I think the whole point rests on the idea of self-discipline. The mind (thoughts) and emotions are tools which we use e.g. for self-expression, to engage in perception, among other processes in consciousness. If we don't control our thoughts and emotions, we become like workmen (humans) whose work (lives) are determined by the tools (thoughts and emotions), which is not respectable at all. But if we learn to control them, then we stand a chance at overcoming the chaos in our lives.

Unfortunately, these teachings also rest on the idea of 'self' being fundamental to everything and for those who are not inclined towards such a school of thought, it all seems like hogwash.

How does one cease the identification with thought if what the author speaks is true? — Posty McPostface

So far I only know of meditation.

I've tried to read a little on 4D mechanics and I think one of the key aspects of a higher dimension is its permeability of the lower dimensions. For example, a 2D being would not be able to see the whole of a 2D model e.g. a circle, unless they went around it. And even then, they would only see the portion in front and which would still obstruct the rest. The same applies to our 3D sight when observing stuff. A common example is the horizon at the edge of any vista. Or the fact that we only see the part of solids directly reflecting light at us. It is often proposed that 4D sight would enable us to view the whole of a 3D object, permeating through its structure to perceive every angle from just one point of view without shifting. Anyway, that's just a guess.



These books seem to have a number of well thought out ideas on what 4D would mean:

http://www.astrumargenteum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Hinton-The-Fourth-Dimension.pdf
http://albanyqigong.com/images/a_primer_of_higher_space.pdf

On page 9, you wrote,

1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws... — eodnhoj7

And on page 11, you've written,

1. All axioms are points of origin; hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. The point of origin progresses to another point of origin through point 2 and cycles back to itself through point 3 with this linear progression and circularity originating from themselves, through eachother and point 1.

Point 1 is original and exists through points 2 and 3 as points 2 and 3.

As original Points 1,2,3 are extension of eachother as one axiom, while simultaneously being nothing in themselves as points of origin that invert to further axioms respectively; hence originate as 1 and 3 through 1 and 3 as 1 and 3 laws... — eodnhoj7

What makes you think your mistaken assumptions will become right just because you repeat them?

They were wrong on page 9 and still wrong on this page.

But the equation is equivalent to P — eodnhoj7

I never said that. An equation is a premise with a defined path to the conclusion. It is not an identity.
P=P is an equation (a simplistic one compared to the ordinary mathematical equations we usually use) which expresses how the law of identity works.

The law of identity governs the expression of an identity's distinction. It is not itself an identity.

I've already told you this in a previous post, (from page 10)

It does not mean that the laws change but that, they associate such that the phenomena expresses the conditions we refer to as cyclic. — BrianW

Do not mistake the nature of laws with the nature of phenomena. Do not attribute the characteristics of phenomena to those of laws. — BrianW

Phenomena are always changing but the laws are ever constant. — BrianW

I don't know what you hope to gain by misinterpreting what I have said. Why assume what I'm saying? It is easier to just ask.

Somewhat true. I don't like video games and have no reason other than they don't compare to actual games. But the amish resistance is really intense. They're trying to ignore over a 100 years worth of technology. It's impressive and retarded at the same time.

:lol: :rofl:

The internet is just fine. It's just that we've never had such a perspective before. There has never been another time in human history (from the records we have) when people from all over the world have been as accessible as they are at present.
It's a new phenomenon and it will take some time for us to refine our interactions. Please bear with it a while longer.

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." — Tzeentch

I think, from the previous verses in the chapter, the light is in reference to God's wisdom, the Word, and its influence on mankind.

It's like a riddle. On the one hand, the light/wisdom of God is ever upon our darkness/ignorance. And on the other hand, our darkness/ignorance prevents us from realising that light/wisdom. So, in our ignorance, we are blinded to the ever-present wisdom of God.

In terms of thinking about thinking, can we say that the mind follows the path of intelligence and that simplicity is one of the aspects on such a path. Therefore, instead of thinking about thinking about something, perhaps, it is simpler to just think about that something.

Or in some kind of abridged abstraction, 'thinking about thinking' is just thinking. Just like writing about writing is just writing.

2+2 = P — eodnhoj7

This is not a value. It is an equation.

4 = p — eodnhoj7

P=4, therefore 4 is the value of P

2+2=P,
2+2=4

therefore, from the above given equations, P=4.


That has nothing to do with P=P (The law of identity).

I will explain it again:

The law of identity may be expressed as P=P.
substitute the P with any identity and the equation preserves its balance.
For example, substitute P with Ball,
that is, P=Ball.

Therefore the expression, according to the law of identity, becomes:

Ball=Ball (because P is on both sides of the original equation.)

It means the identity of a Ball is distinct and cannot be any other identity than a Ball

As you can see, what I've explained has nothing to do with your interpretations. That is how the law of identity works, not in whatever misguided notion you intend to imply.

Music: Flower duet from the opera Lakmé by Léo Delibes (whether opera is part of the classical genre or not, I wouldn't know. I doubt it's even old enough to belong to that period referred to.)

Visual Art: Any painting by Jan van Eyck with those mirrors which reflect other elements of the painting. Just genius.

Literature: The Bhagavad Gita. (Religious teachings incite a lot of controversy but the intelligence, balance - not strictly religious nor otherwise, philosophy, even the context in which this was supposedly given, to me, is very inspiring.)

Philosophy: Gibran Kahlil Gibran.

Leadership: Muhammad Ali and Nelson Mandela. (It's one thing to stand against a Nation on principle, especially in modern times, and another to stand for a Nation. Both are equally impressive.)

That is one of those metaphysical problems. Is there a 'self' who is the thinker? I don't know. As far as I can tell awareness and mind seem to be intrinsically connected. Can we be aware outside the mind? I don't know either.
However, the statement,

I am thinking,

implies there's an identity,

I

and its activity expressed as,

am thinking

. Beyond that is a matter of endless speculation for me.

What happened to your laws, they seem very irrelevant now. You seem to be focused on linguistics, I wonder why?

Red herring — eodnhoj7

Who said that?

So a particle wave = particle wave (as you describe above) is the premise having the same answer as the conclusion? According to classical logic, this is circular reasoning. — eodnhoj7

This is philosophy. So, the premise does not have an answer, it has a conclusion. And yes, the premise and conclusion are ALIKE. That is why it makes sense.

Why all the petty attempts? It is clear your are wrong the moment you divert to all those other unrelated stuff.

Please, you think your petty attempts at semantics will confuse me.

P=P means that the premise P (on the left side of the equation) is equal (=) to the conclusion P (on the right side of the equation).

Now, might I ask you to be as concise in your explanations as that?

So, have your laws become theories?

So "equals" = "is"? Really? — eodnhoj7

= shows equivalence.

so a particle is not anything else, but it can be described as a wave? — eodnhoj7

Have some self-respect dude. This argument is sub par for anyone in this forum. You are the only one with this misguided notion. The duality of a particle is part of its conditioning, it does not alter its identity.

Particle (which is a particle wave(which is a particle(which is a particle wave(...) — eodnhoj7

This is unscientific. Good for you because you are not even trying. I like your imagination but, it seems you don't understand what a continuum is. (Please don't make that the next part of your argument, by now it's boring.)

Proof can never be finite because it would need a further proof to define it. It can only be complete if it is self refererencing. — eodnhoj7

This is your own assumption.

You still never defined what "=" means in the law without referencing outside laws as necessary...but mostly you never defined it. — eodnhoj7

= means is.

So the particle wave is separate from all other phenomena and can exist on its own terms? — eodnhoj7

That is not what I said.

A particle is a particle. It cannot be anything else.

According to the principle of identity of I ask you what a particle wave is, then you are left with saying particle wave and the argument is subject to the fallacy of circularity according to classical logic. — eodnhoj7

Wave-particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. The law of identity does not contradict definitions, it accepts them as explanations of what the identity is.

Actually you just followed the laws I am arguing, the principle of identity has to progress to further axioms to be understood. — eodnhoj7

No. You tried to bring confusion by thinking the definition of 'particle-wave' will affect the outcome of my argument. It doesn't.

If wave-particle duality is true, then the particle which exhibits it would be just that. That is:

particle (which exhibits wave-particle duality)=particle (which exhibits wave-particle duality)


AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE WRONG.

You just had to progress in definition to explain P=P, hence P=P is not axiomatic on its own terms. — eodnhoj7

This is nonsense. Just because it proves you wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. It's been applied that for as long as the law exists. That you do not realise it should show you that you don't understand.

It means that a particle wave (with whatever characteristics and conditions) can only be identified as a particle wave.

Whatever conditions there are, they are part of the identity in question. That's why the law is valid.

P=P

Then,

Particle wave=Particle Wave

Like I keep telling you, you've misunderstood everything. When the cyclic nature of some events is realised, it may seem very captivating but it does not mean that laws become changeable or cyclic in themselves. If laws were changeable or cyclic then where would their constancy come from? The law of gravity is ever the law of gravity. The same applies to all natural laws and the laws of logic which are deduced from them.

The solar system has cyclic phenomena but they arise from interaction of laws. It does not mean that the laws change but that, they associate such that the phenomena expresses the conditions we refer to as cyclic.

For example, for a planet to revolve around the sun, there is a combination of centripetal and centrifugal forces which adhere to the laws which govern them. But the laws and the forces don't change even though the planet keeps changing its position.

The same applies to the laws of logic. They inference a wide range of application but they are in themselves constant and unchangeable. That is the point you should first recognise. There is a difference between laws and the phenomena which they govern. Do not mistake the nature of laws with the nature of phenomena. Do not attribute the characteristics of phenomena to those of laws.

Phenomena are always changing but the laws are ever constant. That is part of the esoteric teachings which you seem to confuse.

You are wrong because you cannot distinguish between the nature of law and that of phenomena.

Now show me how yours are empirical. — eodnhoj7

I've already given you examples of what the law of identity means to our understanding of phenomena. I even used you as an example. The statements are there for you to re-read if you can't remember.

If you can't substantiate your statements, what is their point? If your laws are just words without applications, how are they laws? Principles must be manifest in the phenomena or domain they govern. Unless they're imaginary, they should be evident.

Show that these laws of yours apply in life. Not just with assumptions but back them up. So far, it seems like you've read esoteric books. However, those who give esoteric teachings show how the laws are evident in phenomena and how we interact with them. They understood between the various paradigms of knowledge and consequently their teachings are coherent and logical. Even Aristotle was raised on that mixture of esoteric traditions and the methods of critique that came to be a staple in western philosophy. And yet, he managed to harmonise them efficiently.
Unfortunately you have not understood them well enough but you want to pretend like you do.

An assumption is not a definition.

You cannot argue against the law without proving the law by making it progress further. — eodnhoj7

I'm saying those are not laws. They are your own imaginations. If they were laws they would be evident in the phenomena they govern. You have yet to show that.

Actually a child's identity is not the same as an adult's identity. Interests change, relationships change, health changes. — eodnhoj7

This is your quote. You are the one who said it changes. Again, you are trying to mislead with your petty confusions.

All axioms are points of origin — eodnhoj7

Prove this first before you give explanations based on unfounded premises.

hence all axioms as progressive linear definition and circularity are points of origins. — eodnhoj7

Hence nothing. You have not explained it. You have only made an assertion. The next step should be to prove that it is true. After that, you can give a conclusion.

This whole argument becomes irrelevant because it is unfounded. They're all assumptions unless you show how you arrived at them.

where this equation observes point space as both 0 dimensional and 1 dimensional in theory. — eodnhoj7

That is my point so far, they're all theories you are trying to advance. Unfortunately they're not based on any real foundation nor are they coherent.

hence flux and form replicate further flux and form — eodnhoj7

How and why? Or show this process in phenomena. How did you come to such a conclusion?

All statements exist as truth statements if they are self referentiality, with this self referentiality being open to progress. — eodnhoj7

Show how all statements exist as truth statements through self-reference.
Show how self-referentiality progresses. How does it apply to phenomena?

If a cause is directed to effect, an effect is a cause, the cause is directed through itself as an effect. — eodnhoj7

This makes no sense. This is neither scientific nor philosophical. Check Newtons laws of motion and how cause and effect relate to each other with respect to forces. So, how did you arrive at your premise?

Self referencing, intradimensionally, or "reflection" (all synonyms) is form and function. — eodnhoj7

What does this mean?

So the foundation axiom is form/function resulting in further form/function with form/function being the proof and answer as a symmetrical structure. — eodnhoj7

How does the foundation result in further...? Through what mechanism or process?

3 = 4-1,5-2,6-3...

3= 3-1+1-1, 5-2+2-2, 6-3+3-3... — eodnhoj7

These equations are not functions. Consult your mathematics on what a function is.

With these progressing ad infinitum and not including further arithmetic functions. — eodnhoj7

What you have given are not arithmetic functions.

So 1+2, while true because as a form function (+1 and +2 directed to eachother) its exists through the form function of +3, but is random considering 1+2 is an approximation of the infinite form functions that exist through the form function of 3.

So all form/functions are simultaneously random as approximations of a great form function, while inherently true as extensions of the form function through their nature. — eodnhoj7

This is not mathematical. It is your own cooking. What part of mathematics are they?

Because of this premise of form/function as true, — eodnhoj7

You have not proved it. The incoherent series of unrelated, unscientific, unmathematical and unphilosophical statements you've given are not proof of anything other than your sophistry.

They are the explanation. They exist through there definition of the monad, hence the monad defines there work. — eodnhoj7

You have not given the definition of monad nor have you explained it.

Is this what you call your logic, making unfounded assertions? Is that what you think science or mathematics is?



I'm just wondering, assuming you have read other people's books, is there anyone whose explanations are as muddled as yours.

You want to prove something you can't explain and which you don't even recognize through the simplest of phenomena. You've read big books and now you want to use those big words without even understanding them.

I'm glad your statements are here for everyone to read. I don't get how you think you make sense unless it's your own personal opinion only. My advice: consult others. It's not for them to determine whether you're right or wrong but for you to evaluate you skills at expressing yourself. My opinion is what you are writing makes you sound like a maniac.

Anyway, keep on if you want. I'm sure to keep up and point out all your inconsistencies.

My point is the identity of a person remains the same.

this definition of the point line and circle occurs through the nature of the point, line and circle with the nature of the point, line and circle being further defined by the relations of the point line and circle. — eodnhoj7

Which definition is that which occurs through the line, point and circle. State that definition.

It is a circular expansion — eodnhoj7

What is circular expansion. Define and explain it.

linear and circular reasoning — eodnhoj7

Define and explain them.

where this linear and circular reasoning and all axioms as "points of origin" in turn not just justify the laws, but observes all logic is subject to both "form" and "function" in regarde to its nature as axiomatic. — eodnhoj7

How are they points of origin. Origin of what? How do they observe logic as subject to form and function?

I am using the Pythagorean Monad, Hindu Bindhu, Lieniz's Monads, Plotinus's Monad/One — eodnhoj7

Where are they in your explanations? How are they associated with your explanations and phenomena in reality?

They all exist as extensions of eachother, according to both there reasoning, and the laws themselves. — eodnhoj7

Show this.

Just face it, these laws are above your laws and whatever law you use exists through them. You can fight against these laws, but you will just be using them. — eodnhoj7

Show those laws.

Actually a child's identity is not the same as an adult's identity. Interests change, relationships change, health changes. — eodnhoj7

This should be basic common sense. Were you someone else as a child? Or is it that you don't know what identity means.

Zeno's paradox is based on hypothesis, not facts. Also, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

You gave no definition to mathematics, as mathematics has many definitions. — eodnhoj7

Still trying to evade the crux of the argument.

All of this is in the Prime Triad for all these things are axioms. — eodnhoj7

Which means all the nonsense you're saying is in that triadic whatever.


That's my point. Everything you call 'your logic' is nonsense.

We also define 0! = 1 to provide consistency in the equations for nPr and nCr — eodnhoj7

Don't change the subject. We're talking about the Law if Identity, P=P.

P cannot be substituted, other wise it changes and is a variable. As a Place holder if is effectively nothing but void. — eodnhoj7

This is not mathematics. It is your own nonsense.


AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.

Zeno's paradox is left with a continuum of measurement resulting in no-change or movement. — eodnhoj7

No. That's not what it says. This is your own faulty interpretation.

Unless you are saying logic and mathematics are subject to reality, in which case the nature of variable applies considering reality is in a constant state of change. — eodnhoj7

The elements governed by reality change. But reality remains itself. Just like we grow up from children to adults but our identity doesn't change. The identity of reality remains the same.

Hence, P=P
Reality=Reality.


YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG

P=P

If P is substituted, it has to be done on both sides of the equation.

Therefore,

P=P
1=1
0=0

1=0 is a mathematical fallacy which you have conjured up and have not proved.

1=0 has nothing to do with P=P

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.

Actually it does the continual progression observes a stability where the axioms never really change due to there continuous empirical and abstract nature as existing through further axioms. — eodnhoj7

This is not Zeno's paradox.

The law of identity deals with reality as it is. No matter the condition of that reality, whether real or illusion, it is distinctly itself.

P=P
Reality=Reality
Illusion=Illusion

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.

Actually I have. The premises are maintains and progressively observed from seperate angles such as the laws of idenity, 1 = 0, the nature of definition, equivocation and a whole list of further fallacies. — eodnhoj7

This is nonsense. It is not the law of identity.

Not really, 1 progressions to a further progression which in itself is progressing. Infinite movement directed through infinite movement. — eodnhoj7

You are writing it in words but you are not proving it as it is observed in reality (in phenomena). So, there's no proof.

What you've written has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.

hence one axiom progresses to another and cycles back to the original simultaneously.

Covered in Prime Triad. — eodnhoj7

You have not shown any progression.

Not changing the subject of "change" as a place holder can be use for a progressive change as: (1→((n→∞)=∆)) — eodnhoj7

The very definition of WORD SALAD in this context.

And as you can see, reason is part of that meaning.

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.