Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 18:22:25 GMT -5
Everything you mentioned are 'things', vacumn, pressure, quantumn flatulation... Not 'Nothing'...hehehe Well, strictly speaking yes, you're right, because the objectification starts at the word nothing ... the objectification begins with positing a source and what you've objectified isn't really what you had in mind. Still don't give you solid ground for your opener though. The generally accepted idea is that 13.7 billion years ago the universe 'thinged' onto the stage out of Nothing. Logically that's impossible and thanks to that logic, the latest thinking is that there was a pre-thingness percolating and gathering critical mass until Booom... Linguistically that's more logical than saying that Something came from Nothing, and probably more scientifically as well.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 18:26:33 GMT -5
Well, strictly speaking yes, you're right, because the objectification starts at the word nothing ... the objectification begins with positing a source and what you've objectified isn't really what you had in mind. Still don't give you solid ground for your opener though. The generally accepted idea is that 13.7 billion years ago the universe 'thinged' onto the stage out of Nothing. Logically that's impossible and thanks to that logic, the latest thinking is that there was a pre-thingness percolating and gathering critical mass until Booom... Linguistically that's more logical than saying that Something came from Nothing, and probably more scientifically as well. Well, if you want to resort to science, the fact is, that you can't even tell me what Something is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 18:59:28 GMT -5
The generally accepted idea is that 13.7 billion years ago the universe 'thinged' onto the stage out of Nothing. Logically that's impossible and thanks to that logic, the latest thinking is that there was a pre-thingness percolating and gathering critical mass until Booom... Linguistically that's more logical than saying that Something came from Nothing, and probably more scientifically as well. Well, if you want to resort to science, the fact is, that you can't even tell me what Something is. Wasn't it you talking about The language of logic being boolean algebra?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 19:03:02 GMT -5
Well, if you want to resort to science, the fact is, that you can't even tell me what Something is. Wasn't it you talking about The language of logic being boolean algebra? That's not science, that's math.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 18, 2013 22:24:09 GMT -5
There are many logics, not just Boolean. Isn't that the "what is truth?" bunny-hole? Logic is a tool. Useful to know that some tools are better than others at various things.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 19, 2013 0:40:55 GMT -5
Isn't that the "what is truth?" bunny-hole? Logic is a tool. Useful to know that some tools are better than others at various things. The must have tool for any renovator is what the cartoon-guy holds up at the start and end of this:
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 19, 2013 1:05:53 GMT -5
I'm not following. Where is the "if" in "no idea is true"? "if-then" can be viewed declaratively as a descriptive rule and the truth of the rule is determined by whether or not it's description matches the world being modeled. <stab> if there is such a thing as an 'idea' and if no thing is true then no idea is true. </stab> Apparently, that's not true.....although it is.....unless it isn't. There isn't a way for mind to become an object to mind, which is the only way out of the loop. Looking for various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it must fail, right? When can this safely be abandoned as udderly futile?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jun 19, 2013 5:24:15 GMT -5
For example: "If truth is an entity external to ideas, then no idea is true." So the "if" there is an implicit rule, without this rule "no idea is true" is just a declaration, but if we want to take it seriously it needs to be a conclusion, and a conclusion requires a set of rules, therefore an "if". It's never about objective rules of the world, or if it is about the world, then the world for us is our mind, i.e. it's always only about the implicit rules of our logic (this is the meaning of self-inquiry). Or, the negative proof is that even if we say that all we're dealing with are declarations, then we still have to look at the supporting implicit structure that transports this idea and we will discover that this idea too must be based on if-then logic, for if it weren't then we wouldn't be able reflect on the notion that all sentences are declarations. Actually the statement is what it is, yes, a declaration. Positing some question that leads to it seems to me to be quite superfluous. Declarations are totally neutral in isolation. The point is that in order to determine whether the sentence is true or not we must process it through the if-then operator. Any sentence. We can imagine someone not too bright who in the holy scriptures of his religion reads the sentence "no idea is true" and somehow takes this as sufficient justification to respect this as evidence that there are indeed no true ideas.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 19, 2013 5:38:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. <stab> if there is such a thing as an 'idea' and if no thing is true then no idea is true. </stab> Apparently, that's not true.....although it is.....unless it isn't. There isn't a way for mind to become an object to mind, which is the only way out of the loop. Looking for various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it must fail, right? When can this safely be abandoned as udderly futile? To speak of mind is to objectify it, mind is capable of considering its own existence, 'self-awareness'.. your attachment to oneness is another of the "various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it".. Be well..
|
|
|
The Rose
Jun 19, 2013 7:50:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by topology on Jun 19, 2013 7:50:00 GMT -5
Actually the statement is what it is, yes, a declaration. Positing some question that leads to it seems to me to be quite superfluous. Declarations are totally neutral in isolation. The point is that in order to determine whether the sentence is true or not we must process it through the if-then operator. Any sentence. We can imagine someone not too bright who in the holy scriptures of his religion reads the sentence "no idea is true" and somehow takes this as sufficient justification to respect this as evidence that there are indeed no true ideas. By if-then do you mean the comparison operator? In this mind words create images which are then compared to the larger image of experience. A match in structural alignment is how truth of a statement is determined.
|
|
|
The Rose
Jun 19, 2013 8:18:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by topology on Jun 19, 2013 8:18:09 GMT -5
Greetings.. Apparently, that's not true.....although it is.....unless it isn't. There isn't a way for mind to become an object to mind, which is the only way out of the loop. Looking for various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it must fail, right? When can this safely be abandoned as udderly futile? To speak of mind is to objectify it, mind is capable of considering its own existence, 'self-awareness'.. your attachment to oneness is another of the "various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it".. Be well.. Enigma didn't even mention oneness in that post. You are attached to the idea that Enigma is attached to oneness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2013 8:52:16 GMT -5
Greetings.. Apparently, that's not true.....although it is.....unless it isn't. There isn't a way for mind to become an object to mind, which is the only way out of the loop. Looking for various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it must fail, right? When can this safely be abandoned as udderly futile? To speak of mind is to objectify it, mind is capable of considering its own existence, 'self-awareness'.. your attachment to oneness is another of the "various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it".. Be well.. I'm thinking he meant there's not a way of getting a complete picture of the mind. One can reflect on mind, obviously, but it will always be just a reflection, incomplete. As I understand this, what you advise -- becoming still and listening, just being available without preconceptions or beliefs -- is not dissimilar.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 19, 2013 10:53:59 GMT -5
Greetings.. Apparently, that's not true.....although it is.....unless it isn't. There isn't a way for mind to become an object to mind, which is the only way out of the loop. Looking for various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it must fail, right? When can this safely be abandoned as udderly futile? To speak of mind is to objectify it, mind is capable of considering its own existence, 'self-awareness'.. your attachment to oneness is another of the "various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it".. Be well.. Thinking can be objectified, but thought cannot consider thought from outside the structure of thought. Mind cannot actually become an object to mind. The attempt to objectify thought results in these recursive loops we keep encountering here, such as 'No thought is true'. It's also the cause of what appears to some of us as 'spinning'; A thought, which references a thought, which references a thought. The boundaries of operation of the mind cannot be transcended by the mind, and so it can only spin endlessly inside the boundaries of that structure and can never come to understand the structure itself. It is capable of considering it's own existence, but not capable of understanding it. However, mind is not a subject but rather an 'object' to that which knows mind. It can be, and is, observed, from outside the boundaries of mind. Clearly, this observing is not a thinking process but more of a noticing process.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 19, 2013 14:01:31 GMT -5
Actually the statement is what it is, yes, a declaration. Positing some question that leads to it seems to me to be quite superfluous. Declarations are totally neutral in isolation. The point is that in order to determine whether the sentence is true or not we must process it through the if-then operator. Any sentence. We can imagine someone not too bright who in the holy scriptures of his religion reads the sentence "no idea is true" and somehow takes this as sufficient justification to respect this as evidence that there are indeed no true ideas. I speculate that the investigation into the nature of truth is a natural consequence of noticing the boundaries and the relative poles that it depends on. While encountering the concept of nonduality might be a bit less common in Western culture the notion that truth is relative isn't. The latter is also something that can simply be noticed without an explicit external cue, and I further speculate that it don't take too much smarts for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Jun 19, 2013 14:51:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. To speak of mind is to objectify it, mind is capable of considering its own existence, 'self-awareness'.. your attachment to oneness is another of the "various new and wonderful ways of thinking about it".. Be well.. Thinking can be objectified, but thought cannot consider thought from outside the structure of thought. Mind cannot actually become an object to mind. The attempt to objectify thought results in these recursive loops we keep encountering here, such as 'No thought is true'. It's also the cause of what appears to some of us as 'spinning'; A thought, which references a thought, which references a thought. The boundaries of operation of the mind cannot be transcended by the mind, and so it can only spin endlessly inside the boundaries of that structure and can never come to understand the structure itself. It is capable of considering it's own existence, but not capable of understanding it. However, mind is not a subject but rather an 'object' to that which knows mind. It can be, and is, observed, from outside the boundaries of mind. Clearly, this observing is not a thinking process but more of a noticing process. It seems to me that a thought is a dead thing, once a thought arises it immediately dies and thinking about it is just another dying thought. Dead and dying things trying to explain THIS......can get a little messy ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png)
|
|