GENIUS FORUMS

Is A=A not just another way of saying 'it is what it is'?

I don't see how A=A is profound, or trivial for that matter. It's just A=A.

The same could be said for "I am", or "there is experience so there is at least one certainty". The idea functions more like a drilling tool or a support that can take you deeper when inquiring into other very slippery matters. There's nothing profound about a hammer but it's not designed for anything more than hammering. In its staggering simplicity a hammer, a wheel, as well as A=A could be called profound of course. Depends on context and appreciation of its possibilities. An unused hammer has not much value apart from paper weight.

There's nothing profound about a hammer but it's not designed for anything more than hammering.

The extraction of nails is as profound as it ever was. No-one likes to talk about it though. :D

suergaz wrote:

There's nothing profound about a hammer but it's not designed for anything more than hammering.

The extraction of nails is as profound as it ever was. No-one likes to talk about it though. :D

I wonder why.

But you're talking about a claw-hammer. We could also talk about a tuning-hammer and derail the whole idea even further...

Its a repitition. The problem is "equals".

In normal day to day language its used to compare things.
Show differences or similarities.

This is that. This = That.
This is not that. This doesn't = That.


A=A

A four legged animal is an animal.

Tautology.


People blow this childish, day to day, observation out of proportion and try to make systems out of it, logical, mathematical, philosophical, religious...their effort is comical at best, pathetic at worst.

Its that simple, now go shave your beards

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The same could be said for "I am", or "there is experience so there is at least one certainty". The idea functions more like a drilling tool or a support that can take you deeper when inquiring into other very slippery matters. There's nothing profound about a hammer but it's not designed for anything more than hammering. In its staggering simplicity a hammer, a wheel, as well as A=A could be called profound of course. Depends on context and appreciation of its possibilities. An unused hammer has not much value apart from paper weight.

There's a bit of difference though; a hammer or a wheel, in their staggering simplicity, serve very specific and tangible purposes. But "(A=A) can take you deeper when inquiring into other very slippery matters" is somewhat vague. Can you give an example of any such slippery matter into which A=A serves to make inquiry tight and stable?

A=A

A four legged animal is an animal.

Tautology.


People blow this childish, day to day, observation out of proportion and try to make systems out of it, logical, mathematical, philosophical, religious...their effort is comical at best, pathetic at worst.

Its that simple, now go shave your beards

Another man after my own heart.

I don't see how A=A is profound, or trivial for that matter. It's just A=A.

What follows from A=A, that is to say, the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot equal not-A), is very helpful. Find a single contradiction in someone's writing, and you have destroyed their argument. The worst fallacy of all is to say that one thing is not what it is.

Look how easy (trivial, but important) it is to prove anything from one contradiction:

1) p and not-p (where p is any proposition)
2) p (from #1)
3) p or x (from #2, where x is a variable)
4) not-p (from #1)
5) x (from #3, #4)

Come on, profound doesn't have to mean that it gives you tingly feelings inside every time you think about it. Since I doubt that there has ever been a thinker -- even a great one -- who has not contradicted himself at some point, A=A is useful for everyone.

Andreas wrote:

Is A=A not just another way of saying 'it is what it is'?

I don't see how A=A is profound, or trivial for that matter. It's just A=A.

You are right, in a sense, but you would be surpised just how few people understand it. In essence, A=A is the basic formula for all truth, whether it be a profound truth or a trivial one. When you boil a truth down to its very essence - again, regardless of whether it is a profound truth or a trivial one - what you always get is A=A.

Conversely, when a person has errors and contradictions in his thinking, it is essentially the case that he is imagining A to be something other than A. A trivial example would be a fellow who defines "bachelor" as an unmarried man, and then proceeds to do a study to discover how many bachelors are currently married in the world. Such a person is engaging in a form of insanity, which boils down to violating the principle of A=A.

A more serious example can be found in one of Unwise's recent posts (from the "Samadhi and Dreamworlds" thread). In the same post, he wrote:

I am particularly interested in the very fine points of my experience because, really, I am in agreement about much of what I see here. For instance, I believe the 'totality' is self-existent (or real) in a way that 'parts' of the totality come and go and rely on other causes. The totality does not have a cause, therefore it is 'real.'

And:

To be quite plain to you, I am a proponent of duality. Specifically, the ancient Samkhya system I find totally consistent with my own experience. (Actually, my own view is a hybrid between Samhkya and Advaita). In this system, there are two 'things' that are self-existent: 'the totality' or Nature which is called Prakriti, and, 'Consciousness' with is an un-embodied, uncreated 'something else.' This is difficult to discuss because consciousness is always assumed to be mentation - the workings of a human (or animal) brain. I say consciousness is utterly beyond any beings - and - NOT connected to what you call 'the Totality.'

Here, in the first instance, Unwise defines the "totality" to be utterly everything, and then, in the second instance, he defines it to be something other than utterly everything - all the while imagining that he is using the term identically in each instance. The confusion in his thinking here, as always, boils down to being a violation of A=A.

Understanding the meaning and significance of A=A is very important to the overall spiritual task of wiping away all delusion from the mind, and it is this overall task which can lead to profundity. I'm sure you'll find through experience, Andreas, that it is usually only very irrational people - i.e. people who have no interest in being consistent in their thought - who pooh-pooh the principle of A=A and dismiss it as trivial or useless.

-

haha

mookestink wrote:

I don't see how A=A is profound, or trivial for that matter. It's just A=A.

What follows from A=A, that is to say, the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot equal not-A), is very helpful. Find a single contradiction in someone's writing, and you have destroyed their argument. The worst fallacy of all is to say that one thing is not what it is.

Look how easy (trivial, but important) it is to prove anything from one contradiction:

1) p and not-p (where p is any proposition)
2) p (from #1)
3) p or x (from #2, where x is a variable)
4) not-p (from #1)
5) x (from #3, #4)

Come on, profound doesn't have to mean that it gives you tingly feelings inside every time you think about it. Since I doubt that there has ever been a thinker -- even a great one -- who has not contradicted himself at some point, A=A is useful for everyone.

I doubt that there has ever been a thinker -- even a great one -- who has not needed a bottle opener at some point, a bottle opener is useful for everyone.

Seriously though, I don't disagree that the principle of non-contradiction can be handy if you seek to deconstruct a given argument. However, many arguments arise because people hold conflicting values, not because one person runs around always alertly aware of A=A while the other does not.

For all you know, I could have only two hobbies: one being only arranging series of thoughts consistent with A=A, the other being promoting femininity and fashion fetichism everywhere I go.



David Quinn,


I agree that Unwise's logic is quite, uh, illogical. But I don't think it took profundity for me to reach the conclusion.