Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:49 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ONE is just another word for YOU

Great! So can I take it that YOU are ONE as well so there are now two ONE's?

And "2" is composed of a recursion of 1"s as one set with +1+1=2 observing each of the ones as not only fundamentally the same but empty contexts in themselves.

Not really you loon.
2 is just shorthand for 1+1 and represents the total of the objects, e.g. * # of which there are clearly two with each being symbolically represented by 1 with the sum or total of them being 2.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:49 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ONE is just another word for YOU

Great! So can I take it that YOU are ONE as well so there are now two ONE's?

Words are in essence empty, words appear to fill in the gap (VOID) with what appears to be some solid thing in and of itself separate from the word, but at grassroots, isn't any thing at all.

It takes one to perceive itself as one. The perception of one implies two (the perceiver and the perceived) In reality, the perceived is the perceiver perceiving itself, appearing as other which in reality is the same one appearing as if two...albeit illusory since one can never be two without splitting in half. Zero aka Void cannot divide it self...it takes ONE to be ONE - ONE is an illusory appearance of the Void. An appearance doesn't know it's an appearance, an appearance is a perceived known object that in and of itself knows nothing of it's existence. The perceiver cannot experience itself as the object it perceives because an object cannot perceive, the object is being perceived by the void as an object of perception. The subject / object division is purely illusional. Any division is one appearing as itself in the form of another, the split is apparent within itself inseparable from it's source which is always the zero point appearing to itself as one.

In the same context, a log will always remain a log even after cutting a little section off of each end of the log, there is nothing dividing the actual log into parts...the log is never affected by having parts of itself cut off, it still remains a log no matter how big or small it is.

So what about the parts? the parts are of the log that always remains a log, the parts don't actually have any existence apart from the log they were apart of, the parts owe their existence to the log, not the parts in and of themselves. The log itself can never not be a log by having parts of itself cut away, for even the parts are the log too.
And so that log analogy speaks to why ONENESS is the only true reality.

I've probably said that in a very clumsy way, so appologies for that, it's hard to talk about emptiness by filling it up with things..aka words.

.

Dontaskme wrote:Words are in essence empty, words appear to fill in the gap (VOID) with what appears to be some solid thing in and of itself separate from the word, but at grassroots, isn't any thing at all. ...

If this is what you believe then I wonder why you bother talking at all?

It takes one to perceive itself as one. The perception of one implies two (the perceiver and the perceived) In reality, the perceived is the perceiver perceiving itself, appearing as other which in reality is the same one appearing as if two...albeit illusory since one can never be two without splitting in half. Zero aka Void cannot divide it self...it takes ONE to be ONE - ONE is an illusory appearance of the Void. An appearance doesn't know it's an appearance, an appearance is a perceived known object that in and of itself knows nothing of it's existence. The perceiver cannot experience itself as the object it perceives because an object cannot perceive, the object is being perceived by the void as an object of perception. The subject / object division is purely illusional. Any division is one appearing as itself in the form of another, the split is apparent within itself inseparable from it's source which is always the zero point appearing to itself as one. ...

A 'one' could not perceive itself at all, 'it' would have to be in something else or for there to be something else other than itself to get an other.

In the same context, a log will always remain a log even after cutting a little section off of each end of the log, there is nothing dividing the actual log into parts...the log is never affected by having parts of itself cut off, it still remains a log no matter how big or small it is. ...

You obviously haven't heard of planks or sawdust.

So what about the parts? the parts are of the log that always remains a log, the parts don't actually have any existence apart from the log they were apart of, the parts owe their existence to the log, not the parts in and of themselves. The log itself can never not be a log by having parts of itself cut away, for even the parts are the log too. ...

Ignoring of course that a log is actually a tree in your model.

And so that log analogy speaks to why ONENESS is the only true reality. ...

'True reality', metaphysical wish fulfilment.

I've probably said that in a very clumsy way, so appologies for that, it's hard to talk about emptiness by filling it up with things..aka words.

No need to apologise as from my understanding you are trying to talk or reason about the Noumenon and since I agree with Kant's analysis of Reason and the Noumenon you are trying to do something you can't, i.e. talk about something that is impossible to know. As such, and so far, you are punting what we in Philosophy call Monism, and in your case specifically Idealistic Spiritual Monism, as you appear to think the Noumenon some kind of mental substance or being of which we are just manifested 'parts'. Now it may well be the case but from my point of view it's just wish fulfilment for some other psychological purpose as you cannot say or know anything about the Noumenon at all. That from a logical metaphysical standpoint we think there is one 'behind' Phenomenon is due to Reason and the idea of Causality, i.e. we see that phenomena cause other phenomena so conclude that it must be the case that there is a 'one' cause behind all the phenomenon, a 'ONE' or a 'GOD' if you prefer. Now me, if I was to engage in such pointless speculation, prefer more up-to-date metaphysical speculations, so I'd go with this 'ONE' or 'GOD' being a less than Planck length computing machine, this way I avoid the problem of it being 'conscious' or a 'consciousness' but still have computation going on and I can avoid the idea of a 'purpose' behind everything as it could just be like Conway's Game of Life and the computational rules governing the 'bits' operations having no 'intent' to produce the stable patterns that occur. In my madder days I even have everything we 'see' as just the 'noise' occurring as the 'computer' boots itself into it's final operating state where upon all will disappear and the actual computational purpose will ensue.
Anyhoo, all such thoughts of a 'ONE' or a 'GOD' pretty much explain nothing about anything so personally I'll stick with what I'm without doubt about, I am and what I am is a body with senses, language and memory in an external world and there are phenomena. From that I'll also go with very little doubt that there is at least one other than me, as I find it inconceivable that the language that I think, speak and hear could be created by a solipsist, as what need?

Dontaskme wrote:Words are in essence empty, words appear to fill in the gap (VOID) with what appears to be some solid thing in and of itself separate from the word, but at grassroots, isn't any thing at all. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmIf this is what you believe then I wonder why you bother talking at all?

Because talking/writing these words is apparently what's happening ...how, why, who, what, where? I have no idea except what I inform myself using words. It's ok, don't be scared to talk to yourself.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmA 'one' could not perceive itself at all, 'it' would have to be in something else or for there to be something else other than itself to get an other.

There / here is no ONE because there is no other than ONE - your the one, that's obviously self evident. The idea of ''otherness'' is within you first, not outside of you. The idea of you is your own perceiving perception perceived by you, It's all you. All ONE.
If you have no idea / perception of yourself then you don't exist obviously. The only reason you believe others exist outside of you is because you are perceiving the idea of them in you which then makes you exist as the idea / perception is preceived in you, this perceiving is all happening within you not outside of you. You first have to BE before you can know that.

In the same context, a log will always remain a log even after cutting a little section off of each end of the log, there is nothing dividing the actual log into parts...the log is never affected by having parts of itself cut off, it still remains a log no matter how big or small it is. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmYou obviously haven't heard of planks or sawdust.

Yeah I've heard of them, but I'm not referring to your model, I'm talking about my model which is a LOG

So what about the parts? the parts are of the log that always remains a log, the parts don't actually have any existence apart from the log they were apart of, the parts owe their existence to the log, not the parts in and of themselves. The log itself can never not be a log by having parts of itself cut away, for even the parts are the log too. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmIgnoring of course that a log is actually a tree in your model.

No, in my model a log is not a tree it's a log. I'm using the word LOG as a metaphor in an allegorical sense to point to a point I'm trying to make which is obviously pointlessly wasted on your ears. So be it. We're all just talking, living and breathing here, expression is what it is, don't get too concerned about that.

And so that log analogy speaks to why ONENESS is the only true reality. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pm'True reality', metaphysical wish fulfilment.

Yes, what ever is thought is manifest, but only as a thought

I've probably said that in a very clumsy way, so appologies for that, it's hard to talk about emptiness by filling it up with things..aka words.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmNo need to apologise as from my understanding you are trying to talk or reason about the Noumenon and since I agree with Kant's analysis of Reason and the Noumenon you are trying to do something you can't, i.e. talk about something that is impossible to know. As such, and so far, you are punting what we in Philosophy call Monism, and in your case specifically Idealistic Spiritual Monism, as you appear to think the Noumenon some kind of mental substance or being of which we are just manifested 'parts'. Now it may well be the case but from my point of view it's just wish fulfilment for some other psychological purpose as you cannot say or know anything about the Noumenon at all. That from a logical metaphysical standpoint we think there is one 'behind' Phenomenon is due to Reason and the idea of Causality, i.e. we see that phenomena cause other phenomena so conclude that it must be the case that there is a 'one' cause behind all the phenomenon, a 'ONE' or a 'GOD' if you prefer. Now me, if I was to engage in such pointless speculation, prefer more up-to-date metaphysical speculations, so I'd go with this 'ONE' or 'GOD' being a less than Planck length computing machine, this way I avoid the problem of it being 'conscious' or a 'consciousness' but still have computation going on and I can avoid the idea of a 'purpose' behind everything as it could just be like Conway's Game of Life and the computational rules governing the 'bits' operations having no 'intent' to produce the stable patterns that occur. In my madder days I even have everything we 'see' as just the 'noise' occurring as the 'computer' boots itself into it's final operating state where upon all will disappear and the actual computational purpose will ensue.
Anyhoo, all such thoughts of a 'ONE' or a 'GOD' pretty much explain nothing about anything so personally I'll stick with what I'm without doubt about, I am and what I am is a body with senses, language and memory in an external world and there are phenomena. From that I'll also go with very little doubt that there is at least one other than me, as I find it inconceivable that the language that I think, speak and hear could be created by a solipsist, as what need?

Well thanks for the debunk of my model and for substituting my model with your own version of what cannot be known. Of which I've already explained that truth to you many times.

In the meantime, I'll stick with my version of what we cannot know if all the same to you. For me it's the same old, same old same as it ever was, all appearing as new on the road to nowhere. All vanity and entertainment. I know nothing for I am known and the known know nothing except in this conception, this fictional story arising now.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:15 am

Dontaskme wrote:Words are in essence empty, words appear to fill in the gap (VOID) with what appears to be some solid thing in and of itself separate from the word, but at grassroots, isn't any thing at all. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmIf this is what you believe then I wonder why you bother talking at all?

Because talking/writing these words is apparently what's happening ...how, why, who, what, where? I have no idea except what I inform myself using words. It's ok, don't be scared to talk to yourself.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmA 'one' could not perceive itself at all, 'it' would have to be in something else or for there to be something else other than itself to get an other.

There / here is no ONE because there is no other than ONE - your the one, that's obviously self evident. The idea of ''otherness'' is within you first, not outside of you. The idea of you is your own perceiving perception perceived by you, It's all you. All ONE.
If you have no idea / perception of yourself then you don't exist obviously. The only reason you believe others exist outside of you is because you are perceiving the idea of them in you which then makes you exist as the idea / perception is preceived in you, this perceiving is all happening within you not outside of you. You first have to BE before you can know that.

In the same context, a log will always remain a log even after cutting a little section off of each end of the log, there is nothing dividing the actual log into parts...the log is never affected by having parts of itself cut off, it still remains a log no matter how big or small it is. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmYou obviously haven't heard of planks or sawdust.

Yeah I've heard of them, but I'm not referring to your model, I'm talking about my model which is a LOG

So what about the parts? the parts are of the log that always remains a log, the parts don't actually have any existence apart from the log they were apart of, the parts owe their existence to the log, not the parts in and of themselves. The log itself can never not be a log by having parts of itself cut away, for even the parts are the log too. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmIgnoring of course that a log is actually a tree in your model.

No, in my model a log is not a tree it's a log. I'm using the word LOG as a metaphor in an allegorical sense to point to a point I'm trying to make which is obviously pointlessly wasted on your ears. So be it. We're all just talking, living and breathing here, expression is what it is, don't get too concerned about that.

And so that log analogy speaks to why ONENESS is the only true reality. ...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pm'True reality', metaphysical wish fulfilment.

Yes, what ever is thought is manifest, but only as a thought

I've probably said that in a very clumsy way, so appologies for that, it's hard to talk about emptiness by filling it up with things..aka words.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:22 pmNo need to apologise as from my understanding you are trying to talk or reason about the Noumenon and since I agree with Kant's analysis of Reason and the Noumenon you are trying to do something you can't, i.e. talk about something that is impossible to know. As such, and so far, you are punting what we in Philosophy call Monism, and in your case specifically Idealistic Spiritual Monism, as you appear to think the Noumenon some kind of mental substance or being of which we are just manifested 'parts'. Now it may well be the case but from my point of view it's just wish fulfilment for some other psychological purpose as you cannot say or know anything about the Noumenon at all. That from a logical metaphysical standpoint we think there is one 'behind' Phenomenon is due to Reason and the idea of Causality, i.e. we see that phenomena cause other phenomena so conclude that it must be the case that there is a 'one' cause behind all the phenomenon, a 'ONE' or a 'GOD' if you prefer. Now me, if I was to engage in such pointless speculation, prefer more up-to-date metaphysical speculations, so I'd go with this 'ONE' or 'GOD' being a less than Planck length computing machine, this way I avoid the problem of it being 'conscious' or a 'consciousness' but still have computation going on and I can avoid the idea of a 'purpose' behind everything as it could just be like Conway's Game of Life and the computational rules governing the 'bits' operations having no 'intent' to produce the stable patterns that occur. In my madder days I even have everything we 'see' as just the 'noise' occurring as the 'computer' boots itself into it's final operating state where upon all will disappear and the actual computational purpose will ensue.
Anyhoo, all such thoughts of a 'ONE' or a 'GOD' pretty much explain nothing about anything so personally I'll stick with what I'm without doubt about, I am and what I am is a body with senses, language and memory in an external world and there are phenomena. From that I'll also go with very little doubt that there is at least one other than me, as I find it inconceivable that the language that I think, speak and hear could be created by a solipsist, as what need?

Well thanks for the debunk of my model and for substituting my model with your own version of what cannot be known. Of which I've already explained that truth to you many times.

In the meantime, I'll stick with my version of what we cannot know if all the same to you. For me it's the same old, same old same as it ever was, all appearing as new on the road to nowhere. All vanity and entertainment. I know nothing for I am known and the known know nothing except in this conception, this fictional story arising now.

.

I think "version" is a good key word to address here considering it is synonymous to "variety", "variation" or "variable":

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27339

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:27 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:49 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ONE is just another word for YOU

Great! So can I take it that YOU are ONE as well so there are now two ONE's?

Words are in essence empty, words appear to fill in the gap (VOID) with what appears to be some solid thing in and of itself separate from the word, but at grassroots, isn't any thing at all.

It takes one to perceive itself as one. The perception of one implies two (the perceiver and the perceived) In reality, the perceived is the perceiver perceiving itself, appearing as other which in reality is the same one appearing as if two...albeit illusory since one can never be two without splitting in half. Zero aka Void cannot divide it self...it takes ONE to be ONE - ONE is an illusory appearance of the Void. An appearance doesn't know it's an appearance, an appearance is a perceived known object that in and of itself knows nothing of it's existence. The perceiver cannot experience itself as the object it perceives because an object cannot perceive, the object is being perceived by the void as an object of perception. The subject / object division is purely illusional. Any division is one appearing as itself in the form of another, the split is apparent within itself inseparable from it's source which is always the zero point appearing to itself as one.

In the same context, a log will always remain a log even after cutting a little section off of each end of the log, there is nothing dividing the actual log into parts...the log is never affected by having parts of itself cut off, it still remains a log no matter how big or small it is.

So what about the parts? the parts are of the log that always remains a log, the parts don't actually have any existence apart from the log they were apart of, the parts owe their existence to the log, not the parts in and of themselves. The log itself can never not be a log by having parts of itself cut away, for even the parts are the log too.
And so that log analogy speaks to why ONENESS is the only true reality.

I've probably said that in a very clumsy way, so appologies for that, it's hard to talk about emptiness by filling it up with things..aka words.

.

Words are circular, they are the encapsulate of "nothing" through context as circular in nature.

A=A, the most basic law of identity sets the grounds for circularity in these respects. Words are empty contexts and contexts are constant and infinite: ⊚

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
A=A, the most basic law of identity sets the grounds for circularity in these respects. ...

But it's not the most basic 'law' is it, in fact it does not even appear in propositional logic.

one can never be two without splitting in half.

But that is what Eastern religions thought when they invented the concepts of yin and yang. One became two. They didn't know that since they were one, yin and yang did not exist Yet to come up with the idea requires knowledge of yin and yang. Once again good scotch proves its value for getting to the heart of the matter.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:50 am

one can never be two without splitting in half.

But that is what Eastern religions thought when they invented the concepts of yin and yang. One became two. They didn't know that since they were one, yin and yang did not exist Yet to come up with the idea requires knowledge of yin and yang. Once again good scotch proves its value for getting to the heart of the matter.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality.

Knowing and the known are not an actuality. Every conceptually known living being and every non-living entity is new in every moment, because the moment in life that contains everything renews itself every moment infinitely for eternity = 0 + 1

Knowing is done in the moment and the content of the known is known in the moment only after knowing is actually done or is being done.Every moment in life renews itself and in between a moment in the mind and in life is moment as well. This signifies that a moment in life and in the mind is eternal.

God is just another conceptual term for Nothingness/ or VOID ... Devoid of it's apparent apparitions.

.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
A=A, the most basic law of identity sets the grounds for circularity in these respects. ...

But it's not the most basic 'law' is it, in fact it does not even appear in propositional logic.

So the law of identity is not necessary for logic?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:So the law of identity is not necessary for logic?

If you mean this "A=A" then no in Propositional Logic '=' is not used. I guess it could be but it is not necessary, you could say (P->P)^(P<-P) which is the bi-conditional and this is a tautology which is always true and as such necessary.

Nick_A wrote:But that is what Eastern religions thought when they invented the concepts of yin and yang. One became two. They didn't know that since they were one, yin and yang did not exist Yet to come up with the idea requires knowledge of yin and yang. Once again good scotch proves its value for getting to the heart of the matter.

Except Yin and Yang referred to things like Male and Female, Hard and Soft, Yielding and Unyielding, so two right from the get go.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:So the law of identity is not necessary for logic?

If you mean this "A=A" then no in Propositional Logic '=' is not used. I guess it could be but it is not necessary, you could say (P->P)^(P<-P) which is the bi-conditional and this is a tautology which is always true and as such necessary.

Equality, is thus both undefined and subject to equivocation within the law of identity while dually necessitating that identity is not just assumed through recursive Directional forms

((P-->P)-->(P-->P))-->(P-->P)....


But also that identity is contextual recursion considering (P-->P) is fundamentally just an empty loop, thus can be observed as (P) where ( ) is fundamentally empty...like most loops are.

Considering all identity is grounded in loops, and loops are purely assumed as self referencing contexts, we are left with identity fundamentally grounded in assumption an void with this loop being the context itself as an inherent form.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Equality, is thus both undefined and subject to equivocation within the law of identity while dually necessitating that identity is not just assumed through recursive Directional forms ...

No idea what you are trying to say but "Equality" is a mathematical concept and "Identity" I guess can be a logical one but you asked if logic needs the equals sign and I told you Propositional Logic does not so the answer to your question is no logic does not need the equals sign. It's not even needed in Predicate Logic and only introduced as FOL + Equality which presumably is due to the logicians wanting to try and formalise some mathematics or other but you'll have to ask someone with a more recent memory of such stuff.

((P-->P)-->(P-->P))-->(P-->P).... ...

Did you miss it? (P->P)^(P<-P). Still, what you've printed is just another tautology so always true.

But also that identity is contextual recursion considering (P-->P) is fundamentally just an empty loop, thus can be observed as (P) where ( ) is fundamentally empty...like most loops are. ...

Er! All it says is that if there is a P then there is a P and if there is not a P then there is not a P.

Considering all identity is grounded in loops, and loops are purely assumed as self referencing contexts, we are left with identity fundamentally grounded in assumption an void with this loop being the context itself as an inherent form.

Which meaning of "identity" are you using here? But in Logic 'identity' is grounded in the idea that there are things or states of affairs, no things or states of affairs then no Logic.