Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:34 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:34 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:05 am

I already argued my stance is an assumption, just as all other stances are assumptions.
I know you have already attempted to argue your stance is just an assumption. I agreed with the absurdity of what you are doing. Did you not see this?

I understand your position, but tell me what absurdity is exactly so I understand your position better.

I have told you already, a couple of times as well if I remember correctly. Absurdity is EXACTLY what you are doing here now.

An 'assumption' could be wrong or partly wrong. Therefore, IF absolutely every thing you say is an assumption, then absolutely every thing you say could be wrong or partly wrong, and there is no real purpose in insisting what you are saying is true, when it obviously could be wrong or partly wrong. Besides the absurdity of this by itself, it also means that continually insisting the "trillema problem" consists of three things or three rules because this, by itself, could be WRONG or partly WRONG, let alone every other thing you say.


To me all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, and as your so called "argument" stands it could be completely WRONG. I also agree with you on this truth.

Even if I run a scientific experiment, and get a result, the result is only an assumption considering any new experiment can redefine the result. Facts are merely interpretations, and all interpretations are assumed.

It is absurd to say a fact is certain.


Assumption ia absolute truth, because they are a constant. The question is "what is the most universal assumption?


Obviously, you are NOT going to look at any thing other than what you believe is true now. So, why do you continue to respond to me? I have already stated that you are absolutely RIGHT. You are only making assumptions, of which all of them obviously could be completely and utterly WRONG.

What else do you want from me? Besides completely agreeing with you what else could I give you here?



Unfortunately, for you, your "argument" is not sound and/or not valid, and therefore it is not even really worth looking at again.

Define validity without assuming a premise.

But, to you, I can not, correct?

Is that answer an assumption?

If yes, you are only assuming that I could or could not define validity without assuming a premise. If you assume I can not do it, then that means I could do it.


I accept that you believe that all stances are assumptions. But just because you believe some thing that does not mean that there is any actual real truth in it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:05 am
Explain why yours is not an assumption and not all truth is assumed.
Have I made an argument?

Have you?

Could you be any more rude?

You are the one who clearly stated that I have, so why are you now asking me if I have?

If you state that I have, then that clearly infers that you believe or know that I have, so why are you now asking me if I have?


If yes, then what is it?

You mostly just say "no", "you are wrong", etc. This is law 2...continual regress.

Do I?

Also, they are NOT arguments. In case you missed it I asked you; If I have I have made an argument, then what is it?

What you are saying here has nothing at all whatsoever to do with and argument that you say I have "supposedly" made.


To explain why not all truth is assumed, then I would need to know how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. If I recall correctly I ask you to define some words earlier, and you have yet to do this. So, at the moment, I have no actual real idea of what it is that you are saying, and are asking for.

If I define, truth or assumed...I would have to connect them to other truths and assumptions. Thus truth and assumption are grounded in the repetition of themselves through various other words.

So, in other words, you, just like "others" here in this forum, are totally incapable of clarifying and clearing up what it is that you are saying, correct?

You appear to be so totally confused about what you are saying that you have no idea of what the words mean that you use here.


I also asked you some clarifying questions earlier as well, and if you had answered them openly and honestly, then WHY not all truth is assumed would already have been understood.

All truth is assumed.

We KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE. Most of also KNOW that what you BELIEVE is not necessarily even remotely close to the truth of things.

Because every thing you say is assumed, and ALL assumptions could be completely WRONG, then the saying "All truth is assumed" could also be completely WRONG. I KNOW this and you KNOW this, so WHY do you keep repeating the same things over and over again?

Also, WHY do you keep repeating the same things over and over again without ever clarifying and clearing up what you are saying?



Earlier I wrote:
If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?

And then I wrote:
I am just trying to work out how you see things.

SO, answer the question, AND THEN is that answer an assumption, a truth, or both?

Did I eat breakfast this morning?

Actually I can give you a an answer based upon empirical life...quite literally from a few minutes ago.

My girlfriend is in the phillipines.

When I talk to her on facebook, I say good morning/evening. We both laugh about it, because we are dealing with a paradox.

It is morning where I am at, evening where she is at.

So when I eat breakfast, it is morning the the context of my position in time and space. In the context of her time and space it is evening.

The time of my eating breakfast is premised in the assumed point if origin. From my position it is morning, hers it is evening....one could question if it is even breakfast at all from her position in time and space alone.

What defines the timing of my eating is the assumed point of origins. From my point, the meal is connected to certain other variables such as the time in clock, position of the sun, schedule ahead of the day. These variables are connected to other variables. Such as the position of the sun assumes I am seeing it (ie can see it), as well as seeing it from a specific angle relative to the horizon, as well as my other senses (smell of air, etc.). This further assumes I am connecting these variable in a certain manner through the abstract senses (thought, emotion).

And vice versa for her.

Now if I assume a different point of awareness, where both of us are right (it is evening and morning simultaneously from the perspective of looking at the earth as a localized "whole" in space), what I am doing is observing how certain variables are connected from a new point of assumption.

If I go back to either assumption a certain disconnection in variables are observed. From her point of view I am eating breakfast in the evening. From mine the morning. Morning is disconnected from one position, evening from another...as well as the variables which are connected respectively with each.

The point of awareness, is always assumed, much like the simple "point" is always assumed.



That may all be true, but unfortunately you will never know.
Is all that true?

Or, is it all just assumed to be true?

According to your logic it has to be assumed, so then it could be completely and utterly WRONG. And, you will NEVER know if it is right or WRONG, true or FALSE.

Also, if you can not answer your own questions that you ask yourself, then how do you get on in life?



Either way, explain your answer now, and then that will help me in explaining to you how not all truth is assumed.

I also gave you some thing to think about:
Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.

Yes, it is true, but it is also an assumption as this is a point of awareness as well. All perspectives as continually diverging necessates a common point of awareness...ie seperation must be objectively observed

But, 'separation "must be" objectively observed' is only assumed. That could be completely WRONG and FALSE.

In these respects there is always a common bond.

However what constitutes separation can be viewed seperately

All assumptions are simultaneously true and false. What we observe as true is the connection of variables within a given context with the context being assumed.



But that is obviously just an assumption, which is also obviously WRONG and FALSE.

You have not said a true word yet. And you have to admit that that is TRUE. To insist that that is FALSE is to insist that your own theory is WRONG.


If you try to dispute that each person can view things in different and varied ways, then you are in dispute with another, and that means that you have a different or varied view than another person. Therefore, this is a Truth, and thus not at all assumed.

Agreed, but still an assumption, as the agreement still requires a group observed assumption.

But agreement does NOT necessarily require any such thing because what you assumed could be completely and utterly WRONG. Agreed?

Now I have provided two different examples of how not all truth is assumed. So, what we are left with is discovering and learning how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. Until then I am not able to further explain how, from my perspective, not all truth is assumed, which will help you.

Are you at all aware that if you believe that 'all truth is assumed', then there is absolutely nothing in this Universe that could show nor prove to you otherwise anyway?

You are assuming proof is universally agreed upon.

But I NEVER assumed any such thing. And, I have NEVER met any one who could be so WRONG, so often.

Why would you make such an obviously ridiculous and stupid assumption?

Even if you believe that all you can do in life is assume, you still do not have to make idiotic, ridiculous, and obviously stupid assumptions.

Proof is defintion (assumed) within a given context (assumed). This is an assumption. Both truth and falsity exist as assumptions, and exist by how they are defined (connected and separated from other assumptions) in themselves.
If that is what you BELIEVE, then it could not be any thing other than that.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am

Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:34 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:32 am


I know you have already attempted to argue your stance is just an assumption. I agreed with the absurdity of what you are doing. Did you not see this?

I understand your position, but tell me what absurdity is exactly so I understand your position better.

I have told you already, a couple of times as well if I remember correctly. Absurdity is EXACTLY what you are doing here now.

An 'assumption' could be wrong or partly wrong. Therefore, IF absolutely every thing you say is an assumption, then absolutely every thing you say could be wrong or partly wrong, and there is no real purpose in insisting what you are saying is true, when it obviously could be wrong or partly wrong. Besides the absurdity of this by itself, it also means that continually insisting the "trillema problem" consists of three things or three rules because this, by itself, could be WRONG or partly WRONG, let alone every other thing you say.


Like the coloring coming from someone complaining about ambiguity.

As to the point. False, truth is merely the connection of assumptions into a new context. 1 and 1 is 2. It observes the connection of specific variables as a new context.

Falsity, "wrongness" or contradiction, is an absence of connection. 1 and 1 is 3. Observes a disconnect of one context of assumptions from another.

Look at "contradiction is deficiency" in truth thread. All phenomenon are true as assumptions.
I can say "purple unicorns fill the sky". It is false in the context of empirical reality. It is true within the context of a dream. Both however are still assumptions as points of origin.


To me all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, and as your so called "argument" stands it could be completely WRONG. I also agree with you on this truth.

Even if I run a scientific experiment, and get a result, the result is only an assumption considering any new experiment can redefine the result. Facts are merely interpretations, and all interpretations are assumed.

It is absurd to say a fact is certain.


Assumption ia absolute truth, because they are a constant. The question is "what is the most universal assumption?


Obviously, you are NOT going to look at any thing other than what you believe is true now. So, why do you continue to respond to me? I have already stated that you are absolutely RIGHT. You are only making assumptions, of which all of them obviously could be completely and utterly WRONG.

What else do you want from me? Besides completely agreeing with you what else could I give you here?



Unfortunately, for you, your "argument" is not sound and/or not valid, and therefore it is not even really worth looking at again.

Define validity without assuming a premise.

But, to you, I can not, correct?

Is that answer an assumption?

If yes, you are only assuming that I could or could not define validity without assuming a premise. If you assume I can not do it, then that means I

I said define validity. Definition of an assumption requires the connection to further assumptions. There is no universally agreed upon version of validity. And even of it is defined it must be circular (contradicting the laws of logic the majority of logician hold too) or continue on.

I accept that you believe that all stances are assumptions. But just because you believe some thing that does not mean that there is any actual real truth in it.



Have I made an argument?

Have you?

Could you be any more rude?

You are the one who clearly stated that I have, so why are you now asking me if I have?

If you state that I have, then that clearly infers that you believe or know that I have, so why are you now asking me if I have?




If yes, then what is it?

Actually I can be much ruder. But with that aside, your argument is "no, you are wrong, etc." give further definition as to why.



You mostly just say "no", "you are wrong", etc. This is law 2...continual regress.

Do I?

Also, they are NOT arguments. In case you missed it I asked you; If I have I have made an argument, then what is it?

What you are saying here has nothing at all whatsoever to do with and argument that you say I what you are proving is all is assumption, as your argument is strictly a process of negation. To not assume something is to define it. But all definitions are taken "as is" he hence are assumptions.


have "supposedly" made.




To explain why not all truth is assumed, then I would need to know how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. If I recall correctly I ask you to define some words earlier, and you have yet to do this. So, at the moment, I have no actual real idea of what it is that you are saying, and are asking for.

If I define, truth or assumed...I would have to connect them to other truths and assumptions. Thus truth and assumption are grounded in the repetition of themselves through various other words.

So, in other words, you, just like "others" here in this forum, are totally incapable of clarifying and clearing up what it is that you are saying, correct?

You appear to be so totally confused about what you are saying that you have no idea of what the words mean that you use here.


False, it ends in binary code. Assumption and variation of assumption as a grade of the original assumption. In spatial terms: point and all forms are variation of the point. In math 1 and all numbers as variations of 1. In biology human, and various ethnicities as variation of human. The list goes on and on and on and the question is one of origin.

I also asked you some clarifying questions earlier as well, and if you had answered them openly and honestly, then WHY not all truth is assumed would already have been understood.

False, truth is not always understood just like not all assumptions are observed as connected to other assumptions from a specific point of view.

All truth is assumed.

We KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE. Most of also KNOW that what you BELIEVE is not necessarily even remotely close to the truth of things.

Assumed. And no it is not just me, it is an actual problem most of philosophy ignores because it is a dying institution that is afraid of truth. It is the little red haired freckled kid that everyone kicks around on the play ground...except the problem is modern philosophy earned this...the little kid didn't.

Because every thing you say is assumed, and ALL assumptions could be completely WRONG, then the saying "All truth is assumed" could also be completely WRONG. I KNOW this and you KNOW this, so WHY do you keep repeating the same things over and over again?

All assumptions are simultaneously right and wrong because of context. The sky is blue is a context of time. "1+1=2" as a series of readable symbols (not math or counting) is subject to context.

Context is the grounding point of assumptions.



Also, WHY do you keep repeating the same things over and over again without ever clarifying and clearing up what you are saying?



Earlier I wrote:
If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?

And then I wrote:
I am just trying to work out how you see things.

SO, answer the question, AND THEN is that answer an assumption, a truth, or both?

Did I eat breakfast this morning?

Actually I can give you a an answer based upon empirical life...quite literally from a few minutes ago.

My girlfriend is in the phillipines.

When I talk to her on facebook, I say good morning/evening. We both laugh about it, because we are dealing with a paradox.

It is morning where I am at, evening where she is at.

So when I eat breakfast, it is morning the the context of my position in time and space. In the context of her time and space it is evening.

The time of my eating breakfast is premised in the assumed point if origin. From my position it is morning, hers it is evening....one could question if it is even breakfast at all from her position in time and space alone.

What defines the timing of my eating is the assumed point of origins. From my point, the meal is connected to certain other variables such as the time in clock, position of the sun, schedule ahead of the day. These variables are connected to other variables. Such as the position of the sun assumes I am seeing it (ie can see it), as well as seeing it from a specific angle relative to the horizon, as well as my other senses (smell of air, etc.). This further assumes I am connecting these variable in a certain manner through the abstract senses (thought, emotion).

And vice versa for her.

Now if I assume a different point of awareness, where both of us are right (it is evening and morning simultaneously from the perspective of looking at the earth as a localized "whole" in space), what I am doing is observing how certain variables are connected from a new point of assumption.

If I go back to either assumption a certain disconnection in variables are observed. From her point of view I am eating breakfast in the evening. From mine the morning. Morning is disconnected from one position, evening from another...as well as the variables which are connected respectively with each.

The point of awareness, is always assumed, much like the simple "point" is always assumed.



That may all be true, but unfortunately you will never know.
Is all that true?

Or, is it all just assumed to be true?

You are assuming "true" without defining it. Knowing is assumption. I can assume my house will be robbed within 6 days because the neighbor lied and said he heard a rumor. Now the house, given 6 days, is not robbed because it was a lie. However that assumption still set the ground for a series of actions such as buying wood to bar the doors, a machete to defend myself, etc. Now the actions are barring the doors, etc exist. What observed the neighbor as lying was one set of assumptions (the house being robbed) did not connect to another set of assumptions (the house not being robbed in empirical reality).

The assumptions did not connect.


According to your logic it has to be assumed, so then it could be completely and utterly WRONG. And, you will NEVER know if it is right or WRONG, true or FALSE.

Also, if you can not answer your own questions that you ask yourself, then how do you get on in life?



Either way, explain your answer now, and then that will help me in explaining to you how not all truth is assumed.

Give me an example of a truth that is not assumed....just 1.

I also gave you some thing to think about:
Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.

Yes, it is true, but it is also an assumption as this is a point of awareness as well. All perspectives as continually diverging necessates a common point of awareness...ie seperation must be objectively observed

But, 'separation "must be" objectively observed' is only assumed. That could be completely WRONG and FALSE.

In these respects there is always a common bond.

However what constitutes separation can be viewed seperately

All assumptions are simultaneously true and false. What we observe as true is the connection of variables within a given context with the context being assumed.



But that is obviously just an assumption, which is also obviously WRONG and FALSE.

You have not said a true word yet. And you have to admit that that is TRUE. To insist that that is FALSE is to insist that your own theory is WRONG.


Actually this argument is both true and false. With falsity being an observed disconnect, it will always be false to certain points of view. However those points of view contain elements of this argument, thus are variations of it. This argument is an approximation of truth, hence contains elements of truth and is true in the respect it is self referencing and follows it's own premises.

Actually everything I said is true, how can I lie when I state this argument is pure assumption?


If you try to dispute that each person can view things in different and varied ways, then you are in dispute with another, and that means that you have a different or varied view than another person. Therefore, this is a Truth, and thus not at all assumed.



Agreed, but still an assumption, as the agreement still requires a group observed assumption.

But agreement does NOT necessarily require any such thing because what you assumed could be completely and utterly WRONG. Agreed?

And define what is wrong....give me an example....just 1.



Now I have provided two different examples of how not all truth is assumed. So, what we are left with is discovering and learning how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. Until then I am not able to further explain how, from my perspective, not all truth is assumed, which will help you.

Are you at all aware that if you believe that 'all truth is assumed', then there is absolutely nothing in this Universe that could show nor prove to you otherwise anyway?

You are assuming proof is universally agreed upon.

But I NEVER assumed any such thing. And, I have NEVER met any one who could be so WRONG, so often.

Why would you make such an obviously ridiculous and stupid assumption?

Then you have no standard of proof other than your subjective state, which is fundamentally undefined. What is proof according to you?

Even if you believe that all you can do in life is assume, you still do not have to make idiotic, ridiculous, and obviously stupid assumptions.

Proof is defintion (assumed) within a given context (assumed). This is an assumption. Both truth and falsity exist as assumptions, and exist by how they are defined (connected and separated from other assumptions) in themselves.



If that is what you BELIEVE, then it could not be any thing other than that.


That is an assumption as well. This argument, necessitating a basic universal set of forms to all phenomenon (point, line and circle), manifests itself in infinite variation. This argument can be presented from another angle of awareness I am not familiar with to a degree I am not familiar with.

Age
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:34 pm


If that is what you BELIEVE, then it could not be any thing other than that.
That is an assumption as well.
But, if you can not prove this, then is there any use in even suggesting it?

If you can not prove nor disprove any thing at all, then is there any real purpose you express any thing at all?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am
This argument, necessitating a basic universal set of forms to all phenomenon (point, line and circle), manifests itself in infinite variation.
If you are talking about an argument, then what argument are you talking about?

Was there an argument at all that I presented?

What is it exactly that is totally leaving you incapable of clarifying what you, yourself, say to me?

Are you capable of providing any actual sound, valid argument, which you believe exists is true?

Are you even capable of explaining why you are expressing words in this forum?

If what you believe is true, is actually FALSE, then is there absolutely anything at all that you can do to rectify this?

Is there any actual purpose for you being here in this forum?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am
This argument can be presented from another angle of awareness I am not familiar with to a degree I am not familiar with.
If there is an argument, then what argument are you talking about?

By the way, does your girlfriend even like you?

And, would there even be any use at all asking if she loves you or not?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:36 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:34 pm


If that is what you BELIEVE, then it could not be any thing other than that.
That is an assumption as well.
But, if you can not prove this, then is there any use in even suggesting it?

If you can not prove nor disprove any thing at all, then is there any real purpose you express any thing at all?

Proof is definition, but definition exists as a continuum. This reflected the premises of both the western "one" and Buddhist nirvana...reality is both a defined and undefined state.

You can have a proof, but all it is is a definition by nature and we are left with a continuum. I can observe a line, but because it is composed of infinite lines it is nevery fully observed. Proof is a paradoxical state. The most you can do is define a phenomenon, but this definition must continue on. This causes a problem as to whether any proof is complete in the respect it is a "whole" explanation of a phenomenon.

1. At best it is a localization of one phenomenon out of many, as an extension of its source but not the source itself.

2. It will always be complete as an assumption in these respects.

3. And it complete if it is self referencing.

Thus completion necessitates a self referencing definition that is an assumption. If the proof cannot reference itself, ie progresses away from its premises and does not contain them it is not a proof.

For example:

1+1=2 and 2=1+1 is a proof. However, like all proofs it follows rule one...it is merely a localization.

2= infinite equations that contain as an element 1+1.

therefore the proof is merely a localization of an infinite set of equations.
It is an assumption in these respects but exists as complete because it can be circular itself referencing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am
This argument, necessitating a basic universal set of forms to all phenomenon (point, line and circle), manifests itself in infinite variation.
If you are talking about an argument, then what argument are you talking about?

example is basic number line as self referencing cycle, biological reproduction, standard definition of language, particle wave dualism.



Was there an argument at all that I presented?

Is there?

What is it exactly that is totally leaving you incapable of clarifying what you, yourself, say to me?

What is confusing about a point, line and circle?

Are you capable of providing any actual sound, valid argument, which you believe exists is true?

why not?

Are you even capable of explaining why you are expressing words in this forum?

Why are not all things assumptions...can you explain this?

If what you believe is true, is actually FALSE, then is there absolutely anything at all that you can do to rectify this?

I already stated all assumptions are simultaneously true and and false because of context.

Is there any actual purpose for you being here in this forum?

Is there a reason for your questions?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am
This argument can be presented from another angle of awareness I am not familiar with to a degree I am not familiar with.
If there is an argument, then what argument are you talking about?

examples given above, further can be provided.

By the way, does your girlfriend even like you?

What does it like feeling like you know nothing?

And, would there even be any use at all asking if she loves you or not?

How old are you?


Age
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:36 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am


That is an assumption as well.
But, if you can not prove this, then is there any use in even suggesting it?

If you can not prove nor disprove any thing at all, then is there any real purpose you express any thing at all?

Proof is definition, but definition exists as a continuum. This reflected the premises of both the western "one" and Buddhist nirvana...reality is both a defined and undefined state.

You can have a proof, but all it is is a definition by nature and we are left with a continuum. I can observe a line, but because it is composed of infinite lines it is nevery fully observed. Proof is a paradoxical state. The most you can do is define a phenomenon, but this definition must continue on. This causes a problem as to whether any proof is complete in the respect it is a "whole" explanation of a phenomenon.

1. At best it is a localization of one phenomenon out of many, as an extension of its source but not the source itself.

2. It will always be complete as an assumption in these respects.

3. And it complete if it is self referencing.

Thus completion necessitates a self referencing definition that is an assumption. If the proof cannot reference itself, ie progresses away from its premises and does not contain them it is not a proof.

For example:

1+1=2 and 2=1+1 is a proof. However, like all proofs it follows rule one...it is merely a localization.

2= infinite equations that contain as an element 1+1.

therefore the proof is merely a localization of an infinite set of equations.
It is an assumption in these respects but exists as complete because it can be circular itself referencing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am
This argument, necessitating a basic universal set of forms to all phenomenon (point, line and circle), manifests itself in infinite variation.
If you are talking about an argument, then what argument are you talking about?

example is basic number line as self referencing cycle, biological reproduction, standard definition of language, particle wave dualism.



Was there an argument at all that I presented?

Is there?

What is it exactly that is totally leaving you incapable of clarifying what you, yourself, say to me?

What is confusing about a point, line and circle?

Are you capable of providing any actual sound, valid argument, which you believe exists is true?

why not?

Are you even capable of explaining why you are expressing words in this forum?

Why are not all things assumptions...can you explain this?

If what you believe is true, is actually FALSE, then is there absolutely anything at all that you can do to rectify this?

I already stated all assumptions are simultaneously true and and false because of context.

Is there any actual purpose for you being here in this forum?

Is there a reason for your questions?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 am
This argument can be presented from another angle of awareness I am not familiar with to a degree I am not familiar with.
If there is an argument, then what argument are you talking about?

examples given above, further can be provided.

By the way, does your girlfriend even like you?

What does it like feeling like you know nothing?

And, would there even be any use at all asking if she loves you or not?

How old are you?

I rest my case.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:36 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:35 am


But, if you can not prove this, then is there any use in even suggesting it?

If you can not prove nor disprove any thing at all, then is there any real purpose you express any thing at all?

Proof is definition, but definition exists as a continuum. This reflected the premises of both the western "one" and Buddhist nirvana...reality is both a defined and undefined state.

You can have a proof, but all it is is a definition by nature and we are left with a continuum. I can observe a line, but because it is composed of infinite lines it is nevery fully observed. Proof is a paradoxical state. The most you can do is define a phenomenon, but this definition must continue on. This causes a problem as to whether any proof is complete in the respect it is a "whole" explanation of a phenomenon.

1. At best it is a localization of one phenomenon out of many, as an extension of its source but not the source itself.

2. It will always be complete as an assumption in these respects.

3. And it complete if it is self referencing.

Thus completion necessitates a self referencing definition that is an assumption. If the proof cannot reference itself, ie progresses away from its premises and does not contain them it is not a proof.

For example:

1+1=2 and 2=1+1 is a proof. However, like all proofs it follows rule one...it is merely a localization.

2= infinite equations that contain as an element 1+1.

therefore the proof is merely a localization of an infinite set of equations.
It is an assumption in these respects but exists as complete because it can be circular itself referencing.




If you are talking about an argument, then what argument are you talking about?

example is basic number line as self referencing cycle, biological reproduction, standard definition of language, particle wave dualism.



Was there an argument at all that I presented?

Is there?

What is it exactly that is totally leaving you incapable of clarifying what you, yourself, say to me?

What is confusing about a point, line and circle?

Are you capable of providing any actual sound, valid argument, which you believe exists is true?

why not?

Are you even capable of explaining why you are expressing words in this forum?

Why are not all things assumptions...can you explain this?

If what you believe is true, is actually FALSE, then is there absolutely anything at all that you can do to rectify this?

I already stated all assumptions are simultaneously true and and false because of context.

Is there any actual purpose for you being here in this forum?

Is there a reason for your questions?



If there is an argument, then what argument are you talking about?

examples given above, further can be provided.

By the way, does your girlfriend even like you?

What does it like feeling like you know nothing?

And, would there even be any use at all asking if she loves you or not?

How old are you?

I rest my case.
Actually you haven't. You have yet to tell me what is not an assumption.

What is not assumed?

Age
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:36 pm
I rest my case.
Actually you haven't.
But actually I might have.

It is obviously only 'your' assumption that I have not, which IS obviously completely and utterly wrong, false, and incorrect, from my perspective.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm
You have yet to tell me what is not an assumption.
But I do not have to.

Why do you presume I do have to?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm
What is not assumed?
Nothing, to you, obviously.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:50 am

Eodnhoj wrote:
Does the trillema sets the foundation for philosophy
Do you see any major flaws within the trillema that would invalidate it as a foundation for philosophy
Can any foundation for philosophy be absolute or will it always be subject to improvement over time

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:22 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:50 am
Eodnhoj wrote:
Does the trillema sets the foundation for philosophy
Do you see any major flaws within the trillema that would invalidate it as a foundation for philosophy
Can any foundation for philosophy be absolute or will it always be subject to improvement over time
It can expand in definition, but its proof would be in its self referencing. It is unavoidable

If we use "assumption" as foundation, by default philosophy is grounded in triadic code:

Assumption, variation of that assumption, both: A, V, (AV).

"Neither assumption nor not assumption" is still an assumption, hence both/and would be the primary quality.

Philosophy is thus grounded in the repetition of a base assumption, and inversion of one assumption into a symmetrical variant.

It is grounded in form, considering form is a constant assumption that is self evident for what it is.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:23 am

Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:50 pm


I rest my case.
Actually you haven't.
But actually I might have.

It is obviously only 'your' assumption that I have not, which IS obviously completely and utterly wrong, false, and incorrect, from my perspective.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm
You have yet to tell me what is not an assumption.
But I do not have to.

Why do you presume I do have to?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm
What is not assumed?
Nothing, to you, obviously.
Give an example of something that is not assumed.

Age
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:55 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:23 am
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm

Actually you haven't.
But actually I might have.

It is obviously only 'your' assumption that I have not, which IS obviously completely and utterly wrong, false, and incorrect, from my perspective.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm
You have yet to tell me what is not an assumption.
But I do not have to.

Why do you presume I do have to?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:00 pm
What is not assumed?
Nothing, to you, obviously.
Give an example of something that is not assumed.
The words "Give an example of something that is not assumed" are in front of these eyes when these words are written.

Another example is:

There are thoughts existing.

Another one is:

There is something.

Another one:

There is awareness.

Another one:

'I' control 'you' through ...

surreptitious57
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:01 pm

Eodnhoj wrote:
Give an example of something that is not assumed
Knowledge arrived at by proof or disproof or any sound argument or syllogism
The existence of self and of mental and physical phenomena in relation to this

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:41 am

Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:23 am
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:50 am


But actually I might have.

It is obviously only 'your' assumption that I have not, which IS obviously completely and utterly wrong, false, and incorrect, from my perspective.



But I do not have to.

Why do you presume I do have to?



Nothing, to you, obviously.
Give an example of something that is not assumed.
The words "Give an example of something that is not assumed" are in front of these eyes when these words are written.

I am assuming my senses are correct.

Another example is:

There are thoughts existing.

Assumption as to what constitutes a thought. Is it something in the head? Or is it physical? Is thought and illusion and all is "void"? Or does only matter exist and thought is just a state of matter and as such is matter curbing?

How can we say thought exists when thought is undefined?


Another one is:

There is something.

Assumption of context. Something where? Everywhere? When? Was there always something?[

Also no definition as to what something is./color]

Another one:

There is awareness.

Awareness is assumed as awareness is undefined.

Another one:

'I' control 'you' through ...

"I" is a subjective statement, and as such is potential to change and ismundefined in the course of time. Same with you.



In very simple terms are your statements lack further definition and as such are assumed.

To say "this sentence exists" is still an assumption as it is composed of assumptions.


Age
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:41 am
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:23 am

Give an example of something that is not assumed.
The words "Give an example of something that is not assumed" are in front of these eyes when these words are written.

I am assuming my senses are correct.

Another example is:

There are thoughts existing.

Assumption as to what constitutes a thought. Is it something in the head? Or is it physical? Is thought and illusion and all is "void"? Or does only matter exist and thought is just a state of matter and as such is matter curbing?

How can we say thought exists when thought is undefined?


Another one is:

There is something.

Assumption of context. Something where? Everywhere? When? Was there always something?[

Also no definition as to what something is./color]

Another one:

There is awareness.

Awareness is assumed as awareness is undefined.

Another one:

'I' control 'you' through ...

"I" is a subjective statement, and as such is potential to change and ismundefined in the course of time. Same with you.



In very simple terms are your statements lack further definition and as such are assumed.

To say "this sentence exists" is still an assumption as it is composed of assumptions.




Why can you not quote correctly?

And why can you now not even color code correctly?

Are you purposely trying to make it harder for the readers to follow and keep up?

What you have said here is obviously only based on your own strongly held beliefs and assumptions.

Assuming those words have not been defined is clearly an assumption. ALL of these words have obviously already been defined. To assume otherwise is bordering on insanity.

Basing my terms are assumed because they lack further definition means that by you not asking for further definition, then you are supporting your own assumptions and beliefs.

The brain is very tricky like that. The brain will not do anything that goes against its own assumptions and beliefs. The more a belief is believed to be true, then the stronger that belief will be held onto, and thus the more the brain is fooled into doing only those things that will support its own beliefs, and assumptions.

What has and is still happening here readers with this test subject is a prime example of how the human brain can absolutely fool itself into believing that, which is obviously absurd and ridiculous. The brain tricks its own self by only doing that, which will back up and support its own already held beliefs, even though what it is doing is so obvious and completely stupid and ridiculous. By doing only that what supports its own already held beliefs, then it reinforcing those beliefs more and more, no matter how ludicrous and stupid the beliefs are.

For a brain to be here FIGHTING its hardest to prove that it KNOWS what is Right and True, but to also be insisting that that "Truth" is just an assumption, which obviously could be completely Wrong and False also, just shows how the human brain can be and IS. The brain will 'try' absolutely anything to back up and support its own already obtained beliefs and assumptions. The belief-system within the brain really did have far more power over those human beings, in the days of when this written, then they could ever have of imagined.

Those brains back then just would not allow them to imagine any thing that went against what they believed and/or assumed was already true. The brain will not imagine anything other than what it believes is true.

The Mind however works completely different. The Mind can imagine any thing.

Also, just how easily and simply the Mind can see and KNOW ALL of this, even back when this was written, can also be easily observed here.

Thanks to these subjects, and these subjective brains, which work so predictively and accurately.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:38 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:01 pm
Eodnhoj wrote:
Give an example of something that is not assumed
Knowledge arrived at by proof or disproof or any sound argument or syllogism
The existence of self and of mental and physical phenomena in relation to this
Assumed, as the basic axioms the argument hinges on "proof", "disproof", "argument", "syllogism" are not defined.

Gotta love zen logic, it pretty much wipes out everything to a blank slate akin to the premise of Socrates where the mind in its purest form is a blank slate evidences further by his discussion with phaedrus about how "the gods" (ie different archetypes of the mind from a jungian perspective) "drink/feast" from this formlessness.

This sets the grounding for eastern and western logic being tied through the nature of assumption as grounded in point space which meets the requirements of "undefinition".

This reflects further back to a historical theory, presented in an article by philosophy now, that all western philosophy stems from Egypt (tying this to the pyramids as a physicallization of the abstract philosophy)...I would go to say eastern philosophy follows the same origins considering east and west are isomorphism of eachother.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests