Aldous Huxley's Young Archimedes

[jupiviv]

A thing is only ever identical with itself. The law of identity has to use memory, where the identity of a thing is remembered to match itself with itself. There is no identity without memory. A=A is an expression of this.

So A is A, and A is equal to A in a philosophical but not mathematical sense. It's not the same use of "=" as in "1+1=2".

Only 1+1 = 1+1 in a philosophical sense.
In a mathematical sense, the "=" is an attribution sign, inputting a value to "1+1".

It's not complicated.

???

Why are you making the same mistake? 1+1=2 is exactly the same as saying A=A. 1+1 means 2, and two means 1+1(two ones added together.) I'll reiterate - there is no essential difference between the logic used in different fields. If there were, logic would become meaningless.

[jupiviv]

The first A is 'what it is' and the second A is also 'what it is', but by no stretch of the imagination could they be seen as 'one and the same'.

No, they are the same thing, hence the sign "=" is placed between them.

You seem to be confused. "They" is plural; "thing" is singular: two become one?

I'm talking about the two "A"s in the equation A=A, so I'm talking about the same thing. Your whole argument is therefore a straw man.

We all know there's a lot more to it(reasoning) than that. It's also about making connections, realising implications, and constructing arguments (this is not necessarily an exhaustive list).

All of those are based on A=A.

Tautologies are so... mundane.

That's just your opinion. Some tautologies are very useful.

There is nothing more to understand beyond that. You either accept it as true, or you don't.

This is a classic example of what Alex refers to as the "binary" thinking of QRStians. There is often no room for meaningful discussion, because it's so often "my way or the highway" with QRStians.

No meaningful discussion can be carried out without "binary thinking." Discussions arise only when two people differ in their thought and understanding, or are ignorant of the each other's thinking.

Do you have any reason to think that A=A might not be true?

[cousinbasil]

No meaningful discussion can be carried out without "binary thinking." Discussions arise only when two people differ in their thought and understanding, or are ignorant of the each other's thinking.

Well, that's just nonsense, sorry. Many discussions between two people arise precisely because the people are alike in their thoughts and understanding for the most part; these similarities lend material to the discussions. If two people are truly different in thought and understanding, communication of any kind suffers.

[jupiviv]

@cousinbasil You probably have a different definition of "discussion". if two people agree with each other on everything, and each knows all of the other's thoughts, what would they discuss about? If they start talking it'd be more like this:

A - Well, cows are generally herbivorous, you know.

B - Oh yes, cows are herbivorous.

A - However, cows have been known to eat people from time to time.

B - Oh yes, I know. My cousin told me that.

A - Cows are also very good astronomers, you know.

B - From what I've heard, that definitely seems to be a case.

On the other hand, if two people were completely different to each other in their thought, they couldn't have a discussion. But I don't think that is possible. The logical axioms which control thought are the same for everyone. The purpose of any discussion is to arrive at the solution to a problem, and there can be only one solution to any problem.

[Blair]

No meaningful discussion can be carried out without "binary thinking." Discussions arise only when two people differ in their thought and understanding, or are ignorant of the each other's thinking.

Well, that's just nonsense, sorry. Many discussions between two people arise precisely because the people are alike in their thoughts and understanding for the most part; these similarities lend material to the discussions. If two people are truly different in thought and understanding, communication of any kind suffers.

Binary thinking in the true sense, is the exact interloping of 0's and 1's, or ons and offs. Cause and effect between thoughts and all aspects of reality are actually doing this all the time.

[guest_of_logic]

Alex: The first A is 'what it is' and the second A is also 'what it is', but by no stretch of the imagination could they be seen as 'one and the same'.

jupiviv: No, they are the same thing, hence the sign "=" is placed between them.

guest_of_logic: You seem to be confused. "They" is plural; "thing" is singular: two become one?

jupiviv: I'm talking about the two "A"s in the equation A=A, so I'm talking about the same thing. Your whole argument is therefore a straw man.

I don't know about you, but precision in language is important to me. If you want to boil my "argument" down to its essence, it's that you ought to have used a word like "represent" or "symbolise" rather than "are" in your original statement. You also seem to be unwilling to acknowledge your improper use of the equality sign in the law of identity. The statement as you presented it is one of mathematical equality, not of existential identity. The two statements are related, but not interchangeable.

guest_of_logic: We all know there's a lot more to it(reasoning) than that. It's also about making connections, realising implications, and constructing arguments (this is not necessarily an exhaustive list).

jupiviv: All of those are based on A=A.

Congratulations, that's going to be on the exam - here, see how well you do with The Enlightenment Quiz (no peeking at the answers first).

Some tautologies are very useful.

If you like rhetoric.

No meaningful discussion can be carried out without "binary thinking."

On the contrary. No meaningful discussion occurs when one of the parties is locked into binary thinking. That party processes the content of the other party only to the extent of discovering whether it accords with their own dogmatism, and deciding thereby whether it is "right" or "wrong", or, in the terms of the binary thinking of this forum, "truthful" or "delusional".

Discussions arise only when two people differ in their thought and understanding, or are ignorant of the each other's thinking.

Cousinbasil covered this well. To what he wrote, I would add that discussions between like-minded people can be exploratory, and can discover new ideas hitherto unknown to either party.

Do you have any reason to think that A=A might not be true?

Assuming that you mean A is A, and not A=A: I have no reason to doubt that this definition applies in the classical world; I'm not so sure in the so-called quantum realm. Who knows what other realms exist where it might likewise be doubted? As a statement of how the mind works (with contemporaneously fixed and consistent identities), it seems reasonable, except that it's interesting to think of the fidelity and clarity with which an identity is represented in the mind. When I say, "I mean [such and such]", just how aware am I of what "such and such" actually represents? How clear and "complete" is the representation in my mind? What is its "extent"; its "actual" identity? I don't intend with these questions to suggest that mental identity is untenable, because it obviously functions well enough for us to think and communicate - I just raise them as an interesting side note.

[Kelly Jones]

Only 1+1 = 1+1 in a philosophical sense.

In a mathematical sense, the "=" is an attribution sign, inputting a value to "1+1".

Why are you making the same mistake? 1+1=2 is exactly the same as saying A=A.

1+1=2 is a definition, not a simple identity. The law of identity is more basic than a definition. For instance, in A=A, A is not defined as anything. It's just saying that A is itself.

I'll break down the mathematical definition "1+1=2", to show what I'm getting at. In the following, I'll use the colon to show assignment of value, to distinguish a definition from a pure identicality.

For example,
= : equivalence symbol of identity (philosophy)
= : equivalence symbol of quantity (maths)

But the two are not identical in meaning, even though the same symbol is used. But, the philosophical equivalence is used in the mathematical equation, prior to the quantity type. It's not two "logics", but one.

(In long-hand, the above are two definitions, and can be read as the following:
The symbol "=" in the law of identity equation is assigned the meaning of "a symbol that indicates equivalence of identity". Note that the mathematical equation also uses the symbol in this way, but it is implied where the terms are listed, and is not the explicit meaning of the symbol. It's simple once you see it.)

Stage 1: listing of the basic identities, or terms. They are recognised as what they are (A=A), and distinct. It's a very simple step, which many people overlook because of its obvious nature. Yet it is essential. Notice that nothing is defined, or assigned values. It's the same with A=A, in which "A" is never given any finite, specific meaning.

1=1
+=+
1+1=1+1
2=2
=== (It is implied that the "=" in the equation is just a symbol, like the others)


Stage 2: assigning meanings or values to the basic identities, or terms. This step is to make definitions:

+ : addition operator
= : equivalence of quantity, but not equivalence of identity
1 : number, single quantity
2 : number, equivalent quantity to 1+1

1+1 means 2, and two means 1+1(two ones added together.) I'll reiterate - there is no essential difference between the logic used in different fields. If there were, logic would become meaningless.

The "means" gives you the clue that the equation is a definition-type, not an identity-type.

The logic is the same. It may be confusing because the same symbol "=" is used, but the philosophical identity is implied in the mathematical equation. Namely, 1+1=1+1, 1+1:2, 2:1+1.

A proof of this is that 1+1 is mathematically equal to 10-8, but that is not its identity. It's quantity is identical, but its identity isn't.

A=A does not add any new information. It is not a definition.


..

[cousinbasil]

@cousinbasil You probably have a different definition of "discussion...."

On the other hand, if two people were completely different to each other in their thought, they couldn't have a discussion. But I don't think that is possible. The logical axioms which control thought are the same for everyone. The purpose of any discussion is to arrive at the solution to a problem, and there can be only one solution to any problem.

No, I think I have the same definition of "discussion." What I was disagreeing with was your use of the word "only" in "discussions can only arise" when two people are thinking differently. Specifically, you are referring to the exchange of information, maybe that is the word you need to be using.

Binary thinking in the true sense, is the exact interloping of 0's and 1's, or ons and offs. Cause and effect between thoughts and all aspects of reality are actually doing this all the time.

There is an on and off in the sense of when the conscious entity is aware of a thing as opposed to when it is not aware of the thing. I am not sure it has been determined that thinking or consciousness itself is "binary" in nature. I think we can agree that the simplest form of information transferal is binary.

I would add that discussions between like-minded people can be exploratory, and can discover new ideas hitherto unknown to either party.

Yes, that is usually the case. Let me add that a "meaningful discussion" can occur between father and son, say, where no new information is exchanged by either party, but the fact the conversation took place can serve to remind the son that the father is paying attention to him and his life and thoughts.

Briefly, there is no such thing as "logical axioms which control thought." Therefore, they cannot be the same for everyone, sadly. Axioms do not control thought, unfortunately - two people must agree upon axioms before any protocol of thought can be approached, and then it is a protocol of communication, not thought itself.

[Talking Ass]

The Ruin:

This masonry is wondrous; fates broke it
courtyard pavements were smashed; the work of giants is decaying.
Roofs are fallen, ruinous towers,
the frosty gate with frost on cement is ravaged,
chipped roofs are torn, fallen,
undermined by old age. The grasp of the earth possesses
the mighty builders, perished and fallen,
the hard grasp of earth, until a hundred generations
of people have departed.
_______________________________________________________

Talking Ass wrote: "No doubt about that. And there was likely a time, a moment in history, in the evolution of thinking, where it was assumed that since 'mathematics was the musical language in which the creation was sung', it must also follow that there should/must exist a similar 'philosophy', dependent in language, that would reveal or explain an utterly 'true world'. I don't think there is any doubt---except perhaps on the backwater of the GF---that it just doesn't quite work that way. All throughout history, from the Occidental to the Indus River culture to the Chinese, there have been comprehensive efforts to 'reason out' a complete, existential (that is to say religious) position on the basis of the elements in a given system. In modernity, we have seen all the old systems become shattered because, with our material sciences, we have undermined the 'platforms of certainty' that produced and upheld 'ontological certainty'. Now, with this modernity, we are in an 'ontological fix' because we have the most advanced analytical tool for 'grasping' material truths, but no way to piece any of those 'truths' together into a functional, believable, 'ontological whole'.

"We lack a mysticism (if you will) that would allow this. In this sense we (you and me and all of us) are in a post-modern quandary where---and I will use Kelly and the QRS as an emblem of this 'problem'---we live in an inner reality of knowledge of our extreme and dangerous uncertainty, in which even the existence and stability of our very selves is doubted and undermined, but desperately seeking and clammoring for a solid ground on which to stand, and to Exist. The 'problem' of the QRS is essentially a post-modern problem, in perhaps a similar way that Chesterton expressed it about Huxley and modernism generally.

"The problem as I see it---again Kelly might be an emblem here---is that in its desperation to discover and even conquer an unassailable position within a dangerous sea of uncertainty and 'post-modern angst', the mind contrives, even against the 'body' itself, a group of insistances that it 'inflicts' upon itself. It forces 'the body' to live in a sort of prison-camp that dries up the body (the Self in cohabitation with the physical structure that houses it) and almost parasitically feeds off the body's physical energy. This is an example of the way a (destructive) mental system has acute effects on the self, the body and the living of life, and is 'pathological' in my book. Again, I would describe the QRS position, and certainly Kelly's position (as a female disciple and practitioner of the QRS 'doctrines', as their little experiement on 'Woman'), as extremely post-modernistic and as an example of extremism, missapprehension.

"I am also aware that the closer one comes to defining a sensible critique of QRS position and derived positions, the more the rhetorical engines and intellectual contraptions that support it---literally uphold it---will be brought to bear. As I said, if an element of The System, a brick within it, is disturbed, there is danger for the whole System."
_________________________________________________________

Well, the rhetorical engines were certainly dragged out and kick-started. But they were---alas!---not intelligent ones at all; they sputtered a little, some black smoke came out, and then they died.

There are a few different areas with pithy points:

• This 'A is A' mishegoss is an absurd distraction. It is peculiarly 'adolescent' insofar as it has awe-value for a starry-eyed kid, but when you really examine it, it is empty. As someone said: it is a mundanity dressed up as a profundity. It is a 'dazzler' though and people can be tricked by it. I would like to call to your attention, oh ye TBs, that each one of you has a different definition for it, and each one casts onto it his own Holy Meaning.
• A is A functions, then, as a sort of group-fetish where it doesn't matter that the definition of its value is different, one has easy recourse to the Fetish-Value and can say, Oh man, that A is A, I was pondering it this AM and---boing!---my mind was cast into the Infinite! I had to fight my way back to consensus reality!
• There is an almost mystical meaning attached to it, a secret meaning, an inside meaning, but this is rendered absurd because there is in fact no clear and fixed definition of it's meaning, it's value or its relevance. It begins to FUNCTION like a glyph or a cipher, as a mystical symbol, insofar as you can project on it what you will.
• What I find often peculiar is all the stuff (for example in these wonderful and 'rich' paragraphs) that the TBs never take up. For example, the problem of Existential Angst, the problem of uncertainty and the effect on the 'atomized modern individual'. Can no one recognize that in modernity a prime issue is the direct threat to the individual? Does no one recognize that it is often 'angst' that drives us along, cobbling together meaning where we manage to find it, and often insisting that we find it, or concocting it, because the person must desperately affirm his existence. Can no one of you see the GF doctrines as an attempt to 'force the issue'? Can no one even register the possibility that it is part of 'desperate manoeuvre' to achieve 'solidity' in a crumbling world?
• Can no one see that this Kelly---the female convert to the GF Doctrines of Masculinity---dries up as a result; submerges her femininity under a false and distorted mask of masculinity? Name one other woman who 'embraces' the GF doctrines. Sue? Lift up the lid and *see*! It is sort of a strange analogy, but you boys of GF have a little female convert with whom you can *have your way*, supported by vague word-forumulas, pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, algebraic flips, rhetorical redundancies, and chummy complicities.
• No one, it seems, will take into consideration the possibility---which is more a 'fact'---that mental idea-structures do have a marked effect on 'the body', on the mind, on the personality, and on the emotions. Y'all seem to feel these doctrines are the Ultimate Balm, but can you even consider the possibility that it may not be this way, in fact?
• The term 'post-modernist' is thrown around here like the worst of all curses, yet I assert that all of you are squarely in the post-modern problem. But you trick yourself and start to look like 'QRStian fools with varnish'd faces' when you attempt to construct certainty on such a flimsy basis. It looks like a false-certainty that when it is attacked the rhetorical machineworks are brought out, the group chants begin, the ridicule begins. But only cowards and mentally deficient would pretend to take refuge in false constructs. The road to certainty is much more difficult, or the way out of difficulty is still before us.
• I will never leave you! I promise to help you through the terrible times that lie ahead.

[jupiviv]

= : equivalence symbol of identity (philosophy)
= : equivalence symbol of quantity (maths)

Equating two quantities with each other would mean the same thing as identifying them as the same qty.

1+1 means 2, and two means 1+1(two ones added together.) I'll reiterate - there is no essential difference between the logic used in different fields. If there were, logic would become meaningless.

The "means" gives you the clue that the equation is a definition-type, not an identity-type.

The logic is the same. It may be confusing because the same symbol "=" is used, but the philosophical identity is implied in the mathematical equation. Namely, 1+1=1+1, 1+1:2, 2:1+1.

A proof of this is that 1+1 is mathematically equal to 10-8, but that is not its identity. It's quantity is identical, but its identity isn't.

It would be valid to say that 1+1 or 10-8 is identical to 2. I think you are wrong in making a distinction between quantity and identity.

If your point is that the same thing can be identified in different ways(i.e, can appear differently), then I agree. In a sense, all the different things are identical to each other, as there is ultimately only the Totality.

[jupiviv]

You also seem to be unwilling to acknowledge your improper use of the equality sign in the law of identity. The statement as you presented it is one of mathematical equality, not of existential identity. The two statements are related, but not interchangeable.

You're right, in that a statement of identity may not necessarily be one of mathematical equality, but a statement of mathematical equality is necessarily a statement of identity.

No meaningful discussion occurs when one of the parties is locked into binary thinking.

A meaningless discussion would only occur if two persons are locked into a deluded kind of binary thinking, i.e, when they think that what they think is right even if proven wrong.

@Cousinbasil,

On the other hand, if two people were completely different to each other in their thought, they couldn't have a discussion. But I don't think that is possible. The logical axioms which control thought are the same for everyone. The purpose of any discussion is to arrive at the solution to a problem, and there can be only one solution to any problem.

No, I think I have the same definition of "discussion." What I was disagreeing with was your use of the word "only" in "discussions can only arise" when two people are thinking differently. Specifically, you are referring to the exchange of information, maybe that is the word you need to be using.

As I define a discussion, it is a mutual effort to find out what is true for both parties, and this means that none of the parties involved know what is true for both of them. So obviously there has to be some difference in their thought, but at the same time there has to be a connection - the connection being their mutual effort to find out what is true for both of them.

[cousinbasil]

As I define a discussion, it is a mutual effort to find out what is true for both parties, and this means that none of the parties involved know what is true for both of them. So obviously there has to be some difference in their thought, but at the same time there has to be a connection - the connection being their mutual effort to find out what is true for both of them.

Some difference, yes. But enough common ground against which to highlight the differences and make the differences in effect an aberration which must be corrected - ergo the communication. At the very least, as I have said, is protocol of some sort.

You also said:

The purpose of any discussion is to arrive at the solution to a problem, and there can be only one solution to any problem.

Both these statements are wrong, though. First, there are many purposes to discussion. A discussion may be had for enjoyment, say. Unless you are calling the initial absence of that enjoyment a "problem," such a discussion would not be solving any problem. And the second part of the statement: "There can be only one solution to any problem" is patently false - I don't even think I need to explain why.

[jupiviv]

Some difference, yes. But enough common ground against which to highlight the differences and make the differences in effect an aberration which must be corrected - ergo the communication. At the very least, as I have said, is protocol of some sort.

As I define it, the purpose of discussion is to establish truth, and not to eliminate differences or communication. Those are the means to the end. If one of the parties refuses to accept the truth after it is established, that doesn't mean that it is not fruitful, or that the other party must put in any more effort.

First, there are many purposes to discussion. A discussion may be had for enjoyment, say. Unless you are calling the initial absence of that enjoyment a "problem," such a discussion would not be solving any problem.

As I said, we define discussion differently. To me, the purpose of any discussion is to arrive at truth. Otherwise, it is at best a meaningless discussion.

And the second part of the statement: "There can be only one solution to any problem" is patently false - I don't even think I need to explain why.

I meant that only the logical solution to any problem is right - do you disagree with this? Besides, you have to choose any one solution to a problem, no matter how many you can choose from, and that is effectively the solution to the problem.

[cousinbasil]

I meant that only the logical solution to any problem is right - do you disagree with this? Besides, you have to choose any one solution to a problem, no matter how many you can choose from, and that is effectively the solution to the problem.

You are saying the logical solution to a problem. There could be several. Take a common min/max problem from calculus. The problem could be something like given a shape of container that is expressible as a function in 3 dimensions, what is the minimum surface area it can have to enclose a given volume? In other words, a manufacturer might desire to expend the least cost on materials. There might be several distinct relative dimensions of the object while enclosing the same smallest (minimum) volume. IOW, there could be an answer set containing more than one answer. You said only the logical solution is right; maybe you meant that the right answer(s) are logical? That is different, correct? What if there is a best answer instead of a right one? Do you mean those two notions are the same for the purposes of this discussion? I can agree with that. But again I do not think there would always be only one best - or right - answer to any possible problem. For I think we all have encountered situations for which several alternative options have seemed "equally good (or bad.)"

[Kelly Jones]

= : equivalence symbol of identity (philosophy)
= : equivalence symbol of quantity (maths)

Equating two quantities with each other would mean the same thing as identifying them as the same qty.

They aren't equated. They are two different definitions of the same symbol. Like:

orange: colour with equal parts of red and yellow.
orange: a citrus fruit that is the above colour.

So,

=: equivalence symbol of identity, used in philosophy (and everything else)
=: equivalence symbol of quantity, used in mathematics, that is equivalent in identity with itself.

If your point is that the same thing can be identified in different ways(i.e, can appear differently), then I agree. In a sense, all the different things are identical to each other, as there is ultimately only the Totality.

The latter isn't what I'm getting at. A=A refers to the appearance of a thing, which is itself, and only itself. If the appearance is slightly different, the identity is different. This is all stuff from the first stage, not the second (of interpretation).

You may have assumed I'm only saying that maths defines things using the "means" or "is equivalent to" or "is identical to the quantity of". But all definitions work like that, by attributing meaning to terms.

Meaning or interpretation comes after the law of identity. But it also relies on the law of identity, to be recognised as precisely what it is.


..

[jupiviv]

You said only the logical solution is right; maybe you meant that the right answer(s) are logical? That is different, correct?

Yes, I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I meant that between the logical and illogical solutions/answers, only the most logical one is right. And I'm also not talking from the empirical point of view, where there may be several logical answers relative to several points of view. In purely logical matters, this is not the case. For example, there can be only one right answer to the question - "are emotions delusions?" - given that the definitions of "emotion" and "delusion" is constant for everyone.

However, there is only one logical answer for a single point of view even in the empirical world, as in your calculus problem.

What if there is a best answer instead of a right one?

I don't think that is possible.

@Kelly Jones, I think I understand now. If A and B are equated, then that would mean that they are the same thing, and therefore would be 3rd entity, C. But even this is basically the law of identity. If I'm identifying A and B in the "first stage", then I'm still identifying the same thing, or else I couldn't identify them.

Meaning or interpretation comes after the law of identity. But it also relies on the law of identity, to be recognised as precisely what it is.

So are you saying that the meaning of a thing is something more than what it appears to be? I would disagree. If a thing appears a certain way in one point of time, then that is it's meaning in that point of time. All appearances must occur in time, so the meaning of an appearance cannot be separated from the time in which it appears.

[Kelly Jones]

I think I understand now. If A and B are equated, then that would mean that they are the same thing,

If they are absolutely identical, one would not use different symbols to represent them, A and B.

I think what you're getting at here is that A is a term (a label), and B is the concept to which A is applied, so that label A has the meaning of value B. In this case, the law of identity operates thus: A=A, B=B, A:B=A:B, but not A=B.

If I'm identifying A and B in the "first stage", then I'm still identifying the same thing, or else I couldn't identify them.

If you're identifying A as a label for concept B, then the identity is "A:B=A:B".

Kelly: Meaning or interpretation comes after the law of identity. But it also relies on the law of identity, to be recognised as precisely what it is.

Jupta: So are you saying that the meaning of a thing is something more than what it appears to be?

The meaning is the meaning. It's not something more than itself. The meaning is like a form or label given to an appearance of a thing. The meaning or interpretation of a thing is "more" than the appearance, in this sense, but it is also what it is.

If a thing appears a certain way in one point of time, then that is it's meaning in that point of time. All appearances must occur in time, so the meaning of an appearance cannot be separated from the time in which it appears.

That's right. Sheer, uninterpreted appearance can be conceptually separated from an interpretation, since the interpretation isn't certain, while the appearance cannot be doubted in any way. For instance, an invisible cube-shaped image can be projected onto empty space, creating a form that wasn't there. The appearance of this conceptual image cannot be doubted, and the experience of defining it as a cube cannot be doubted (this has the same direct experiential nature). What doesn't have the same indubitable quality is the content of the definition / interpretation.

The direct experience is A=A, while the definition is the attribution of meaning A:B (which nonetheless relies on A=A).


..

[jupiviv]

If they are absolutely identical, one would not use different symbols to represent them, A and B.

I think it's valid to use different symbols to represent the same thing, provided we know that. It's done all the time in both philosophy and the sciences. (1+1) and (5-3) are the same thing, but we may represent them whichever way we like, as long as we know that they're identical(A=A).

I don't think there is anything called "sheer, uninterpreted appearance". All appearances mean something in the moment they appear, and it is our fault if we can't understand that. It is equally as valid to string together some appearances and call them one thing(appearance) with a meaning, which is what you are calling "meaning." But this doesn't mean that each of those appearances can't have meaning in themselves.

[jupiviv]

I think this discussion is getting too much into semantics. I think we can all agree that no matter how we choose to conceive of things, A=A would always be our basic thought.

[Kelly Jones]

Semantics is very important, deconstruction-wise.

Reality vs. the forms (interpretations) is an important distinction to make. It helps reveal that all the meanings we impose are ultimately infinitely relative and not intrinsic to reality itself. A=A is empty of intrinsic meaning. It points to nothing in particular. All meanings for A have no ultimate rest but in that emptiness.

I found this little snippet from Douglas Adams, perhaps his wisest output ever:

I thought about [evolution] for a while and it finally occurred to me that a tautology is something that means nothing, not only that no information has gone into it, but that no consequence has come out of it. So we may have accidentally stumbled upon the ultimate answer; it's the only thing, the only force, arguably the most powerful of which we are aware, which requires no other input, no other support from any other place, is self-evident, hence tautological, but nevertheless astonishly powerful in its effects. It's hard to find anything that corresponds to that, and I therefore put it at the beginning of one of my books. I reduced it to what I thought were the bare essentials, which are very similar to the ones you [persons at "Digital Biota 2"] came up with earlier, which were "Anything that happens happens, anything that in happening causes something else to happen causes something else to happen and anything that in happening causes itself to happen again, happens again." In fact you don't even need the second two because they flow on from the first one, which is self-evident and there's nothing else you need to say; everything else flows from that. So I think we have in our grasp here a fundamental, ultimate truth, against which there is no gainsaying. It was spotted by the guy who said this is a tautology. Yes, it is, but it's a unique tautology in that it requires no information to go in, but an infinite amount of information comes out of it. So I think that it is arguably therefore the prime cause of everything in the universe. BIg claim, but I feel I'm talking to a sympathetic audience.

— Douglas Adams, from extemporaneous speech Is there an artificial God?, 1998

..

[Kelly Jones]

All appearances mean something in the moment they appear

Meaning requires evaluation. It's conceptual, so it's based on cognition, and so is fluid rather than fixed. There is no objective reality where things have intrinsic meanings.


..

[jupiviv]

I'm not talking about the meaning of A=A itself, but about a single appearance, which has meaning because A=A. What is the meaning of an appearance? In this sense it has intrinsic meaning, since it can't have any other meaning.

In the extract you provided, Douglas Adams seems to be saying that the "anything that happens" is the primary cause for everything, but that "anything" in turn must have causes.

[Talking Ass]

Kelly wrote: "Reality vs. the forms (interpretations) is an important distinction to make. It helps reveal that all the meanings we impose are ultimately infinitely relative and not intrinsic to reality itself. A=A is empty of intrinsic meaning. It points to nothing in particular. All meanings for A have no ultimate rest but in that emptiness."

It seems useful to hold this idea in front of one, and perhaps to return to it every once in a while. Still, or also, it seems 'reasonably impossible' that, in actual fact, a person can become or remain free of the tendency or need to assign meaning. Also, to say that assigning meaning is not intrinsic to reality itself, is fairly obviously false, for if we are part of 'reality' whatever we are doing in reality is intrinsic to reality.

So, there are a few levels. One is an assumption: that it is possible to arrive at a state where there is no typical mental activity, no 'three-ring circus in the mind', no interpretation, no assignment of 'value', and perhaps especially no egoic self-centeredness---like a big baby plopped down in reality or like Diebert's 'abyss'---that is distorting 'reality', which of course is what is meant by 'delusion'.

But there are numerous problems here, not the least of which being that this view or assertion may very well be impossible, and so in that sense it is idealistic, and that such an idealism is a particular 'activity', a doing---an imposition.

That by assuming that such a state is desirable and attainable, one is engaged right there in a delusion, since it is possible that such a state is more a reference-point for mental sobriety, a way to remind oneself that not everything one believes is exclusively 'real'. It is a way to slow down, to become a little 'empty'.

There is a danger here though too. That being that one might take up these assumptions, or a group of assumptions and praxis, and attempt to force them on oneself. To insist that it MUST be this way and that therefor I will MAKE it be this way. One could use such a view or doctrine as a way to jettison what is a vast cultural or intellectual achievement, and in a false sense return to 'nothingness'.

It seems to me also that these doctrines could so very easily be used in a 'post-modern' and relativist project, and that possibly there is a direct line between a Nietzschean post-modernistic 'relativism' and this use of (what I assume are essentially) Buddhist concepts and practices.

"A=A is empty of intrinsic meaning. It points to nothing in particular. All meanings for A have no ultimate rest but in that emptiness."

So far, no use of this view or doctrine has ever seemed 'empty of intrinsic meaning'. Rather it is always charged with great meaning and even a certain ferocity of meaning.

It seems to me and it has always seemed to me that these doctrines are quickly transformed into a very specific 'project' for an individual who has lost his bearings in his own culture and who has been threatened with a sort of 'annihilation' or dissolution. In the intense assault (that is modernity) the individual enters into a House of Mirrors where everything appears distorted, dangerous, wicked even. Intuitively, he senses the need for some sort of life-raft, and so clings to whatever he might be able to grab hold of that will enable him to 'handle' and 'control' a confusing reality, very threatening to the self.

To say that everything about our thinking and understanding is 'ultimately infinitely relative' is to dive head first right into the pool of post-modern relativism, and it might function in a similar way: an escape into no-value, no-decision, in short a sort of nihilism.

The questions I ask, the comments I make, are not so much to question the doctrine in some 'chemically pure form' but more to comment on the way they are used, which is different altogether.

If you really went into A is A you would simply shut up and never have any reason to say anything, or think anything. But everyone here is filled with the most extraordinary opinions...

[Anders Schlander]

If i may jump in; an existence is what it is, it's hot because it's hot. A hot object is not intrinsically hot, so does not carry the meaning of hot intrinsically, but only relatively, when somebody, in this case, touches the object and receives appropriate signals.

If nobody was alive to see the sun shine, would the sun emit heat?, would there be a sound without any senses?
Whenever something exists, we can't say with 100% certainty why, we can only work with what exists, as there can be nothing other to work with.

However, in the moment that somebody touches the object, then the meaning 'hot' exists instrinsically in that very moment.

Quoting you Jupi:

Jupi says "I'm not talking about the meaning of A=A itself, but about a single appearance, which has meaning because A=A. What is the meaning of an appearance? In this sense it has intrinsic meaning, since it can't have any other meaning.
"
When you say 'in this sense it has intrinsic meaning/existence, since it can't have any other meaning', and that's what im getting at aswell, that in the very moment of something existing, it exists as itself, and nothing else, and thus, you could say it is intrinsically itself in this moment. But what we shouldn't forget is that the existence is caused by everything else, and that it's Nature being itself in any one moment, not any object or thought on it's own.

[jupiviv]

When you say 'in this sense it has intrinsic meaning/existence, since it can't have any other meaning', and that's what im getting at aswell, that in the very moment of something existing, it exists as itself, and nothing else, and thus, you could say it is intrinsically itself in this moment. But what we shouldn't forget is that the existence is caused by everything else, and that it's Nature being itself in any one moment, not any object or thought on it's own.

Precisely. Things can appear only in time, but time is within Nature.