1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, that is part of what it illustrates--what it is intended to illustrate! (See my post above to Andrew.)
And as with the best of poems, its 'essence' is different for different people. Andrew clearly sees the essence as 'obvious illogic'.
I see the message: 'hide the problem behind beautiful words and half the people will fail to notice that the problem has not gone away'.
Geez, I would've thought you two guys already know where I'm at on this one. 🙁
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf it's true that we are learning by means of theta waves, we are filing our knowledge by means of having our miscellaneous memories decoded during REM. Are you conceptually aware of this process the way you are conceptually aware of the very incidents you experience during your everyday life whilst you are not dreaming?
And as with the best of poems, its 'essence' is different for different people. Andrew clearly sees the essence as 'obvious illogic'.
I see the message: 'hide the problem behind beautiful words and half the people will fail to notice that the problem has not gone away'.
Since our dreams are mainly optical and not lectical, our using of the system "brain/ mind/ dreaming" is more than neseccary -and an attempt of turning our conceptual awareness into non-conceptual awareness is justified; also, since "logic" is solely another tool of the many that we have at our disposal, methinks that it ain't mean no thing on its own -and thus we are not in front of just another case of "...hiding the problem behind beautiful words..." as you posed it. Methinks that our experiential reality is more complicated than merely a "one or zero" situation, therefore we need more than a tool in order to be able to handle it😵
Originally posted by vistesdAnd what kind of understanding would be have had establish without the eternal procedure of falsification?
Yes, that is part of what it illustrates--what it is intended to illustrate! (See my post above to Andrew.)
Geez, I would've thought you two guys already know where I'm at on this one. 🙁
😵
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMy dear Mr Hamilton, in my opinion that lil wee vistesd’s poem offers amongst else a description of the mind and of the mechanism we normally use in order to cope with the world of ours. But, since every existence is mind-only, we functionally exist (capable of switching from the conceptual to the non-conceptual awareness) solely when our functioning mind exists. We could say that “when you ask, it is your mind who asks, and when you reply it is your mind who replies”.
[b]…Way before when
outside of all space
….
How can there be an “outside of all space”? -if there is an “outside of all space” then that “all space” cannot be ALL of space because there is a place outside of it!
…and beyond all beyond
...
Similarly, how can there be a “beyond all beyond”? -if there is a “beyond all beyond” then that “all beyond” cannot be ALL of beyond because there would be a beyond it![/b]
But when you try to find outside of the mind whatever you are trying to find, you will find nuffin’. Mind is the Space in which everything exists and it has not a specific shape. How can you “hold” Space”? You cannot hold it and you cannot understand it, and everything you understand is solely an “empty” product of your mind -sunyata. This is the reason why we say that one has to know him/ herself: if you know yourself you know everything.
I think vistesd said by means of his lil wee poem that “…beyond mind there is nothing, and there is nothing beyond mind” -and I agree. Afterall, one is delusional during her/ his inability to know her/ his nature, because the nature of the Human is simply the nature of the mind.
Therefore I understood the notion “…outside of all space” as “…outside of the conventional mode of my mind”, thus in my opinion vistesd was talking about the non-conceptual awareness too; and it seems to me that “…beyond all beyond” is equivalent to “…beyond our conceptual awareness”.
By the way, if this interpretation of mine is accurate, it is obvious that there would be no contradictions at any field, the field of logic included. So I feel free to rewrite that lil wee poem as following:
Way before when
outside of the epiontic universe
and beyond every manifestation of its countless forms,
was the lack of manifestations
before the wavefunction was collapsed,
and way outside when—
And also I could rewrite it as following:
Way before when
outside of your mind
and beyond every manifestation of its countless forms,
was the lack of those manifestations
before the creation of your fixed ideas by your ego,
and way outside when—
Now, Mr Hamilton, in both cases of them lil wee rewritten poems -and of course at the case of the original vistesd’s lil wee poem-, does the set of “everything” include itself? What is your opinion? (regardless of your opinion, when you have it formed kindly please get rid of the trap and enjoy the fish)
😵
Originally posted by vistesdThe issue here is to what extent we give existence to 'information'. It is entirely true that "the Cat sitting in a Tree" is greater than "the Cat" union "the Tree" as there is some information added ie "sitting". But does that information constitute a "something" that can be said to exist?
I'll defer to you on set theory, my friend! I had in the back of my mind the cosmological "proofs" of god, that often seem to treat the "universe itself" as something distinct from all that comprises it. Somehow (the strange loops of my mind!) it made me think of Russell's paradox.
In light of that, I would have to say that "everything" is not itself a "something", however...
To illustrate a bit further: The city of Cape Town exists. But is it more than the sum of the houses that comprise it? If the houses were spread out, there would be no 'city'. Hence the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and the whole can be changed by rearranging the parts without actually changing any of the parts. But the change is one of information, and 'the whole' = 'sum of parts' + 'information'.
But you are probably way ahead of me on this one....
Originally posted by black beetle…does the set of “everything” include itself?
My dear Mr Hamilton, in my opinion that lil wee vistesd’s poem offers amongst else a description of the mind and of the mechanism we normally use in order to cope with the world of ours. But, since every existence is mind-only, we functionally exist (capable of switching from the conceptual to the non-conceptual awareness) solely when our functioning mi ...[text shortened]... your opinion, when you have it formed kindly please get rid of the trap and enjoy the fish)
😵
….
I don’t know how to relate that question to the context of the poems (don’t really understand those poems) but, ignoring the poems, I would say the answer is “yes” -the set of “everything” includes itself (had to think for a moment to check that the “class of all classes” paradoxes doesn’t somehow complicate that issue).
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFine!
[b]…does the set of “everything” include itself?
….
I don’t know how to relate that question to the context of the poems (don’t really understand those poems) but, ignoring the poems, I would say the answer is “yes” -the set of “everything” includes itself (had to think for a moment to check that the “class of all classes” paradoxes doesn’t somehow complicate that issue).[/b]
This simple “yes” means that “everything” was included within the “point singularity”, therefore “…all of space is contained within the singularity so that there is no outside”. And, of course, there is no contradiction😵
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIn other words, as my dear friend vistesd offered at an other thread, a view of ours from “outside” the totality (in our case "totality" is our Kosmos as it emerged from the point singularity) impossible it remains😵
[b]…does the set of “everything” include itself?
….
I don’t know how to relate that question to the context of the poems (don’t really understand those poems) but, ignoring the poems, I would say the answer is “yes” -the set of “everything” includes itself (had to think for a moment to check that the “class of all classes” paradoxes doesn’t somehow complicate that issue).[/b]
There can be another aspect to such poetic contradictoriness, though it may be one seldom recognized today: that of employing contradictions in a mutually negating way in order to indicate that what the poet is referring to is beyond the capability of (the given) language, and perhaps beyond human cognitive capability. This technique was used by the likes of Pseudo-Dionysius (Christian “apophatic” theology) and Moshe de Leon (in the kabbalistic Zohar).
I was not consciously employing this technique in my little poem, however.
The language of poetry is not that of straightforward propositional truth claims; neither is the language of myth and story. They spring from a different aesthetic domain (not that the pursuit of logic cannot be aesthetically pleasing as well). Both those who credulously accept poetic and mytho-symbolic expressions as if they were such truth-claims, and those who dismiss them because as such truth-claims they would be nonsensical—both groups miss the mark, based on fundamentally the same error.
Post-modern theories of reading emphasize the reader’s role in interpreting such texts (as opposed to the search for the “original intent” of the author, whether by historical or literary criticism). In that spirit, I am very gratified that my little bit of doggerel could stimulate such discussion.
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelNot sure what you mean by that.
I see that one hasn't gotten past you. You could be right. I'm not sure. Is 'logic' strictly a 0 or 1 thing?
There are other fields of logic other than Boolean logic.
And logic that is applied to the real world is never only about 0’s and 1’s -you have to make meaningful proposition in applied logic that cannot be broken down to 0’s and 1’s .