Ultimate is an objectively real universal

[chikoka]

...otherwise it wouldnt be ultimate.

//Cheap "realists" trick.

[chikoka]

Its a universal because you can say stuff like ultimately applied to many things.i.e. the 'same 'way

Ultimate cannot be ultimate if its merely a concept

[ardy]

Its a universal because you can say stuff like ultimately applied to many things.i.e. the 'same 'way

Ultimate cannot be ultimate if its merely a concept

Maybe, ultimately everything is a concept?

[chikoka]

Can admin please delete the other thread.

Hi ardy
I see you are new here.some people here believe in a totality that exists and doesnt exist at the same time.apparently *it * exists ultimately.if ultimate,the universal,is a concept then nothing can exist ultimately or rather the totality is *a* concept out of a number of concept s and therefore *not * the totality it purports to be

[chikoka]

...also..

All concepts can only be about other concepts which can only be about other concepts. It's simply another expression of the emptiness of things.so if ultimate is a concept,and concepts are ultimately empty then so is the concept ultimate meaning ultmateness is impossible

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ultimate cannot be ultimate if its merely a concept

But if not as concept, how could you ever conceive of it?

All concepts can only be about other concepts which can only be about other concepts. It's simply another expression of the emptiness of things. So if ultimate is a concept, and concepts are ultimately empty then so is the concept ultimate meaning [ultimateness is] impossible.

Yes all limited things are "impossible" in that sense because causality shows their connections and references are unlimited and absolutely relative too, changing, dependent and contemporary to a situation. Of course we luckily still have the model, the abstract, to get to some reasoning here; recognition for starters.

Perhaps one could only say "this is it" because "it" refers to a selection of causes and can be recognized, symbolized and communicated as such. But the references are limited: there are things definitely "not it" - as contrast. The difference here with anything "ultimate" is that in that case there are no things that's it not and it doesn't refer to any constellation but to causality itself. As concept impossible, true -- but if you'd dish it, you'd dish them all.

[chikoka]

Aren't concepts things? If they are t then the totality,being a a concept,must be a thing and therefore have form.hhh.huvg

[Bobo]

Something which apply to all things is one and multiple.

[chikoka]

..Earlier i said concepts can only be about concepts which can only be about other concepts ad infinitum as being a consequence of the ultimate non existence of things.

I take this back.
For starters ,that ultimately things do not exist ,that ultimatality is a change in *perspective*. Things themselves do have a sense in which they exist and that is unultimately.

Concepts on the other hand are never about anything whether ultimately or any stage inbetween. At no stage is a concept anything but another concept while there are stages where things exist , namely those persperctives that are not ultimate.

Even if

1] "that ultimately things dont exist"

was somehow equivalent to

2] "concepts are ultimately meanigless"

If ultimate is a concept and a perspective then at that perspective (its own) it ceases to be meaningful by 2] so we cannot 1] predicate the non existance of things with it ever, in all respects.
Pray tell, what that predicate would be reffering to?

Again If we ask "what is the concept of a tree about (or off)" If only concepts existed then we would not be able to even ask the question since "tree" may , no MUST be replaced by "concept". If we were to do this in time there has to be somewhere else to "jot" it down before we replace it by the term "concept" so we can meet it again to replace it yet again..
This somewhere else i beleive is objective reality.[dont go off on how meaningless it is..i know,my point with all of this is that objective reality is the lesser evil]

There may be a way out if we consider concepts as universals.[hi Bobo] The concepts "tree" and "dog" are the same in their respect of being instances of concepts.So concepts can be about only other cocepts and despite their overwhelming need to just be concepts the still have "room" to be differentiated.

My problem with this is that it is grossly circular.The very definition of tree is that it is a concept (made of a string of other concepts perhaps which are themselves just about concepts) and the very definition of dog is that it is a concept . This concept based ontology allows no other definitions. So the whole "concepts are universals" thing melts before we start to use it as there is no part in either a "tree's" definition or a "dog's" definition that explains the difference between them and since we precluded that concepts are universals , by definition of the term universal they do not have the power to explain any difference.

So concepts cannot be the only constituence of reality.


I appologise if this gets posted after you have addressed some of these points as i'm typing this away from the internet.
My design is to get to an internet cafe and logon just long enough to post this , download the page , and leave before the bill stops being conceptual :)
I will get back in time.

[chikoka]

if

1] "that ultimately things dont exist"

was somehow equivalent to

2] "concepts are ultimately meanigless"

If ultimate is a concept and a perspective then at that perspective (its own) it ceases to be meaningful by 2] so we cannot 1] predicate the non existance of things with it ever, in all respects.
Pray tell, what that predicate would be reffering to?

If ultimatality is always meaning less then this fact only pushes ultimate up to a level previously assumed to be less ultimate. Even this stage fails to satisfy itself to a simmillar account as above and so the term ultimate gets pushed up further to whas was considered still less ultimate than the secon ultimate.
This carries on till the whole concept of existance (indeed all concepts)become meaningless ultimately and unultimately at whichever stage you want to begin your analysis.
Since "accounts of reality" is simply a concept or collection of concepts.

It follows that you "account of reality" denies "account(s) of reality" .
(along with all concepts)

That is why it must be ultimately rejected.

[chikoka]

But whereforth cometh this ultimate that i used in my last statement in the above post? It must be from an objective external scource, i introduce to you the first born of objective reality a universal; the "ultimate" and its second which is like unto it "truth". The last i leave as excersice to verify itself. :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Aren't concepts things? If they are then the totality, being a concept, must be a thing and therefore have form.

Any concept of totality can ultimately be abandoned for that reason, as it's seriously limiting to keep looking at things that way.

It follows that ... "account of reality" denies "account(s) of reality" (along with all concepts). That is why it must be ultimately rejected.

Sure. But it's a surprising long way to be able to do that, sincerely and thoroughly. Because such rejection cannot be just conceptual, naturally.

[chikoka]

Any concept of totality can ultimately be abandoned for that reason, as it's seriously limiting to keep looking at things that way.

Isnt it also "seriously limiting" to veiw anything as merely a concept likewise?

Because such rejection cannot be just conceptual, naturally.

" such rejection" mut definately be a concept for you to have conceived of it, your use of just (before conceptual) i like. Its my veiw of objective reality . Its not "just" conceptual. And when we walk out of the room the part left after getting rid of "just"the conceptual part is objective and reall.

The part underlined is a concept if you look at it in a "seriously limited" way. :)

[chikoka]

Because such rejection cannot be just conceptual

I've given reasons (conceptual ones) why it must be rejected.

[Pam Seeback]

But whereforth cometh this ultimate that i used in my last statement in the above post? It must be from an objective external scource, i introduce to you the first born of objective reality a universal; the "ultimate" and its second which is like unto it "truth". The last i leave as excersice to verify itself. :)

How can the universe be external to itself? Is it not more logical to view the universe as being the union of the hidden and the revealed subjective-objective?

Ultimate Reality refers to the nature of reality beyond human beliefs about reality, emphasis on the word "refers." It is not an actual thing as I believe you are suggesting above. Making it simple, to say "I see a blue car" is a statement of understanding the nature of reality as long as one realizes that the I and the seeing and the blue car are not a) subjects or objects external to their awareness and b) are perceived things "for and in the moment" only.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Isn't it also "seriously limiting" to view anything as merely a concept likewise?

Of course, the concepts are limiting by definition: it's their very nature to be limiting.

It's not sure how you want to look at anything at all free of conceptualization of some kind.

Because such rejection cannot be just conceptual, naturally.

"Such rejection" must definately be a concept for you to have conceived of it, your use of just (before conceptual) i like. It's my view of objective reality. It's not "just" conceptual. And when we walk out of the room the part left after getting rid of "just"the conceptual part is objective and real.

Well, you brought up rejection with your statement: "That is why it must be ultimately rejected".

Can you reject all concepts of something with other concepts, you think?

Because such rejection cannot be just conceptual

I've given reasons (conceptual ones) why it must be rejected.

Is giving reasons why it must be rejected the same as the actual rejection? I think there's no disagreement here really.

[chikoka]

Sorry guys...i will be unavailable for some time indefinately.

All your replies are based on "you cant deny concepts with concepts"

I know that.
All i'm saying is your analysis is inherently [edit]-->"in"complete and i've given reasons.

I have given reasons for suggesting that the concept "ultimate" is just as nonsensical as that of objective reality.
In my analysis i extended this to all the "finite" perspectives as well.
So all concepts become just as non sensical as objective reallity.

I am aware that everytime i reffer to the ultimate as an objectively real "thing" , i am implicitly declaring it to be a concept , so i am not making sense, and i agree. My point is that anything thats uses concepts is nonsensical so why not be nonsensical in a particular direction.i.e. that of the concept which isnt a concept (nonsense again) called objective reallity.

I would like you to adress the following parts of this thread:

if

1] "that ultimately things dont exist"

was somehow equivalent to

2] "concepts are ultimately meanigless"

If ultimate is a concept and a perspective then at that perspective (its own) it ceases to be meaningful by 2] so we cannot 1] predicate the non existance of things with it ever, in all respects.
Pray tell, what that predicate would be reffering to?

If ultimatality is always meaning less then this fact only pushes ultimate up to a level previously assumed to be less ultimate. Even this stage fails to satisfy itself to a simmillar account as above and so the term ultimate gets pushed up further to whas was considered still less ultimate than the secon ultimate.
This carries on till the whole concept of existance (indeed all concepts)become meaningless ultimately and unultimately at whichever stage you want to begin your analysis.
Since "accounts of reality" is simply a concept or collection of concepts.

It follows that you "account of reality" denies "account(s) of reality" .
(along with all concepts)

That is why it must be ultimately rejected.

[chikoka]

Right...

I'm back :)

[Bobo]

.i.e. that of the concept which isnt a concept (nonsense again) called objective reallity.

The usefulness of a cup lies on its emptiness. A cup full of dirt is as useful as a cup full of gold. But for the thirsty man...

[chikoka]

.i.e. that of the concept which isnt a concept (nonsense again) called objective reallity.

The usefulness of a cup lies on its emptiness. A cup full of dirt is as useful as a cup full of gold. But for the thirsty man...

It seems we are no more near enlightenment about the nature of true reality than when this board was first opened.I recon we sacrifice the axiom of identity or at least reformulate it in an understandably ambiguous way.

We need to touch something without touching it. A search for the objective...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

We need to touch something without touching it.

But this understanding, or need for understanding, or understanding of such need.... aren't you touching upon it? Consciousness "landing", confirming axioms, the world flowering and unfolding, all because you moved. It's not something to undo: what are we but this movement? Self-reflection, self-knowledge, another movement, another creation, but at least the joy of knowing truth, of knowing knowing can now occur. Also known as the "seeds of wisdom". It ain't much perhaps.

[chikoka]

We need to touch something without touching it.

But this understanding, or need for understanding, or understanding of such need.... aren't you touching upon it? Consciousness "landing", confirming axioms, the world flowering and unfolding, all because you moved. It's not something to undo: what are we but this movement? Self-reflection, self-knowledge, another movement, another creation, but at least the joy of knowing truth, of knowing knowing can now occur. Also known as the "seeds of wisdom". It ain't much perhaps.

I have just been through an intense period of self observation and observing the axiom of identity and after cartesian products, antisymetric sets , prime numbers as fundamentals and modulation of non boolean truth i now beleive we cannot replace it.

Whats left then?

[chikoka]

Lets go with cartesian products shall we..:)

The axiom of identity is actually an equivalence relations, meaning it is a relation mapping elements in a domain to elements in the range or codomain.It has other important properties such as being symmetrical, reflexive and transitive, more on this later.

This rellation does not exist apart from its elements.It is actualy an abstraction from the cartesian product of the domain and codomain.
This can be illustrated using what can be called the default cartesian product, that of the real numbers against the real numbers.
We can imagine the set of existance (things) as being induvidual real numbers to illustrate what i want to get across.

Let us consider now this cartesian plane and see what information it contains.The y axis is made of the reals and so we may imagine the axiom of identity being the following relation; y = y.
The same can be said of the x axis. The AOI can be equally well expressed by x = x, as this would map the reals (things) onto themselves i.e. back on the x axis.
These are the trivial solutions on the plane.

The important non trivial relation would be the line that leaves the origin and travels at an angle of 45 degrees along the line y = x.
We should be able to see that rotating this line by cos pi/4 and sin pi/4 will take us back to the y and x axis respectively.
So apparently representing things this way has led to another non trivial result.so y = y, x = x, y = x(cos pi/4) and x = y(cos pi/4) are all expressions of the AOI and "life as we know it.

What can we say of the other lines (relations) and points ("things"). What sense can we make of them. Firstly we know how to get part of the plane to be mapped onto one of the axis.We just multiply by sin or cos pi/4 and we're there.Heres what i find very important. "Sining" or "Cosining" a point on the line y = x maps it to one of the axis but it does so , by in a deep mathematical sense;moving through each real number that are contained in the composite value pi/4 .So however we may try denying meaning to points anywhere else in the so called "non sensical" parts of the plane, stating the identity relation y = x(cos pi/4) involves using the definitions of these points and relation.Performing the operation cos pi/2 involves performing the operations cos (pi/2)/2 and cos(pi/2)/3...so all these values have to have some sort of reality for the AOI ;[ x(cos pi/4) ]to make sense.

We now know that relations such as for example y = 2x have some "sort" of identity That is a part of the definition of the AOI.This sort of identity would be a more primitive relation that can be expressed as much in y = x as , y = 2x.
If we substitute y = "touching something" and 2x = "not touching it" we see that

y = 2x.

I could say [QED] now but i sense some unease in some of you.
but it seems that the lefr hand side (touching something) is still being expressed albeit in a round about way in terms of x or (touching it). this would seem to imply that touching something is a type of touching something, which seems obvious and what held me back from posting this at first but that would be to not see that "2" is an element totally found on the x axis so we have in effect "translated" on the x axis by a multiple of 2 meaning we are very far from the value of x equivalent to y which satisfys completley the AOI.

If we were to rephrase y = 2x in "thing" notation we would have "touching a box" = NOT"(touching a box)".
The

y = "touching it"

x = "touching it"

2 = NOT (remember the reals are being used to replace concepts and things so this is totally valid)

so yes touching it is still being expressed in terms of touching it but as you should see this isnt a problem.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Right..tell me where i messed up :)

[chikoka]

Just to clarify, its hard to see how things can be multiplyed by each other.All we need to do is complicate this an incy bit but stating that the axi's are partial orders related by relations, these relations being the logical descriptives not ,or, nor,and....

[chikoka]

^but all that is concepts you say?

well concepts are meaningless so they cant be concepts or rather what is it you are actualy saying if you are talking of meaningless things? like objective;also meaningless so i might as well use the term objective to choose "a meaningless thing" at random.

The problem is meaning and i dont think anything should be existing, but "anything existing" is a concept and meaningless so what is it exactly that i'm thinking...what is it exactly ;"what is it exactly"?..

..Enough to make me a theist...wait...what does that mean...*sigh*..wait?