Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

[Scorched Soul]

Hey there,

I 'v browsed these forums for a while and want to confirm whether I have a grasp on the underlying reasoning. I'm talking only about the foundation of "A=A" and the implications of this for our understanding on the nature of reality.


So, I understand that "A=A" is a logical truth, and is true in all worlds, so is a so called absolute truth. Forgive, I'm not versed in logic but my understanding is that this is the same as saying

"A=not(notA)" - that is, that "A" IS everything other than that which is not A.

I know the above is a bit clumsy but I think this is one of the main points of the QRS philosophy, that "A" exists in contrast to all that is not "A" and every thing that appears to exist only does so based on our perceiving that thing in contrast to everything else. So my computer only appears to exist as my brain perceives light in such a way that I see the shape and colours in front of me but this is not objective reality, it is what my mind has perceived of reality. As we view and perceive evertying according to our senses, we cannot say anything has inherent existence, as it things only appear to exist as they do because of our senses.

THe implication of the above is that we cannot know true reality and furthermore, any perception of reality will be required to perceive this reality indirectly, meaning it will always be a suibjective interpretation of true reality.

The concept of the Totality as a whole follows on from the argument that with no perceiving senses to "carve" out things, it's meaningless to talk of a thing existing, rather, you just have Reality, which just is.


However, logic can be said to be true, and I believe this is based on the axioms of the law of identity, the law of non contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which lets us use logic to deduce further truths, such as "no thing inherently exists"


Is this somewhat on the right track?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Soul,

Tee implication of the above is that we cannot know true reality and furthermore, any perception of reality will be required to perceive this reality indirectly, meaning it will always be a suibjective interpretation of true reality.

Not a bad summary of the logic but wouldn't it remain a form of "knowing true reality"? Or in other words how do your words differ from any other subjective interpretation?

it's meaningless to talk of a thing existing, rather, you just have Reality, which just is.

Which would imply the way to really "know" any true reality would mean to be it, or why having the idea of any "Reality" in the first place? What's the purpose of talking about it?

the axioms of the law of identity, the law of non contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which lets us use logic to deduce further truths, such as "no thing inherently exists"

One other application of this is that once all wrong ideas about reality are rooted out, only reality is left. But to root out which runs so deep, sharp tools are needed. I think you're on to some.

[Scorched Soul]

Thanks for your reply and your questions.

I'm not sure I understand your first question regarding "my words" being different to the form "knowing true reality"?

I mean that my current view of reality is a construction of my mind and so I can only perceive "things", which are not the same as Reality, it is impossible for a human to know Reality and when I say "know", I guess I mean to know what the objective nature of Reality is.

Reality is the objective state of nature of what is, existence.

I guess it may be meaningless to talk about the nature of it when it cannot be even conceived without being subjective interpretation...

This is where I am a little confused - QRS believe in something, logic. So they believe we can know some things as they really are?

Why do we not extend the uncertaintly of what we can know to everything, including logic??

Even if we agree that logic can be used as a basis, what does it, alone, allow us to realise above someone who believes we cannot truly know anything objectively since we conceive/perceive through our limited senses (Like Kant..???, not sure if that was his conclusion....)

[Blair]

creepy troll construct.

[Scorched Soul]

Not at all.

I'm relatively new to philosophy and so I don't know the various types too well. Kant was one of the first books I read since I found the subject matter so intriguing - I guess what's called Metaphysics, which is essentially what Genius Forum is about, correct?

It just strikes me that the view here, as I understand it, is similar to Idealism, in that reality is caused by us (or our subjective reality is partially) but here it's belvied that logic isn't a product of our mind, but reflects a real truth - this is a priori? Are the concepts of synthetic and analytic knowledge recognised here?

I'm just trying to get my head around the the basic belief underpinning the philosophy on this board as it seems to be similar to Kant except what Kant believed was analytic a priori based on the structure of our brain (time and space and therefore logic etc) is thought to be real synthetic a priori knowledge here.

I.e. logic and causation are thought to be real - I havent been able to find much dealing with this type of philosophy so this board really appeals to me.

What part of my post do you think is trolling?

[Blair]

Not at all.

Oh no, sorry I wasn't offering you a creepy troll construct,. that's my definition.

that's my definition.

that's what I am.

[Scorched Soul]

You are whatever I think you are. Until you show some logic or reasoning, i should ignore you since you're just part of my subjective reality.

Quick, what's 2+2?

[Scorched Soul]

There doesn't seem to be much discussion of these areas on this board, are there some old threads where the topics of what can be known is discussed, as well as the idea of certain truths being able to be known by us - I think the concept of a real truth about existence is phenominal, especialy math (and I guess logic). I think the debate about whether math and logic are real truths or not is fascinating.

My instinct is to believe we can't know anything, but I find it hard to believe that we can't have an inkling of what reality is like - we ARE products of this reality, perhaps we can know more than we realise - I mean, i know this table is my perception of something that not too disimilar, ignoring the brain in a vat scenario, which is just stupid, since any civilisation that advanced would have better things to do, then I find it hard to believe reality is a complete unknowable void -

What is it to know something, maybe our five senses are sufficient to get an idea of what the universe is like - we'll never get any meaning, but thats because there probably isnt any.

[Russell Parr]

There doesn't seem to be much discussion of these areas on this board, are there some old threads where the topics of what can be known is discussed, as well as the idea of certain truths being able to be known by us - I think the concept of a real truth about existence is phenominal, especialy math (and I guess logic). I think the debate about whether math and logic are real truths or not is fascinating.

Math and logic are nothing more than tools that the human consciousness uses in its deciphering of particular aspects of subjective reality.

My instinct is to believe we can't know anything, but I find it hard to believe that we can't have an inkling of what reality is like - we ARE products of this reality, perhaps we can know more than we realise - I mean, i know this table is my perception of something that not too disimilar, ignoring the brain in a vat scenario, which is just stupid, since any civilisation that advanced would have better things to do, then I find it hard to believe reality is a complete unknowable void -

There are things we can know with complete certainty, such as, I am conscious. Or, I am experiencing something.

What is it to know something, maybe our five senses are sufficient to get an idea of what the universe is like - we'll never get any meaning, but thats because there probably isnt any.

You seem to have reached what I had experienced as a major roadblock in my understanding of reality. The answer is so subtle that it's extremely easy to miss.

Surely you can sense that your last statement has illogical undertones, because it presents itself as a statement with true meaning. However, there is much to be said of the "meaninglessness" that you're hinting at, so I think you're on the right track.

Have you read David's Wisdom of the Infinite? It goes much deeper into these subjects than these forum discussions do, in my opinion. It might help you a lot.

[David Quinn]

Hey there,

I 'v browsed these forums for a while and want to confirm whether I have a grasp on the underlying reasoning. I'm talking only about the foundation of "A=A" and the implications of this for our understanding on the nature of reality.


So, I understand that "A=A" is a logical truth, and is true in all worlds, so is a so called absolute truth. Forgive, I'm not versed in logic but my understanding is that this is the same as saying

"A=not(notA)" - that is, that "A" IS everything other than that which is not A.

I know the above is a bit clumsy but I think this is one of the main points of the QRS philosophy, that "A" exists in contrast to all that is not "A" and every thing that appears to exist only does so based on our perceiving that thing in contrast to everything else. So my computer only appears to exist as my brain perceives light in such a way that I see the shape and colours in front of me but this is not objective reality, it is what my mind has perceived of reality. As we view and perceive evertying according to our senses, we cannot say anything has inherent existence, as it things only appear to exist as they do because of our senses.

THe implication of the above is that we cannot know true reality and furthermore, any perception of reality will be required to perceive this reality indirectly, meaning it will always be a suibjective interpretation of true reality.

The concept of the Totality as a whole follows on from the argument that with no perceiving senses to "carve" out things, it's meaningless to talk of a thing existing, rather, you just have Reality, which just is.


However, logic can be said to be true, and I believe this is based on the axioms of the law of identity, the law of non contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which lets us use logic to deduce further truths, such as "no thing inherently exists"


Is this somewhat on the right track?

You're somewhat on the right track, although you haven't yet pierced the heart of it. You've made a good beginning, though.

A couple of things:

- That appearances lack inherent existence isn't just due to the fact that everything we experience in the physical world is constructed out of the information that the brain receives from the senses. More fundamentally, they lack inherent existence because it is impossible for anything to exist of its own accord. Things are dependent on the existence of their constituent parts, for example, and also, as you mentioned, on the contrast provided by their surrounding environment. On all levels, from the senses to the constituent parts to the surrounding environment, things are utterly dependent on other things for their existence.

- We can indeed know true reality, but we cannot begin to do this until we stop equating "true reality" with the world beyond consciousness (the "thing-in-itself"). The term "thing-in-itself" is a contradiction in terms - akin to "square circles" - and therefore doesn't exist. The world beyond consciousness is itself an appearance and, like everything else, exists in a dependent relationship with other things - e.g. the world perceived within consciousness.

Given that reality encompasses all there is, what we are perceiving in each moment is in fact true reality, the only true reality there is. Enlightenment consists of fully understanding and experiencing what this means.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is where I am a little confused - QRS believe in something, logic. So they believe we can know some things as they really are?

With logic one can study the world as well as ones reality. Logic is fundamental in that study, no matter if it's science or any other consistent self-correcting inquiry. If one is interested in that what is not the world, or just to know if there's anything like that in the first place, one still needs to know what the world and yourself is, where it starts, where it stops, or where not. To reject this knowledge is the recipe for further delusion because of the ongoing perceptions and interpretations of those.

Why do we not extend the uncertainty of what we can know to everything, including logic??

It would just create a new found certainty in that uncertainty. In the end one cannot avoid being certain that some knowing occurs: that existence itself is being acknowledged by some distinction or any rejection of it.

[Bob Michael]

Seems to me that no one herein has gone beyond the limits of logic and reason and has thereby entered into that rare mystical and all-knowing dimension of existence. That place of being in full living relationship with the Infinite.

[David Quinn]

Woof! Woof! Woof!

-

[Cahoot]

Seems to me that no one herein has gone beyond the limits of logic and reason and has thereby entered into that rare mystical and all-knowing dimension of existence. That place of being in full living relationship with the Infinite.

Lots of people don’t do lots of things, but what people don’t do exists only in imaginative mind.

Logical inference derives from imaginative mind. Delusions derive from imaginative mind. Ideas derive from imaginative mind.

In this situation, which is human communication, communication derives from imaginative mind.

In this situation, in order to go beyond the limits of logic and reason, one would have to ditch imaginative mind and communicate in other ways.

Silence is the only other method available in this situation. In this situation, silence can be communicated via absence of a posting, or by posting a blank page. However, posting a blank page is less effective as it still relies on the imaginative mind of the receiver in order to communicate the idea that a blank page represents, within the context of this situation.

Actual spontaneous barking, wolfing, or howling at the moon are forms of communication not bound by imaginative mind, though these methods lie outside the boundaries of this situation.

However, although the writing of “Woof! Woof! Woof!” still derives from imaginative mind and relies on the reception of an imaginative mind in order to communicate, writing those words does effectively communicate all of the above within the context of this situation.

[Anders Schlander]

Seems to me that no one herein has gone beyond the limits of logic and reason and has thereby entered into that rare mystical and all-knowing dimension of existence. That place of being in full living relationship with the Infinite.

Let's say for a moment you could leave Logic and Reason behind. What would that be like? and how would you explain it without logic and reason? It seems to me one can only know a limit to something if one knows what it is, namely, you must know logic to know the limit of it.

The All, or God does not escape the logic that being infinite means he is unable to be finite, so logic is essentially all pervasive, even if we aren't thinking about it.

[jupiviv]

- We can indeed know true reality, but we cannot begin to do this until we stop equating "true reality" with the world beyond consciousness (the "thing-in-itself"). The term "thing-in-itself" is a contradiction in terms - akin to "square circles" - and therefore doesn't exist. The world beyond consciousness is itself an appearance and, like everything else, exists in a dependent relationship with other things - e.g. the world perceived within consciousness.

It depends on how you define "consciousness." If consciousness is defined transcendentally(à la Kant), then there are no things beyond consciousness, because "things", by definition, must appear to consciousness. On the other hand, if consciousness is defined as a particular consciousness, then that consciousness will necessarily be limited, there will necessarily be a world beyond consciousness and a "thing-in-itself", as you say.

[Russell Parr]

- We can indeed know true reality, but we cannot begin to do this until we stop equating "true reality" with the world beyond consciousness (the "thing-in-itself"). The term "thing-in-itself" is a contradiction in terms - akin to "square circles" - and therefore doesn't exist. The world beyond consciousness is itself an appearance and, like everything else, exists in a dependent relationship with other things - e.g. the world perceived within consciousness.

It depends on how you define "consciousness." If consciousness is defined transcendentally(à la Kant), then there are no things beyond consciousness, because "things", by definition, must appear to consciousness. On the other hand, if consciousness is defined as a particular consciousness, then that consciousness will necessarily be limited, there will necessarily be a world beyond consciousness and a "thing-in-itself", as you say.

Consciousness cannot be anything but both at the same time. Consciousness necessarily implies contrast (duality), no matter which way you look at it. It is always a "focus" on A, and not not-A.

[jupiviv]

By "transcendental" I meant in the sense of a logical entity, which would exclude any actual, particular consciousness or group of consciousnesses.

[Bob Michael]

Let's say for a moment you could leave Logic and Reason behind. What would that be like? And how would you explain it without logic and reason?

Via the sharing of one's personal experiences of life, death, rebirth, and the developing of a living relationship with the Infinite.

[Blair]

How does one exist outside of a relationship with the infinite?

[Cahoot]

Let's say for a moment you could leave Logic and Reason behind. What would that be like? And how would you explain it without logic and reason?

Via the sharing of one's personal experiences of life, death, rebirth, and the developing of a living relationship with the Infinite.

Bob,

I understand your point.

There is an occurrence that I personally know. It is immediate, impossible to ignore.

Very briefly ...

When the illusion of separation vanishes one becomes the suffering of the world, as this suffering manifests within one’s range of perception. This is very painful, one does not choose this, and it cannot be stopped. It cannot be reasoned away, no more than one can reason away a disease or an attacking animal. There is only an intense and immediate need to stop the physical pain and mental anguish within oneself. It is debilitating, one cannot function. All the old shields that blocked separation from the world’s suffering are gone. Without thought one begins to learn that doing what one must do to ease the suffering of another thus eases one’s inner pain, because they are now inseparable. And this easing, in contrast to the intense pain that existed an instant before, is clear, still, peace-filled bliss. The word nectar comes to mind, as in pure and nourishing. The realizations that begin to dawn from this cause quite a bit of laughter.

Going through this pretty much destroys one’s old notions of cause and effect, and identity, as these old notions were intertwined with a false sense of separation.

Of course there is much more about what leads up to this change, which is dying to what was, and there is much more about what follows (as life does go on).

[David Quinn]

Let's say for a moment you could leave Logic and Reason behind. What would that be like? And how would you explain it without logic and reason?

Via the sharing of one's personal experiences of life, death, rebirth, and the developing of a living relationship with the Infinite.

Today I went down the stairs and onto the street. The sun was shining. Sounds of kids playing filtered over from far away. A crow sqwarked overhead. Rubbish was strewn from an overfull bin, which I stepped around. A car passed, and a neighbour said hello.

-

[Bob Michael]

How does one exist outside of a relationship with the infinite?

I said "developing a 'living' relationship with the Infinite." To merely "exist" is not to truly live. And a fully living relationship with the Infinite or Life can only be attained by those with finely-formed and highly-sensitive consciences or neurological facilities. But the huge bulk of humanity has become irreparably desensitized and dehumanized via the process of evolution and as a result mankind enmasse is unknowingly without sound consciences and men are thereby robot- or machine-like and most surely not fully human, fully alive, fully Spirit. The human species everywhere has developmentally deteriorated to the point whereby it has become cerebrally oriented rather than intuitively oriented. Or more simply man lives in his head rather than in his heart. Which again is not really to live at all. Consequently men and women everywhere are without an authentic and fully living (and fully loving) relationship with themselves, their fellows, and the Infinite.

"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." (H. D. Thoreau)

And nothing has changed for the better in this regard since Henry's days here on the planet earth.

[Bob Michael]

Today I went down the stairs and onto the street. The sun was shining. Sounds of kids playing filtered over from far away. A crow sqwarked overhead. Rubbish was strewn from an overfull bin, which I stepped around. A car passed, and a neighbour said hello.

Was your heart overflowing with joy and gratitude, David?

Or.....let's say.....were the hills 'alive' with the sound of music?

[cousinbasil]

Today I went down the stairs and onto the street. The sun was shining. Sounds of kids playing filtered over from far away. A crow sqwarked overhead. Rubbish was strewn from an overfull bin, which I stepped around. A car passed, and a neighbour said hello.

Was your heart overflowing with joy and gratitude, David?

Or.....let's say.....were the hills 'alive' with the sound of music?

Hey Bob - you don't exactly come across as a barrel of laughs yourself. What exactly in Quinn's writings prompted this little personal insult and your present sarcasm? Granted he's a bit of a boor sometimes, but he's Australian so it's understandable.