25
   

Absolute truth?

 
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Oct, 2011 10:18 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

The answer to what being and nothingness are can only be found in those concepts themselves, and nowhere else:


being is a concept ? existence is a concept ?

I can see nothing as a concept , result of abstract thought

but being as a concept , ahhh ... no

guigus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 07:38 am
@north,
north wrote:

guigus wrote:

The answer to what being and nothingness are can only be found in those concepts themselves, and nowhere else:


being is a concept ? existence is a concept ?

I can see nothing as a concept , result of abstract thought

but being as a concept , ahhh ... no




A concept is just a meaning, and since "being" has a meaning--precisely the opposite meaning of "nothing"--yes, it is a concept.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 10:18 am
@guigus,
There really are no 'concepts'.

A 'concept' is a combination of characteristics that have plenty of measurable, definable 'proof' that humans agree on.

Pure Be-ing and no 'thing'(nothing) are one in the same.

Be-ing doesn't mean anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

guigus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 10:24 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

There really are no 'concepts'.

A 'concept' is a combination of characteristics that have plenty of measurable, definable 'proof' that humans agree on.

Pure Be-ing and no 'thing'(nothing) are one in the same.

Be-ing doesn't mean anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




The meaning of a word is its concept, and a concept is the meaning of its corresponding word. Consequently, a concept is just a meaning.

Regarding "being," it means "existing" (but I suspect you already knew that, despite fighting it).
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 11:22 am
@JPLosman0711,
I agree in that concepts, thoughts, ideas, etc. are illusions, sometimes very useful concepts,other times not. I like the notion that "pure being" and "nothing" are "one in the same". I've always sensed that when I die I will become--in a special sense--at the same time Nothing and Everything. Indeed, I (and you) are that now, but ego blocks the view.
Another thing: Be-ing means do-ing. Right now I am doing me-ing (Of course there is no "I" who is me-ing, only our grammar makes it appear so).

Aren't we a bunch of conceptual mystics!
Right now I'm going to my zafu to clear out all this stuff. Don't ask why.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 02:00 pm
@JLNobody,
While you are correct in most of your post I have to 'point to' some of what you've written as it indicates there is still some confusion on your part.

'Concepts'(combination of characteristics) are not useful at all. They are a mis-representation of who you really are. There is no 'when I die', you were already dead the moment you were born, you just do not know when it will happen.

You can either dis-entagle your 'self' from all the concepts(hoopla) or you can continue to go on as if you know what you're talking about.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 04:12 pm
@JPLosman0711,
O.K....as if I know what I'm talking about. Confused
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 05:17 pm
@JLNobody,
I'm lost as to why all of you are trying to make sense in a world where nothing exists.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 05:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I think some of us are referring to a world's "contents" which are not as absolute, fixed, static, and substantial as language makes them seem.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 06:37 pm
@JLNobody,
They are one and the same to this observer.
JLNobody
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2011 07:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That's cool. I probably see them the same in my practical day-to-day life--that is when I'm not being theoretical with A2Kers or meditating.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 05:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm lost as to why all of you are trying to make sense in a world where nothing exists.


It's because nothing exists.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 05:20 pm
"In a small city where a barber shaves only and all citizens that do not shave themselves, does that barber shave himself?"

If he does, then he no longer shaves only the citizens that do not shave themselves, for he shaves a citizen (himself) that shaves himself. And if he does not, then he no longer shaves all the citizends that do not shave themselves, for he does not shave a citizen (himself) that does not shave himself.

In set language: A set of only and all sets not containing themselves must and must not contain itself.

So, although "everything" must be a set containing everything, to contain everything it must contain itself, possibly reproducing the paradox. And if it did not contain everything, then it would no longer be everything.

We know how Zermelo and Fraenkel got around this while creating modern set theory: by preventing any set from containing everything, so mathematics now believes that nothing is everything--which is just another way of saying that being (everything) and nothingness are the same.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 10:35 pm
@guigus,
Very good. Then it seems that logic does not necessarily refer to reality. I think this because, as you say, set theory saved itself from the paradoxes of logic by fiat (I'm thinking of Zeno here). How could Zermelo and Fraenkel actually discover that "nothing is everything" or did they just realize that it is logically essential that that be so?
Befuddled
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2011 05:12 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Very good. Then it seems that logic does not necessarily refer to reality. I think this because, as you say, set theory saved itself from the paradoxes of logic by fiat (I'm thinking of Zeno here). How could Zermelo and Fraenkel actually discover that "nothing is everything" or did they just realize that it is logically essential that that be so?
Befuddled


Although many solutions have been proposed to this paradox--of
which one resulted in today's canonical set theory by Zermelo and
Fraenkel--no proposed solution could let a set contain itself, which
would possibly reproduce the paradox. However, the concept of everything
must be a set, and a set containing itself--otherwise it is no longer
the set of everything. So avoiding the paradox requires everything to be
nothing, by which being and nothingness are the same.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2011 08:51 pm
@guigus,
I'm probably missing something here, but it seems that a "set" cannot contain EVERTHING. There cannot be a single set, a unity, only a multiplicity, at least more than one. Imagine the "category" of everything. It would not be a category.
Of course I'm not talking about empirical entities. Sets and categories exist only as thoughts. Therefore I'm not saying that there is no single all-inclusive set IN THE WORLD, only that it would not be useful for thought to make one up.
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 01:40 am
@Hermod,
One would hope that the 'red light' is 'red' to everybody else (unless colour blind). But what is really going on in this question? The notion that we cannot percieve someone elses perception of 'red' somehow alienates us from an 'ideal absolute redness', which merely means that subjectively, we all take a 'leap of faith' and trust that a motorist will stop at the 'red signal'. Whether the exact decoded information of 'red' is processed in someone's brain as exactly the same 'red' as another person is still being worked out and debated. Whether this is what 'absolute truth' means in the question is uncertain to me. I think 'absolute uncertainty' could be considered a 'truth'. Whether that 'truth' is absolute is another matter.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 02:04 am
@Procrustes,
It's not about the color of lighted signals, because top lght is always green, and bottom light is red.
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 02:08 am
@cicerone imposter,
Not in Australia..
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 02:17 am
@Procrustes,
I was in Australia 3-months ago, and already forgot. However, my conclusion about the color of traffic lights still stands-including the placement of red and green. Once a driver knows which one is geen and red, it's no longer about color.
 

Related Topics

Truth vs. Fact - Question by atchoo522
What is truth? - Question by Torii
The truth about life - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Can anyone refute this definition of 'truth'? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Is truth subjective or objective? - Discussion by Taliesin181
Church vs Bible, What to believe? - Question by papag
Do you See what Eye See?? - Discussion by NoName77
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Absolute truth?
  3. » Page 44
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 02:28:51