GENIUS FORUMS

Jamesh wrote:I've not seen anything that can’t be looked at from two equally valid and complimentary opposing perspectives.

Did you mean to express this so adamantly? What is the perspective that makes a square circle possible, for example?

How about this perspective ?


http://media.photobucket.com/image/tibe ... andala.jpg

That's all very pretty, but not a single square circle in sight.

But is it not a perspective ? (Another way of looking at it....another perspective )

No. Circles drawn within squares are self-evidently not square circles.

but you need to change your perspective....another way to see the circle-square ....is to see the circle inside the square ....a square circle is not possible unless you put the circle inside a square and see it from a possible perspective instead of an impossible perspective.

You can make it logical.


http://www.tony5m17h.net/120cell.gif

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images ... -sober.jpg

Here's your square circle :


http://0.tqn.com/d/animation/1/0/H/Flas ... nished.gif

Bob Michael wrote: Krishnamurti said the greatest of all gifts is "impersonal love". Meaning having true and abiding love for all human beings.

"Love is not sensation... Love is neither personal nor impersonal; love is a state of being in which sensation as thought is wholly absent." - J. Krishnamurti.

Bob Michael wrote: My view is that Krishnamurti's message or teaching was 'not geared' to reach people's hearts or to the very depths of their being. And especially as the years went on.

But rest assured, L S, he did not live entirely in vain. He passed the 'torch' on to me in Ojai back in '85 and I am carrying it forward.

You have met him personally? How is the atmosphere around him?
I simply hope you didn't project your subjective understanding into his teaching.

Kunga wrote:Here's your square circle :

http://0.tqn.com/d/animation/1/0/H/Flas ... nished.gif

Um, no, sorry.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kunga wrote:Here's your square circle :

http://0.tqn.com/d/animation/1/0/H/Flas ... nished.gif

Um, no, sorry.

Whaddaya mean no ??!

You saw a circle turn into a square right ?
It dosn't get any better than that !
Admit I came close...... :)

Close to what? Relevance? Not really. I don't know why you think a shape being morphed into another shape means anything in relation to the point.

Kunga wrote:You saw a circle turn into a square right ?

If the circle is turning into a square then it isn't the square is it? This is basic logic.

Again, if the circle is within the square, or vice versa, then the two objects aren't the same object. Of course, you can call a combination of one/many squares and circles a "square circle", but that object would be neither a square nor a circle. However you look at it, you can't have an object that is both a square and a circle, if you define "square" and "circle" to be different things.

Similarly with opposing perspectives - if two perspectives oppose each other then either one of them is wrong, or both of them are wrong and a third perspective is right. You can't understand the differences in perspectives while rejecting the duality of right and wrong.

I'm thinking outside the box....comming up with creative solutions to the problem
There are no rules established here as to how the circle can be a circle-square.
You are being a square and I am running circles around you !
:)

A square circle is a two dimensional object that simultaneously meets the definitions of "square" and "circle". i.e., an impossibility.

jupiviv wrote:

Kunga wrote:You saw a circle turn into a square right ?

If the circle is turning into a square then it isn't the square is it? This is basic logic.

I know it's impossible for a square circle to exist.....but I was playing with the possibilites one could come up with if looking at it from another perspective would make more sense.

Again, if the circle is within the square, or vice versa, then the two objects aren't the same object. Of course, you can call a combination of one/many squares and circles a "square circle", but that object would be neither a square nor a circle. However you look at it, you can't have an object that is both a square and a circle, if you define "square" and "circle" to be different things.

Similarly with opposing perspectives - if two perspectives oppose each other then either one of them is wrong, or both of them are wrong and a third perspective is right. You can't understand the differences in perspectives while rejecting the duality of right and wrong.

I was thinking about the perspective of how something illogical could be made logical...by tweeking the illogical .... :)again....not following any rules .....the morphing circle became a square....abeit not a square circle....but a morphed square circle....again.....breaking the rules of this immpossible logistical square-circle.

Dan Rowden wrote:A square circle is a two dimensional object that simultaneously meets the definitions of "square" and "circle". i.e., an impossibility.

Yes...impossible in 2 dimensions....unless it's morphed ! :)
and it was morphed in 2 dimensions !

Kunga wrote:I'm thinking outside the box....comming up with creative solutions to the problem

There is no problem. A square and a circle are different things, so it is meaningless to try to find a way of saying that they are the same thing.

Also, I disapprove of you responding to me in pink, not to mention changing part of my own post to pink. Stop this immediately!

Will the "WWW" be the final destination for man kind or will his 'will' be unsurrendered? My guess is that the 'final destination' will be an global defect 'like' an asteroid or rocket science. Some people think that venus has power; others mars. My explaination to MovingAlways, is that the sum of microscopic things cannot think. Hence, they are like the origins. are twice the age of it's sum using X,Y,Z. The cancelation of you thought transmitted to another is the 'matrix' (the matrix is plain and stupid). What televisions? Truth. The whole global design. Then, there is God. If (it) was up to me to put an end to the beginning, then, I would for sure (write). He said wordless nerve. Does anybody have a theory on death and global warming? Does anyone have a chance to breath? I think it's suble that (you) think I'm not when the whole time it is (you) who thinks that way. Logically. Exponentially, we are all members of the human race.

Dan Rowden wrote:A square circle is a two dimensional object that simultaneously meets the definitions of "square" and "circle". i.e., an impossibility.

Sometimes, speech is manifested through learning. What human has speech and what animal doesn't. God compares himself to an animal. Yet, his philosophies are deep like the lions. How do you define spirituality Dan Rowaden?

Square and circle are passing off undefined so far in this thread, or the terms are supposed to be self-evident, or something? (Should I check it on dictionary? : ))

> A square circle is a two dimensional object that simultaneously meets the definitions of "square" and "circle". i.e., an impossibility.
Two dimensional... Do this means that we are ruling out some of non-euclidean geometry?

> What is the perspective that makes a square circle possible, for example?
From the perspective that "a possible square circle is impossible", for example. But I'll wait to see what jamesh has to say on that.

The resistance people show to absolutes is odd. I suppose if they accept the absolute for what it is, they have to figure out the significance it has in relation to everything else they've grown comfortable with, intellectually. A distinction between analytical truth and empirical is a good start. It's amazing the difficulty even the most intellectual people have with this basic foundation of sound thinking.

jupiviv wrote:

Kunga wrote:I'm thinking outside the box....comming up with creative solutions to the problem

There is no problem. A square and a circle are different things, so it is meaningless to try to find a way of saying that they are the same thing.

Also, I disapprove of you responding to me in pink, not to mention changing part of my own post to pink. Stop this immediately!

(Laughingly.... she vows only to appear as pink sunsets in India...)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kcNnufWBLMw/T ... %2B001.jpg

Yes...I know a circle and a square are two different things....but I was trying to convey how you could see a square circle (an impossibility in the 3rd dimension), in another perspective. Since there are no rules established as how to prove this otherwise, I attempted (for the sake of creativity), to look at it from another perspective......I wasn't saying a square circle exists empirically....I was trying to show logical ways an illogical
oddity could be seen as logical....lol....does that make any sense ?

Anyways....I learned something from this....there a part of me that is open to the possibility that anything is possible....even the impossible.....there must be another dimension where the impossible is possible....we are like fish in a fish tank.....

Namaste

Dan Rowden wrote:A square circle is a two dimensional object that simultaneously meets the definitions of "square" and "circle". i.e., an impossibility.

Why this example always draws debate when it crops up is beyond me. It is merely an example of a logical contradiction. It is not some kind of intellectual challenge. To think that any perspective - or any amount of genius or insight - can make a square circle a possibility is delusional if not borderline insane. It would be like saying that impossibilities are impossible. That is self-evidently a contradiction. Elsewhere a poster remarked "so that means impossibilities are possible! Isn't that a contradiction?" But of course, it is not, that apparent contradiction is merely an artifact of language. The meaning should be clear: it is possible to come up with logical contradictions, even if they do not (or cannot) exist. That is the entire point of the example of a square circle.

I think at the time I suggested it (a "square circle") is short hand for "logical contradiction." A more concrete example would be to take two sets A and B and define them this way. If a thing is in A it is not in B, and if a thing is in B it is not in A. You cannot then logically posit a thing that belongs in both A and B. It would be a "square circle."

cousinbasil wrote:To think that any perspective - or any amount of genius or insight - can make a square circle a possibility is delusional if not borderline insane.

I agree...but it has been stimulating my brain and teaching me a lesson in logic. I was just having fun with this
playing the devils advocate....but there is still a part of me that is open to an unknown logic. Something beyond
our human comprehension.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PUfsT-5KT6w/T ... circle.jpg

Kunga wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:To think that any perspective - or any amount of genius or insight - can make a square circle a possibility is delusional if not borderline insane.

I agree...but it has been stimulating my brain and teaching me a lesson in logic. I was just having fun with this
playing the devils advocate....but there is still a part of me that is open to an unknown logic. Something beyond
our human comprehension.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PUfsT-5KT6w/T ... circle.jpg

In no way would I wish or try to dissuade you from this perspective. As long as you understand that unknown logic of any kind will not contradict known logic. It may extend it into unexpected realms - history is rife with examples of this kind. But there would be no point in accepting such new logic in any fashion if it contradicted known logic, since then such logic would then also have to be suspect.

cousinbasil wrote: ...unknown logic of any kind will not contradict known logic. It may extend it into unexpected realms - history is rife with examples of this kind. But there would be no point in accepting such new logic in any fashion if it contradicted known logic, since then such logic would then also have to be suspect.

That sounds logical in our 3 dimensional world....but what if someday we discover there's a 4th dimension, etc. ?
Would our 3rd dimensional logic nessesarly apply in other dimensions ?

Just because it works here, dosn't mean the same laws would apply if in a different world/universe/dimension.
The brains of other beings could be millions of years evolved compaired to ours.

What logical now will be obsolete in a million years.
When we were cave men, we couldn't imagine flying in a plane would be possible/logical.
If there is intelligence millions of years ahead of us....we are like cave men to them.

I know we can only live in the present time frame....but I feel a sense of timeless eternity....and man is still
a child....