Universe creates pressure around the atoms, they cannot change scale, but their parts can be infinitely regressive.
Last edited by Pincho Paxton on Thu May 09, 2013 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Tomas »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I hope someone else reads that because if its only Pincho, well...

This forum is completely dead, does anyone have an interest in actually discussing something related to enlightenment? Something interesting or beneficial perhaps (and yes beneficial discussion exists)
Dennis doesn't write in English.
Dan is Dan.
Pincho has an intellectual writing style that doesn't go over well, here.
Seeker has several writing styles.
Laird comes and goes.
Cahoot gets most of it.
Oxytoxic is another first in - first out.
Leyla is hot.
Kunga is a wow wow lady.
Tomas is just plain old Roddy.
And on we go..........
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I hope someone else reads that because if its only Pincho, well...


This forum is completely dead, does anyone have an interest in actually discussing something related to enlightenment? Something interesting or beneficial perhaps (and yes beneficial discussion exists)
Yeah, learn how to be Enlightened to achieve enlightenment, and all of you stop making everything so simple for yourselves.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Cahoot »

Pincho Paxton wrote:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I hope someone else reads that because if its only Pincho, well...


This forum is completely dead, does anyone have an interest in actually discussing something related to enlightenment? Something interesting or beneficial perhaps (and yes beneficial discussion exists)
Yeah, learn how to be Enlightened to achieve enlightenment, and all of you stop making everything so simple for yourselves.
Whether or not you decree it to be so or recognize it as such, everything of which you can conceive pertains to enlightenment.

The relevance for a discussion forum is to communicate this non-dual reality via dualistic particulars. Communication requires transmitting and receiving. What you can control in the process of communication is your own transmission and your own reception.

You cannot control the transmission and reception of another except through the quality of your own communication. To obsess over the quality of another's communication is misplaced (non-intended assertion) of energy. To perpetually assume the role of arbiter and judge of another's communication is, from an egotistical viewpoint, merely another method in the repertoire of asserting, "I am large because you are so small."

Within the dualistic construct of dialoguing, when you actually are the judge of another's transmission based on your reception, then you are legitimately serving the function of site administrator within the context of a forum situation, the purpose of whom is to maintain a framework relevant to the forum situation. However, attempting to assume the role of forum administrator based on a self-defined evaluation of the quality of one's own communication is presumptuous at best, and probably delusional.

Outside of the role of administrator, non evidence-based evaluations of another's communication is little more than unsubstantiated opinion. That is, worthless within the realm of ideas, though opinion unsubstantiated by logical inference does exist and has its place in attempting to communicate on the basis, or absence, of charm, as it is the intellectual equivalent of intending to communicate that one is nothing more than just another pretty face, i.e., bimbo or bimbette.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Dennis Mahar »

I said scale, and you refer to location. The scale that I am talking about is magnification. If you magnify a wave in the sea you will see particles, and the curve will be straight lines between each particle. So there is an invisible connection that tells the particles to bend in a certain direction to create a wave. The chair has properties that vanish from magnification. So forget location.
It does not matter what properties.
None of them are essential.
If you pull one thing out of the whole and start fitting it up with its own essence you are wide of the mark.
all is interdependent.
one thing.


Only 2 possibilities can be presented to the Inquiry.

1) all things or any thing exists from its own side. duality.
2) no thing exists from its own side. non-duality.

Non duality is the truth.
Can't be refuted.

This consciousness we participate in constructs reality out of groundlessness.
there is nothing to hang on to.
you are the meaning maker.
you've got little pots of paint and fill in the blank canvas.
painting by numbers.

you've got a recipe for a cake that's indigestible P.
you wouldn't get a buck for it at a garage sale.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
I said scale, and you refer to location. The scale that I am talking about is magnification. If you magnify a wave in the sea you will see particles, and the curve will be straight lines between each particle. So there is an invisible connection that tells the particles to bend in a certain direction to create a wave. The chair has properties that vanish from magnification. So forget location.
It does not matter what properties.
None of them are essential.
If you pull one thing out of the whole and start fitting it up with its own essence you are wide of the mark.
all is interdependent.
one thing.


Only 2 possibilities can be presented to the Inquiry.

1) all things or any thing exists from its own side. duality.
2) no thing exists from its own side. non-duality.

Non duality is the truth.
Can't be refuted.

This consciousness we participate in constructs reality out of groundlessness.
there is nothing to hang on to.
you are the meaning maker.
you've got little pots of paint and fill in the blank canvas.
painting by numbers.

you've got a recipe for a cake that's indigestible P.
you wouldn't get a buck for it at a garage sale.
That's religious talk. Is this a religious site that dares to call itself a Genius site? I'm wasting my time talking to anyone who is religious. Religious people are inherently stupid. Non Duality is the most stupid thing I have ever read.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Dennis Mahar »

when emptiness/dependent origination is grokked.
what shows up clear and obvious is Causality.

causes/conditions
pieces/parts
thinker/thought

quantum guys get the observer angle.

consciousness splits up 'what is', the continuous flow and spread of existence.
a trick of consciousness that imputes inherent existence.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dennis Mahar wrote:when emptiness/dependent origination is grokked.
what shows up clear and obvious is Causality.

causes/conditions
pieces/parts
thinker/thought

quantum guys get the observer angle.

consciousness splits up 'what is', the continuous flow and spread of existence.
a trick of consciousness that imputes inherent existence.
Grokked "Stranger From A Strange Land".. I read it when I was 11. Science fiction.

Cause, and effect is the transferral of energy between particles.. not science fiction.

Don't confuse a book with reality. And also use English.. Grokked was made up for the book.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Dennis Mahar »

grok grok grok
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by oxytocinNA »

Pincho Paxton wrote:
oxytocinNA wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote:Enlightenment is too easy in this case. A child... (according to giving things names A = A).. is Enlightened. At least give yourselves a goal of achieving the Genius that the site suggests. Become aware of the Identity of metamorphosis of scale...

Chair becomes ragged becomes atomic, become spacial, becomes photons, becomes time.

Not the childish A = A.

For example the waves of the Ocean cannot be waves at the Quantum level. There should be straight lines, so how do they know when to curve? It is the genius that sees the metamorphosis of scale.
OK this has now gone off the rails.

Throwing words around in manipulative ways instead of valid argument.
The dishonest argumentative violation (inference bullying, and aggrandizement) - attaching "child" to A is A. Then attaching the word "genius" to your scale argument (which is pointless, and not clever). I won't get into where you make a critical mistake in your thinking (I probably wouldn't do it under the best of circumstance - but the sheer dishonesty of this post - wow - you just dumped yourself to the lowest level with this). I don't mean to be rough about this, but this was really weak. Yeah I know there are some outright juvenile posts in this forum (just plain attacks or insults etc.), but those are so pointless that one can just ignore them.
And you must learn to understand valid arguments, instead of changing a valid argument into something in your own mind.
You missed the point. You do not make valid arguments by attacking another one with belittling comments (unless you are a politician - sarcasm relief) - that is what was done with this statement:
"Not the childish A = A."
I pointed this out, and the self indulgent over inflated, via this statement:
"At least give yourselves a goal of achieving the Genius that the site suggests. Become aware of the Identity of metamorphosis of scale..."
Clearly intentional dishonest tactics - and pointless. And in rebuttal you try to turn it back on me - stating that I am "changing a valid argument into something in your (my) own mind."
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

oxytocinNA wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote:
oxytocinNA wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote:Enlightenment is too easy in this case. A child... (according to giving things names A = A).. is Enlightened. At least give yourselves a goal of achieving the Genius that the site suggests. Become aware of the Identity of metamorphosis of scale...

Chair becomes ragged becomes atomic, become spacial, becomes photons, becomes time.

Not the childish A = A.

For example the waves of the Ocean cannot be waves at the Quantum level. There should be straight lines, so how do they know when to curve? It is the genius that sees the metamorphosis of scale.
OK this has now gone off the rails.

Throwing words around in manipulative ways instead of valid argument.
The dishonest argumentative violation (inference bullying, and aggrandizement) - attaching "child" to A is A. Then attaching the word "genius" to your scale argument (which is pointless, and not clever). I won't get into where you make a critical mistake in your thinking (I probably wouldn't do it under the best of circumstance - but the sheer dishonesty of this post - wow - you just dumped yourself to the lowest level with this). I don't mean to be rough about this, but this was really weak. Yeah I know there are some outright juvenile posts in this forum (just plain attacks or insults etc.), but those are so pointless that one can just ignore them.
And you must learn to understand valid arguments, instead of changing a valid argument into something in your own mind.
You missed the point. You do not make valid arguments by attacking another one with belittling comments (unless you are a politician - sarcasm relief) - that is what was done with this statement:
"Not the childish A = A."
I pointed this out, and the self indulgent over inflated, via this statement:
"At least give yourselves a goal of achieving the Genius that the site suggests. Become aware of the Identity of metamorphosis of scale..."
Clearly intentional dishonest tactics - and pointless. And in rebuttal you try to turn it back on me - stating that I am "changing a valid argument into something in your (my) own mind."
Well you are changing it. You are skipping the part where I said that a child thinks in terms of words, and names. So a chair is just a chair to a child. A child doesn't think in Quantum Physics, and atoms. So A = A is child like.

You changed the whole meaning of what I said.

My quote...
Enlightenment is too easy in this case. A child... (according to giving things names A = A).. is Enlightened.
Your quote missing the relevance...
"Not the childish A = A."
I pointed this out, and the self indulgent over inflated, via this statement:
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by oxytocinNA »

OK fair enough. I do not buy into your argument (still think it is bad form) - but I have a better understanding of your intent (not an intentional negative tactic).
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Cahoot wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I hope someone else reads that because if its only Pincho, well...


This forum is completely dead, does anyone have an interest in actually discussing something related to enlightenment? Something interesting or beneficial perhaps (and yes beneficial discussion exists)
Yeah, learn how to be Enlightened to achieve enlightenment, and all of you stop making everything so simple for yourselves.
Whether or not you decree it to be so or recognize it as such, everything of which you can conceive pertains to enlightenment.

The relevance for a discussion forum is to communicate this non-dual reality via dualistic particulars. Communication requires transmitting and receiving. What you can control in the process of communication is your own transmission and your own reception.

You cannot control the transmission and reception of another except through the quality of your own communication. To obsess over the quality of another's communication is misplaced (non-intended assertion) of energy. To perpetually assume the role of arbiter and judge of another's communication is, from an egotistical viewpoint, merely another method in the repertoire of asserting, "I am large because you are so small."

Within the dualistic construct of dialoguing, when you actually are the judge of another's transmission based on your reception, then you are legitimately serving the function of site administrator within the context of a forum situation, the purpose of whom is to maintain a framework relevant to the forum situation. However, attempting to assume the role of forum administrator based on a self-defined evaluation of the quality of one's own communication is presumptuous at best, and probably delusional.

Outside of the role of administrator, non evidence-based evaluations of another's communication is little more than unsubstantiated opinion. That is, worthless within the realm of ideas, though opinion unsubstantiated by logical inference does exist and has its place in attempting to communicate on the basis, or absence, of charm, as it is the intellectual equivalent of intending to communicate that one is nothing more than just another pretty face, i.e., bimbo or bimbette.
Talking for twenty mins to your voice to text translator does not ensure smoother or more direct conversation. It often leads to worthless rambling which seems to be something you have an expressed an aversion to.

Also, every evaluation is a personal and opinion based one, unless it isn't your own, you should probably read over your post and see how it applies to your post.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Tomas wrote:
SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I hope someone else reads that because if its only Pincho, well...

This forum is completely dead, does anyone have an interest in actually discussing something related to enlightenment? Something interesting or beneficial perhaps (and yes beneficial discussion exists)
Dennis doesn't write in English.
Dan is Dan.
Pincho has an intellectual writing style that doesn't go over well, here.
Seeker has several writing styles.
Laird comes and goes.
Cahoot gets most of it.
Oxytoxic is another first in - first out.
Leyla is hot.
Kunga is a wow wow lady.
Tomas is just plain old Roddy.
And on we go..........

That's the truth tho, from my current perspective, I'm under the impression that things I have written in the past were written from past perspectives and since we are always changing, I often read things I don't remember writing or later view as half-asleep silliness, might as well have been from another person.

Also, do you know from your own experience that Leyla is hot?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Dan Rowden »

Mr Inconsistent Word Salad wrote:I'm wasting my time talking to anyone who is religious. Religious people are inherently stupid.
And yet, a few posts previous you claimed and tried to defend the proposition that:
Most scientists search for superiority, so play all superior roles. Religion has some superior positions.
Scientists must be even more stupid than "inherently". That's pretty stupid.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Dennis Mahar »

seeker,

That's the truth tho, from my current perspective,
you're talking from a context of liking and disliking which is an attachment.
emotionally sick
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I'm talking from the perspective of knowing factually that I'm not the same as I was yesterday or an hour ago. What happened to admitting that aversion/preference is unavoidable? Try reading something that's misinformed and not thinking its misinformed.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Dennis Mahar »

A=A is childish
A=A is an ontological principle,
expression of the unconditioned essence of reality which is opposed to the empirical reality which in turn is evolution (causality)
The principle of identity displays the essence of reality: only that which is identical to itself is real.
the empirical world is ever-changing, therefore it is not real.
Thus the empirical world has an illusory character, because phenomena are ever-changing, and empirical reality is unknowable.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
A=A is childish
A=A is an ontological principle,
expression of the unconditioned essence of reality which is opposed to the empirical reality which in turn is evolution (causality)
The principle of identity displays the essence of reality: only that which is identical to itself is real.
the empirical world is ever-changing, therefore it is not real.
Thus the empirical world has an illusory character, because phenomena are ever-changing, and empirical reality is unknowable.
Like a flowing liquid. It's not really a problem though. If you are enlightened you know the physics of the flow of particles.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Cahoot »

Sow wrote:That's the truth tho, from my current perspective, I'm under the impression that things I have written in the past were written from past perspectives and since we are always changing, I often read things I don't remember writing or later view as half-asleep silliness, might as well have been from another person.

And yet, the identity of - I am so large because you are so small - persistently shines through that fog of unaccountability. Ask anyone.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

I could easily say the same for you if I were to press identities and personal fantasies on you, in fact you seem to have mentioned those very words.. in terms of 'here's what you are doing badly', 'here's what I'm able to do properly'.
Locked