Why I Am So Clever

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:
So what is it that you're realizing?
The true nature of any thing, and thus of all things. This doesn't make my realisation all things, any more than realising 1+1=2 makes me two people instead of one.
Yes, but there's a difference: the nature "of any thing" also applies to the very realization itself.There's nothing where it does not apply to and in that sense it's boundless. You cannot claim that 1+1 applies to every possible calculation without changing the realization into something more universal first. But I agree that when some understanding becomes boundless, there is no one anymore but the boundless to have any relation to it.
There is no boundary because it applies to any thing that appears, regardless of the specific nature of the thing. This doesn't make it infinite in any way, since it can easily give way to ignorance through delusions and death.
If it applies to "any thing" then bounds, limits or finitudes can have no part. But it's true, it gives easily way to ignorance when it's understood differently.
If you discard the realisation you'll just become ignorant.
Of course not, first of all, discarding it as consequence of knowing is not equal to never have known it.
"Consequence of knowing" what?
This is about any discarding of a realization of the nature of causality being not the same as any ignorant block present preventing this realization to happen.
It certainly can be abandoned when its limits are recognized.
...which would be just another realisation.
Which is also the reason that it can be abandoned: there's no need to "recognize its limits" since it does not have any. This is not yet another realization.
If all things seem to be something not exactly similar to what they actually are, then that is what they actually are.
"Not exactly" means just not. Therefore they never were, never are and never will be "what they actually are". Only logically they "are" and only needs "A". You cannot assign anything definite or inherent to it in any epistemological or cognitive sense. Which is what a phrase like "as" or "what" does. The only way to logically save it is to write it like "it is equals it is". But since one can never know in any way this "it" as such, there's only a logical meaning here, pointing directly to the truth of things not existing at all and the fact you'll never find them -- and of course causality.
The mind, like any other finite thing, is eternal only in relation to the eternal. In relation to other finite things, it is as finite as they are.
And it's only real in relation to the eternal and illusionary in relation to finite things.
And the other finite things are "illusionary" in relation to the mind. So you have no way of distinguishing the quality of being "illusionary" from that of being "real". You might as well call things whatever you want to. The same with "finite" and "eternal". The quality of finitude cannot be contrasted with the quality of eternity, so we might as well look at things in the way that suits us best. They're eternal in one sense and finite in another.
Finite things are illusionary in relation to the infinite. But things can only appear as finite and illusion in a mind that is finite and illusionary. They arise together. That's why I wrote the mind is only real in relation to the eternal. It's true that there's no way to distinguish the quality of being "illusionary" from that of being "real", simply because we already established through causality that any qualities will always be illusionary, relative or subjective. Of course we end up looking at things in the way that suits best dictated by the situation or context: causality. But they will always remain finite in any "sense" whatsoever.
The important thing is to make sure that we don't enjoy our church singing too much and forget what its meant for.
We have this saying here "leaving church before the singing" but I believe it's about anti-conception mainly :-)
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
So what is it that you're realizing?
The true nature of any thing, and thus of all things. This doesn't make my realisation all things, any more than realising 1+1=2 makes me two people instead of one.
Yes, but there's a difference: the nature "of any thing" also applies to the very realization itself.There's nothing where it does not apply to and in that sense it's boundless. You cannot claim that 1+1 applies to every possible calculation without changing the realization into something more universal first. But I agree that when some understanding becomes boundless, there is no one anymore but the boundless to have any relation to it.
1+1=2 also applies to the realisation of that truth, since if it is added with another realisation, they would together become two realisations.

The true nature of things ultimately means whatever a thing appears to us to be - blue, cold, large, a part of the All, a localised vector in the quantum field of universal Maya, etc. And the judge of whether something is appearing or not is ultimately the mind to which they appear.

Delusion arises when the desire for an external source of validation for a thought is obstructed by the thought itself. One starts thinking about something completely different, but continues to identify it with the previous thought.
There is no boundary because it applies to any thing that appears, regardless of the specific nature of the thing. This doesn't make it infinite in any way, since it can easily give way to ignorance through delusions and death.
If it applies to "any thing" then bounds, limits or finitudes can have no part. But it's true, it gives easily way to ignorance when it's understood differently.
The realisation may apply to all things, but that doesn't mean it can turn the moon into Swiss cheese! Even a sapling influences the birth of stars. But it does so as a sapling, not Yggdrasil.
If you discard the realisation you'll just become ignorant.
Of course not, first of all, discarding it as consequence of knowing is not equal to never have known it.
"Consequence of knowing" what?
This is about any discarding of a realization of the nature of causality being not the same as any ignorant block present preventing this realization to happen.
OK, I suppose you're talking about a progress in one's thinking about cause and effect. That is not the same as discarding it altogether. One may discard the wrong bits, but the core realisation still remains.
It certainly can be abandoned when its limits are recognized.
...which would be just another realisation.
Which is also the reason that it can be abandoned: there's no need to "recognize its limits" since it does not have any. This is not yet another realization.
You have introduced yet another realisation - that of the needlessness of recognising the limits of another realisation.
If all things seem to be something not exactly similar to what they actually are, then that is what they actually are.
"Not exactly" means just not. Therefore they never were, never are and never will be "what they actually are".


OK, if a thing is not what it is, then that is what it is - something that isn't what it is.
Only logically they "are" and only needs "A". You cannot assign anything definite or inherent to it in any epistemological or cognitive sense. Which is what a phrase like "as" or "what" does. The only way to logically save it is to write it like "it is equals it is". But since one can never know in any way this "it" as such, there's only a logical meaning here, pointing directly to the truth of things not existing at all and the fact you'll never find them -- and of course causality.

The obvious problem with your argument is that you must necessarily assume that the "it" exists and that you know something definite about it.

Also, if something has a logical meaning not accessible by cognition then no one can assert anything about that meaning. Cognition is the only way logic can be understood.
Finite things are illusionary in relation to the infinite. But things can only appear as finite and illusion in a mind that is finite and illusionary. They arise together. That's why I wrote the mind is only real in relation to the eternal. It's true that there's no way to distinguish the quality of being "illusionary" from that of being "real", simply because we already established through causality that any qualities will always be illusionary, relative or subjective.


Causality can also be used to establish concreteness, i.e, a thing is exactly what it is caused to be. My point was that the qualities of illusoriness and realness are not *inherent* in any finite thing.
Of course we end up looking at things in the way that suits best dictated by the situation or context: causality. But they will always remain finite in any "sense" whatsoever.
The finitude of finite things is their infinitude in the sense that it is shared equally by all of them.
The important thing is to make sure that we don't enjoy our church singing too much and forget what its meant for.
We have this saying here "leaving church before the singing" but I believe it's about anti-conception mainly :-)

LOL! So is "leaving church" considered to be "natural birth control" by Christians?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
So what is it that you're realizing?
The true nature of any thing, and thus of all things. This doesn't make my realisation all things, any more than realising 1+1=2 makes me two people instead of one.
Yes, but there's a difference: the nature "of any thing" also applies to the very realization itself.There's nothing where it does not apply to and in that sense it's boundless. You cannot claim that 1+1 applies to every possible calculation without changing the realization into something more universal first. But I agree that when some understanding becomes boundless, there is no one anymore but the boundless to have any relation to it.
1+1=2 also applies to the realisation of that truth, since if it is added with another realisation, they would together become two realisations.
Is it even possible to add realizations together? It's really a thing for mathematics, in which we assume abstracted equal parts.
The true nature of things ultimately means whatever a thing appears to us to be - blue, cold, large, a part of the All, a localised vector in the quantum field of universal Maya, etc. And the judge of whether something is appearing or not is ultimately the mind to which they appear.
Which would make the mind the ultimate nature of all those things, not the appearances. Since the mind is to us another appearance, the mind only can exist in relation to the eternal. Anything else just isn't there, unless you want to say: illusions equals reality.
Delusion arises when the desire for an external source of validation for a thought is obstructed by the thought itself. One starts thinking about something completely different, but continues to identify it with the previous thought.
Yes, obstructed by appearances. All appearances are identified by "previous thought". That's their changing nature and the reason you'd never find any of it anywhere.
There is no boundary because it applies to any thing that appears, regardless of the specific nature of the thing. This doesn't make it infinite in any way, since it can easily give way to ignorance through delusions and death.
If it applies to "any thing" then bounds, limits or finitudes can have no part. But it's true, it gives easily way to ignorance when it's understood differently.
The realisation may apply to all things, but that doesn't mean it can turn the moon into Swiss cheese! Even a sapling influences the birth of stars. But it does so as a sapling, not Yggdrasil.
This realization does not "do" anything. But if the moon would turn into Swiss cheese, it (the realisation, not the moon anymore) might provide clarity, knowing that it won't be a spontaneous uncaused event. Although it might also remain a mystery in another sense if it would happen in your lifetime.
OK, I suppose you're talking about a progress in one's thinking about cause and effect. That is not the same as discarding it altogether. One may discard the wrong bits, but the core realisation still remains.
The moment it's understood it becomes clear even that realization does not need to remain. Only when ignorance can or will arise, these realizations have their place. Perhaps one could even see it dualistic: ignorance and the means to destroy ignorance rising together.
You have introduced yet another realisation - that of the needlessness of recognising the limits of another realisation.
If it's not needed it won't have to be retained, validated, dragged around, pocketed, owned or be part of anything. Not much of an introduction of anything really.
OK, if a thing is not what it is, then that is what it is - something that isn't what it is.
Things are never "what they are" because it would break the logic of A not being able to be anything that is not A. And "what it is" does not equal just "it".
The obvious problem with your argument is that you must necessarily assume that the "it" exists and that you know something definite about it.
Didn't I argue for the opposite: that "it" does not exist? Appearances do not have any existence, unless we say existence is another word for appearance. But we won't be much the wiser for it.
Also, if something has a logical meaning not accessible by cognition then no one can assert anything about that meaning. Cognition is the only way logic can be understood.
Yes, the word cognition is not a good choice after all. My point was that "A" does not provide any knowledge, perception, intuition or reasoning about A. In that way it's an axiom and while you can know and reason about the axiom itself, the "A" in A=A does not provide anything at all. It comes before or perhaps with cognition.
Causality can also be used to establish concreteness, i.e, a thing is exactly what it is caused to be.
Why the need to make it so complex? A thing is caused. No need to say "exactly", or "what is is" or even "to be".
My point was that the qualities of illusoriness and realness are not *inherent* in any finite thing.
But what would be inherent in any finite thing? It's finitude? My answer would be nothing since it has no existence as finite thing.
The finitude of finite things is their infinitude in the sense that it is shared equally by all of them.
But something cannot be finite and infinite (here A=A really helps). So they would be infinite and do not exist at all as finite things!
LOL! So is "leaving church" considered to be "natural birth control" by Christians?
Lets call it born again control.... It's actually one of the ways to retain some unreliable control and not only Christians! Never been to church much I guess? :-)
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quoting doesn't replace the logic, reason and argumentation on how your thought process might have went, Leyla.
It wasn't meant to. I quoted you to demonstrate that saying something was said when it wasn't doesn't replace the logic, reason and argumentation on how the thought process of the thing said might have went.
It's unclear how you arrive at "all things are causality" as something to conclude from my words about causality not being a thing, collection of things, thought or sense.
Yes, I'm not surprised, since A=A is alien to you.
  • The one without a second is emptiness, the other one makes it true.
    -- Fireflies by Rabindranath Tagore
I'm not interested in quotes. I want to see the logic and reasoning that qualifies your statements and assertions on the subject as a thought process.
Last edited by Leyla Shen on Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

Things are never "what they are" because it would break the logic of A not being able to be anything that is not A. And "what it is" does not equal just "it".
Why, Diebert; are you attempting to disprove A=A while proving it at the same time? Why all the "quotation marks"?
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

Just to complicate matters, here's a quote of Weininger's logic, reason and argumentation constituting a thought process on the subject in question, with a different emphasis than when I first quoted it:
If, rather than acknowledging the proposition A = A, I wanted to attempt to refute it, in so doing I would have to make use of logic, i.e., of exactly this proposition. If at some point I did not comply with it, that would mean that my deduction was false. The proposition itself is thus the criterion of truth and falsity, and from the start it is the measure of my deduction, the standard which I work from as soon as I begin to deduce. Therefore, I can at most reject all inferences, and abstain from judgement. Whether I undertook to refute the proposition, or to prove it, in both cases it would already be presupposed in the argumentation, in both cases I would have obtained the result by fraud. The proposition thus remains a thesis that can neither be proven nor disproven. I can trouble myself about it, but am not logically obliged to, for logic culminates precisely in the content of this proposition (and its other two forms of expression, the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle, the relative advantages of which, greater or lesser, will not be gone into here). That I cannot escape from this proposition may be of interest to pathological psychology, but it is of no significance for the explanation of the proposition; I cannot escape from various other things, either, e.g., from myself. Thus logic cannot be proven, cannot be derived from something else—Weininger
Even though the argument is that in the case of both arguing for and against A=A the results are obtained by fraud, the point is that reason itself is the culmination of A=A as content and I am yet to see a coherent argument, such a culmination, from you as to how A=A itself can constitute a proof against the existence of finite things, which is what you think you have proved.
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:1+1=2 also applies to the realisation of that truth, since if it is added with another realisation, they would together become two realisations.
Is it even possible to add realizations together? It's really a thing for mathematics, in which we assume abstracted equal parts.
Realisations are things, so they can be counted.
The true nature of things ultimately means whatever a thing appears to us to be - blue, cold, large, a part of the All, a localised vector in the quantum field of universal Maya, etc. And the judge of whether something is appearing or not is ultimately the mind to which they appear.
Which would make the mind the ultimate nature of all those things, not the appearances. Since the mind is to us another appearance, the mind only can exist in relation to the eternal. Anything else just isn't there, unless you want to say: illusions equals reality.
The mind isn't their ultimate nature because that would mean the mind appears to itself, which is impossible for the same reason a fingertip cannot touch itself.
All appearances are identified by "previous thought".

Even if that were true - and it isn't necessarily - the "previous thought" would be something appearing to you in the same moment you identified something by it, and not the previous one.
The realisation may apply to all things, but that doesn't mean it can turn the moon into Swiss cheese! Even a sapling influences the birth of stars. But it does so as a sapling, not Yggdrasil.
This realization does not "do" anything. But if the moon would turn into Swiss cheese, it (the realisation, not the moon anymore) might provide clarity, knowing that it won't be a spontaneous uncaused event. Although it might also remain a mystery in another sense if it would happen in your lifetime.
If as you say the realisation is "all things", it can in fact "do anything", since it is the whole of causality. But it is nonsense to think it is so.
The moment it's understood it becomes clear even that realization does not need to remain.
So you just have another realisation - that the previous one doesn't need to remain.
You have introduced yet another realisation - that of the needlessness of recognising the limits of another realisation.
If it's not needed it won't have to be retained, validated, dragged around, pocketed, owned or be part of anything. Not much of an introduction of anything really.

If you just discard a realisation (the truth/contents of it) for no reason at all, you've acted irrationally. If you do have a reason, then by definition you've realised something else.
Things are never "what they are" because it would break the logic of A not being able to be anything that is not A. And "what it is" does not equal just "it".

Your argument is - if I understand it correctly - that we can never identify a thing with itself because time will pass between the first and second moments of identification. But the passage of time doesn't negate the identity of a thing. Entity e1 at time t1 is also e1 at t1 at t2.
Appearances do not have any existence, unless we say existence is another word for appearance. But we won't be much the wiser for it.
Appearance means "that which appears". So they obviously do exist.
Yes, the word cognition is not a good choice after all. My point was that "A" does not provide any knowledge, perception, intuition or reasoning about A. In that way it's an axiom and while you can know and reason about the axiom itself, the "A" in A=A does not provide anything at all. It comes before or perhaps with cognition.
The "A" is a logical entity meant to represent any finite thing whatsoever, so obviously it's not meant to provide any knowledge about a *specific* thing.
Causality can also be used to establish concreteness, i.e, a thing is exactly what it is caused to be.
Why the need to make it so complex? A thing is caused. No need to say "exactly", or "what is is" or even "to be".

That is precisely my point. Things are caused, regardless of whether they are considered fluid or concrete.
My point was that the qualities of illusoriness and realness are not *inherent* in any finite thing.
But what would be inherent in any finite thing? It's finitude? My answer would be nothing since it has no existence as finite thing.
Yes, the finitude of a finite thing is exactly what is inherent in it. And what is its finitude apart from the specific qualities that separates it from other things? But precisely these qualities also unite it with other things, since their specific qualities make them finite in exactly the same way as it. To reiterate, it is precisely amongst duality that non-duality is truly found.
But something cannot be finite and infinite (here A=A really helps).
It can if the infinite is made up of finite things.
LOL! So is "leaving church" considered to be "natural birth control" by Christians?
Lets call it born again control.... It's actually one of the ways to retain some unreliable control and not only Christians! Never been to church much I guess? :-)

I've only been to open air churches. All the enclosed ones seem to demand tithes.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:my point is that reason itself is the culmination of A=A as content and I am yet to see a coherent argument, such a culmination, from you as to how A=A itself can constitute a proof against the existence of finite things, which is what you think you have proved.
Now I have to prove to you a negative? What I did is explaining why I think only causality can be said to exist. Unless one changes the meaning of existence to something meaningless like "it just is" -- which "it" actually never is really doing.
Leyla Shen wrote:
Things are never "what they are" because it would break the logic of A not being able to be anything that is not A. And "what it is" does not equal just "it".
Why, Diebert; are you attempting to disprove A=A while proving it at the same time? Why all the "quotation marks"?
My objection was against phrases like "things are what they are" and possibly what you think A=A was about. And the quotation marks are containing specific phrases and words used by others. that's why they are called quotation marks, to mark quotations with.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:Realisations are things, so they can be counted.
Yes, after turning them in countable abstracts first. The question is if they would mix well. For the same reason you cannot "add" water and fire unless you first box them properly . But then all you're doing is counting these boxes which were not there before. You're not really adding the content at all. If you would, it would be hard to predict what you'll end up with: it depends so much. All you do is proving reaction, change and causality. Not the truth of mathematical additions.
The mind isn't their ultimate nature because that would mean the mind appears to itself, which is impossible for the same reason a fingertip cannot touch itself.
A fingertip can touch the mirror like the mind can reflect upon itself or its actions to some extent. But it remains a limited false sense of self, naturally. An non-existing mirage but it's how it's done. Through logic its falsehood can become potentially pieced together.
Even if that were true - and it isn't necessarily - the "previous thought" would be something appearing to you in the same moment you identified something by it, and not the previous one.
There are only previous moments. The now is just a part of the construct of self-reflection (see above, the mirror). When you talk about identification, one talks as well about causality, stretching out in time and space and god knows which other direction. There's no inherent moment where it all "happens" or "exists", no "inherent self". This is the stunning truth of causality.
If as you say the realisation is "all things", it can in fact "do anything", since it is the whole of causality.
The realization is not "all things", its the realization that it always applies. Whatever causality "does" there wouldn't be any change in the truth that there's only causality. One can therefore not speak about it doing anything since actions imply changes in some state.
The moment it's understood it becomes clear even that realization does not need to remain.
So you just have another realisation - that the previous one doesn't need to remain.
No it's the consequence of the same realization, it's not a different one, just applied more seriously. When it's let go, that's not "having" something, it's also not trying not to have it. If realizations and delusions are both clouds then now there's blue sky. It doesn't need to be realized.
If you just discard a realisation (the truth/contents of it) for no reason at all, you've acted irrationally. If you do have a reason, then by definition you've realised something else.
If there's no reason to keep it, why any effort keeping it? That would be irrational or perhaps totally random.
Your argument is - if I understand it correctly - that we can never identify a thing with itself because time will pass between the first and second moments of identification.
No, you're way too much into Aristotle's version with it, the guy who introduced atomism. You can have your "things" and you can have "identities" or "appearances". And you can even say that all things are nothing but their appearances. But a thing cannot have an appearance and then assigned the status of being it. So you can have your A's and Q's (objects and qualities). But while it's pointless to assert a mystical A "having" Q, you can neither just say that A=Q because why even have the term A still around? We then have Q=Q. So that's why I say "what-it-is equals what-it-is" but that only tells you it doesn't really exist as "it" anywhere, anytime, anyhow.
Appearances do not have any existence, unless we say existence is another word for appearance. But we won't be much the wiser for it.
Appearance means "that which appears". So they obviously do exist.
They appear to exist. But the truthfull question remains: do they really? And truth like causality begs to differ as it lays out what real existence is.
The "A" is a logical entity meant to represent any finite thing whatsoever, so obviously it's not meant to provide any knowledge about a *specific* thing.
But you do strongly imply knowledge about a thing with a phrase like "it is what it is". You are constructing there a thing out of the knowledge you happen to have. You only have the arbitrary collection of knowledge: not a thing. You only have "what it is" as a fancy phrase for "A". It needlessly complicated and obfuscated the truth in my view, hence my strong opinions on it.
Yes, the finitude of a finite thing is exactly what is inherent in it.
Finitude does not exist so yes, non-existence is inherent to all things. But the reason for that is causality which is the only inherent thing here, the only existent.
But something cannot be finite and infinite (here A=A really helps).
It can if the infinite is made up of finite things.
The infinite is not "made up" of anything or filled like some old half-empty jar in the fridge. Those are make-shift beliefs and need to be abandoned.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

It's not possible, Diebert, to have a rational discussion with someone who cannot comprehend A=A and goes on to assert ad nauseum from that incomprehensibility and the false premises proceeding from it that only causality exists.

This only, in all your "wisdom", have you managed to demonstrate, and not via "discussion".
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

PS: You're in "good", but not unknown, company, though. (:

Here's another quote, but this time on why A does not equal A, to prove it:
I will here attempt to sketch the substance of the problem in a very concrete form. The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’. This postulate is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary generalisations. But in reality ‘A’ is not equal to ‘A’. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens—they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”—Trotsky
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment” -- Trotsky
Indeed, not bad for a Marxist: "The fundamental flaw of vulgar thought lies in the fact that it wishes to content itself with motionless imprints of a reality which consists of eternal motion". But Trotsky in the end was confusing Aristotelian logic with various erroneous metaphysical inferences drawn from it by some others.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Realisations are things, so they can be counted.
Yes, after turning them in countable abstracts first.

"Countable abstracts" or in other words quantities. I'm afraid this discussion is rapidly devolving into "what is the meaning of 'is'?" levels.
The question is if they would mix well. For the same reason you cannot "add" water and fire unless you first box them properly . But then all you're doing is counting these boxes which were not there before.

You added water and fire right there by using the word "and".
The mind isn't their ultimate nature because that would mean the mind appears to itself, which is impossible for the same reason a fingertip cannot touch itself.
A fingertip can touch the mirror like the mind can reflect upon itself or its actions to some extent. But it remains a limited false sense of self, naturally. An non-existing mirage but it's how it's done. Through logic its falsehood can become potentially pieced together.
Yes, the mind can understand itself indirectly. But its understanding of itself is not necessarily flawed.
When you talk about identification, one talks as well about causality, stretching out in time and space and god knows which other direction. There's no inherent moment where it all "happens" or "exists", no "inherent self". This is the stunning truth of causality.

Identity is not the same as an inherently existing self. An inherently existing self would actually be the opposite of identity, since it denies any appearance that differs from the self.
The realization is not "all things", its the realization that it always applies.
Diebert, you're making no sense. This directly contradicts what you said about the realisation of the true nature of all things in your first 2 posts in response to me:
But I'm not sure if that realization could be said to be finite, representing causality and the infinite in every possible way. Because we define an absolute truth to be true in all possible words and circumstances, the realization of it cannot be called relative and finite.
So what is it that you're realizing? In the end it will include the realization that this very realization itself is infinite for the reasons that there's no boundary to where it applies to. And that its manifestation as a finite thing or thought therefore has been also a misconception.
Is a realisation that can apply to all finite things finite or infinite? Clarify your position.
Whatever causality "does" there wouldn't be any change in the truth that there's only causality. One can therefore not speak about it doing anything since actions imply changes in some state.
It doesn't do them in the same way as finite things, but by virtue of the fact that it is the ultimate source of all causes/actions.
The moment it's understood it becomes clear even that realization does not need to remain.
So you just have another realisation - that the previous one doesn't need to remain.
No it's the consequence of the same realization, it's not a different one, just applied more seriously.[/quote]

Is the realisation discarded or deepened further?
But a thing cannot have an appearance and then assigned the status of being it.

This would be true if a) things were not what they are b) the true being of a thing never appears. If you believe the former, you are clearly wrong. If the latter, you have posited another appearance of the thing and called it the real/true one, hence contradicted yourself.
So that's why I say "what-it-is equals what-it-is" but that only tells you it doesn't really exist as "it" anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

I take it that your point here is that the meaning of 'is' is really that which I *really* want to be? That's my point too, but what am I? Am I what you is?
They (things) appear to exist. But the truthfull question remains: do they really? And truth like causality begs to differ as it lays out what real existence is.
All we can say for certain is that a thing is exactly how it appears to be. The moment you take a step beyond that point, like the post modernists, you're in lala land. In order to deny the reality of actual appearances, you must create fictional ones.
But you do strongly imply knowledge about a thing with a phrase like "it is what it is".
Whatever I know about a thing concerns that thing itself, so I don't see the problem with implying that.
You only have the arbitrary collection of knowledge: not a thing. You only have "what it is" as a fancy phrase for "A".

The "arbitrary collection of knowledge" you talk of is also a thing, which is a fancy phrase you have for an arbitrary collection of knowledge about me and my posts. So you're as bad as me, oh playful Rheinnixe.
Finitude does not exist so yes, non-existence is inherent to all things.

But what it is are not what it are never am!
The infinite is not "made up" of anything or filled like some old half-empty jar in the fridge. Those are make-shift beliefs and need to be abandoned.
No it's your belief that the infinite is a non-existent finite thing that needs to be abandoned.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Jupiviv, I'll try to limit this post length by focusing only on the bits in your post which seemed the most fruitful to me right now.
The realization is not "all things", its the realization that it always applies.
Diebert, you're making no sense. This directly contradicts what you said about the realisation of the true nature of all things in your first 2 posts in response to me.
But I'm not sure if that realization could be said to be finite, representing causality and the infinite in every possible way. Because we define an absolute truth to be true in all possible words and circumstances, the realization of it cannot be called relative and finite.
So what is it that you're realizing? In the end it will include the realization that this very realization itself is infinite for the reasons that there's no boundary to where it applies to. And that its manifestation as a finite thing or thought therefore has been also a misconception.
Is a realisation that can apply to all finite things finite or infinite? Clarify your position.
First of all I never said that "all things" equals the infinite because that would create a container-thing out of causality. That would be incorrect as it couldn't exist that way, as limited thing, defined by some inner and outer.

Furthermore the realization would indeed be infinite because it applies always to everything. But it's exactly at that moment it stops being just a realization, a limited thought or idea, when applied fully and deeply. But the realization as finite understanding is now as futile and limited as it ever was. It doesn't matter even to ponder where it is or if you need it again. While that might qualify for you as realization, it's really no realization at all. It's an example of no-mind or emptiness.
I take it that your point here is that the meaning of 'is' is really that which I *really* want to be? That's my point too, but what am I? Am I what you is?
More importantly: what is "what"? What does "what"? I think I'm just campaigning against that word here. Whatness. Whattism.
All we can say for certain is that a thing is exactly how it appears to be. The moment you take a step beyond that point, like the post modernists, you're in lala land. In order to deny the reality of actual appearances, you must create fictional ones.
My take on this would be: in order to deny the reality of causality, one keeps creating fictional beings and things as extensions and playground of self.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:First of all I never said that "all things" equals the infinite because that would create a container-thing out of causality. That would be incorrect as it couldn't exist that way, as limited thing, defined by some inner and outer.
I anticipated you would make this point from the beginning of this discussion. If you recall, we had an identical discussion a good while ago about whether describing the Totality as a container ascribes to it the quality of finitude. I think I argued that "container" is to interpreted poetically. I admit that at the time I didn't actually understand what that meant, at least not completely. Now I would say that finite things themselves are the "poetry", while the "meaning" is the fact that they are identical parts of the whole.

There are two points regarding which I've found you to be consistently in error based on what I've read of your posts. Firstly this conception of the infinite being more than the totality of its parts, and secondly your efforts to elevate the mind above mere finitude. Needless to say, both of these betray deep Christian roots and are doubtless interrelated, just like Leyla's glib analytical style betrays her Marxist and $cilon roots. The fact that you respond favourably whenever I use Christian language is a bit of a give-away as well.

Anyway, I won't go into this subject any further because you have to figure out why you are wrong yourself. Feel free to speak last.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Jup44,
jupiviv wrote: Firstly this conception of the infinite being more than the totality of its parts
Because it has ultimately nothing to do with totals and parts, which are convenient counterparts anyway.
and secondly your efforts to elevate the mind above mere finitude.
That is the highest purpose available if god is willing.
Needless to say, both of these betray deep Christian roots and are doubtless interrelated, just like Leyla's glib analytical style betrays her Marxist and $cilon roots. The fact that you respond favourably whenever I use Christian language is a bit of a give-away as well.
You're so clever, aren't you! But I've written so often about my Christian roots here and engaged in many conversations using Christian symbols and texts with people like BeingOf1 and Movingalways that your "discovery" here seems just a bit of added drama when leaving the stage. But we're all human I suppose.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by jupiviv »

Ah what the hell.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Jup44,
jupiviv wrote: Firstly this conception of the infinite being more than the totality of its parts
Because it has ultimately nothing to do with totals and parts, which are convenient counterparts anyway.

You can think/speak of it any way you want to, as long as you don't distort the truth. So if you like to call it an endless mind substance, you must also make it clear that in this case the "mind" in no way refers to an actual mind.
Needless to say, both of these betray deep Christian roots and are doubtless interrelated, just like Leyla's glib analytical style betrays her Marxist and $cilon roots. The fact that you respond favourably whenever I use Christian language is a bit of a give-away as well.
You're so clever, aren't you! But I've written so often about my Christian roots here and engaged in many conversations using Christian symbols and texts with people like BeingOf1 and Movingalways that your "discovery" here seems just a bit of added drama when leaving the stage. But we're all human I suppose.

No drama intended. My point was simply that your Christian roots still influence your thinking itself, even though you claim to have broken free of them. This is common among atheists who are ex-Christians. They recreate the delusions of their Christian past in a secular context. So while guardian angels are dead, the spirit of Christmas is alive and well. What they never realise is that the core of their insanity are precisely the things they choose to retain.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Leyla Shen »

Needless to say, both of these betray deep Christian roots and are doubtless interrelated, just like Leyla's glib analytical style betrays her Marxist and $cilon roots.
Yes, luckily I escaped Christian indoctrination, so I don't suffer from the delusion of an inherently existing infinitude of nothing.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Welcome back Jupiviv!
You can think/speak of it any way you want to, as long as you don't distort the truth. So if you like to call it an endless mind substance, you must also make it clear that in this case the "mind" in no way refers to an actual mind.
No, a contradictory term like "endless substance" will never stand and always will be a distortion. It doesn't matter how "actual' the mind might be which it refers to.
My point was simply that your Christian roots still influence your thinking itself, even though you claim to have broken free of them.
But I never claimed to have "broken free of Christian roots" so you're still making up a construct in your mind without any relevance. That's what I called "drama".
This is common among atheists who are ex-Christians. They recreate the delusions of their Christian past in a secular context. So while guardian angels are dead, the spirit of Christmas is alive and well. What they never realize is that the core of their insanity are precisely the things they choose to retain.
Western civilization is rooted in Christian theology but mostly its materialist aspects, as inherent existences (god becoming flesh, new personal life after death, a new actual Jerusalem, a messiah returning to make peace, end of times, transubstantiation, and so on). This might be the reason why out of all that a materialist faith developed with its technological emphasis. This is called modernity, a post-Christianity worshiping Progress and Self. And India is not immune at all, if anything they embody like newly converts the modern ideology with all its Christian roots even better than Europe does. "The new America" some are calling it.

In that sense I think your problem with Christianity (the same as Leyla displays and Marxism suffers from as religious ideology) is that it's some kind of denial of ones own religious delusion wrapped in modern terms provided by the modernity we all live in. This is why the term "atheism" means much much more than you're able to imagine right now. You're barking up the wrong tree mate.
Tenver-
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:24 am

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Tenver- »

Why is everything that man, in general, says these days so UGLY, so BORING and so DEATH-LIKE and DREADFUL?

Why is there shortage of HATE, DISGUST and LOATHING awoken by the very things man as a whole takes to be his most precious disguises?

Why is everything so DESPICABLE?

And, yes, I am putting it all on a board here.

Is it, perhaps, because as Nietzsche says, since the meaning of humanity was lacking, perhaps was also humanity itself lacking?

Why is there so much LOATHING aroused by the very things man takes to be his finest show-pieces? Why is it only Nietzsche so far in recent times who have written with the ironic grandeur and the self-love which makes WELL-FEELING at all possible?

In order to substantiate the relevance of this, if it is at all needed, what does Nietzsche say in that quote (remember it is written more than a hundred years ago and his spectacle was "reserved for next two centuries" at his time)? All the questions of politics, education and social order was FALSE and the values were MEANINGLESS. What do you make of an animal that you subject to human values? A SICK, DEAD and DREADFUL animal. How is life in a modern, Western human society at all possible these days? Only by being balanced by its counter-weight, which is THE GREAT LOATHING. Oh, the great loathing, how much do we not have to owe to this! As Nietzsche says, a man buys his wife in a sack!

Why does man fill himself with poison and calls it his "HAPPINESS"? Yuck!

Why do so many things which man does awoke the feeling of convulsion in the stomach in the refined type of man? Why is this earth so displeasing to the senses as soon as you enter a human society? Why is Nietzsche the only escape from this constant lethargy of sensual power which dominates human interaction in our "high-standing" society? Why is the road to adulthood as much the road to insanity and self-denigration?

So much is distasteful and poor, which only Nietzsche has been a living embodiment of the solution to. Is there any other human thing you can go to which does not immidiately give one the incentive to arouse great disgust in oneself of whatever such thing?

Is Nietzsche not the only breath of fresh air in literature these days? Is everything else not filled with LOATHING - despicable, hard-felt, involuntary loathing?

The more a human being is processed by our "world-society", the more of an unbearable and UGLY sight does he become. Rotten on the inside, shining and polished on the outside. Why does our human society have to ruin people, and do so in a half-assed, barbaric and unappreciative way? Why is it only children who are bearable company today? Why does everyone else arouse disgust - absolute disgust? Why is every human being so DEAD and should have been put in the grave long ago?

This is the problem, which Nietzsche is the only current remedy and solution to, and one who stands so much in opposition to his contemporary society is only understood all the much later. For now, though, Nietzsche seems to be the only fresh air you can get these days - everything else is horribly POLLUTED.
Last edited by Tenver- on Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by chikoka »

meaning of meaning aside;

How can there be abstract things such as causality or the axiom of identity.
It could be said that truths exist imanently in particulars as universals.This is whether you adopt idealism or realism.

If causality existed apart from things then it would be totaly symetrical. If you were to "approach" it from any side it would look the same.

This would make it a point, dimensionless and it would not exist, so somehow things and their properties or qualities cannot be separated. Once you do neither exist.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Cahoot »

“This would make it a point, dimensionless and it would not exist, so somehow things and their properties or qualities cannot be separated. Once you do neither exist.”

Since existence actually is, while non-existence is an inference that the existent makes and which is based on perception, one can draw a distinction between existence and manifestation.

- “Things” lack inherent existence.
- What is called a thing is actually a compendium of properties and qualities, as you say.
- These properties and qualities are part of a larger compendium called conditions, which also include time and space.
- By this definition of thing, infinite “things” exist within infinite potentiality.
- Any particular thing manifests according to conditions.
- Thus we can say that manifestation as form requires conditions, and we can say that existence within infinite potentiality is unconditional.

Mastering the conditions … that’s the trick that brings the unconventional into the conventional. For instance, once conditions are understood and mastered, the house that eternally exists within infinite potentiality has a higher probability of manifesting as form, since the variables of ignorance and uncertainty have been eliminated.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Pam Seeback »

chikoka wrote:meaning of meaning aside;

How can there be abstract things such as causality or the axiom of identity.
It could be said that truths exist imanently in particulars as universals.This is whether you adopt idealism or realism.

If causality existed apart from things then it would be totaly symetrical. If you were to "approach" it from any side it would look the same.

This would make it a point, dimensionless and it would not exist, so somehow things and their properties or qualities cannot be separated. Once you do neither exist.
The causality is not an abstract thing, you are not apart from its things, you cannot approach 'it' from any side. Why? Because you are the causality. If the term causality is not to your liking, pick whatever concept works that expresses the truth that you are in no way separate from anything you say or do.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Enlightenment

Post by Nick »

Leyla Shen wrote:Logic relies precisely on the assumption that a thing is what it is (A=A).
Do you believe it's impossible to know that A=A, and that at best one can only assume it?
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Why I Am So Clever

Post by Bobo »

Weininger wrote:If, rather than acknowledging the proposition A = A, I wanted to attempt to refute it, in so doing I would have to make use of logic, i.e., of exactly this proposition. If at some point I did not comply with it, that would mean that my deduction was false. The proposition itself is thus the criterion of truth and falsity, and from the start it is the measure of my deduction, the standard which I work from as soon as I begin to deduce. Therefore, I can at most reject all inferences, and abstain from judgement. Whether I undertook to refute the proposition, or to prove it, in both cases it would already be presupposed in the argumentation, in both cases I would have obtained the result by fraud. The proposition thus remains a thesis that can neither be proven nor disproven. I can trouble myself about it, but am not logically obliged to, for logic culminates precisely in the content of this proposition (and its other two forms of expression, the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle, the relative advantages of which, greater or lesser, will not be gone into here). That I cannot escape from this proposition may be of interest to pathological psychology, but it is of no significance for the explanation of the proposition; I cannot escape from various other things, either, e.g., from myself. Thus logic cannot be proven, cannot be derived from something else
The original quote doesn't talk about the possibility of knowledge of the proposition, it deals with the possibility of a proof. A bastardization of mine of the quote would say that a proof of the proposition or the disproof of it would have to take the form of not-A = A or the form A = not-A to come to the proof or to disprove it, which in this case would lead to a contradiction which is not a proof (by contradiction) because to be a contradiction it would depend on the assumption of A=A, which is what is supposed to be proved or disproved.
Locked