GENIUS FORUMS

Unidian wrote:

It is also irrational (and presumptuous) to admonish someone else to "make your life worth living" when you have no way of knowing whether or not that is already the case.

I couldnt agree more!

Rather, I would say that "paradox" is a word we use when we don't fully understand something.

I'd say that "paradox" is a word we use only when we *do* fully understand the nature of reality - or, perhaps more accurately, when we know what we can and can't know. And this statement itself is somewhat paradoxical, of course.

Another possible way of looking at paradox is as the reference to a means of thought/logic/awareness that fully comprehends the nature of reality. Paradox is God's thought.

Laird wrote:Paradox is God's thought.

What do you mean by "God" and "God's thought"?

Laird: Paradox is God's thought.

Kevin: What do you mean by "God" and "God's thought"?

God is whatever mystery lies behind the universe's existence. You hold that God is everything, which is an expression that I find palatable, I just prefer to believe that as well as being everything, God is transcendent of our current logical systems, meaning that when we say that "God is everything" we are right but we can probably understand more deeply (or at least God can).

"God's thought" is not necessarily literal - I don't know that the answer to the mystery - God - actually "thinks" in a sense that we understand it, but whatever corresponding thing God does, I like to imagine that it realises an understanding of what I myself am unable to reconcile using my current cognitive abilities: the paradox of uncausedness.

--
Paradox is the understanding that to know everything is to know that there is more to know.

Laird wrote:

Laird: Paradox is God's thought.

Kevin: What do you mean by "God" and "God's thought"?

God is whatever mystery lies behind the universe's existence.

What do you mean by "universe"?

If by "universe" you mean "everything" then there logically can't be anything "behind" it.

On the other hand, if by "universe" you mean something less than everything, then we an be sure that it was caused by whatever is other than itself. So there's no mystery.

There is no third possibility.

"God's thought" is not necessarily literal

"God's thought" is just cause and effect. But I think you don't want to accept that all things are caused, because such a thought disempowers the ego. Therefore you are making up this romantic notion of "God's thought" as a means to preserve your ego.

Paradox

The dictionary says something like this:

Paradox: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true.

Importantly, wise people have common sense and ordinary people don't have it. That's precisely what makes wise people wise and ordinary people foolish.

There is no truth that is opposed to a wise person's common sense, therefore a wise person never finds anything paradoxical.

Paradox only exists for those people who cannot accept the truth.

Laird: Paradox is God's thought.

Kevin: What do you mean by "God" and "God's thought"?

Laird: God is whatever mystery lies behind the universe's existence.

Kevin: If by "universe" you mean "everything" then there logically can't be anything "behind" it. [...] There [are two rational possibilities and there] is no third possibility.

Translation: I cannot imagine, within the limitations of the rational system by which my evolved mind operates, that paradox is a realistic and meaningful concept.

OK, I'll accept that. Will you accept that I (and others) can and do?

Laird: "God's thought" is not necessarily literal

Kevin: "God's thought" is just cause and effect. But I think you don't want to accept that all things are caused, because such a thought disempowers the ego. Therefore you are making up this romantic notion of "God's thought" as a means to preserve your ego.

It's not that I don't want to accept that all things are caused, it's that my mind and intuition realise that somewhere, no matter what interpretation of reality I'm presented with, I find an uncausedness. What it comes down to between us is this: you conceive a totality containing all causes, and assert that "this is the final explanation"; I cannot accept that as a final explanation, not because I am closed-minded, but because to me it is not a final explanation. The totality itself is the uncausedness. Now you can play logical games all you like to explain that the totality is "by definition all that there is, the container of all causes, and therefore itself uncaused". And you might be happy to accept that as an ultimate explanation. Fine: I'm not. The fact is that there is still an uncausedness no matter how hard you try to justify it with logical games and definitions. I'd like to discard those games, to cut to the chase, and to continue the exploration with people who see the same things that I see. I hope that as a deep-thinking individual that sometime soon you will become one of those people, that you might open your eyes to the profoundest mystery that I can imagine just as you have opened my eyes to the many insights in life that your intuitive sense of reason has availed you of.

Kevin Solway wrote:Paradox

The dictionary says something like this:

Paradox: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true.

[...]

Paradox only exists for those people who cannot accept the truth.

Paradox exists for those who realise that the logic that we currently have cannot satisfactorily describe reality.

Laird wrote:

Kevin: If by "universe" you mean "everything" then there logically can't be anything "behind" it.

Translation: I cannot imagine, within the limitations of the rational system by which my evolved mind operates, that paradox is a realistic and meaningful concept.

There is no paradox. The true state of affairs accords perfectly with my common sense.

It's not that I don't want to accept that all things are caused, it's that my mind and intuition realise that somewhere, no matter what interpretation of reality I'm presented with, I find an uncausedness.

I don't know where this "uncausedness" is supposed to be. All finite things are caused. And the All/Infinite can be neither caused nor uncaused - by definition - since there is nothing other than itself.

What it comes down to between us is this: you conceive a totality containing all causes

No. I define that the Totality is everything, the All, and is therefore all causes. That is a huge difference to what you are saying.

It's not as though I'm like a fisherman casting out a huge net into the ocean and thinking that I'm catching all the fish in my net. See below.

. . . the container of all causes

The All is most definitely not a container of any kind.

If it were a container then it would not be everything, since a container exists in relation to both its contents and also to what is exterior to it. So such a container is infinitely far away from being "everything".

Kevin: If by "universe" you mean "everything" then there logically can't be anything "behind" it.

Laird: Translation: I cannot imagine, within the limitations of the rational system by which my evolved mind operates, that paradox is a realistic and meaningful concept.

Kevin: There is no paradox. The true state of affairs accords perfectly with my common sense.

To requote the question that I put to you:

OK, I'll accept [your position per my translation as quoted above]. Will you accept that I (and others) can and do?

I interpret by your response above, that the answer is "no". However it seems that really the answer is "yes" (see below).

Laird: It's not that I don't want to accept that all things are caused, it's that my mind and intuition realise that somewhere, no matter what interpretation of reality I'm presented with, I find an uncausedness.

Kevin: I don't know where this "uncausedness" is supposed to be. All finite things are caused. And the All/Infinite can be neither caused nor uncaused - by definition - since there is nothing other than itself.

Something that is "neither caused nor uncaused" is reminiscent of a paradox. On consideration, I will go further: it is a paradox.

Laird: . . . the container of all causes

Kevin: The All is most definitely not a container of any kind.

Kevin: If it were a container then it would not be everything, since a container exists in relation to both its contents and also to what is exterior to it. So such a container is infinitely far away from being "everything".

Then substitute the word set for container.

Laird wrote:Will you accept that I (and others) can and do?

I accept that there are things that unreasonable people suspect to be true, which do not accord with their "reason" such as it is, and that those people call such things "paradoxes".

Kevin: I don't know where this "uncausedness" is supposed to be. All finite things are caused. And the All/Infinite can be neither caused nor uncaused - by definition - since there is nothing other than itself.

Something that is "neither caused nor uncaused" is reminiscent of a paradox. On consideration, I will go further: it is a paradox.

Not to me it's not, since I fully know the truth of it and it accords perfectly with my reason and common sense.

It is senseless to speak of the The Infinite being "caused" or "uncaused", since that is not its nature.

If it were a container then it would not be everything, since a container exists in relation to both its contents and also to what is exterior to it. So such a container is infinitely far away from being "everything".

Then substitute the word set for container.

Same problem. A set is a "collection", therefore it it not everything. A "collection" implies that there is something other than the collection. It is possible to redefine the word "set" so that it can be the All, but that would be a huge departure from its common use, for example, as an "infinite set" (which is infinitely far away from being everything).

Kevin: I don't know where this "uncausedness" is supposed to be. All finite things are caused. And the All/Infinite can be neither caused nor uncaused - by definition - since there is nothing other than itself.

Laird: Something that is "neither caused nor uncaused" is reminiscent of a paradox. On consideration, I will go further: it is a paradox.

Kevin: Not to me it's not

To use your earlier words:

There is no third possibility.

Let A be "caused". Let !A be "uncaused". You state that the universe is neither A nor !A. Huh?

Kevin Solway wrote:A set is a "collection", therefore it it not everything. A "collection" implies that there is something other than the collection.

Yet somehow this concept that you've defined, the Totality, escapes rules like that, due to arbitrary and limiting definitions.

The idea is interesting and valuable, I just can't accept it as ultimate truth.

As a lurker for the last 1.5 months I would like to thank all of you for this incredible muni free-for-all.

it's a metaphorical feast-for-thought.

Laird wrote:Let A be "caused". Let !A be "uncaused". You state that the universe is neither A nor !A. Huh?

The Universe, being Infinite, is not something you can talk about in the same way that you can talk about ordinary finite things. You can talk about a finite thing as having this or that property, but when you are talking about the Infinite (God) you have to talk in a completely different way.

That's why one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain". To speak of the Infinite as though it were an ordinary finite thing is to take the name of the Lord in vain.

Kevin Solway wrote:A set is a "collection", therefore it is not everything. A "collection" implies that there is something other than the collection.

Yet somehow this concept that you've defined, the Totality, escapes rules like that, due to arbitrary and limiting definitions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "limiting" in this context. "Everything" is unlimited - by definition.

That's why one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain". To speak of the Infinite as though it were an ordinary finite thing is to take the name of the Lord in vain.

With comments like that I suspect you are a little crazy. That is not the reason that comment is one of the commandments, but rather it is a tool to make people subservient to religious leaders.

It is senseless to speak of the The Infinite being "caused" or "uncaused", since that is not its nature.

Bullshit - the general action of the parts is the same general action as the total. There is no other way for us to rationally conceive of the totality, other than what we evidence in things, so any statements like the above are completely unprovable.

Laird: Let A be "caused". Let !A be "uncaused". You state that the universe is neither A nor !A. Huh?

Kevin: The Universe, being Infinite, is not something you can talk about in the same way that you can talk about ordinary finite things. You can talk about a finite thing as having this or that property, but when you are talking about the Infinite (God) you have to talk in a completely different way.

Right, well I tend to agree with that. I would have phrased it though as "The Universe, which by logic can be neither caused nor uncaused, cannot be fully describe using rationality". Do you accept this wording?

Kevin: A set is a "collection", therefore it is not everything. A "collection" implies that there is something other than the collection.

Laird: Yet somehow this concept that you've defined, the Totality, escapes rules like that, due to arbitrary and limiting definitions.

Kevin: I'm not sure what you mean by "limiting" in this context. "Everything" is unlimited - by definition.

I was qualifying the definition as limiting, not that which it defines.

Jamesh wrote:

That's why one of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain". To speak of the Infinite as though it were an ordinary finite thing is to take the name of the Lord in vain.

That is not the reason that comment is one of the commandments, but rather it is a tool to make people subservient to religious leaders.

I agree that that's how Christians universally use that teaching - as a tool to make people subservient. But that's only because they are all idiots.

It doesn't mean that the way Christians are using the teachings is the way they were intended to be used.

the general action of the parts is the same general action as the total.

"The general action of the total" doesn't really mean anything when the total is the Infinite.

But it's true that all the parts must conform totally to all the other parts.

Laird wrote:I would have phrased it though as "The Universe, which by logic can be neither caused nor uncaused, cannot be fully describe using rationality". Do you accept this wording?

No, because rationality doesn't have the limitations you ascribe to it. Wise people can extend rationality into regions that are unknown to unwise people. Logic can deal with anything, if the person using the logic is wise enough.

Kevin: A set is a "collection", therefore it is not everything. A "collection" implies that there is something other than the collection.

Yet somehow this concept that you've defined, the Totality, escapes rules like that

Based on its definition alone, it necessarily escapes that restriction, yes.

. . . due to arbitrary and limiting definitions.

You're not really saying anything here, since all definitions are limiting by definition. In other words, the whole purpose of definitions is that they define things. That's simply what they do.

In the case of the Infinite, it is defined from that which is finite. So the Infinite is limited in that it can never be finite - and this is by definition. Likewise a square, as defined, can never be a circle, as defined.

Laird: I would have phrased it though as "The Universe, which by logic can be neither caused nor uncaused, cannot be fully describe using rationality". Do you accept this wording?

Kevin: No, because rationality doesn't have the limitations you ascribe to it.

OK, so then how does unlimited rationality explain that the universe fits neither of two mutually exclusive and comprehensive possibilities (caused vs uncaused)?

Kevin: A set is a "collection", therefore it is not everything. A "collection" implies that there is something other than the collection.

Laird: Yet somehow this concept that you've defined, the Totality, escapes rules like that

Kevin: Based on its definition alone, it necessarily escapes that restriction, yes.

Laird: . . . due to arbitrary and limiting definitions.

Kevin: You're not really saying anything here, since all definitions are limiting by definition.

I was making a value judgement on your definition. You claim that this concept of "the totality" absolutely and completely describes reality; it seems instead to me that the definition is limited because it does not contain and substantiate the paradox of a reality that is neither caused nor uncaused.

Laird wrote:OK, so then how does unlimited rationality explain that the universe fits neither of two mutually exclusive and comprehensive possibilities (caused vs uncaused)?

Make your rationality unlimited and you will see the answer.

You claim that this concept of "the totality" absolutely and completely describes reality

It reflects reality, certainly. That's why it is such a good definition.

it seems instead to me that the definition is limited because it does not contain and substantiate the paradox of a reality that is neither caused nor uncaused.

As I say, there is no paradox, since such a paradox only arises through mistaken thinking.

Once you understand what the Totality means then you will understand fully why it is neither caused nor uncaused, and why there is no paradox.

Laird: OK, so then how does unlimited rationality explain that the universe fits neither of two mutually exclusive and comprehensive possibilities (caused vs uncaused)?

Kevin: Make your rationality unlimited and you will see the answer.

Quite possibly true - the problem is that I can imagine what the end point might accomplish - a new form of logic that encompasses paradox - but I can't yet see the steps to get there, nor am I certain that my human mind is even capable of it - I suspect that we might only get there with the help of technology/AI.

So unless you provide me with an explicit answer, I'll take it to be "I have no idea either".

Laird wrote:So unless you provide me with an explicit answer, I'll take it to be "I have no idea either".

My explicit answer is that when you know the definitive answer to all Zen koans, then you will have arrived at the answer. But you can't get to the answer without doing all the work. The answer can't be just handed to you on a plate.

Laird: So unless you provide me with an explicit answer, I'll take it to be "I have no idea either".

Kevin: My explicit answer is that when you know the definitive answer to all Zen koans, then you will have arrived at the answer.

I don't know whether these are definitive answers, but I think that sane answers are "emptiness", "nothingness" or "meaninglessness" (I have in mind in particular the oft-quoted "what is the sound of one hand clapping?").

Kevin Solway wrote:The answer can't be just handed to you on a plate.

That doesn't instill in me any confidence that you actually have an answer yourself. I'll reiterate: unless you provide me with an explicit answer, I'll take it to be "I have no idea either".

Laird wrote:Unless you provide me with an explicit answer, I'll take it to be "I have no idea either".

That's fine, and it is your choice. But then you will have to face the consequences of jumping to conclusions if you are wrong in your judgements.

What you are looking for is an answer that you can understand, and if you don't understand an answer you are concluding that the answer is not explicit. Personally I think that to be an arrogant and close-minded way of thinking, but it's inevitable given the condition of human mind the world over.

P.S. Your understanding of the koans is wrong.

Kevin Solway wrote:What you are looking for is an answer that you can understand

Right, that's exactly what I'm looking for, with the understanding that I can't yet imagine how I will achieve that understanding, if it's even possible. However I'm starting to repeat myself...

--
The dishonest man uses debate as a technique to fight and win. The honest man uses debate as a tool to seek a better position. We are all honest.

vicdan wrote:From my blog:

... And the next step:

[*]Separation of meaning from information.

Information as I know the word from the world of information technology and programming is not to be separated from meaning.

Also according to the Free Dictionary information is "1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.".

This knowledge comes into existence with the assignment of meaning, without meaning there would be no information - they are one and the same. What you are talking about Dan is sometimes called data, but only raw data, values, impressions, images arising to our awareness, direct or indirect, no matter the abstraction level one operates in.

So I'll rephrase your point: separation of information from its substrate. One can then examine the nature of this substrate, its 'realness' or one can like Jean Baudrillard, whom I like to bring up whenever I can, describes the process of information like the procession of simulacra:

The Four Phases of Images:

1. The image is the reflection of a basic reality;
2. The image masks and perverts a basic reality;
3. The image masks the absence of a basic reality;
4. The image bears no relation to any reality whatsoever: it is its own pure simulacrum.

The simulacrum is according to this line of thinking the stage where meaning is totally disconnected from its original stratum. But this might already be the case in the world we're living in now actually. Baudrillard links this to Nietzsche's thought of nihilism; meaning doesn't disappear, it just gets detached from what he calls 'the Real' (what you might call the body of information or what was directly causing information; was into symbolic relation with it). The simulacrum only has relation to itself, the meaning is not given by anything outside it. It becomes completely self-referential.

Examples of simulacra are not the computer simulations as some might expect. It's a complete hyperreality that through self-referential keeps itself up, bootstrapping so to speak. The question then becomes: is this a good thing perhaps? A whole new world(order) is created...

Baudrillard however believes that one cannot escape the 'Real' and this reality will come crashing through at some point - it becomes the eternal Terrorist. Elements in our world that beyond our comprehension violate our hyper-reality as if the terrorist (being it person or phenomenon) exists by other physical laws, not only some differing moral or religious issue. And as reaction inhabitants of the hyper-real will put all their effort in exterminating or neutralizing this violence of the Real. The Real endangers our whole universe, not only some country or economical issue. It shakes our fundamental meaning-giving which has drifted from hyper-real into the complete unreal.

Judgment day is all about reality breaking through. A sobering up on the relation between our world and reality, which always was called truth. Some call it enlightenment.


Reference:
Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings, ed Mark Poster. Stanford University Press, 1998, pp.166-184.