Formlessness (inside & outside)

[Nick]

When you recognize a bicycle, as a whole, does it suddenly cease to be composed of wheels, pedals, seat and frame? No!

Actually yes it does. That would violate A=A. It is either a bike or wheels, pedals, seat, and a frame. It depends on how we are defining it and what boundaries we place on it.

Say I were to tell you that a bicycle is composed of a certain configuration of wheels, pedals, seat and frame. Then, if you found all these parts in the correct configuration you would know that you had found a bicycle - all without the need for anything other than, beyond or outside these parts.

This is another violation of A=A, a bike needs boundaries in order to exist, and if there is nothing aside from the bike it can not logically come into existence.

But without anything but a bicycle and its parts, how do you know you have a bicycle? There is nothing to contrast it against right? There is no non-bicycle.

Well, remember that you only need to know that you have wheels, pedals, seat and frame to know that you have a bicycle. Nothing more. The wheels are known by contrast against the pedals, seat and frame. The pedals are known by contrast against the wheels, seat and frame, and so on. So there is no need for anything beyond or outside that which composes the bicycle in order for you to know that this is a bicycle and not some formless nothing.

The ground that the bike rests on, the air that surrounds it, and literally everything else you can imagine are just as fundamental to the bike's existence as are the parts it is made of. All things are dependent on the things they are not for their existence, otherwise you are saying that a thing can be everything at the same time, but once this happens, the thing in question ceases to exist.

Just like the bicycle isn't formless, it is wheels, pedals, seat and frame, the Totality isn't formless, the Totality is all forms.

The Totality is not forms, it is formless by logical necessity when we define it as The Whole of all things imagined and unimagined. When we define it this way it means there is nothing aside form it, and as I've repeatedly shown you, in order for a form to exist it needs to be contrasted with something it is not, and since the Totality has nothing aside from it, it can not posses form.

[Jason]

Reasoning about reality as a whole doesn't make much sense to me. It is so abstract that it seems not to refer to anything in my experience, making it more or less meaningless.

What if someone were to claim "There is no object, in the whole Universe, that is coloured purple."?

You would only have to be in one tiny corner of the Universe and see just a small purple object to disprove this claim about the whole Universe right? So in a sense, by reasoning that "The whole Universe is not empty of purple objects, because I've seen a purple object." you would be reasoning about the whole Universe, even if you were only aware of a tiny fraction of the whole. Although perhaps that's not exactly relevant to what you meant...

If, on the other hand, the form does have internal parts or characteristics then I think it could be said to exist even if there were nothing other than it.The form could be known to exist, in its entirety, by knowing all of the internal parts/characteristics.

This seems all theoretical until we try to apply it to a specific example. What form could possibly exist that we know ALL internal parts of? That's like saying you know everything there is to know about experiencing chairs. But we can't stop change from happening, and every moment something new is presented, a new angle is experienced, and the solid logical structures we use don't really refer to what is happening. IOW, I think knowing all parts of a thing is impossible.

Note that I didn't say that all internal parts would necessarily be known in an instant, or after any particular length of time, or even after a finite length of time.

Knowing all internal parts of an object is somewhat theoretical though, I agree. I was making the claim based on principles. My aim was to show that in principle knowing the entirety of an object(or reality itself) was possible by knowing all of the internal parts of the object, and that there was no need for anything external to the object in order to know it.

But the claim that all parts of an object or reality could be known is not the only part of my argument. Just like the Universe is not completely devoid of purple objects, my other point is that since I have seen parts and forms, then the entire Universe is not devoid of parts or forms.

Also, just to add a slightly divergent point - the basic worldview that one holds, amongst other things, has bearing on this issue. If you were something like a solipsist, and believed that nothing existed beyond your own personal awareness and perception then it might be argued that you would actually know all the parts of all the objects that make up the whole of reality.

[Jason]

All very well written, Jason - but those parts are only creations of our mind! There ultimately are no things!

I personally categorize creations of the mind as "things" too. Thus, even if I were to believe that there were only mind-created things* there would still ultimately be things.

*(I generally don't believe this, but I have my moments.)

[Jason]

Well, remember that you only need to know that you have wheels, pedals, seat and frame to know that you have a bicycle. Nothing more. The wheels are known by contrast against the pedals, seat and frame. The pedals are known by contrast against the wheels, seat and frame, and so on. So there is no need for anything beyond or outside that which composes the bicycle in order for you to know that this is a bicycle and not some formless nothing.

I think you're using a hypothetical in a way that changes how our consciousness works. I don't think a single definition of a thing, like a bicycle or a chair, can be viewed as just needing a few internal causes for its creation, while leaving out all the external causes, and neglecting that all these causes are actually infinite. It's not like we can bring into consciousess a bike, and only a bike, and pretend that it is the totality of all things. It is not. It's a definition, and that also requries an outside context.

You must keep in mind that it was an analogy. The bike is meant to represent the whole Universe(aka the Totality). This is why there would be nothing outside the bike.

I agree that is seems to be a brute fact that finite phenomena exist,

It only seems like finite phenomena exist!? You're even using finite phenomena to communicate this to me. If you're not careful you'll be saying "This is not a sentence" next. ;)

but I think it will be the manner in which they exist that will tell us how they are also unbounded on a different level - on the level of causation.

Watch out, it sounds like this "unbounded" "different level" might end up being bounded by other levels. Ahhh I love the smell of self-contradiction in the morning!

[Jason]

Well, remember that you only need to know that you have wheels, pedals, seat and frame to know that you have a bicycle. Nothing more. The wheels are known by contrast against the pedals, seat and frame. The pedals are known by contrast against the wheels, seat and frame, and so on. So there is no need for anything beyond or outside that which composes the bicycle in order for you to know that this is a bicycle and not some formless nothing.

I think you're using a hypothetical in a way that changes how our consciousness works. I don't think a single definition of a thing, like a bicycle or a chair, can be viewed as just needing a few internal causes for its creation, while leaving out all the external causes, and neglecting that all these causes are actually infinite. It's not like we can bring into consciousess a bike, and only a bike, and pretend that it is the totality of all things. It is not. It's a definition, and that also requires an outside context.

Yes, what you've just pointed to is a very fundamental point, one which appears to be going over Jason's head.

I think perhaps I'm going way under all your heads. Chopping your legs off in fact. Undermining what you thought were safe foundations. All in a very simple and straightforward way too. It's a talent of mine.[/grin]

Anyway, look at my response to Skipair if you want to see where I think he got it wrong(the bike scenario is just an analogy.)

Otherness (formlessness) must always be paired with thingness. There cannot be a thing without a surrounding otherness.

The pedals are surrounded by the wheels, seat and frame. The wheels are surrounded by the pedals, seat and frame etc.

Picture a white dot. Can the white dot exist without a contrasting background? Of course not, therefore the white dot and the contrasting background are two parts of the same whole.

Picture nothing but the white dot and the contrasting background. The white dot is contrasted against the background; the background is contrasted against the white dot. They are thereby both fully existing by contrast with something they are not.

Thus, in principle, only a white dot and a contrasting background need exist - there is no need for anything outside the white dot and background. They could in principle be the only things that exist in the entire Universe. Do you agree?

[Jason]

When you recognize a bicycle, as a whole, does it suddenly cease to be composed of wheels, pedals, seat and frame? No!

Actually yes it does.

That's crazy talk man! Honestly how can I even try to respond to that? If, when you recognize a bicycle, it is no longer composed of wheels, pedals, seat and frame for you, well, check yourself into the nearest hospital, or optometrist.

That would violate A=A. It is either a bike or wheels, pedals, seat, and a frame. It depends on how we are defining it and what boundaries we place on it.

1. A bike is wheels, pedals, seat and a frame.
2. A bike is a bike.
3. It's very simple.

Say I were to tell you that a bicycle is composed of a certain configuration of wheels, pedals, seat and frame. Then, if you found all these parts in the correct configuration you would know that you had found a bicycle - all without the need for anything other than, beyond or outside these parts.

This is another violation of A=A, a bike needs boundaries in order to exist, and if there is nothing aside from the bike it can not logically come into existence.

The bike was meant to represent the Totality. It was an analogy. Like I explained, the pedals contrast with the wheels, seat and frame. The wheels contrast with the pedals, seat and frame and so on. The internal contrasts are thus in principle all that is necessary for it to exist, it doesn't need external contrasts.

But without anything but a bicycle and its parts, how do you know you have a bicycle? There is nothing to contrast it against right? There is no non-bicycle.

Well, remember that you only need to know that you have wheels, pedals, seat and frame to know that you have a bicycle. Nothing more. The wheels are known by contrast against the pedals, seat and frame. The pedals are known by contrast against the wheels, seat and frame, and so on. So there is no need for anything beyond or outside that which composes the bicycle in order for you to know that this is a bicycle and not some formless nothing.

The ground that the bike rests on, the air that surrounds it, and literally everything else you can imagine are just as fundamental to the bike's existence as are the parts it is made of. All things are dependent on the things they are not for their existence, otherwise you are saying that a thing can be everything at the same time, but once this happens, the thing in question ceases to exist.

Buh! The bicycle is the only thing that exists in my example, it is a stand-in for the Totality. You are unnecessarily complicating this, it was an analogy and illustration of principles.

Just like the bicycle isn't formless, it is wheels, pedals, seat and frame, the Totality isn't formless, the Totality is all forms.

The Totality is not forms, it is formless by logical necessity when we define it as The Whole of all things imagined and unimagined. When we define it this way it means there is nothing aside form it, and as I've repeatedly shown you, in order for a form to exist it needs to be contrasted with something it is not, and since the Totality has nothing aside from it, it can not posses form.

It possesses internal forms - like the imagined and unimagined. Reality has forms and parts, I'm looking at them now. Claiming the Whole doesn't have forms is therefore in direct opposition to what I'm perceiving right now. A formless Whole is nothing more than a thought in your head - you even say that "we define it."

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason wrote:

Finite descriptions can appear to drag the Totality down into being a specific finite thing with certain characteristics. The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao and all of that.

But this is not an issue that I think we even need to look at. I don't think it's relevant, I think I cut off any chance of even needing to look at that before it even has a chance to arise.

Yes, I know you feel that way. You've said it many times:

I don't think that there is an actual formless Totality in the first place.

No, you've made it very clear that your belief is:

the brute fact of the matter is that reality does have parts/forms/characteristics. They are in front of your eyes right now. There is no denying this fact.

But, of course it can be "denied", and has been by a variety of posters on this thread. All have pointed out the basic fault in your belief that you've covered everything with the idea that: "Reality as a whole" is "in front of your eyes right now" as "not a particular form" but as "every particular form".

And yes, there is no denying that that is a very neat idea. The problem is that it's a completely abstract and superficial neat idea. It boils down to: Reality Is What It Is / Things Are What They Are. Which I'm sure is a very comforting and comfortable idea - due entirely to the fact that it doesn't explain any 'thing'.

Here's the issue: that there exists even a single part negates any possibility of a formless whole. A formless whole by definition relies upon there never being a part anywhere at any time. Once a part exists that makes it impossible for the whole to be formless, by default.

A formless whole is fundamentally in contradiction to there being parts in reality. You can't have both and we know for a fact that parts exist. So the formless whole can never be anything more than a fantasy in your head.

Your imagination is running hot, but sadly not your power of reasoning.

Simply put, your idea will never satisfy anyone who is really interested in understanding the nature of reality. Even Skipair, a man who jovially reckoned he's, "not at the level of making totality-talk relevant", easily hit upon that other "levels" of thinking must be considered. He said, "I agree that it seems to be a brute fact that finite phenomena exist, but I think it will be the manner in which they exist that will tell us how they are also unbounded on a different level - on the level of causation".

[xerox]

...

[sue hindmarsh]

xerox,

There is no doubt that things exist, but they just don't exist in the way we want them to.

We become confused about this point because of our attachment to things. Permanence is what we crave. But reality isn't like that; things constantly change. So we try to hold on even tighter to what we know and love. But to no avail. And that's why we suffer, and why we hope, and why we dream.

[xerox]

...

[tek0]

I hate to say this but I admit you guys are making so much sense that it is almost overwhelming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfRRn0s4WAg

It did not come from what you would imagine...is music sometimes formless to anything but humans?

[Jason]

Based on what you've written in this post, Sue, you don't properly understand my arguments....

the brute fact of the matter is that reality does have parts/forms/characteristics. They are in front of your eyes right now. There is no denying this fact.

But, of course it can be "denied", and has been by a variety of posters on this thread. All have pointed out the basic fault in your belief that you've covered everything with the idea that: "Reality as a whole" is "in front of your eyes right now" as "not a particular form" but as "every particular form".

And yes, there is no denying that that is a very neat idea. The problem is that it's a completely abstract and superficial neat idea. It boils down to: Reality Is What It Is / Things Are What They Are. Which I'm sure is a very comforting and comfortable idea - due entirely to the fact that it doesn't explain any 'thing'.

As I have noted previously, whether or not I am personally aware of the whole of reality doesn't matter as far as my core point is concerned. My core point is that: the simple fact that I have observed forms makes it impossible for reality to be completely form-less.

I don't have to be aware of all of reality to be certain of this, just the fact that I have observed forms in my little corner of reality is enough to disprove that reality is completely form-less

Here's the issue: that there exists even a single part negates any possibility of a formless whole. A formless whole by definition relies upon there never being a part anywhere at any time. Once a part exists that makes it impossible for the whole to be formless, by default.

A formless whole is fundamentally in contradiction to there being parts in reality. You can't have both and we know for a fact that parts exist. So the formless whole can never be anything more than a fantasy in your head.

Your imagination is running hot, but sadly not your power of reasoning.

Simply put, your idea will never satisfy anyone who is really interested in understanding the nature of reality. Even Skipair, a man who jovially reckoned he's, "not at the level of making totality-talk relevant", easily hit upon that other "levels" of thinking must be considered. He said, "I agree that it seems to be a brute fact that finite phenomena exist, but I think it will be the manner in which they exist that will tell us how they are also unbounded on a different level - on the level of causation".

And as I said to Skipair - there is an inherent contradiction in saying that there is a "different level" that is unbounded. Can't you see that? As soon as you introduce the idea of a different level there is a boundary created between it and other levels. And you reckon my reasoning isn't so hot! Christ!

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason wrote:

Based on what you've written in this post, Sue, you don't properly understand my arguments....

I thought we were discussing the nature of reality. So far we both agree that the most important resource we have to understand reality is 'things'. Where we differ is the way in which we are using that resource. You're halting at the appearance of things, whereas I'm all for blasting things apart to see what makes them tick. In my mind, you can't understand reality without understanding how existence works. And you've not done that with your "brute fact" idea.

As I have noted previously, whether or not I am personally aware of the whole of reality doesn't matter as far as my core point is concerned. My core point is that: the simple fact that I have observed forms makes it impossible for reality to be completely form-less.
I don't have to be aware of all of reality to be certain of this, just the fact that I have observed forms in my little corner of reality is enough to disprove that reality is completely form-less

Your "reality" is not cut off from the rest of reality. Which means - and there is no getting away from this - that your reality must also explain "all of reality".

And as I said to Skipair - there is an inherent contradiction in saying that there is a "different level" that is unbounded. Can't you see that? As soon as you introduce the idea of a different level there is a boundary created between it and other levels. And you reckon my reasoning isn't so hot! Christ!

Skip wasn't introducing "a different level" of existence that was in any way separate from any other "level". He was making the point that the finite existed, but because of causation, the finite was not the whole picture. And it's the whole picture we're after - correct?

[Leyla Shen]

The Totality is not simply formlessness – it is both form and formlessness. So, yes, when you give it the “characteristic” formlessness, it becomes a thing and immediately less than the Totality.

In the same way, a thing is necessarily not strictly form. Therefore, things are impermanent, i.e., without infinite, unchanging form. (You can, at the very least, observe this as the cycle of birth, growth and decay.)

[Nick]

When you recognize a bicycle, as a whole, does it suddenly cease to be composed of wheels, pedals, seat and frame? No!

Actually yes it does.

That's crazy talk man! Honestly how can I even try to respond to that? If, when you recognize a bicycle, it is no longer composed of wheels, pedals, seat and frame for you, well, check yourself into the nearest hospital, or optometrist.

As I went on to say, it's a matter of definition. When we project boundaries on to reality, we come up with terms for what the boundaries contain, and when we define something as a bike or anything else for that matter, it logically follows that it is a bike, not a bike and a pedal.

That would violate A=A. It is either a bike or wheels, pedals, seat, and a frame. It depends on how we are defining it and what boundaries we place on it.

1. A bike is wheels, pedals, seat and a frame.
2. A bike is a bike.
3. It's very simple.

Simple in how we can change the way we are projecting boundaries yes, but we can't logically define something as two different things at the same time.

Say I were to tell you that a bicycle is composed of a certain configuration of wheels, pedals, seat and frame. Then, if you found all these parts in the correct configuration you would know that you had found a bicycle - all without the need for anything other than, beyond or outside these parts.

This is another violation of A=A, a bike needs boundaries in order to exist, and if there is nothing aside from the bike it can not logically come into existence.

The bike was meant to represent the Totality. It was an analogy. Like I explained, the pedals contrast with the wheels, seat and frame. The wheels contrast with the pedals, seat and frame and so on. The internal contrasts are thus in principle all that is necessary for it to exist, it doesn't need external contrasts.

Yes the things that compose the bike contrast with eachother, but the bike itself doesn't contrast with itself. Nothing can contrast with itself.

But without anything but a bicycle and its parts, how do you know you have a bicycle? There is nothing to contrast it against right? There is no non-bicycle.

Well, remember that you only need to know that you have wheels, pedals, seat and frame to know that you have a bicycle. Nothing more. The wheels are known by contrast against the pedals, seat and frame. The pedals are known by contrast against the wheels, seat and frame, and so on. So there is no need for anything beyond or outside that which composes the bicycle in order for you to know that this is a bicycle and not some formless nothing.

The ground that the bike rests on, the air that surrounds it, and literally everything else you can imagine are just as fundamental to the bike's existence as are the parts it is made of. All things are dependent on the things they are not for their existence, otherwise you are saying that a thing can be everything at the same time, but once this happens, the thing in question ceases to exist.

Buh! The bicycle is the only thing that exists in my example, it is a stand-in for the Totality. You are unnecessarily complicating this, it was an analogy and illustration of principles.

To pin point your illogic, you are trying to say something can contrast with itself. Yes the parts that comprise the bike can be contrasted with eachother, but the bike can not contrast with the pedal, because as soon as you attempt to contrast the pedal and the bike, you no longer have the whole bike (you have a non-bike minus a pedal). Existence works the same way, it can't be contrasted with finite phenomena, because as soon as you do, we are contrasting two things that are less than Existence.

Just like the bicycle isn't formless, it is wheels, pedals, seat and frame, the Totality isn't formless, the Totality is all forms.

The Totality is not forms, it is formless by logical necessity when we define it as The Whole of all things imagined and unimagined. When we define it this way it means there is nothing aside form it, and as I've repeatedly shown you, in order for a form to exist it needs to be contrasted with something it is not, and since the Totality has nothing aside from it, it can not posses form.

It possesses internal forms - like the imagined and unimagined. Reality has forms and parts, I'm looking at them now. Claiming the Whole doesn't have forms is therefore in direct opposition to what I'm perceiving right now. A formless Whole is nothing more than a thought in your head - you even say that "we define it."

Forms exist yes, but they only exist when we define them in to Existence. But when we are talking about Existence as a whole, forms do not enter the picture because we would soon enough be talking about something less than Existence.

[Nick]

The Totality is not simply formlessness – it is both form and formlessness. So, yes, when you give it the “characteristic” formlessness, it becomes a thing and immediately less than the Totality.

How is saying that the Totality is form and formlessness not a violation of A=A?

When we give the Totality the characteristic of formlessness, it just means that we are changing how we view it. We can view reality in finite forms, or we can "view" it as it's whole, neither one is wrong, but we can't do both at the same time.

In the same way, a thing is necessarily not strictly form. Therefore, things are impermanent, i.e., without infinite, unchanging form. (You can, at the very least, observe this as the cycle of birth, growth and decay.)

Are you saying A could potentially equal B?

[Leyla Shen]

Nick:

How is saying that the Totality is form and formlessness not a violation of A=A?

In the same way one might come to meaningfully understand:

David Quinn, et al: the Totality neither exists nor does not exist.

And:

Sue Hindmarsh: the Totality cannot possess any thing, for there is no thing that is not The Totality.

The underlying issue is, of course, the matter of thingness.

I make a few assumptions here, namely that we all agree:

1. A thing is defined by its boundaries, which constitute its form and thus differentiate it from other things.
2. Things exist (appear as form), but are not self-caused (emptiness/interdependence) and are thus impermanent.
3. The only existence the Totality can be said to have is as absolute truth (pure logic).
4. Given 2 and 3, if the Totality existed in the same manner as things then it too would have a beginning and be a finite form rather than infinite (as with causality).
5. Thus, formlessness infinitely gives rise to finite forms (things) and the Totality (all that there is) by logical necessity constitutes both form and formlessness therefore.

When we give the Totality the characteristic of formlessness, it just means that we are changing how we view it. We can view reality in finite forms, or we can "view" it as it's whole, neither one is wrong, but we can't do both at the same time.

One views things, but one does not “view” the Totality. One deduces it, especially if it is formless!

L: In the same way, a thing is necessarily not strictly form. Therefore, things are impermanent, i.e., without infinite, unchanging form. (You can, at the very least, observe this as the cycle of birth, growth and decay.)

N: Are you saying A could potentially equal B?

Wash your mouth out with soap!

A thing is always what it is and nothing else. Another absolute, purely logical truth. The question is, what role do you think permanence plays in the fact of a thing being itself and nothing else?

If I am talking about my dog one moment and finish what I am saying about him 5 minutes later, has he ceased to change in any way or be what he is? That is, has there been a violation of A=A?

[Nick]

OK I'm in agreement with all that, but I still don't understand how when logic dictates to us that the Totality is necessarily formless, it automatically becomes less than the Totality.

[Jason]

Based on what you've written in this post, Sue, you don't properly understand my arguments....

I thought we were discussing the nature of reality.

I would describe the discussion as being about part of the nature of reality. Also, my comments thus far pertain to a perspective that does not reflect my most fundamental understanding of reality - a 'stepping stone' perspective if you will.

So far we both agree that the most important resource we have to understand reality is 'things'. Where we differ is the way in which we are using that resource. You're halting at the appearance of things, whereas I'm all for blasting things apart to see what makes them tick. In my mind, you can't understand reality without understanding how existence works. And you've not done that with your "brute fact" idea.

I haven't said any of that, you're way off course, I've simply been challenging the idea that reality as a whole is formless.

As I have noted previously, whether or not I am personally aware of the whole of reality doesn't matter as far as my core point is concerned. My core point is that: the simple fact that I have observed forms makes it impossible for reality to be completely form-less.
I don't have to be aware of all of reality to be certain of this, just the fact that I have observed forms in my little corner of reality is enough to disprove that reality is completely form-less

Your "reality" is not cut off from the rest of reality. Which means - and there is no getting away from this - that your reality must also explain "all of reality".

You seem to think that you're criticizing or disagreeing with that quote of mine that you're replying to, but you're actually just essentially repeating the points I was making. I think you're still misunderstanding my arguments, although you don't seem very willing to accept the possibility of that.

And as I said to Skipair - there is an inherent contradiction in saying that there is a "different level" that is unbounded. Can't you see that? As soon as you introduce the idea of a different level there is a boundary created between it and other levels. And you reckon my reasoning isn't so hot! Christ!

Skip wasn't introducing "a different level" of existence that was in any way separate from any other "level". He was making the point that the finite existed, but because of causation, the finite was not the whole picture. And it's the whole picture we're after - correct?

I'm disagreeing that the whole of reality is formless, so in that sense yes it's about the whole picture. My criticism of Skipair's comments remain though - I'm not going to argue with you based on what you believe Skipair meant.

[Jason]

That's crazy talk man! Honestly how can I even try to respond to that? If, when you recognize a bicycle, it is no longer composed of wheels, pedals, seat and frame for you, well, check yourself into the nearest hospital, or optometrist.

As I went on to say, it's a matter of definition. When we project boundaries on to reality, we come up with terms for what the boundaries contain, and when we define something as a bike or anything else for that matter, it logically follows that it is a bike, not a bike and a pedal.

There's no getting past the fact that what you said is crazy - that when you recognize a bicycle as a whole it ceases to have pedals, wheels, seat and a frame for you. That's where your so-called "logic" has led you - into craziness.

1. A bike is wheels, pedals, seat and a frame.
2. A bike is a bike.
3. It's very simple.

Simple in how we can change the way we are projecting boundaries yes, but we can't logically define something as two different things at the same time.

Unlike you, I and every other human on the planet with sufficient sanity is capable of recognizing a bicycle as a whole and at the same time recognizing that it has pedals, wheels, seat and a frame. Sanity is amazing isn't it?

Say I were to tell you that a bicycle is composed of a certain configuration of wheels, pedals, seat and frame. Then, if you found all these parts in the correct configuration you would know that you had found a bicycle - all without the need for anything other than, beyond or outside these parts.

This is another violation of A=A, a bike needs boundaries in order to exist, and if there is nothing aside from the bike it can not logically come into existence.

A bicycle is a certain configuration of pedals, wheels, seat and frame. When you find those parts in the right configuration you have found yourself a bicycle. Each of those parts can be contrasted against the other parts, thereby allowing you to recognize each part with no need for anything external to the bicycle and its parts for this recognition to take place. I'm sorry that you can't follow this, you're likely too emotionally invested and attached to your current views to allow these facts to penetrate.

The bike was meant to represent the Totality. It was an analogy. Like I explained, the pedals contrast with the wheels, seat and frame. The wheels contrast with the pedals, seat and frame and so on. The internal contrasts are thus in principle all that is necessary for it to exist, it doesn't need external contrasts.

Yes the things that compose the bike contrast with eachother, but the bike itself doesn't contrast with itself. Nothing can contrast with itself.

I have never made the claim that something can contrast with itself.

Buh! The bicycle is the only thing that exists in my example, it is a stand-in for the Totality. You are unnecessarily complicating this, it was an analogy and illustration of principles.

To pin point your illogic, you are trying to say something can contrast with itself. Yes the parts that comprise the bike can be contrasted with eachother, but the bike can not contrast with the pedal, because as soon as you attempt to contrast the pedal and the bike, you no longer have the whole bike (you have a non-bike minus a pedal). Existence works the same way, it can't be contrasted with finite phenomena, because as soon as you do, we are contrasting two things that are less than Existence.

Pay attention! Never did I say that a pedal, or any other part, would be contrasted against the bike as a whole. Likewise with Existence.

It possesses internal forms - like the imagined and unimagined. Reality has forms and parts, I'm looking at them now. Claiming the Whole doesn't have forms is therefore in direct opposition to what I'm perceiving right now. A formless Whole is nothing more than a thought in your head - you even say that "we define it."

Forms exist yes, but they only exist when we define them in to Existence. But when we are talking about Existence as a whole, forms do not enter the picture because we would soon enough be talking about something less than Existence.

You wouldn't be talking about less than Existence if you were talking about absolutely all forms, just as you wouldn't be talking about less than a bicycle if you were to talk about absolutely all the parts that make up a bicycle.

[Jason]

The Totality is not simply formlessness – it is both form and formlessness. So, yes, when you give it the “characteristic” formlessness, it becomes a thing and immediately less than the Totality.

Formlessness is no more than a thought(form) in your head. All this talk about formlessness reminds me of the story of Diogenes being confronted by a man who claimed that motion did not exist. Diogenes responded by walking away. I'm responding with forms.

The underlying issue is, of course, the matter of thingness.

I make a few assumptions here, namely that we all agree:

1. A thing is defined by its boundaries, which constitute its form and thus differentiate it from other things.
2. Things exist (appear as form), but are not self-caused (emptiness/interdependence) and are thus impermanent.

Where does the "thus impermanent" come from? It doesn't follow that impermanence is a necessary characteristic of things based on what you've said up to that point.

5. Thus, formlessness infinitely gives rise to finite forms (things) and the Totality (all that there is) by logical necessity constitutes both form and formlessness therefore.

As soon as any finite form appears the infinite is bounded by it and it is no longer infinite(more accurately it never was infinite to begin with.) It is therefore a contradiction, an impossibility, to have a formless infinite if finite forms exist. We know there are forms, so we know there is no formless infinite.

[Nick]

There's no getting past the fact that what you said is crazy - that when you recognize a bicycle as a whole it ceases to have pedals, wheels, seat and a frame for you. That's where your so-called "logic" has led you - into craziness.

Your illogic has led you to believe you are actually saying something meaningful when you say a bike is a bike.

Unlike you, I and every other human on the planet with sufficient sanity is capable of recognizing a bicycle as a whole and at the same time recognizing that it has pedals, wheels, seat and a frame. Sanity is amazing isn't it?

You guys are so smart...

I have never made the claim that something can contrast with itself.

When you say that Existence can be given form by contrasting it with finite phenomena that is exactly what you are claiming.

Pay attention! Never did I say that a pedal, or any other part, would be contrasted against the bike as a whole. Likewise with Existence.

Then you must agree with me when I say that we can't give Existence form by contrasting it with finite phenomena, which is exactly what you have been claiming the whole time.

You wouldn't be talking about less than Existence if you were talking about absolutely all forms, just as you wouldn't be talking about less than a bicycle if you were to talk about absolutely all the parts that make up a bicycle.

All forms? What is that even supposed to mean? Do you think there are forms floating independently through out Existence? Like a bunch of legos making up a gigantic lego castle called the Totality? This is pure fantasy. The only forms that exist are the ones we imagine in our head, beyond that there are no forms, and Existence doesn't stop at our minds. Even if I assume you know what you're talking about, when we contrast the Totality with everything it's comprised of, we aren't contrasting anything to begin with, which means form never arises.

[skipair]

What if someone were to claim "There is no object, in the whole Universe, that is coloured purple."?

You would only have to be in one tiny corner of the Universe and see just a small purple object to disprove this claim about the whole Universe right? So in a sense, by reasoning that "The whole Universe is not empty of purple objects, because I've seen a purple object." you would be reasoning about the whole Universe, even if you were only aware of a tiny fraction of the whole. Although perhaps that's not exactly relevant to what you meant...

The "whole Universe" to me means whatever I'm currently experiencing, whether through my senses or with my mind. If I experience purple I can say it exists, and naturally if I don't I can't.

But if I do, I can't really add that it exists "in the whole Universe", because this just means it exists in existence, which is redundant. It's like saying something is purple in its purpleness.

I think all this is definitely relevant to thinking about the inside/outside of a thing, because I'm not sure if we can really know what a "thing" is without also knowing what the "whole Universe" is. And neither of these things are particularly clear to me.

But the claim that all parts of an object or reality could be known is not the only part of my argument. Just like the Universe is not completely devoid of purple objects, my other point is that since I have seen parts and forms, then the entire Universe is not devoid of parts or forms.

I think you're defining "Universe" as a collection or multiplicity of all forms, and I don't think this is the same concept that Nick and others are thinking about. Your concept is itself among all the other forms that exist, it does not exist within all.

[mikiel]

skipair:

The "whole Universe" to me means whatever I'm currently experiencing, whether through my senses or with my mind. If I experience purple I can say it exists, and naturally if I don't I can't.

This is explicit egocentricity.

The whole universe actually refers to *all there is* both known and unknown.

It is now *known* to science and proven by deep infrared examination of multitudes of galaxies that, at the center of each galaxy (old enough to have a bulge at the center) is a black hole altering the trajectories of all nearby bodies.

If skipair can not personally experience these observations, then these objects do not exist?

So, skip... do you believe what you "see" indirectly from space photos that Earth is a globe, or is it still flat ... as you experience it?

How much do you trust observations beyond your own personal limits to be accurate descriptions of what is, beyond what you personally can see?

[Leyla Shen]

Nick:

… how when logic dictates to us that the Totality is necessarily formless, [does] it automatically becomes less than the Totality.

Well, of course, you can speak of the Totality as formless in the same way you can speak of it as form since all appearances are, of course, appearances of the Totality. But the question is what has been understood by doing so?

So, OK—how’s this:

Generally, because “formless” has a very specific meaning—absence of/no form—it’s necessarily contrasted with form and any understanding of the Totality as formless in this manner is an understanding less than the Totality.

It’s like telling someone that air is a necessary characteristic of a cake and that adding air to the recipe is what makes the cake rise.

Here, however:

Thus, formlessness infinitely gives rise [heh, retrospective pun unintended but rather appropriate!] to finite forms (things) and the Totality (all that there is) by logical necessity constitutes both form and formlessness therefore.

… I don’t see that problem.

Formlessness simply points to the fact that, unlike an object, the Totality is not a bounded or finite thing. It’s the tidy, logical way of accounting for “God”—the creative/causative force of existence and the interrelationship between things themselves.