Emptiness & A=A

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by Dave Toast »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Matt wrote:Hey Dave Toast. Howya been?
Ditto
How do chaps. Not too bad ta, ups and downs, level bits, you know how it is.

How goes it around here?

The podcasts have been a laugh up to now but I've only done Victor and JQ.

How are the new crop of contrarians, entertaining? inane? both?
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by Matt Gregory »

Oh, you know. It's the usual hootenanny around here.
tharpa
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by tharpa »

I was on this forum for the first time a while back and there was a thread on A = A. I asked then and now ask again - since noone replied the first time: could someone please give a clear definition of what is meant by A = A on this forum (presumably based on something Quinn or Solway etc. have written)? I tried looking a while back but didn't find anything definitive. Then it becomes more fun to discuss it.

My take a while back was something along these lines: Because nothing in the world really is as it seems (i.e. independently existing ) A (anything) does not = A (what it seems to be). However, since everything is empty of self-nature of this sort, the next thing we can conclude is that even though a hammer doesn't actually exist as such although it appears to us to do so, a hammer is clearly a hammer. A dream is a dream. A feeling of anger is precisely what it is. As is a rose, a moment in time, bacon and eggs and all the rest of it. So from this point of view A = A.

Small note that might be helpful: the word sunya in Sanskrit does not mean empty. It means zero. So instead of something having measurable, definable qualities/properties, in fact they have none, zero. It is not quite the same as empty, which suggests void or glass with nothing in it in English. With zero it's more like that you cannot measure how much water is in the glass because there is no unit of measurement that can accurately measure waterness. Yes, you can measure the weight of water, but the weight or volume is not water. You cannot measure those qualities which make water water. They are infinite/zero. Similarly, you cannot ultimately measure the vibrancy of colour, texture, sound etc. Certain aspects of sound, relative aspects like volume in a particular place can be measured. But just as these do not measure the waterness of water, so do such measurements of sound not measure the complete qualities of such a note or noise. Like a lion's roar!
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by Matt Gregory »

tharpa
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Worth reposting

Post by tharpa »

Anna: I have seen in a few places the forum hosts have stated A=A is the foundation of logic, and some convoluted arguments about that, but no further development of the idea. I can't figure out where it ties together with your philosophy.

Dan Rowden: Well, let me try and give a hopefully succinct account of how these ideas (including A=A as the basis of existence itself) tie together:

- - - - -

A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer":

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things).

- - - - -

All things are caused, or, A=A as the basis of causality where "cause" is defined as "that which is necessary for something to exist":

Under this definition of "cause" it becomes immediately apparent that all things are caused - since any given thing requires what it is not for its existence ( its "being" is necessitated by relation to other things): those other things are necessary to its existence and are therefore causal to it. Any thing is caused by "not that thing". In many respects this is a re-stating of the above and conveys the same essential meaning. In Buddhism this is known as co-dependent origination - that things gives rise to each other due to the necessity of their relation.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of logic:

This seems totally obvious to me as A=A is the basis of consciousness itself. Consciousness requires content, things, differentiation, and A=A represents the basis of that. Without the relation between "thing" and "not-thing" there can be no things to be aware of, no content, no existence and therefore no consciousness. Since A=A symbolises the basis of consciousness it must necessarily also be the basis of all forms of thought and logic is a form of thought; it is a movement of mind necessarily containing differentiated content (i.e. "things"). A=A is foundational to this and therefore the basis of logic.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:

Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality. Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.

Anna: Well, well! Thank you for your detailed response. I find no fault with it. Right after I sent that post (below) I decided I had figured it out after all, and it has had a profound effect on my mind the past couple of days. Yet what I came up with is quite different! I wonder if it makes sense, or if I can state it. I was thinking rather concretely. You had asked, Why is a thing what it is, and why is A=A the basis for existence? So I thought, if A does not equal A, what is it? If you say it is B, that leaves you with B=B, which amounts to the same thing. But if A is not itself, it is nothing. I do not see how things can exist if a thing is not itself. If this item is not this item, it is not any item, because as soon as you say, no, it is not A, you must say what then it is. But as soon as you say what it is, it is then THAT thing. That brings you right back again to the stability of A=A. Unless every time you say it is THAT thing, it again is not THAT thing but something else yet again. This would go on forever, and nothing could exist.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, obviously I am dense, but I cannot see in any of the above examples how the commentary relates to the formula. I suspect there were earlier explanations and these are commentaries of earlier commentaries. If I am wrong, perhaps some others here could explain simply how they comments above relate to the equation. Especially the logical one. For example, right with the first sentence: "This seems totally obvious to me as A=A is the basis of consciousness itself. Consciousness requires content, things, differentiation, and A=A represents the basis of that." These statements don't make logical or any other sense without more precise definition of terms. For example, if you say 'A=A is the basis of consciousness itself', then what does the first A refer to? Why does the full equation mean the 'basis of consciousness', not just basis or consciousness. Seems like most of the expressions are rather incomplete like that.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by Matt Gregory »

You're not dense, it's just a hard concept to communicate, I think. It's not a difficult concept, it's just hard to communicate.

"A" represents any object of consciousness (and by extension, any object period). "A=A" just means that it is consistent, remembered, it doesn't change, etc.

It's not possible for A to not equal A because you would require two objects of consciousness in order to even conceive of that idea. In order to recognize change, you have to acknowledge the initial object and the object it has changed into, thus two objects.

So, to say A=A is the basis of consciousness means that consciousness requires consistent objects in order to exist.
tharpa
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

re consciousness requires objects in order to exist

Post by tharpa »

Thanks, Matt. Although I might not agree with that conclusion, it makes enough sense that I can consider it.

Now just to be sure, hopefully others including one or more of the founders will post to verify whether this is a reasonably accurate description/definition of what they mean by A = A.

Because clearly, without defining what A represents, the equation on its own could mean many different things and just saying that it means this or that or the other without explaining how doesn't make for a meaningful discussion.

As to your description, Matt, I don't see why 'A = A' is the best mathematical expression of what you wrote in that 'consciousness requires objects in order to exist'. It seems like there was a hop and skip in the logic there.

I still somewhat prefer my own slant which, simply put is: because interdependent things have no inherent separate existence and therefore are not how they appear conventionally, i.e. are like dreams, therefore such appearance is precisely what it is as such. Therefore A (appearance) = A (appearance), be it rock, river, fountain, mineral, vegetable, animal or thought form. In other words, the appearance of a hammer is not the same as the appearance of a rock or a person. All qualities are valid, precise and just so even though all qualities are inherently lacking quantifiable substance (sunya). Something like that.

A = A means a smile is exactly what it is, that particular smile.
Sunya means that you cannot exactly define this smile in measurable quanta even though it is precisely what it is in 'qualta'.

Anyway.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by Matt Gregory »

Yeah, hopefully someone else will reply. We're kind of getting sidetracked by going into whether the objects are in consciousness or have inherent existence and whatnot. A=A really has nothing to do with that! But it's almost impossible not to get sidetracked in some way talking about A=A . . . it's just too damn simple. It just means a thing can't be other than itself.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by David Quinn »

Tharpa,

You may want to read the following dialogue compiled from a stint that I did on another forum: Discussions on A=A.

Keep in mind that the concept of A=A doesn't affirm or deny any particular point of view. It doesn't affirm or negate the concept of Emptiness, for example, or co-dependent origination. It is entirely neutral, as far as viewpoints are concerned. It is something which cuts to the very heart of all viewpoints, whether they be wise or deluded.

-
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by Carl G »

A thing can't be other than itself. I can't for the life of me figure out what or where that gets me. Seems like the most elementary sort of fact -- it plus $1.75 buys me a cup of coffee -- which makes that not much more than a big "duh."
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by David Quinn »

The most awesome ideas unify all things ......

-
tharpa
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by tharpa »

David,

thank you for that reference.

In the first section we find towards the end: "David Quinn: Well, now we are heading into the realm of A=A, and the direct perception of identity.

The logical process involves recognizing the identity of a thing and, in the same moment, recognizing what it is not. For example, recognizing that the Totality cannot be a distinguishable phenomenon is part and parcel of recognizing the very identity as the Totality (namely, that it is utterly everything). This sort of reasoning is beyond doubt because all possible sources of error are absent. There is only direct perception of identity and nothing else."

Now the part about Totality being non-divisible and/or cannot be a 'distinguishable phenomenon' makes sense, also your statements about the value of logic in terms of investigating the nature of Reality. But I don't get the leap to how this is involved with 'direct perception of identity'. What is the linkage between the notions of Totality-Particularity (which are somewhat basic epistemological concepts) and 'direct perception of identity' which has to do with experience.

Please understand that I am not here to quibble. I find much of your 'material' provocatively helpful to contemplate (i.e. interesting). But I just don't understand the terminology here. Now if A = any perception/phenomenon, fine. But you seem to be defining it as 'direct perception of identity and nothing else'. For this to be making sense, that statement needs more explanation so the reader can be sure it is understood properly and then, what that has to do with the argument about Logic.
tharpa
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by tharpa »

Later on you say: "David Quinn: As far as directly perceiving things in the moment is concerned, we are only talking about appearances and nothing else. If something appears to you to be an apple, then that what it is - a thing that appears to be an apple. If in the next moment, it appears to be a stereoscopic profile of an apple, then that too is what it is - a thing which appears to be stereoscopic profile of an apple. In each case, the appearance is what it is and not something else.

That essentially is the principle of A=A. It really doesn't get any more complicated than that."

Now this makes perfect sense (to me at least) and was my understanding from earlier of what was meant, practically speaking, by A=A.

Anyway, thanks.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by David Quinn »

tharpa,
In the first section we find towards the end: "David Quinn: Well, now we are heading into the realm of A=A, and the direct perception of identity.

The logical process involves recognizing the identity of a thing and, in the same moment, recognizing what it is not. For example, recognizing that the Totality cannot be a distinguishable phenomenon is part and parcel of recognizing the very identity as the Totality (namely, that it is utterly everything). This sort of reasoning is beyond doubt because all possible sources of error are absent. There is only direct perception of identity and nothing else."

Now the part about Totality being non-divisible and/or cannot be a 'distinguishable phenomenon' makes sense, also your statements about the value of logic in terms of investigating the nature of Reality. But I don't get the leap to how this is involved with 'direct perception of identity'. What is the linkage between the notions of Totality-Particularity (which are somewhat basic epistemological concepts) and 'direct perception of identity' which has to do with experience.
Direct perception can refer to conceptual experience, just as it can refer to physical experience. Conceptually recognizing the identity of the Totality means using the mind to directly perceive the nature of what the Totality is.

Please understand that I am not here to quibble. I find much of your 'material' provocatively helpful to contemplate (i.e. interesting). But I just don't understand the terminology here. Now if A = any perception/phenomenon, fine. But you seem to be defining it as 'direct perception of identity and nothing else'. For this to be making sense, that statement needs more explanation so the reader can be sure it is understood properly and then, what that has to do with the argument about Logic.
"A" stands for any appearance that we happen to directly perceive in each moment. When I said that "there is only direct perception and nothing else", I meant that all we ever have access to are appearances, and that these appearances, experienced directly in the moment, are undeniable. There isn't any room for doubt.

-
tharpa
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:10 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by tharpa »

"A" stands for any appearance that we happen to directly perceive in each moment.

Got it. In fact, that is how I was understanding it a while back but from all the discussion (in one or two threads) thought that perhaps I had missed an earlier exposition.

Thank you.

I should and will chew on this further now the fundamental meaning and context of the terms has been clarified. That said, my initial reaction is twofold. First, that this is an accurate observation; and the way you tie it in with post-modernist apologetics is pithy; and the way it makes certainty within the context of a multiverse with multiple perceptions therein is nifty.

But in terms of the multiverse principle, second: two different beings perceiving the same 'thing' demonstrate the 'emptiness' of such a 'thing'. For example, man sitting by pond. To man the water is dangerous to live in and air is home, whereas for fish the water is home and air is dangerous. Furthermore, it is almost certain that to each the other's home element appears to have different qualities. The heavy solidity of water (compared to air) for the human is probably not experienced as such for a fish - who floats and swims therein almost effortlessly. Thus the appearance of Water to the Man is not the Appearance of Water to the fish.

So A = A is true only with the a-priori of the particular existens making the statement. Which (I believe) goes back to Goedel's theorem, that all logical statements depend upon a prioris outside the logic itself. (I am not a mathematician or philosopher/logician so perhaps this is incorrect, but that is my understanding from previous discussion with mathematicians and philosophers elsewhere.)

Finally, however, A = A works even with this example in terms of the realm of Logic alone, and I suspect this is the point you are making with it: A = A is true for the man, and A = A is true for the fish. The fact that this means that there is no constant, fixed water (or air) in the mix is irrelevant. Indeed, that's the whole point: because even though nothing solid exists necessarily, the appearance does and the appearance, being the product of observer/being and the entire matrix of causes and conditions which have produced this moment of perception, is thus true, accurate, complete and perfect, whether it is so-called enlightened perception or so-called confused perception. Which is why there can be hell and human realms, for example. They are both mere appearance but also both 'true'. So even though we cannot know the 'objective' essence of water because we can only analyse it within the context of our own level of appearance (i.e. Man cannot know what water in pond is like for a fish even though this is clearly a 'truthful' view of water), we can know how it appears to us and that is truth. So for both fish and man A = A holds true.

Now, if I am on the right track that this is what you are saying with this: so what? What's the real point here?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by David Quinn »

tharpa,
I should and will chew on this further now the fundamental meaning and context of the terms has been clarified. That said, my initial reaction is twofold. First, that this is an accurate observation; and the way you tie it in with post-modernist apologetics is pithy; and the way it makes certainty within the context of a multiverse with multiple perceptions therein is nifty.

But in terms of the multiverse principle, second: two different beings perceiving the same 'thing' demonstrate the 'emptiness' of such a 'thing'. For example, man sitting by pond. To man the water is dangerous to live in and air is home, whereas for fish the water is home and air is dangerous. Furthermore, it is almost certain that to each the other's home element appears to have different qualities. The heavy solidity of water (compared to air) for the human is probably not experienced as such for a fish - who floats and swims therein almost effortlessly. Thus the appearance of Water to the Man is not the Appearance of Water to the fish.
A few points need to be said here:

- You have no way of knowing whether other conscious beings really exist, other than as appearances in your own consciousness. If it appears that a fish exists and has different perceptions than you, then that is the identity of that particular appearance which is presented to your mind.

- Even if you assume that other beings really exist, the fact that they might perceive the same object differently to you doesn't have any bearing on the identity of that object. For it is simply a case of the same object being perceived differently.

- And as you allude to further down in your post, each appearance of the object that appears to each being's consciousness has its own specific identity.

So A = A is true only with the a-priori of the particular existens making the statement. Which (I believe) goes back to Goedel's theorem, that all logical statements depend upon a prioris outside the logic itself. (I am not a mathematician or philosopher/logician so perhaps this is incorrect, but that is my understanding from previous discussion with mathematicians and philosophers elsewhere.)
Goedel's theorems don't really come into it. The logic that each appearance necessarily has its own identity doesn't need to be supported by additional facts. It is something which is inherent in the nature of appearance itself. It is impossible for anything to appear without an identity of some kind. That is literally what appearance means.

Finally, however, A = A works even with this example in terms of the realm of Logic alone, and I suspect this is the point you are making with it: A = A is true for the man, and A = A is true for the fish. The fact that this means that there is no constant, fixed water (or air) in the mix is irrelevant. Indeed, that's the whole point: because even though nothing solid exists necessarily, the appearance does and the appearance, being the product of observer/being and the entire matrix of causes and conditions which have produced this moment of perception, is thus true, accurate, complete and perfect, whether it is so-called enlightened perception or so-called confused perception. Which is why there can be hell and human realms, for example. They are both mere appearance but also both 'true'. So even though we cannot know the 'objective' essence of water because we can only analyse it within the context of our own level of appearance (i.e. Man cannot know what water in pond is like for a fish even though this is clearly a 'truthful' view of water), we can know how it appears to us and that is truth. So for both fish and man A = A holds true.
Also, the idea of water objectively existing, beyond the realm of appearances, doesn't really mean anything. There is no such thing as objective existence, at bottom. At best, objective existence can only ever exist as an appearance.

Now, if I am on the right track that this is what you are saying with this: so what? What's the real point here?
Three main things come from it:

Firstly, the concept of A=A enables us to ground logic in the very nature of existence itself. We can establish that logic isn't a process which is disconnected from existence with its own arbitrary rules and so on. It enables us to see that the very essence of logic - namely, A=A - is identical to the very essence of existence itself (and of consciousness too, for that matter).

Secondly, it enables us to bring every kind of existence in the Universe together into the one basket, where they can be examined under the same light. It allows us to uncover the core truths which apply to all things.

Thirdly, all logical errors, all delusion, all irrationality, etc, basically spring from mental violations of A=A. So it helps us to iron out any flaws we may have in our thinking, to develop and refine our thinking to perfection.

-
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Emptiness & A=A

Post by Ataraxia »

I'm glad for this thread.I can finally say confidently I've grasped this A=A concept.It's a good day.
Locked