Search for beauty and you will find Truth

Post questions or suggestions here.
hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Search for beauty and you will find Truth

Post by hades » Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:27 pm

There is nothing more beautiful than beautiful women =D
Thats the Truth.

I'm not talking about simply physically amazing, but also mentally and emotionally brilliant women.

Discuss

bagelsandpizza
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:01 am

Post by bagelsandpizza » Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:03 pm

but you haven't even said anything
hey

hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Post by hades » Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:52 pm

bagelsandpizza wrote:but you haven't even said anything


Not sure how to say what I wanna say

LooF
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:43 am

Post by LooF » Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:09 pm

i like that hades :D

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Search for beauty and you will find Truth

Post by Kevin Solway » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:30 pm

hades wrote:There is nothing more beautiful than beautiful women =D
Thats the Truth.

I'm not talking about simply physically amazing, but also mentally and emotionally brilliant women.

Discuss
Unless you can provide some substantive reasoning to your allegation this post doesn't even deserve to be in the brothel, and will be removed.

hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Post by hades » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:15 pm

ksolway wrote:
hades wrote:There is nothing more beautiful than beautiful women =D
Thats the Truth.

I'm not talking about simply physically amazing, but also mentally and emotionally brilliant women.

Discuss
Unless you can provide some substantive reasoning to your allegation this post doesn't even deserve to be in the brothel, and will be removed.
reasoning is fundamentally baseless...since it always requires something outside itself for justification. The demand for reason is always available, and justifying your justifiers is an endless process...it is never complete and never truly satisfied. So your question is irrelevant since reason is irrelevant

The thing about beauty and truth, is that they do not require justifiers and useless chains of reasoning. They are complete and justified by themselves and through themselves....and thats why they are found at the same time

hence the beautiful woman topic =D

this might be too much to bear for some of the people here, since they are merely boys waving their flag of "Logic" or "masculinity" while putting signs all over their imaginary fort saying "no girls allowed"....

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:45 pm

reasoning is fundamentally baseless...since it always requires something outside itself for justification.
All reasoning is fundamentally of the form A=A, so what is needed, outside of A=A, to justify it? It is complete.

it is never complete and never truly satisfied.
What is not complete about A=A?

The thing about beauty and truth, is that they
do not require justifiers and useless chains of reasoning.
You said there is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful woman. That might be true for you, but not for anyone else. So why bother mentioning it? It is obviously a matter of personal taste.

Beauty is a personal thing, and that which is beautiful varies from one person to the next.

But Truth is an absolute, and is the same for all people who experience it.

So these things are not the same.

hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Post by hades » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:15 pm

ksolway wrote:
All reasoning is fundamentally of the form A=A, so what is needed, outside of A=A, to justify it? It is complete.
I'm not arguing A=A, because it is not the process of reasoning, it is simply a rule used when reasoning
Ofcourse we could argue rules...but we end up appealing to the rules, and its all circular and boring

Make the distinction between Soccer and its rules though, thnx

Reasoning in the sense you were asking for with your first question was of the sort that demands a justifier for a statement.


It was in the form:
"Can you explain Z?"
At which point I would say "Y!"
And then you could say, but how do you support Y?
At which point I would say "X ofcourse!"
Etc.


it is never complete and never truly satisfied.

What is not complete about A=A?
Again you dodge the problem. Reasoning boils down to
Z -> Y -> X -> ... ad absurdum


A=A is complete as long as it remains symbolic and meaningless

Once 'A' refers to something in reality, such as a proposition, or a specific thing, then we are back to the problem of justification.

So you can have it meanginless and incoherent in which case it is "complete"

or you can have it self-defeating and absurd once you give it meaning and specificity

kthnx





But Truth is an absolute, and is the same for all people who experience it.
The only truths you have are those logically ascertained premises you accept, and whatever chain of reasoning you have decided to carry along with those premises.

These ideas can not be experienced anymore than the number 2 or a triangle. There will never be a real physical connection and experience, only a mental construct of some desired idea.

And your truths can't be absolute because they are simply ideas present in your sentient brain, ideas that will mix up with other ideas, become forgotten and lost...its all quite trivial and self-defeating just like "reasoning"

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:12 am

hades wrote:I'm not arguing A=A, because it is not the process of reasoning, it is simply a rule used when reasoning
Of course we could argue rules...but we end up appealing to the rules, and its all circular and boring
Fundamentally the only real rule of reasoning is A=A, and there's nothing else left to appeal to. So we need go no further than that, and we don't go in circles.
Reasoning in the sense you were asking for with your first question was of the sort that demands a justifier for a statement.


That's right, as it seemed like a senseless statment to me. There needs to be some kind of A=A reasoning going on to make any sense of it. For example, if you said, "To me, there is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful woman". Then that would conform to A=A. But to say that for all people there is nothing more beautiful than a beatiful woman - that does not conform to the A=A rule, and therefore is faulty reasoning.
It was in the form:
"Can you explain Z?"
At which point I would say "Y!"
And then you could say, but how do you support Y?
At which point I would say "X ofcourse!"
Etc.
You could say: "To me, there is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful woman, because to me there is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful woman." No further explanation is necessary. We have reached A=A and need go no further. Indeed, we can go no further.

A=A is complete as long as it remains symbolic and meaningless
"A" is a symbol for any thing. So it is not the symbols that are important, but the things they refer to, as in the example above.
Once 'A' refers to something in reality, such as a proposition, or a specific thing, then we are back to the problem of justification.
Let's say you feel "love". So the thing in question, the "A" in this case, is "love". Do you need to justify to yourself that you feel love, after the fact that you feel it? No you don't. If you feel love, then you feel it. A=A. There is no question about it, and no justification required.
But Truth is an absolute, and is the same for all people who experience it.
The only truths you have are those logically ascertained premises you accept, and whatever chain of reasoning you have decided to carry along with those premises.

These ideas can not be experienced anymore than the number 2 or a triangle.
No matter. In essence, that is how all things are experienced. They are all just ideas in the mind - abstract things. There is no way we can get beyond our minds to anything else.
There will never be a real physical connection and experience, only a mental construct of some desired idea.
You will experience the ideas that Nature forces you to experience, no matter whether you desire them or not.

I might desire to have a million dollars in the bank, but my computer screen - a part of Nature - forces me to have other ideas.
And your truths can't be absolute because they are simply ideas present in your sentient brain, ideas that will mix up with other ideas, become forgotten and lost...its all quite trivial and self-defeating just like "reasoning"
Nevertheless, all wise people, of all ages, arrive at the same Truth. If you are worred that if you seek truth it will be a waste of time since you might forget it, or you will one day die, then don't seek it. Do something you find more satisfying.

hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Post by hades » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:22 am


That's right, as it seemed like a senseless statment to me. There needs to be some kind of A=A reasoning going on to make any sense of it. For example, if you said, "To me, there is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful woman". Then that would conform to A=A. But to say that for all people there is nothing more beautiful than a beatiful woman - that does not conform to the A=A rule, and therefore is faulty reasoning.

You see, you still require some sort of reasoning behind my statement in order to justify it. You are still looking for an X to my Y. Which leads to absurdity. You can repeat A=A and stick it into all your sentences it is besides the point and irrelevant.
It tells us nothing.




You could say: "To me, there is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful woman, because to me there is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful woman." No further explanation is necessary. We have reached A=A and need go no further. Indeed, we can go no further.
Again thats circular reasoning, the only kind there is.


If you support what you are trying to prove with what you are trying to prove, you are just begging the question.
Dogs are smart because dogs are smart because dogs are smart. Repeating the statement does not validate it.
A=A=A=A <--- childish repitition, get over it.

"A" is a symbol for any thing. So it is not the symbols that are important, but the things they refer to, as in the example above.
Once that "A" refers to something meaningful you get in trouble.
The only thing it will tell you is what you already know, nothing new can be extrapolated from it.
A=A is fundamentally saying A cat is a Cat is a Cat.
Yes so? How do you know its a cat and not a rat? What sort of cat is it? How old is it? Male or female? Beautiful or Ugly? Genius or Ignorant?

The only thing A=A can tell you is this: If the cat is a genius then it is a genius. If it is male then it is male. If it is old it is old.
....yawn?





Let's say you feel "love". So the thing in question, the "A" in this case, is "love". Do you need to justify to yourself that you feel love, after the fact that you feel it? No you don't. If you feel love, then you feel it. A=A. There is no question about it, and no justification required.
Yes you can look for justification over "love" or any other thing that "A" will refer to in reality, that is the problem.

Is it true love? Or just delusion, or euphoria brought up by some condition, or is it just happiness, or is it shock?
You would need introspective justification to know it.
And providing reasoning and justifying it to someone is even harder than proving it to yourself.

If "A" refers to something more specific, like Cancer, then it requires proof and reasoning "behind" it. And that proof requires reasoning and proof behind it...and so forth....absurd

Even if it refers to something like "John is a boy", you need justification. How do you know hes a boy? You have to go beyond the naive a=a=a=a repitition of definitions to find out Truth.



No matter. In essence, that is how all things are experienced. They are all just ideas in the mind - abstract things. There is no way we can get beyond our minds to anything else.
No. That might be how you have experienced things so far, and an idea that appeals to you.

Mere induction can't lead you to make that universal claim.
:)

If you have a logical proof then show me, I will reduce it as well. Thnx.



Nevertheless, all wise people, of all ages, arrive at the same Truth. If you are worred that if you seek truth it will be a waste of time since you might forget it, or you will one day die, then don't seek it. Do something you find more satisfying.
Just curious, what Truth might that be?


I'm not worried about it being a waste of time, I know it is a waste of time due to its transient and unjustifiable nature.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:05 pm

hades wrote:
You could say: "To me, there is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful woman, because to me there is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful woman." No further explanation is necessary. We have reached A=A and need go no further. Indeed, we can go no further.
Again thats circular reasoning, the only kind there is.
It is immediate reasoning, rather than circular, since you are not travelling anwhere with it - you are staying in the very same place.

An example of circular reasoning would be something like, "The Bible is true, because it says in the Bible that it is true."
If you support what you are trying to prove with what you are trying to prove, you are just begging the question.
Dogs are smart because dogs are smart because dogs are smart. Repeating the statement does not validate it.
A=A=A=A <--- childish repitition, get over it.
In cases of A=A you usually don't use the same words on both sides of the equation, but the words on either side of the equation mean the same thing.

For example, instead of saying "dogs are smart because they are smart", you might say "dogs are smart because they show signs that we consider to be indicative of intelligence".

Now "showing signs that we consider indicative of intelligence" is actually exactly what "smart" means.

So even though it doesn't appear to be A=A to the untrained eye, in fact it is.

The reasoning however may still be false, since we might be misinterpreting the signs, and the dogs may not be intelligent at all. That would be a case of mis-identification (saying that A is identical to that which is not identical to A).

Once that "A" refers to something meaningful you get in trouble. The only thing it will tell you is what you already know, nothing new can be extrapolated from it.


Let's say that you are a Christian, and you come to the understanding that God and Brahman are identical (ie, A=A). This understanding might led lead you to study all the Hindu scriptures. That is, you extrapolate from your new knowlege that there might be something useful to be found in the Hindu teachings. You could formulate that extrapolation in A=A terms as well if you wanted to.
The only thing it will tell you is what you already know
Ultimately you can never understand anything you don't already know. The understanding and the knowing arise at the same time - at the moment of identification.

Learning itself is simply a process of identification.
A=A is fundamentally saying A cat is a Cat is a Cat.
Yes so? How do you know its a cat and not a rat?
We might say a thing is a cat because it appears to be a cat. But a cat is precisely a thing that appears to have those characteristics we define to be a "cat". So we are only saying A=A.

The thing that appears to be a cat might later appear to be a rat. When that happens, we say rat = rat.

It would be an interesting exercise to write a Doctor Seuss book based on A=A.

The only thing A=A can tell you is this: If the cat is a genius then it is a genius. If it is male then it is male. If it is old it is old.

....yawn?
That's all reasoning can ever tell you.

Let's say we discover that there is an intelligent race of beings living on mars. That might seem exciting at first, to some people. But after a couple of centuries it will be just as boring as anything else.
Yes you can look for justification over "love" or any other thing that "A" will refer to in reality, that is the problem.
If you feel love, you feel love. That's all there is to it. If you see the appearance of a cat, you see the appearance of a cat. It is literally crazy to look for further justification.
Is it true love? Or just delusion, or euphoria brought up by some condition, or is it just happiness, or is it shock?
These things are not relevant as to whether you feel love or not.

If you decide it is true love, then it is true love - since you are yourself the person defining what "true love" means.
Even if it refers to something like "John is a boy", you need justification. How do you know hes a boy?
Once again, a "boy" is only a thing that appears to be a boy. That is all.
If you have a logical proof then show me, I will reduce it as well. Thnx.
I think you need to deal with A=A first.



Nevertheless, all wise people, of all ages, arrive at the same Truth. If you are worried that if you seek truth it will be a waste of time since you might forget it, or you will one day die, then don't seek it. Do something you find more satisfying.
Just curious, what Truth might that be?
It is described in texts like David's "Wisdom of the Infinite", and in Buddhism, as "Emptiness".

hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Post by hades » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:00 pm

ksolway wrote: It is immediate reasoning, rather than circular, since you are not travelling anwhere with it - you are staying in the very same place.
Oh its "immeditate reasoning"...thats a nice way to sugar-coat it. And you aren't traveling anywhere because circles don't go anywhere.
An example of circular reasoning would be something like, "The Bible is true, because it says in the Bible that it is true."
We already have enough circular reasoning examples everytime you reply.

In cases of A=A you usually don't use the same words on both sides of the equation, but the words on either side of the equation mean the same thing.
And thus its not saying anything new, just repeating something.
For example, instead of saying "dogs are smart because they are smart", you might say "dogs are smart because they show signs that we consider to be indicative of intelligence".
OH this is comical. Showing signs of intelligence does not equate to being intelligent. A person can show signs of being intelligent and be utterly stupid, they can be coached and trained to repeat something intelligent while not understanding what they are talking about.

The honest example you should have given instead of trying to decieve is this:
"The dog seems to give off signs of intelligence because the dog appears to give off signs of intelligence."

A=A

Nothing new, nothing special...yawn self-referential logic



Let's say that you are a Christian, and you come to the understanding that God and Brahman are identical (ie, A=A). This understanding might led lead you to study all the Hindu scriptures. That is, you extrapolate from your new knowlege that there might be something useful to be found in the Hindu teachings. You could formulate that extrapolation in A=A terms as well if you wanted to.
Reaching that belief requires a lot more than simply thinking A=A. You would have to study, research and put similarities together and differences apart...

A=A won't tell you anything about God or Brahman.

Except...God is GOd
Brahman is Brahman

Cat is Cat...bleh




If you feel love, you feel love. That's all there is to it. If you see the appearance of a cat, you see the appearance of a cat. It is literally crazy to look for further justification.
The problem is, things aren't always what they appear to be. In which case you need further justification...in which case you appeal to reason and end in absurdity.

These things are not relevant as to whether you feel love or not.

If you decide it is true love, then it is true love - since you are yourself the person defining what "true love" means.
It is relevant when we are talking about a more specific term instead of "love" which is hard to define and vague....





I think you need to deal with A=A first.
Its not saying much....because its not saying much....



It is described in texts like David's "Wisdom of the Infinite", and in Buddhism, as "Emptiness".
Can't it stand on its own? Can't you simply state it?

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:08 pm

circles don't go anywhere.
Circles go in circles, A=A just stays where it is.

Showing signs of intelligence does not equate to being intelligent.
We have no other way of guaging intelligence other than the appearance of intelligence. Thus, a thing is intelligent when it appears intelligent.

You would have to study, research and put similarities together and differences apart...
Whatever you did, so long as you were being rational, you would be using A=A alone.
The problem is, things aren't always what they appear to be.
Things are always what they appear to be. If what used to appear to be a cat, now appears to be a rat, then it is now a rat. In the future in might appear to be a cat again, or something completely different.

It is described in texts like David's "Wisdom of the Infinite", and in Buddhism, as "Emptiness".
Can't it stand on its own? Can't you simply state it?
If I did, you wouldn't be able to see it.

hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Post by hades » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:42 pm

ksolway wrote:
Circles go in circles, A=A just stays where it is.

Circles go in Circles and A goes in A.... Yes, it is stagnant.


We have no other way of guaging intelligence other than the appearance of intelligence. Thus, a thing is intelligent when it appears intelligent.
Even if that were true, which its not (Refer to the Chinese Room problem) the appearance can be relative.






Things are always what they appear to be. If what used to appear to be a cat, now appears to be a rat, then it is now a rat. In the future in might appear to be a cat again, or something completely different.
....
Seriously?

Things are always what they appear to be? What planet do you live on?

Reminds me of the example buddha made, I think?
About a guy looking at a rope and thinking its a snake...it appeared to be a snake and he was frightened, yet it was a rope* in "reality"...



If I did, you wouldn't be able to see it.
Ahh just like the christians with their "I will not cast my pearls before the swine" mentality....nice defense

cute

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:46 pm

Things are always what they appear to be. If what used to appear to be a cat, now appears to be a rat, then it is now a rat. In the future in might appear to be a cat again, or something completely different.
Seriously?
There is absolutely no way to get beyond appearances. It is logically impossible.
Things are always what they appear to be? What planet do you live on?
As I say, it is logically impossible for a thing to be other than what it appears to be - even though what it appears to be might be changing from moment to moment.
Reminds me of the example buddha made, I think?
About a guy looking at a rope and thinking its a snake...it appeared to be a snake and he was frightened, yet it was a rope* in "reality"...
When we are speaking about empirical matters, such as in the case of a rope, or a snake, there is no way we can know what it is other than what it appears to be. And the appearance of the snake, or the rope, might be simply illusions.

There is no way, logically, that you can say that a thing is absolutely a snake, or a rope, for all time. You cannot tell when your senses are deceiving you.

hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Post by hades » Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:13 pm

ksolway wrote:
When we are speaking about empirical matters, such as in the case of a rope, or a snake, there is no way we can know what it is other than what it appears to be. And the appearance of the snake, or the rope, might be simply illusions.

There is no way, logically, that you can say that a thing is absolutely a snake, or a rope, for all time. You cannot tell when your senses are deceiving you.
The assertion that things are always what they seem to be is wrong. Since what a thing is is not dependant upon what a person believes, thinks, or percieves it to be.

If it was true that things are what they appear to be, and appearances are partially dependant upon a person and his mental processes then it would be possible to break the rule of A=A, perhaps?

One person could percieve the object to be a snake, while the other percieves it to be not a snake.

By your logic, (things are what they appear to be), the object would be both a snake and not-a-snake at the same time. no?

Actually before you reply...If things are simply what they appear to be, and since your arguments appear to be wrong, then they are, and you should simply concede and agree with me.

Heres another example...
I may look at a bus yet I see it as an attractive woman running towards me....and then get hit and injured by the bus.

It is not the case that the object changed from bus to woman, and woman to bus, but simply that my observation was deluded. An illusion happens when a person observes something and is decieved about its true form....the case of the rope and snake is a perfect example. In reality the object is a bus, or a rope...and the deluded person is tricked into thinking it is a woman...or a snake.

Since you admit illusions can occur, then that implies an object can have a true reality while being misinterpreted by a person.

You say you can not tell when your senses are decieving you, this presupposes the fact that in some cases your senses are not decieving you. That sometimes they are transmiting the truth....Which is obviously true, otherwise this discussion would be completely incoherent. And it is atleast...slightly coherent?

You can not dismiss sense-perception without appealing to it. You may never understand this, since things appear differently to you.

You are right, there is no way we can simply use logic by itself to determine absolute truths about reality. It is simply unfit for the task.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:16 pm

a thing is is not dependant upon what a person . . . percieves it to be.
Since our perceiving things is what demarcates things from the rest of the Universe, our perceiving of things is absolutely essential in their creation. Just as the slicing of a piece of cake is essential in the creation of a slice of cake.

Even imagining that there are things is a process of demarcation, and thus a kind of perception.
If it was true that things are what they appear to be, and appearances are partially dependant upon a person and his mental processes then it would be possible to break the rule of A=A, perhaps?
No, it's never possible.

A thing is always what it is.

However, it must be said that only enlightened people function on the level of knowledge of A=A. Ordinary people, who are effectively totally insane, break the rule of A=A all the time, at least in their own minds. That is, ordinary people are always believing self-contradictory things. They can't break the law of A=A, but they try hard.

If you said that a thing was definitely and absolutely was a cat, when it was actually something else, then this would be a mis-identification (ie, a failure to use A=A). This is typical of the practice of ordinary, unenlightened people. But if you said that the appearance of a cat is definitely the appearance of a cat, this would be a correct identification, and is a mode more common in the wise.

When science is done properly, it deals only with appearances, and doesn't stray from A=A.
One person could percieve the object to be a snake, while the other percieves it to be not a snake.
That's right. And they may both have equal reason, and evidence, to do so. Who's to say that it's not just a figment in their imaginations?
By your logic, (things are what they appear to be), the object would be both a snake and not-a-snake at the same time. no?
As far as empirical things go - physical things in the world - we can only ever deal with appearances. And appearances differ from one person to the next. Some of the scientific world may see one thing, and the rest of the scientific world may see another. That's as far as we can go at any point in time. Even if only one scientist perceives a cat, and the rest of the scientific community perceive something else, it doesn't absolutely prove anything one way or the other.
Actually before you reply...If things are simply what they appear to be, and since your arguments appear to be wrong, then they are, and you should simply concede and agree with me.
The empirical realm is different to the realm of pure logic, because with pure logic absolute certainty is possible - ie, beyond mere appearances. You might measure the moon to have a certain shape, and I might measure it to have different shape. I can't tell you for certain that you are wrong and I am right in an absolute sense.

Only with pure logic, beyond appearances, is absolute certainty possible. And here, with regard to pure logic, a wise person will wisely reason that the ignorant person is ignorant, and the ignorant person will reason that the wise person is ignorant. In this case we can say, if we are wise, who is absolutely right and who is absolutely wrong.

So, unlike empirical observations, philosophical truths do not have the uncertainty and changeableness of appearances.

Heres another example...
I may look at a bus yet I see it as an attractive woman running towards me....and then get hit and injured by the bus.

It is not the case that the object changed from bus to woman, and woman to bus, but simply that my observation was deluded.
In this case you don't know for sure whether you got hit by a bus, a woman, or anything else. Other people may have their opinions - they might think it was a bus - but that's just their opinion. You may have indeed been killed by some kind of freaky woman - some kind of "terminator". Your senses may not have been deceiving you.
An illusion happens when a person observes something and is decieved about its true form
Yes, in the empirical realm, you can be tricked. But you can never know for sure when you are being tricked, and when not.
Since you admit illusions can occur, then that implies an object can have a true reality while being misinterpreted by a person.
Saying that something is an illusion means that an alternative perception of it seems more satisfying. But that alternative perception may also be an illusion. At least, that is the case when we are talking about empirical things.

From a philosophic perspective, all unenlightened people live in a entire world of illusion. Literally everything they experience is illusory. By contrast, the wise person sees things in their absolute form, and cannot be mistaken, since he doesn't put unnecessary faith in appearances.
You say you can not tell when your senses are decieving you, this presupposes the fact that in some cases your senses are not decieving you. That sometimes they are transmiting the truth....Which is obviously true, otherwise this discussion would be completely incoherent. And it is atleast...slightly coherent?
In fact, your senses can never deceive you. The senses receive whatever data they receive, no mistake. The deception comes when we wrongly interpret what we are receiving through the senses.

If we wake up blind one morning, we might think it is dark. If our optic nerves have been cut, then in this case our mind would be misinterpreting the sense data - or lack thereof - to think that it is dark. On the other hand, it might really be dark. We can't tell with absolute certainty.
You can not dismiss sense-perception without appealing to it.


No, I dismiss its philosophical relevance because the act of perception is about slicing things up in different ways. This slicing process is never-ending and changeable. The slicing process is closely related to all the problems of quantum physics (the "quantum" part of quantum physics basically refers to the "slices" that have been sliced). Whereas philosophy deals with what is absolute and unchanging. It is not dependent on where slicing takes place.

Sense-perception is an undeniable part of reality, so cannot be dismissed. Only its relevance can be dismissed in certain spheres.
there is no way we can simply use logic by itself to determine absolute truths about reality. It is simply unfit for the task.
Logic is always about "things". Namely, the things that "A" refers to in the identity A=A. These things can be absolutely anything at all. Therefore there is nothing at all that logic, on its own, cannot deal with. And, as explained, the logic of A=A doesn't require any support or justification.

propellerbeanie
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am

Post by propellerbeanie » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:43 am

[
quote="hades"]
ksolway wrote:
All reasoning is fundamentally of the form A=A, so what is needed, outside of A=A, to justify it? It is complete.
I'm not arguing A=A, because it is not the process of reasoning, it is simply a rule used when reasoning
Ofcourse we could argue rules...but we end up appealing to the rules, and its all circular and boring

Please let me refer you to a simple word, introduced in a thread on A is not A, which is conservation.
The quality A is conserved when it is moved from point to point. If A is a line, then A is the quality that allows two lines to be compared, or a line when shortened to be compared to its former length, because that quality "line" is unchanged by any operation.

A=A is complete as long as it remains symbolic and meaningless

Once 'A' refers to something in reality, such as a proposition, or a specific thing, then we are back to the problem of justification.

So you can have it meanginless and incoherent in which case it is "complete"

or you can have it self-defeating and absurd once you give it meaning and specificity
What must be justified is not the identity, or conserved quality, and it is not meaningless. For philosophy, that is where the fun begins. If we want to compare property rights and civil rights one can tell what is the identical element. We must still ask if these qualities are in fact in some sense identical. If we talk of justice in roman times and justice in our own day we must find some identical quality, or the comparison is absurd, perhaps, because the word has changed its meaning.

But Truth is an absolute, and is the same for all people who experience it.
The only truths you have are those logically ascertained premises you accept, and whatever chain of reasoning you have decided to carry along with those premises.

These ideas can not be experienced anymore than the number 2 or a triangle. There will never be a real physical connection and experience, only a mental construct of some desired idea.
[/quote]

Identity is a sort of premise, or predicate; and if you cannot accept the predicate all that follows is pointless conversation. We are given much in the way of identity. Every word is in some senses the equal of itself. Truth is such a word, and this truth has a common quality with that truth. Identity is not the end of anything, but is the beginning of everything. Identity and conservation are the most essential principals to any understanding of the world, of physics, and of philosophy.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:31 pm

Hades wrote:
There is nothing more beautiful than beautiful women
Thats the Truth.

I'm not talking about simply physically amazing, but also mentally and emotionally brilliant women.

Discuss
One often observes that slaves and kidnap victims fall in love with their tormenters.

Dogs are smart because dogs are smart because dogs are smart. Repeating the statement does not validate it.
A=A=A=A <--- childish repitition, get over it.

Once that "A" refers to something meaningful you get in trouble.
The only thing it will tell you is what you already know, nothing new can be extrapolated from it.
A=A is fundamentally saying A cat is a Cat is a Cat.
Yes so?

You make it evident that you don't understand A=A as a principle, nor do you understand its philosophic significance.

New knowledge/perspectives/insights are gained when new data is brought into contact with the old. The factor of A=A immediately comes into play when one recognizes identical elements in both the new and the old. The new is thus integrated with the old, often creating new perspectives and insights into either the new or the old.

For example, a person might decide that Nature should be defined as "utterly everything", the totality of all there is. He might then decide to explore the consequencs of this definition, thereby incorporating new data (i.e. the logical consequences) with the old (the definition of Nature).

For instance, he might reason that nothing can ever exist outside of, or beyond, Nature. In doing so, he gains a new perspective of what Nature, defined in this way, means. He might also reason that whatever gods happen to exist are also a part of Nature and thus have no philosophic significance. Once again, a new insight into the meaning of Nature is generated. And so it goes on.

In this way, A=A can be used as a philosophic tool for teasing out the deepest truths that exist. Only a myopic, pussy-whipped fool could possibly look at such a marvelous tool and see no worth in it.


-

hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Post by hades » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:42 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote:
One often observes that slaves and kidnap victims fall in love with their tormenters.
Mmmmm...is the kidnapper a beautiful woman? =]



The factor of A=A immediately comes into play when one recognizes identical elements in both the new and the old. The new is thus integrated with the old, often creating new perspectives and insights into either the new or the old.

What exactly can A=A tell you about anything, besides that it is what it is ? I'm very curious.


You can make connections between things, but only after you figured out what similarities they share...do you understand? You can't find those specific similarities with A=A.


A=A can not actually tell you what anything specifically IS. Only that it happens to be what it happens to be....YAWN!

What something happens to be is beyond A=A logic. It is too inadequate a tool to tell you anything about the world. The world of trees, and people and women and food...It can tell you that the letter A is the letter A. And that a woman is a woman.


Oh what a grand discovery!
And let me guess...the number 1 is the number 1!

Joy. Truly you should be sharing this great philosphical pearl with all the world.








For example, a person might decide that Nature should be defined as "utterly everything", the totality of all there is. He might then decide to explore the consequencs of this definition, thereby incorporating new data (i.e. the logical consequences) with the old (the definition of Nature).
Sure, people can decide to accept many strange conjectures.

In this way, A=A can be used as a philosophic tool for teasing out the deepest truths that exist. Only a myopic, pussy-whipped fool could possibly look at such a marvelous tool and see no worth in it.


-
Only a pussy-deprived fool would be so impressed with A=A.

A=A is stagnant.
Its a redundant tautology that does not impress anyone with real concern about Truth.

All it can tell you about Truth is this. Brace yourself......


ready?
























The Truth is...The Truth

A is A.


*falls asleep*

But what is the Truth specifically? Lets go beyond childish logic and really search...or is that too much work?

Your turn.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:55 am

Hades wrote:
DQ: One often observes that slaves and kidnap victims fall in love with their tormenters.

H: Mmmmm...is the kidnapper a beautiful woman? =]

They are the worst kind of kidnappers. They don't just kidnap your body for slavery purposes, but they also kidnap every other part of you as well.

Two daughters of a silk merchant live in Kyoto,
The elder is twenty, the younger eighteen,
A soldier may kill with his sword,
But these girls slay men with their eyes.


Or as Diogenes scoffed:

A famous athlete was making his triumphal entry into the city after another successful games. As he was carried along, he was unable to tear his eyes away from the many beautiful women among the onlookers.

"Look at our bave victor," remarked Diogenes, "taken captive by every girl he sees."


What something happens to be is beyond A=A logic. It is too inadequate a tool to tell you anything about the world. The world of trees, and people and women and food...It can tell you that the letter A is the letter A. And that a woman is a woman.
By itself, a hammer is a useless object. But in conjunction with timber and nails, there are no end to the things it can build.

You look at A=A in the same way that a simpleton looks at a hammer lying on a table and dismisses it because it doesn't move.

Only a pussy-deprived fool would be so impressed with A=A.

A=A is stagnant.
It is only stagnant to the degree that the person using it is stagnant. For example, you are currently having difficulty with the issue of the Totality, primarily because you are unable to recognize its identity clearly.

But what is the Truth specifically? Lets go beyond childish logic and really search...or is that too much work?
I've already done the work. My ebook, Wisdom of the Infinite, goes into this issue very deeply. You really should read that first (it's not that long) and then come back to me with any queries.

-

hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Post by hades » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:05 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote: They are the worst kind of kidnappers. They don't just kidnap your body for slavery purposes, but they also kidnap every other part of you as well.

Two daughters of a silk merchant live in Kyoto,
The elder is twenty, the younger eighteen,
A soldier may kill with his sword,
But these girls slay men with their eyes.


Or as Diogenes scoffed:

A famous athlete was making his triumphal entry into the city after another successful games. As he was carried along, he was unable to tear his eyes away from the many beautiful women among the onlookers.

"Look at our bave victor," remarked Diogenes, "taken captive by every girl he sees."

There is a difference between falling victim to ones desires when in the presence of a beautiful woman and appreciating them as human beings who emanate a sense of serenity and natural elegance too subtle to put into words.

If a man is taken and dominated by anything at all, be it women, money, sports, metaphysics or religion he lacks self-knowledge and thus can not control himself.

The fault is not in the things that cause him harm or "capture" him, but the fact that he himself is ignorant about their true nature and doesn't understand how they should be dealt with.


Does this make sense?
By itself, a hammer is a useless object. But in conjunction with timber and nails, there are no end to the things it can build.

You look at A=A in the same way that a simpleton looks at a hammer lying on a table and dismisses it because it doesn't move.
I'm not dismissing it at all.
Its very hard stuff. A=A is a titanium hammer.

The problem is, it has to mix with very soft things to become useful....timber (perception) and nails (justifications/reasoning).





It is only stagnant to the degree that the person using it is stagnant. For example, you are currently having difficulty with the issue of the Totality, primarily because you are unable to recognize its identity clearly.
By definition, an identity is the fact that something has definite attributes. You, and the objects around you, exist in a definite way. The Totality has no definite attributes, you can only point to what it lacks, and what it lacks is definite attributes....

A lack of definite attributes is not an identity.
A lack of finiteness is not an identity.

Infinity has no identity. It is empty. Nothing.
If you were to compare Nothing to Infinity, I think they would be very similar.


I've already done the work. My ebook, Wisdom of the Infinite, goes into this issue very deeply. You really should read that first (it's not that long) and then come back to me with any queries.

-
I will read it soon.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:08 pm

Hades,
There is a difference between falling victim to ones desires when in the presence of a beautiful woman and appreciating them as human beings who emanate a sense of serenity and natural elegance too subtle to put into words.

Women can certainly be serene and elegant - but then again, so can cats. Both share the same unconscious nature.

Wisdom involves being serene and graceful, in full consciousness, after the culmination of the philosophizing process, not before it. As Soren Kierkegaard, the great Danish thinker, wrote in his journals:

"Most men never reach faith at all. They live a long time in immediacy or spontaneity,
finally they advance to some reflection, and then they die. The exceptions begin the
other way around; dialectical from childhood, that is, without immediacy, they begin with
the dialectical, with reflection, and they go on living this way year after year (about as long
as others live in sheer immediacy) and then, at a more mature age, faiths possibility
presents itself to them. For faith is immediacy or spontaneity after reflection."

If a man is taken and dominated by anything at all, be it women, money, sports, metaphysics or religion he lacks self-knowledge and thus can not control himself.

The fault is not in the things that cause him harm or "capture" him, but the fact that he himself is ignorant about their true nature and doesn't understand how they should be dealt with.

Does this make sense?

Yes, except that in order to attain self-knowledge, a man first has to be dominated by metaphysics - or more accurately, by truthful thoughts. He can't attain self-knowledge by simply wishing it into existence. It involves a long philosophic process.

One should also never underestimate the seductive powers of women. Very few can resist her charms, as evidenced by the exploding population of our species and the widespread male slavery.

DQ: It is only stagnant to the degree that the person using it is stagnant. For example, you are currently having difficulty with the issue of the Totality, primarily because you are unable to recognize its identity clearly.

H: By definition, an identity is the fact that something has definite attributes. You, and the objects around you, exist in a definite way. The Totality has no definite attributes, you can only point to what it lacks, and what it lacks is definite attributes....

The Totality has the definite attribute of being everything. That is its identity.

If you were to compare Nothing to Infinity, I think they would be very similar.

Except that Nothing doesn't constitute the totality of all there is. The Totality is no-thing, rather than nothing.

The Totality does have a positive face which a wise person can discern directly. But to discern it, he had to stop insisting that it present a concrete appearance in the manner of an ordinary finite object. This insistence is what is blinding you to the larger, positive reality of the Totality. The mental shutters are constantly going up without you realizing it.

-

I-Beam
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:54 pm

Re: Search for beauty and you will find Truth

Post by I-Beam » Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:28 am

ksolway wrote:
hades wrote:There is nothing more beautiful than beautiful women =D
Thats the Truth.

I'm not talking about simply physically amazing, but also mentally and emotionally brilliant women.

Discuss
Unless you can provide some substantive reasoning to your allegation this post doesn't even deserve to be in the brothel, and will be removed.
Kevin....do you have a favorite food?

propellerbeanie
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am

Post by propellerbeanie » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:24 am

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Hades,

Women can certainly be serene and elegant - but then again, so can cats. Both share the same unconscious nature.


If I were to guess, I would say that the writer here has not been close enough to a woman to catch her scent, and that what is written is plenty enough reason for an average woman to want to blowtorch the balls off every average man. What can we say of all women except that they are all human and all different. The first thing each man thinks of himself, of his individual existence is the first thing many men seem to want to deny to women after the denial of their freedom. Can this be Just?
One should also never underestimate the seductive powers of women. Very few can resist her charms, as evidenced by the exploding population of our species and the widespread male slavery.


One should never estimate the seductive power of women. Seductivity is a quality one experiences of individuals, as an individual. As a group women are as gross and disgusting as men, not better nor worse, and as individuals are only rarely seductive. You would not pay to see most women naked, for example, but would willingly pay most of the near ones to dress. Reproduction has little to do with seduction. Perhaps most fornication has little to do with seduction. Reproduction has only to do with the desire for life beyond life, for eternal life, and the desire to live makes even a sweat hogg glow. Men are slaves to their excess as much as women.
Last edited by propellerbeanie on Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply