GENIUS FORUMS

I would query the premise that the phrase "a splash is a splash" or that "A=A" has any meaning as a whole.

Ataraxia wrote:

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:If there is a bounded "universe" then there are conditions that make that universe possible.

For example, there must be nothing that can destroy that universe. There must be sustaining conditions. There must be something that makes the existence of such a universe possible.

This is no different than a universe that extends infinitely in all physical and temporal directions. The need for "conditions" to make a universe possible applies regardless of the extent of its dimensions. Remember that, just like your Totality, my proposed universe has nothing beyond it.

If I'm reading Kevin aright,'your universe' and 'Kevins Toality' can't be the same.

I'm not saying that they're exactly the same, just that they're the same in the sense that they have nothing beyond them.

Ataraxia wrote:Kevin's saying if what you are speaking about is a 'bounded universe',then by logical necissity that universe can't be the only one.If it is bounded,there must always be 'other'.

I'm not speaking about a "bounded" universe because I know that by bounded Kevin means that it necessarily has "other". I'm talking about a universe where beyond the limits there is literally nothing. Or there's another possibility that's a bit more far-out that I once canvassed in the thread, "The affirmative nature of femininity": that there is a "mathematical" mapping from the edges of the universe back into some other region so that when you reach the edge and look onwards you actually see another part of the universe, rather than nothingness. I don't really give this one a lot of credence, but it does show that an infinite universe is not the only possibility, and that all that you need to do to convince yourself of that is to exercise a bit of imagination.

Kevin Solway wrote:Something meaningful.

This does not conform to what you mentioned earlier…

You were arguing that one cannot point to a Totality unless one conceptualizes. I'm demonstrating that this is not the case. It is perfectly possible to do things, have experiences, and communicate ideas, without having them filtered by models, concepts, and systems of knowledge.

Can you define models, concepts, and system of Knowledge?

S: Are you saying what Nat essentially says? A toilet bursh is a toilet brush. Just in different words of course.

K: Maybe, but I don't know for sure what you or Nat understand by those words.

A frog jumps in a pond. Splash!

S: A “splash” itself does escape (concepts)

K: As does the word "splash" when used in the right context.

S: You mean the right context where words hold no meaning?

K: It is the purpose of words to hold meaning.

I know, and hence the inconsistency of your meanings, not the words. You don’t really mean what you say, which is disappointing.

Truth or Reality itself can't be defined, it just is.

I know, but actually, that really means nothing.

Reality itself is neither meaningful nor meaningless.

If Reality is All that there is, then meaning IS too. Otherwise, what the hell do you mean by “Reality itself is neither meaningful nor meaningless.” Meaning (the moon) always IS, when words (pointers) are. The word 'Splash!' does not excape meaning in whatever context, including the exclamation mark!

However, it is meaningful to realize the truth, if one values that kind of thing.

That’s a different story. Each individual has his own “truth” to value, and their own definition of ‘wise’.

I don't know what you personally mean by "an individual object". Perhaps you can see each individual object as a manifestation of God, or perhaps you can't. These different kinds of "individual objects" are worlds apart.

The difference is, against your own advice, you further add “details” such as ‘manifestation’ OF God or Totality or Reality, unless your OF is way off mark or meaning. As far as I can see, only things manifest other things, not some underlying or hidden “Reality/God”; that’s purely a deluded assumption in my opinion.

K: In this manner, they literally see "God" in all things. They might speak about one or the other, duality or non-duality, but their meaning is always the same, regardless of what they're talking about.

S: More details. Why?

K: Because it's important to distinguish between the two different kinds of "individual objects", which are both experienced directly.

Both? You mean God is a different “individual object” literally experienced? I though a thing is exactly what it is, splash! You are simply taking the connectivity and dependency of all things and adding further unnecessary details by calling that God. I know, it is quite difficult to let go of the ‘slave – master’ mentality; one tries his best to justify that through situation-suiting definitions, or of course, "I don't mean that' or ‘you don’t understand’, ‘mental block’ and the likes remain the ultimate “arguments”.

However, I guess I shouldn’t argue much with the infallible…

K: Conscious people have the Ultimate perspective.

Steven wrote:I would query the premise that the phrase "a splash is a splash" or that "A=A" has any meaning as a whole.

It has, but that's a different story. It the fundamental basis of consciousness; it represents the act of differentiation, without which consciousness is not possible. Recognition through differentiation; "A" would not be known if that was all that there is; anything other than that is necessary to know that A is A, and not something else.

Similarly, taking it a bit further, God/Totality cannot be even considered or defined as All that there is, or simply IS. IT cannot be without something else also not being there; As Clyde mentioned somewhere, turtles all the way, dualistically. Such understandings do not turn into some non-dualistic reality by calling it “Truth”; the Self always remains; No Self, (dualistically), no nothing. Non-duality only fulfills wishful delusions of desire in my opinion. An addition of “details” so to speak.

Laird wrote:
I'm not I'm talking about a universe where beyond the limits there is literally nothing.

Well thats just a different way of saying the same thing. Instead of using the word boundary you've used the word limit.

When Kevin posits "the Totality=utterly everything" he is staying true to the laws of thought.Law of identity,non contradicition and excluded middle have not been contravened.

However, when you make the quoted statement, you are.

If a universe has limits, as you posit ,then outside of that limit can't be 'literally nothing'.You haven't completed the law of identity.The 'A' is the the limited universe but there is no 'not -A'

If you want to speculate outside the laws of thought,thats your buisness.But if you say such a thing I can't help thinking it can be construed as 'flailing.'

Or there's another possibility that's a bit more far-out that I once canvassed in the thread, "The affirmative nature of femininity": that there is a "mathematical" mapping from the edges of the universe back into some other region so that when you reach the edge and look onwards you actually see another part of the universe, rather than nothingness. I don't really give this one a lot of credence, but it does show that an infinite universe is not the only possibility, and that all that you need to do to convince yourself of that is to exercise a bit of imagination.

Yes,some cosmologists also speculate that our universe may fould back upon itself-it's not a totally outrageous specualtion on your part.

However, if you (or these cosmoligists) were able to somehow observe this,logically you wouldn't be at the 'edge of the universe.There's no 'edge' in this case,you are observing more universe.

ataxas wrote:The meaning of the proposition "a splash is a splash," is nothing in isolation; the sentence means nothing semantically;

That's true, but nothing is ever in isolation. All things have a context - even if that context is the just mood we are in at the time.

Very often we read meaning into words that have none, perhaps out of boredom.

It is my inclination to say that one would do well to distinguish pragmatic concerns from semantics, else end up at Heidegger, or Meinong's "extant imaginary objects".

I have trouble distinguishing pragmatic concerns from semantics - semantics is supposed to be about meaning isn't it? I can't think of anything more pragmatic than meaning.

Ataraxia wrote:If a universe has limits, as you posit ,then outside of that limit can't be 'literally nothing'.You haven't completed the law of identity.The 'A' is the the limited universe but there is no 'not -A'

Firstly, I don't understand why you require there to be a not-A. Why should there be? Why can't there be literally nothing outside of a finite universe?

Secondly, this same argument could be made against the Totality: at the ultimate level, the Totality has no not-A to contrast against it.

Laird wrote:

Ataraxia wrote:If a universe has limits, as you posit ,then outside of that limit can't be 'literally nothing'.You haven't completed the law of identity.The 'A' is the the limited universe but there is no 'not -A'

Firstly, I don't understand why you require there to be a not-A. Why should there be? Why can't there be literally nothing outside of a finite universe?

It's required because you posited that it has limits.You have named a thing itself(a universe with limits) thus there has to be 'other' or a not-A to contrast it with.Like a tennis ball sitting on a table.

Secondly, this same argument could be made against the Totality: at the ultimate level, the Totality has no not-A to contrast against it.

Thats what makes it 'everything'

For what your saying to be logically sound you would have to follow- " I'm talking about a universe where beyond the limits there is literally nothing."-with "and the universe is utterly everything"

If thats what you are positing, then fine but

1.I don't know how you would know this to be true.

and

2.Cosmologists are already positing the possibility of mulitiverses so you may even be proven wrong (empirically) in your own lifetime.

Laird wrote:Firstly, I don't understand why you require there to be a not-A. Why should there be? Why can't there be literally nothing outside of a finite universe?

You've already agreed that there has to be conditions which make that universe possible, haven't you? So that's what is outside your bounded universe, "conditions which make the universe possible". And that's not nothing.

Secondly, this same argument could be made against the Totality: at the ultimate level, the Totality has no not-A to contrast against it.

Only "things" need something to be contrasted with. But the Totality, by definition, is not a thing.

Ataraxia wrote:For what your saying to be logically sound you would have to follow- " I'm talking about a universe where beyond the limits there is literally nothing."-with "and the universe is utterly everything"

If thats what you are positing, then fine

Yes, that's what I'm positing.

Ataraxia wrote:but

1.I don't know how you would know this to be true.

I don't, that's what makes it a "posit" rather than an "absolute truth". I'm proposing it as an alternative to the Totality, which QRS hold to be the only alternative. All that I'm saying is: there are other alternatives; this need not be "absolute truth".

Ataraxia wrote:and

2.Cosmologists are already positing the possibility of mulitiverses so you may even be proven wrong (empirically) in your own lifetime.

That doesn't detract from my argument: ultimately there would be a finite amount of multiverse/universe material, which is all that I'm proposing as an alternative to the infinite material of the Totality.

Kevin Solway wrote:You've already agreed that there has to be conditions which make that universe possible, haven't you?

No, I haven't. I've said that it's paradoxical that some models of the universe end up proposing that there are no conditions that make the universe possible (e.g. the QRS Totality, which simply exists without conditions upon it).

Laird: Secondly, this same argument could be made against the Totality: at the ultimate level, the Totality has no not-A to contrast against it.

Kevin: Only "things" need something to be contrasted with. But the Totality, by definition, is not a thing.

By the dictionary definition and even by your definition (that which has boundaries), the Totality is a thing. And anyway, where did this rule come from that "only things need something to be contrasted with"? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Laird wrote:
I don't, that's what makes it a "posit" rather than an "absolute truth".

Because you've said something extra ie "the universe(which you've defined as limited) is utterly everything" which you don't know to be true.

Kevin has kept it simple,undeniable "everything =everything".This statement doesn't have the potential to be false.Yours does.

I'm proposing it as an alternative to the Totality, which QRS hold to be the only alternative. All that I'm saying is: there are other alternatives; this need not be "absolute truth".

There is no alternative to everything = everything-He's just given it an impressive name, the Totality.It's as parsimonious as it gets.

Ataraxia wrote:and

2.Cosmologists are already positing the possibility of mulitiverses so you may even be proven wrong (empirically) in your own lifetime.

Laird:That doesn't detract from my argument: ultimately there would be a finite amount of multiverse/universe material, which is all that I'm proposing as an alternative to the infinite material of the Totality.

Fair enough,I'll leave you to argue whith Kevin what is meant by "infinite material of the Totality"

Sapius wrote:

Steven wrote:I would query the premise that the phrase "a splash is a splash" or that "A=A" has any meaning as a whole.

It has, but that's a different story. It the fundamental basis of consciousness; it represents the act of differentiation, without which consciousness is not possible. Recognition through differentiation; "A" would not be known if that was all that there is; anything other than that is necessary to know that A is A, and not something else.

Similarly, taking it a bit further, God/Totality cannot be even considered or defined as All that there is, or simply IS. IT cannot be without something else also not being there; As Clyde mentioned somewhere, turtles all the way, dualistically. Such understandings do not turn into some non-dualistic reality by calling it “Truth”; the Self always remains; No Self, (dualistically), no nothing. Non-duality only fulfills wishful delusions of desire in my opinion. An addition of “details” so to speak.

I disagree for in themselves they are the complete opposite of differentiation, one cannot posit that the fundamental basis of consciousness necessarilly requires experience of specific objects before it can understand or anticipate that object, or understand that objects relate. Indeed this is provably not so. The fundamental basis of consciousness is relationship of differences.

This is proven by the words "is" and "equals" words that are specifically created to express an understanding of one entity in the form and content of another entity, the only words we have to express meaning about entities "He is wise". "A is... different from B" is the fudament of consciousness, yes we agree, but its through the relationship of differentiation that consciousness can form.

These phrases and sentences are fundamentally meaningless. They relate to themselves and nothing else. "A=A" not "A equals 'something' 'distinct' from 'my' 'thought'". They are fundamentally meaningless because the mind recognises the fact that they are the kind of cognitions that would not provoke conceptual elaboration unless those concepts already exists, and the mind therefore is fundamentally geared towards overcoming these cognitions.

They are also semantically meaningless, for one requires an understanding of object identity and relationship before one can state that an object is itself.

Further, disregarding the inherant requirement to understand "B, C, D" and "is not" in themselves before one can arise at their conceptions through the statement "A is A", the actual meaning of the exact statement itself is inferior to that of "A is".

"A is A" is an irrelevant statement that relates a conception of an entity to itself. Fundamentally meaningless. The first fundament of meaning arises when the mind relates the conception of an entity to the mind itself. It is only through this that the mind can conceptualise differentiation. "The object of my thought is distinct from my thought".

Further an object can only be understood in terms of what is understood. If the prime conception is that "A is A" then the mind has no basis upon which to formulate understanding. Human consciousness can only occur in the mind, and the mind can only be supported by the body. Human consciousness needs both mind and body not only to have the potential to exist, but as the twin sources to spark understanding of relationship. If "A=A" is a prime cognition or indeed a valid statement, then one cannot know anything ever. We cannot elaborate upon A and therefore understand that the next object "B" is not "A" for we have no relationship of differences, only a relationship of identicalities. In a room full of experience "A is A" for each thing including the mind and they are all the same "A", for the mind knows nothing else.

It is fundamentally necessary for differences to exist for meaning to arise. This is so true that biological evolution has produced a function within the nervous system that is different from mere transfer of sense data in order to better interact with its surroundings. The abstract influence of subconcious reaction to biological stimulus is without any shadow of a doubt the origin of conscious thought in the infant human mind.

What do we gain from "A=A" itself if we exclude all other cognitions untill we arrive at them, returning to the instant of the spark of cognition? We know that A is A. We have no further understanding of A. We have no B to understand B and to realise a difference. We can conceive of presence, but we cannot conceive of difference. When B arrives it must be distinct from A or "A=A". When B arrives we immediatly conceive of the concept of difference because we have a conception of "without B" and "with B", we have the memory of when A alone was present, and we have the observation of a difference with that conception. This is the spark of consciousness, this is the origin of meaning.

"A=A" is a rhetorical trick that when studied deeply could not be more fundamentally devoid of meaning.

Sapius wrote:Similarly, taking it a bit further, God/Totality cannot be even considered or defined as All that there is, or simply IS. IT cannot be without something else also not being there; As Clyde mentioned somewhere, turtles all the way, dualistically. Such understandings do not turn into some non-dualistic reality by calling it “Truth”; the Self always remains; No Self, (dualistically), no nothing. Non-duality only fulfills wishful delusions of desire in my opinion. An addition of “details” so to speak.

Turtles all the way is a great phrase. I agree with the principle of what you say, but I do not agree with your conclusion.

When you conceptualise the entirety of all things; it is valid to consider the entirety of all things as a conceptual entity; what is not there is its absence.

When you conceptualise the entirety of all things as the framework of all that is possible, its absence is impossible.

If you prefer to think of underlying mechanism of being, then its absence cannot be.

One needs to view the fundaments of existence not as an object like a computer, that can be removed and allow the absence of a computer to exist. What we are dealing with is the prime difference between what is possible what is impossible, what exists what cannot exist. We limited humans can view it as an object or as a mechanism, but it is not what it is itself that matters, but what the implications of it are.

The alternative to existence is an entity that can never be itself. It cannot be the alternative to existence. There is a duality at the heart of the mystery, atleast this is where my thinking is leading me now, but the duality is such that existence is inevitable because its opposite is self defeating.

Existence is not the fundamental truth in itself, but it is the fundamental state. It is the implication of the relationship between existence and its alternative that is the fundamental truth. Existence is not caused by a thing, but by the very fact that its alternative cannot be a thing; by the very fact that existence denies the absence of existence, and that the absence of existence denies the absence of existence.

Anyone who claims "Totality is" end of story implies there is no deeper meaning, no deeper reason, no deeper truth. They imply the counter-part to the "cascading self creating turtles" which is undetermined presence of an entity that has no reason for being present, that cannot be justified. These are all "revelations" which lead into the arms of God, whatever form He currently takes on this forum, which seems to be still God.

Laird wrote:the Totality is a thing.

I define a "thing" to be that which has boundaries. And since the Totality is defined to be without boundaries, it can't be a thing.

And anyway, where did this rule come from that "only things need something to be contrasted with"?

All things have something with which they are contrasted with by virtue of the fact that they have a boundary, and have conditions upon which they depend for their existence, which are necessarily outside the boundary.

If you thought about what the definition of the Totality is you would realize why it can't possibly have any outside conditions upon which it depends.

Laird: Firstly, I don't understand why you require there to be a not-A. Why should there be? Why can't there be literally nothing outside of a finite universe?

Kevin: You've already agreed that there has to be conditions which make that universe possible, haven't you? So that's what is outside your bounded universe, "conditions which make the universe possible". And that's not nothing.

There may be the appearance of nothing that exists outside the totality of all there physically is, but it cannot truly be nothingness.

Common sense would indicate that the universe expands because nothingness offers the least possible resistance. Forces will take the path of least resistance, and as nothingness would have an absolute lack of resistance the universe progressively expands into it at the speed of light (or gravity). Sciences' present alternative is that the universe's expansion is powered from a starting point, and presently this power is driving an expansion.

Neither of these really make sense when considered from a more holistic cause and effect viewpoint.

The former theory takes for granted the existence of space. I'm not sure on what basis this rests, but whatever, it breaks a chain of cause and effect, and becomes an uncaused appearance of reality, or in the minds of some, caused by god.

Apart from the usual question of what caused the singularity, the latter fails because if the expansion is not instantaneous, then there is something preventing this expansion, there is something offering resistance. So therefore the universe does not expand into nothing.

A person may say wait a minute, what already exists may be the resistance, it may be holding back the expansion. This is true, causality is omni-directional, but meaningless in an ultimate context, as the very instant of the big bang should have been all that was required to for nothingness to no longer be possible. At this point either something is instant or it is not. If it is instant it is everywhere at once. If it is not instant then something is preventing it from being instant. How can nothing prevent something from being instant? It cannot.

Absolute nothingness can have no spatial dimensions, or it becomes space. It cannot be either within or outside our universe.

Also, if nothingness did exist, it could not possibly have any affect on anything. Sciences concept of nothingness is the same as yours. They presume nothingness is nothingness + space. Space is clearly something, however, otherwise they would have sent Einstein packing, and the term space-time would not exist. Space is a thing.

The force of contraction, however, is what one could call active nothingness. If nothingness is the lowest possible form of existence, but is still the thing called space, then the contracting force goes beyond this, it creates negativity. It creates becoming lesser. In the sense of being "existent-beyond-space" it exists only in a pure state. In being on the other side of space, it can thus be a cause of space. It causes space by dragging what it is not into it. What it is not, is what is on the other reality-side of space, namely the expansionary form of nothingness. Space is the one dimensional form of what is caused to be in between the two, while all things are omni-dimensional forms of this one dimension (one-omni is a required duality for all things including the totality).

What this means is that at the same time space is expanding, it is contracting to an exactly opposite degree. What better way for a permanent caused existence of the totality of all there is. If any one of these exists, then the other two must also exist. It is the holy trinity of existence. If one starts with nothingness, in its only possible form, namely as space, this space cannot be absolute nothingness, and if it is not absolute nothingness, then something caused it.

Here is a representation of how you need to view space, and the relationship of things to this space.

What I what you to do here is imagine you are in an untested Mark 1 spaceship going to another galaxy in the vast distance. There are some rules however, your ship only allows spatial travel in a certain fundamental way, but it can do so instantly. Your size is absolute and so is the distant galaxies. To get there instantly your ship must maintain its present size relationship to the distant galaxy.

You press the go button and you are instantly there, but the galaxy is still the tiniest speck. The travel was pointless. In a sense you expanded to the galaxy, which is why you ship is now so huge relative to the whole galaxy. Your ship's engine works only on the power of expansion. It moves to something by expanding to it.

What would happen is that the ship would become elongated - it would stretch from where it is across to the once distant galaxy, all the while getting larger and larger. In this example however, everything inside the ship appears normal, the elongation is not observable.

The captain realises that if he goes back to his own galaxy, it will be come a speck, as the ship will expand to it. His engine can only expand back to, not contract back to a non-elongated state.

I come along with an engine that will make the ship contract relative to distant things. "Lets give this a try" the captain says. We'll use this to go back to our own galaxy. Bingo we are instantly back in our own galaxy, and the other galaxy is again distant.

After a few celebratory cones, I think, what if we could connect these two engines together, so that when we expand to move towards the distant galaxy, this other engine contracts the ship.

We give it a try and, fuck me, it works!

Well kind of, now it only travels real damn slow, much slower than the speed of light. Might as well settle in for a long, long trip.

What's the speed limit - the fact that for anthing to change it must expand first then contract, in sequential order. There must be a quantum time pulse in order to move, to change relative position and size. What is the speed limit for things of mass? - well they are omni-dimensional spatial entities, a lot more expand-contract time pulses must flow through the structure of the thing. This slows its ability to move instantly to a large degree, move too fast and the structure will fall apart. Time changes as you move relative other things, because the expand/contract pulse becomes more and less bounded, the total change slows when surrounded by a lot of competing mass, and quickens when it is surrounded by more expansive forms like the radiations of space. Differences in things of mass are differences in degree the parts of a thing are expanded (spatially elongated) or contracted (spatially contracted). The higher the overall content of elongated spatial parts, the lighter the mass.

The speed of light is not the real speed limit. Light is also a omni-dimensional entity, and is thus slowed down by itself. How the much larger gravitational plane, in which our start system, galaxy, galaxy cluster and so on, are relative to each other sets higher gravitational speed limits, as does the entire plane of the observable universe, relative to all the smaller and larger spatial planes.

No magic god is needed. There is nothing uncaused in the totality including the totality itself.

Jamesh wrote:Absolute nothingness can have no spatial dimensions, or it becomes space. It cannot be either within or outside our universe.

I reckon you can leave it at that jamesh.

The rest of your post seems to be over complicating the matter unecessarily.

Steven;

This is proven by the words "is" and "equals" words that are specifically created to express an understanding of one entity in the form and content of another entity, the only words we have to express meaning about entities "He is wise". "A is... different from B" is the fudament of consciousness, yes we agree, but its through the relationship of differentiation that consciousness can form.

Was I essentially saying something different? Recognition through differentiation – doesn’t that include the relationship? Doesn’t that require two different things seen in relation? Otherwise I’m not sure what you mean.

Further, disregarding the inherant requirement to understand "B, C, D" and "is not" in themselves before one can arise at their conceptions through the statement "A is A", the actual meaning of the exact statement itself is inferior to that of "A is".

Unless you are one of those who believes that “human” consciousness is the only type there is, I could show you how a human consciousness is not required for A=A to operate.

Try removing all human psychological aspects of philosophy, as to how we arrive at A=A, meanings et all, and now tell me what is required for a cow consciousness to operate at its most fundamental level? If a cow could not recognize through differentiation, it could not handle the environment or operate coherently at all. Could it?

There are those who equate femininity or women itself to unconsciousness, so please don’t tell me that a cow is “unconscious”. I don’t consider “consciousness” to be the property of humans only; what we have is logi-consciousness; capable of self-reflection through reasoned cognitive awareness. Cow may have an instinctual-awareness, but is “consciousness” however.

The alternative to existence is an entity that can never be itself. It cannot be the alternative to existence. There is a duality at the heart of the mystery, atleast this is where my thinking is leading me now, but the duality is such that existence is inevitable because its opposite is self defeating.

I have no doubt about that.

Ataraxia wrote:

Jamesh wrote:Absolute nothingness can have no spatial dimensions, or it becomes space. It cannot be either within or outside our universe.

I reckon you can leave it at that jamesh.

The rest of your post seems to be over complicating the matter unecessarily.

Not everybody understands him as you have in that one sentence, so I guess the extensive elaboration.

Steven wrote:"A=A" is a rhetorical trick that when studied deeply could not be more fundamentally devoid of meaning.

You don't need to study it too deeply to realise its most obvious and informative corollary, A = not(notA).

This represents exactly what you've been talking about with regard to relationship and meaning and it is a necessary logical consequence of A = A.

Absolute nothingness cannot actually be, because it demands its own absence, which in turn demands something other than absence. You are talking about a "nothingness" as profound as existence itself. An absence so profound that it demands the absence of all, itself included.

Sapius wrote:Steven;
Was I essentially saying something different? Recognition through differentiation – doesn’t that include the relationship? Doesn’t that require two different things seen in relation? Otherwise I’m not sure what you mean.

You were saying nothing essentially different, but the phrase "A is A" is irrelevant because it cannot mean anything untill "A is not B". It has less meaning than "A is not B", it can be used to arrive at no conceptions when it itself is the first awareness. There is no conception of "object", of "equality", of distinction, of time or space. "A=A" is not a possible conception untill long after its components which individualy amount to infinately more meaning (i.e. meaning at all) are understood. One cannot equate A with A as one cannot equate, one cannot distinguish A from not A as the mind has no clue to these things. "A=A" is when the mind stares at its own existence, oblivious to everything, having nothing to understand its own existence by.

Sapius wrote:Try removing all human psychological aspects of philosophy, as to how we arrive at A=A, meanings et all, and now tell me what is required for a cow consciousness to operate at its most fundamental level? If a cow could not recognize through differentiation, it could not handle the environment or operate coherently at all. Could it?

For the consciousness of a cow to operate at its most fundamental level, it has to recognise differences. If it recognises "A=A", which is impossible at that stage, and attempts to draw conclusions from this, it will die.

It is fundamental that the first that is conceptualised or recognised is difference. Absolutely fundamental. You cannot "wake" consciousness without it.

The alternative to existence is an entity that can never be itself. It cannot be the alternative to existence. There is a duality at the heart of the mystery, atleast this is where my thinking is leading me now, but the duality is such that existence is inevitable because its opposite is self defeating.

I have no doubt about that.

I have doubts, but it makes more sense than other proposition I have come across. Although the post by Jamesh is highly interesting.

Dave Toast wrote:

Steven wrote:"A=A" is a rhetorical trick that when studied deeply could not be more fundamentally devoid of meaning.

You don't need to study it too deeply to realise its most obvious and informative corollary, A = not(notA).

This represents exactly what you've been talking about with regard to relationship and meaning and it is a necessary logical consequence of A = A.

And the conceptions of "A" "equality" "not" and "multiplication" come from where exactly? What could possibly inspire me to look for a "different interpretation" or a "co-relating conception"? These things have no meaning to me. They do not exist in my mind yet. If "A=A" I am staring at infinate uniformity devoid of any distinction, meaning I cannot realise its corollary.

Steven wrote:These things have no meaning to me. They do not exist in my mind yet.

In that case I wouldn't be talking about them at such great length.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Steven wrote:These things have no meaning to me. They do not exist in my mind yet.

In that case I wouldn't be talking about them at such great length.

Did you misread the rest of my post or just ignore it?

Steven: "A=A" is a rhetorical trick that when studied deeply could not be more fundamentally devoid of meaning.

DT: You don't need to study it too deeply to realise its most obvious and informative corollary, A = not(notA).

This represents exactly what you've been talking about with regard to relationship and meaning and it is a necessary logical consequence of A = A.

And the conceptions of "A" "equality" "not" and "multiplication" come from where exactly?

They relate to identity and relationship.

What could possibly inspire me to look for a "different interpretation" or a "co-relating conception"? These things have no meaning to me. They do not exist in my mind yet.

If you have a mind, they exist necessarily.

If "A=A" I am staring at infinate uniformity devoid of any distinction, meaning I cannot realise its corollary.

If you recognise A=A then you must be conscious. Consciousness necessitates at least one distinction.

Steven wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:

Steven wrote:These things have no meaning to me. They do not exist in my mind yet.

In that case I wouldn't be talking about them at such great length.

Did you misread the rest of my post or just ignore it?

That bit I quoted was the only bit that made any sense to me. :-)

Dave Toast wrote:They relate to identity and relationship.

You cannot conceive of identity and relationship, for you are not aware of any distinction.

Dave Toast wrote:If you have a mind, they exist necessarily.

Difference, interpretation, relationship and conception do not exist within the mind untill they are realised. There is not a single peice of evidence that supports the claim that the mind is formed with conceptions already inplace, but there are critical cornerstone works of philosophy of mind that posit the exact opposite, that conception forms only when the mind is stimulated.

Do explain how a mind devoid of sense data or any other form of input "necessarilly contains conceptions" within its structure. I would enjoy reading this.

Dave Toast wrote:If you recognise A=A then you must be conscious. Consciousness necessitates at least one distinction.

You cannot recognise "A=A" untill long after you "become" conscious, and even then the phrase is still devoid of meaning.

Kevin Solway wrote:That bit I quoted was the only bit that made any sense to me. :-)

Make sure you avoid Kant then.

This childishness aside, your arguements are incredibly weak.