GENIUS FORUMS

Animus wrote:You can't extrapolate from First Principle without deducing First Principle from secondary principles.

Oh Really? So its not possible to understand what 1 is without knowing that 2 is 1+1 ?

You are so full of shit.

Animus wrote:You can't extrapolate from First Principle without deducing First Principle from secondary principles, and I think that is what is happening here.

Perhaps First Principle is something as simple, yet nebulously portrayed as "There is existence", but to arrive at this First Principle we generally deduce it from some secondary principle like "A=A" or "I AM".

"A=A" is actually another version of "something exists". "A" is something; as soon as something is identified (as soon as consciousness of something arises), A=A is being automatically established.

"I AM" is not the first principle of reason. It is a rational conclusion after having reformed the concept of self relative to all somethings.

A=A means that for every "I AM" there must be another which is not "I AM", and that without any "I AM" there would be no definition to existence.

If one concludes that "I" means everything (since the self relative to all somethings is refashioned to show the unity of all somethings) then I is concluded to mean existence, whether existence appearing in consciousness or existence without form beyond it. Then there is nothing that is not "I AM".

Analogously, in programming, if you write a section of code that creates an object and then fail to reference that object anywhere else in the code, to the operation of the program it is as if the object simply didn't exist, it is of no effect. An existence which consists of a singular causal unfolding, and that has its effect on nothing, is like an object that is never referenced within the operation of the program and therefor is never made manifest in the program. So, too, without the "I AM", without an observer of discrete thingness, it is as if existence didn't exist. As a singular causative chain unfolding, and not having its effect on any observer, it never becomes anything other than a singular causative force unfolding, it is never experienced, or interpreted as anything, in that state it is not a thing, it is not even black, as black is something observed by the experiencer.

If the I means everything, the reference is apparent in every moment. It isn't a singular causal unfolding, whatever that is. I don't think there is any such thing.

infinite causes for infinity

?


.

prince wrote:

Animus wrote:You can't extrapolate from First Principle without deducing First Principle from secondary principles.

Oh Really? So its not possible to understand what 1 is without knowing that 2 is 1+1 ?

You are so full of shit.

1 is not a First Principle of existence, it is a Figure, Representing a Number in Mathematics. Within which, the principle of REPRESENTATION antecedes and underscores both Figure and Number. However, you can not in any way be aware of the principle of REPRESENTATION without deducing it from Figure and Number. You must first have an awareness of Figure and Number to perceive the principle of REPRESENTATION which facilitates the utility (consequently actuality) of Number or Figure.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Animus wrote:You can't extrapolate from First Principle without deducing First Principle from secondary principles, and I think that is what is happening here.

Perhaps First Principle is something as simple, yet nebulously portrayed as "There is existence", but to arrive at this First Principle we generally deduce it from some secondary principle like "A=A" or "I AM".

"A=A" is actually another version of "something exists". "A" is something; as soon as something is identified (as soon as consciousness of something arises), A=A is being automatically established.

"I AM" is not the first principle of reason. It is a rational conclusion after having reformed the concept of self relative to all somethings.

A=A means that for every "I AM" there must be another which is not "I AM", and that without any "I AM" there would be no definition to existence.

If one concludes that "I" means everything (since the self relative to all somethings is refashioned to show the unity of all somethings) then I is concluded to mean existence, whether existence appearing in consciousness or existence without form beyond it. Then there is nothing that is not "I AM".

Analogously, in programming, if you write a section of code that creates an object and then fail to reference that object anywhere else in the code, to the operation of the program it is as if the object simply didn't exist, it is of no effect. An existence which consists of a singular causal unfolding, and that has its effect on nothing, is like an object that is never referenced within the operation of the program and therefor is never made manifest in the program. So, too, without the "I AM", without an observer of discrete thingness, it is as if existence didn't exist. As a singular causative chain unfolding, and not having its effect on any observer, it never becomes anything other than a singular causative force unfolding, it is never experienced, or interpreted as anything, in that state it is not a thing, it is not even black, as black is something observed by the experiencer.

If the I means everything, the reference is apparent in every moment. It isn't a singular causal unfolding, whatever that is. I don't think there is any such thing.

infinite causes for infinity

?


.

Because you have a problem with rigid conformity to your own vernacular and mental scaffolding. It isn't even of any worth conversing with one who insists on misunderstanding and splitting-hairs. You yourself make reference to a perspective on reality which has no definite boundaries or thingness, one would think the meaning of "singular causative unfolding" would be apparent to that conception, which is why I suspect a conflictory-inflammatory attitude supervening on all your criticisms that invariably blinds to you what is actually being presented.

A thing is not a first principle as far as I'm aware, it cannot be a first principle, it may be a first realization, or first concept, or first impression, but on the order of fundamental facts, it is not first, it is secondary as an artefact of the principle of REPRESENTATION the consequent of which is Existence.

I'm not unversed in Genius thought, and I suspect you might say that REPRESENTATION is a thing in itself, and with this I cannot argue, nevertheless, the principle of REPRESENTATION is what is ultimately deduced from the Law of Identity, and what you intend to show by evoking the Law of Identity is the principle of REPRESENTATION. That a thing is what it is, in relation to what it is not, that all things are appearances only of a whole Unit that is Existence.

When you attempt to expound on the Law of Identity with logical statements like A=A or even something as lengthy as "All things are defined in relation to what they are not and all things are bound together by this fact" you are presenting a pure conception in a fragmentary way that resembles swiss cheese to someone who doesn't perceive the principle of REPRESENTATION which is referenced by the statement. You can call it the principled Law of Identity, fine, but the Law of Identity is only an Identity itself, just as the term REPRESENTATION conforms to this thingness. Represented as the Law of Identity, A=A or the Principle of Representation, the underlying actual principle remains the same, and only the particular represenatitive thingness is changed. So the first thing is the actual principle referred to and this cannot be a starting point for our reasoning, but must necessarily be the end-point. We cannot in anyways start at the beginning of the logical order, when the logical order is the ultimate end of inquiry. Hence, no reasoning from principle, only reasoning to principle, in which case the way back to reason is made obvious and of no need for further inquiry.

Animus wrote:

prince wrote:

Animus wrote:You can't extrapolate from First Principle without deducing First Principle from secondary principles.

Oh Really? So its not possible to understand what 1 is without knowing that 2 is 1+1 ?

You are so full of shit.

1 is not a First Principle of existence, it is a Figure, Representing a Number in Mathematics. Within which, the principle of REPRESENTATION antecedes and underscores both Figure and Number. However, you can not in any way be aware of the principle of REPRESENTATION without deducing it from Figure and Number. You must first have an awareness of Figure and Number to perceive the principle of REPRESENTATION which facilitates the utility (consequently actuality) of Number or Figure.

Let me expound on this and elaborate with many Figures REPRESENTING a Number.

Where Figure is defined as the particular representation of Number, and Number is defined as the actuality and utitlity of the thing referenced. I can say Banana + Banana = Orange if the Figures (Banana, Orange, +, =, etc..) are representative in identical fashion as 1+1=2.

The Figure 1, written as One or 1, is only Figure REPRESENTING Number, and the same Number can be REPRESENTED by a variety of Figures, e.g. 1, One, Eins, Une, Uno, 2/2, 3/3, 4/4, etc...

This should make emmanently clear that the principle of Figure REPRESENTING Number is of necessity extant prior to the actual Figure or Number, and that representation gives utility, actuality, manifest existence or whatever 'Figure' you want to Figure and Number. Noting that all manifest existence consists of this, including all speech and all explications of principles, figures and/or anything else.

Kelly Jones wrote:I answered that, jufa. I'll tease it out for you a bit, to see if that helps to make it clearer.

Your question "What is the logic for A?" is the same as your previous one "What is the logic for existence, and the cusation which brought forth A?", presumably.

My answer "Imagine a sphere, made up of all causes that exist and can exist. If you ask for what causes the sphere, you're supposing there are causes existing outside the sphere. But by definition, the sphere is all causes. Do you see how the problem of what causes existence dissolves?" explains.

That is, if by "what is the logic for A?" you are asking for an explanation (the reasoning, the logic) for the existence of something (since A stands for "something"), then you are asking for the causes for the existence of something. Or more accurately, what causes existence itself.

To resolve the question, consider that all causes make up the body of existence. Therefore, any cause for existence is a meaningless concept. Existence cannot be caused, since existence includes all causes.

Clear now?

Hence, the principle of existence is first, and the representative causes and the logical statement A=A are secondary. The causes and the representative statements point to the principle of existence, but are only representative, thus, representation too antedates and underscores causes and representative statements.

Existence in this way can be no more than pure unfolding, pure thingless expression/presentation, however I prefer to refer to this segment as expression or presentation prior to re-presentation which are both necessary for Existence. Existence is by any means the first principle, and expression, representation and so forth are consitutent elements resembling thingness in the explication and/or deduction of the first principle that is existence.

The statement A=A means no more or less than the fact that there is a singular expression which is made manifest through representative thingness, and that this principled fact of existence can only be deduced through the statement A=A or similar representative thing-like statements. So, again, you cannot start at a pure conception of the first principle which is existence and move onward, but must begin with a representative statement like A=A and work into a pure conception of the first principle which is existence and which is Nondual. And this is what your mind does in contemplating the representative statement A=A.

Animus wrote:

Ryan: You can't extrapolate from First Principle without deducing First Principle from secondary principles, and I think that is what is happening here.

Perhaps First Principle is something as simple, yet nebulously portrayed as "There is existence", but to arrive at this First Principle we generally deduce it from some secondary principle like "A=A" or "I AM".

Kelly: "A=A" is actually another version of "something exists". "A" is something; as soon as something is identified (as soon as consciousness of something arises), A=A is being automatically established.

"I AM" is not the first principle of reason. It is a rational conclusion after having reformed the concept of self relative to all somethings.

--


Ryan: A=A means that for every "I AM" there must be another which is not "I AM", and that without any "I AM" there would be no definition to existence.

Kelly: If one concludes that "I" means everything (since the self relative to all somethings is refashioned to show the unity of all somethings) then I is concluded to mean existence, whether existence appearing in consciousness or existence without form beyond it. Then there is nothing that is not "I AM".

--


Ryan: Analogously, in programming, if you write a section of code that creates an object and then fail to reference that object anywhere else in the code, to the operation of the program it is as if the object simply didn't exist, it is of no effect. An existence which consists of a singular causal unfolding, and that has its effect on nothing, is like an object that is never referenced within the operation of the program and therefor is never made manifest in the program. So, too, without the "I AM", without an observer of discrete thingness, it is as if existence didn't exist. As a singular causative chain unfolding, and not having its effect on any observer, it never becomes anything other than a singular causative force unfolding, it is never experienced, or interpreted as anything, in that state it is not a thing, it is not even black, as black is something observed by the experiencer.

Kelly: If the I means everything, the reference is apparent in every moment. It isn't a singular causal unfolding, whatever that is. I don't think there is any such thing.

--


Ryan: infinite causes for infinity

Kelly: ?


--

Ryan: Because you have a problem with rigid conformity to your own vernacular and mental scaffolding. It isn't even of any worth conversing with one who insists on misunderstanding and splitting-hairs.

I wasn't insisting on misunderstanding or splitting hairs. My aim is always to treat another person with respect by examining the quality of their reasoning and truth statements, trying to see how they aim at the essential, and responding on that basis. My will is always to see how they place self in relation to the Infinite, and my intuition picked up some psychological intimations of, in technical terms, faffing about. It's not like you to be offended at scrupulousness in rational analysis. Since nothing I wrote was actually troublesome, it seems I've offended you on some other matter utterly unspoken of in this thread.

You yourself make reference to a perspective on reality which has no definite boundaries or thingness, one would think the meaning of "singular causative unfolding" would be apparent to that conception, which is why I suspect a conflictory-inflammatory attitude supervening on all your criticisms that invariably blinds to you what is actually being presented.

Ryan, if boundlessness were truly boundlessness, how could it be said to have any nature whatsoever? It's a fine point perhaps, but it's an extremely important one. I'm definitely not engaging in impotentia ("uncontrollable ejaculations of criticism from a weak, inactive, consumeristic personality").

A thing is not a first principle as far as I'm aware, it cannot be a first principle, it may be a first realization, or first concept, or first impression, but on the order of fundamental facts, it is not first, it is secondary as an artefact of the principle of REPRESENTATION the consequent of which is Existence.

I didn't say a thing, I said something, or thing. The existence of "something", but not a specific something. It may seem an impossibly subtle point, but maybe this paragraph will elucidate:

"All thinking begins with intermediate generalizations and then develops in two different directions, one toward concepts of ever higher abstraction, which encompass ever larger areas of reality by registering properties shared between things, the other toward the intersection of all conceptual lines, the complex unit, the individual, which we can only approach in our thought with the help of an infinite number of qualifications and which we define by adding to the highest generalization, a "thing" or "something," an infinite number of specific distinguishing features. Thus fish were known as a class of animal separate from mammals, birds, and worms, on the one hand long before distinctions were made between osseous and cartilaginous fish and on the other hand long before it was felt to be necessary to include fish with birds and mammals within a larger complex through the concept of the vertebrate, and to distinguish that larger complex from worms." (Weininger)


.

Animus wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:I answered that, jufa. I'll tease it out for you a bit, to see if that helps to make it clearer.

Your question "What is the logic for A?" is the same as your previous one "What is the logic for existence, and the cusation which brought forth A?", presumably.

My answer "Imagine a sphere, made up of all causes that exist and can exist. If you ask for what causes the sphere, you're supposing there are causes existing outside the sphere. But by definition, the sphere is all causes. Do you see how the problem of what causes existence dissolves?" explains.

That is, if by "what is the logic for A?" you are asking for an explanation (the reasoning, the logic) for the existence of something (since A stands for "something"), then you are asking for the causes for the existence of something. Or more accurately, what causes existence itself.

To resolve the question, consider that all causes make up the body of existence. Therefore, any cause for existence is a meaningless concept. Existence cannot be caused, since existence includes all causes.

Clear now?

Hence, the principle of existence is first, and the representative causes and the logical statement A=A are secondary.

Jufa wanted to know how existence was caused, but it's a meaningless question. Why do you believe that the principle that something exists is anything other than the statement A=A (something is [itself])?

The first principle of reason is that something is. In consciousness, there's no difference between representation (recognition, consciousness of) and existence. The mind cannot experience A without it being known as itself (A=A).

Existence in this way can be no more than pure unfolding, pure thingless expression/presentation,

How can you have a presentation of something (an appearance) without there being a thing known? I don't get why you use the word "thingless".

however I prefer to refer to this segment as expression or presentation prior to re-presentation which are both necessary for Existence. Existence is by any means the first principle, and expression, representation and so forth are consitutent elements resembling thingness in the explication and/or deduction of the first principle that is existence.

The statement A=A means no more or less than the fact that there is a singular expression which is made manifest through representative thingness, and that this principled fact of existence can only be deduced through the statement A=A or similar representative thing-like statements. So, again, you cannot start at a pure conception of the first principle which is existence and move onward, but must begin with a representative statement like A=A and work into a pure conception of the first principle which is existence and which is Nondual. And this is what your mind does in contemplating the representative statement A=A.

I think A=A is consciousness of consciousness, which is boundless existence. I don't see any need to "work into a pure conception of the first principle" from A=A. It's already there for me.


.

"All thinking begins with intermediate generalizations and then develops in two different directions, Not true, thinking begins from a cause unknown, and thought arrival has no form until man gives it personal interpretation which may or may not be generalized. one toward concepts of ever higher abstraction, which encompass ever larger areas of reality by registering properties shared between things, this is a relative statement dealing strictly with dualism, and cannot be gaged by abstract dualism the other toward the intersection of all conceptual lines, nor material dualism of intersection of conceptual lines the complex unit, the individual, which we can only approach in our thought with the help of an infinite number of qualifications and which we define by adding to the highest generalization, a "thing" or "something," an infinite number of specific distinguishing features. Being one is a complex unit of uniqueness of comprehension, no one can approach another in thought of comprehensive exactness, but only by relating to the relativity of individual concepts which do not define things or something as collective truthThus fish were known as a class of animal separate from mammals, birds, and worms, on the one hand long before distinctions were made between osseous and cartilaginous fish and on the other hand long before it was felt to be necessary to include fish with birds and mammals within a larger complex through the concept of the vertebrate, and to distinguish that larger complex from worms." Life of the living is life of the living. Categorization is for identification to communicate determinism of relativism. Separation of species are defined by the principle 'everything after its kind." But to separate the life of the specifies cannot be done, thus the concept given is deterministic dualism, even when, as Weininger knew the One Life does not separate nor differentiate between the living entities of that Life.(Weininger)

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Kelly Jones wrote: I think A=A is consciousness of consciousness, which is boundless existence. I don't see any need to "work into a pure conception of the first principle" from A=A. It's already there for me.


.

I know, I'm fairly confident I know exactly what you think, and I'm not sure you disagree with my statement, I just think you don't understand it for your attachment to the statement "A=A".

Your statement A=A is representative only, it evokes in you a certain pure conception of what I've called REPRESENTATION. All that is entailed by this statement could be given at length as; A thing is what it is, in relation to what it is not. Kant used similar reasoning and arrived at similar conclusions, stating that any phenomena had its grounding in the infinite background of thought, that a particular thing could be defined as the totality minus eveything the thing is not. He suggests that All thought is rooted in the All. All a thing or thought is, is a distinguish from totality.

So, the statement A=A is getting broken down into its descrete elements, which consists of a trinity, the Totality (Expression), the Thing (Representation) and All Things (Manifestation). Beneath the veil of things are no-thing, which is totality and is without definition. All of this is represented by the statement A=A, to many people "A=A" means nothing, it means less than "The people people left left". They simply don't understand what the statement intends to REPRESENT.

You know that words, statements, all language, symbols or what I've called "Figure" of any sort is merely representative. To virtually everyone I know, save the members of this board, "A=A" means absolutely nothing, and I have a hell of time explaining the significance of that little statement. Yet, I can elaborate on it's meaning and have better luck. The representative statement A=A means nothing other than what it is intended to represent. And that is why people argue that A=A is false, claiming that on either side of the equal sign A could be entirely different, such people clearly don't understand that "A=A" as you use it, is intended to represent a principle which doesn't allow any such variance in the way A is used. I've seen those arguments, and they are only possible because they don't understand what the statement represents, and conceive of some other principle.

Let me recap; the statement A=A is merely representative, and contains within it, the three principles of the triune Unit. But is not those principles itself and those very same principles can be given in many many ways, some of which are more obvious to the average person than "A=A". I find A=A useful for my own thinking, but at this venture, I really don't need it anymore except in enlightening others.

Animus wrote:This should make emmanently clear that the principle of Figure REPRESENTING Number is of necessity extant prior to the actual Figure or Number, and that representation gives utility, actuality, manifest existence or whatever 'Figure' you want to Figure and Number. Noting that all manifest existence consists of this, including all speech and all explications of principles, figures and/or anything else.

Right. So what are you arguing with/against? You are extrapolating, hence defeating your own peurile point.

Animus wrote:So, the statement A=A is getting broken down into its descrete elements, which consists of a trinity, the Totality (Expression), the Thing (Representation) and All Things (Manifestation).

Totality = All Things.

Beneath the veil of things are no-thing,

There's no veil that I can see. I see formlessness is the true nature of things.

To virtually everyone I know, save the members of this board, "A=A" means absolutely nothing, and I have a hell of time explaining the significance of that little statement. Yet, I can elaborate on it's meaning and have better luck. The representative statement A=A means nothing other than what it is intended to represent.

It's like some raw iron ore, if you will. Some people see a lump of rock, and kick it out of the road. Others see an attractive array of textures and colours, and put it on their mantelpiece. Yet others use it to chock a car from rolling backwards. Another studies it for geological reasons. But who gets the most use out of it? He who examines its quality, boils it down, refines it, molds it to his inventive whim, and creates a multitude of handy tools. What is it? It depends what your purpose is.

And that is why people argue that A=A is false, claiming that on either side of the equal sign A could be entirely different, such people clearly don't understand that "A=A" as you use it, is intended to represent a principle which doesn't allow any such variance in the way A is used. I've seen those arguments, and they are only possible because they don't understand what the statement represents, and conceive of some other principle.

They haven't found a way of thinking about it to extract the most use.

I find A=A useful for my own thinking, but at this venture, I really don't need it anymore except in enlightening others.

It's a good tool.


.

You are missing the point Kelly.

A=A is not a rock, but it is similar in kind to the word "rock" in that it represents something. The word you used "rock", represents a rock, but the word "stone" could also be used (usage of "stone" predates "rock", and "rock" probably comes from Western American pioneers). The thing referred to is represented by both "rock" and "stone", but the thing itself is neither of the words, the words are representative.

I'm saying, without REPRESENTATION, you have no rocks, nothing to distinguish a rock from anything else. You need the word "rock", or "stone", or something else to give concretion to this concept, but the two are not the same thing, one is merely representative of the other.

So, I'm saying, representation is prior to any particular, it simply cannot be denied. No one conceives of number without figure. We are all taught number on the basis of figures.

Kelly: I see formlessness is the true nature of things.

Alright, let's see some formless things. Isn's a thing by definition containing form? Isn't that what A=A means?

If you are saying that there are these forms, these things, but yet, they are essentially formless, because not having any inherent distinction apart from their appearance, then that is exactly what is meant by; Expression, Representation and Manifestation.

But you don't see it, and I think because you are hooked on A=A. As if that was the only way of representing the truth.

prince wrote:

Animus wrote:This should make emmanently clear that the principle of Figure REPRESENTING Number is of necessity extant prior to the actual Figure or Number, and that representation gives utility, actuality, manifest existence or whatever 'Figure' you want to Figure and Number. Noting that all manifest existence consists of this, including all speech and all explications of principles, figures and/or anything else.

Right. So what are you arguing with/against? You are extrapolating, hence defeating your own peurile point.

Evidently, I'm arguing with dogma

Kelly:

BO1:
Where is the single determining finite line of your individual finite self and the infinite?

Kelly:
There is none. But that doesn't mean that finite things don't exist. All finite things are manifestations of the Infinite, so whether I call myself Kelly, a finite self, or the nameless, I'm still the same.

So we can say a truck is the very same as yourself? How about a galaxy? How about an electron? In what way are all these things finite like yourself?

Any finite thing, no matter what it is, must have, according to the Law of Identity, a boundary.

Unless of course; the only single exception you make to the law of logic is yourself? If so, why?

BO1:
Did you know that the final opposition to enlightenment is the refusal to admit that you are? This is what you are now experiencing. You are clinging to a concept to derive a distinguishing limit of yourself to be something. You are not a something or a someone - you are much - much -bigger than your finite self that you think you are right now. You concepts cannot save you from the light of truth; as truth will dissolve all limiting ideas of the self in ever unfolding transcendence of the limitless reality.

Kelly:
All concepts and things are themselves, right now, the limitless reality. There is nothing to transcend, because there are no limits to cross.

You are not, no matter how hard you may try to be, a 'thingy'. If you are a thing, please show us the boundary of your consciousness.

If you point out any thing, no matter what it is (including energy), I can describe its boundedness according to logical principles. Please do the same for your consciousness and prove, once and for us all, its limited boundary.

My guess is you will duck, dodge, and hurdle the question. This would be your ego in survival mode.

BO1:
*I* / not *-I* is a concept and bring separation by creating polarities. When the concept I / not -I dissolves - separation dissolves.

Kelly:
I can easily use the concept of I and not-I without falling into the delusion that there are intrinsic boundaries.

Great; if you can do so easily as you say - when - oh when - after years and years of discussing this same topic - over and over and over and over and over - with you and QRS - is someone in the blazes gonna do that?

No?
Round and round and round goes the ego.

Reality is the absence of separation.


Reality is limitless, therefore it must include all things, and therefore limits. Just because one conceives of boundaries, or perceives separations, doesn't make Reality change one whit.

Great; give us a single solitary example of one thing that is outside of your consciousness and - you win.

Until then - you are in defense mode clinging to a concept - instead - release your clinging. Let go and allow for the full rush of infinite consciousness.

Kelly: Conscious experience isn't the foundation of A=A; while necessary to know that A=A, that law is not falsified without consciousness. It just remains unknown.

Beingof1: You do realize this is an absurd answer right? Must I truly point out how?

Kelly: It's absurd to posit that everything is false when no consciousnesses are around to know it.

Beingof1: How do you know? Do you have any evidence or facts or logic to back this statement up?


What exists outside of consciousness cannot be experienced.

Like I said - do you have any logic, facts, or evidence?

So far - its all just conjecture on your part.

If things appear, including concepts like falsehood and truth, that is evidence of consciousness, of at least one observer. Things are distinguished by consciousness.

BINGO - stop right here. Think and ponder this statement.

In other words, what lies beyond consciousness is distinguished by consciousness as "hidden", or, at most "a blurry, indistinctness". It exists as such.

At what point did you take yourself out of the universe to peer inside and make this distinct observation?

Another way of looking at the limitations of consciousness is to conceive of Reality as all things, including what is hidden from consciousness.

Like I said, you base your belief system - just like all fundamentalist religions - on concepts.

Will you at any point embrace reality over your concepts?

Animus wrote:

prince wrote:

Animus wrote:This should make emmanently clear that the principle of Figure REPRESENTING Number is of necessity extant prior to the actual Figure or Number, and that representation gives utility, actuality, manifest existence or whatever 'Figure' you want to Figure and Number. Noting that all manifest existence consists of this, including all speech and all explications of principles, figures and/or anything else.

Right. So what are you arguing with/against? You are extrapolating, hence defeating your own peurile point.

Evidently, I'm arguing with dogma

Dogma argues with dogma. You are arguing with yourself, that's right.

Animus wrote:You are missing the point Kelly.

A=A is not a rock, but it is similar in kind to the word "rock" in that it represents something. The word you used "rock", represents a rock, but the word "stone" could also be used (usage of "stone" predates "rock", and "rock" probably comes from Western American pioneers). The thing referred to is represented by both "rock" and "stone", but the thing itself is neither of the words, the words are representative.

I'm saying, without REPRESENTATION, you have no rocks, nothing to distinguish a rock from anything else. You need the word "rock", or "stone", or something else to give concretion to this concept, but the two are not the same thing, one is merely representative of the other.

So, I'm saying, representation is prior to any particular, it simply cannot be denied. No one conceives of number without figure. We are all taught number on the basis of figures.

The concept comes before the word, but yes, I understand this.


.

Animus wrote:Ryan: Beneath the veil of things are no-thing,

Kelly: There's no veil that I can see. I see formlessness is the true nature of things.

Ryan: Alright, let's see some formless things. Isn's a thing by definition containing form? Isn't that what A=A means?

Things have form, yes. But because all things are direct experiences of Ultimate Reality, which is formless, one is experiencing that formlessness when one experiences form.

It sounds a bit paradoxical, but it's simple really.

If you are saying that there are these forms, these things, but yet, they are essentially formless, because not having any inherent distinction apart from their appearance

Things are distinct from other things, and necessarily that's the only appearance they have as forms. And yet, if one strikes at the "heart", and understands the core truth of all reality, one can understand the reality of what those forms really are.

The thing about A=A, is, as a law it just points to the unity of all things - representations, if you like. Once one understands that, then whether one is using concepts or not, one has direct access to the underlying truth. So all those representations and things and concepts all merge up seamlessly into the one Reality. One is able to tap into it at any point, whether engaged in thinking or not.

But you don't see it, and I think because you are hooked on A=A. As if that was the only way of representing the truth

A=A doesn't represent "the truth". That is, no words can do justice to the truth about Reality. Nothing can. They're all generalisations, abstractions, models, and - yes, representations. But as far as concepts go, they're handy in sorting out what can be generally said to be so. And that in turn points the mind to the way of freedom.

"Truth", the concept, is still most efficiently summed up with the law of identity. One can express it in a multitude of ways and concepts, but the basic thrust of it is identical throughout. Namely, that a thing is itself, and not something else (or however you think of this to yourself).


.

Beingof1 wrote:Beingof1: Where is the single determining finite line of your individual finite self and the infinite?

Kelly: There is none. But that doesn't mean that finite things don't exist. All finite things are manifestations of the Infinite, so whether I call myself Kelly, a finite self, or the nameless, I'm still the same.

Beingof1: So we can say a truck is the very same as yourself? How about a galaxy? How about an electron? In what way are all these things finite like yourself?

Everything is still the Infinite. All finite things are the same in that respect.

You are not, no matter how hard you may try to be, a 'thingy'. If you are a thing, please show us the boundary of your consciousness.

I don't think it's possible for me to show you anything of my consciousness directly. But I can prove that consciousness is bounded by what it is not, because by definition consciousness is of things. Without things appearing, there is no consciousness.

Beingof1: *I* / not *-I* is a concept and bring separation by creating polarities. When the concept I / not -I dissolves - separation dissolves.

Kelly: I can easily use the concept of I and not-I without falling into the delusion that there are intrinsic boundaries.

Beingof1:Great; if you can do so easily as you say - when - oh when - after years and years of discussing this same topic - over and over and over and over and over - with you and QRS - is someone in the blazes gonna do that?

But I am doing it now. Boundaries are not intrinsically real.

Beingof1: Great; give us a single solitary example of one thing that is outside of your consciousness and - you win.

A thing that is not appearing to my consciousness right now.

Kelly: Conscious experience isn't the foundation of A=A; while necessary to know that A=A, that law is not falsified without consciousness. It just remains unknown.

Beingof1: You do realize this is an absurd answer right? Must I truly point out how?

Kelly: It's absurd to posit that everything is false when no consciousnesses are around to know it.

Beingof1: How do you know? Do you have any evidence or facts or logic to back this statement up?

Kelly: What exists outside of consciousness cannot be experienced.

Beingof1: Like I said - do you have any logic, facts, or evidence?

See above.

Kelly: If things appear, including concepts like falsehood and truth, that is evidence of consciousness, of at least one observer. Things are distinguished by consciousness.

Beingof1: BINGO - stop right here. Think and ponder this statement.

And if there is no experience of anything, that would (from my conscious perspective as the conceiver of this idea) entail absence of consciousness. An example: it's a likely theory that when a person dies, there is no consciousness, and no experience of anything.

Kelly: In other words, what lies beyond consciousness is distinguished by consciousness as "hidden", or, at most "a blurry, indistinctness". It exists as such.

Beingof1: At what point did you take yourself out of the universe to peer inside and make this distinct observation?

Peer outside, and direct observation, you mean? It's not a direct observation but a logical conclusion, based on the definition of consciousness as consciousness of things. One can't well peep outside consciousness and expect to experience anything (be conscious).

Kelly: Another way of looking at the limitations of consciousness is to conceive of Reality as all things, including what is hidden from consciousness.

Beingof1: Like I said, you base your belief system - just like all fundamentalist religions - on concepts. Will you at any point embrace reality over your concepts?

You've just used concepts too. What matters is if they're coherent, and useful, and wise.


.

Kelly:

Beingof1: Where is the single determining finite line of your individual finite self and the infinite?

Kelly: There is none. But that doesn't mean that finite things don't exist. All finite things are manifestations of the Infinite, so whether I call myself Kelly, a finite self, or the nameless, I'm still the same.

Beingof1: So we can say a truck is the very same as yourself? How about a galaxy? How about an electron? In what way are all these things finite like yourself?

Kelly: Everything is still the Infinite. All finite things are the same in that respect.

So there is no difference between a finite thing and the infinite?

What is the difference between the totality and a rock?

You are not, no matter how hard you may try to be, a 'thingy'. If you are a thing, please show us the boundary of your consciousness.


I don't think it's possible for me to show you anything of my consciousness directly. But I can prove that consciousness is bounded by what it is not, because by definition consciousness is of things. Without things appearing, there is no consciousness.

I have heard you say this, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

You just never actually do it.

What thing is outside of your consciousness? What is not contained by your consciousness?

Beingof1: *I* / not *-I* is a concept and bring separation by creating polarities. When the concept I / not -I dissolves - separation dissolves.

Kelly: I can easily use the concept of I and not-I without falling into the delusion that there are intrinsic boundaries.

Beingof1:Great; if you can do so easily as you say - when - oh when - after years and years of discussing this same topic - over and over and over and over and over - with you and QRS - is someone in the blazes gonna do that?

Kelly: But I am doing it now. Boundaries are not intrinsically real.

I see; when you want boundaries, you say they exist and is a hard fact of reality.

When, for the sake of your argument, you want no boundaries - POOF - like magic, they evaporate into the emptiness of void.

Can you not see the logical trap?

Beingof1: Great; give us a single solitary example of one thing that is outside of your consciousness and - you win.


Kelly: A thing that is not appearing to my consciousness right now.

What thing?
Are you experiencing a whole reality or partial reality?

Kelly: Conscious experience isn't the foundation of A=A; while necessary to know that A=A, that law is not falsified without consciousness. It just remains unknown.

Beingof1: You do realize this is an absurd answer right? Must I truly point out how?

Kelly: It's absurd to posit that everything is false when no consciousnesses are around to know it.

Beingof1: How do you know? Do you have any evidence or facts or logic to back this statement up?

Kelly: What exists outside of consciousness cannot be experienced.

Beingof1: Like I said - do you have any logic, facts, or evidence?


See above.

You are not making any sense at all - you do realize this I hope?

Kelly: If things appear, including concepts like falsehood and truth, that is evidence of consciousness, of at least one observer. Things are distinguished by consciousness.

Beingof1: BINGO - stop right here. Think and ponder this statement.


Kelly: And if there is no experience of anything, that would (from my conscious perspective as the conceiver of this idea) entail absence of consciousness. An example: it's a likely theory that when a person dies, there is no consciousness, and no experience of anything.

If you go to a ball game and years later forget that you were there, were you conscious during the game?

Kelly: In other words, what lies beyond consciousness is distinguished by consciousness as "hidden", or, at most "a blurry, indistinctness". It exists as such.

Beingof1: At what point did you take yourself out of the universe to peer inside and make this distinct observation?

Kelly: Peer outside, and direct observation, you mean? It's not a direct observation but a logical conclusion, based on the definition of consciousness as consciousness of things. One can't well peep outside consciousness and expect to experience anything (be conscious).

Except that you are not using logic at all - can you not see this?

You keep changing A=A willy nilly to fit into your concept.

I have demonstrated this over and over and over. You apparently cannot see your emotional attachment to your concept. If you were not attached to your concept, you would be logical. Right now you are not using A=A at all.

If you cannot see that making distinctions to claim they are finite and infinite all at the same time - is not ludicrous - to say the least - is almost at the point of insanity.

Kelly: Another way of looking at the limitations of consciousness is to conceive of Reality as all things, including what is hidden from consciousness.

Beingof1: Like I said, you base your belief system - just like all fundamentalist religions - on concepts. Will you at any point embrace reality over your concepts?

Kelly: You've just used concepts too. What matters is if they're coherent, and useful, and wise.

Nope - I am simply appealing to your present experience.

It is not conceptual that all things appear in your consciousness - that is experiential. Know and understand the difference.

There is a vast difference between a concept and an experience. As different as finite is from infinite - for those in the know.

Beingof1 wrote: Like I said, you base your belief system - just like all fundamentalist religions - on concepts.

Will you at any point embrace reality over your concepts?

Could you easily explicit the dynamics of fundamentalist thought, or what you think it may be?

Bobo wrote:

Beingof1 wrote: Like I said, you base your belief system - just like all fundamentalist religions - on concepts.

Will you at any point embrace reality over your concepts?

Could you easily explicit the dynamics of fundamentalist thought, or what you think it may be?

To superimpose a conceptual image over reality and put your faith in this. Then deny experience itself when it contradicts the concept.