GENIUS FORUMS

all things that arise cease.

if a thing lacks self-nature it has no nature, likewise functions.

they are 'the empty's'.

a thing doesn't possess a property empty.
it is empty.

You start it off but don't give the punch line, the 'consequently'.

Consequently, any ideas you have about the subject are ultimately meaningless, despite what they are they convey the same message. They convey the same message because they all arise in the same way.

'Understanding' how they arise isn't a matter of rationalization. It is a matter of awareness.

The point is to leave behind all the various mental blockages and conceptual clinging, to 'see what's right in front of you'.

Often it's the case that people are so distracted/attached that they are unable to see what's right in front of them.
There is a lot to distract you. This is one reason for closing your eyes, may help one to see.

Consequently, any ideas you have about the subject are ultimately meaningless, despite what they are they convey the same message. They convey the same message because they all arise in the same way.

propositions condition the subject and the subject becomes conditioner. the subject as both effect and cause.
that's why religions get 'em young.

a cool breeze of detachment blows thru perceiving causality.

the 'consequently' is essences and identities are spoken into existence because if there isn't a word for it then it doesn't exist.

why do you people never address the points i bring up

Please address this Dennis. And dont bother replying if you are not going to:

chikoka wrote:But if nothing is separate then there can be no change.

And if something is really separate then , as you pointed out, change will still not be possible.

Do you agree with the above analysis.

And please respond to this Russel:

chikoka wrote:What i am asking is , what are things a function of.
If you say memory and memory itself is made from the totality (i.e. has the same source as everything else, .is the same as everything else:

Russell wrote:
They are the same thing


then things are a function of a continuum , which doesnt make sense.

if you say memory and memory is made of things then what are the things memory is made from a function of.

It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum.

A cool breeze of detachment blows thru perceiving that reality is made up of impermament illusory-like formations passing by as if life were a movie. Like looking in the distance of a painting when nothings there. What else is there to say or learn after this, the mind naturally becomes still perceiving this.


Chikoka, how can one address nothing to your satisfaction?

"Discrete" "function" "separate" meaningless

chikoka,

why do you people never address the points i bring up

you've got a subtext goin' on buddy like an invitation for turbulence.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Chikoka, how can one address nothing to your satisfaction?

Not nothing, my points.You guys are a dishonest bunch. So Seeker address this:

chikoka wrote:But if nothing is separate then there can be no change.

And if something is really separate then , as you pointed out, change will still not be possible.

Do you agree with the above analysis.

Dennis Mahar wrote:chikoka,

why do you people never address the points i bring up

you've got a subtext goin' on buddy like an invitation for turbulence.

I feel like going to play lotto..i totaly predicted this.
If you cant address these points then let someone else do it.
You are a very frustrating person.(no offence)

nothing happens 'til something moves.
the movement is consciousness.

we've just gone thru' the Oedipal Complex as a subtext.

what's goin' down buddy.

You're the one getting frustrated.

And I would address your points, but I just said 'separate' is meaningless, so I can't.

Dennis Mahar wrote:nothing happens 'til something moves.
the movement is consciousness.

Good, something to work with.

Isnt consciousness a "part" of the totality(i.e. everything)? The continuum. So how can it move?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:You're the one getting frustrated.

And I would address your points, but I just said 'separate' is meaningless, so I can't.

Continuum is also meaningless *says this at the risk of hijacking the thread to another one he authored*

So how can it move?

is this where you make me run the gauntlet of an infinite regress of justifiers without a coffee.

that's the subtext.
romancing agrippa,
the skeptic.

Qsr can't stand the acid test.

I thought your thing was redbull.

chikoka wrote:then things are a function of a continuum , which doesnt make sense.

How does it not make sense? Time (continuum), like I said, is a measurement of causation (functions), i.e. measurement of change. There is no time without change, and vice versa. So they are the same, ultimately.

if you say memory and memory is made of things then what are the things memory is made from a function of.

Memory is made up of the neural network of the brain, which is a function of the body, which is the function of the earth, etc. etc. etc..

It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum.

Things being a function of other things is precisely the description of the continuum. Unity. Totality.

And i have read "wisdom of the infinite.

You might want to read it again, slowly this time.

it is said there's no escape from agrippa's trilemma.

to 'listen' from agrippas trilemma is binding.

boxed in, no escape.

the only possibility of escape is to recognise it as empty or dependent on causes/conditions.

it comes down to you chikoka to prove that it exists in its own nature independently.

the ball is in your court.

Russell wrote:chikoka wrote:
then things are a function of a continuum , which doesnt make sense.

How does it not make sense? Time (continuum), like I said, is a measurement of causation (functions), i.e. measurement of change. There is no time without change, and vice versa. So they are the same, ultimately.

There is no way you can prove time based causation because moments can be humean. I was meaning the äxiom of identity" öne that i feel carries much more weight and was the one David espoused in the wisdom of the infinite.

Show me why points cant be humean substances because there is no way to prove time other than the present moment exists.this is philosophy 101.

Russell wrote:Quote:
if you say memory and memory is made of things then what are the things memory is made from a function of.

Memory is made up of the neural network of the brain, which is a function of the body, which is the function of the earth, etc. etc. etc..

At the root of this progression is there a fundamental thing. if there is then things are a function of things , not a continuum.

Russell wrote:Quote:
It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum.

Things being a function of other things is precisely the description of the continuum. Unity. Totality.
Quote:

What proportionality can the finite have with the infinite? The answer is Zero.
Anything finite divided by infinity makes Zero. Your maths is rusty.
Say we have an interval (0 - 1) of real numbers. The number of numbers in that interval is infinite. If we we to use this to form a relationship we'd have R(0 -1) -> c, where c is a constant.

That means that any number in that interval will be mapped to c. We can think of the interval as being the totality (with the power of the continuum Aleph_1) and c , the constant being a thing.

To have another thing/constant we might have R(2 -3) -> d , where d represents another thing and (2 - 3) is anothe infinite interval. This is the best scenario you can have in explaining the isolation of things from the continuum, but you know what ? It still doesnt hold water.

The relationship between d and c is that of different things, and as you beleive this is illusionary so we would like to beleive that the true truth is that of a relationship between the intervals (0 - 1) and (2 - 3).

but what is that relationship?
they cannot be the same else when the relationship R is performed they would produce simmilar results and they dont( one produces c the other produces d) so even the hypothesis of a continuum is false because when we use it we , right from the beginning have to separate the continuum (into [1 - 2] and [ 2 - 3] i.e . two things) in order for us to produce things.

meaning the totality has to be fundamentaly thingy to produce any thing anyhow.

At least you responded

Dennis Mahar wrote:it is said there's no escape from agrippa's trilemma.

to 'listen' from agrippas trilemma is binding.

boxed in, no escape.

the only possibility of escape is to recognise it as empty or dependent on causes/conditions.

it comes down to you chikoka to prove that it exists in its own nature independently.

the ball is in your court.

Good point, but even that recognition is empty or dependant on causes/conditions [sic].

Buddha was aware of the vicious circle of justification.
The apophatic mode of negation 'empties' out the thicket of metaphysical views.

Then he went for the virtuous circle of explication.
causing harm generates an unending spiralling of misery.
cause/effect.
this ceases/that ceases.
this arises/that arises.

He cautioned to on no account 'believe' him.
It was an instruction to check it out.

He was 'practical pete'.

Was it said that Buddha would not continue in 'rebirths' after releasing all craving for existence? I can think of a few verses.

chikoka wrote:There is no way you can prove time based causation because moments can be humean. I was meaning the äxiom of identity" öne that i feel carries much more weight and was the one David espoused in the wisdom of the infinite.

Show me why points cant be humean substances because there is no way to prove time other than the present moment exists.this is philosophy 101.

I'm not too familiar with Hume, care to provide a brief explanation of your understanding of 'Humean substances'?

At the root of this progression is there a fundamental thing. if there is then things are a function of things , not a continuum.

What exactly is that "fundamental thing"?

What proportionality can the finite have with the infinite? The answer is Zero.
Anything finite divided by infinity makes Zero. Your maths is rusty.

This makes no sense. A finite value is infinitesimally less than infinity, not absolute zero. Anything finite divided by zero equals zero. Anything divided by infinity makes infinity.

Say we have an interval (0 - 1) of real numbers. The number of numbers in that interval is infinite. If we we to use this to form a relationship we'd have R(0 -1) -> c, where c is a constant.

That means that any number in that interval will be mapped to c. We can think of the interval as being the totality (with the power of the continuum Aleph_1) and c , the constant being a thing.

To have another thing/constant we might have R(2 -3) -> d , where d represents another thing and (2 - 3) is anothe infinite interval. This is the best scenario you can have in explaining the isolation of things from the continuum, but you know what ? It still doesnt hold water.

The relationship between d and c is that of different things, and as you beleive this is illusionary so we would like to beleive that the true truth is that of a relationship between the intervals (0 - 1) and (2 - 3).

but what is that relationship?
they cannot be the same else when the relationship R is performed they would produce simmilar results and they dont( one produces c the other produces d) so even the hypothesis of a continuum is false because when we use it we , right from the beginning have to separate the continuum (into [1 - 2] and [ 2 - 3] i.e . two things) in order for us to produce things.

Conscious perspective is designed to perceive finiteness within infinite reality. You even admit that in order to perceive separation, you have to "separate the continuum" in order to observe "things." There is no (0-1) and (2-3) without (0-3), and indeed, the infinite array of numbers beyond that set.

Furthermore, without perspective to provide definition, there are no "things." It's pretty much undefinable from there (except that we can call it 'undefinable').

meaning the totality has to be fundamentaly thingy to produce any thing anyhow.

Faulty statement, because 'thing-ness' is only applicable to conscious perspective. Beyond consciousness is simply the Totality.

Russell wrote:chikoka wrote:
There is no way you can prove time based causation because moments can be humean. I was meaning the äxiom of identity" öne that i feel carries much more weight and was the one David espoused in the wisdom of the infinite.

Show me why points cant be humean substances because there is no way to prove time other than the present moment exists.this is philosophy 101.

I'm not too familiar with Hume, care to provide a brief explanation of your understanding of 'Humean substances'?
Quote:

It means dont depend on each other for existance. Since you cant prove any moment other than now exists , points of time can be humean. They dont have to correlate .

Russell wrote:Quote:
At the root of this progression is there a fundamental thing. if there is then things are a function of things , not a continuum.

What exactly is that "fundamental thing"?

The very first thing we started of with.

Russell wrote:Quote:
What proportionality can the finite have with the infinite? The answer is Zero.
Anything finite divided by infinity makes Zero. Your maths is rusty.

This makes no sense. A finite value is infinitesimally less than infinity, not absolute zero. Anything finite divided by zero equals zero. Anything divided by infinity makes infinity

Lim (x-> infinity) for 2/x = 0. Like i said , rusty math.

Russell wrote: You even admit that in order to perceive separation, you have to "separate the continuum" in order to observe "things."

No.
What does the relation called S (for separation) take as a domain in order to produce things. S(x) -> thing. What is the thing called x in that relation? If it doesnt take anything then you are saying the totality is not related to the things that make it up.

Russell wrote:There is no (0-1) and (2-3) without (0-3), and indeed, the infinite array of numbers beyond that set.

See the above for this.