Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Cahoot wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote:It's strange how you all understand each other when the English is so mixed up. Like pike.. I had to look it up. When Dan used location instead of scale nobody seemed to notice. Maybe you are all just pretending to understand each other, or you are all the same person. I can't see how scale changing to location doesn't cause confusion between all of you.
You're not an alien are you? (referencing the all of you/me dichotomy).

Is English your first language? ("English is my second language. I don't have a first." - Bill Murray)
Location, and scale would only get mixed together poetically. A pike is from the World War. Causality is used incorrectly on here. Life is a dream state doesn't make sense. Not knowing what holes are is weird. Swearing like turrets is not sociable.

It's not me that is wrong on here. I stand out because I am the only Genius on a Genius forum.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Cahoot »

Rationality rarely makes an impression on self-concept, let alone kick a dent (into self-concept), thus the usefulness of penetrating humor.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Cahoot wrote:Rationality rarely makes an impression on self-concept, let alone kick a dent (into self-concept), thus the usefulness of penetrating humor.
Rarely is good enough for me. If something is rare, I find it.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Dan Rowden »

Pincho Paxton wrote:When Dan used location instead of scale nobody seemed to notice.
Please cite this instance.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Cahoot »

Pincho Paxton wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Rationality rarely makes an impression on self-concept, let alone kick a dent (into self-concept), thus the usefulness of penetrating humor.
Rarely is good enough for me. If something is rare, I find it.
Penetration need not be blunt force that kicks dents. Information can slip through the points where armor must flex, through the chinks as the saying goes, prompting a choiceless response to fortify the self-conceptual armor into immobility, or drop the armor.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote:When Dan used location instead of scale nobody seemed to notice.
Please cite this instance.
Dennis I mean.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Cahoot wrote:
Pincho Paxton wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Rationality rarely makes an impression on self-concept, let alone kick a dent (into self-concept), thus the usefulness of penetrating humor.
Rarely is good enough for me. If something is rare, I find it.
Penetration need not be blunt force that kicks dents. Information can slip through the points where armor must flex, through the chinks as the saying goes, prompting a choiceless response to fortify the self-conceptual armor into immobility, or drop the armor.
More poetry, less rationality, and too much self concept.

Kes kik a bo agenst a wo, an yed it wi ya yed until it bosses.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Cahoot »

Don Pincho wrote:Kes kik a bo agenst a wo, an yed it wi ya yed until it bosses.
Speech impediment?
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Jehu »

Cahoot wrote: Dropping pronouns and the verb "to be" from the transmission also advances the intent of precision. Because of the powerful link entwining language and thought, a series of "to be" descriptions will encourage perception of memory-based habits rather than perception of what is. "To be" confers undue weight. Sky is sky, blue is blue, but transmitting "it is blue" gimps up the reception with pronoun and verb while crabbing away from truth; sacrifices precision to thought-less habits of expression.

On the other hand, that verb and the pronouns packs a lot more information into the transmission, for the receptor that can filter out the static.
Indeed, language and thought are inextricably bound, but the use of language need not interfere with our perception of the world, so long as we understand that when we say “what a thing is”, we are only speaking with respect to its appearance (i.e., the phenomenal experience). However, the verb “to be” is indispensable for it signifies the “relation of identity”. For example, the Law of Identity does not state that “sky is sky”, which is a mere tautology, but that:“sky is the atmosphere above a given point, especially as visible from the ground during the day.” In other words, the copula “is or are” serves to connect a given linguistic term (subject) with a conventionally prescribed definition (predicate); for a “definition” is simply an “identity statement.” Thus, the subject and predicate of an identity statement are to be taken as one and the same thing.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Cahoot »

Jehu wrote:
Cahoot wrote: Dropping pronouns and the verb "to be" from the transmission also advances the intent of precision. Because of the powerful link entwining language and thought, a series of "to be" descriptions will encourage perception of memory-based habits rather than perception of what is. "To be" confers undue weight. Sky is sky, blue is blue, but transmitting "it is blue" gimps up the reception with pronoun and verb while crabbing away from truth; sacrifices precision to thought-less habits of expression.

On the other hand, that verb and the pronouns packs a lot more information into the transmission, for the receptor that can filter out the static.
Indeed, language and thought are inextricably bound, but the use of language need not interfere with our perception of the world, so long as we understand that when we say “what a thing is”, we are only speaking with respect to its appearance (i.e., the phenomenal experience). However, the verb “to be” is indispensable for it signifies the “relation of identity”. For example, the Law of Identity does not state that “sky is sky”, which is a mere tautology, but that:“sky is the atmosphere above a given point, especially as visible from the ground during the day.” In other words, the copula “is or are” serves to connect a given linguistic term (subject) with a conventionally prescribed definition (predicate); for a “definition” is simply an “identity statement.” Thus, the subject and predicate of an identity statement are to be taken as one and the same thing.
I think that if you eliminate "to be" from a piece of writing, you will not only discover its dispensability, you will find that the writing attunes more closely with the thought/intended meaning, thus enhanced transmission and reception. The absence amplifies.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Leyla Shen »

...we are only speaking with respect to its appearance (i.e., the phenomenal experience).
No, we are not. We are speaking of its essential existence. A=A not not-A.
...so long as we understand that when we say “what a thing is”, we are only speaking with respect to its appearance
What else is there?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Cahoot »

Leyla Shen wrote:
...we are only speaking with respect to its appearance (i.e., the phenomenal experience).
No, we are not. We are speaking of its essential existence. A=A not not-A.
...so long as we understand that when we say “what a thing is”, we are only speaking with respect to its appearance
What else is there?
Appearance communicated with varying degrees of accuracy.

The atmosphere that one perceives as limitless sky, when viewed on a scale conferred by mind rather than perceived by eye, becomes thinner than the peel that surrounds an apple, and the expanse of earth known as the state of Kansas, infamously flat, in fact becomes flatter than a pancake when viewed with this scale of mind, though-thigh burning hills do exist within the topography.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:I mean, you know, you don't go around sitting on pikes just because you think everything is ultimately composed of spheres.
Talk about holes and fillers. Damn.

You are hung up on the words instead of the meaning :
Holes and fillers = Emptiness and form
Last edited by Kunga on Sat May 11, 2013 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Jehu »

Cahoot wrote: I think that if you eliminate "to be" from a piece of writing, you will not only discover its dispensability, you will find that the writing attunes more closely with the thought/intended meaning, thus enhanced transmission and reception. The absence amplifies.
I believe that you will find that every meaningful proposition comprises a subject, a predicate and a copula, which relates the subject and predicate in some meaningful way. However, if you disagree, perhaps you could provide an example?
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Jehu »

Leyla Shen wrote:
...we are only speaking with respect to its appearance (i.e., the phenomenal experience).
No, we are not. We are speaking of its essential existence. A=A not not-A.
What is the essence of a thing if not that set of perceptible qualities and features that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Pincho’s Law of the Unpoetic Bottom

Post by Kunga »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:I mean, you know, you don't go around sitting on pikes just because you think everything is ultimately composed of spheres.
Talk about holes and fillers. Damn.
Well, I am beginning to wonder if we don’t have a potential Vlad the Impaler on our hands?

At least that’s got more meat than a hypothesis dealing with how the universe eternally fucks itself into existence.

holes and fillers = emptiness and form

the universe eternally fucks itself into existence = the universe is self caused
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Cahoot »

Jehu wrote:
Cahoot wrote: I think that if you eliminate "to be" from a piece of writing, you will not only discover its dispensability, you will find that the writing attunes more closely with the thought/intended meaning, thus enhanced transmission and reception. The absence amplifies.
I believe that you will find that every meaningful proposition comprises a subject, a predicate and a copula, which relates the subject and predicate in some meaningful way. However, if you disagree, perhaps you could provide an example?
"To be" need not exist solely as the primary connector. In fact, its existence as such becomes as habitual as a crutch, for thought. Intellectually, descriptions of qualities without that mind crutch narrows the gap between actual and intended communication.

Writing without the verb reveals the examples.

When awareness awakens to "to be," then the use of the verb becomes a conscious experience, as opposed to a crutch-like habit.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Leyla Shen »

Cahoot wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:
...we are only speaking with respect to its appearance (i.e., the phenomenal experience).
No, we are not. We are speaking of its essential existence. A=A not not-A.
...so long as we understand that when we say “what a thing is”, we are only speaking with respect to its appearance
What else is there?
Appearance communicated with varying degrees of accuracy. [snip]
You mean, deduced from a set of premises based on empirical data.

Still A=A.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Leyla Shen »

Jehu wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:
...we are only speaking with respect to its appearance (i.e., the phenomenal experience).
No, we are not. We are speaking of its essential existence. A=A not not-A.
What is the essence of a thing if not that set of perceptible qualities and features that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is?
But that's what I've been saying.

You, on the other hand, suggested:
Unfortunately, it is a common misconception that the Law of Identity is an ontological principle (mainly due to Bertrand Russell), when, in fact, it is a phenomenological one. Accordingly, it has not so much to do with the way that things are in themselves (reality), as with how they appear to the cognisant observer.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Leyla Shen »

Kunga, I think that's a parallel only you are drawing and has nothing to do with Pincho's proposition.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Kunga »

Pincho never proposed the universe fucked itself into existence...that was my interpretation....
As far as the holes and fillers.......it helps to make your own parallel sometimes, to see if it makes sense ?
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Pincho Paxton »

My holes, and fillers are to do with matter in a location. Matter cannot sit in matter, so it sits in a hole. It is to do with infinity. For infinity to exist in scale it cannot exist within the same space as itself. If infinity could share 1 position with itself then the Universe would be a single point. So infinity shares its location of infinite matter with infinite holes. For a particle to move, it must move into a hole in infinity. It is called...

"Moving to the area of least resistance."

And Lego locks to the area of least resistance.

An asteroid moves towards the Earth as though it were pulled.. it is...

"Moving to the area of least resistance."

The Earth therefore has less resistance than space itself. Space is much larger than the Earth. You can look at the blackness of space into an infinite distance until the telescopes cannot see any further. The blackness is huge, and the stars are much smaller. Science has mass back to front. Space is mass, the Earth is the hole.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Cahoot »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Cahoot wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:
...we are only speaking with respect to its appearance (i.e., the phenomenal experience).
No, we are not. We are speaking of its essential existence. A=A not not-A.
...so long as we understand that when we say “what a thing is”, we are only speaking with respect to its appearance
What else is there?
Appearance communicated with varying degrees of accuracy. [snip]
You mean, deduced from a set of premises based on empirical data.

Still A=A.
Now {that} you're talkin, tell me more. ;-)
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Jehu »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Jehu wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:
...we are only speaking with respect to its appearance (i.e., the phenomenal experience).
No, we are not. We are speaking of its essential existence. A=A not not-A.
What is the essence of a thing if not that set of perceptible qualities and features that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is?
But that's what I've been saying.

You, on the other hand, suggested:
Unfortunately, it is a common misconception that the Law of Identity is an ontological principle (mainly due to Bertrand Russell), when, in fact, it is a phenomenological one. Accordingly, it has not so much to do with the way that things are in themselves (reality), as with how they appear to the cognisant observer.
I'm sorry Leyla, but I simply don't understand where the problem lies. I have said from the start that the Law of Identity is a phenomenological principle, and that it concerns the appearance of things (phenomena), and if the essence of a thing is that set of perceptible characteristics that are essential to the thing's being what it is, then essence too has to do with the appearance of things (phenomenology), and not with things in themselves (ontology).
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Contradiction in the Law of Identity

Post by Jehu »

Cahoot wrote:
Jehu wrote:
Cahoot wrote: I think that if you eliminate "to be" from a piece of writing, you will not only discover its dispensability, you will find that the writing attunes more closely with the thought/intended meaning, thus enhanced transmission and reception. The absence amplifies.
I believe that you will find that every meaningful proposition comprises a subject, a predicate and a copula, which relates the subject and predicate in some meaningful way. However, if you disagree, perhaps you could provide an example?
"To be" need not exist solely as the primary connector. In fact, its existence as such becomes as habitual as a crutch, for thought. Intellectually, descriptions of qualities without that mind crutch narrows the gap between actual and intended communication.

Writing without the verb reveals the examples.

When awareness awakens to "to be," then the use of the verb becomes a conscious experience, as opposed to a crutch-like habit.
Verbs denote relations, and as such, are abstract objects that cannot exist independent of those other things (i.e., relata) between which the relation holds. The verb “to be” denotes the relation of identity, and so must have both a subject and a predicate.
Locked