A spotlight on A=A: Dan Rowden

[Leyla Shen]

A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer":

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things).

- - - - -

All things are caused, or, A=A as the basis of causality where "cause" is defined as "that which is necessary for something to exist":

Under this definition of "cause" it becomes immediately apparent that all things are caused - since any given thing requires what it is not for its existence ( its "being" is necessitated by relation to other things): those other things are necessary to its existence and are therefore causal to it. Any thing is caused by "not that thing". In many respects this is a re-stating of the above and conveys the same essential meaning. In Buddhism this is known as co-dependent origination - that things gives rise to each other due to the necessity of their relation.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of logic:

This seems totally obvious to me as A=A is the basis of consciousness itself. Consciousness requires content, things, differentiation, and A=A represents the basis of that. Without the relation between "thing" and "not-thing" there can be no things to be aware of, no content, no existence and therefore no consciousness. Since A=A symbolises the basis of consciousness it must necessarily also be the basis of all forms of thought and logic is a form of thought; it is a movement of mind necessarily containing differentiated content [i.e. "things"]. A=A is foundational to this and therefore the basis of logic.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:

Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality. Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.

Anna: Well, well! Thank you for your detailed response. I find no fault with it. Right after I sent that post (below) I decided I had figured it out after all, and it has had a profound effect on my mind the past couple of days. Yet what I came up with is quite different! I wonder if it makes sense, or if I can state it. I was thinking rather concretely. You had asked, Why is a thing what it is, and why is A=A the basis for existence? So I thought, if A does not equal A, what is it? If you say it is B, that leaves you with B=B, which amounts to the same thing. But if A is not itself, it is nothing. I do not see how things can exist if a thing is not itself. If this item is not this item, it is not any item, because as soon as you say, no, it is not A, you must say what then it is. But as soon as you say what it is, it is then THAT thing. That brings you right back again to the stability of A=A. Unless every time you say it is THAT thing, it again is not THAT thing but something else yet again. This would go on forever, and nothing could exist.

[Jason]

Where'd you get that quote from Leyla?

[Leyla Shen]

Jason:

I dug it up form amongst the posts on the A=A thread floating around at the moment.

The complete post by Dan -- a C&P of a conversation at TPG -- is on page 2 of that thread, from memory.

[Leyla Shen]

Alright, first question:

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is.

The thing in question?

What are the demarcations of the Totality?

If the Totality appears to anyone it must, by definition, be an illusion. No?

What are you actually trying to say here?

[Blair]

Shouldn't it be A spotlight on Dan Rowden: A=A ?

Perhaps Dan is blinded by the spotlights.

[zarathustra]

A=A....delusionary. why should it=A. This foumula appeals to our understanding, reason, logic...but in NATURE it means nothing, as nature is NOT a living being it is beyond all logic. logic, like beauty, is a purely human construct...no human=no logic...meanwhile outside, the universe = CHAOS...IT IS

[David Quinn]

zarathustra the chimp wrote:

A=A....delusionary. why should it=A. This foumula appeals to our understanding, reason, logic...but in NATURE it means nothing, as nature is NOT a living being it is beyond all logic.

And yet here you are, attempting to form logical conclusions about Nature. Even more comically, you are strictly adhering to A=A in the process.

To wit:

If it is true that Nature is not that a living being, then it is because it does not have the identity of a living being. In short, it is non-living.

In other words:

Nature is non-living because it is non-living.

A=A.

logic, like beauty, is a purely human construct...no human=no logic...meanwhile outside, the universe = CHAOS...IT IS

Again, you are forming what you think are intelligent conclusions about the universe, declaring it to have the identity of chaos, no less.

In every statement you have made to this forum , including the one above, you are openly affirming both the principle of A=A and the truth that Universe can indeed be probed by logic. What is comical is that you believe you are doing the direct opposte. And even more comically, you display no awareness of this fact at all.

I'll say it again, there are more things in heaven and earth than your chimpanzee mentality.


-

[sevens]

Much respect.

[Leyla Shen]

Shouldn't it be A spotlight on Dan Rowden: A=A ?

Perhaps Dan is blinded by the spotlights.

Much of a muchness, I reckon. But, I see where you're coming from. (Posted it for ease of review, originally -- then I read it.)

Had I intended the spotlight for Dan, I would have called it "Of Men with Beards," or something.

[Matt Gregory]

Alright, first question:

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is.

The thing in question?

What are the demarcations of the Totality?

If the Totality appears to anyone it must, by definition, be an illusion. No?

What are you actually trying to say here?

Well, if Sue's not going to think for people, I'm not going to either anymore. But I am in the midst of an experiment on how to get people to reflect, so I want to tell you: memorize what Dan said there and just sink your teeth into this problem. Think about it night and day, whether walking, talking, eating, showering, whatever. If you keep at it, clarity will dawn on you. This advice is good for any philosophical problem.

Edit: Well, memorizing it might be kind of extreme...you just have to know exactly what the problem is.

[Leyla Shen]

Funny thing is, Matt, it was just the other day when I said to a friend that I needed to stop relying on others to do my thinking for me. Within the space of 48 hours, two people on this forum have said exactly that to me.

The difference between a thinker and a non-thinker is one has, can and does defend a position rationally and the other only has questions and defends emotionally.

I think I'm almost ready to be a man.

[Matt Gregory]

Funny thing is, Matt, it was just the other day when I said to a friend that I needed to stop relying on others to do my thinking for me. Within the space of 48 hours, two people on this forum have said exactly that to me.

Yeah, I was thinking I don't want to turn people into babbling belief whores. That's no good.

Thinking is hard work, but it's worth it, I know that.

The difference between a thinker and a non-thinker is one has, can and does defend a position rationally and the other only has questions and defends emotionally.

I would take it much further than that.

I think I'm almost ready to be a man.

Yeah, me too.

[Leyla Shen]

Edit: Well, memorizing it might be kind of extreme...you just have to know exactly what the problem is.

Well, I thought about it and I have realised that Dan has written it with those who do not have an understanding of Totality in mind.

So, I guess it should make them ask the right question if they think about it.

Moving right along...

[Leyla Shen]

I would take it much further than that.

Go on, then.

Crossing the line between being the thinker and thinking for others has to do with having a definite, reasoned position that is defended rationally.

Otherwise, nobody would bother writing anything.

[Jamesh]

Dan: Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is.

Matt: memorize what Dan said there and just sink your teeth into this problem

Why? I can categorically say that Dan is not entirely correct, only, as always, partially correct. The QRS give the same sort of responses as any OTHER educated fundamentalist – one sided ones!

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is.


How can something be identified as what it is not if it does not have its own ‘is’ness? Its isness CANNOT entirely come from what it is not, although it can be entirely caused by what it is not, by the process of changing from what it is not into what it is.

The problem lies in the logic, because the way Dan has worded the above FIRST requires the identification of “what it is not”, but how can one do this without first identifying “what is” within this category of “what it not”?

“any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is”

Again this is only partially true. A thing does not require every variation of what it is not to be what it is. I have a monistic way of viewing reality. I believe “time (movement) and nothingness (space)” when combined together is the single basic substance or element of all things (when not combined together they have no thingness). This being the case, a thing is not essentially formed from what it is not, but the changing pattern of its temporary-existence flow within the universe is formed from competing patterns of flow that are NOT the same as the thing in question.

Another problem with what Dan said (in terms of ultimate accuracy of thought) is that it ignores the way the mind categorises, which tends to classify things as to the manner in which things are SIMILAR to other things. A thing does not require all it’s thingness to be different to other things -a thing can be a different thing even if it has 99.9% in common with selected things. You really do need the duality of “what is” versus “what it is not”, to determine a thing, and quite frankly this is why A=A is rot. A = A + Not-B is more accurate in my opinion.

What Dan is really saying is that “all things are relative to other things, and their identity to something conscious comes from this relativity”. This includes both the thing-in-itself-ness and the non-thing-in-itself-ness AT THE SAME TIME.

If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is

True enough, but impossible, so the statement is kind of irrelevant. Under my philosophy, as the things existence is not initially intrinsically self-caused, and the causes that lead to its creation are infinite, and it cannot be removed from the totality, then the thing is “all there is” in one sense, but our consciousness separates it from the totality in regard to its effects, namely conscious calculations relating to what can be observed about the flow of its changes.

”initially intrinsically self-caused” – this wording means:

The commencement of the existence of a thing is not self-caused, but once a thing has formed then a duality of self-causing and not-self-caused changes begin to form. All things have some degree of power that relates to their structure.

[Matt Gregory]

The difference between a thinker and a non-thinker is one has, can and does defend a position rationally and the other only has questions and defends emotionally.

I would take it much further than that.

Go on, then.

Crossing the line between being the thinker and thinking for others has to do with having a definite, reasoned position that is defended rationally.

Otherwise, nobody would bother writing anything.

I was being too obtuse, I guess. If discussing philosophy is your goal, then all have to do is read a bunch of philosophy books and participate in philosophical discussions and eventually you'll be able to beat people in argument. It's not very hard to become an academic philosopher and I'm sure you could do it without much problem.

A "thinker", to me, is someone who values truth over all else. When he discovers something that he knows to be true (not just reading about it but discovering it through his own understanding), he, immediately and without hesitation, incorporates it into his consciousness as well as his life so that he becomes the embodiment of it. That's what a true thinker is in my book, someone who makes no compromises in his pursuit of truth and devotes his entire life to it. Like what Nietzsche wrote:

I have always written my works with my whole body: I do not know what purely intellectual problems are.

It makes the most important difference, whether a thinker stands personally by his problems, so that in them he has his fate, his need, and also his best happiness, or whether he is "impersonal": that is, only understanding how to grope for and hold them with the feelers of cold inquisitive thought. In the latter case, nothing will come of it.

The thinker doesn't just want to know truth or have debates about it, he wants to plunge right into it and become it.

[Matt Gregory]

Dan: Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is.

Matt: memorize what Dan said there and just sink your teeth into this problem

Why?

I was talking to Leyla. She asked some questions about it, so I was just giving her some advice on how she could solve them herself.

I can categorically say that Dan is not entirely correct, only, as always, partially correct. The QRS give the same sort of responses as any OTHER educated fundamentalist – one sided ones!

So? Just because a response is one-sided doesn't make it false.

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is.


How can something be identified as what it is not if it does not have its own ‘is’ness?

Nothing can be identified as what it is not. That would result in a contradiction in terms.

Its isness CANNOT entirely come from what it is not, although it can be entirely caused by what it is not, by the process of changing from what it is not into what it is.

If something can be entirely caused by what it is not, then what is the nature of the "isness"?

The problem lies in the logic, because the way Dan has worded the above FIRST requires the identification of “what it is not”, but how can one do this without first identifying “what is” within this category of “what it not”?

They both occur simultaneously. The wording of it doesn't express what you are saying it does.

“any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is”

Again this is only partially true. A thing does not require every variation of what it is not to be what it is.

Yes, it does, otherwise all the variations would be contained within it, so the variations would never come into existence as variations.

I have a monistic way of viewing reality. I believe “time (movement) and nothingness (space)” when combined together is the single basic substance or element of all things (when not combined together they have no thingness).

I don't understand your theory. How can empty space move? Are you talking about an ether theory or something?

And anyway, Dan isn't talking about solely physical phenomenon, he's talking about consciousness. What he's saying is not limited to physical objects. It can be applied perfectly well to a portion of empty space, or a span of time, or a thought, or whatever.

This being the case, a thing is not essentially formed from what it is not, but the changing pattern of its temporary-existence flow within the universe is formed from competing patterns of flow that are NOT the same as the thing in question.

This assumes we're talking solely about physical phenomena, so it doesn't have any bearing on Dan's argument.

Another problem with what Dan said (in terms of ultimate accuracy of thought) is that it ignores the way the mind categorises, which tends to classify things as to the manner in which things are SIMILAR to other things.

What he says applies just as well to categorizing. A category exists in dependence on that which is not that category. "A" is not necessarily a single physical object. It can be anything, including a group of objects.

A thing does not require all it’s thingness to be different to other things

Its very thingness is what makes it different from other things. That's what Dan is saying that "thingness" is: difference from other things.

-a thing can be a different thing even if it has 99.9% in common with selected things.

This is in accordance with what Dan was saying.

You really do need the duality of “what is” versus “what it is not”, to determine a thing, and quite frankly this is why A=A is rot. A = A + Not-B is more accurate in my opinion.

You mean A = A + Not-A? Surely, A + Not-A = A + Not-A would be a little more accurate. But the reason Not-A exists in the first place is because it's deliberately being ignored by consciousness.

What Dan is really saying is that “all things are relative to other things, and their identity to something conscious comes from this relativity”.

Yes, this is what he is saying.

This includes both the thing-in-itself-ness and the non-thing-in-itself-ness AT THE SAME TIME.

At the same time in the universe, yes, but not at the same time in consciousness. That's an impossibility because if they both entered consciousness at the same time then both would become one "A".

If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is

True enough, but impossible, so the statement is kind of irrelevant.

It's possible simply by definition. "Totality" is a category.

Under my philosophy, as the things existence is not initially intrinsically self-caused, and the causes that lead to its creation are infinite, and it cannot be removed from the totality, then the thing is “all there is” in one sense, but our consciousness separates it from the totality in regard to its effects, namely conscious calculations relating to what can be observed about the flow of its changes.

Yes, I think, except for the self-causing part, which I'm not sure what you mean by.

”initially intrinsically self-caused” – this wording means:

The commencement of the existence of a thing is not self-caused, but once a thing has formed then a duality of self-causing and not-self-caused changes begin to form. All things have some degree of power that relates to their structure.

I think you'll find that self-causing is impossible in any sense. When you abort a pregnancy, the fetus doesn't continue growing outside of the womb. All things need the proper conditions in order to form at all and these constitute causes.

[Leyla Shen]

The thinker doesn't just want to know truth or have debates about it, he wants to plunge right into it and become it.

Ah, the mark of Genius, you mean?

Edit: if what you say above is the case, I do not think you would find thinkers on forums having discussions.

Why do you frequent this place, and comment, Matt? How does this contribute to plunging into truth, and becoming it?

[sue hindmarsh]

Nietzsche wrote:

I have always written my works with my whole body: I do not know what purely intellectual problems are.

These days, Nietzsche could be up on charges of terrorism by professing that he, and his ideal, were one and the same. Others would think him mad or at least maladjusted. They’d probably think he needed to get a job and a girlfriend, “to sort him out”.

Well, it is true that he is out of step with modern times, because these days, the idea is to become an 'all rounder', that is, someone who gets along with his social group, is in a relationship, is employed, has no real affiliations with any political or religious group, but is up on current affairs and trends, likes to party and to entertain, and most importantly, is dismissive of either criticism or praise from others - because at bottom he says he, “doesn’t care what other people think”. And when he is asked his opinion on such and such, he postures this and this, then goes on to that and that, and ends by saying this and that are equally okay and what where why and whom really aren’t in his field of expertise – and “it’s all a laugh, isn’t it?”

Yes, Nietzsche is not only ‘old hat’; he’s a dinosaur!

And yet, some folk still look at his words and make them their own.

Matt wrote:

The thinker doesn't just want to know truth or have debates about it, he wants to plunge right into it and become it.

So idealism still exists, but is it just the 'become a sheep' type, or has it more substance than that?

Why, Matt, in this day and age, would you, or anyone else, even consider idealism an option?

Sue

[sevens]

Sue,

No progress was ever made without idealism.

Steven

[sue hindmarsh]

Steven wrote:

No progress was ever made without idealism.

What sort of progress is being made these days?

What type of idealism is being called upon?

Is it the type Nietzsche wrote of?

Sue

[Matt Gregory]

The thinker doesn't just want to know truth or have debates about it, he wants to plunge right into it and become it.

Ah, the mark of Genius, you mean?

Edit: if what you say above is the case, I do not think you would find thinkers on forums having discussions.

What I wrote above is my personal definition of a thinker, so there's no "if" about it. Why do you think that you would not find thinkers on forums? What do you think such a thinker would be doing?

Why do you frequent this place, and comment, Matt?

Mostly because it's a habit, but interacting with people who are interested in philosophy can be useful for mental stimulation a lot of the time.

How does this contribute to plunging into truth, and becoming it?

Well I didn't claim to be plunging into it and becoming it. But it's not really a question of "this activity is plunging into it and this activity is not", it's that the thinker is plunging into it no matter what he does. He's becoming truth in a very literal sense. Truth is reality, after all.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt wrote:

The thinker doesn't just want to know truth or have debates about it, he wants to plunge right into it and become it.

So idealism still exists, but is it just the 'become a sheep' type, or has it more substance than that?

Yeah, just living by the beliefs someone gives you is definitely the sheeplike variety of idealism. Most people aren't even conscious of how that occurs, so they can't get beyond that.

It doesn't have substance until you can create your own values independently of the people around you, whether they share them or don't share them, and live by the values you have created. The substance is a person's will to create his own life and actualize it.

Why, Matt, in this day and age, would you, or anyone else, even consider idealism an option?

Fuck, I don't know. Why not?

[LooF]

GENIUSES are the only ones that make the change in ideas

normal men can not.

progress does not come from the norm.

[sevens]

Sue,

The only idealism that matters is your own.

Steven