GENIUS FORUMS

Every time I begin to discuss your book in order to grasp YOUR philosophy not just on existence of nature but spirituality, I talk too much and lose what grasp, if any, I had.

I went back in time and found the following quotes that I edited for continuity of thought, the thread got way out of control with gibberish, so I did not go past the first couple of pages:

A=A is a logical principle which goes to the heart of existence, perception and logic, but you shouldn't confuse it with the spiritual knowledge of Ultimate Truth which is enjoyed by enlightened people. To reach that kind of knowledge you have to, among other things, refine your thinking until it reflects the principle of A=A perfectly - that is, refine it until it becomes perfectly consistent and rational from top to bottom. At root, people are ignorant of the nature of Reality because of contradictions in their thinking.

The affirmation of A=A as the underlying principle of logic and truth doesn't require one to adopt any particular belief or viewpoint. Regardless of whether things exist beyond the mind or not, neither position is supported or opposed by A=A.

A=A comes into play the moment we construct definitions and start thinking about them. For example, if we define the mind to be the totality of all there is, then A=A dictates that nothing can exist beyond the mind. And so on.

To me, it constitutes the vital link between logic and existence. If a thing exists in any way, then it necessarily has a form of some kind (i.e. A). If a thing has a form of some kind, then it means that it doesn't have any other kind of form. It's very existence as a form automatically precludes the possibility of it possessing any other form. That is to say, A=A.

A=A can be thought of as the fleshed out version of A. It is what the abstract mind creates out of direct perception in order to engage in logical thought. 'A' is what we directly perceive in each moment; A=A is our reasonings about what we perceive.

You say:

To reach that kind of knowledge you have to, among other things, refine your thinking until it reflects the principle of A=A perfectly - that is, refine it until it becomes perfectly consistent and rational from top to bottom.

So, if you are game, I want to take A=A and slowly expand it in order to grasp your concept of the statement to follow, incorporating why you believe these two ideas (for lack of a better term) are separate:

A=A is a logical principle which goes to the heart of existence, perception and logic, but you shouldn't confuse it with the spiritual knowledge of Ultimate Truth which is enjoyed by enlightened people.

As an example, if someone were to believe that everything there is can be defined as God, then using A=A:

God = {(David Quinn, etal)}

I have not had much upper level math, so please keep it simple. This is not an argument about whether or not you are right or wrong, but simply an attempt to understand what is in your head when you say them.

Who said anything about God? You threw that in there.

I throw in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot PROVE he does not exist, and thus we should teach the controversy. Anything that cannot be PROVEN to exist, must necessarily be considered possible and thoroughly discussed with our children.

I read somewhere that someone even wrote a book about him...so there you go! Try to refute that!

Who said anything about God? You threw that in there.

I throw in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot PROVE he does not exist, and thus we should teach the controversy. Anything that cannot be PROVEN to exist, must necessarily be considered possible and thoroughly discussed with our children.

I read somewhere that someone even wrote a book about him...so there you go! Try to refute that!

Tharan, I did just throw God in there, but for a purpose. I am not trying to disprove God, I am trying to see if David Quinn believes in God. If so, what his definition of God is. He uses the words Ultimate Truth in connection with spiritual knowledge, and I want to know what he means literally, inasmuch as his spiritual understanding allows him, and to have him incorporate it into his definition of A=A.

This is about what David thinks, not what I think. I began reading an old thread because I didn't want to have start a new thread regurgitating old stuff. The thread I quoted from started out in the direction I want to go, but then got polluted with people taking off on every other issue but what David started out with. I would like him to finish, but with me asking him the questions in a way to go from very basic until I don't understand him anymore.

I think it was Hodges that had jumped in and wrote some very wordy definitions of what A=A meant to him in various given areas of interest. He even went further to write that no one even bothered to read it. I read it and can grasp its logical underpinnings, but I would like it applied.

I am selecting David because he took the time to write a book about his philosophy, and I am interested in the application of his book to this A=A premise, that's all.

Tharan, I believe in God and am a follower of Christ's teachings...but I no longer have connections to organized religion who call itself Christian. You said something to me in another thread that I have never forgotten:

We are always alone. Always have been, always will be, regardless of your feelings. Seeking communal experiences with what is essentially only yourself, is merely an attempt to hide the Abyss from your eyes. But an Abyss is not necessarily bad. Once understood, it seems silly to fear it. It is always there and here. Join it.

Regards~

Question: Why do you choose Jesus as your mentor over the other prophets of the Abrahamic God? Was it your upbringing? Habit? Have you heard the story of the blind men in the room with the elephant?

I know you addressed this thread to David and I prefer to let David speak for himself, but if he is not available, I can probably paraphrase for you later about A=A, if you want.

I'm glad you see the spiritual futility of worshipping in a crowd. There is some emotional support in the behavior for those in need, but it has nothing to do with spirituality. In fact, there is no such thing as spirituality. The striving for understanding has nothing to do with a spirit, but rather your mind. If you accept a "spiritual" definition of existence, then you effectively close your mind to discovery, as if you assume to know it all. The answer floats to you from the depths/heights of mystery and mysticism. It is actually the height of arrogance, ignorance, and depravity. Humility is its opposite.

Accept responsibility for yourself and all that you do, even if you don't fully understand it. Accept responsibility for those things and people which you passively support, even if you cannot modify their actions. There is no benevolent old grandfather in the clouds to save you. He was not there for Bambi's mother nor is he there for you. But it is not depressing. It is actually freeing. When that light comes on, you take the first step toward enlightenment. And you begin to understand how reality is created by yourself at every moment. Through identifying and differentiating, on a conscious human level, that which appears before you then becomes you. It all began with A=A. And it will end there too.

I choose Jesus as my mentor because of my upbringing. I have found it difficult to work with other philosophies and religions (I am to begin some studies next semester…imagine me debating online with college students, for a reason given in the Judaism thread elsewhere) to understand what it is I am seeking. I don’t just study Jesus Christ because he is a mystery. What is written is not apparent…it is hidden in the meaning. Do you disagree that he is one person to study in order to achieve union with God? He is not the end that I seek, nor was he his own end…he is an example of what one must do to meet that end, as are many other prophets who believe in the one and only God.

Tharan, I always welcome your comments. You are one of the few who speak rationally and do not attack character but flaws in arguments. You may paraphrase all you like, for it is in your discussion that I can see what you believe. I chose David only because he put his philosophy up to read and argue. I have read it, and although it was a very interesting piece of work, I still don’t know what he truly believes other than how our existence came to be…it gets a little fuzzy when you attempt to understand his spiritual philosophy because of his usage of words like Ultimate Truth and threads of A=A.

I have come to understand when you speak of the futility of worshipping in a crowd. I think it may help some people on the road to begin thinking of something other than themselves, but it becomes trite after a while. The very people you look to for guidance become themselves an icon to the people and direct these people’s attention to things of this earth rather than things of the spiritual realm. I made the mistake of accepting an invitation to a friend’s church study group under the impression that they were “forward thinkers”. It was not. I had to finally firmly express to him that I was not interested because he kept inviting me. I most likely lost a good friend over it all. But I just didn’t see the point in wasting my time. He said that I may be able to give them insight into a different way of thinking, but all they would do would be to send me packing, and I know it. He is naïve.

I was trying not to quote and answer over and again because it drives me crazy reading threads that way, but it was important to repeat this:

Tharan said:

"The striving for understanding has nothing to do with a spirit, but rather your mind. If you accept a "spiritual" definition of existence, then you effectively close your mind to discovery, as if you assume to know it all. The answer floats to you from the depths/heights of mystery and mysticism. It is actually the height of arrogance, ignorance, and depravity. Humility is its opposite."

I agree, the only thing a mind CAN do is attempt to gain understanding. Understanding is useless with the spirit because the spirit is limited to its physical body. There can be NO spiritual definition of existence while in the physical and sensual nature we are. I assume nothing and know my level of knowledge has only just begun. But I disagree when you say that the answer floats to you from the depths/heights of mystery and mysticism. When one is completely humble, one frees themselves from all things that occupy their mind, the needs and wants of what the physical person demands. Humility allows the person to discern by knowledge those things that must be humbled in order for spiritual revelation to occur. However, I do agree that God made this earth and his mystery and revelation is within it, would one not but stop and ponder it. But even those things are not the totality of the Creator because we can perceive and sense them. If I misunderstood your point, please explain the quote a bit more in detail.

My initial discussion was that we are but a part of the grand design. Our perceptions and knowledge are but a fragment of what exists. Therefore, we are not the whole of existence, but just a part. When I say “we” I mean singularly speaking, each one of us individually. Collectively we may make up the whole of what is perceived but yet there is something one step beyond that, causality ok, but I still believe that God exists and complete revelation comes only when we die. I say complete as opposed to having moments of what this board throws around…enlightenment.

I agree with you that there is no benevolent grandfather in the clouds, he is within and without us as beings. There is no Heaven but what we have revealed to us in our spiritual moments. This is one point that the church group would never tolerate and would send me packing. And, at the moment I finally made my mind up denying any further thought of returning to a church, I felt free.

I am currently studying, among other things, St John of the Cross’ Ascent to Mount Carmel. He is Catholic, yes, but he was a member of the Carmelite Order and somewhat of a hermit mystic, but don’t let that discourage you because he seems to embody a lot of what some of you guy’s think, I think. I think because I am trying to come to an understanding of what you guys think and believe. In the past, you have seemed to be one who does understand what I think to be the end of the road, but time will tell.

I would really like to here what you think about it, but it was written quite a long time ago, so I take a chapter a day to reflect upon. He may sound at first arrogant but he later reveals his true self. Here is that link:

John of the Cross

In closing, here I am again talking too much. I suppose it may be necessary for you to understand me as much as I would like to understand you, in order to communicate. However, once we do understand each other, there will be no more to discuss…at least with each other. *smile*

passthrough,

So, if you are game, I want to take A=A and slowly expand it in order to grasp your concept of the statement to follow, incorporating why you believe these two ideas (for lack of a better term) are separate:

DQ: A=A is a logical principle which goes to the heart of existence, perception and logic, but you shouldn't confuse it with the spiritual knowledge of Ultimate Truth which is enjoyed by enlightened people.

As an example, if someone were to believe that everything there is can be defined as God, then using A=A:

God = {(David Quinn, etal)}

I have not had much upper level math, so please keep it simple. This is not an argument about whether or not you are right or wrong, but simply an attempt to understand what is in your head when you say them.

You're absolutely correct. If God is defined to be everything, then God does indeed equal David Quinn + passthrough + everything else in existence. That is pure A=A reasoning.

-