Several years ago...

parasapien · Post by **parasapien** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:30 pm

Several years ago I was on this forum (under some name I do not recall) , I argued in the favor of the visual image as a superior form of communication to text.

At that time I also discussed Quinn's "a=a", and nobody got it, accept for a few who seemed to hang pretty close to Quinn, and as I recall even they didn't *get it* totally.

(I mean they didn't seem to get 'A=A' not that they didnt get my portion of the discussion)

Now three or four years later I have done a lot of thinking about these subjects and I am ready to return to this forum.
I would like to take up these discussions again (if anyone remembers them) just to touch base and see if any further thought has been done about them, and just generally to enjoy some pleasant conversation.

thank you,

Parasapien

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:58 am

Welcome, Parasapien.

Now that you've had some time to think about your ideas, why don't you start by saying what you think of A=A.

parasapien · Post by **parasapien** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:24 pm

After much thought I believe I grasp the thing. As far as explaining it goes, there is a wrong way to do that and a right way to do that, and though one is wrong and one right it is often as helpful (in my experience) to know what isnâ€™t as what is.

The right way (as far as I can tell , from where I stand):

A=A is what it is.

*explanation*-(in this way the reasoning of A=A is implimented in it's description-descriptive but confusing)

The wrong way:

A=A is like something else which it isnâ€™t and can never be because itâ€™s only what is, and IS NOT a *similie*or a metaphor.
(less confusing but also less descriptive)

And now an elaboration on some of my thoughts ( which include a metaphor)which is only an elaboration on some of my thoughts (including a metaphor) and not A=A.

Through the lens of the nature of any given idea that idea colors all other ideas in such a manner that the universe becomes an explanation of the nature of the thing through which the universe is being viewed. We are such things and cannot truly escape the essential nature of what we are ever, though this does not exclude the possibility of growth or change into something more or different it does exclude the possibility of being something other than what we are at any given moment, and we remain at all of those moments simply what we are; Hence it would be erroneous to view any given thing as something other than what it is because it would be denying the essential dilemma of being, which is to be a thing (in specific).

Certainly one could BE change, or growth, but this would require change or growth and one would still be whatever one was, insomuch as one was, so again the essential dilemma of being.

I hope itâ€™s clear.

Parasapien

Blair · Post by **Blair** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:04 pm

There is no dilemma in A=A. Only a self-referential one, which can be unfolded, made simple and clear.

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:11 pm

prince,

Could you elaborate on that idea?

Sue

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:13 pm

parasapien,

Your description of what you consider A=A to mean, isn't very clear. Maybe if you gave an example - that might help.

Sue

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:31 am

Hello parasapien,

I don't suppose the name you used when with us before was "Carbon" by any chance?

Dan Rowden

parasapien · Post by **parasapien** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:57 am

drowden wrote:Hello parasapien,

I don't suppose the name you used when with us before was "Carbon" by any chance?

Dan Rowden

Actauly Dan, I think it was Carbon-60.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:15 am

I didn't find your ideas to be clear, Parasapien. Care to say it again in a different way?

parasapien · Post by **parasapien** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:52 am

sschaula wrote:I didn't find your ideas to be clear, Parasapien. Care to say it again in a different way?

Firstly, they aren't my ideas; they are my descriptions of ideas.
Secondly, I don't see how I am obliged to clarify if youâ€™re not obliged to be specific about what I should clarify.

Don't misunderstand me, I'll be glad to...only for those who are willing to explain what it is they didn't get. And if you got none of it, then another explanation is not going to do you any good.

I think if you already understood it you might offer some counter explanation, corrections enclosed. My purpose for being here is not to teach, but to be part of this, to develop what I have understood so far, refine and solidify, and certainly not to argue about my style of communication or to pick nits.

parasapien · Post by **parasapien** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:05 am

sue hindmarsh wrote:parasapien,

Your description of what you consider A=A to mean, isn't very clear. Maybe if you gave an example - that might help.

Sue

My entire entry is an example allbeit an imperfect one.
why don't you describe what you think it means Sue?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:35 am

parasapien wrote:
drowden wrote:Hello parasapien,

I don't suppose the name you used when with us before was "Carbon" by any chance?

Dan Rowden
Actauly Dan, I think it was Carbon-60.

Ah yes, I think you're right. You had your own discussion board back then. Here's a Genius News exchange from that period for anyone interested: Limitations of Art

Dan Rowden

parasapien · Post by **parasapien** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:12 am

drowden wrote:
parasapien wrote:
drowden wrote:Hello parasapien,

I don't suppose the name you used when with us before was "Carbon" by any chance?

Dan Rowden
Actauly Dan, I think it was Carbon-60.
Ah yes, I think you're right. You had your own discussion board back then. Here's a Genius News exchange from that period for anyone interested: Limitations of Art

Dan Rowden

A lot of my views and oppinions have changed since the time when I wrote many of those things, also I believe I am better equipped to express some of the things which I tried to express at that time.

At some point I would like to discuss them all again, but ...one thing at a time.

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:41 pm

Parasapien wrote to me:

My entire entry is an example allbeit an imperfect one.
why don't you describe what you think it means Sue?

Parasapien wrote to sschaula:

I think if you already understood it you might offer some counter explanation, corrections enclosed. My purpose for being here is not to teach, but to be part of this, to develop what I have understood so far, refine and solidify, and certainly not to argue about my style of communication or to pick nits.

I wasnâ€™t out to â€œargueâ€ your communication style, or â€˜nit pickâ€™, and I donâ€™t think Scott would be interested in such a waste of time either. What both of us were asking of you was a clearer definition of what you consider A=A to mean. The only reason we would ask you to clarify your point, is because we are both interested in discussing A=A.

Instead of worrying about what you considered our â€˜nit pickingâ€™, you could have just clearly answered that A=A is the basic formula for all truth. An example of this is: a widow is a woman whose husband has died and who has not married again. This is a statement of identity, and is logical. An example of A not equaling A would be: a widow is a married woman. This isnâ€™t logical, because it doesnâ€™t adhere to the law of identity.

Another example, one that you were perhaps trying to give in your â€œelaborationâ€, is: what appears to me in this moment; appears to me in this moment. This statement is a logical truth because â€œwhat appears to me in this momentâ€ can only be what it is, and not something else. If I were to say that it was something else, I would be guilty of discarding A=A, and then quite correctly be classified as an illogical thinker.
-
Sue

tharpa · Post by **tharpa** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:29 am

If someone could supply a link to the original presentation of the A=A polemic and also if someone could provide here on this thread a synopsis, I would be grateful. I have heard mention of it here and there but have not yet stumbled upon the original presentation. I presume it is more than simply saying that either something is logically consistent or not. Or?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:59 am

I don't think there's anything like an "original" A=A discussion. But this thread may and hopefully will be alluminating: A=A

Dan Rowden

bert · Post by **bert** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:25 am

A=A :
equity,the only thing I accept.

tharpa · Post by **tharpa** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:00 am

is it something like:

A = appearances (for example), i.e. causally interdependent phenomena seeming to have specific existence.

A = A means:
Appearances are exactly how they seem to be and as such are consistently so rather than saying:

A = I (Illusion), or A = S (something other/beyond their appearance).

In other words, although not really existent as such ultimately speaking, an apple is an apple not an orange or thought of an apple or mistaken notion of an apple.

In other words, illusions which are fundamentally unreal, are real illusions. A = A.

Just a guess...

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:51 pm

A=A.

Trevor has called it the law of non-contradiction, but isn't it really only the law of self-identity? What is 'equity' without self?
A may be A but it must still become what it is.

bert · Post by **bert** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:31 pm

I accept only equity:no law or doctrine can be sacred to me while my nature discloses none.

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:13 pm

Only equity? Conscious acceptance you mean. Without exception you accept your self, before all.

bert · Post by **bert** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:10 pm

A may be A but it must still become what it is.

nature is an integrating principle,never compelling uniformity.

What is 'equity' without self?

what is there to believe,but in Self?

we have erected the negation of equity into a form of existence by systems of government .

"lungs locked,lips locked,join the renaissance.
you can stop the truth from leaking." - the dresden dolls(yes,virginia)

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:21 pm

Excuse me, bert. Why is it necessary to believe in self when self exists by definition?

.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:29 pm

[scratches her head]

Maybe there will come a day when all one has to say is "A=A" and everybody will know precisely what it means without explanation.

Until then, I have no idea what everybody else thinks they are talking about.
.

R. Steven Coyle · Post by **R. Steven Coyle** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:33 pm

Somewhat ironically, everyone has interpreted A=A with A=A, so that A=A is their own self-identity made manifest.