Thought

[Talking Ass]

Jufa wrote: "Allow me to give you the story behind the story. Samson was a man of lust, and the power of his lust was relinguished when he could not resist the purring inquire of Delilah concerning the source of his strength. It was his lust and greed for the affection of a woman which cause him to reveal the secret of his power of strength. When Samson revealed to Delilah the secret of his power he gave his power to what Delilah deemed to be the source of her power, the power of her body her ability to persuade him to do her will. When Samson told Delilah the secret of his power, immediately she took steps for his ensalvement. Samson was blinded, made a slave, and became as a working mule. Now when seeing this, the picture of Samson giving his power to Delilah stands out to me."

"Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength."

I came across this in La Rochefoucauld's Moral Maxims:

'The most subtle of all artifices is the power of cleverly feigning to fall into the snares laid for us; and we are never so easily deceived as when we think we are deceiving others'.

[Tomhargen]

Great signature by the way. Let's not bring that debate over here but I'm sure that somewhere somehow the Ass=/=Ass

[Kelly Jones]

I don't see the point of dividing ideas into "mine" or "theirs". All that counts is whether they're true or not.

If one asserts something as true, or "gives it power", when it's not true, then that's wrong no matter "whose" the idea is. So, a better signature would be "Be truthful." Or, "Be wise." There's no egotistical warring in it, like "don't give him power, even if his ideas sound truthful, because he's not me".

.

[Pam Seeback]

The earth however is not the infinity of thought, only the eternality which keeps the thought of the invisible a metaphor. What is stupefying is that man lives in the invisibility of infinity because thought appear out of the invisibility into the invisibility of individual awareness. Man lives, and moves, and has his being in the infinity of thoughts, so it makes no difference what man thinks. What makes a difference is his elimination of the eternality of thoughts which formed the outer covering and shaped itself to be man's forms of the matter of the earth. Should man learned to take no thought as personal, and not succumbed to the thought body of the earth matter of recycled thoughts, he has not hide his light of thought under a bush. Instead he has let his light of thought shine as a beacon for one to see in hope and inspiration someone will find their path of infinity though the eternality of the human mind into the infinity of the invisible Thoughts which are the individual Spirit lives beyond the earth matter of human recycled thought.

All of life has meaning. If this was not true, then existence would not exist. Man does not comprehend this truth because he cannot, has not, and refused to look into the invisibility of himself.

The infinity of thought must always be present, or there could not be present, the metaphorical world of thought, the metaphorical world of thought that is the source of man's belief that it is possible to attach his sense interpretations to the infinity of thought (make personal that which is by nature, impersonal).

So as to cleanse the lens of man's metaphorical world of intellectual supposition, opinion and belief so that his light of infinity can shine, he must do as Samson failed to do, which is to cease being beguiled by his subjective interpretation of his five senses of sight, sound, taste, smelling and touch, or as someone put it more succinctly, to shut up! Had Samson kept his energy to himself, (not succumbed to his vanity of "I") and not given it to the vanity of the "I" of Delilah, his light of infinite thought would have continued to expand within his conscious, consuming/dissolving his "dust of the ground" mentality.

The story of Samson and Delilah is a story for the teacher/student of the infinite in every man's conscious.

[Kelly Jones]

Great signature by the way. Let's not bring that debate over here but I'm sure that somewhere somehow the Ass=/=Ass

We can continue it over here, because there's not much of a debate to this thread at present.

It isn't hard to understand. Maybe you get distracted by the formula: A=A.

A=A is a step deeper than any definition. It's not really a definition as such. It's fundamental to any definition. Look deeper than the formula, to what it means.

What A=A refers to, isn't the formula you're reading. It's deeper than that. It just means, the identity of a thing is precisely what it is, however it appears.

A=A isn't actually an identity, as such. Or, if you're reading it as a specific identity, you're not at the level of its meaning. A step deeper is needed.

.

[Pam Seeback]

Great signature by the way. Let's not bring that debate over here but I'm sure that somewhere somehow the Ass=/=Ass

We can continue it over here, because there's not much of a debate to this thread at present.

It isn't hard to understand. Maybe you get distracted by the formula: A=A.

A=A is a step deeper than any definition. It's not really a definition as such. It's fundamental to any definition. Look deeper than the formula, to what it means.

What A=A refers to, isn't the formula you're reading. It's deeper than that. It just means, the identity of a thing is precisely what it is, however it appears.

A=A isn't actually an identity, as such. Or, if you're reading it as a specific identity, you're not at the level of its meaning. A step deeper is needed.

.

The step deeper that is needed:

A cannot equal A, for A is not divided so as to be equal to itself. A IS A.

Deeper yet:

A IS.

Deeper yet:

IS.

Deeper yet:









Of this invisible silence thought arises, whole, complete, perfect and pure unto ITSELF.

The moment man interprets the whole, complete, perfect and pure thought of himself, he names it A, or dog, or manure, dividing himself from the infinity of himself.

A is an illusion. A is a lie.

[jufa]

I came across this in La Rochefoucauld's Moral Maxims:

'The most subtle of all artifices is the power of cleverly feigning to fall into the snares laid for us; and we are never so easily deceived as when we think we are deceiving others'.

The most subtle plan is to believe one has power to address and find only by their misunderstand the intent and purpose behind anothers words. In such a belief, one falls into their own snake-pit and is bitten continuously by the snakes of I think, I believe, I see, I can relate. These are the deceivers deceiving the deceived, who are the thinker of "I think, I believe, I see, I can relate," only because they do not know why words were written which disrupted their taste buds for lack of comprhending the purpose of intent behind said words in the beginning.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

TA is all of us, and we are all of him, (except perhaps for the tail.) This is what his religion demands. Are we truly one? Who's to say we couldn't be? I'm not feeling it right now though, so we're not eachother at the moment, and in my opinion not at all. This does not however stop us sharing a thought.

A = A. Infinity is equal to itself, even in its becoming so. Odd, isn't it.

The above statement is not correct. Should it be as stated, then all would on the same wave link of receiving, analyzing, forming, imagining, projecting, and finalizing. We all know each of us are unique and different in seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, and thinking. Though we are all tied together by Life Itself, our living of that Life is contrary to thought and interpertations.

We are one by our entrance into this dimension of awareness. We are not one in our living and thinking, and doing within this dimension because each one believes to find the object, one will find what is equal to the object within themselves.

To find the object of ones self, one has to find ones self. Is that self A? And what is the conclusion in mind which observed the object which allowed one to give it the body of A? Should A=A, then A must be divided to equal itself, and where does one find this separation, but in ones mind. Does one mind thus equal all minds? and if so, then why are there difference of opinions

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

A=A is a step deeper than any definition. It's not really a definition as such. It's fundamental to any definition. Look deeper than the formula, to what it means.

What A=A refers to, isn't the formula you're reading. It's deeper than that. It just means, the identity of a thing is precisely what it is, however it appears.

A=A isn't actually an identity, as such. Or, if you're reading it as a specific identity, you're not at the level of its meaning. A step deeper is needed.

.

A=A is deeper than definition because the moment definition is applied the subject matter becomes fragment objects personalized. Personalizatiion does not identify the subject matter to be precisely what it is, because to see the subject matter as it is, there would be no need for a step deeper for comprehension.

To understand a deeper step is needed for comprehension is saying on the level of the human mind, such cannot be comprehended. To get to that step which will take one deeper, one has to go through the mind to get beyond the mind where the object are totally non-conceptualized. Beyond, the mind A is A, there is nothing equal to A which the human mind can comprehend. A therefore does not = A in the infinity of eternality, just in the eternality of infinity.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Tomas]

So, a better signature would be "Be truthful." Or, "Be wise." There's no egotistical warring in it, like "don't give him power, even if his ideas sound truthful, because he's not me".

There already is, it's called, "Hey!, you Wise Ass". Much warring going on.

[Talking Ass]

Jufa wrote: "The most subtle plan is to believe one has power to address and find only by their misunderstand the intent and purpose behind anothers words. In such a belief, one falls into their own snake-pit and is bitten continuously by the snakes of I think, I believe, I see, I can relate. These are the deceivers deceiving the deceived, who are the thinker of "I think, I believe, I see, I can relate," only because they do not know why words were written which disrupted their taste buds for lack of comprhending the purpose of intent behind said words in the beginning."

1) When we try to understand the intent and purpose behind another's words, we enter into error, because we only understand through our misunderstanding?

2) To assume or to believe we can understand anything someone else says (wishes to convey, communicate) is false. Doing so, we fall into a 'snake-pit' and are 'bitten continually'. The metaphorical biting snakes are: I think, I believe, I see, I relate.

3) There is a vicious circle between the deceiver (ourself) deceiving the deceived (the other) and vice versa.

4) The reason is because one can't ever know why that other expressed those words.

The part about 'which disrupted their taste buds for lack of comprhending the purpose of intent behind said words in the beginning' I can't understand, try as I might.
_________________________________

It seems to me this is, overall, a rather pessimistic view of communication.

If any of this is true, why would anyone ever make an effort to try to say anything? Why would you make an effort to express yourself? Well, maybe it all hinges on 'trying to find the intent and purpose behind another words', like trying to ferret-out hidden motives and such? On Internet forums, of course, we are all aware that we often completely misunderstand other people's motives and 'see the worst' (like they are acting like little devils!) I think it is called Projection of Shadow. (Except when I do it and it is Clear Discernment).

Jufa, do you feel you have been misunderstood? (Where are you from anyway? If I may know...)

(So very few understand me. Sulking in my barn. Under the incessant rain. Trying to save humanity from itself, etc.)
__________________________________________

Not to be clicked by Kelly, Ryan or any of the all-too-serious:

Samson and Delilah (QRS Perspective)
Psychedelic Talking Ass Version
Bonus Track (for being so good!) (They tell me David likes to listen to this when in Samadhi).
Jerry Garcia/Bob Weir

[jufa]

1) When we try to understand the intent and purpose behind another's words, we enter into error, because we only understand through our misunderstanding?

2) To assume or to believe we can understand anything someone else says (wishes to convey, communicate) is false. Doing so, we fall into a 'snake-pit' and are 'bitten continually'. The metaphorical biting snakes are: I think, I believe, I see, I relate.

3) There is a vicious circle between the deceiver (ourself) deceiving the deceived (the other) and vice versa.

4) The reason is because one can't ever know why that other expressed those words.

The part about 'which disrupted their taste buds for lack of comprhending the purpose of intent behind said words in the beginning' I can't understand, try as I might.
_________________________________

It seems to me this is, overall, a rather pessimistic view of communication.

If any of this is true, why would anyone ever make an effort to try to say anything? Why would you make an effort to express yourself? Well, maybe it all hinges on 'trying to find the intent and purpose behind another words', like trying to ferret-out hidden motives and such? On Internet forums, of course, we are all aware that we often completely misunderstand other people's motives and 'see the worst' (like they are acting like little devils!) I think it is called Projection of Shadow. (Except when I do it and it is Clear Discernment).

Jufa, do you feel you have been misunderstood? (Where are you from anyway? If I may know...)

(So very few understand me. Sulking in my barn. Under the incessant rain. Trying to save humanity from itself, etc.)

1) Man does not step into error, man is the error by believing he can step into someone elses thought intent and purpose, then give a definition of exactness of anothers journey of outer objective visions, and inner subjective feelings.

2) I relate to this statement, not from your words but my own, being I initiated its beginning.
What you are saying, although styled in the manner of my own style, does not however give your exact meaning for repetitiveness of your wishing to convery what you mean in this communication. Therefore, should I proceed to interpreted your words beyond relativity, I then become the deceiver of myself because I am the one thinking I can discern your intent and purpose in exactness.

3) We do not deceive other, only ourselves. We do however plant seeds, and those seed are cultivated, nourished, and becomes the full corn in the ear according to the individuals own responsibility to accept what they say, or become responsible to themselves to find out what is the cause behind they effect of their thinking.

4) We are in harmony with this statement.

Being it appears to be a pessimistic conversation to you overall, then you have had to explored all avenues of the characteristics of pessimisism to plant seeds as a definition of truth to grown. If you have not explored all avenues

The reason is because one can't ever know why that other expressed those words.

"If any of this is true, why would anyone ever make an effort to try to say anything?"

One does not make an effort to try anything. One either does or do not express words of thoughts. They are, in expression, seeking someone or Something which will verify why, when, where, who, and what is the meaning for their coming to the conclusions which make them react to their outer objective visions and inner subjective feelings. In orther words, they are seeking, as you and I and all after our kind, to understand why they came into this realm as an object of a subject which has no logic to be because they have no definition of anything beyond their own interpretation, beliefs, and temporary conclusion.

Every man woman and child has been and is misunderstood First by themselves, and secondly by their misunderstanding of projections of that which they do not understand, which is the exactness of words when in the beginning there were no words of relativity to identeify and be understood.

Save yourself and you save the humanity of yourself. But then, how can you save yourself?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

A cannot equal A, for A is not divided so as to be equal to itself. A IS A.

You're not getting it. Jesus, can you guys pull your heads out of your dreamy arses for ten seconds? There is no division. There aren't two A's. There's only one A, and the formula is just saying that the A is itself.

Note that if you conclude things are illusions, and therefore A is an illusion also, then you've used a definition, based on identities, and therefore already used the law of identity. So you can't then switch-back and say that the law of identity is false. You'd be illogical to do so.

Needless to say, truths don't become false when their true nature is realised. They're still truths.

.

[Kelly Jones]

A=A is deeper than definition because the moment definition is applied the subject matter becomes fragment objects personalized.

Can you repost your sentence using intelligible English, please?

Personalizatiion does not identify the subject matter to be precisely what it is, because to see the subject matter as it is, there would be no need for a step deeper for comprehension.

To understand a deeper step is needed for comprehension is saying on the level of the human mind, such cannot be comprehended. To get to that step which will take one deeper, one has to go through the mind to get beyond the mind where the object are totally non-conceptualized. Beyond, the mind A is A, there is nothing equal to A which the human mind can comprehend. A therefore does not = A in the infinity of eternality, just in the eternality of infinity.

You've just said that the mind conceptualises, then airily breezed past this statement, and asserted concepts about what is beyond the mind, and that you can comprehend that there is nothing equal to A beyond the mind.

A=A is simple. Every identity (A) is what it is. It really is just what it is. There's no need to assume that concepts aren't reliable or true, and that something is only real when it's not perceived. Those frilly otherworldly dreams are unnecessary and illogical, but I suppose the reason you're trying to discard logic is because you find them so attractive.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Give power only to what weakens you and everyone else, except me, for the reason that I don't like the sound of the word "power" - jufa

.

[jufa]

A=A is deeper than definition because the moment definition is applied the subject matter becomes fragment objects personalized.

Can you repost your sentence using intelligible English, please?

Personalizatiion does not identify the subject matter to be precisely what it is, because to see the subject matter as it is, there would be no need for a step deeper for comprehension.

To understand a deeper step is needed for comprehension is saying on the level of the human mind, such cannot be comprehended. To get to that step which will take one deeper, one has to go through the mind to get beyond the mind where the object are totally non-conceptualized. Beyond, the mind A is A, there is nothing equal to A which the human mind can comprehend. A therefore does not = A in the infinity of eternality, just in the eternality of infinity.

You've just said that the mind conceptualises, then airily breezed past this statement, and asserted concepts about what is beyond the mind, and that you can comprehend that there is nothing equal to A beyond the mind.

A=A is simple. Every identity (A) is what it is. It really is just what it is. There's no need to assume that concepts aren't reliable or true, and that something is only real when it's not perceived. Those frilly otherworldly dreams are unnecessary and illogical, but I suppose the reason you're trying to discard logic is because you find them so attractive.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Give power only to what weakens you and everyone else, except me, for the reason that I don't like the sound of the word "power" - jufa

.

Sure I will "repost your sentence using intelligible English." How's this:

A=A is deeper than definition because the moment definition is applied the subject matter becomes fragment objects personalized.

So what iss the concept you state I have presented? Is it the personal identification I speak upon concerning the mind? And how did I airly breeze pass the concept of mind being a interpretation of its own interpretation of matter? Is it a concept to say that A is just A beyond the mind when the proposition of A had its beginning beyond the mind? If I have been incorrect, tell me whether A came into the mind via an invisible route, or did the mind originate A from itself? Where is the concept I have presented to be found beyond your mind, when you, nor I cannot see into the invisible domain to form a concept beyond the mind?

Why have you changed my signature to fit your fear of the word power? Please note the other questions asked in this post to you!

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

j: A=A is deeper than definition because the moment definition is applied the subject matter becomes fragment objects personalized.

K: Can you repost your sentence using intelligible English, please?

j: Sure I will "repost your sentence using intelligible English." How's this:

A=A is deeper than definition because the moment definition is applied the subject matter becomes fragment objects personalized.

But it's exactly the same.

So what iss the concept you state I have presented? Is it the personal identification I speak upon concerning the mind?

I don't know what you are defining "personal" as. If you wish to communicate with other people, you'll have to stop assuming that they can read your mind, or that some vague guess will meet the requirements of communication.

j: Personalizatiion does not identify the subject matter to be precisely what it is, because to see the subject matter as it is, there would be no need for a step deeper for comprehension.

If you're saying personalization is distortion, and is intrinsic to all mental processes, then you can't define personalization without distortion. So, your definition is imprecise, by your own admission. A tangled web you're weaving for yourself there.

j: To understand a deeper step is needed for comprehension is saying on the level of the human mind, such cannot be comprehended. To get to that step which will take one deeper, one has to go through the mind to get beyond the mind where the object are totally non-conceptualized. Beyond, the mind A is A, there is nothing equal to A which the human mind can comprehend. A therefore does not = A in the infinity of eternality, just in the eternality of infinity.

K: You've just said that the mind conceptualises, then airily breezed past this statement, and asserted concepts about what is beyond the mind, and that you can comprehend that there is nothing equal to A beyond the mind.

j: And how did I airly breeze pass the concept of mind being a interpretation of its own interpretation of matter? Is it a concept to say that A is just A beyond the mind when the proposition of A had its beginning beyond the mind?

I don't know how you manage to write anything at all, given that you don't believe any concepts are true. God save us, you don't believe that true concepts exist outside of consciousness, do you ?!

j: If I have been incorrect, tell me whether A came into the mind via an invisible route, or did the mind originate A from itself? Where is the concept I have presented to be found beyond your mind, when you, nor I cannot see into the invisible domain to form a concept beyond the mind?

How something is caused is irrelevant to the fact that something is happening right now. A=A applies here and now.

Why have you changed my signature to fit your fear of the word power?

What is meaningful is truth power. If a statement is false, then it has the power to make people insane. That is not what I value.

I value reasoning, jufa. If a statement is not rational, then I will challenge it. Your signature isn't rational. It's basically this:

Power comes to someone through their conviction, and my aim is to strip them of power. Why? Because I believe all convictions and truths are distorted and imprecise. I don't want anyone to believe they know what is true - but I believe I know what is true. How? Because I have stopped thinking, and therefore no one can accuse me of using concepts. Thus do I pretend to have escaped imprecision.....

Please note the other questions asked in this post to you!

Yes, I noted them. But let's keep things simple, eh?


.

[jufa]

K Jones stated:

But it's exactly the same.

so how did you figure that out being I write unintelligent English?

K Jones stated:

I don't know what you are defining "personal" as. If you wish to communicate with other people, you'll have to stop assuming that they can read your mind, or that some vague guess will meet the requirements of communication.

in respond to

So what iss the concept you state I have presented? Is it the personal identification I speak upon concerning the mind?

Kelly, as will be noted, totally overlooked the first part of this questionaire, so I will assume Kelly is half-blind.

K Jones states:

If you're saying personalization is distortion, and is intrinsic to all mental processes, then you can't define personalization without distortion. So, your definition is imprecise, by your own admission. A tangled web you're weaving for yourself there.

If you don't know what I mean by personal, how can you speak on that which I state is personalization?

K Jones states:

I don't know how you manage to write anything at all, given that you don't believe any concepts are true. God save us, you don't believe that true concepts exist outside of consciousness, do you ?!

Give me one, just one concept that is truth.

K Jones states:

How something is caused is irrelevant to the fact that something is happening right now. A=A applies here and now.

Tell me how can A equal itself when A is itself unequaled?

K Jones states:

What is meaningful is truth power. If a statement is false, then it has the power to make people insane. That is not what I value.

I value reasoning, jufa. If a statement is not rational, then I will challenge it. Your signature isn't rational. It's basically this:

Power comes to someone through their conviction, and my aim is to strip them of power. Why? Because I believe all convictions and truths are distorted and imprecise. I don't want anyone to believe they know what is true - but I believe I know what is true. How? Because I have stopped thinking, and therefore no one can accuse me of using concepts. Thus do I pretend to have escaped imprecision.....

Is my signature for your rational, or for my good pleasures?

Questions are always simple when they can be answered?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Talking Ass]

Never discuss, debate, argufy, or otherwise polemicize, altercate, scrap, or dispute one's chosen signature with the unwashed hordes, especially if it is the source of one's power---Talking Ass

[Kelly Jones]

j: A=A is deeper than definition because the moment definition is applied the subject matter becomes fragment objects personalized.

K: Can you repost your sentence using intelligible English, please?

j: Sure I will "repost your sentence using intelligible English." How's this: "A=A is deeper than definition because the moment definition is applied the subject matter becomes fragment objects personalized."

K: But it's exactly the same.

j: so how did you figure that out being I write unintelligent English?

The last three words don't make sense. The way your sentence is constructed, whatever follows "becomes" ought to be a verb, like "fragmented", or a noun, like "a fragment". Or else nothing ought to follow "becomes". If you don't know this, then English is probably not your first language.

If you're trying to convey via a collapse of meaning, that all definitions become fragmentary when applied, then you aren't conveying that truth by deliberately creating a nonsensical clause. You need to actually explain how definitions become meaningless or fragmentary.

And you also need to explain what personalisation is, whether all concepts are personalized, and whether the process of personalization necessarily makes definitions meaningless.

j: Personalizatiion does not identify the subject matter to be precisely what it is, because to see the subject matter as it is, there would be no need for a step deeper for comprehension.

To understand a deeper step is needed for comprehension is saying on the level of the human mind, such cannot be comprehended. To get to that step which will take one deeper, one has to go through the mind to get beyond the mind where the object are totally non-conceptualized. Beyond, the mind A is A, there is nothing equal to A which the human mind can comprehend. A therefore does not = A in the infinity of eternality, just in the eternality of infinity.

k: You've just said that the mind conceptualises, then airily breezed past this statement, and asserted concepts about what is beyond the mind, and that you can comprehend that there is nothing equal to A beyond the mind.

A=A is simple. Every identity (A) is what it is. It really is just what it is. There's no need to assume that concepts aren't reliable or true, and that something is only real when it's not perceived. Those frilly otherworldly dreams are unnecessary and illogical, but I suppose the reason you're trying to discard logic is because you find them so attractive.

j: So what iss the concept you state I have presented? Is it the personal identification I speak upon concerning the mind?

K: I don't know what you are defining "personal" as. If you wish to communicate with other people, you'll have to stop assuming that they can read your mind, or that some vague guess will meet the requirements of communication.

j: Kelly, as will be noted, totally overlooked the first part of this questionaire, so I will assume Kelly is half-blind.

Look at the flow of the discussed, as retrieved above. I didn't say that you presented a concept, but that you said the mind conceptualises and results (presumably you mean it necessarily results in - but I'm not sure yet) in distortion and imprecision. Yet you believe you're capable of indicating what is true about what is beyond conceptualisation, without any distortion.

To clarify your question about what you mean about "the personal identification I speak upon concerning the mind", I asked you to define "personal". You still haven't. Can you please address this?

j: j: Personalizatiion does not identify the subject matter to be precisely what it is, because to see the subject matter as it is, there would be no need for a step deeper for comprehension.

K: If you're saying personalization is distortion, and is intrinsic to all mental processes, then you can't define personalization without distortion. So, your definition is imprecise, by your own admission. A tangled web you're weaving for yourself there.

j: If you don't know what I mean by personal, how can you speak on that which I state is personalization?

I'm trying to make sense of the tidbits you deign to throw our way. You wrote about personalization, but I still can't make out what you mean by it. That's why I keep asking you to clarify your terms. Please address this, would you?

j: To understand a deeper step is needed for comprehension is saying on the level of the human mind, such cannot be comprehended. To get to that step which will take one deeper, one has to go through the mind to get beyond the mind where the object are totally non-conceptualized. Beyond, the mind A is A, there is nothing equal to A which the human mind can comprehend. A therefore does not = A in the infinity of eternality, just in the eternality of infinity.

K: You've just said that the mind conceptualises, then airily breezed past this statement, and asserted concepts about what is beyond the mind, and that you can comprehend that there is nothing equal to A beyond the mind.

j: And how did I airly breeze pass the concept of mind being a interpretation of its own interpretation of matter? Is it a concept to say that A is just A beyond the mind when the proposition of A had its beginning beyond the mind?

K: I don't know how you manage to write anything at all, given that you don't believe any concepts are true. God save us, you don't believe that true concepts exist outside of consciousness, do you ?!

j: Give me one, just one concept that is truth.

I can give any number of concepts about Ultimate Reality, that are absolutely true, but I can't give all true concepts, obviously. That would take forever.

Truth itself is apparent in any true concept. There's one for you.

j: If I have been incorrect, tell me whether A came into the mind via an invisible route, or did the mind originate A from itself? Where is the concept I have presented to be found beyond your mind, when you, nor I cannot see into the invisible domain to form a concept beyond the mind?

K: How something is caused is irrelevant to the fact that something is happening right now. A=A applies here and now.

j: Tell me how can A equal itself when A is itself unequaled?

A isn't unequalled. It equals itself, by definition. And, it equals only itself. Just as a thing is only identical with itself, and not with anything else.

You might be mistakenly identifying the equals sign "=", in the law of identity (A=A) as a mathematical operator. It's not. For instance 1+1 = 2 means that two one's (2 x 1) are equal in quantity to 2, but it does not mean the philosophical equality of identicality. Namely, the identity of 2 is only 2. It is not 1=1. Do you see what I'm saying here?

K: What is meaningful is truth power. If a statement is false, then it has the power to make people insane. That is not what I value.

I value reasoning, jufa. If a statement is not rational, then I will challenge it. Your signature isn't rational. It's basically this:

"Power comes to someone through their conviction, and my aim is to strip them of power. Why? Because I believe all convictions and truths are distorted and imprecise. I don't want anyone to believe they know what is true - but I believe I know what is true. How? Because I have stopped thinking, and therefore no one can accuse me of using concepts. Thus do I pretend to have escaped imprecision....."

j: Is my signature for your rational, or for my good pleasures?

English is definitely not your first language! I wish you'd said so. We'd have avoided the confusion.

If you're participating on a forum where rationality is one of the most important values, you wouldn't offer a signature that is irrational. But of course, it's your choice if you want to be irrational, and to sign off every post with a poorly reasoned idea. Can't see the point of signatures, myself. Everything one truly values will be evident in everything one writes, so a signature is superfluous.

So, anyway, isn't being rational a pleasure for you?

Questions are always simple when they can be answered?

Questions are simple before they are answered, if one asks them intelligently.

Causation is everything. People are just eddies and whirlpools of causes, and don't ultimately exist.

.

[Kelly Jones]

Never discuss, debate, argufy, or otherwise polemicize, altercate, scrap, or dispute one's chosen signature with the unwashed hordes, especially if it is the source of one's power---Talking Ass

Well, no, do. Anyway, people can't help but be drawn to, and give expression to, what they love. To try to hide one's loves is foolish, as it will come out anyway. Then it just looks like a wispy, pale, frightened, passive love that can't stand up. So, jufa's done the better, more masculine thing, in being open about what he loves or values. It's just that he's now refusing to articulate what precisely it means, so as to avoid having it criticised. That's what people tend to do with their gods: they make them mysterious and ineffable.

.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
A cannot equal A, for A is not divided so as to be equal to itself. A IS A.

You're not getting it. Jesus, can you guys pull your heads out of your dreamy arses for ten seconds? There is no division. There aren't two A's. There's only one A, and the formula is just saying that the A is itself.

Note that if you conclude things are illusions, and therefore A is an illusion also, then you've used a definition, based on identities, and therefore already used the law of identity. So you can't then switch-back and say that the law of identity is false. You'd be illogical to do so.

Things/thoughts are not illusions, things are things, thoughts are thoughts; it is the thought of the thing that is the illusion. What makes the thought of the thing an illusion, is that words are but pointers to the [unknown] thing, no more, no less.

It is man's belief that he knows the thing [the truth of the thing] that prevents him from confronting the realization that words, in and of themselves, are nothingness. Thought's substance and essence is of man's awareness; the words that come forth from this [infinite thought] awareness are naught but projections of sense images of this infinity of thought.

Any law that man has become aware of to explain the nature of things is one invented by the intellect of the belief that the substance that is [already] the pure awareness of the thing itself, is to be found in the thinking of [the projecting of] the pure awareness of the thing.

The question that cannot be denied by the man who comes face to face with the realization that words are but finite pointers to the infinite reality of thought is: what am I going to do with this realization? Will I continue analyzing the thing as if the analysis of the thing is the 'truth' of the thing when I now am aware that no such true analysis exists or will I begin to analyze my new found awareness of the illusory nature of all sense interpretation? There is always thought analysis while in the realm of the senses, it is the intent of the analysis that reveals to the thinker his I AM identity (is my intent of thinking of the senses, or is my intent of thinking of that which is beyond the senses)?

Needless to say, truths don't become false when their true nature is realised. They're still truths.

My definition of truth is that when truth is stated, that all would comprehend the statement wholly and completely, without a shadow of 'but'. Within the parameters of my definition of truth, there is no debating truth, there is no defending truth, for all comprehend the stated truth equally and exactly. If you accept this definition of truth, please give me the truth of A=A. If you do not accept my definition of truth, please give me your definition of truth and if you are willing, we can then dialog on the truth or untruth of A=A.

[Pam Seeback]

Never discuss, debate, argufy, or otherwise polemicize, altercate, scrap, or dispute one's chosen signature with the unwashed hordes, especially if it is the source of one's power---Talking Ass

Well, no, do. Anyway, people can't help but be drawn to, and give expression to, what they love. To try to hide one's loves is foolish, as it will come out anyway. Then it just looks like a wispy, pale, frightened, passive love that can't stand up. So, jufa's done the better, more masculine thing, in being open about what he loves or values. It's just that he's now refusing to articulate what precisely it means, so as to avoid having it criticised. That's what people tend to do with their gods: they make them mysterious and ineffable.

.

"A" [in this case jufa's signature] cannot be stated in precision of meaning by your own words above: the A is itself. For jufa to provide precision of meaning to his words and also remain true to your conclusion that A is itself, he would need to return to the precise moment he first became aware of the words, and then, enter every word without leaving this moment of first discovery and speak the wholeness and completeness of every word as it is of itself.

The fact that no man can speak of 'what they love' in exactness, for 'what they love' is also relative to 'what they do not love.' This is why it is necessary to do deeper than A is A, or A is itself into the silence where there is no awareness of love/hate, attraction/repulsion relativity. No word, i.e., 'love', can stand on its own; always there is its opposite hidden within the life of its relativity.

How can that which is relative only to the moment of its interpretation according to the opposites of love and hate be stated in precision of meaning?

[Kelly Jones]

"A" [in this case jufa's signature] cannot be stated in precision of meaning by your own words above: the A is itself. For jufa to provide precision of meaning to his words and also remain true to your conclusion that A is itself, he would need to return to the precise moment

You still aren't getting it. A=A just means something is what it is, and not something else. The identity is instantaneous and undeniable. However Jufa's signature is perceived, is precisely how it is perceived. Whatever it is interpreted as, at that moment, is exactly what it is. That's what the law of identity means: something is itself.

All you need to do is recognise that you used the law of identity to distinguish between two interpretations of Jufa's signature.

.

[Kelly Jones]

My definition of truth is that when truth is stated, that all would comprehend the statement wholly and completely, without a shadow of 'but'. Within the parameters of my definition of truth, there is no debating truth, there is no defending truth, for all comprehend the stated truth equally and exactly. If you accept this definition of truth, please give me the truth of A=A. If you do not accept my definition of truth, please give me your definition of truth and if you are willing, we can then dialog on the truth or untruth of A=A.

Your definition of truth is naive. The truth can be stated, and people ignore, evade, or are too stupid to comprehend it. Yet it is still the truth.

The only way to speak of truth is in relation to what is absolutely reliable, namely, the nature of the Totality. Therefore, all truths relate in some way to the Totality, and the bigger the truth, the more perfectly it relates to the Totality.

A=A is not a specific truth. All truths are based on A=A. It is the law that all consciousnesses cannot help but obey, but some try to deny it. For this reason, not all people can comprehend truths, stated or not.

.

[Tomhargen]

A=A is not a truth. A=A is a distinguishing tool. This is a potential truth: Chair=Chair. A=A is just a way to distinguish between a truth and a non-truth. If I say "This is a chair" then all others around me are left with a choice. They must look at said chair and decide, "is that really a chair?" They must decide whether or not what they are seeing and interpreting with their physical awareness is the same thing at every instance in every perceivable level of awareness. All it does is make one decide everything that something is. You must decide whether, to you, a chair is simply something to sit on, or if there is maybe a symbolic meaning.

A=A is a means to identify truth and distinguish it from falsehood through thourough and personal analysis of a statement, idea, object etc...