FIGHT!

[Orenholt]

Get your position sorted on this:

the fundamental question of all philosophy – should the starting point of logical deduction be the external world of matter considered as existing independently of human consciousness, or should consciousness itself be taken as the starting point, and the external world be considered as dependant upon, relative to, consciousness and thought?

Well it can't be the former because the "external world of matter" is an illusion so it has to be the latter.

[Orenholt]

Actuality
https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 5831_n.jpg

Epistemologically
https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 9944_n.jpg

[Russell Parr]

It would be wrong however to say "Unless A is nothing". Logic applies to "nothingness" too.
Nothing equals Nothing, Nothing cannot equal not Nothing ("not nothing" is something).

I don't understand what you're saying here. What I'm saying is in A=A, if 'A' is "nothing", then 'not A' is everything but "nothing".

I've changed my mind about a few things I used to think. Existence is defined by an appearance to an individual. So if I think about something in my mind like a flying green giraffe then it "exists" to me because I have invisioned it in my head as a concept. I also realize that there is only Reality, not individual objects because everything is just one thing so the distinction of a coffee cup from a table is an illusion of the mind.

So do you recognize that all things are mirages of thought? A thing is just a momentary demarcation created by the feedback loop of consciousness. This is why there are no things beyond consciousness because there is no demarcations occurring.

Perhaps we're just meddling with definitions. There's "nothing" the concept, and "nothingness" which describes the true nature of Reality.

Now of course when I'm using either word to describe something to you, I can't get away from using concepts, maybe this is your hang-up. The point is to see beyond the concepts in the description. Look at the moon, not the finger.

[Orenholt]

I don't understand what you're saying here. What I'm saying is in A=A, if 'A' is "nothing", then 'not A' is everything but "nothing".

Sorry about that. I misunderstood what you meant and I edited my post before I saw that you had responded.
What I SHOULD have said was:
And yes, logic applies to "nothingness" too.
Nothing equals Nothing, Nothing cannot equal not Nothing ("not nothing" is something).

So do you recognize that all things are mirages of thought?

All finite things are, sure.

Perhaps we're just meddling with definitions.

Perhaps but I think it's important to have a common understanding and sometimes definitions are key to that.

There's "nothing" the concept, and "nothingness" which describes the true nature of Reality.

I think I get what you're saying but I wouldn't word it that way.
"Nothing" the concept is just an approximation of "actual" nothingness because even darkness is something.
You're still saying that Reality/Infinity is not a "thing" though.

I think we can agree that Reality/Infinity is not a FINITE thing but the whole argument comes in when it is asserted that "A" must be finite, therefore logic doesn't apply to the infinite.

[Russell Parr]

Actuality
https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 5831_n.jpg

Fixed
http://i.imgur.com/wlmdJvW.jpg

In response to your last post, I would've added "As things arise only upon conception, the Infinite is ultimately not a thing"

I'll be back later.

[Orenholt]

Actuality
https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 5831_n.jpg

Fixed
http://i.imgur.com/wlmdJvW.jpg

Ok, I would agree with all of that with the notation that while infinity has the concept of nothingness (the approximation) it doesn't have actual nothingness.

Where are you guys getting the idea that a "thing" has all these mandatory qualities (like finite and conceptual) to be a thing?
A thing is ONLY required to be not a non-thing.

[Orenholt]

If you're saying that A must be conceptualized to equal A, then I would say that is false on 2 levels.
1.) A will always equal A whether you can conceive of it or not. Just because a person is illogical doesn't mean that logic no longer applies to their perception of reality (or even reality itself).
2.) You can conceive of a concept without conceiving of it accurately. You may think "there are 3 billion rubber ducks" but that doesn't mean you can literally envision all 3 billion rubber ducks.
When you hear "3 billion" you cannot conceive of that as an actual quantity of anything because we don't have the mental capacity to do that. The best you can do is think of the numerical or verbal representation of 3 billion or just think "wow, that's a lot!" in some vague sense.

[Dennis Mahar]

You can take an aggregate of water, apply hot or cold to generate ice or steam.

water is not thing-in-itself
ice is not thing-in-itself
steam is not thing-in-itself
hot is not thing-in-itself
cold is not thing-in-itself

dependent arising.

fire will not burn without fuel.

infinite in the finite.

A regularity of pattern.
Identity?
A=A?

[Russell Parr]

Where are you guys getting the idea that a "thing" has all these mandatory qualities (like finite and conceptual) to be a thing?
A thing is ONLY required to be not a non-thing.

The point of all the mandatory qualities is so that we can get to a proper understanding of things in their relation to the Infinite.

Things are dualistic because they can only exist in contrast to other things. Contrasting is obviously dualistic. Therefore, by definition, the Infinite is not a thing because there's nothing to contrast it with. As soon as you try to contrast the Infinite against something else, then you're no longer talking about the Infinite. There's only one Infinite.

Things = dualism
Infinity = non-dual

If you're saying that A must be conceptualized to equal A [...]

Slow down here.. A=A simply means this: what you identify in the moment is what you identify in the moment. If you think of 3 billion rubber ducks, in whatever ill conceived way you imagine, then you think of 3 billion rubber ducks in an ill conceived manner. Whether it's right or wrong, logical or not, etc. etc., comes after the fact. After A=A.

[Orenholt]

Where are you guys getting the idea that a "thing" has all these mandatory qualities (like finite and conceptual) to be a thing?
A thing is ONLY required to be not a non-thing.

The point of all the mandatory qualities is so that we can get to a proper understanding of things in their relation to the Infinite.

Things are dualistic because they can only exist in contrast to other things. Contrasting is obviously dualistic. Therefore, by definition, the Infinite is not a thing because there's nothing to contrast it with. As soon as you try to contrast the Infinite against something else, then you're no longer talking about the Infinite. There's only one Infinite.

Things = dualism
Infinity = non-dual

Finite Thing=dualism because there's contrast to other things
Infinite Thing=non-dualism because there's contrast to nothing

If you're saying that A must be conceptualized to equal A [...]

Slow down here.. A=A simply means this: what you identify in the moment is what you identify in the moment. If you think of 3 billion rubber ducks, in whatever ill conceived way you imagine, then you think of 3 billion rubber ducks in an ill conceived manner. Whether it's right or wrong, logical or not, etc. etc., comes after the fact. After A=A.

So you're saying that infinity cannot be identified? But in calling it "infinity" we ARE identifying it. We can also say that infinity = not finite and infinity = not nothing.

[Russell Parr]

So you're saying that infinity cannot be identified? But in calling it "infinity" we ARE identifying it.

We can only conceive of it in a round about way, while knowing pretty easily that it can't be encapsulated by thought.

Finite Thing=dualism because there's contrast to other things
Infinite Thing=non-dualism because there's contrast to nothing

Meh.

We're talking about THE Infinite. Not "an Infinite thing". Ultimate Reality.

It's just getting redundant now. I'm not sure if you'd rather win an argument or really want to get to the bottom of this. Either way, I've said enough on this for you to chew on if you care to.

Bowing out :)

[Dennis Mahar]

Slow down here.. A=A simply means this: what you identify in the moment is what you identify in the moment. If you think of 3 billion rubber ducks, in whatever ill conceived way you imagine, then you think of 3 billion rubber ducks in an ill conceived manner. Whether it's right or wrong, logical or not, etc. etc., comes after the fact. After A=A.

That's right.
Object appears.
propositions are made re object.
logic is re propositions.

it is
it isn't
both is and isn't
neither is or isn't

are the 4 alternatives.

That would constitute an environment for yes and no.

[Orenholt]

It's just getting redundant now. I'm not sure if you'd rather win an argument or really want to get to the bottom of this. Either way, I've said enough on this for you to chew on if you care to.

Bowing out :)

Thanks for what you've said. I appreciate the conversation.

both is and isn't
neither is or isn't

Those 2 are self contradictory, Dennis.

[Dennis Mahar]

yeah, I know.
they are scrapped but to exist those are the 4 category qualifiers for existence.

[Orenholt]

In any case Getoriks has accepted what I have to say so we no longer disagree on the "thingness" of infinity (by the definition that a thing is not nothing). In my (loose) definition of "thing" the word applies to Infinity. (apparently he somehow didn't know that I was using a different definition?)

If I get what Getoriks is saying about logic not applying to non-things, it's because non-things are not things they can't do anything, including be identified. In fact they can't "be" anything because they HAVE no being. However we do not need to call logic "the law of identity" because "Identity" at its roots means "sameness" so we could easily call it "the law of sameness" instead.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1393434713
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_%28philosophy%29
"In philosophy, identity, from Latin: identitas ("sameness"), is the relation each thing bears just to itself"

Obviously Square-circle=Square-circle because both sides of the equation are the SAME.


I talked to Getoriks a bit more and he basically agreed that non-things CAN have logic applied to them but only in a hypothetical sense. (which I think is a huge success compared to "logic can't be applied to them at all") I think this is correct because you cannot point to something that isn't a thing (like a square-circle) and say "it is what it is" because it just has no being to begin with. The word square-circle does have to equal the word square-circle though, even if it has no meaning. It's like saying asdf=asdf or jubblebunky=jubblebunky. Logic still applies but it has no actual "thing" to apply TO. I would still argue that logic applies TO Infinity=Infinity though because the word "infinity" isn't meaningless.

[Fox]

Orenholt-

I sent you flowers.

[Fox]

* Nappy *