Book of the Law com...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Book of the Law commentary by James Eshelman

Page 2 / 2

Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @ignant666

To imagine that you "really drive [me] nuts" is yet another sign of your well-inflated ego.

well I admit, you make it fun, truly 🙂

What does liber al vel legis have to say about the ego?

Well, as I interpret it, the ego is just the false yet potentially creative idea about the self. That's all. So it is something we can have fun with, not take too seriously, and even offer it for "execution" so to speak, since its true nature is empty

Posted by: @ignant666

I think you are a silly pontifical windbag,

That's rad

Posted by: @ignant666

you are not the first, nor will you be the last, to imagine lashtal is here as a platform for his revelations.

 

So you are saying that I am the one who comes after the one who came before me and then there will be another one who comes after me?

Nice 🙂 I see you are following the conversation well.

Posted by: @ignant666

I mostly ignore your inane screeds but every now and then a howler

Ha! I was waiting for you to drop this rube on the community (that is how predictable you are sir 🙂

I've noticed that after all of my posts, you are always there to read it and absorb.

And this has been consistent the past few weeks.

And I have certainty to this because this is what the data tells me

Screen Shot 2021 06 24 at 8.43.20 AM
Posted by: @ignant666

(like your  current ongoing demonstration that you have never known any mathematicians, and understand little about what is meant by the term "mathematical proof"

Well, why dont you preach?

If this is true, teach me.

Show me.

This is a two way street you know. Technically it is a collaborative process.

Are you about to go on vacation like Shiva?

lol

Show me you have more to bring to the conversation other than your ideas about ego, please.

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @ignant666

So fortunate that lashtal is "not a teaching site", or we might have to put up with being preached at ...

But there is so much 100% self-evident math that is absolutely true with 🤩 ❤️ 🤓 and the mystery twilight paralingo.. I don't see how you can refute these facts, except for your 100% total involvement in your own mental disorders.

Here is The Situation ...

1. A specific, highly-educated (in metaphysical dogma) Troll has come amongst us. Is "amongst" a Bible-speak term? He has already received two warnings from The Control Room, but he has learned rapidly to adhere to the Guidelines. He continues to offer the other side of any statement, but will retreat into the non-dual perspective when pushed.

2. Some members here really don't want to engage with the Troll. They simply abstain. You and I have tried abstaining, because if nobody engages it, it will not be able to continue without serial posting, which would be suicidal. Yet we get lured back by ... baited false statements, and so the game goes on. (Not "The Game," just the game. That is our game and our shame, that we cannot (all) just keep our keyboards shut.

3. However, some other members cannot resist and they voluntarily break the spell of [Silence] to play with him or to subtly try to find the sanity.

4. The Supreme Grand Tribunal has met (offsite) and the pronouncement is simple. It is drawn from our most basic faery tales maneuvers of olden time. Rejoice, Repent, Reincarnate, but ...

Please don't Feed the Troll

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 

@shiva 

How was your vacation? Back so soon?

Me thinks you may need another, right away.

Posted by: @shiva

Here is The Situation ...

Wow, all of a sudden you don't mind "explaining" what reality is to all of us.

 😆 😆 😆 

Posted by: @shiva

He continues to offer the other side of any statement, but will retreat into the non-dual perspective when pushed.

 

 😀 Imagine how cool its gonna be when you realize you can retreat into the non-dual perspective with me 🤗 

Posted by: @shiva

However, some other members cannot resist and they voluntarily break the spell of [Silence] to play with him or to subtly try to find the sanity.

There are psychological forces which bring you and everyone else to this conversation, this is true.

These forces are utterly irresistible, obviously 😛 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  

@arthuremereson

 

Arthur, you may like to contribute to this thread. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3651
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

@arthuremereson

 

Arthur, you may like to contribute to this thread. 

I believe our pal is now trading under the name @thearthuremerson after a password mishap with the account you paged. You also misspelled his last name (you put an "e" between "r" and "s") which is why it did not turn blue.

If he does turn up, Bloody Chuck may change his name to Minced Meat.

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @ignant666

If he does turn up, Bloody Chuck may change his name to Minced Meat.

 

Well I hope so, I have been utterly disappointed with some of the talent here and hope to find a sincere challenge.

FYI: I do know that this fellow has been reading the threads because his name pops up underneath, right along with yours, amigo!

Also, why do some but not all users go with "sanguine chuck" as word for a bloody piece of meat?

Sanguine means happy and cool despite all odds, and "chuck" is this fella here

charlie brown featured

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56
 

Well I hope so, I have been utterly disappointed with some of the talent here and hope to find a sincere challenge.

 

Reading that I'm having flashbacks of a know-it-all Ronin who posted here, he fantasised that he was slaying everyone, he got banned, I forget his name.  I forget what he was pushing as well.  Anyone remember?

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Reading that I'm having flashbacks of the last know-it-all Ronin who fantasised that he was slaying everyone, he got banned, I forget his name.

Well, I don't want you to think that my statement to ignant666 was in reference to you.

As previously mentioned, I ❤️ @david-dom-lemieux and look forward to our every exchange 🙂

And I have zero fantasies of "slaying everyone" or even slaying anyone, how grotesque!

Those type of fantasies, how we internalize our dialogue and conflict with others ["thou are against the people, my chosen!"] as a battle, war, bloody, etc is addressed in Liber al Vel Legis, Chp 2 I believe.

Why do all of our metaphors for having a conversation, an exchange of "truth values", true, false, mystery, have such violence in them?

Well, the nature of concepts themselves is war.

All ideas, words, concepts are in a state of perpetual war, and these type of "entities" themselves' true nature is war, and specifically when ideas and concepts are believed to be "true" as in "1" there can be only one actual truth, the one definitive truth, the one king, the one god, etc etc etc

All ideas are at war. Even ideas spoken by Jesus and Buddha are at war. Even ideas spoken in peace are at war.

Now, idealogical nature is not human nature. This nature does not represent our natural state, which is naturally collaborative.

But we forget, a lot. We forget that ideas and concepts are just ideas and concepts, and that they only "war" with each other to improve human nature. We forget that this exchange is a naturally occurring "win win" sport, and we confuse human nature with ideological nature.

When we confuse conceptual nature with human nature, every disagreement gets a bit over the top bhagavad gita great war great metaphors lots of slaying oh so dramatic.

But its just the conceptual realm, not the realm of human being.

Sometimes, we "confuse the planes" here as our wise @Shiva says.

We think we are our ideas, and we try to do to each other as people what ideas are trying to do to other ideas, utterly rip apart truth values, violently and without quarter.

The nature of ideas is confused with individuals and then we get human conflict and horrible and pointless struggle with a sole cause of misunderstanding.

"People" is just an idea about human being.

This was long winded, right? Sheesh I see what you all mean.

Cheers!

PS: here is a picture!

1597240199 bhagavadgita 6s

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3651
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

why do some but not all users go with "sanguine chuck" as word for a bloody piece of meat?

"Chuck steak is a cut of beef [in US-style butchering] and is part of the sub-prime cut known as the chuck."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_steak

image
image

ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 357
 

Well the whole horrible mess here does beg the ole one two punch, (tongue in cheek of course)...but since this in some minds seems to be a communal feast of interpretations...then by the grace of the forum we have a contextual  answer to an old favorite...

Liber AL vel Legis III 12. "Sacrifice cattle little and big after a child."

Wow a three, a triad, and a one and a two to further confirm, what is only missing a zero, but that is implied by the mathematics of the term sacrifice...

Well thus by simple formula, ground chuck becomes hamburger, and when consumed becomes sh_t, the secret sauce to what has become a bit of a group puzzle...solved within the peculiar context of this forum and society...perhaps!

Of course the newcomer can be designated as "a child" such that infernal practices might not be suggested, or confused with other cults...but certainly one's good nature might be quickly challenged by the Scylla and Charybd of Shiva and Ignant666 and others here at The Aleister Crowley Society!

 

 

 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

the ole one two punch, (tongue in cheek of course)

If you get one-twoed in the jaw while your tongue is against your cheek, it (tongue) will be chopped off. Beware.

 


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 357
 

@shiva 

Thanks for the warning...no joking I suppose...of course it was Achad who said AC had not uttered the "Word"...but rather mute inane....did AC get the one two punch and bite his tongue?


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Reading that I'm having flashbacks of the last know-it-all Ronin who fantasised that he was slaying everyone, he got banned, I forget his name.

Well, I don't want you to think that my statement to ignant666 was in reference to you.

As previously mentioned, I ❤️ @david-dom-lemieux and look forward to our every exchange 🙂

Why?

Change of subject; you jog for 3 hours a day?

 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @ignant666

"Chuck steak is a cut of beef [in US-style butchering] and is part of the sub-prime cut known as the chuck."

Thank you, it is always helpful to have a man on call to explain meat and steak, upon demand.

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

Liber AL vel Legis III 12. "Sacrifice cattle little and big after a child."

Ha! I never noted the ol 3 there. I like what you found 🙂

Sure, 1 and 2 can be used just like yin and yang. so if we see a yin/yang symbol, "tao" is already there, yin yang predicts their absorption and their absorption is always tao/wu. (making that easy to do is there is a natural syncronicity occurring between the numbers 1 and 2 and yin and yang as represented on the Bagua. YANG is ONE line. Yin is TWO lines. That's cool to be able to translate it into another system, especially one Crowley did as well.

Chp3 is very very sophisticated! I do not think it is fully possible to deconstruct all possible meaning/teaching unless it is a group process, perhaps that is why what happened did what it did.

Something to test, experiment with.

sigh. if we only had an adventurous community.

for me so far?

"little and big" is a duality, so this is an operation.

the "absorption" (sacrifice) of the duality IS the child, so this line has layers of curiosity begging us. 

"Cattle" can refer to the letter "A" in many alphabets, making this Aa.

But I don't think that is quite it.

I do think it refers to some collaborative process, but I am still in the "intuitive" phase of the reading, so I like what you inferred!

And "group" alchemy, it produces a child too, and I have found that an odd phenomenon of synchronicity within the group appears as the "child" of the group appears.

And you have always had this preternatural "sync" with this conversation, so me thinks this may be where the conversation is happening next.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Why?

I don't know there is no science to these things, I just see how you have a little playful fun and when I think of a DOM and CHUCK convo, I get this vibe.

Bonus: You get to be Snoopy

f736d3b2bf1d76c696d6f44e7417bfda
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Change of subject; you jog for 3 hours a day?

 

Speaking of synchronicity, I read this comment flopped on my couch after my run today!

 I wish 3 hours a day! I have done things like that before,  extreme, but not every day and not in many years.

Once or twice a week, five miles on the beach, hits the spot at the moment, every day would be a luxury.

Oh, hey!

Also you asked this question on the other thread, the thread I have sworn not to return to, and it actually dovetails (syncs!) with this convo here...

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

He often talked about 'balancing each thought with it's opposite'.  I'm.assuming that that means more than just deciding to have tea instead of coffee or inviting your mother in law down for Thanksgiving after all.

So yeah, Chp 3, Liber al Vel Legis, and Crowley, "balancing each thought with its opposite" (which is also dialectic)...

Now think what happens when a group mind does that?

And by group mind I mean any group. 

Maybe sometimes in this conversation, that has been precisely what I have been doing, with intention?

I call it Spooky Action within Proximity 😆 

@hadgigegenraum I think may have some more wisdom for us here, he is the one who always has a predictive sync with the conversation.

But so have you Dom, so have you!

hqdefault

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @ignant666

"Chuck steak is a cut of beef [in US-style butchering] and is part of the sub-prime cut known as the chuck."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_steak

Chuck is also an American moniker for Charlie as Hank is for Henry.  

 

 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 357
 

@sangewanchuck56 

Lucy=Babalon!


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

Lucy=Babalon!

🤣

Well here are my placements 😆 

  • Peppermint Patty as the Scarlet Woman.
  • Snoopy–Is a god to live in a dog?
  • The Great Pumpkin–The Great Beast
  • "Charlie Brown Christmas Special"– As the sun of midnight is ever the son, a solstice treat.
1107charlie brown lucy football

Misreading the runes, making a great miss

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 

Please allow this double post? To bring the thread back on track.

What is an interpretation of Liber al Vel Legis that cannot be denied by anyone?

Can there be an interpretation so clear that its truth cannot be denied, without the need for argument, like a mathematician would pen a formula, requiring no conversion?

I propose yes, there can be such an interpretation, and this interpretation is simply the literary one, reading the "narrative" language instead of the occult or symbolic language. 

  • Liber al Vel Legis is an origin story about Liber al Vel Legis, a recursive narrative.
  • The story begins with the author of the book appearing as a character in the book, receiving the inspirational experience of writing the book itself, as well as instructions.
  • The story reveals itself to the author as a text containing three chapters, each in the voice of three main characters of the book that speak to the writer directly.
  • The  story  contains instructions on how to write the book, print the book, communicate the book, read the book,  even market and distribute the book globally at scale as well as instructions to critique the book.
  • All elements of “the writer's journey” combined with all elements of “the reader's journey” where even the audience reading the book becomes a part of this story itself, with the “fourth wall”, separating the reader from the story, once removed is then combined with the publisher’s journey, as well as the critics journey.

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  

Hahaah looks like Jim is of the 40s-80s prediction camp;

 

3:46.
I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased. I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay. Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!

James Eshelman

Heru-Ra-Ha identifies Himself as "I am," the great Name of Unity and the crown.
The physical prophecies seem unusually acute here. Horus is a solar-martial force; that is, a solar war-force. He corresponds to atomic power..........................etc,,,,,,,,,,. Therefore, in the physical universe, He is atomic power. As such He was definitely "the warrior Lord of the Forties," and also that before which "the Eighties" — the Chernobyl-and-Reagan years — did "cower" and were "abased."

 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Hahaah looks like Jim is of the 40s-80s prediction camp;

How big is this "camp"? Do you know? Sincere question.

I think almost every interpretation I have come across holds something similar, it relating to war decade of the 40's with the Atom Bomb (the world entering into "homeostasis" or non-dual martial strategy, which is either mutual destruction or mutual peace) but the '80's cower before me seems like a total unnecessary nod to the Reagan years.

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
thearthuremerson
(@thearthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 43
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Arthur, you may like to contribute to this thread. 

Why? To respond to the preposterous notion that all purported mathematical proofs are accepted upon receipt? I'll say only a little for the intellectually curious to follow-up on if they so choose. Suffice it to say, one would have to have an extremely dim view of both the history of mathematics and the present state of the field to hold this view. Not even Cantor's proof is uncontroversial, to say nothing of Inter-universal Teichmüller theory. As our dear friend ignant has correctly observed, mathematicians are as prone to disputation and argument as are academics in any other field. 

Addendum: Anyone interested might have a look at the differences between intuitionism, other kinds of constructivism, formalism, platonism, etc.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @thearthuremerson

To respond to the preposterous notion that all purported mathematical proofs are accepted upon receipt?

Who proposed this?

Please, no straw-men.

This was highlighted in this thread solely for the purpose of juxtaposing the mathematical mind with the symbolic and intuitive mind and their distinctions.

Two different psychological dynamics of intelligence, types of communication, types of intelligence of the human mind.

I am using "arguing" defined as "fighting" and mathematicians do not need to "fight" over proofs, like editors who "argue" over the copy of the New York Times.

If there is a disagreement, it would be a logical and rational one, and it would be communication that would not contain any contradictions, surely maths key feature. 

I can alter my claim to simply state that math requires far far far less arguing and fighting over the truth value as any other human endeavor.

And, interpreted in this light "argue not, convert not" could refer to a type of communication and psychology; There is no argument over 1 + 1 = 2 amongst Israelis and Palestinians

There is an old saying "there is no disagreement amongst rational men", which means that the rational mind tends towards defining that which is ubiquitous and evenly distributed amongst all "rational" viewpoints.

Please keep it simple.

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
thearthuremerson
(@thearthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 43
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Do mathematicians ever argue? No, not once. There is perfect agreement, requiring zero further explanation, and the decision is final, like the cut of a sword.

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Of course mathematicians as people can argue who did what first, who gets what kind of credit, etc, however, they do not argue over proven proofs, that language speaks for itself.

And yet there are disputes about the language itself. Intuitionism denies the law of the excluded middle, for instance. There is no perfect agreement in mathematics, no matter how much you insist upon it. Moreover, that disagreement goes far deeper than historical/credential matters.

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

This was highlighted in this thread solely for the purpose of juxtaposing the mathematical mind with the symbolic and intuitive mind and their distinctions.

And I simply reject this specious, facile distinction. The mathematician says:

(B ⟹ (C ⟹ B))  -- This is an axiom schema for a propositional calculus, for anyone interested. 

Mathematics (logic) is the symbolic language par excellence. But in any case all communication is symbolic, some just more formal than others.

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

If there is a disagreement, it would be a logical and rational one, and it would be communication that would not contain any contradictions, surely maths key feature. 

If this is all you meant (and that is  not at all clear in the original statement, indeed to the original sentiment, to which I was responding), then this is again facile. It hardly justifies "perfect agreement, requiring zero further explanation". Mathematics is a rational enterprise, of course they disagree... rationally. And much as you seem seem adamant they don't, they do fight over proofs. Cantor "proved" there were heirarchies of infinity. While generally agree upon now, the best mathematicians in his day quite adamantly disagreed. Likewise, Frege encountered much disagreement. His "proofs" unfortunately all fell prey to Russell's paradox, which showed that the axioms of Frege's system were inconsistent. And Russel and Whitehead's proofs in Principia? Hardly uncontroversial. 

 

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Do you really believe mathematicians argue over 1 + 1 = 2?

Do they now?

Are you actually suggesting that formulas and proofs are not actually formulas and proofs, and they themselves are objects of much division within the field of mathematics, as if it was Law or something?

Really?

 "1 + 1 = 2" isn't a proof, it's axiomatic. It can't be proven.

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

If there is a disagreement, it would be a logical and rational one, and it would be communication that would not contain any contradictions, surely maths key feature. 

Yet reductio ad absurdum is a proof method of mathematical logic.

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

I can alter my claim to simply state that math requires far far far less arguing and fighting over the truth value as any other human endeavor.

Hell of an alteration, that.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @thearthuremerson

And yet there are disputes about the language itself. Intuitionism denies the law of the excluded middle, for instance. There is no perfect agreement in mathematics, no matter how much you insist upon it. Moreover, that disagreement goes far deeper than historical/credential matters.

I appreciate this challenge, kinda, just not sure why you are bothering to argue over what amounts to spelling and grammar mistakes.

We do not argue over 2 + 2 = 4, arthur.

No we do not.

When I say mathematicians do not argue, not once, this is what I am referring to, maths that we use to measure, and the natural mathematical mind and language that all humans are born with.

If you agree that all human beings do not argue over 2+2= 4, and even Palestinians and Israelis always have perfect agreement, there is no need to argue with me on this point.

Math as a language finds perfect agreement, eventually.

Just like musical language, which is mathematical, has PERFECT agreement amongst Israelis and Palestinians.

This is the only point I am making.

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

And I simply reject this specious, facile distinction. The mathematician says:

(B ⟹ (C ⟹ B))  -- This is an axiom schema for a propositional calculus, for anyone interested. 

 

Well I do not really care if you reject it.

Really, who cares?

And you really don't, because we say the same thing

Mathematics (logic) is the symbolic language par excellence. But in any case all communication is symbolic, some just more formal than others.

Math is self referential language, and not symbolic in the same sense that other language is.

Sure, all language is symbolic to meaning, but that does not mean that all meaning is not distinguishable by that which is actual and that which is symbolic.

There surely is a demarkation, no?

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

If this is all you meant (and that is  not at all clear in the original statement, indeed to the original sentiment, to which I was responding), then this is again facile

Well you and me both then, because I am a generalist and speaking to a general principle that I know that you know exists and your just muscle flexing in my opinion.

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

 "1 + 1 = 2" isn't a proof, it's axiomatic. It can't be proven.

 

Someone please drain all the blood from my body and stick needles in my eyeballs.

Really? If Israel sends two missiles over into Palestine, the number of missiles can't be verified by a third party?

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

Yet reductio ad absurdum is a proof method of mathematical logic.

 

You're lots of fun at dinner parties.

I am not making a claim about math!

I am making a claim about the human mind!

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

Hell of an alteration, that.

Get used to, that.

I will continue to alter my language so as to improve my communication.

As I said, this is a collaborative process.

If you want to take that as a "win" for you in this discussion, congrats, you're following the naturally occurring non zero sum "sport".

How about that?

Language, math, psychology can all come together in an entirely new claim i am making.

Conversation is Game Theory.

Cheers

SC

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 357
 

@sangewanchuck56 

Do not wish for things you do not wish for as the human mind does play tricks with what one might input. I think this is relevant as you say you are arguing about the human mind.

Well basically "Mathematics" is a study of the human mind, where there have been vast arguments and battles over the centuries, to which we have mathematical arguments that basically come down to this dichotomy, where on the one hand we have those mathematical arguments that ultimately speak of a closed system, and those that demonstrate the existence of human freedom and discovery. An example of a closed system of mathematics is Bertrand Russell, whose Principia Mathematica was an attack on Reimann and Cantor, and was refuted by Godel.

Danger....Here is something to have fun with called "The Fraud of Algebraic Causality"!

https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/944_lyn_algebraic.html

 

 

 

 


ReplyQuote
thearthuremerson
(@thearthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 43
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

And you really don't, because we say the same thing

No, we almost certaintly do not. 

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Math is self referential language, and not symbolic in the same sense that other language is.

Sure, all language is symbolic to meaning, but that does not mean that all meaning is not distinguishable by that which is actual and that which is symbolic.

There surely is a demarkation, no?

In all of this vaguery and handwaving, I have no idea what you're even talking about. All respect, but I don't think you do either. 

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Really? If Israel sends two missiles over into Palestine, the number of missiles can't be verified by a third party?

lmao. If there were any remaining doubt in anyone's mind that you have no idea what you're talking about, this will surely have removed it. And that despite my rather embarrasing error in saying that "1+1=2" is an axiom, which I will admit that without qualification is misleading in the extreme. (This would have been, for what it's worth, a better attack vector than the one you chose. A terribly easy target for anyone who knew anything about mathematics/logic.) While it can be taken as an axiom in a deductive system, it has historically been a thereom; that is, a statement that is proveable from the axioms of a deductive system alone, e.g., Peano's axioms. Principia is of course famous for spending hundreds of pages to build up to a proof that 1+1=2. A proof which, by the way, has hardly gone unargued about. In any case, "1+1=2" is not a proof, though you seem to have spoken of it as one; it is (mathematically speaking) a statement of some formal language. It can be taken as an axiom, or it can be deriveable from some set of axioms. In the former case, it is not proveable; in the latter case there is a proof. But whatever the proof is, it isn't a matter of empirical verification by an agreemenent in count.

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

I will continue to alter my language so as to improve my communication.

I can't be the only one to have seen no improvement. At least in our short back and forth you've only pretended not to say what you have verfiably previously said. "I didn't mean that! I meant this." At least take responsibility for what you've said, even if it isn't what you meant.

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

If you want to take that as a "win" for you in this discussion, congrats, you're following the naturally occurring non zero sum "sport".

I don't mind "losing," being wrong, making mistakes. These things don't bother me. They happen to me all the time in my line of work. But in this case, I know more about the subject under discussion than you. And you revel in your own diarrhet(or)ic. You defeat yourself. There's no "challenge" here. 

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

Well basically "Mathematics" is a study of the human mind

No, it isn't. Though I would agree that mathematical logic, the analysis and study of (mathematical) reasoning, has a very deep relationship with philosophy of mind.

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

An example of a closed system of mathematics is Bertrand Russell, whose Principia Mathematica was an attack on Reimann and Cantor, and was refuted by Godel.

In what sense is "closed" being used here? Is it meant to be an antonym of "open" where that means something like "demonstrates human freedom". If so, these terms involve (gravely mistaken) normative judgments about the systems, rather than being descriptors of their formal content. I'm not aware of any formal system that "demonstrates the existence of human freedom and discovery," whatever you mean by this. In any case, the goal of Principia and the system developed in it, have nothing whatever to do with human freedom.

Your assessment here is confused as well. Russell and Whitehead were not attacking anyone in Principia. They were carrying out a logicist program in which they intended to show that mathematics is reduceable to logic. Another way of putting this is that they wanted to demonstrate that mathematics is in fact nothing more than logic. And Gödel didn't refute Principia. (The extent to which laymen misunderstand Gödel's incompleteness results never ceases to amaze me.) Gödel's results are important, but they don't "refute" anything. They demonstrate limits of provability in formal axiomatic systems in which a certain amount of arithmatic can be carried out. 

 

 

 

 


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 357
 

@thearthuremerson 

Thanks

 I was just reading this essay by Uwe Parpart called "The Concept of the Transfinite" which is relevant relative to mathematics as maps  of qualities of the human mind and the universe in a creative way, in opposition to those approaches that would tend to blind human creativity, thus I note that the essay begins with a situating of Bertrand Russell's work as lending in a more articulate manner to what I was alluding. ...

I find the paper difficult relative to some of my source background, but interesting none the less (note some pages are not in order in pdf so look at page numbers for proper order!)

http://wlym.com/archive/campaigner/7602.pdf


ReplyQuote
thearthuremerson
(@thearthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 43
 

@hadgigegenraum Many thanks for the reference. It looks like a fascinating prelude to a translation of Cantor. I'm quite busy at the moment, unfortunately -- heading off tomorrow morning for a few weeks to get married and do some traveling. But I do plan to do some philosophical work (in mathematical logic) while I'm gone and this may fit very well into my reading. Much appreciatiation for the well-timed link.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3651
 

@thearthuremerson - Congratulations and felicitations on getting married! Bom shankar, mazel tov, blessed be, etc.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

I think this is relevant as you say you are arguing about the human mind.

Statement was " I am making a claim about the human mind"

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

An example of a closed system of mathematics is Bertrand Russell, whose Principia Mathematica was an attack on Reimann and Cantor, and was refuted by Godel.

Agree, this was brought up earlier in one of these many threads.

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

In all of this vaguery and handwaving, I have no idea what you're even talking about. All respect, but I don't think you do either. 

Oh I can assure you I know what I mean between a demarkation between "actual" and "symbolic" in the human mind and all symbols the human mind creates, I have an entire system designed on this principle.

 

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

(This would have been, for what it's worth, a better attack vector than the one you chose. A terribly easy target for anyone who knew anything about mathematics/logic.) While it can be taken as an axiom in a deductive system, it has historically been a thereom; that is, a statement that is proveable from the axioms of a deductive system alone, e.g., Peano's axioms. Principia is of course famous for spending hundreds of pages to build up to a proof that 1+1=2. A proof which, by the way, has hardly gone unargued about. In any case, "1+1=2" is not a proof, though you seem to have spoken of it as one; it is (mathematically speaking) a statement of some formal language. It can be taken as an axiom, or it can be deriveable from some set of axioms. In the former case, it is not proveable; in the latter case there is a proof. But whatever the proof is, it isn't a matter of empirical verification by an agreemenent in count.

Your entire strawman is an easy target.

This was already discussed in another thread, and it was a point that I myself raised. I am familiar with Godel and have mentioned his theory of incompleteness multiple times already in the broad discussion here.

Thank you for the lecture.

However, we still do not argue over 1 + 1 = 2 when we are counting missiles flying over the sky, we only argue why those missiles were sent.

Comprende?

Principia Mathematica was originally based on an assumption that all the formal rules of math could be constructed into axioms and proven within those axioms. Someone fell into a pit called because with that one (and that person also ordered "The Equinox" entire set, fun fact).

Eventually, folks came around to Godel's view.

Great story!

That has NOTHING to do with the conversation I am having.

Zero.

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

I can't be the only one to have seen no improvement. At least in our short back and forth you've only pretended not to say what you have verfiably previously said. "I didn't mean that! I meant this." At least take responsibility for what you've said, even if it isn't what you meant.

What I meant at the start is still what I mean now.

It is not hard.

I will use this metaphor once again.

Palestine and Israel toss rockets and missiles back and forth.

They have perfect agreement about the number of rockets sent, and perfect agreement that they are indeed sending rockets back and forth.

Why are they sending rockets and missiles? Total disagreement.

Do you note how the human mind has a naturally occurring language that finds perfect agreement in one aspect of reality and disagreement about the rest?

Hmm?

Is that really that complex?

Does it really matter if I call one part of that mind the mathematician, and the other part the poet?

Do you really think I mean "mathematician" as an ego somewhere?

Well you did, so I changed my language because it confused instead of communicated my meaning.

You are aware that there is a natural demarkation between meaning and words? I assume you do because you're telling everyone how smart you are.

I'm referring to verbs, you are referencing nouns and forms.

Two different conversations.

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

The extent to which laymen misunderstand Gödel's incompleteness results never ceases to amaze me.)

Oh really? you are amazed that those who do not have the education you do fail to understand those subjects in the same light you do?

OMG you must be British.

I can only drain blood from my body once a day.

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

Gödel's results are important, but they don't "refute" anything. They demonstrate limits of provability in formal axiomatic systems in which a certain amount of arithmatic can be carried out. 

Oh yes it does, it refutes ANY claim that states that complete truth can be formalized into a mathematical and logical structure by showing the eventual contradiction made by that pathway.

hence principia mathematica is a moot point, and we have computer science instead.

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

I'm quite busy at the moment, unfortunately -- heading off tomorrow morning for a few weeks to get married and do some traveling.

Congratulations on the marriage and travel! You could use both the love and the rest.

Cheers, truly!

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @thearthuremerson
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Math is self referential language, and not symbolic in the same sense that other language is.

Sure, all language is symbolic to meaning, but that does not mean that all meaning is not distinguishable by that which is actual and that which is symbolic.

There surely is a demarkation, no?

In all of this vaguery and handwaving, I have no idea what you're even talking about. All respect, but I don't think you do either. 

Math is self referential language, and not symbolic in the same sense that other language is.
 
I tried to work out sangewanchuck's reasoning here.  He says that Math is self referential language,

This appears to be a nonsensical statement because it implies that Maths is a distinct language in that e.g. the French language can be "self-referential"  (transcendental?) within it's own functionality?  

and not symbolic in the same sense that other language is.

So e.g. French and Spanish are languages and they are "symbolic " but the language of Maths isn't "symbolic"?   

Surely maths and languages both use clusters of letters or numbers which are all symbols. 

Sure, all language is symbolic to meaning

But now he contradicts himself and states that  French, Spanish and Maths are symbolic after all?   Symbolic to meaning.  Ironically enough that statement doesn't appear to mean anything either.

, but that does not mean that all meaning is not distinguishable by that which is actual and that which is symbolic.

There surely is a demarkation, no?

 

What I'm reminded of here is the Donald Rumsfeld's infamous (words to the effect of) 'We know what we know about the unknown knowns but it's the known knowns that we don't know whether they're unknown' etc. 

 

What?

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3651
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

'We know what we know about the unknown knowns but it's the known knowns that we don't know whether they're unknown' etc. 

 

What?

Corrected version:

[A]s we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

Rumsfeld's statement was a very wise, and clever, bit of NASA doctrine, which the recently deceased war-criminal immediately recognized when a low-level female US Army officer said it while he was touring a base, and had his secretary copy it down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @ignant666
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

'We know what we know about the unknown knowns but it's the known knowns that we don't know whether they're unknown' etc. 

 

What?

Corrected version:

[A]s we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

Rumsfeld's statement was a very wise, and clever, bit of NASA doctrine, which the recently deceased war-criminal immediately recognized when a low-level female US Army officer said it while he was touring a base, and had his secretary copy it down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

Ok but do you know what sanguinechuck meant in the sections I reproduced above? 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3651
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

do you know what sanguinechuck meant in the sections I reproduced above? 

No, of course not; his statements really are the gibberish you portrayed Rumsfeld's stolen remark as.

The Poo-Man is a babbler who has no idea what he is talking about on any topic whatever.

He is trying to get some kind of Goo-Roo /Profit racket going with his pronouncements here.


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 357
 

@thearthuremerson 

 A Hearty Toast to your sharing the Good News ...A Summer Wedding!

I am glad that the link regarding Cantor's work on the Transfinite comes at an opportune time for your philosophical work...the presentation is intended to ultimately engender creative perspectives...

So Happy Honeymoons and Happy Trails!

HG

 


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2042
 
Posted by: @thearthuremerson

heading off tomorrow morning for a few weeks to get married and do some traveling

We'll look forward to when you return to the fray. For the time being: wishing you both a joyous day-and life-together, Arthur!


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 

@david-dom-lemieux 

Nice to hear from you again, I got worried, thought maybe you got the covid or something

Just a heads up before I address your comment.

I don't want to get attached to one or two phrases I say in my attempts to communicate something that is in my point of view to a point of view of another, because the language I am using (other than english of course) is not an axiomatic language (like math), and I am not offering a formal definition of mathematics, only defining math in relationship to this topic.

Although I always, always, always frame things in my own language, as I would describe them to myself (as a practice), I can promise you that my meaning, my claim, is rather non-controversial.

All we are doing (all = anyone engaging within this convo along with me) is working through the language we are sharing so we can "see what each other means".

That type of language is very very flexible with meaning.

This is not the same language as math.

Math is NOT flexible with meaning.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux
I tried to work out sangewanchuck's reasoning here.  He says that Math is self referential language,

This appears to be a nonsensical statement because it implies that Maths is a distinct language in that e.g. the French language can be "self-referential"  (transcendental?) within it's own functionality?  

 

Of course, any "meaning" can use any language to communicate self reference. I do not mean that self reference is the sole property of mathematical language.

The language of math and logic is self referential in the sense that the meaning is self evident.

A tautology, basically. (This means that it is simply the "truth" as it is defining the "truth" that the language is communicating.)

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

So e.g. French and Spanish are languages and they are "symbolic " but the language of Maths isn't "symbolic"?   

all language, any kind, can be used in a symbolic sense (meaning to reference NOT it self, the meaning is outside of the text, requiring further interpretation), or in a self referential sense (the meaning is INSIDE the text, like 1 + 1 = 2, requiring no further interpretation).

For example.

Let me give you a perfect example of English using self reference to communicate a truth that already has your agreement embedded into the phrase.

"The word at the end of this sentence is LAShTAL."

That statement is 100% true, you confirm it when you read it.

We can do it in reverse.

"The word at the end of this sentence is NOT the word LAShTAL."

Do you need to go outside of the text to determine the value?

Does it matter if i write the sentence in symbolic logic or propositional calculus? No, english worked just fine too.

This is because the "mathing" and the "symbolizing" are functions of our mind, two dynamics of our naturally occurring intelligence that follows different psychological rules, and we already all agree on these rules, even if we are not aware of them.

Basically, look at it like two different ways our minds discover "truth".

And to keep it simple and not deregulate into a long boring philosophical discussion about "what is truth?", just look at truth for now defined as simply "existence".

Any kind of existence. Including concepts about existence (which are themselves NON existence)

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

But now he contradicts himself and states that  French, Spanish and Maths are symbolic after all?   Symbolic to meaning.  Ironically enough that statement doesn't appear to mean anything either.

It is not a contradiction, because language (symbols) is NOT the meaning UNLESS the MEANING is to communicate SELF REFERENCE.

Its also not a contradiction because it follows a naturally occurring harmonic ternary ordering principle, which resolves ALL contradictions.

let's define:

0 = all language is symbolic (mathematical and natural) to meaning

1 = self referential (mathematical, axiomatic, non-changing.  it means "the truth is right here!")

2 = symbolic  (natural, expressive, changing. it means "The truth is not here, it is over there!")

Remember, it's all in Nuit's tool, 0 1 and 2.

Distinctions important here

0 = communication

1 = text (language as a form)

2 = meaning (context)

 

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

What I'm reminded of here is the Donald Rumsfeld's infamous (words to the effect of) 'We know what we know about the unknown knowns but it's the known knowns that we don't know whether they're unknown' etc. 

 

What?

Well Rumsfeld was bullshitting, and your paraphrasing, and this is pretty simple

It is TRUE that there is an UNKNOWN. True is complimented (paired) with MYSTERY, 1 and 0.

It is UNKNOWN what the UNKNOWN is.  Pure Mystery, the pairing of true and false simultaneously, 0.

Any concept of the UNKNOWN by definition is FALSE. Mystery is paired with FALSE. 2 and 0.

Any concept of the UNKNOWN that is believed to be TRUE is actually FALSE. 1 and 2.

Posted by: @ignant666

No, of course not; his statements really are the gibberish you portrayed Rumsfeld's stolen remark as.

The Poo-Man is a babbler who has no idea what he is talking about on any topic whatever.

He is trying to get some kind of Goo-Roo /Profit racket going with his pronouncements here.

lol, sure buddy.

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @ignant666

 

He is trying to get some kind of Goo-Roo /Profit racket going with his pronouncements here.

So far that isn't working. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2918
 

@thearthuremerson 

 

Congratulations on your nuptials and we should email more when we have time.

Even though I feel empty headed as of late.

 

93s


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @ignant666
Posted by: @ignant666

 

He is trying to get some kind of Goo-Roo /Profit racket going with his pronouncements here.

So far that isn't working. 

😆

True, my non-attempt to run a racket to boost profit margins is doomed to never manifest, just like @ignant666 non-existing rational anti-thesis to my posts. 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: