GENIUS FORUMS

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I could easily say the same for you if I were to press identities and personal fantasies on you, in fact you seem to have mentioned those very words.. in terms of 'here's what you are doing badly', 'here's what I'm able to do properly'.

Sow's big adventure ...

Like a flowing liquid. It's not really a problem though. If you are enlightened you know the physics of the flow of particles.

It's not a problem for a mind to conceive of a flow of particles.
There could well be a problem concerning the flow of particles a mind conceives of. simply because it's theoretical.

What is required is an access to the unconditioned essence of reality.
An access entailing certainty.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

A=A is childish

A=A is an ontological principle,
expression of the unconditioned essence of reality which is opposed to the empirical reality which in turn is evolution (causality)
The principle of identity displays the essence of reality: only that which is identical to itself is real.
the empirical world is ever-changing, therefore it is not real.
Thus the empirical world has an illusory character, because phenomena are ever-changing, and empirical reality is unknowable.

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. As you say, the relative (empirical) world abides in a state of perpetual flux, and any appearance of stability is illusory. Still, there is the appearance of stable (enduring) things, and therefore, we must have a way of identifying these various things so that we may communicate them to others. The law of identity merely enables us to communicate such things without equivocation, an so it is a linguistic principle.

A "phenomenological" principle?

How Kantian.

There is no "thing-in-itself" apart from how it appears to a cognisant observer, since such a thing could not possibly appear to be anything than what it is! To say otherwise is truly ontological.

I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that 'immediate certainty,' as well as 'absolute knowledge' and the 'thing in itself,' involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO; we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! NIETZSCHE

Notice, that he has "thing-in-itself" in the same category as the qualified terms "(immediate) certainty" and "(absolute) knowledge".

Jehu,
concede that A=A can be phenomenological,
concerned with our knowledge (justified belief) and our languaging.

and

ontological,
concerned with being qua being,
the nature of our world and reality,the nature of appearance divorced from assigned attributes.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Like a flowing liquid. It's not really a problem though. If you are enlightened you know the physics of the flow of particles.

It's not a problem for a mind to conceive of a flow of particles.
There could well be a problem concerning the flow of particles a mind conceives of. simply because it's theoretical.

What is required is an access to the unconditioned essence of reality.
An access entailing certainty.

Well my computer image at the top, is very similar to the real video image which is the larger picture...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum ... 7611;image

I created my computer image before the video was made.

And here is the video...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 ... ef=science

If I am getting close to the actual identity, that is good enough for me. I have the physics for scales much smaller than this. If they are this close, then who is going to argue that the sphere are sometimes more stretched a bit? If a sphere is stretched I call that the flow direction.

But do you still call it a chair?... that's the point.

A = A... any scale?

A is A can be the only foundation of any intelligent discourse. If the intelligent sphere has no terms on which it can agree then all further discourse is useless. If A (subject) cannot be exclusively claimed to be A (predicate) then there is nothing to discuss further - any term and landmark can be changed on a whim independtly. It's a necessary requirement of further intelligent investigation that terms can be described by a coherent system.

Tenver- wrote:A is A can be the only foundation of any intelligent discourse. If the intelligent sphere has no terms on which it can agree then all further discourse is useless. If A (subject) cannot be exclusively claimed to be A (predicate) then there is nothing to discuss further - any term and landmark can be changed on a whim independtly. It's a necessary requirement of further intelligent investigation that terms can be described by a coherent system.

But isn't enlightenment a way to see true nature? My image is still true nature, it is more true than the chair itself. If you can see inside the workings of nature then surely even if you can't communicate it to others you are still enlightened.

If A = A is not about enlightenment then why bother discussing it on the site about enlightenment?

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Tenver- wrote:A is A can be the only foundation of any intelligent discourse. If the intelligent sphere has no terms on which it can agree then all further discourse is useless. If A (subject) cannot be exclusively claimed to be A (predicate) then there is nothing to discuss further - any term and landmark can be changed on a whim independtly. It's a necessary requirement of further intelligent investigation that terms can be described by a coherent system.

But isn't enlightenment a way to see true nature? My image is still true nature, it is more true than the chair itself. If you can see inside the workings of nature then surely even if you can't communicate it to others you are still enlightened.

If A = A is not about enlightenment then why bother discussing it on the site about enlightenment?

I'm not sure what enlightenment is. I consider any man as regretably clueless as the other. A = A to me is just a formal law of thought, a requirement for shared use of individual thought so to speak. Just as well an intelligent (ie. the use of the intellect and powers of thought) rest in a reality beyond one's own powers. It is necessary that something stays the same from viewpoint to viewpoint and A (subject) = A (predicate) secures that. It's an intervowen relationship between a subject and a description of it. If these are not universally secured then everything is "lost in translation" so to speak. At some point, distinctions must be made and if we attribute two conflicting attributes to an object simultaneuosly then no further progress can be made.

For the OP, the law of identity cannot contradict. It absolves inherent contradiction. There an example from Otto Weininger's Sex and Character where he quotes someone else, something I stumbled upon during my current read of it, that f.ex. "The unlearned man is learned". This is a contradiction. It cannot be. Surely, you could make arguments that "the unlearned man" has "learned" other stuff than what the term "unlearned/learned" is referring to and can therefore be "learned" while being "unlearned". At some point though, you must make the distinction and decide that learned/unlearned refers to specific qualities and if the man (A, subject) is learned (A, predicate) then he cannot be unlearned (B, predicate). Only then can you characterize the man and make further intelligent discourse on him, hopefully for the better. It gives him an identity, not necessarily as a man but as an object, and only then does it make sense to refer to this identity in one situation and in another. We must define the terms before we can make any use of them. I cannot both put an igniter and gasoline in my car unless they refer to seperate, distinctive qualities. This could just as well refer to the whole universe which does not allow for contradiction in an ultimate sense and where a (possibly consoling) reality is offered. If we have not defined the igniter and the gasoline, then no work of the intellectual sphere will be useful and sharing of things associated with the intelligence in the brain will be futile.

The universe consists of an Absolute in the form of a single all-encompassing intelligible system in which each element has a necessary place.
This Absolute—the universe as a whole—is held to be the only true "particular".
(absolute meaning loosened from. unattached)

It is necessary that something stays the same from viewpoint to viewpoint and A (subject) = A (predicate) secures that.

Elements can have 'universals' or characteristics, properties, functions or identities.
To take an element out of the whole (true Context) and identify it as separately existing is to fail to characterise it.
No thing-in-itself exists.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Tenver- wrote:A is A can be the only foundation of any intelligent discourse. If the intelligent sphere has no terms on which it can agree then all further discourse is useless. If A (subject) cannot be exclusively claimed to be A (predicate) then there is nothing to discuss further - any term and landmark can be changed on a whim independtly. It's a necessary requirement of further intelligent investigation that terms can be described by a coherent system.

But isn't enlightenment a way to see true nature? My image is still true nature, it is more true than the chair itself. If you can see inside the workings of nature then surely even if you can't communicate it to others you are still enlightened.

If A = A is not about enlightenment then why bother discussing it on the site about enlightenment?

To be enlightened is to know the true nature of things, and the ability to reason truly (i.e., by the three laws of thought) is the key to unlocking that knowledge. For if we were not endowed with the faculty of reason, then we would be forever bound by the appearance of things; like those miserable creatures who dwell in Plato's cave.

Jehu wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Tenver- wrote:A is A can be the only foundation of any intelligent discourse. If the intelligent sphere has no terms on which it can agree then all further discourse is useless. If A (subject) cannot be exclusively claimed to be A (predicate) then there is nothing to discuss further - any term and landmark can be changed on a whim independtly. It's a necessary requirement of further intelligent investigation that terms can be described by a coherent system.

But isn't enlightenment a way to see true nature? My image is still true nature, it is more true than the chair itself. If you can see inside the workings of nature then surely even if you can't communicate it to others you are still enlightened.

If A = A is not about enlightenment then why bother discussing it on the site about enlightenment?

To be enlightened is to know the true nature of things, and the ability to reason truly (i.e., by the three laws of thought) is the key to unlocking that knowledge. For if we were not endowed with the faculty of reason, then we would be forever bound by the appearance of things; like those miserable creatures who dwell in Plato's cave.

I don't think I will ever understand it. None of the English makes sense to me. I think I'll just invent my own version of Enlightenment. Pincho's Enlightenment.. no poetry allowed.

To be enlightened is to know the true nature of things, and the ability to reason truly (i.e., by the three laws of thought) is the key to unlocking that knowledge. For if we were not endowed with the faculty of reason, then we would be forever bound by the appearance of things; like those miserable creatures who dwell in Plato's cave.

What the above means, Pincho, is that even though delirium, for example, is still "true nature" (as you have understood the term) and even more true than "the chair" (or any thing else) itself, it's nevertheless delirium (its "true nature")...

You do still sit on chairs, right?

I mean, you know, you don't go around sitting on pikes just because you think everything is ultimately composed of spheres.

Pincho Paxton wrote: I don't think I will ever understand it. None of the English makes sense to me. I think I'll just invent my own version of Enlightenment. Pincho's Enlightenment.. no poetry allowed.

When the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid wrote: “There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words.”, he may well have been speaking about the state of present day metaphysics, for despite the vast number of treatises that have been written concerning the rudimentary concepts of metaphysics, no real consensus has been reached with respect to the precise meanings of such terms as: “nature”, “being”, “reality” or “causality”, to name but a few. This is especially troubling as, in my opinion, the only rational way to discover the true nature of things is through a linguistic analysis of such abstract metaphysical terms. However, because of the level of abstraction entailed in such an analysis, it is important to first establish a precise language, for the fidelity of the information communicated by a language is diminished by the amount of ambiguity that it entails. In other words, the greater the number of senses (i.e., conventionally prescribed meanings) associated with a given linguistic term, the more apt we are to misinterpret the user's intended meaning. Hence, the critical importance of the Law of Identity.

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.

I mean, you know, you don't go around sitting on pikes just because you think everything is ultimately composed of spheres.

maybe P's right.

sitting on a pike gets a sore ring ):
it's tempting to view his picture as laden with sexual metaphor.
He might need a root.

things banging against each other):

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.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I think I'll just invent my own version of Enlightenment. Pincho's Enlightenment

Dennis Mahar wrote:He might need a root.

Big Bang and a flow of particles.

Vlad's a Dad.

Jehu wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote: I don't think I will ever understand it. None of the English makes sense to me. I think I'll just invent my own version of Enlightenment. Pincho's Enlightenment.. no poetry allowed.

When the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid wrote: “There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words.”, he may well have been speaking about the state of present day metaphysics, for despite the vast number of treatises that have been written concerning the rudimentary concepts of metaphysics, no real consensus has been reached with respect to the precise meanings of such terms as: “nature”, “being”, “reality” or “causality”, to name but a few. This is especially troubling as, in my opinion, the only rational way to discover the true nature of things is through a linguistic analysis of such abstract metaphysical terms. However, because of the level of abstraction entailed in such an analysis, it is important to first establish a precise language, for the fidelity of the information communicated by a language is diminished by the amount of ambiguity that it entails. In other words, the greater the number of senses (i.e., conventionally prescribed meanings) associated with a given linguistic term, the more apt we are to misinterpret the user's intended meaning. Hence, the critical importance of the Law of Identity.

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.

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.

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)

lol Dennis, took me longer than it should have to laugh.