GENIUS FORUMS

Perhaps D's challenge to write about my ideas on "proving" the non all pervasiveness of the axiom of identity will provide some good responses challenging or affirming them, either way bringing us closer to the "truth".

The axiom of identity (wherever it exists) expresses itself in the world in the form of cardinality. so we have:

1.AOI -> cardinals.


But is this a transitive relationship?
Could it be that:

2.AOI -> X -> cardinals

or even:

3.X -> A -> cardinals?

What would suggest either 2 or 3?

Let us consider the work of peano famous for his peano axioms in number theory (i.e. the theory of cardinals).

The cardinal "0" is defined as primitive with certain properties (not mentioned). Next the number "1" is defined as having all the properties of the cardinal "0" as well as its own (also not mentioned) , this carries on for all succesive cardinals.

Why are these properties not mentioned? Because they are qualities not cardinals. These are proper qualities and not determinates like the colour red which is based on cardinality (i.e. wavelength).

So cardinality is not primitive (which we alsready knew as it depended on the AOI) but is "built" out of quality.

So we either have:

4.AOI -> Quality -> cardinality

or:

5.Quality -> AOI -> cardinality.

Which should we choose , and why?


I choose 5, why? The concept Quality i brought up above is not to be confused with determinates as i explained above .You cannot identify these qaulities since they do not have an "extent" which if they did would make them subject to cardinality (but peano says they come before) . Now here's the crux ; *they also do have an extent* since "0" (i.e. "0" extent) is still also a cardinal.

Meaning they violate (and dont, as to be expected) the AOI. [QED]

"...and still he thought he knew."

What do you mean?

Socrates is walking around talking to men with a reputation of wisdom, each time he finds that they are not so wise as they still think they know. He is wise because he knows he doesn't know. Not-knowing being the equivalent of wisdom or "true knowledge".

Why is that?

Seeker writes of Socrates: He is wise because he knows he doesn't know.

Socrates is deemed the wisest man in Athens because he knows what he doesn't know. It would be an injustice to represent Socrates as someone who did not believe there was any knowledge. He very much believed this, indeed; he just didn't want people crapping on as though they had knowledge when they didn't. The point was to ask questions (dialectically think, reason) until the thing could stand as knowledge against all objections. The point was to seek wisdom, i.e. philosophize, and to do this dialectically through logic and reason ( - the stuff some of us do here that annoys you! :) )

Socrates was Plato's mouthpiece.
Plato's theory was 'save the appearances'.

the don't know of Plato/Socrates refers to 'the why'

Your 'why' seeker is creator god.
an inference.

I guess Socrates would melt into paroxysms of laughter over you.

Pye wrote:

Seeker writes of Socrates: He is wise because he knows he doesn't know.

Socrates is deemed the wisest man in Athens because he knows what he doesn't know. It would be an injustice to represent Socrates as someone who did not believe there was any knowledge. He very much believed this, indeed; he just didn't want people crapping on as though they had knowledge when they didn't. The point was to ask questions (dialectically think, reason) until the thing could stand as knowledge against all objections. The point was to seek wisdom, i.e. philosophize, and to do this dialectically through logic and reason ( - the stuff some of us do here that annoys you! :) )

Exactly. Socratic wisdom is the starting point of intellectual inquiry; a a place from which one declares one does not know. All too many quasi-postmodern types like to represent is as a statement of "I can't know", which is a position grounded in and riddled with contradiction, and therefore nonsense. Socratic wisdom and the maxim behind it (if there's any such definitive thing) is an antidote to pretense and no more.

Exactly, sticking to what you know.

Haven't been doing a very good job then Pye :b

Seeing as your logic and reasoning has only lead you further away from the truth which is "beyond the reasoning abilities of the philosophers", that "everything in the world is like a dream or miraculous image projected", existing only of the mind.

Eventually, hopefully, you will be honest with your self, honest about your ignorance to this existence, and honest about something you can't really explain, that this is all occurring like a dream within your mind.

Here is where the importance of not-knowing comes in.

We KNOW all experiences are occurring "within" consciousness.

What we don't KNOW is what you think you know, that there is a world outside of consciousness. (Which is, coincidentally, impossible to directly evidence, observe, or know of)

You think I'm yelling my personal opinion at you, which is true, but you are a philosophy teacher, and it just so happens that my personal opinion is an unsurpassed truth of wisdom which goes beyond the capabilities of reasoning and cannot be recognized through reasoning alone, as it is also exposing thought and reasoning themselves as nothing more than transient imaginations of the mind.

Anyone that hasn't come to this realization is only on the path of coming to this realization, no one yet knows it, but Pye, when you do see the illusion of the world for yourself, and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the objects you see aren't real but exist only of the mind, there will be an awkward conversation between us.

What confuses me is how much the truth is disliked, especially when it's the one that should be likeable, life is eternal and there is absolutely nothing to worry about as it is just like a dream, you don't even have to act like it is real.

Dennis thinks I quote wise people because I can't say it myself, I quote because you aren't listening to me, hopefully you will listen to wise people. (For your benefit)

"A wise man, recognizing the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, and so escapes the suffering"
-Buddha

I'm not asking you to think about this, I'm asking you specifically not to think about this, stop thinking and start looking.

Only through looking can you see, and only through seeing can you understand that, in the full sense of the words, "the world is but an illusion" of the mind.

If you agreed this was the ultimate truth of reality you wouldn't be planning to reply with something about how I need something and so I'm pushing my opinion on you, would you? I apologize sincerely for directing conversation on an enlightenment forum to a major philosophical debate directly related to enlightenment.

If you saw it as the truth and recognized it so, it is no longer some egotistical fantasy of mine you have to insult me for constantly talking about, but something I've actually been lucky enough to help teach. Knowing without a doubt that anyone who doesn't know it without a doubt just hasn't seen it enough yet.


Funny Dennis how you push a "creator god" on me when I openly admit this thing you think I worship or think to exist is actually you and me(Who definitely exist) and we didn't create anything.

The point is, a lot of people that think they know about enlightenment, talking of raising their vibrational frequencies and putting 5 out of 7 of their chakras in line, need a little bit more reminding that they don't know.

“The world, indeed, is like a dream and the treasures of the world are an alluring mirage! Like the apparent distances in a picture, things have no reality in themselves, but they are like heat haze.”

Many people avoid the fact that the Buddha directly outlined over and over that the apparent external world is a manifestation of the mind. The reason is because the number of people that have fully come to the realization that things do not actually exist but are only appearances occurring within the mind is very small.

All knowledge is as valid as words, thoughts, or information one might speak in a dream. You can still be right, you can do a lot of things with your knowledge, none the less, every piece of it, and every scenario, has been an imagination of the mind.

All knowledge is as valid as words, thoughts, or information one might speak in a dream. You can still be right, you can do a lot of things with your knowledge, none the less, every piece of it, and every scenario, has been an imagination of the mind

Does that include your speaking?

Yes. It is an imagination of my mind just as it is an imagination of your mind.

For some proof Dennis, through one tiny thought, one tiny imagination of a decision, you can be rid of having to read any of seekers posts, forever! That is how powerfully your imagined thoughts control your own imaginations. Isn't life grand?

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's where reason comes in.
there are causes for suffering,
therefore causality operates.

The appearance of all of reality existing only of the mind is just as valid/invalid as the appearance of causation, or any other appearances. The wise can sense the emptiness beyond appearances, while the ignorant adhere to the experiences of finite observation.

As much as you speak of "not knowing" and "things existing only of the mind," how much are you working on "not knowing that things only exist of the mind"?

I know that the things that exist only of the mind exist only of the mind.

All our experiences of "world" exist only of the mind. All imaginations of more exist only of the mind. In reality, the only thing that is known, is the mind. I'm hearing theories about things that aren't the mind, I'm naming them as false imaginations.

How valid are theories one might have in a dream? They arise for a moment, disappear, and are nothing again. You all know the extent of all possible knowledge is direct experience of this consciousness phenomena. Try and give me a theory about how my mind turns nothing into a reality.

Try and give me a theory for how, whatever you want to call it, "universe", manifested this conversation? Whenever you speak of ultimate reality you are always incorrect, and sometimes while being incorrect you may think you are correct and others may agree.

there seem to be only four possible ways to explain
(i.e., conceptualize) our objects of consciousness (i.e., our experience). This is so
whether our objects are exotic ones, such as photons, or pure mental objects such as the
idea of simplicity, or common physical objects such as cups. These four ways form the
four horns of Nagarjuna’s tetralemma, which can be simply stated as follows: either (1)
objects are themselves, or (2) they are not themselves, or (3) they are both themselves
and not themselves, or (4) they are neither themselves nor are they not themselves.
It would seem to common sense that at least the first statement ought to hold true,
and thus offer some explanation of experience.

None does—yet experience remains.

We are now about to enter the world of direct experience. It’s a world common
sense normally never allows us to venture into. Our common habit is to not attend to direct
experience, but to slip off into conceptualized thought and plunge into endless chains
of explanation. Usually we mistake concepts for Reality with lightning speed. But Reality,
as far as direct experience is concerned, is not concept—it is thoroughgoing relationship.
There’s a crossover point from thinking of an object as Real and Absolute to actually
seeing relationship as Reality. Until we can see relationship as Reality, our mind,
locked in conceptualized thinking (and locked onto static, seemingly Absolute objects)
will become embroiled in paradoxes. But, when we see relationship as Reality, our mind
is not so locked onto static objects such as, say, the idea of “me,” and so it doesn’t get
bogged down in confusion.

dependent origination
nonduality
Nagarjuna

Neitzsche
What we do in dreams we also do when we are awake: we invent and fabricate the person with whom we associate -- and immediately forget we have done so.”

the activity of imputing consciousness is the key.

if you want to 'fix' your girlfriend seeker,
you have to call her forth, assign attributes to her,
good and bad,
and by way of scalding and correcting,
drive her nuts.

seeker,

Exactly, sticking to what you know.

Haven't been doing a very good job then Pye :b

Seeing as your logic and reasoning has only lead you further away from the truth which is "beyond the reasoning abilities of the philosophers", that "everything in the world is like a dream or miraculous image projected", existing only of the mind.

Eventually, hopefully, you will be honest with your self, honest about your ignorance to this existence, and honest about something you can't really explain, that this is all occurring like a dream within your mind.

look at that again,
'fixing Pye'.

treating her like an errant child fit for scalding and correction.
WTF?

what's the button?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:How valid are theories one might have in a dream? They arise for a moment, disappear, and are nothing again. You all know the extent of all possible knowledge is direct experience of this consciousness phenomena. Try and give me a theory about how my mind turns nothing into a reality.

The mind doesn't turn anything into reality, it perceives reality. There are an infinite amount of things that go on beyond your control, including your own mind. Can you fly? Grow instantly into twice your size? Teleport just by thinking about it?

The mind perceives the experiences that have already been set out for you. If you witness a car wreck today, it isn't because the mind willed it into existence. It is just an occurance of reality.

Things are dreamlike in the sense that our conceptualizing minds define what those things are, when those things wouldn't exist conceptually without the minds presence. In reality, the mind acts in perfect cooperation with it's environment. In fact, the environment controls the mind just as much as the mind perceives the environment. This is the lack of free will.

Let's not forget that even in your theory of "mind creating reality" that the mind itself is still controlled by circumstantial forces. It must first exist before reality can be created by it, thus enforcing a more ultimate reality from which the mind originates. Did a mind imagine a mind which imagines your mind?

Adhering to finite experiences and explanations prevents one from realizing the infinitude of nature.

Hi Seekerofwisdom:

If minds function, what are they a function of?

bluerap

When did I say I had control over the experiences of the mind? No free will, no control over these changing sensations/feelings.

You say the mind perceives reality, it doesn't turn nothing into reality.

I was just staring at nothing, darkness, and, lo and behold, all of a sudden, it turned into reality, wtf?

You think imaginations of not-awake state are unreal and those objects are unreal, the things we dream up do not exist independent of consciousness and seeing them.
Everyone agrees.

But, then you think experiences of awake state are more real, that they are not imaginations, that the objects you see truly exist independent of mind.
I disagree, the things you see awake, the experiences of sensation/feeling you have, are just as real as those you experience asleep.

To be more clear, in the future, when you are not bluerap, bluerap existence would have been a lost dream.

bluerap existence, and all of my experiences, ARE a dream, ppl don't like the word because dreams are clearly different to waking state... so...., all experiences are only of the mind and all apparent objects do not exist independent of the mind but are akin to an object you might pick up while asleep, which never existed.

To be even more super clear, do you have legs when you are running in a dream? Nope,

...that's how much you are dreaming right now, that's how shallow your knowledge and imaginations are.

The only thing known to exist are these changing sensation/feeling consciousness phenomena, all conceptualizations and ideas of "more", are actually only appearances of this changing sensation/feeling consciousness phenomena, the idea appears, it disappears, it never really existed, nor did it bear any relation to ultimate reality.

There is no free will for the same reason, thoughts react to sense stimuli which alter sense stimuli which alter thoughts,etc, they are only uncontrolled experiences of the mind, that is precisely why you don't assign credibility to thoughts about "more" of ultimate reality which you know exist as nothing but shallow imaginations.


Dennis

You are right about the "good and bad" thing, although "scald and correct" won't be an effective attitude. Letting people know that they are creating issues or doing wrong and reminding them definitely works tho I try to do it from the positive side rather than scalding as this raises defenses. Either way it is all going well as I no longer submit to "evil thoughts" and hence nothing bad ever occurs.

"What we do in dreams we also do when we are awake: we invent and fabricate the person with whom we associate -- and immediately forget we have done so.”

See, this sounds like he is actually saying life is a dream, but I doubt he means it that way, what you say about things existing only in relationship and not as particulars is all well and good, impermanence and inherent existence apply either way to reality, but they are still talking about a wildly different thing to "In the middle of a dream".

There are two kinds of people that have read from the buddha, those who stick to his speculations on the functions of reality such as atman-lessness, inherent existence and impermanence, while avoiding the major truth of ultimate reality "everything in this world is like a dream or miraculous image projected" -existing only of the mind- as it is absurd and will be laughed at by most.

Then there are those who are realists, who see clearly that not only was Buddha saying all objects don't truly exist, that they are only appearances of the mind like in a dream, but who also see, for themselves, that they are "In the middle of a fuckin' dream", which is absurd and will be laughed at by most, and will only become recognized as a truth from the majority after about another 100000000 years, when the minds have gone through enough bullshit explanations to realize what is happening.

Now Dennis, the thing you have avoided forever, is a simple easy question that answers clearly which one of those you are:

Is the light which illuminates your room real or is it as unreal as the light one might see asleep?

Most would say the latter is only an imagination of the mind which is due to seeing the "real" light while awake.

I say there is no difference, both imaginations, both objects of unexplainable changing sensation/feeling, objects which do not really exist, as everything else.

You are giving this:

"In the middle of a fuckin' dream"

absolute existence.

As bluerap indicates.
what exactly are you empty of?

What do you mean I am giving it absolute existence?

I am saying, "experiences of the mind exist only of the mind", I assert this with such confidence and absolute certainty that I will give it so much existence as to make a plaque of it.

Realising the relative nature of mind is difficult and important.
Go seek.

Like I said, a lot of this is based on the understanding that there is a physical plane, which is always there as we see it, always acting and reacting to produce our experiences.

"Relative nature of mind" implies existence of mind is relative to circumstance, false, mind precedes all of these ideas, mind precedes causality, what is causality in a dream? All of these exist only as imaginations of what always was, that thing that is imagining.