Everything is Not a Thing

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Please give example (logic)
2.How can language refute itself? Example please.

1. A therefore B.
2. The liar's paradox. Or: "Everything is true; this statement is false."

1. This is not a statement that negates logic.
2. THis is not a refutation of langauge. It is called a paradox. Thus the word "paradox" redems language by having an adequate description.

None this this relates to the thread.

I misread and thought you were looking for an example of logic not an example that negates logic.

As to an example that negates logic:

1. I lie all the time, therefore this statement is a lie.
2. A paradox requires contradiction thus is illogical.
3. A paradox is paradoxical, according to the language through which it exists as it has contradictory meanings:

"a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

Senselessness is an absence of truth.

[Sculptor]

1. A therefore B.
2. The liar's paradox. Or: "Everything is true; this statement is false."

1. This is not a statement that negates logic.
2. THis is not a refutation of langauge. It is called a paradox. Thus the word "paradox" redems language by having an adequate description.

None this this relates to the thread.

I misread and thought you were looking for an example of logic not an example that negates logic.

As to an example that negates logic:

1. I lie all the time, therefore this statement is a lie.
2. A paradox requires contradiction thus is illogical.
3. A paradox is paradoxical, according to the language through which it exists as it has contradictory meanings:

"a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

Senselessness is an absence of truth.

" I lie all the time." Is not an absolute statement. When you say that you might be having a day off.
Or you might just be lying.
So no negation of logic, just an example of telling lies.

Senselessness has nothing to do with truth.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. This is not a statement that negates logic.
2. THis is not a refutation of langauge. It is called a paradox. Thus the word "paradox" redems language by having an adequate description.

None this this relates to the thread.

I misread and thought you were looking for an example of logic not an example that negates logic.

As to an example that negates logic:

1. I lie all the time, therefore this statement is a lie.
2. A paradox requires contradiction thus is illogical.
3. A paradox is paradoxical, according to the language through which it exists as it has contradictory meanings:

"a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

Senselessness is an absence of truth.

" I lie all the time." Is not an absolute statement. When you say that you might be having a day off.
Or you might just be lying.
So no negation of logic, just an example of telling lies.

Senselessness has nothing to do with truth.

1. Facepalm...we are not talking about absolutes but an example of logic self-negating. If I was "having a day off" then "I lie all the time" is false. If "I lie all the time" is a lie, as it must be according the "therefore" section of the statement, then the argument is self-negating. If the conclusion negates the premise then the logic caves in on itself. If the premises negates the conclusion then the logic caves in on itself. However this leads to another contradiction as untrue premises do not negate logical form. I can make the argument, "cats taste like bananas, I tasted a cat, therefore I tasted something that tastes like a banana". It is logical but untrue. There are several ways of viewing this.

As to another example of logic negating logic we can look to the laws of identity applied to themselves:

There is either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) if the law of excluded middle is applied to these said laws. If the law of identity is true but the law of non-contradiction is false then anything can equal anything. If the law of non-contradiction is true but the law of identity is false then nothing can equate. Either way the laws self-negate....and these laws are the foundation of logic.

However, ignore the above, the real question is "what is logic to you"?

2. Facepalm...to say it has nothing to do with truth is the same as saying it is absent of truth.

[popeye1945]

That which is not a thing is unmanifested energy. Perhaps then one can ask, when does a condition become a thing?

[Belinda]

That which is not a thing is unmanifested energy. Perhaps then one can ask, when does a condition become a thing?

Thingness and "unmanifested energy" are each ways of imagining nature. Spinoza's Latin words for these ways were Natura Naturata (the things of nature) and Natura Naturans (nature naturing itself). These are mutually inclusive ways to think of nature.

[popeye1945]

That which is not a thing is unmanifested energy. Perhaps then one can ask, when does a condition become a thing?

Thingness and "unmanifested energy" are each ways of imagining nature. Spinoza's Latin words for these ways were Natura Naturata (the things of nature) and Natura Naturans (nature naturing itself). These are mutually inclusive ways to think of nature.

Interesting, two aspects of one thing.

[Belinda]

That which is not a thing is unmanifested energy. Perhaps then one can ask, when does a condition become a thing?

Thingness and "unmanifested energy" are each ways of imagining nature. Spinoza's Latin words for these ways were Natura Naturata (the things of nature) and Natura Naturans (nature naturing itself). These are mutually inclusive ways to think of nature.

Interesting, two aspects of one thing.

There is only one thing, Nature.(Theists think Nature is a Person). Your claim is Nature is unmanifested energy. I get "unmanifested" but I don't understand what energy is apart from it's being either potential energy or kinetic energy. E.g. potential energy is the bones and muscles of the Shire horse ,while kinetic energy is the Shire horse dragging a tree trunk.

[popeye1945]

Thingness and "unmanifested energy" are each ways of imagining nature. Spinoza's Latin words for these ways were Natura Naturata (the things of nature) and Natura Naturans (nature naturing itself). These are mutually inclusive ways to think of nature.

Interesting, two aspects of one thing.

There is only one thing, Nature.(Theists think Nature is a Person). Your claim is Nature is unmanifested energy. I get "unmanifested" but I don't understand what energy is apart from it's being either potential energy or kinetic energy. E.g. potential energy is the bones and muscles of the Shire horse ,while kinetic energy is the Shire horse dragging a tree trunk.

No, I do not claim that nature is unmanifested energy, in fact, apparent reality/our everyday reality is a world of objects. The world of objects is a biological simulation, a biological readout, informing the subject not of the source, but of the effects of the source upon the senses of the biological subject. It is a melody only the biological subject/life form, is conscious of; it is energy processed through living beings. If we are to speak of ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality, then it is all unmanifested energy and as in other kinds of mysteries, instead of following the money its fellow the energy, for it is all energy, and money is but abstract energy. Yes, energy is constantly in transformation from one form to another. Potential energy is the Shire horse manifested as object, kinetic energy though unmanifested still has power. I recall someone asking Bertrand Russell, what is electricity, without missing a beat, he stated, "Electricity is the way in which things behave." In the relationship between subject and object, if the subject does not have the object to react to, it ceases to be, as in no conscious subject. Within the constitution of nature there is an apparent duality which is prevalent, humanity, two aspects of one thing, male and female, right/wrong, subject and object.

Disable BBCode
Disable smilies

[Belinda]

Interesting, two aspects of one thing.

There is only one thing, Nature.(Theists think Nature is a Person). Your claim is Nature is unmanifested energy. I get "unmanifested" but I don't understand what energy is apart from it's being either potential energy or kinetic energy. E.g. potential energy is the bones and muscles of the Shire horse ,while kinetic energy is the Shire horse dragging a tree trunk.

No, I do not claim that nature is unmanifested energy, in fact, apparent reality/our everyday reality is a world of objects. The world of objects is a biological simulation, a biological readout, informing the subject not of the source, but of the effects of the source upon the senses of the biological subject. It is a melody only the biological subject/life form, is conscious of; it is energy processed through living beings. If we are to speak of ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality, then it is all unmanifested energy and as in other kinds of mysteries, instead of following the money its fellow the energy, for it is all energy, and money is but abstract energy. Yes, energy is constantly in transformation from one form to another. Potential energy is the Shire horse manifested as object, kinetic energy though unmanifested still has power. I recall someone asking Bertrand Russell, what is electricity, without missing a beat, he stated, "Electricity is the way in which things behave." In the relationship between subject and object, if the subject does not have the object to react to, it ceases to be, as in no conscious subject. Within the constitution of nature there is an apparent duality which is prevalent, humanity, two aspects of one thing, male and female, right/wrong, subject and object.

Disable BBCode
Disable smilies

I think I understand your last sentence; it's what I'd call relativity, events relatively this and relatively that. I also understand "Yes, energy is constantly in transformation from one form to another. " What is the difference if any between energy and change?
The word 'energy' is difficult for me to put in the context of metaphysics because I'm accustomed to the word 'energy' in physical contexts. I'm happier with the Taoist 'change' that refers to dynamic Yin and Yang. Your "apparent reality/our everyday reality is a world of objects" fits with Yin and Yang.

[popeye1945]

There is only one thing, Nature.(Theists think Nature is a Person). Your claim is Nature is unmanifested energy. I get "unmanifested" but I don't understand what energy is apart from it's being either potential energy or kinetic energy. E.g. potential energy is the bones and muscles of the Shire horse ,while kinetic energy is the Shire horse dragging a tree trunk.

No, I do not claim that nature is unmanifested energy, in fact, apparent reality/our everyday reality is a world of objects. The world of objects is a biological simulation, a biological readout, informing the subject not of the source, but of the effects of the source upon the senses of the biological subject. It is a melody only the biological subject/life form, is conscious of; it is energy processed through living beings. If we are to speak of ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality, then it is all unmanifested energy and as in other kinds of mysteries, instead of following the money its fellow the energy, for it is all energy, and money is but abstract energy. Yes, energy is constantly in transformation from one form to another. Potential energy is the Shire horse manifested as object, kinetic energy though unmanifested still has power. I recall someone asking Bertrand Russell, what is electricity, without missing a beat, he stated, "Electricity is the way in which things behave." In the relationship between subject and object, if the subject does not have the object to react to, it ceases to be, as in no conscious subject. Within the constitution of nature there is an apparent duality which is prevalent, humanity, two aspects of one thing, male and female, right/wrong, subject and object.

I think I understand your last sentence; it's what I'd call relativity, events relatively this and relatively that. I also understand "Yes, energy is constantly in transformation from one form to another. " What is the difference if any between energy and change?
The word 'energy' is difficult for me to put in the context of metaphysics because I'm accustomed to the word 'energy' in physical contexts. I'm happier with the Taoist 'change' that refers to dynamic Yin and Yang. Your "apparent reality/our everyday reality is a world of objects" fits with Yin and Yang.

The Yin Yang symbol is this duality, this matching of opposites, which in Buddhism is not opposite at all. For in the one, there is a dark spot and in the other there is a light spot, meaning there are no absolute opposites, there is always an element of the other in each. "What is the difference if any between energy and change?" I suppose energy is that which changes, but seeing as there is only energy, yes, energy is change. The physical context of energy would be object/s. My main point, however, was that energies become objects through biological means, just as there is no such thing as a color unless the vibrational energy is processed through the sight of a life form, so too, that of objects.

[Belinda]

No, I do not claim that nature is unmanifested energy, in fact, apparent reality/our everyday reality is a world of objects. The world of objects is a biological simulation, a biological readout, informing the subject not of the source, but of the effects of the source upon the senses of the biological subject. It is a melody only the biological subject/life form, is conscious of; it is energy processed through living beings. If we are to speak of ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality, then it is all unmanifested energy and as in other kinds of mysteries, instead of following the money its fellow the energy, for it is all energy, and money is but abstract energy. Yes, energy is constantly in transformation from one form to another. Potential energy is the Shire horse manifested as object, kinetic energy though unmanifested still has power. I recall someone asking Bertrand Russell, what is electricity, without missing a beat, he stated, "Electricity is the way in which things behave." In the relationship between subject and object, if the subject does not have the object to react to, it ceases to be, as in no conscious subject. Within the constitution of nature there is an apparent duality which is prevalent, humanity, two aspects of one thing, male and female, right/wrong, subject and object.

I think I understand your last sentence; it's what I'd call relativity, events relatively this and relatively that. I also understand "Yes, energy is constantly in transformation from one form to another. " What is the difference if any between energy and change?
The word 'energy' is difficult for me to put in the context of metaphysics because I'm accustomed to the word 'energy' in physical contexts. I'm happier with the Taoist 'change' that refers to dynamic Yin and Yang. Your "apparent reality/our everyday reality is a world of objects" fits with Yin and Yang.

The Yin Yang symbol is this duality, this matching of opposites, which in Buddhism is not opposite at all. For in the one, there is a dark spot and in the other there is a light spot, meaning there are no absolute opposites, there is always an element of the other in each. "What is the difference if any between energy and change?" I suppose energy is that which changes, but seeing as there is only energy, yes, energy is change. The physical context of energy would be object/s. My main point, however, was that energies become objects through biological means, just as there is no such thing as a color unless the vibrational energy is processed through the sight of a life form, so too, that of objects.

There is just one point I'd like to clear up.Would you mind if I paraphrased as follows ?
"My main point, however, was that energies become objects through biological means, just as there is no such thing as a color unless the vibrational energy is processed through the sight of a life form, so too, that of objects."
as "Energy becomes objectified as the myriad things of nature."

[popeye1945]

I think I understand your last sentence; it's what I'd call relativity, events relatively this and relatively that. I also understand "Yes, energy is constantly in transformation from one form to another. " What is the difference if any between energy and change?
The word 'energy' is difficult for me to put in the context of metaphysics because I'm accustomed to the word 'energy' in physical contexts. I'm happier with the Taoist 'change' that refers to dynamic Yin and Yang. Your "apparent reality/our everyday reality is a world of objects" fits with Yin and Yang.

The Yin Yang symbol is this duality, this matching of opposites, which in Buddhism is not opposite at all. For in the one, there is a dark spot and in the other there is a light spot, meaning there are no absolute opposites, there is always an element of the other in each. "What is the difference if any between energy and change?" I suppose energy is that which changes, but seeing as there is only energy, yes, energy is change. The physical context of energy would be object/s. My main point, however, was that energies become objects through biological means, just as there is no such thing as a color unless the vibrational energy is processed through the sight of a life form, so too, that of objects.

There is just one point I'd like to clear up. Would you mind if I paraphrased as follows?
"My main point, however, was that energies become objects through biological means, just as there is no such thing as a color unless the vibrational energy is processed through the sight of a life form, so too, that of objects."
as "Energy becomes objectified as the myriad things of nature."

Belinda, much better, I'll use that from now on. THANKS!

[Belinda]

The Yin Yang symbol is this duality, this matching of opposites, which in Buddhism is not opposite at all. For in the one, there is a dark spot and in the other there is a light spot, meaning there are no absolute opposites, there is always an element of the other in each. "What is the difference if any between energy and change?" I suppose energy is that which changes, but seeing as there is only energy, yes, energy is change. The physical context of energy would be object/s. My main point, however, was that energies become objects through biological means, just as there is no such thing as a color unless the vibrational energy is processed through the sight of a life form, so too, that of objects.

There is just one point I'd like to clear up. Would you mind if I paraphrased as follows?
"My main point, however, was that energies become objects through biological means, just as there is no such thing as a color unless the vibrational energy is processed through the sight of a life form, so too, that of objects."
as "Energy becomes objectified as the myriad things of nature."

Belinda, much better, I'll use that from now on. THANKS!

"Myriad creatures" is not my phrase it's from the Tao Te Ching

The Tao that can be followed is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth
While naming is the origin of the myriad things.
Therefore, always desireless, you see the mystery
Ever desiring, you see the manifestations.
These two are the same--
When they appear they are named differently.

Their sameness is the mystery,
Mystery within mystery;

The door to all marvels.