Meta Physics

LucidFlight · **#861** by **LucidFlight** » Sep 06, 2016 11:36 pm

Thommo wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:The One is not 'anything', but that's not to say it's 'nothing', because it is, in fact, everything.

It's not simultaneously possible for all those clauses to be true in the same way at the same time. If "the one" (or anything else) is not nothing, then it's a thing. For something to be not anything is precisely to say that it's not a thing.

My interpretation was that 'anything' (note the scare quotes) meant that the One is not just "any old thing" (so to speak), but something special. Of course, that something special is the One, which is also everything. Everything, then, is special. You are special, I am special, we are 'all' special as the One. We're not just 'anything', we're something, and that's pretty special. Although, that's really just normal, I guess, because special would imply that we are different from something else; however, there is nothing else (nor can there be), because we're all unique as the One, if you see what I mean, and that's pretty special.

This (at times) paradoxical illusion of reality is difficult to explain in terms of pure logic. Logic, just like science, fails when you try to analyse reality too deeply — just like love, or an orange cat lapping at a bowl of milk that an old lady has given it. You need to transcend the logical confines of everyday thought if you are to achieve higher understanding.

What we should really be learning from this is that we are all special.

ETA

But also, to say the One is not 'anything' (note the scare quotes), is perhaps to suggest that it is not any material thing. Maybe that's the true essence of what LI was saying.

SpeedOfSound · **#862** by **SpeedOfSound** » Sep 06, 2016 11:42 pm

Can I be Special too? :whine:

scott1328 · **#863** by **scott1328** » Sep 07, 2016 12:37 am

SpeedOfSound wrote:Can I be Special too?

Destroyer · **#864** by **Destroyer** » Sep 07, 2016 8:04 am

logical bob wrote:
Destroyer wrote:The very reason that I asked you to accept it for the sake of argument is so that we wouldn't have to get into the debate.
If existence is indeed a property that belongs to an Individual then it is up to that Individual to prove it.

Is this a reasoning step we're all allowed to use? Do we all get to talk manifest bollocks and say, when that's demonstrated, "I asked you to accept it for the sake of argument so that we wouldn't have to get into the debate"?

When we are debating topics that pertain to what fundamentally exists, unfortunately we are in no position to determine anything. So either we accept that some propositions do have logical consistency but we do not accept the premises, or we do accept the premises and therefore the propositions. But these debates will ultimately be circular if we do not accept the premises. So, yes, asking one to accept a premise for the sake of argument is the only way to settle if that specific argument has consistency.

Cito di Pense · **#865** by **Cito di Pense** » Sep 07, 2016 8:27 am

Destroyer wrote:
logical bob wrote:
Destroyer wrote:The very reason that I asked you to accept it for the sake of argument is so that we wouldn't have to get into the debate.
If existence is indeed a property that belongs to an Individual then it is up to that Individual to prove it.

Is this a reasoning step we're all allowed to use? Do we all get to talk manifest bollocks and say, when that's demonstrated, "I asked you to accept it for the sake of argument so that we wouldn't have to get into the debate"?

When we are debating topics that pertain to what fundamentally exists, unfortunately we are in no position to determine anything. So either we accept that some propositions do have logical consistency but we do not accept the premises, or we do accept the premises and therefore the propositions. But these debates will ultimately be circular if we do not accept the premises. So, yes, asking one to accept a premise for the sake of argument is the only way to settle if that specific argument has consistency.

So, you're saying that the consistency of logical arguments determines nothing but the consistency of logical arguments. This is particularly significant because you also seem to accept that the consistency of logical arguments determines nothing about what fundamentally exists. No one even accepts that your argument is logically consistent. How could we tell? You don't know how to use the rules of inference to show that your argument is consistent, which requires communicating with other people. Since you don't accept that there are other people, with whom are you communicating? It's the whole cargo cult thing again. You put on the trappings of argument and pray that your conclusion is accepted. You don't need us.

Destroyer · **#866** by **Destroyer** » Sep 07, 2016 8:44 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
logical bob wrote:
Destroyer wrote:The very reason that I asked you to accept it for the sake of argument is so that we wouldn't have to get into the debate.
If existence is indeed a property that belongs to an Individual then it is up to that Individual to prove it.

Is this a reasoning step we're all allowed to use? Do we all get to talk manifest bollocks and say, when that's demonstrated, "I asked you to accept it for the sake of argument so that we wouldn't have to get into the debate"?

When we are debating topics that pertain to what fundamentally exists, unfortunately we are in no position to determine anything. So either we accept that some propositions do have logical consistency but we do not accept the premises, or we do accept the premises and therefore the propositions. But these debates will ultimately be circular if we do not accept the premises. So, yes, asking one to accept a premise for the sake of argument is the only way to settle if that specific argument has consistency.

So, you're saying that the consistency of logical arguments determines nothing but the consistency of logical arguments. This is particularly significant because you also seem to accept that the consistency of logical arguments determines nothing about what fundamentally exists. No one even accepts that your argument is logically consistent. How could we tell? You don't know how to use the rules of inference to show that your argument is consistent, which requires communicating with other people. Since you don't accept that there are other people, with whom are you communicating? It's the whole cargo cult thing again. You put on the trappings of argument and pray that your conclusion is accepted. You don't need us.

If any argument that pertained to fundamental reality is indeed logically consistent, then that argument is valid. If that argument happened to be sound as well then nobody is needed. All that is required is for this fact to be manifested.

ETA: to determine if any argument does have consistency and is therefore valid, is for others to examine and use the rules of inference.

Little Idiot · **#867** by **Little Idiot** » Sep 07, 2016 8:47 am

When I introduced the term Absolute Fuck All it was a flippant description of non-duality.

Non-duality is not a thing, since by definition things are limited. Non-duality is not the sum of all things, nor everything, nor anything.

Since the intellect deals with limited finite things, intellect cannot handle non-duality easily, this is not to say nothing useful can be said, but what can be said is not an attempt to grasp non-duality with the intellect but rather to use intellect point beyond the intellect. In non-duality pointing no positive properties can accurately be given to non-duality. This does not mean nothing can usefully be said about it, but rather most accurate descriptions are in the negative format.

This is not to say ‘it transcends reasoning, so don’t bother’ but rather to justify creation of a structure of thought that holds attention steady pointing beyond reason, as a finger points beyond itself to the moon.

In non-duality pointing; non-duality is the source of all things but is not actually anything. So all things are manifestations of non-duality. Non-duality is potential to be anything while not actually being anything, and can sometimes be described as ‘limitless potential’
Analogy; my ideas are manifestations of my mind and not separate from my mind but my mind is neither any one nor the sum of my ideas.

So, does non-duality exist?
If we define the word exist in such a way that the physical world exists and/or things in the physical world exist, then non-duality does not exist.

In order to avoid confusion and contradiction we must define exist and real differently from each other, they are not synonyms; non-duality is real but does not exist.

Further, if we define the absolute reality as reality which does not change, then non-duality is absolute reality, even though it does not exist. Since all things in time change, it follows that absolute reality cannot be in time, hence non-duality can sometimes be described as ‘timeless’.

Since existence is a qualifier for properties in logic, but non-duality does not exist and non-duality does not have positive properties, this leads to confusion when an interlocutor attempts to apply logic to non-duality pointings. This is a limit of logic, not non-duality.

Cito di Pense · **#868** by **Cito di Pense** » Sep 07, 2016 9:06 am

Destroyer wrote:
If any argument that pertained to fundamental reality is indeed logically consistent, then that argument is valid.

But you've already said it doesn't determine anything. Shit or get off the pot.

Thomas Eshuis · **#869** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Sep 07, 2016 9:10 am

Destroyer wrote:
logical bob wrote:
Destroyer wrote:The very reason that I asked you to accept it for the sake of argument is so that we wouldn't have to get into the debate.
If existence is indeed a property that belongs to an Individual then it is up to that Individual to prove it.

Is this a reasoning step we're all allowed to use? Do we all get to talk manifest bollocks and say, when that's demonstrated, "I asked you to accept it for the sake of argument so that we wouldn't have to get into the debate"?

When we are debating topics that pertain to what fundamentally exists, unfortunately we are in no position to determine anything. So either we accept that some propositions do have logical consistency but we do not accept the premises, or we do accept the premises and therefore the propositions.

You're once again positing a false dichotomy.

Destroyer wrote: But these debates will ultimately be circular if we do not accept the premises.

That's because you keep refusing to clearly define them.

Destroyer wrote: So, yes, asking one to accept a premise for the sake of argument is the only way to settle if that specific argument has consistency.

So, go ahead, clearly define your premises.

Destroyer · **#870** by **Destroyer** » Sep 07, 2016 9:12 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
If any argument that pertained to fundamental reality is indeed logically consistent, then that argument is valid.

But you've already said it doesn't determine anything. Shit or get off the pot.

No, it doesn't determine anything, but it would still be a reliable representation of reality that contained a justifiable explanation for what we observe.

I am of course referring to an argument that is not only valid, but sound as well.

Cito di Pense · **#871** by **Cito di Pense** » Sep 07, 2016 9:20 am

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
If any argument that pertained to fundamental reality is indeed logically consistent, then that argument is valid.

But you've already said it doesn't determine anything. Shit or get off the pot.

No, it doesn't determine anything, but it would still be a reliable representation of reality that contained a justifiable explanation for what we observe.

I am of course referring to an argument that is not only valid, but sound as well.

Why do you say that? If it doesn't determine anything, it's not a reliable representation of anything, let alone any kind of explanation. You can make up shit and call it an explanation, but it's still made-up shit.

Destroyer · **#872** by **Destroyer** » Sep 07, 2016 9:24 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
If any argument that pertained to fundamental reality is indeed logically consistent, then that argument is valid.

But you've already said it doesn't determine anything. Shit or get off the pot.

No, it doesn't determine anything, but it would still be a reliable representation of reality that contained a justifiable explanation for what we observe.

I am of course referring to an argument that is not only valid, but sound as well.

Why do you say that? If it doesn't determine anything, it's not a reliable representation of anything, let alone any kind of explanation. You can make up shit and call it an explanation, but it's still made-up shit.

If any argument is valid then all that we need to know is whether it's a fact as well.

Cito di Pense · **#873** by **Cito di Pense** » Sep 07, 2016 9:29 am

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

But you've already said it doesn't determine anything. Shit or get off the pot.

No, it doesn't determine anything, but it would still be a reliable representation of reality that contained a justifiable explanation for what we observe.

I am of course referring to an argument that is not only valid, but sound as well.

Why do you say that? If it doesn't determine anything, it's not a reliable representation of anything, let alone any kind of explanation. You can make up shit and call it an explanation, but it's still made-up shit.

If any argument is valid then all that we need to know is whether it's a fact as well.

We can't determine that from the argument. All we can determine from the argument is its validity or soundness. Fuck facts, unless the premises are data, rather than merely shit you want to assume for the sake of argument. Get it, yet?

Destroyer wrote:a reliable representation of reality that contained a justifiable explanation for what we observe.

You still need premises that are data, instead of merely some shit made up for the sake of argument.

Destroyer · **#874** by **Destroyer** » Sep 07, 2016 9:33 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
No, it doesn't determine anything, but it would still be a reliable representation of reality that contained a justifiable explanation for what we observe.

I am of course referring to an argument that is not only valid, but sound as well.

Why do you say that? If it doesn't determine anything, it's not a reliable representation of anything, let alone any kind of explanation. You can make up shit and call it an explanation, but it's still made-up shit.

If any argument is valid then all that we need to know is whether it's a fact as well.

We can't determine that from the argument. All we can determine from the argument is its validity or soundness. Fuck facts, unless the premises are data, rather than merely shit you want to assume for the sake of argument. Get it, yet?

I will leave the facts to speak for themselves. And for those who wish to discuss such matters to do so among themselves.

Thomas Eshuis · **#875** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Sep 07, 2016 9:43 am

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

Why do you say that? If it doesn't determine anything, it's not a reliable representation of anything, let alone any kind of explanation. You can make up shit and call it an explanation, but it's still made-up shit.

If any argument is valid then all that we need to know is whether it's a fact as well.

We can't determine that from the argument. All we can determine from the argument is its validity or soundness. Fuck facts, unless the premises are data, rather than merely shit you want to assume for the sake of argument. Get it, yet?

I will leave the facts to speak for themselves. And for those who wish to discuss such matters to do so among themselves.

Is this a real flounce?
Also you cannot have facts speak for themselves when there hardly are any.

logical bob · **#876** by **logical bob** » Sep 07, 2016 10:00 am

Destroyer wrote:When we are debating topics that pertain to what fundamentally exists, unfortunately we are in no position to determine anything. So either we accept that some propositions do have logical consistency but we do not accept the premises, or we do accept the premises and therefore the propositions. But these debates will ultimately be circular if we do not accept the premises. So, yes, asking one to accept a premise for the sake of argument is the only way to settle if that specific argument has consistency.

Let's not over-complicate this. Existence is not a property, as has been demonstrated in this thread. So any argument premised on existence being a property is not sound, even if it's valid. End of.

logical bob · **#877** by **logical bob** » Sep 07, 2016 10:33 am

Little Idiot wrote:...this leads to confusion when an interlocutor attempts to apply logic to non-duality pointings.

Word.

logical bob · **#878** by **logical bob** » Sep 07, 2016 11:54 am

Or to look at that differently, be honest when you're writing poetry. It would be crass of me to suggest that all forms of discourse should be able to stand up to logical scrutiny and you're perfectly entitled to describe your spiritual experiences in whatever form you choose.

The problem arises when you decide to come to a philosophy forum in the hope of telling people truths about how the world is. If you do that while saying that logic is not equal to the task you have to ask yourself how, in the ensuing discussion, we are to distinguish between good contributions and bad. If I say your claims about non-duality are false because mackerel then on what grounds will you object? If I blatantly contradict myself in my response to you, then what? Logic isn't some arbitrary requirement of the narrow minded, it's an expression of the way we all conduct ourselves when successfully communicating with other people. If logic doesn't suffice for your investigation then neither does language and neither does thought. I suspect you wouldn't dispute that. But then what are we thinking or talking about? Perhaps we should just write koans at each other.

All I'm saying is bear in mind which domain of discourse you're currently trying to operate in. Intelligent religious folk have, since forever, been trying to justify their spiritual lives so that they don't feel embarrassed in rational company. Medieval monks kept on producing proofs of the existence of God. In an age where atheism would get you burnt at the stake, who were they talking to? Themselves, because revealed religion didn't sit well with the Greek philosophy they had learned to revere.

Transcend logic as much as you like, but give that shit up. Embrace the fact that what you preach is a stumbling block unto the Jews and unto the Greeks foolishness.

Destroyer · **#879** by **Destroyer** » Sep 07, 2016 12:16 pm

logical bob wrote:
Destroyer wrote:When we are debating topics that pertain to what fundamentally exists, unfortunately we are in no position to determine anything. So either we accept that some propositions do have logical consistency but we do not accept the premises, or we do accept the premises and therefore the propositions. But these debates will ultimately be circular if we do not accept the premises. So, yes, asking one to accept a premise for the sake of argument is the only way to settle if that specific argument has consistency.

Let's not over-complicate this. Existence is not a property, as has been demonstrated in this thread. So any argument premised on existence being a property is not sound, even if it's valid. End of.

"As has been demonstrated in this thread"? Has this thread also demonstrated that this universe possesses Real existence?

You have much to learn.

Arnold Layne · **#880** by **Arnold Layne** » Sep 07, 2016 12:17 pm

You could have just said "It seems like bollocks, otherwise," LB! :lol:

Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Re: Meta Physics

Who is online