Perfection

[analog57]

Infinite freedom is without boundaries or constraint. Un-parameterized by the "Law of Identity". It can only be inferred by sentience from within constrained reality.

What other characteristics does it have?

It has no binding characteristics. Zero definitional constraints. Something we can only infer from within bounded reality.

[Dave Toast]

You've already had the third one.

So any more than the five characteristics you've listed?

[analog57]

You've already had the third one.

So any more than the five characteristics you've listed?

Thinking about it turns the brain into toast, Dave.

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

Any proof of the law of identity would necessarily depend on some form of the law of identity, so the reasoning MUST be circular, and constrained within a limited domain.

It is circular, yes, but not constrained. This is because it is impossible for there to be a domain in which A=A does not operate. Recognizing this lack of constraint is very freeing in a psychological sense.

If infinite freedom exists then it is has zero constraint.

Does infinite freedom exist? If it does then it is not beholden to the law of identity.

Infinite freedom can only be found when we cease to struggle against reality. You are currently imprisoning yourself with your phantom concepts and false aims.

This issue is similar to the traditional Buddhist issue of how to transcend duality. You cannot transcend duality by striving to reach some kind of non-duality. Such an aim is contradictory to the core. You can only transcend duality by recognizing the emptiness of all things and realizing that all duality is illusory.

-

[Leyla Shen]

Analog: Infinity cannot be *completely* understood by finite reasoning.

[Edit: added the above quotation for full effect. Oh my fucking God, the irony!]

David Quinn: Which part of "never-ending" don't you understand?

God you make me laugh, David Quinn.

Analog, please tell me you see the funny side of this?? Please!


(And, I reckon I'll answer that in lieu of Analog: the part where his reasoning ends. Howzat?)

[Leyla Shen]

Fuuuuuuck! LOL

[Beingof1]

DavidQuinn000

I take it you're not married?

I take very seriously my spiritual path if that is what you are asking. No, I am not married and have been alone for many years. I live very much like you do - I am in the world but not of the world.

BO: If you truly believe that what you experience has its own identity. Who gave this identity to your experience David?

DQ: There's no question of that. If they didn't have their own identity, then they wouldn't be able to exist and we wouldn't be able to experience them.

They don't have any inherent identity, of course, but that's another issue. The identity of a particular object is a momentary creation, generated as much by the rest of the Universe as it is by its own internal workings. It is a fleeting, causally-created thing.

And who or what gives experience or an object identity?
Do you experience life even if it may be fleeting or as I said "flux"?

Plain old cause and effect did, BO.

What does BO stand for?

That is like saying "I remember a time when I was not".

There is no reason to think we have any awareness or existence apart from higher desire. The idea that oblivious vacuum could come into existence and create sentient awareness is seeing only part of the whole.
Certainly the Absolute stillness exists; in this we see eye to eye. To put both halves together resolves the entire dilemma. Desire is, and you desire to live. " For as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west."

So why do you rape and torture small children, then?

That question is Epicurus and Hume all rolled into one. It will require some space to answer since you asked one of the questions of all time.

What we feel God would or would not do is a prejudice (preconceived idea) if it is not based in logic or testing. If we reason it out with solid logic, it appears to remain a bias but it is no longer a prejudice.

God cannot make Himself nonexistent and then create Himself out of nothing again. In other words he can't make Himself exist and not exist at the same time.
If you could not make comparisons (good/evil light/dark) - there would be no existence or reality at all.
There is no possible world that would be perfect according to this set of questionings. There might be better and better worlds ad infinitum? It is like saying the world is to crowded for perfect cities.

In every case time seems to show us where we put our attention. What is manifested in our lives is a reflection.
"The still mind of the sage is the mirror of heaven and earth, the glass of all things."
- Chuang-tzu
Fear and mistrust are from the imaginings of the mind. The thoughts of fear are projections from interpretations of reality.

As children fear the darkness and as we mature we fill the darkness with light and understanding, the unknown becomes known. There are no victims, only the creative manufacture of projected belief into experience creating the world around us.
It creates the individual colored perception of hell on earth that so many experience in their lives, and feel a victim to. That great oppressive power of darkness that tosses those around as it wishes. It vanishes in the light of high awareness.

Life is a choice. We do know what is real when we listen with the heart. No matter what age, belief, or life experience the Ascendant is always present and the connection to our omniscient Self is always alive and well. For any action whatever, there is always some other or consequent action that produces greater value.

The frustration that one experiences in trying to solve a difficult problem is outweighed by the satisfaction of arriving at a solution, and therefore that the world is a better place because forgivness is a requirement for truly being alive and whole. Without suffering injustice and darkness, I would never know the peace of compassion or agape.

My question to you sir - why have you suffered in your life?



MKFaizi

Clearly, you have stepped beyond my box.

You seem to always step out of any I might create for you.
Be cool jewl


Leyla Shen

I reckon I'd rather be Christ than a Christian; or the Buddha rather than a Buddhist.

That is wisdom, no need to have unrealistic goals ;)

He never left, Beingof1.

Right here

[unknown]

There is no wisdom!.

No wisdom in words.

No wisdom in thoughts which is based on beliefs.

Its an illusion.

God exists and non exists is just another human projection.

Humans can only know themself. They can't know anything else.

So they reflect and project their thoughts as though it is real.

They attach reference to prove a point that this is real.

Can't blame them. They are conditioned that way for so long.

When you are ready to not give answers and not to react, they you have arraived.

peace
unknown

[analog57]

Analog wrote:

Any proof of the law of identity would necessarily depend on some form of the law of identity, so the reasoning MUST be circular, and constrained within a limited domain.

It is circular, yes, but not constrained. This is because it is impossible for there to be a domain in which A=A does not operate. Recognizing this lack of constraint is very freeing in a psychological sense.

A=A holds for all possible worlds. A law that holds for all possible worlds is definitely a constraint, not a freedom. Therefore David Quinn must now dine on crow.

Happy eating Dave.

[Matt Gregory]

Freedom is slavery...slavery is freedom...

[Dave Toast]

Analog wrote:

Any proof of the law of identity would necessarily depend on some form of the law of identity, so the reasoning MUST be circular, and constrained within a limited domain.

It is circular, yes, but not constrained. This is because it is impossible for there to be a domain in which A=A does not operate. Recognizing this lack of constraint is very freeing in a psychological sense.

A=A holds for all possible worlds. A law that holds for all possible worlds is definitely a constraint, not a freedom. Therefore David Quinn must now dine on crow.

Happy eating Dave.

You are conflating terminology.

A law is only a constraint if it is prescriptive. For a law to be prescriptive, there must be a prescriber.

"Keep off the grass" is a law. It is prescribed, enforced, and one may not play football.

You can imagine what this would entail, were A=A such a law.

But thankfully it's not, it's a descriptive 'law'. The 'laws' of logic and maths merely describe what appears to be and elucidate the nature of thought, rationality and inference. There is no prescriber, no prescription and no constraint. Just plain old description of observation, after the fact.

This also applies to the likes of physical principles, AKA 'laws'. And you can bet that if any of these principles ('laws') are violated, there will be another new 'law' (principle) which describes the new state of affairs. A state of affairs which previously, we may have mistakenly thought were prescribed against.

Descriptively, the extent of constraint by A=A is that there is no constraint - it is constrained to having no constraints. But that's just due to an unavoidable problem in description, that of incompleteness. This is, in turn, an unavoidable problem of duality.

Complete freedom can never be, on account of the fact that it could not be free to be incompletely free. Perhaps there's a clue in there.

[/ramble]

[MKFaizi]

BOO,

You seem to always step out of any I might create for you.
Be cool jewl

No, nigga. You did not create any box for me. I led you here -- to this place where you will be forced to put your delusions on the line.

I have already been there and done that, thanks. Thousands of times over the years. Your turn to think outside of your own box.

Good luck. You will need it.

Jewl or Jew?

Ironically, in a small way, I am a southern American Jew with Islamic ties and I am a former Muslim. Neither of my kids consider themselves to be "white." They are used to being called things like "Sand Niggers." They are also used to being called, "Jew."

I really do not hate Jesus. But I do loathe the religion built around him.

Christianty is as much a religion of hate as Islam.

Yet, Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love. So is Islam. Traditionally, Islam and Christianity have both embraced the down-trodden of the world -- the black ones.

If you truly believe in Christ, how can you be so pompous?

Faizi

[Blair]

Ironically, in a small way, I am a southern American Jew with Islamic ties and I am a former Muslim.
Faizi

Why do yourself the disservice of labelling yourself as such? those are only remnants of your background. You are not this, or that, unless you want to be identified with it, which is usually for primitive reasons. "I am a muslim" "I am a jew" etc, "I have ties to this and that".

You are only that as far as you lack your own sense of understanding of what you really are, which is a being that exists in a certain time, and has been assaulted by cultural influence that puts pressure on you to think you are what it dicates.

[Beingof1]

There is no wisdom!.

No wisdom in words.

Its an illusion.

I will take your advice and ignore you since you and your words are an illusion.


MKFaiz

How could you take what I said as anything but a mutual compliment?

Jewl or Jew?

Jewel - as in a rare jem

If you truly believe in Christ, how can you be so pompous?

I would be pompous, if I did not truly regard truth as the epicenter of all that makes one free.
I have lived not only as a Christian but also as a Buddhist.
I have been alone in the desert without seeing another human for weeks at a time. I have looked for truth as a man would seek gold; with every fiber of my being for more years than most are willing to believe. It is my one true love.

So if I sound as though I know more than I should, I have payed the price and counted the cost. I have layed my life on the line for truth. I live, but it is no longer me that is alive, it is Christ.
If that offends you, ask yourself exactly what is it that is offended?

I told you I would be back.

[analog57]

Analog wrote:

Any proof of the law of identity would necessarily depend on some form of the law of identity, so the reasoning MUST be circular, and constrained within a limited domain.

It is circular, yes, but not constrained. This is because it is impossible for there to be a domain in which A=A does not operate. Recognizing this lack of constraint is very freeing in a psychological sense.

A=A holds for all possible worlds. A law that holds for all possible worlds is definitely a constraint, not a freedom. Therefore David Quinn must now dine on crow.

Happy eating Dave.

You are conflating terminology.

A law is only a constraint if it is prescriptive. For a law to be prescriptive, there must be a prescriber.

"Keep off the grass" is a law. It is prescribed, enforced, and one may not play football.

You can imagine what this would entail, were A=A such a law.

But thankfully it's not, it's a descriptive 'law'. The 'laws' of logic and maths merely describe what appears to be and elucidate the nature of thought, rationality and inference. There is no prescriber, no prescription and no constraint. Just plain old description of observation, after the fact.

A law is a limitation on what is possible. A=A is a necessary condition - independent of any and all observation. In fact an observation is dependent ON the law of identity, not the other way around. In accordance with David Quinn's explanation, it[the law of identity generalization] limits a thing to its own specific nature. A thing can only be itself. A thing does not have the freedom to be anything else. It can only be itself. The law of identity is therefore a limitation on a thing.

[Kevin Solway]

A thing can only be itself. A thing does not have the freedom to be anything else.

Yes, there can be no argument about this. It is a fact of Nature that a thing cannot be other than what it is.

[sevens]

The law of identity is no limitation. Because embedded within it, lies the freedom to be what it is - and infinitely so.

[David Quinn]

Exactly right. Analog is creating this limitation in his own imagination and projecting it onto the world. He's creating his own mental prison. Next he'll be saying that existing is a limitation because one is not free, in that moment, to not exist.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A thing does not have the freedom to be anything else. It can only be itself. The law of identity is therefore a limitation on a thing.

To use analog's analogy:

The higher symmetry of both freedom and limitation is pure existance.

[Sapius]

Exactly right. Analog is creating this limitation in his own imagination and projecting it onto the world. He's creating his own mental prison. Next he'll be saying that existing is a limitation because one is not free, in that moment, to not exist.

Is it really true that one is free, at any given moment, to not exist? Can something have the freedom to NOT exist? ;) Don't take that too seriously.

In my opinion, concepts like 'freedom' and 'limitations' do not apply to Reality, (the essense of existence that is), which is neither free nor limited, just like there can be no in or out to Reality.

[Sapius]

Analog,

A thing does not have the freedom to be anything else. It can only be itself. The law of identity is therefore a limitation on a thing.

Yes, agreed, it is a limitation on a 'thing', but does that limitation apply to Reality, that is, All there is? ‘All that there is’ would have no specific form of identity, hence not a “thing”, thereby neither limitation nor freedom would apply.

[analog57]

Exactly right. Analog is creating this limitation in his own imagination and projecting it onto the world. He's creating his own mental prison. Next he'll be saying that existing is a limitation because one is not free, in that moment, to not exist.

-

The law of identity is a binding constraint in that " a thing is itself and only itself" Simple. That is using YOUR reasoning DQ. Now you wish to say that the law of identity is whatever YOU and your hen-pecking cronies wish it to be??? thus using it however YOU wish in order to win the argument? Try as you might, you will find it impossible to take flight ...over the cuckoo's nest.

[analog57]

A thing does not have the freedom to be anything else. It can only be itself. The law of identity is therefore a limitation on a thing.

To use analog's analogy:

The higher symmetry of both freedom and limitation is pure existance.

Incorrect.

The highest possible symmetry is nothingness.

[analog57]

The law of identity is no limitation. Because embedded within it, lies the freedom to be what it is - and infinitely so.

For a thing to exist is to be distinguished from another thing. Distinction of a thing from other things, means that it must obey the law of identity. Otherwise the consistency of perceptual reality breaks down. The law of identity must hold.

[analog57]

A thing does not have the freedom to be anything else. It can only be itself. The law of identity is therefore a limitation on a thing.

To use analog's analogy:

The higher symmetry of both freedom and limitation is pure existance.

Symmetry is a measure of indistinguishability.