Logical Extension from the First Principle

[psychoactive]

* Rain falling heavily for days can cause a flood. The rain is a cause, not a reason.

A cause is a reason.

If a flood is caused by rainfall, the reason it flooded is because of the rainfall.

[Beingof1]

psychoactive:

Beingof1:
The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

psychoactive:
I see no need for the existence of "I."

Who sees no need?

There is existence.

I am doubtful of any extension from this.

Who is doubtful?

Notice the big zero?

no..?[/quote]

Look again; because a zero is hard to see unless you know what to look for.



Kelly:

Beingof1:
The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

Kelly:
What's the "I" referring to?

Who is asking?

Kelly responds to Jufa:

The principle of identity (A=A) only exists if if someone thinks of it. It doesn't exist in any other way.
Therefore, just as a thought is caused, so is the principle of identity.
But, if you are asking for a principle from which A=A can be derived, that's meaningless, because A=A isn't derived from any prior principle.

Nope - no one in the chicken house but us chickens.

Experience sounds like something conscious, so that couldn't be an absolute first principle, or foundation, to existence - since consciousness is only a part of existence.

Here we go again - I thought you got this!

Could you point out to us all where reality begins and your consciousness ends - then - once and for all - prove - without a doubt - and pay attention this time - that consciousness is a part of the universe.

I am weary of those who know and yet cling to dogma. Get this - and QRS and company needs to get this to.

You say "there is no first cause".
Who just said that?

Jehu:

Being then partakes of an ‘absolute’ and not merely ‘relative’ existence, and is its own cause. Likewise, the Principle of Identity contains within itself, its own self-inhering reason for being; in its two logical correlates.

Ring a ding - excellent.

I would not qualify 'being' as partaking of absolute however but as the ground. Partake gives the notion of being subject to its own existence.

[jufa]

Kelly wrote: By the way, it's "die hard".

I meant just what I stated "die heart" because your heart is dead because you are a "die hard" who refuse to change horses. You will ride your horse until you burst its heart. Run! run! Run! Oop!, Get up, you can't die on me for there is no cause for you to die.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

So then when I say what is the cause for the first principle of identity, or for the existence of A, I am asking for the cause of things which do not intrinsically exist? If this is true, then you and Kelly are the one attempting to apply a cause to that which does not intrinsically exist.

intrinsic existence doesn't have a cause, contingent existence does.

So give me evidence why intrinsic existence does not have a cause, and contingent existence does, when intrinsic deals with the nature of cause, and contingent deal only with a possibility of a cause. Is not intrinsic existence dealing with the reality of existence, while contingent existence is dealing with an assumption of reality.

Man does not have to assume he is, he is the intrinsic existence of himself. Man existence is not contingent existence, because he is the intrinsic existence of himself. Man's nature is contingent therefore to Cause. Cause is intrinsic in and of itself.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength- jufa

[psychoactive]

psychoactive:

Beingof1:
The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

psychoactive:
I see no need for the existence of "I."

Who sees no need?

This is not refutation, there may exist a feeling of "I," or "I" may be present in existing "thought," however this does not mean "I," as some entity or the like, exists.

Look again; because a zero is hard to see unless you know what to look for.

I'm not sure what your going for with this...

[Beingof1]

psychoactive:

Beingof1:
The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

psychoactive:
I see no need for the existence of "I."

BO1:
Who sees no need?

psychoactive:
This is not refutation, there may exist a feeling of "I," or "I" may be present in existing "thought," however this does not mean "I," as some entity or the like, exists.

Who just said that it was not refuted?
What just said I may not exist?

Look again; because a zero is hard to see unless you know what to look for.

I'm not sure what your going for with this...

What can be both A and -A?

[psychoactive]

intrinsic existence doesn't have a cause, contingent existence does.

So give me evidence why intrinsic existence does not have a cause, and contingent existence does

Definition.

[psychoactive]

psychoactive:
This is not refutation, there may exist a feeling of "I," or "I" may be present in existing "thought," however this does not mean "I," as some entity or the like, exists.

Bo1:
Who just said that it was not refuted?
What just said I may not exist?

What I previously said applies just the same.

What can be both A and -A?

Logically a thing cannot not be itself, however one might say the "totality" may be A and not-A, either way, I'm still not seeing the purpose of this?

[jufa]

intrinsic existence doesn't have a cause, contingent existence does.

So give me evidence why intrinsic existence does not have a cause, and contingent existence does

Definition.

Definition of what? Is it the definition of the objective object, or the definition of the subjective assumption of uncertainty?

It really doesn't matter though because you have not gave a definition of the Cause for intrisic existence nor contingent existence.

You have totall, totally, totally not give a definition of THE CAUSE in any case.


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Beingof1]

psychoactive:

psychoactive:
This is not refutation, there may exist a feeling of "I," or "I" may be present in existing "thought," however this does not mean "I," as some entity or the like, exists.

Bo1:
Who just said that it was not refuted?
What just said I may not exist?


psychoactive:
What I previously said applies just the same.

Applies to who?

Beingof1 wrote:
What can be both A and -A?



Logically a thing cannot not be itself, however one might say the "totality" may be A and not-A, either way, I'm still not seeing the purpose of this?

You just stated the purpose.

[psychoactive]

Definition of what? Is it the definition of the objective object, or the definition of the subjective assumption of uncertainty?

It really doesn't matter though because you have not gave a definition of the Cause for intrisic existence nor contingent existence.

You have totall, totally, totally not give a definition of THE CAUSE in any case.

contingent existence = existence that is dependent on to exist i.e. its existence is caused.

intrinsic existence = existence that is not dependent on to exist i.e. its existence is not caused.

Are these not essentially their definitions?

If you're asking again about the cause of EXISTENCE, such a question is ignorant. As explained several times before, existence cannot be caused for there is nothing outside of existence for existence to be caused from.

If you simply re-ask this question in the same manner again likely noone will any longer respond, you need to come up with some logically valid refutation or alternative of the reasoning given behind the non-caused nature of existence other than just looping the identical position.

As I said originally, I'm hesitant to extend further than "There is existence," I have not premised that there is anything more, that there even is contingent existence, so I don't have an answer to that.

[psychoactive]

psychoactive:

psychoactive:
This is not refutation, there may exist a feeling of "I," or "I" may be present in existing "thought," however this does not mean "I," as some entity or the like, exists.

Bo1:
Who just said that it was not refuted?
What just said I may not exist?


psychoactive:
What I previously said applies just the same.

Applies to who?

Applies the argument you're making about the necessity of "I"

Of course it may be a semantic conflict, however under "my" conventional understanding of I and its implications, this seems very presumptuous, much too so for a first principle.

Why must there be "I"?

Beingof1 wrote:
What can be both A and -A?



Logically a thing cannot not be itself, however one might say the "totality" may be A and not-A, either way, I'm still not seeing the purpose of this?

You just stated the purpose.

That may be the technical answer, however what was the purpose of asserting such a question to begin with.

[jufa]

psychoactive says:That may be the technical answer, however what was the purpose of asserting such a question to begin with

.

Now I know you are not asking the question "What is the Cause" are you?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[jufa]

psychoactive states: contingent existence = existence that is dependent on to exist i.e. its existence is caused. Contingent is an uncertainty until the Cause for it to be is established from a certainty. Existence is, it is not contingent to anything known by man. Man does not know what existence is because he can root up anything in his psychic, conscious, consciousness, mind, imagination, thinking, or thought pattern which will effectually give him reasoning or logic for his existence, not to mention existence itself. It is no different than saying "I think, therefore I am," which brings up the question you are what? Which begs the question, are you existence? Which prompts the question, if you are existence because you exist, what then is the contingence of you?

intrinsic existence = existence that is not dependent on to exist i.e. its existence is not caused. Intrinsic bears the nature of existence. It is existence nature. It is existence constitution. It is the inner subjectiveness self immanant ultimatum of itself which - Man does not know because he can root up nothing in his psychic, conscious, consciousness, mind, imagination, thinking, or thought pattern which will effectually give him reasoning or logic for his existence.

Contingent existence is obligated to eternity

Intrinsic existence is the infinity of infinity.

This means contingent and intrinsic existence are dependent upon that which both exist within and give them Cause for existence. So whose or what exist which give existence Cause to be?

Are these not essentially their definitions?

Now if you want to take your ball and bat and ride into the sunset, that's on you.

But in get-away I want you to know that if you want to run with the dogs, you have to learn how to chew bones. And should you desire to run with the big dogs, you have to learn how to chew hard bones. Take it or leave it.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

* Rain falling heavily for days can cause a flood. The rain is a cause, not a reason.

A cause is a reason.

If a flood is caused by rainfall, the reason it flooded is because of the rainfall.

They're not the same, psychoactive. Consider it from this angle. If an explanation, or reason, isn't established by some human for how a particular thing came to exist, that doesn't mean that particular something doesn't exist.

If reasons were causes, as you say, then the thing wouldn't exist without that explanation. Yet it seems highly likely that human explanations have no influence on the existence of a flood. Floods happen whether humans explain them by divine agency, aliens, tribal dances, or whatnot.

Does this make sense?

The reasons, or explanations, for why things exist aren't responsible in many cases, for them. Unless the reasons are really causes, in which human intellectual agency is used in the creation of a thing (e.g. an inventor of a new tyre design).


.

[Kelly Jones]

Beingof1: The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

Kelly: What's the "I" referring to?

Beingof1: Who is asking?

Well, it could be the small me, Kelly Jones, or it could be the larger me, the Infinite. It's important to know which self you're referring to.

Kelly to Jufa: The principle of identity (A=A) only exists if if someone thinks of it. It doesn't exist in any other way. Therefore, just as a thought is caused, so is the principle of identity. But, if you are asking for a principle from which A=A can be derived, that's meaningless, because A=A isn't derived from any prior principle.

Beingof1: Nope - no one in the chicken house but us chickens.

A=A isn't derived from the existence of the small me.

Kelly: Experience [a word Beingof1 used] sounds like something conscious, so that couldn't be an absolute first principle, or foundation, to existence - since consciousness is only a part of existence.

Beingof1: Here we go again - I thought you got this! Could you point out to us all where reality begins and your consciousness ends - then - once and for all - prove - without a doubt - and pay attention this time - that consciousness is a part of the universe.

Your response indicates a false assumption about my views. I don't posit that reality is separate from consciousness. But I don't equate them, in the way you do. You seem to hold a solipsistic view, namely, that the Totality is everything that one experiences, making one's consciousness the only thing that exists in the entire Universe.

Conscious experience isn't the foundation of A=A; while necessary to know that A=A, that law is not falsified without consciousness. It just remains unknown.

I am weary of those who know and yet cling to dogma. Get this - and QRS and company needs to get this to.

You say "there is no first cause".
Who just said that?

I am weary of non sequiturs.


.

[Beingof1]

psychoactive:

psychoactive:
This is not refutation, there may exist a feeling of "I," or "I" may be present in existing "thought," however this does not mean "I," as some entity or the like, exists.

Bo1:
Who just said that it was not refuted?
What just said I may not exist?


psychoactive:
What I previously said applies just the same.



Applies to who?



Applies the argument you're making about the necessity of "I"

Of course it may be a semantic conflict, however under "my" conventional understanding of I and its implications, this seems very presumptuous, much too so for a first principle.

Presumptuous?
I am not making a single assumption and you are disregarding the obvious.

Why must there be "I"?

There can be no existence without consciousness.

Beingof1 wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:
What can be both A and -A?



Logically a thing cannot not be itself, however one might say the "totality" may be A and not-A, either way, I'm still not seeing the purpose of this?



You just stated the purpose.



That may be the technical answer, however what was the purpose of asserting such a question to begin with.

What interpenetrates all things?

[Beingof1]

Kelly:

Beingof1: The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

Kelly: What's the "I" referring to?

Beingof1: Who is asking?

Well, it could be the small me, Kelly Jones, or it could be the larger me, the Infinite. It's important to know which self you're referring to.

How many 'you' incarnations are there?

Kelly to Jufa: The principle of identity (A=A) only exists if if someone thinks of it. It doesn't exist in any other way. Therefore, just as a thought is caused, so is the principle of identity. But, if you are asking for a principle from which A=A can be derived, that's meaningless, because A=A isn't derived from any prior principle.

Beingof1: Nope - no one in the chicken house but us chickens.

A=A isn't derived from the existence of the small me.

A=A is derived by existence of the transcendent.

All limits are applied by you.

Kelly: Experience [a word Beingof1 used] sounds like something conscious, so that couldn't be an absolute first principle, or foundation, to existence - since consciousness is only a part of existence.

Beingof1: Here we go again - I thought you got this! Could you point out to us all where reality begins and your consciousness ends - then - once and for all - prove - without a doubt - and pay attention this time - that consciousness is a part of the universe.

Your response indicates a false assumption about my views. I don't posit that reality is separate from consciousness. But I don't equate them, in the way you do.

Can you make sense out of this please?
You avoided the question again. This demonstrates an inability to come to grips with reality.

You decide instead to ground out in a blind belief system.

I can answer the question. In fact, I can answer any question you pose, why is that?

You seem to hold a solipsistic view, namely, that the Totality is everything that one experiences, making one's consciousness the only thing that exists in the entire Universe.

How easy to wrap me up into your prescribed pigeon hole of toss away ideas. That way you can avoid and dance around the real question that I posed?

Conscious experience isn't the foundation of A=A; while necessary to know that A=A, that law is not falsified without consciousness. It just remains unknown.

You do realize this is an absurd answer right?
Must I truly point out how?

I am weary of those who know and yet cling to dogma. Get this - and QRS and company needs to get this to.

You say "there is no first cause".
Who just said that?

I am weary of non sequiturs..

I am weary of game playing at truth. If you were truly committed to truth, you would not, under any circumstances, avoid questions.

[Kelly Jones]

The law of identity (A=A) is the first principle of reason. It's not a supernatural deity, like some God creating things.

Beingof1: The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

Kelly: What's the "I" referring to?

Beingof1: Who is asking?

Kelly: Well, it could be the small me, Kelly Jones, or it could be the larger me, the Infinite. It's important to know which self you're referring to.

Beingof1: How many 'you' incarnations are there?

Two will do for the purposes of this discussion.

Kelly to Jufa: The principle of identity (A=A) only exists if if someone thinks of it. It doesn't exist in any other way. Therefore, just as a thought is caused, so is the principle of identity. But, if you are asking for a principle from which A=A can be derived, that's meaningless, because A=A isn't derived from any prior principle.

Beingof1: Nope - no one in the chicken house but us chickens.

Kelly: A=A isn't derived from the existence of the small me.

Beingof1: A=A is derived by existence of the transcendent. All limits are applied by you.

If you're saying that "I" means the Infinite, then fine. The law of identity wouldn't exist without the Infinite. But this just means a thing won't exist in isolation, and isn't saying anything special about A=A.

Kelly: Experience [a word Beingof1 used] sounds like something conscious, so that couldn't be an absolute first principle, or foundation, to existence - since consciousness is only a part of existence.

Beingof1: Here we go again - I thought you got this! Could you point out to us all where reality begins and your consciousness ends - then - once and for all - prove - without a doubt - and pay attention this time - that consciousness is a part of the universe.

Kelly: Your response indicates a false assumption about my views. I don't posit that reality is separate from consciousness. But I don't equate them, in the way you do.

Beingof1: Can you make sense out of this please? You avoided the question again. This demonstrates an inability to come to grips with reality.

You assumed falsely that I believe there is some inherent separation between reality and consciousness, such that one ends before the other begins. I don't hold that view at all, so I couldn't well answer it. It'd be like a situation where a man is asked to cut a red wire and not the green wire, but he's colorblind and can see only two brown wires.

Kelly: Conscious experience isn't the foundation of A=A; while necessary to know that A=A, that law is not falsified without consciousness. It just remains unknown.

Beingof1: You do realize this is an absurd answer right? Must I truly point out how?

It's absurd to posit that everything is false when no consciousnesses are around to know it.


.

[psychoactive]

psychoactive states: contingent existence = existence that is dependent on to exist i.e. its existence is caused. Contingent is an uncertainty until the Cause for it to be is established from a certainty. Existence is, it is not contingent to anything known by man. Man does not know what existence is because he can root up anything in his psychic, conscious, consciousness, mind, imagination, thinking, or thought pattern which will effectually give him reasoning or logic for his existence, not to mention existence itself. It is no different than saying "I think, therefore I am," which brings up the question you are what? Which begs the question, are you existence? Which prompts the question, if you are existence because you exist, what then is the contingence of you?

These are definitions, It confuses me as to why you are responding to them in such a manner.

I find what you say here to be somewhat contradictory and incoherent, so let my input my perspective on what you're saying so we don't continue down an oppositional path over what is not mutually understood.

In a nutshell, It seems that your line of thought is: There is man (man is "I/we") - man has consciousness - man only knows through consciousness - there exists beyond consciousness - consciousness' grasp is innately limited - what exists beyond consciousness cannot be grasped by consciousness - not all of what exists can by known by man - man does not know what existence (the totality of all that exists?) is.

intrinsic existence = existence that is not dependent on to exist i.e. its existence is not caused. Intrinsic bears the nature of existence. It is existence nature. It is existence constitution. It is the inner subjectiveness self immanant ultimatum of itself which - Man does not know because he can root up nothing in his psychic, conscious, consciousness, mind, imagination, thinking, or thought pattern which will effectually give him reasoning or logic for his existence.

Contingent existence is obligated to eternity

Intrinsic existence is the infinity of infinity.

This means contingent and intrinsic existence are dependent upon that which both exist within and give them Cause for existence. So whose or what exist which give existence Cause to be?

Would it make a difference to you if instead of using intrinsic existence we used independent existence?

"This means contingent and intrinsic existence are dependent upon that which both exist within and give them Cause for existence. So whose or what exist which give existence Cause to be?"

Are you saying: EXISTENCE (intrinsic existence) is the totality of things (contingent existence) that exist, so that things only exist within existence and existence is only so because of things existing, so that each are dependent on the other to be so?

[psychoactive]

* Rain falling heavily for days can cause a flood. The rain is a cause, not a reason.

A cause is a reason.

If a flood is caused by rainfall, the reason it flooded is because of the rainfall.

They're not the same, psychoactive. Consider it from this angle. If an explanation, or reason, isn't established by some human for how a particular thing came to exist, that doesn't mean that particular something doesn't exist.

If reasons were causes, as you say, then the thing wouldn't exist without that explanation. Yet it seems highly likely that human explanations have no influence on the existence of a flood. Floods happen whether humans explain them by divine agency, aliens, tribal dances, or whatnot.

Does this make sense?

The reasons, or explanations, for why things exist aren't responsible in many cases, for them. Unless the reasons are really causes, in which human intellectual agency is used in the creation of a thing (e.g. an inventor of a new tyre design).
.

Well yes, if semantically your distinguishing reason and cause, and saying that reason is the human explanation (susceptible to error and non-existence) of cause, and that cause is independent-of-mind, this is so.

I take it you differ from the philosophy observed amongst some of the members of this board, of that things only exist in the perception of them?

I was not distinguishing the two terms, although a reason generally does have the connotation as being a human explanation, in which case it may be more practical to do so; I had just though that Jufa, whom you originally responded to about the difference between cause and a reason, used the terms interchangeably.

There can be no existence without consciousness.

Aren't you presuming that there is consciousness, which is what facilitates existence, and that consciousness must be a constituent part of "I"?

[Beingof1]

Kelly Jones:

The law of identity (A=A) is the first principle of reason. It's not a supernatural deity, like some God creating things.

Is this the finite Kelly or the infinite Kelly speaking? If this is the infinite Kelly speaking then your entire statement is wrong about yourself. The only way the infinite Kelly could create anything is through the first principle or the Law of Identity.

It would really help and bring understanding to all of us in speaking to the infinite Kelly; so could you put your sock puppet away for now?

Beingof1: The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

Kelly: What's the "I" referring to?

Beingof1: Who is asking?

Kelly: Well, it could be the small me, Kelly Jones, or it could be the larger me, the Infinite. It's important to know which self you're referring to.

Beingof1: How many 'you' incarnations are there?


Two will do for the purposes of this discussion.

How do you know there are two? Who told you there were more than one of you? Where is the line between the infinite Kelly and the finite Kelly?

That way, we can all distinguish the finite self from the infinite self when you are posting. This is the entire problem with the philosophy of concepts as distinguished from reality.

You see yet?

Beingof1: Nope - no one in the chicken house but us chickens.

Kelly: A=A isn't derived from the existence of the small me.

Beingof1: A=A is derived by existence of the transcendent. All limits are applied by you.


If you're saying that "I" means the Infinite, then fine. The law of identity wouldn't exist without the Infinite. But this just means a thing won't exist in isolation, and isn't saying anything special about A=A.

Who is saying something special then?

Are you isolated and from what? Where do you exist? Where is your reality? Where is the infinite? How many realities do you experience?

Where is the single determining finite line of your individual finite self and the infinite?

Did you know that the final opposition to enlightenment is the refusal to admit that you are? This is what you are now experiencing. You are clinging to a concept to derive a distinguishing limit of yourself to be something. You are not a something or a someone - you are much - much -bigger than your finite self that you think you are right now. You concepts cannot save you from the light of truth; as truth will dissolve all limiting ideas of the self in ever unfolding transcendence of the limitless reality.

Kelly: Experience [a word Beingof1 used] sounds like something conscious, so that couldn't be an absolute first principle, or foundation, to existence - since consciousness is only a part of existence.

Beingof1: Here we go again - I thought you got this! Could you point out to us all where reality begins and your consciousness ends - then - once and for all - prove - without a doubt - and pay attention this time - that consciousness is a part of the universe.

Kelly: Your response indicates a false assumption about my views. I don't posit that reality is separate from consciousness. But I don't equate them, in the way you do.

Beingof1: Can you make sense out of this please? You avoided the question again. This demonstrates an inability to come to grips with reality.


You assumed falsely that I believe there is some inherent separation between reality and consciousness, such that one ends before the other begins.

No Kelly - you said so, do you want me to quote you?

I don't hold that view at all, so I couldn't well answer it. It'd be like a situation where a man is asked to cut a red wire and not the green wire, but he's colorblind and can see only two brown wires.

You are blind because you superimpose a concept over reality. The concept that there is something outside of you.

*I* / not *-I* is a concept and bring separation by creating polarities. When the concept I / not -I dissolves - separation dissolves.

Reality is the absence of separation.

Kelly: Conscious experience isn't the foundation of A=A; while necessary to know that A=A, that law is not falsified without consciousness. It just remains unknown.

Beingof1: You do realize this is an absurd answer right? Must I truly point out how?


It's absurd to posit that everything is false when no consciousnesses are around to know it.

How do you know? Do you have any evidence or facts or logic to back this statement up?

You are bigger than you know.



psychoactive:

Beingof1 wrote:There can be no existence without consciousness.


Aren't you presuming that there is consciousness, which is what facilitates existence, and that consciousness must be a constituent part of "I"?

Presuming?

Where is the assumption? Could you point it out specifically?

[Kelly Jones]

Well yes, if semantically your distinguishing reason and cause, and saying that reason is the human explanation (susceptible to error and non-existence) of cause, and that cause is independent-of-mind, this is so.

I take it you differ from the philosophy observed amongst some of the members of this board, of that things only exist in the perception of them?

No. I'm not saying that causes are independent of the mind, but that the perception of causes doesn't make them causes. A proof of this is mentioned above, namely, a flood is as a flood, no matter what the mind perceives as causing it to happen.

Explanations, or reasons, aren't identical with causes, even though causes will only ever be perceived in consciousness. One can distinguish reasons from causes purely through human agency. For instance, I could believe that a flood is caused by my mental invocations, but I would soon learn that new supporting evidence was unobtainable.

I was not distinguishing the two terms, although a reason generally does have the connotation as being a human explanation, in which case it may be more practical to do so; I had just though that Jufa, whom you originally responded to about the difference between cause and a reason, used the terms interchangeably.

Okay. Yes, I think you're right that Jufa misinterpreted the opening post.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Where is the single determining finite line of your individual finite self and the infinite?

There is none. But that doesn't mean that finite things don't exist. All finite things are manifestations of the Infinite, so whether I call myself Kelly, a finite self, or the nameless, I'm still the same.

Did you know that the final opposition to enlightenment is the refusal to admit that you are? This is what you are now experiencing. You are clinging to a concept to derive a distinguishing limit of yourself to be something. You are not a something or a someone - you are much - much -bigger than your finite self that you think you are right now. You concepts cannot save you from the light of truth; as truth will dissolve all limiting ideas of the self in ever unfolding transcendence of the limitless reality.

All concepts and things are themselves, right now, the limitless reality. There is nothing to transcend, because there are no limits to cross.

*I* / not *-I* is a concept and bring separation by creating polarities. When the concept I / not -I dissolves - separation dissolves.

I can easily use the concept of I and not-I without falling into the delusion that there are intrinsic boundaries.

Reality is the absence of separation.

Reality is limitless, therefore it must include all things, and therefore limits. Just because one conceives of boundaries, or perceives separations, doesn't make Reality change one whit.

Kelly: Conscious experience isn't the foundation of A=A; while necessary to know that A=A, that law is not falsified without consciousness. It just remains unknown.

Beingof1: You do realize this is an absurd answer right? Must I truly point out how?

Kelly: It's absurd to posit that everything is false when no consciousnesses are around to know it.

Beingof1: How do you know? Do you have any evidence or facts or logic to back this statement up?

What exists outside of consciousness cannot be experienced. If things appear, including concepts like falsehood and truth, that is evidence of consciousness, of at least one observer. Things are distinguished by consciousness.

In other words, what lies beyond consciousness is distinguished by consciousness as "hidden", or, at most "a blurry, indistinctness". It exists as such.

Another way of looking at the limitations of consciousness is to conceive of Reality as all things, including what is hidden from consciousness.


.

[Animus]

You can't extrapolate from First Principle without deducing First Principle from secondary principles, and I think that is what is happening here.

Perhaps First Principle is something as simple, yet nebulously portrayed as "There is existence", but to arrive at this First Principle we generally deduce it from some secondary principle like "A=A" or "I AM". I fundamentally agree with both the Law of Identity/Law of Non-Contradiction and the statement "I AM". However, I believe these are both secondary principles that are only made manifest within the sheer fact of existence.

Existence can be deduced from A=A, as Kelly Jones as elaborated on. When A=A produces an picture of the world as one singular causal event unfolding in seamless non-contradiction, that is existence, but it is not as discretely given as the law of identity itself is. Existence can not be expressed in logical format without first dividing it into distinct things, the law of identity illustrates the application of logic to the world.

The law of identity and the statement "I AM" are both useful for arriving at that pure conception of existence, but they themselves are not the complete image. A=A means that for every "I AM" there must be another which is not "I AM", and that without any "I AM" there would be no definition to existence.

Analogously, in programming, if you write a section of code that creates an object and then fail to reference that object anywhere else in the code, to the operation of the program it is as if the object simply didn't exist, it is of no effect. An existence which consists of a singular causal unfolding, and that has its effect on nothing, is like an object that is never referenced within the operation of the program and therefor is never made manifest in the program. So, too, without the "I AM", without an observer of discrete thingness, it is as if existence didn't exist. As a singular causative chain unfolding, and not having its effect on any observer, it never becomes anything other than a singular causative force unfolding, it is never experienced, or interpreted as anything, in that state it is not a thing, it is not even black, as black is something observed by the experiencer.

Hence, the trinity of creation, consists of The emmanence, expression, presentation or singular causative force unfolding; the reproduction, representation, division, duality; with the experiencer, onlooker, discoverer, consciousness intervening to make the whole thing exist, manifest, effectual, apparent, known, etc...

In the beginning the principle of God was to Create, and out of this Will created Adam, the Quintessential Ideal of Man, but in order for this ideal to be manifest, Man was not singular but pluralized. For Man to experience God, out of necessity there was created an infinite chain of discrete (albeit unified) causes. Such that Man could perceive an infinite line stretching himself back to God, and this necessity amounts to physical reality, but it also amounts to the splitting up of Man into millions of Men and Women. For Man to recognize himself as distinct, he needed to contrast himself against that which is not him, nor was it sufficient for Man to be aware of unconscious beings, Man, to recognize himself, his own consciousness, must have seen it in other men and identified it as himself. Hence, the Ideal of Man, made manifest as many men.

The reality, of course, is that Man can chase these infinite causes for infinity and never find anything more than infinite causation, that which he seeks however, that is God, lies within this very fact.