GENIUS FORUMS

hahahaha hehehe

Jizus, Frank you must be a comedy writer. You kill me, man. Really, your posts make my day.

He is happily feeding your malice.

-

Please, I don't have malace. I have mirth. I like this whole gang here. I love it when anyone is happy and playful. They are my children.

Leyla: You are saying that the Totality is caused by its parts when you say that things inherently exist and include the Totality as a thing.

Rubbish. Things inherently exist because everything inherently exists.

The Totality is independent of causes -- my thinking or conceiving of it together with everything in the universe, for example, does not bring it into (is not the cause of its) existence. That’s precisely what gives it inherent existence. That's precisely why it is infinite. That's precisely the reason that when I die, it won't.

Your being is a cause of its existence. Certainly not the cause. The totality is independent of itself (infinite)and dependent on itself alone. Grasping a paradox is pleasurable. :D

unwise wrote:

Please, I don't have malace. I have mirth.

There is no real difference between malice and mirth. Look at frank's post again - he is laughing at someone from a position of self-righteousness. Behind the playfulness, he is being malicious. And you are lapping it up.

-

There is no real difference between malice and mirth.

It's strange that mookes says I sling slogans from the rooftop, and yet I suspect he'd swallow this sort of thing with satisfaction.

suergaz,

no proof is required from me.

You can't be for real. What makes your position so special that it doesn't need proof?

The indivisible is naturally divisible within itself.

That sentence violates the principle of non-contradiction.

mooke: the whole can easily be both indivisible and inexpressible as the sum of parts (due to its indivisibility).

suergaz: Only on the assumption that a sum must result in a finitude.

Astounding. You imagine that there's only one possibility, so the first possibility that strikes you is the assumption I was using. The whole can be inexpressible as the sum of parts also based on the assumption that it is completely and utterly indivisible. It can avoid ever being the sum of parts by avoiding having parts altogether. I would not be the first philosopher to suggest that nature is all one and the same: indivisible and without parts.

The whole is indivisible and expressible as the sum of infinite parts.

I can't make sense of this sentence at all. How do you express the sum of infinite parts? What does that even mean? I can express my confusion by asking a question. I can express my feelings by writing a poem. But I can't think of a single way to express the sum of infinite parts.

And anyhow, I also can't see how an indivisible whole can be made up of parts, infinite or otherwise. By definition, something that is indivisible is not made up of parts.

I did not miss Leylas meaning, or your own, or anyone elses. I only happen to disagree that all things have no inherent existence.

I'm starting to think that it is the sign of stupidity to believe that you automatically understand what everyone around you is trying to say. I'm going to call your bluff: you wouldn't even know what inherent existence was if things had it. Let's say the chair that I'm sitting in inherently exists. What would that mean?

Yes, there is only the totality, and yes it exists inherently, hence nothing is an illusion.

Nothing is an illusion? What about illusions? Are they not... illusions?

I'm trying to disprove things by showing that they are illusions. I don't think your style of argument -- that is to say, running headlong into the fray with nothing more on your tongue than direct contradictions -- is going to get you very far in this case. You've already bungled it by trying to disprove illusions. If you are to be believed, the mistakes of human thought have now become things.

Trevor

You can't be for real. What makes your position so special that it doesn't need proof?

It is proof.

suergaz: The indivisible is naturally divisible within itself.

Trevor: That sentence violates the principle of non-contradiction.

You are saying the indivisible is not in-divisible (divisible in itself)? Before you tried to tell me 'everything' was not 'every thing' :D

mooke: the whole can easily be both indivisible and inexpressible as the sum of parts (due to its indivisibility).

suergaz: Only on the assumption that a sum must result in a finitude.

mooke: Astounding. You imagine that there's only one possibility, so the first possibility that strikes you is the assumption I was using. The whole can be inexpressible as the sum of parts also based on the assumption that it is completely and utterly indivisible. It can avoid ever being the sum of parts by avoiding having parts altogether. I would not be the first philosopher to suggest that nature is all one and the same: indivisible and without parts.

Oh you wouldn't be the first? You mean you've got a posse of philosophers on this? You write "It(the whole) can avoid ever being the sum of parts by avoiding having parts altogether" ---:D Astounding.

suergaz:The whole is indivisible and expressible as the sum of infinite parts.

I can't make sense of this sentence at all. How do you express the sum of infinite parts?

The same way you express infinity.

What does that even mean?

Infinity.

I can express my confusion by asking a question. I can express my feelings by writing a poem. But I can't think of a single way to express the sum of infinite parts.

Oh you don't need to Trev! You're doing it right now. But here's a way to do it on paper to impress your friends:

1+1+1+1 ad finitum

And anyhow, I also can't see how an indivisible whole can be made up of parts, infinite or otherwise. By definition, something that is indivisible is not made up of parts.

By definition? There's your problem. Definitively, indivisibility is divisible in itself, as I have already stated.

I did not miss Leylas meaning, or your own, or anyone elses. I only happen to disagree that all things have no inherent existence.

I'm starting to think that it is the sign of stupidity to believe that you automatically understand what everyone around you is trying to say. I'm going to call your bluff: you wouldn't even know what inherent existence was if things had it. Let's say the chair that I'm sitting in inherently exists. What would that mean?

If you had genuinely surmised I was stupid you wouldn't have pursued this comedic correspondence. Sure, let's say the chair you're sitting in inherently exists, it means you're sitting in a chair. :D

suergaz: Yes, there is only the totality, and yes it exists inherently, hence nothing is an illusion.

Trev:Nothing is an illusion? What about illusions? Are they not... illusions?

Illusions are illusions, and illusions are nothing.

I'm trying to disprove things by showing that they are illusions.

Indeed you are Trev. Also, you are failing to.

I don't think your style of argument -- that is to say, running headlong into the fray with nothing more on your tongue than direct contradictions -- is going to get you very far in this case.

Ah Trev, I do care about what you think, but it will get me all the way, as they say, with truth, that most inimitable temptress!

You've already bungled it by trying to disprove illusions. If you are to be believed, the mistakes of human thought have now become things.

Now, now, illusions disprove themselves since they're nothing. The mistakes of human thought are what they always were. :D Lighten up old man!

zag, you're being an idiot.

Fear not Leyla! David was only joking! Mirth is not realy malice, it only has the capacity to absolve all malice!

:D

You mean, your own?

Yes, I would agree with that (but, I must say, I haven't been paying much attention to the mirth/malice comments in this discussion).

You mean you've been paying more attention to my comments?
But there is such a convincing argument for everything being one and the same!

There is no real difference between malice and mirth. Look at frank's post again - he is laughing at someone from a position of self-righteousness. Behind the playfulness, he is being malicious. ....David

Certainly, when one teaches, one has to be clever. This is because one is always dealing with the cunning schemes of other people's egos. One has to try and find ways to bypass these schemes and speak directly to the authentic part of them. This can involve using anything from pure reasonings, to humour, to praise, to direct confrontation.....David

I notice you use humour yourself Dave.

So?

Here's the rub.

If it is Caused.

Am I culpable?
Guilty?
Blameworthy?

If it is caused?

If I've followed your reasoning correctly...

I'm not.

frank

David wrote:

A much better term would be "apparent existence".

Solves a lot of confusion.

Sapius: Well, may be he is caused not to give a toss, and how different is it from you being caused to give a toss?

David: What is the difference between a baby drinking a lethal posion and a baby Einstein going on to live a long and active life?

Both are caused, no difference there, and that is what we are talking about.

Each of them will affect the future in vastly different ways.

Sure they will, but what has that got to do with apparent individuals acting in different ways as far as causes are concerned? Is there a beginning or an end to any individual or his thought? How and where do you hold a thing responsible? Can I say apparently responsible?

Of course people can't be responsible which is why Mr. Quinn does not bother me with all his sarcasm. He can't help it. It is interesting to come here and see so many people try to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

You mean you've been paying more attention to my comments?
But there is such a convincing argument for everything being one and the same!

Oh, the sweet, mediocre irony. Doesn't it just make you want to wet your pants with laughter?

Ha-ha-flippen-ha, ho-ho-fucking-ho (side-splitting, belly-aching, cheek-stretching humour).

Ready to move on now?

By the way, what are your thoughts on telepathy? How would you describe the phenomena alluded to?

[Edit: Hell, I forgot to answer the question. How can I be anyone else if I can't even be who I was a moment ago?

The answer to your question above, zag, is: no.]

suergaz: You mean you've been paying more attention to my comments?
But there is such a convincing argument for everything being one and the same!


Leyla: Oh, the sweet, mediocre irony. Doesn't it just make you want to wet your pants with laughter?

Ha-ha-flippen-ha, ho-ho-fucking-ho (side-splitting, belly-aching, cheek-stretching humour).

Ready to move on now?

To? ...Is there a hurry? Are you late for something?

By the way, what are your thoughts on telepathy? How would you describe the phenomena alluded to?

I thought I described it in the freud thread when I wrote that selves have self in common, it seems to defeat description beyond that, my own experience of it was nine years ago. It is a topic that interests me more than almost any other. Have you experienced it?

Edit: Hell, I forgot to answer the question. How can I be anyone else if I can't even be who I was a moment ago?
The answer to your question above, zag, is: no.

You think then that all things have no inherent existence? Go on, you can tell me, I shan't be mad at you for being one of 'the good old boys', and you will forgive me my mirth.

I didn’t have much time earlier… David,

I agree that Suergaz's use of the word "inherent existence" is rather weak and inappropriate. A much better term would be "apparent existence".

Actually I was not much so concerned as to Suergaz’s usage of the term as much as I am of you saying ‘therefore can be said to “inherently exist”’, which means that under certain conditions you could accept Suergaz’s usage of the term, but he is basically saying that that is the case irrelevant of any conditions. At least that is how I understand it.

While things certainly exist in the form of an appearance to our minds, they lack any kind of objective existence. Even the most solid-looking objects, like mountains and planets, have no more substantiality in their existence than shadows on the ground or bubbles in the water. In all these cases, their existence is only sustained in the moment by the right causal conditions. They can all vanish without trace in an instant.

That is all well and good, but does that explicitly mean that a shadow or a mountain is not a shadow or not a mountain sustained in that moment by the right causal conditions? Even by definition, which is as absolutely certain as appearances are? Or can we doubt that which we define?

zag,

I thought I described it in the freud thread when I wrote that selves have self in common, it seems to defeat description beyond that,...

Bloody lazy sod. I'll not give you a sentence more until you give me more than a sentence.

Hi, Sapius.

Give your sentences to whom you please Leyla.



"Now, Kitty, let's consider who it was that dreamed it all. This is a serious question, my dear, and you should NOT go on licking your paw like that -- as if Dinah hadn't washed you this morning! You see, Kitty, it MUST have been either me or the Red King. He was part of my dream, of course -- but then I was part of his dream, too! WAS it the Red King, Kitty. You were his wife, my dear, so you ought to know -- Oh, Kitty, DO help to settle it! I'm sure your paw can wait!' But the provoking kitten only began on the other paw, and pretended it hadn't heard the question.

Which do YOU think it was?"

Leyla Shen wrote:Hi, Sapius.

Hi Hi! Leyla.

suergaz,

mooke: You can't be for real. What makes your position so special that it doesn't need proof?

suergaz: It is proof.

A circular argument is never proof. It is the complete absence of proof; it is also the utter failure to provide any explanation or to show any insight into the matter.

Some examples of circular reasoning:

1) "We see because we have the faculty of sight."

2) "God exists because it says so in the Bible, the only book which is the infallible word of God."

3) "We recognize art because we feel the aesthetic emotion in its presence. To clarify, the aesthetic emotion is that emotion we feel in the presence of art."

4) "A things existence requires existence, nothing more."

The fourth example, you should remember, is your own words. For fun, I'll give you a charitable reading, and assume that you mean "the existence of anything means that there will be the existence of things". You would, in this case, only be correct so far as ONE thing is allowed to exist. It would be a very misleading and obtuse way of expressing Quinn's "reality is not nothing whatsoever".

However, judging from the quality of your arguments thus far, I find it more likely you mean "things exist because things exist". A weak empirical intuition, a bit of common sense, a circular argument... but no logical necessity. Simply because you believe in things, or you divide the world into things when you perceive it, does not mean that there are things by virtue of logical fact.

You are saying the indivisible is not in-divisible (divisible in itself)?

Exactly. Since you seem to love semantic games: there are two uses of the prefix in-, and one does not entail the other. The first use is similar to un- and means "not", as in "invisible" (not visible). The other use is is similar to en-; and in your context (in-divisible), the "in" is actually short for "within".

You are trying to say that "not divisible" means "divisible within itself". These are not the same.

Oh you wouldn't be the first? You mean you've got a posse of philosophers on this?

Indeed. What I describe is known as "monism". It's the only metaphysical system I'm familiar with that can successfully integrate Western and Eastern views into a coherent whole, put the sciences in their proper place, and refute theological arguments without falling prey to the same contradictions that those, the most robust of theists, fall into all the time.

You write "It(the whole) can avoid ever being the sum of parts by avoiding having parts altogether" ---:D Astounding.

Yes, but you shouldn't have to be so astounded. I'll copy/paste some stuff from dictionary.com. Maybe it'll make it more clear:

mo·nism
n. Philosophy
1. The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

mooke: And anyhow, I also can't see how an indivisible whole can be made up of parts, infinite or otherwise. By definition, something that is indivisible is not made up of parts.

suergaz: By definition? There's your problem. Definitively, indivisibility is divisible in itself, as I have already stated.

"Indivisibility", is only divisible in itself if you conflate two entirely different definitions into one.

I'll say this another way: because the prefix in- has more than one meaning, the word "indivisible" is a homonym. It can mean either "undivisible" or "endivisible" (within-divisible). Indivisible does not mean in-divisible any more than undivisible means endivisible.

I almost cannot imagine someone making this mistake unintentionally. Do you honestly believe what you write, or are you just trying to give me a headache?

suergaz: If you had genuinely surmised I was stupid you wouldn't have pursued this comedic correspondence.

It was only in the course of arguing with you that I could form judgments and say whether or not you were correct. Honestly, you looked a lot more clear-sighted when you first started arguing, but you are just playing games with semantics. It's the lowest tier of philosophy, unless you consider solipsism to be respectable.

suergaz: Sure, let's say the chair you're sitting in inherently exists, it means you're sitting in a chair.

Clever. Now, what would it mean if the chair that I'm sitting in doesn't inherently exist?

Same question, expressed differently: what rule would all of existence have to follow in order to allow the manifestation of chairs that do not exist in themselves? (Hint: what is the opposite of existence? Of existence-in-itself?)

Lighten up old man!

Do I really sound old? In most states, I'm just barely old enough to buy liquor and pornography. =/

suergaz,
Quote:
mooke: You can't be for real. What makes your position so special that it doesn't need proof?

suergaz: It is proof.

A circular argument is never proof. It is the complete absence of proof; it is also the utter failure to provide any explanation or to show any insight into the matter.

Proof must of logical necessity be extraneous to the fact?

4) "A things existence requires existence, nothing more."

The fourth example, you should remember, is your own words. For fun, I'll give you a charitable reading, and assume that you mean "the existence of anything means that there will be the existence of things". You would, in this case, only be correct so far as ONE thing is allowed to exist. It would be a very misleading and obtuse way of expressing Quinn's "reality is not nothing whatsoever".

I really don't need your charity. Davids "reality is not nothing whatsoever" is obtuse and misleading when compared to my "everything inherently exists" which is true to the word inherent.

However, judging from the quality of your arguments thus far, I find it more likely you mean "things exist because things exist". A weak empirical intuition, a bit of common sense, a circular argument... but no logical necessity. Simply because you believe in things, or you divide the world into things when you perceive it, does not mean that there are things by virtue of logical fact.

Actually, it means precisely that.

Quote:
suergaz: You are saying the indivisible is not in-divisible (divisible in itself)?

mooke: Exactly. Since you seem to love semantic games: there are two uses of the prefix in-, and one does not entail the other. The first use is similar to un- and means "not", as in "invisible" (not visible). The other use is is similar to en-; and in your context (in-divisible), the "in" is actually short for "within".

You are trying to say that "not divisible" means "divisible within itself". These are not the same.

There is only one thing indivisble: infinity. The prefixes entail eachother, infinitely.

Quote:
Oh you wouldn't be the first? You mean you've got a posse of philosophers on this?

Indeed. What I describe is known as "monism". It's the only metaphysical system I'm familiar with that can successfully integrate Western and Eastern views into a coherent whole, put the sciences in their proper place, and refute theological arguments without falling prey to the same contradictions that those, the most robust of theists, fall into all the time.

You must suppose I am a pluralist through and through! It would be philosophically unacceptable for you, I suppose, to suppose that monism and pluralism entail eachother?

Quote:
You write "It(the whole) can avoid ever being the sum of parts by avoiding having parts altogether" ---:D Astounding.

Yes, but you shouldn't have to be so astounded. I'll copy/paste some stuff from dictionary.com. Maybe it'll make it more clear:

Quote:
mo·nism
n. Philosophy
1. The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system.

I was astounded by your expression, not the concept. The whole avoids nothing.

Did you ever read 'The prophet' from Zarathustra?

Quote:
mooke: And anyhow, I also can't see how an indivisible whole can be made up of parts, infinite or otherwise. By definition, something that is indivisible is not made up of parts.

suergaz: By definition? There's your problem. Definitively, indivisibility is divisible in itself, as I have already stated.

"Indivisibility", is only divisible in itself if you conflate two entirely different definitions into one.

Refer above to my "One thing indivisible: infinity" There is no conflation possible.

I'll say this another way: because the prefix in- has more than one meaning, the word "indivisible" is a homonym. It can mean either "undivisible" or "endivisible" (within-divisible). Indivisible does not mean in-divisible any more than undivisible means endivisible.

It does, really, by virtue of what alone is indivisible ie. infinity

I almost cannot imagine someone making this mistake unintentionally. Do you honestly believe what you write, or are you just trying to give me a headache?

Yes I do, although that matters little. And no I am not trying to give you a headache.

Quote:
suergaz: If you had genuinely surmised I was stupid you wouldn't have pursued this comedic correspondence.

It was only in the course of arguing with you that I could form judgments and say whether or not you were correct. Honestly, you looked a lot more clear-sighted when you first started arguing, but you are just playing games with semantics. It's the lowest tier of philosophy, unless you consider solipsism to be respectable.

Clear-sightedness is the aim of every one of what you call my 'games with semantics'. I do not play them for the sake of playing them.

Quote:
suergaz: Sure, let's say the chair you're sitting in inherently exists, it means you're sitting in a chair.

Clever. Now, what would it mean if the chair that I'm sitting in doesn't inherently exist?

Ah, back to the comedy! We'll be remembered aristophanely for this.
It would mean nothing I could divine from the meanign of the words themselves, but since I'm not anti-poetical, I may stoop to understanding you to mean the chair you are sitting in is not the universe itself. I would also laugh at your understanding of the word inherent.

Same question, expressed differently: what rule would all of existence have to follow in order to allow the manifestation of chairs that do not exist in themselves? (Hint: what is the opposite of existence? Of existence-in-itself?)

There are no rules for non-existence, for nothing at all. In other words: A false rule.

Quote:
Lighten up old man!

Do I really sound old? In most states, I'm just barely old enough to buy liquor and pornography. =/

You sound clever, and wise. Do I really sound stupid? I know I must at least sound foolish.

suergaz,

suer: Proof must of logical necessity be extraneous to the fact?

Yes, that pretty much covers the definition of "proof": proof requires an argument that is substantially different than the proposition. But I think what you are trying to ask is whether or not all propositions need proof. No, they do not. Axioms do not require proof, but that is only because they are self-evident; since there is so much dithering over the inherent existence of things, I think we can safely say that neither position is self-evident.

suer: The prefixes entail eachother, infinitely.

I don't think you spend enough time on your posts. I paid for an argument; this is a contradiction. ("No it isn't.")

Seriously, did you miss the English class when the teacher explained what homonyms are? Two words can sound the same, even have the same spelling, and be entirely different -- what's more, the same goes for prefixes!

It would be philosophically unacceptable for you, I suppose, to suppose that monism and pluralism entail eachother?

You're talking Newspeak. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Black is White.

I was astounded by your expression, not the concept. The whole avoids nothing.

Am I not permitted to use metaphors? I was not trying to personify the whole; "avoiding" merely sounded better than "not".

Did you ever read 'The prophet' from Zarathustra?

Yes, but refresh my memory. I read Zarathustra over two years ago.

suer: There is no conflation possible.

How is conflation not possible? There are two different definitions, and you are trying to say they are really both the same. Seems like a clear-cut case of conflation.

I wanted to side-step this, but you keep indicating the next sentence is important:

suer: There is only one thing indivisble: infinity.

Or the primitive, billiard-ball, model of an atom. Or a universe made up of a single substance. Indivisible has a broader spectrum of meaning than as a specialist term for use in mathematics.

mooke: Now, what would it mean if the chair that I'm sitting in doesn't inherently exist?

suer: It would mean nothing I could divine from the meanign of the words themselves, but since I'm not anti-poetical, I may stoop to understanding you to mean the chair you are sitting in is not the universe itself. I would also laugh at your understanding of the word inherent.

This simply shows me that you are using an overly restricted definition of the word inherent. I can't see why you do this, because you loved using all definitions of the word "indivisible" simultaneously. You are nothing if not inconsistent.

mooke: what rule would all of existence have to follow in order to allow the manifestation of chairs that do not exist in themselves? (Hint: what is the opposite of existence? Of existence-in-itself?)

suer: There are no rules for non-existence, for nothing at all. In other words: A false rule.

Existence and existence-in-itself are different. The two question marks in the hint should have given away that there are two possible answers.

The opposite of existence being non-existence, and the opposite of existence-in-itself being contingent existence (or a form of subjective existence if Sartre is to be believed, which he is not), the question does have an answer.

It's very simple: in order for chairs to manifest in such a manner, their existence (and the existence of anything) would have to be contingent. This means, related to everything else. And since the only meaningful relationships are causal (or anticausal, like in The Butterfly Effect), such would be the case only if the entire universe was causal.

So: if the chair I am sitting in does not inherently exist, then the world must be causal.

You're lucky, because this is as far as I've gotten. I haven't proven the implication the other way. I haven't yet developed a logical proof that proves causality likewise implies lack of inherent existence.

You sound clever, and wise. Do I really sound stupid? I know I must at least sound foolish.

Thanks. You sound stupid in the same way I'd call someone who just started to learn calculus stupid; that is, unfairly. You seem overwhelmed by logic, and make silly mistakes that blink like big flashing red lights to my jaded eye. As hard as it is to help someone see their mistakes in the ideal situation (that is, reading their work over with them over a pot of tea), it can be frustrating over the internet.

You would benefit immensely from a course in logic. Would I be wrong in believing that you've never had formal training in the subject?