GENIUS FORUMS

IMO, all to and fro discussions about philosophy hardly ever properly recognise duality.

One of the most important aspects of duality is that no statement is ever absolutely true if it lacks at least two points that are (or potentially are) logically in opposition to each other.

Actually instead of the ridiculous word “absolutely” above, perhaps I should have used the phrase “the highest possible truth” – absolute truths are not a possibility as they require everything to be defined.

Statements that encompass duality are required because of the lack of truth contained within any particular definition. No definition is ever absolutely totally or fully defined, and thus by default must not contain the whole truth. Without containing the whole truth one cannot say that any statement is absolutely true. Individual definitions are in direct opposition to absolute truth, as any definition artificially makes something infinite into something finite. The more defined a thing is the more finite it becomes and the less reflective of the highest truths it becomes. Only where a definition consists of two opposite meaning statements within the one statement can the underlying truth be grokked more realistically.

Example 1 (I needed to do more work on these examples – but you should get my point)

I exist – is not a completely true statement because it lacks a complete definition of what “I” means.

The self lacks inherent existence – is a statement that is only partially true - thus partially wrong, and not absolutely true. When anything is defined, then it exists. When anything is definable, then what makes it definable is the inherent nature of what is being defined.

I both exist and do not exist - is a true statement.

Example 2 - Mathematics

1+1 = 2 or
Thing1 + Thing2 = A third thing named “2” that consists of the parts Thing1 and Thing2.

The paradoxical or logically opposing statements required for a dualistic understanding of reality are inherently contained within the structure of mathematics. Mathematics is the art of defining and it does so by declaring that things that are not equal are equal.

Example 3

Everything is interconnected – is only a partially true statement. A thing on earth is not completely and totally interconnected in all ways with a thing on another planet 1000 light years away. It might be connected via gravity, but it is clearly not causally connected so that a change to the thing on earth immediately causes changes to the far away thing. Interconnection is not total.

Everything is both interconnected and not interconnected – is a statement that contains the more accurate or higher truth.

One of the most original posts I've seen here. If you look over some of my posts, you will see that they are full of such 'higher truths.'

Here is a small collection of things I say with almost every post:

1. I exist, I do not exist.
2. The world is real, the world is not real.
3. There are no gods, there are gods.
4. There is a self, there is no self.
5. I am enlightened, there is no one who is enlightened, everyone is enlightened.

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Hi Jimhaz

Example 1 (I needed to do more work on these examples – but you should get my point)

I exist – is not a completely true statement because it lacks a complete definition of what “I” means.

I means only one thing--self. It is completely true.

The self lacks inherent existence – is a statement that is only partially true - thus partially wrong, and not absolutely true. When anything is defined, then it exists. When anything is definable, then what makes it definable is the inherent nature of what is being defined.

It isn't even partially true, if one grants inherency its true meaning.

I both exist and do not exist - is a true statement.

A false statement.

Example 2 - Mathematics

1+1 = 2 or
Thing1 + Thing2 = A third thing named “2” that consists of the parts Thing1 and Thing2.

The paradoxical or logically opposing statements required for a dualistic understanding of reality are inherently contained within the structure of mathematics. Mathematics is the art of defining and it does so by declaring that things that are not equal are equal.

Not from the example, which should be thing1 +thing1 =thing2(another name for the sum of a couple of thing1s)

Infinity is the paradox that mathematics leaves us with.

Example 3

Everything is interconnected – is only a partially true statement. A thing on earth is not completely and totally interconnected in all ways with a thing on another planet 1000 light years away.

It's a completely true statement. Everything is interconnected in its own way.

It might be connected via gravity, but it is clearly not causally connected so that a change to the thing on earth immediately causes changes to the far away thing. Interconnection is not total.

The immediacy of change is relative.

Everything is both interconnected and not interconnected – is a statement that contains the more accurate or higher truth.

I used to think so too. It does seem to describe the paradox more completely, but then a paradox cannot be described any further than the acknowledgent of its existence.

I should add that this is still all my opinion :D

zag: I means only one thing--self. It is completely true.

From a finite perspective, from an internal perspective, it is 100% true that the self exists, but if look more broadly at the concept of self, or anything else, all you are observing is a certain configuration within something infinite.

You are conceptually observing from the middle outwards in one direction only, rather than the dualistic viewpoint that is required in order to understand reality. From the duality perspective, the centre is defined from outside (I don’t exist) AND the outside defined from the centre (I exist). We beings always think we only need to define from the centre outwards, because we view ourselves as the centre of the universe and we observe the universe from this central point. What makes that single directional perspective more accurate in terms of reality than accepting that both forms of perspective are valid. You tend to only go for the inside-to-out viewpoint, whereas the QRS seem stuck on the outside-to-in viewpoint. Philosophically both have equal merit when discussing reality.

From a dualistic viewpoint the self is merely a meeting place of various causes. It is a partially non-existent thing caused by the existence of certain patterns of casual actions. Physically it does not exist though what causes it does. I tend to take this even further and suggest that, from this duality perspective, the actual physical things that cause consciousness do not ultimately exist either, but if you were to break these patterns down to their most fundamental existence then you will find that true existence is not physical, but merely opposing forces that exist outside of the physical plane of existence.

Non-duality----------------------------Reality/Centre/Balance--------------Non-duality
Inside View-----------------------------Optimum Perspective------------------Outside View
Finiteness-------------------------------Observableness ------------------------Infinity
Inherency--------------------------------Thing-ness -------------------------------The Totality
Non-connectedness-------------------Universal flow ------------------------100% Connectedness
Definability-------------------------------Definitional Limitation------------------Undefinability
Causes (Action)------------------------Cause and Effect-----------------------Effects (Non-action)
100% Self-caused----------------------Equal and Opposite Change--------100% Not Self-caused
Expansionary Force--------------------Physicalness ------------------------Contracting Force
I Exist (inside view)---------------------Limitations of finite definitions--------I Do Not Exist

Notice the above is not a case of things being neither of the two but a combination of the two extremes. Real, truthful conceptual philosophical non-duality is always the balance in between two opposing concepts.

Me: The self lacks inherent existence – is a statement that is only partially true - thus partially wrong, and not absolutely true. When anything is defined, then it exists. When anything is definable, then what makes it definable is the inherent nature of what is being defined.

Zag: It isn't even partially true, if one grants inherency its true meaning.

Inherence: The state of being within or not going beyond a given domain

Well if one chooses to use this dictionary definition it is 100% true from the inside perspective. The self can only remain within the bodily self, or for that matter any other domain we may define as a result of some form of observation.

The outside perspective has no given domain - it has two ultimately opposite "conceptual domains" and everything is within these two extremes. Everything within is combinations of these extremes, and this aspect is more strongly the things fundamental inherency, as opposed to the self-defined inherency of some temporary pattern of existence.

As I said we create inherency when we define things. The nature of what is being defined is its pattern of relativity, the overall effect of its parts, not what it actually consists of, not where its permanent inherency is.

Nah fuck it, although I haven't explained much here, I don’t really want to get into some useless debate about the meaning of individual words. Meanings are conceptual habits, habits formed from thinking experiences. It is too hard a task to change someone's definitions especially where people have attachments to certain definitions due to having argued about them in a certain way previously and thus have created a strong value attachment to the definition they have used in conceptual competition with others.

Me:
1+1 = 2 or
Thing1 + Thing2 = A third thing named “2” that consists of the parts Thing1 and Thing2.

The paradoxical or logically opposing statements required for a dualistic understanding of reality are inherently contained within the structure of mathematics. Mathematics is the art of defining and it does so by declaring that things that are not equal are equal.

Zag: Not from the example, which should be thing1 +thing1 =thing2(another name for the sum of a couple of thing1s)

Why would you add something to itself? In naming both things as thing1 you are falsely naming them as being the same. No part of the universe is any other part, though of course they may give similar appearances and have similar properties to the point of appearing to be exactly the same.

Defining things as being the same is simply a matter of convenience, not of reality. This is a philosophy forum in which we look for what is not obvious, we look for what is hidden by the obvious. In maths a "1" would be meaningless unless we can reference to actual things that exist. Those things do not have to appear to be the same to be added. A pear and an apple can be added together to form 2 pieces of fruit. 1+1 can even be made to equal a third 1 by using named sets - even a 2 is really 1 instance of a thing or set called 2.

Me: Everything is interconnected – is only a partially true statement. A thing on earth is not completely and totally interconnected in all ways with a thing on another planet 1000 light years away.

Zag: It's a completely true statement. Everything is interconnected in its own way.

Yes it is and No it is not. It is connected in the only manner in which it can be, so I guess one could say "in its own way", but it is not connected in ALL ways. There must be degrees of non-connectedness that are inherent in the universe. There are degrees of separation, degrees of directness. While all parts of a things will be totally and utterly connected with some parts of the rest of the universe, they will not be interconnected with all parts of the universe at the same time, except perhaps in a partial sense through gravity and time.

If everything was totally connected then I do not see how things could form. Everything would have to be the same.

Me: It might be connected via gravity, but it is clearly not causally connected so that a change to the thing on earth immediately causes changes to the far away thing. Interconnection is not total.

Zag: The immediacy of change is relative.

Well yes it is, and why is that so?

The concept of relativity comes from observations of degrees of connectedness (or disconnectedness if you prefer).

Me: Everything is both interconnected and not interconnected – is a statement that contains the more accurate or higher truth.

Zag: I used to think so too. It does seem to describe the paradox more completely, but then a paradox cannot be described any further than the acknowledgment of its existence.

There aren't really any paradoxes - all they are, are finite understandings of some appearance of the universe, that ends up resulting in conceptual confusion. They only occur because we are forced to observe and define in limited ways. We can go outside of these limited definitions but it is rather difficult - to date no one has explained Zeno's paradoxes satisfactorily - but I nonetheless, I hope to one day if I can get motivated to work on my theory of everything.


My responses always sound wishy-washy and they are to some extent. It isn't easy to merge opposing views to form one solid viewpoint. It is easy to justify either I exist or I don’t exist at any one time for a particular purpose - much harder to state both in a manner that is not awkward.

a fact is a figment of a truism.

Unwise

I am turned off with comments that point to some form of ethereal spiritual magic in the universe. I definitely don’t believe Purusha. I feel none of that sort of stuff and thus cannot relate to what you are saying, so I think you are a bit crazy. Some recent examples below [edit: which i forgot to add to this post]

I don't want to post on forums much. It causes too many attachments, including a negative feeling of being obligated to respond, and regretting my often aggressive approach. Lately I generally only feel inclined to post when I'm pissed and bored. Mostly I attack the QRS. I think I am angry with them for not being deeper, at least in my area of philosophical interest - non-spiritual philosophical TOE's. In terms of living the life of an enlightened person, the QRS are 100 fold deeper than me, but that is the spiritual side of philosophy which is not part of my nature. I also judge them harshly on whether their ideals are good for me or society generally. I should regard them more highly though for continuing to try and provide for future generations, wisdoms of reality that are at least significantly free of emotional delusions.

Unfortunately, I've also lost my sense of humour, and reading stuff I've rejected before irritates me. Philosophically when reading other posts, I only am interested in new concepts that might make some uncertainty about reality less uncertain, which seems pretty rare, so I tend to just scan through the posts. I am slow, so I need to carefully think about what people say, before I really understand what they are saying in the right context.

I haven't studied your posts. I've noticed you've said things that I agree with, but they are generally surrounded by too much stuff that reads as hogwash or just ego stimulation. I also may be having the same problem that others may be having with my posts - the seemingly paradoxical duality of the sort of things you said in your post above, creates a sense of an erratic, confused brain and makes me think you don't really know what you are talking about. You call yourself enlightened too much. To respond to your posts I'd have to deal with this posing and I don’t feel inclined to.

edit: Just been reading some of your other posts. We do have more things in common than I thought.

jim:I exist – is not a completely true statement because it lacks a complete definition of what “I” means.

zag: I means only one thing--self. It is completely true.

jim: From a finite perspective, from an internal perspective, it is 100% true that the self exists, but if look more broadly at the concept of self, or anything else, all you are observing is a certain configuration within something infinite.

There is no perspective outside oneself. To abstract oneself sub species aeternitas does not detract its existence.

You are conceptually observing from the middle outwards in one direction only, rather than the dualistic viewpoint that is required in order to understand reality. From the duality perspective, the centre is defined from outside (I don’t exist) AND the outside defined from the centre (I exist). We beings always think we only need to define from the centre outwards, because we view ourselves as the centre of the universe and we observe the universe from this central point. What makes that single directional perspective more accurate in terms of reality than accepting that both forms of perspective are valid. You tend to only go for the inside-to-out viewpoint, whereas the QRS seem stuck on the outside-to-in viewpoint. Philosophically both have equal merit when discussing reality.From a dualistic viewpoint the self is merely a meeting place of various causes. It is a partially non-existent thing caused by the existence of certain patterns of casual actions. Physically it does not exist though what causes it does. I tend to take this even further and suggest that, from this duality perspective, the actual physical things that cause consciousness do not ultimately exist either, but if you were to break these patterns down to their most fundamental existence then you will find that true existence is not physical, but merely opposing forces that exist outside of the physical plane of existence.

The concept that nothing inherently exists may 'oppose' the concept that everything inherently exists, but in actuality only the latter may be realized, and it has no inherent opposition.

The distinction between 'ultimate' and 'infinite' are important in the context of what you've written.

jim: The self lacks inherent existence – is a statement that is only partially true - thus partially wrong, and not absolutely true. When anything is defined, then it exists. When anything is definable, then what makes it definable is the inherent nature of what is being defined.

Zag: It isn't even partially true, if one grants inherency its true meaning.

jim: Inherence: The state of being within or not going beyond a given domain

Well if one chooses to use this dictionary definition it is 100% true from the inside perspective. The self can only remain within the bodily self, or for that matter any other domain we may define as a result of some form of observation.

How, if one takes into account the inherency of infinity? The self is of the physical yes, which in turn is of the infinite.

jimhaz:
1+1 = 2 or
Thing1 + Thing2 = A third thing named “2” that consists of the parts Thing1 and Thing2.

The paradoxical or logically opposing statements required for a dualistic understanding of reality are inherently contained within the structure of mathematics. Mathematics is the art of defining and it does so by declaring that things that are not equal are equal.

Zag: Not from the example, which should be thing1 +thing1 =thing2(another name for the sum of a couple of thing1s)

Why would you add something to itself? In naming both things as thing1 you are falsely naming them as being the same. No part of the universe is any other part, though of course they may give similar appearances and have similar properties to the point of appearing to be exactly the same.

Ah, but now we're leaving the art, the transformative of maths, the infinite, and asking after its practicality!

Defining things as being the same is simply a matter of convenience, not of reality. This is a philosophy forum in which we look for what is not obvious, we look for what is hidden by the obvious. In maths a "1" would be meaningless unless we can reference to actual things that exist. Those things do not have to appear to be the same to be added. A pear and an apple can be added together to form 2 pieces of fruit. 1+1 can even be made to equal a third 1 by using named sets - even a 2 is really 1 instance of a thing or set called 2.

Sure, which is why the paradox of infinity is the basis of maths, not the subsequent paradox of a thing being unequal to itself. All equation leads to infinite singularity.

Me: Everything is interconnected – is only a partially true statement. A thing on earth is not completely and totally interconnected in all ways with a thing on another planet 1000 light years away.

Zag: It's a completely true statement. Everything is interconnected in its own way.

Yes it is and No it is not. It is connected in the only manner in which it can be, so I guess one could say "in its own way", but it is not connected in ALL ways.

Everything is conected in its own way, and hence in all ways, so yes it is.

There must be degrees of non-connectedness that are inherent in the universe. There are degrees of separation, degrees of directness. While all parts of a things will be totally and utterly connected with some parts of the rest of the universe, they will not be interconnected with all parts of the universe at the same time, except perhaps in a partial sense through gravity and time.If everything was totally connected then I do not see how things could form. Everything would have to be the same.

This is where infinity comes in, or rather, where it has always been--in infinite connection, in infinity, in itself! That is how 'things' form. We'll never get our heads around it, I suppose awe is the 'appropriate' reaction :D

jim: It might be connected via gravity, but it is clearly not causally connected so that a change to the thing on earth immediately causes changes to the far away thing. Interconnection is not total.

Zag: The immediacy of change is relative.

jim: Well yes it is, and why is that so?

Because interconnection is infinite.

The concept of relativity comes from observations of degrees of connectedness (or disconnectedness if you prefer).

Exactly.

jim: Everything is both interconnected and not interconnected – is a statement that contains the more accurate or higher truth.

Zag: I used to think so too. It does seem to describe the paradox more completely, but then a paradox cannot be described any further than the acknowledgment of its existence.

jim:There aren't really any paradoxes - all they are, are finite understandings of some appearance of the universe, that ends up resulting in conceptual confusion. They only occur because we are forced to observe and define in limited ways. We can go outside of these limited definitions but it is rather difficult - to date no one has explained Zeno's paradoxes satisfactorily - but I nonetheless, I hope to one day if I can get motivated to work on my theory of everything.

I think you just did!

My responses always sound wishy-washy and they are to some extent. It isn't easy to merge opposing views to form one solid viewpoint. It is easy to justify either I exist or I don’t exist at any one time for a particular purpose - much harder to state both in a manner that is not awkward.

I don't think you'll ever 'justify' your non-existence Jimhaz :D My advice is to state "I exist and I won't exist" if you're still hankering after that elusive 'outside' perspective.

(Sorry this so brief, I just lost a huge reply to you)

Jamesh, you are really onto something here. This is fresh and important philosophy that I agree with - that jibes with my view. Yes, I am a bit of a blowhard - and I am lazy - so I understand your opinion of my statements. Anyhoo, I really think you should begin a book outline. This would make an excellent book, and I'd like to buy a copy. No, I'd like to buy several copies to send to some friends who have no idea what I am talking about.

Best stuff by far that I have seen here.

Jamesh,

Actually instead of the ridiculous word “absolutely” above, perhaps I should have used the phrase “the highest possible truth” – absolute truths are not a possibility as they require everything to be defined.

"For thought to occur, duality must be recognized" - is an absolute truth.

Statements that encompass duality are required because of the lack of truth contained within any particular definition. No definition is ever absolutely totally or fully defined, and thus by default must not contain the whole truth. Without containing the whole truth one cannot say that any statement is absolutely true. Individual definitions are in direct opposition to absolute truth, as any definition artificially makes something infinite into something finite.

A definition is by definition finite: Recognition of this leads one to an infinite understanding.

I exist – is not a completely true statement because it lacks a complete definition of what “I” means.

"I" is A=A.

The self lacks inherent existence – is a statement that is only partially true - thus partially wrong, and not absolutely true. When anything is defined, then it exists. When anything is definable, then what makes it definable is the inherent nature of what is being defined.

The self lacks inherent existence to know causality - itself.

Everything is interconnected – is only a partially true statement. A thing on earth is not completely and totally interconnected in all ways with a thing on another planet 1000 light years away. It might be connected via gravity, but it is clearly not causally connected so that a change to the thing on earth immediately causes changes to the far away thing. Interconnection is not total.

Your definition is infinite, to be finite.

Everything is both interconnected and not interconnected – is a statement that contains the more accurate or higher truth.

This is only describing a delay in the perception of causality. The interconnectedness of everything will never be perceived. Memory selects what is neccesary for the moment: Duality divides experience into thought.

So basically, this topic is about absolute truth being a pipe dream and that paradox is the closest you can get to truth? I don't find any wisdom in this.

'Absolute' truth is not a pipe dream if by it you mean infinite truth. It is paradox.

suergaz wrote:'Absolute' truth is not a pipe dream if by it you mean infinite truth. It is paradox.

Why?

You never say anything.

Why? If one was to have absolute to mean complete, final, etc. then it would be a dream.

About your saying I never say anything, do you mean I don't say enough or that what I say has absolutely no meaning? What do you mean?

Why must you kill all threads?

How have I killed this thread? I haven't. If you think I have, why not tell me how?

About your saying I never say anything, do you mean I don't say enough or that what I say has absolutely no meaning? What do you mean?

He certainly can't mean that you do not say enough! It must be the later sense that he had in mind. I agree. I can never understand what you are saying. This is why I call you a drag queen - you are very showy with your jewelry, makeup, and shaking of the hips, but what you are saying is sort of vulgar and meaningless.

I don't require everyone understand what I write immediately, and I am then accused of 'revelling in immediacy' It would be reasonable for you to put to me what you do not understand of my writing, or to call upon what exactly you find vulgar and meaningless of my words, rather than simply to accuse me of vulgarity and meaninglessness.

Did you ever meet a sailor here named Captain Nemo Underwater? He, like you, seemed to have imaginary problems with my writing. Be more like Popeye, and we're bound to get along.

Did you ever meet a sailor here named Captain Nemo Underwater? He, like you, seemed to have imaginary problems with my writing. Be more like Popeye, and we're bound to get along

Why here is already a fresh example of your meaninglessness: There was a sailor who also had imaginary problems with your writing. Then you tell me to be more like him (Popeye) so that we will be bound to get along.

That just makes no sense.

It made at least as much sense as your speaking shaking of hips and flashing jewellery, makeup (man you go on)

we've enjoyed, or failed to enjoy your calling me a drag queen already--

Why can't you answer questions?

Ok, it was unfair to suggest your problems with my words are imagined on your part, but to be more like popeye, all you need do is be what you are and all that you are.

suergaz wrote:If one was to have absolute to mean complete, final, etc. then it would be a dream.

The Infinite, the Totality, is absolute, complete and final. So how is it a dream?

About your saying I never say anything, do you mean I don't say enough or that what I say has absolutely no meaning? What do you mean?

You don't say enough that has meaning to the reader.

You react to what other people say, in a way that is not understandable to others, but don't create any ideas or arguments yourself.

No reply to this Kevin? Instead I receive this, on another thread in which you otherwise haven't taken part.

Suergaz,

This is not a chat-room for one-sentence replies and quips. You need to put more substance into your posts.

Write us an essay.

Last warning.
_________________
Kevin Solway

Substance! Ha!
If I never say anything as you say, what would a heaving great essay of my essence do for you? Persuade you that my intelligence is not against your own? How could it be in the first place?

You don't have to live up to your hypocrisy. Be a man. Do the right thing. Ban flooders, spammers, hackers---leave the posters.

[Sorry, accidentally deleted your post I am responding to here]

suergaz wrote:

KSolway: The Infinite, the Totality, is absolute, complete and final. So how is it a dream?

The infinite is an infinity

That statement is a contradiction in terms for a start.

"The infinite" is one, and only one, by definition. There can't be anything other than itself.

"An infinity" is one of many, by definition.

Since they are different things, they can't be the same.

You are simply wasting time.

One of course can go on to admit that it is a totality in itself

Once again, you are speaking of something completely unrelated. What does "a totality" have to do with the Totality? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Do you see why I say that you don't say anything?

All you do is say that A isn't A. Completely pointless.

Kevin: You don't say enough that has meaning to the reader.

Which reader?

Any sane reader.

You react to what other people say, in a way that is not understandable to others, but don't create any ideas or arguments yourself.

Speak for yourself Kevin. Arguments are always created in reaction. As to my ideas, are there certain requirements for when where and how I lay them out?

If you can construct an argument, then find an idea you don't agree with, write a couple of paragraphs saying why you don't agree with it, and put it in a new thread.

The important part of my post that was deleted:

The infinite is an infinity, not a totality. One can of course go on to admit that it is a totality in itself, complete in itself, if one doesn't, then one has not awoken to its reality, and is dreaming.

[Sorry, accidentally deleted your post I am responding to here]

suergaz wrote:
Quote:
KSolway: The Infinite, the Totality, is absolute, complete and final. So how is it a dream?


The infinite is an infinity


That statement is a contradiction in terms for a start.

"The infinite" is one, and only one, by definition. There can't be anything other than itself.

"An infinity" is one of many, by definition.

Since they are different things, they can't be the same.

You are simply wasting time.

No, you are. Granted there is only one infinity, an infinity is infinity.

Quote:
One of course can go on to admit that it is a totality in itself


Once again, you are speaking of something completely unrelated. What does "a totality" have to do with the Totality? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Rubbish. A totality of any kind can only have to do with the totality, with infinity.

Do you see why I say that you don't say anything?

All you do is say that A isn't A. Completely pointless.

I haven't said that anywhere. What I have implied is that A must become what A is, infinitely. In doing, it can only equal itself.

Kevin: You don't say enough that has meaning to the reader.


Which reader?


Any sane reader.

It is true in here since my return I have been brief, blunt, abrupt, occasionally abrasive, but not insane. Any sane reader will gather as much.

Kevin:You react to what other people say, in a way that is not understandable to others, but don't create any ideas or arguments yourself.


suergaz: Speak for yourself Kevin. Arguments are always created in reaction. As to my ideas, are there certain requirements for when where and how I lay them out?


Kevin: If you can construct an argument, then find an idea you don't agree with, write a couple of paragraphs saying why you don't agree with it, and put it in a new thread.

Kevin, what exactly is your problem with my being here? Why am I the only person you have addressed since you allowed me to return? If you would genuinely like to see my ideas apart from their underlying my part in discussion as it occurs, why not encouarge it rather than issuing the ultimatum -"deliver us or be gone!"

suergaz wrote:

The infinite is an infinity

That statement is a contradiction in terms for a start.

"The infinite" is one, and only one, by definition. There can't be anything other than itself.

"An infinity" is one of many, by definition.

Since they are different things, they can't be the same.

You are simply wasting time.

No, you are. Granted there is only one infinity, an infinity is infinity.

What do you mean by "an infinity" (as opposed to the one infinity)? Since your replies in only short sentences, if you're saying anything, there's not enough information to discern it.

Quote:
One of course can go on to admit that it is a totality in itself


Once again, you are speaking of something completely unrelated. What does "a totality" have to do with the Totality? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Rubbish. A totality of any kind can only have to do with the totality, with infinity.

The totality of the number of people in my room is one. What does that have to do with the Totality? Nothing.

You need to explain your position, if you have one.

If you can construct an argument, then find an idea you don't agree with, write a couple of paragraphs saying why you don't agree with it, and put it in a new thread.

Kevin, what exactly is your problem with my being here? Why am I the only person you have addressed since you allowed me to return?

You are the only person I have noticed who is using this forum as a kind of chat board for line-for-line banter.

That's not discussion.

It tends to kill a thread because you have to scroll through pages of, essentially, nothing, that's not worth reading.

For a discussion you need to explain yourself.

If you would genuinely like to see my ideas apart from their underlying my part in discussion as it occurs, why not encouarge it rather than issuing the ultimatum -"deliver us or be gone!"

You've been given plenty of opportunities already. If you want to write short, obtuse sentences, create a separate thread and confine them to that.

If they are worthwhile, people will respond to them.