Absolute truth

Ataraxia · Post by **Ataraxia** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:28 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:z, the standard of proof for metaphysical inquiry is actually very simple and thorough. Based on say, the principle of non-contradiction (that a statement cannot be both true and false), we can deduce some interesting things. For instance, if there is a statement such that if it were it true, we would form a contradiction, we know for a fact that the statement must be false. There are countless examples of such necessary truths, and they range from the insipid (an invisible pink unicorn cannot exist; I cannot perceive the sole colour of both blue and red) to the profound (I cannot doubt that I doubt; Reality is not nothing whatsoever; etc.)

Dissing the IPU.Poor form, old chap. ;)

divine focus · Post by **divine focus** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:45 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:df,
You missed one. After step 10 should be: "From #4 and #6: The Totality depends on all things for existence." That would require a revision of the last step.
After writing it, I lost my attention span. I'll have to take your word on this, and trust that you can make the necessary adaptations in your head. (I'm not brushing you off, btw. I'm brushing off faust, who I'm not even going to bother replying to, since his foot appears to have migrated to his mouth.)

To refresh:

1. Maxim: It is impossible for a thing both to be and not be.
2. Definition: Being [edit: upper-case Being, as opposed to lower-case being] is the Totality of all things.
3. From #2: All things, therefore, are part of the Totality.
4. From #2: The Totality, therefore, is composed of all things.
5. From #1 and #3: It a thing is not part of the Totality, it does not exist.
6. From #1 and #4: It is impossible for the Totality to be composed of any less than all things.
7. From #2 and #6: It is impossible for the Totality to be composed of any less than the Totality.
8. From #4 and #7: It is impossible for all things to be composed of any less than the Totality.
9: Definition (Equivalent to #2): To be part of the Totality is to exist.
10. From #8 and #9: All things, therefore, depend on the Totality for existence.
From #4 and #6: The Totality depends on all things for existence.
11. From #5 and #8: All things depend on the Totality for existence and if a thing is not part of the Totality, it does not exist.
12. Definition (re: #11): To be thus dependent is to be part of a causal relationship.

The question for step 12 is then, "Does the totality cause each thing, or does each thing cause the totality?"

Imadrongo · Post by **Imadrongo** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:06 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Neil,
I am disputing that abstract concepts like "Totality" are accurate in describing reality.
The Totality is identical to the word "Reality" in meaning. Strangely enough, you have no similar difficulty understanding and using the word reality.

I disagree with this. To me "reality" means that which is actually real as opposed to the abstract concepts like "Totality" that you try to equate to it. So "reality" is more of a pointer for me than a concept. Your equating of reality with abstract concepts is what I am questioning. Does your cluster of metaphysical concepts actually relate to reality, what is real, or are they just abstract concepts that have no meaning in the context you are trying to use them? This is what we must question. If we can accept the accuracy of a bunch of concepts man has created about the outside from his insider perspective then metaphysics is valid. However you need to convince me why I should accept this because it seems absurd to me.

Faust · Post by **Faust** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:35 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:(I'm not brushing you off, btw. I'm brushing off faust, who I'm not even going to bother replying to, since his foot appears to have migrated to his mouth.)

wow, what a convincing rebuttal. perhaps you got ticked off by being reminded that the universe is by nature irrational simply by existing, that there's no reason for its existence.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:05 pm

df,

The question for step 12 is then, "Does the totality cause each thing, or does each thing cause the totality?"

Both. The Totality cannot exist without each and every one of its parts.

Funny historical fact: some people believed that by splitting the atom, a thing would be transformed into nothing, and the totality would necessarily cease to exist. Some people were thus relieved when the atomic bomb only destroyed Hiroshima.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:10 pm

Neil,

I disagree with this.

I hope you understand that you are disagreeing with a definition, after I have already clearly explained which word in your vocabulary you could replace it with.

I'm not even interested in reading all parts of your post that follow this bit, because I'm having a hard time believing that someone who would do that is thinking rationally.

Faust,

wow, what a convincing rebuttal. perhaps you got ticked off by being reminded that the universe is by nature irrational simply by existing, that there's no reason for its existence.

Or, perhaps not, and I simply think you have no idea what this topic is about. I suggest you start by looking into something like "Tao Te Ching", or "The Diamond Sutra", or even David's "The Wisdom of the Infinite" if you are in a pinch and discover that you can't read without someone holding your hand to walk you step by step through what every thinking person should know.

divine focus · Post by **divine focus** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:23 pm

Neil Melnyk wrote:
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Neil,
I am disputing that abstract concepts like "Totality" are accurate in describing reality.
The Totality is identical to the word "Reality" in meaning. Strangely enough, you have no similar difficulty understanding and using the word reality.
I disagree with this. To me "reality" means that which is actually real as opposed to the abstract concepts like "Totality" that you try to equate to it. So "reality" is more of a pointer for me than a concept. Your equating of reality with abstract concepts is what I am questioning. Does your cluster of metaphysical concepts actually relate to reality, what is real, or are they just abstract concepts that have no meaning in the context you are trying to use them? This is what we must question. If we can accept the accuracy of a bunch of concepts man has created about the outside from his insider perspective then metaphysics is valid. However you need to convince me why I should accept this because it seems absurd to me.

Your idea of "reality" as a pointer is still a concept. You can't put you're thought process outside of the abstract world and then question the abstract with other concepts as your basis. Questioning itself is abstract. When you say "reality" without the quotes, it's not that different from saying it with the quotes (though I see the distinction you're making). You have reality, a concept, and "reality," a concept of a concept.

The concept of "totality" is equivalent to the concept of "reality," at least in this thread, if you agree that there is one fundamental grounding that everything is a part of.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:48 pm

df, you are wrong because you are using words. I, on the other hand, by using "words" and words, am completely correct.

(I couldn't help myself. Neil's practically a parody of himself.)

Faust · Post by **Faust** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:34 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I suggest you start by looking into something like "Tao Te Ching", or "The Diamond Sutra", or even David's "The Wisdom of the Infinite" if you are in a pinch and discover that you can't read without someone holding your hand to walk you step by step through what every thinking person should know.

I have read alot of Wisdom of the Infinite and it's overrated. Many of us do know about causality, but that doesn't destroy our lives as sour-grapes David wants us to think.

Wisdom of Infinite says:

But then again, as I say, it is entirely understandable that people want to avoid all consciousness of cause and effect. Becoming conscious of it is dangerous. The more you absorb it into your being, the more it dissolves the basis of your egotistical existence and undermines the egotistical values of love, family, happiness, community, religion, suffering and hate. It flings you into the austere, starry realm of the Infinite - a realm from which most of humanity shrinks.

how does causality "undermine" family, happiness, community, suffering? Concerning happiness, you enjoy it and then it disappears, nothing wrong with that. What's funny is that cop-outs like QRS and some others *wink* *wink* seek happiness and achieve alot of it in a very cowardly and dishonest way by simply having others pay for their living. Jeez, that's totally embracing causality and undermining happiness......not.. not to mention, undermining community...hmm, who else is paying for your sorry ass? it can't be the community, must be some free money falling out of the sky then....

Imadrongo · Post by **Imadrongo** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:59 am

divine focus,

The concept of "totality" is equivalent to the concept of "reality," at least in this thread, if you agree that there is one fundamental grounding that everything is a part of.

Totality is an unnecessary abstraction that refers to something above or containing the world of appearances that I live in. Reality is simply the world of appearances I live in. The difference is there, and I am quite aware that all language is concepts. But I am trying to use concepts that point to something as opposed to dubious abstract concepts that point to no empirical observation.

divine focus · Post by **divine focus** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:10 am

Neil Melnyk wrote:divine focus,
The concept of "totality" is equivalent to the concept of "reality," at least in this thread, if you agree that there is one fundamental grounding that everything is a part of.
Totality is an unnecessary abstraction that refers to something above or containing the world of appearances that I live in. Reality is simply the world of appearances I live in. The difference is there, and I am quite aware that all language is concepts. But I am trying to use concepts that point to something as opposed to dubious abstract concepts that point to no empirical observation.

If the world you live in is finite, then "totality" is an easy, common sense abstraction. By the difficulty you seem to be having, I assume you believe the world is infinite. If that's the case, I agree. As with anything infinite, there are no boundaries; but concepts require boundaries. There would be no use for an infinite concept. The concept of the "world" you live in, then, has boundaries, even if it represents something infinite. The same as "totality."

Imadrongo · Post by **Imadrongo** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:13 am

divine focus,
Intesting. I don't claim to know whether anything is infinite or finite, in fact these terms themselves are meaningless to me. I am just opposed to the way metaphysicians like Trevor take concepts created by man from the "insider perspective" and use them as though they are infallible and apply to the "outside" if you get what I mean.

divine focus · Post by **divine focus** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:22 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:df,
The question for step 12 is then, "Does the totality cause each thing, or does each thing cause the totality?"
Both. The Totality cannot exist without each and every one of its parts.

It can't be both, logically speaking. From the point of view of each thing, it causes the totality. But does the totality have a point of view? It could only be the superposition of each thing's point of view. Each thing would then be the totality itself, even if that is not its particular point of view.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:24 am

The Totality is infinite and has no limit because it is everything. It can't both be everything and have a limit because in order to have a limit, it would have to exclude something in order for the limit to exist. In other words, the Totality would have to be on one side of the limit and something else would have to be on the other side, which is impossible because something can't be both everything and not everything at the same time. Therefore, the Totality is infinite.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:43 am

divine focus,

It can't be both, logically speaking.

No contradiction arises, therefore this statement is false.

From the point of view of each thing, it causes the totality. But does the totality have a point of view? It could only be the superposition of each thing's point of view. Each thing would then be the totality itself, even if that is not its particular point of view.

I am not using points of view.

A pie requires all its pieces to be a complete pie. A piece requires a complete pie to be a piece of the pie.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:47 am

Neil,

I am just opposed to the way metaphysicians like Trevor take concepts created by man from the "insider perspective" and use them as though they are infallible and apply to the "outside" if you get what I mean.

I get it. You think I'm incorrect. But it's one hypocritical misinterpretation after another that makes you feel this way. No argumentum ad nauseum is going to suddenly make me wrong.

Regardless, this inside and outside thing is your own invention. There is no outside. Everything in the universe, without exception, is contained in the word "Totality".

[Edit for Every Sane Person: I was considering changing the word "contained" to some other word like "described", since I know already he's going to be incapable of comprehending that word in context. But he'll just find some imaginative way to inform me that the words can't describe concepts, either.]

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:23 pm

Words like "reality" and "totality" are just that - words. They don't contain any truth-value in themselves. They merely serve as pointers. They are just empty containers that can be used to point to wherever we want to point to.

A person either uses these pointers intelligently and wisely, with no confusion at all, or he doesn't.

To imagine that "reality" is somehow an inherently better word than "totality", or vice versa, is irrational. It is to be guilty of projecting metaphysical meaning onto the word itself. It's a case of confusing the finger for the moon.

-

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:33 pm

Faust wrote:

Wisdom of Infinite says:

But then again, as I say, it is entirely understandable that people want to avoid all consciousness of cause and effect. Becoming conscious of it is dangerous. The more you absorb it into your being, the more it dissolves the basis of your egotistical existence and undermines the egotistical values of love, family, happiness, community, religion, suffering and hate. It flings you into the austere, starry realm of the Infinite - a realm from which most of humanity shrinks.

Faust: how does causality "undermine" family, happiness, community, suffering? Concerning happiness, you enjoy it and then it disappears, nothing wrong with that.

It all depends on how much you are willing to integrate your whole life into the truth of causality. The more you factor yourself into the equation, the more dangerous it becomes.

However, if you simply do what academics and lukewarm philosophers do and keep causality confined as an abstract theory which exists only in the imagination, you'll have no problems. You'll never be touched by it.

-

Faust · Post by **Faust** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:30 pm

David Quinn wrote:It all depends on how much you are willing to integrate your whole life into the truth of causality. The more you factor yourself into the equation, the more dangerous it becomes.

how is it dangerous??? as usual you fail to rebuttal my question, "how does causality undermine happiness, family, etc..."

I'm saying that It's cowardly and dishonest to 'integrate' your life by having others pay for your sorry ass. We're not living in Royalty anymore.

However, if you simply do what academics and lukewarm philosophers do and keep causality confined as an abstract theory which exists only in the imagination, you'll have no problems. You'll never be touched by it.

*yawn* I have no intention to keep causality confined to an abstract theory that only exists in the imagination, that's just pure slander on your part. I've been touched by causality, but its stressing of it becomes redundant. What happens now?? nothing. philosophers sometimes have a keen habit of needing to see sickness in other people in order to make their knowledge and egotistical self-importance seem valuable and precious. Very similar to priests and Christians.

Imadrongo · Post by **Imadrongo** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:42 am

David,

To imagine that "reality" is somehow an inherently better word than "totality", or vice versa, is irrational. It is to be guilty of projecting metaphysical meaning onto the word itself. It's a case of confusing the finger for the moon.

Trevor is projecting metaphysical meaning onto the word "Totality".

Most words are pointers, but words with metaphysical meanings are abstract and don't point towards anything. Thus "Totality" doesn't point anywhere in the context you guys like to use it. Meanwhile "reality" to me points at everything I see and experience in the world.

divine focus · Post by **divine focus** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:26 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:divine focus,
It can't be both, logically speaking.
No contradiction arises, therefore this statement is false.

From the point of view of each thing, it causes the totality. But does the totality have a point of view? It could only be the superposition of each thing's point of view. Each thing would then be the totality itself, even if that is not its particular point of view.
I am not using points of view.

A pie requires all its pieces to be a complete pie. A piece requires a complete pie to be a piece of the pie.

There's no contradiction only if you can overcome the cause/effect riddle. If the totality depends on each thing for existence, and each thing depends on the totality, which came first? Superposed points of view as the totality is a solution to that problem.

skipair · Post by **skipair** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:49 pm

A few thoughts and questions:

If things don't exist, why are we using the false categories of "things" as a proof for logic (all things are finite) and futher for cause and effect (things cannot arise in the absence of other things) when C+E is the very thing that tells us things actually don't exist? False premise or am I missing something?

Also, the examles that I've seen from the cause and effect proof have all been visual objects. What about a smell, which is still an object of the mind. How do you cut that in half? Half the intensity? Half the duration/amount of molocules entering your nose? Doesn't seem to pan out. Same goes for other senses.

I posed the question can enlightenment exist without language in another thread. That is to say, if language did not exist, would it be possible to become enlightened? Also, what if there weren't any senses?

divine focus · Post by **divine focus** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:25 pm

skipair wrote:A few thoughts and questions:

If things don't exist, why are we using the false categories of "things" as a proof for logic (all things are finite) and futher for cause and effect (things cannot arise in the absence of other things) when C+E is the very thing that tells us things actually don't exist? False premise or am I missing something?

You could call things "actions;" but that does make it hard to use logic at all. It brings the whole basis of cause and effect, time, into the question. The whole basis of thought, actually.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:06 pm

skipair wrote:If things don't exist, why are we using the false categories of "things" as a proof for logic (all things are finite) and futher for cause and effect (things cannot arise in the absence of other things) when C+E is the very thing that tells us things actually don't exist? False premise or am I missing something?

Things do exist - ie, have boundaries - this is by definition - but things don't exist inherently, on their own account alone. Rather, they are dependent on other things - namely, that which is other than themselves, and the conceiving mind, senses, etc.

Also, the examles that I've seen from the cause and effect proof have all been visual objects. What about a smell, which is still an object of the mind. How do you cut that in half? Half the intensity? Half the duration/amount of molocules entering your nose? Doesn't seem to pan out. Same goes for other senses.

The point is that things are dependent on what causes them. A visual thing is dependent on having parts (eg, a left and right side). A smell is dependent on there being enough chemicals in the odour to trigger our sense of smell, and it is also dependent on being able to be contrasted with other smells, etc. The same goes for all the other senses.

I posed the question can enlightenment exist without language in another thread. That is to say, if language did not exist, would it be possible to become enlightened? Also, what if there weren't any senses?

To answer your last question first, if there were no senses there would be no consciousness, since consciousness is precisely the consciousness of things, and senses give rise to things, by definition.

Also, to consciousness all things are symbolic in that all things trigger the idea of other things. So this is a kind of language that is an inherent part of consciousness.

divine focus · Post by **divine focus** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:27 pm

divine focus wrote:
skipair wrote:A few thoughts and questions:

If things don't exist, why are we using the false categories of "things" as a proof for logic (all things are finite) and futher for cause and effect (things cannot arise in the absence of other things) when C+E is the very thing that tells us things actually don't exist? False premise or am I missing something?
You could call things "actions;" but that does make it hard to use logic at all. It brings the whole basis of cause and effect, time, into the question. The whole basis of thought, actually.

Also, you could call the totality the "whole event," being the set of all actions.

Restated:

1. Maxim: It is impossible for an action both to be and not be.
2. Definition: The Whole Event is the Totality of all actions.
3. From #2: All actions, therefore, are part of the Whole Event.
4. From #2: The Whole Event, therefore, is composed of all actions.
5. From #1 and #3: If an action is not part of the Whole Event, it does not happen.
6. From #1 and #4: It is impossible for the Whole Event to be composed of any less than all actions.
9: Definition (Equivalent to #2): To be part of the Whole Event is to exist.
10. From #8 and #9: All actions, therefore, depend on the Whole Event for existence.
From #4 and #6: The Whole Event depends on all actions for existence.
11. From #5 and #8: All actions depend on the Whole Event for existence and if an action is not part of the Whole Event, it does not exist.
12. Definition (re: #11): To be thus dependent is to be part of a causal relationship.

This actually puts it all in clearer focus. The Whole Event obviously needs every action in order to exist, especially if it's infinite. It's hard to tell if every action needs the whole event, though. You have to go from self as a thing to self as a being to get the action's perspective. It seems every being could be an Event unto itself, as your personal, individual consciousness suggests. Cause and effect doesn't even exist, when you get on this level. You're obviously part of something bigger, something you don't know as you, so your lone Event may be the Whole Event in disguise.

GENIUS FORUMS

Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth