Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Actually, Doron, your math is totally wrong. Here's my proof:

X^2--4rr*Z^i -- g5 > fog(0.0000000000000000000000 .... 3/4).

I will only allow people who see it to comment and say what a genius I am. Finally a man had arisen in mathematics who is even a greater genius than Doron -- me! It's a new Copernican revolution, as big as the one Doron himself did to previous mathematics, much like Einstein replace Newton after Newton replaced Aristotle in physics.

Everybody else, who thinks it's gibberish, well, they're just jealous I am a greater math genius than them, or else just don't understand it, and therefore have no business commenting on it.

Again, Skeptic is motivated by personal motivations instead of subject's re-search motivation.

By moving beyond your personal approach http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 clearly demonstrates that the bended forms of constant X (which stand at the basis of the projected S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+..) upon the non-bended constant X) are irreducible to a collection of 0 sizes, and as a result there is an invariant unclosed gap between S and X, which its value is 0.000…3/4 >0, where 3/4 is the invariant among the bended forms of constant X that are projected upon the non-bended forms of constant X.

Classical analysis can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by

 

[The Man]

"bla bla bla ..." is "bla bla bla ..." by "bla bla bla ..."

Indeed "profound reasoning" you have The Man.

Your thinking on the “foundation of thoughts”, which you claim “can't be known by thoughts”, even your own, is your own “reasoning” Doron.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your thinking on the “foundation of thoughts”, which you claim “can't be known by thoughts”, even your own, is your own “reasoning” Doron.

The trunk can't be known from the level of a branch.

A brunch is known from the level of the trunk.

 

[Complexity]

The trunk can't be known from the level of a branch.

A brunch is known from the level of the trunk.

You're making far more sense than usual today.

 

[doronshadmi]

You're making far more sense than usual today.

I am glade to know that this is your impression.

 

[The Man]

The trunk can't be known from the level of a branch.

Quite the contrary, a branch is an offshoot of a main stem. Thus knowledge of the main stem is required in order to “know” a branch to in fact be a branch. If for some reason the trunk is obscured from your view at the “level of” some “branch” then the view of that branch is likewise obscured from the “the level of the trunk”.

A brunch is known from the level of the trunk.

“from the level of the trunk” there need not be any branching. It is only with (at the “level” of) branching that branching can be “known”. Whether it be branching from a trunk or from some other branch.

Not that it matters much, as again this is just you claiming that what you are talking about when it comes to your thoughts concerning “foundation of thoughts” simply "can't be know" by you or your thoughts


You seem to be insisting upon some kind of one way occlusion, that “from the level of a branch” the view of the trunk is occluded. Yet from the “from the level of the trunk” the view of the branch is not. It works both ways Doron if you can see or “know” a branch from the “level of the trunk” then you can see and “know” the trunk from “from the level of a branch”.


Oh and by the way knowing requires thought, even as much as you seem to try to avoid, as much as possible, thought in what you simply like to claim you think you know (even that which you claim “can't be known by thoughts”).

 

[The Man]

It works.

No it doesn’t, that’s why you end up in some “fog” with an infinite convergent series.

Trunk AND branches are a one organic form (Y) where the branches are the manifestation of the trunk and the trunk is the foundation of the branches.

Your Oil/Water notion simply do not get Y as an organic form.

A big steaming pile of crap is also an “organic form” as well, where the crap on the bottom is used to support the crap on the top and the stench that derives from each part of the pile is only exceeded by the stench of the pile as a whole. A far more descriptive (and literally accurate) “organic form” for your “OM” and ‘EEM”.

Again linguistic device is not only the level of manifestation of that device, but also the foundation that enables its manifestation.

OM is trunk AND branches organic Yform device, where silence is inseparable of that device,

“silence is inseparable”? We should be so lucky, unfortunately though it is only the stench that is inseparable from your particular “organic form”.

and is the common base ground of any labeled manifestation.

As you seem to think, but be careful not to step in that particular “organic form”.

 

[Skeptic]

The man -- you do realize what you're trying to do makes emptying the sea with a teaspoon seem like a positively reasonable idea, don't you?

 

[doronshadmi]

It works both ways Doron if you can see or “know” a branch from the “level of the trunk” then you can see and “know” the trunk from “from the level of a branch”.

You can’t see a brunch from the level of The trunk if you are not at the level of The trunk, simply because The trunk is the foundation of a branch, and not vice versa.

By your flat reasoning you do not get the hierarchy of dependency of a branch upon The trunk.

The trunk does not depend on any branch.

Any branch depends on The trunk, but your flat brach-only (thought-only) reasoning can’t get it.

Since your flat reasoning is stacked at the level of branches (thoughts) then also The trunk is no more than another branch (thought) by your flat reasoning, and you miss The trunk as the foundation of any branch (thought).

Y works both ways only if the actuality of both levels is not hidden by each other, but by your branch-only (thought-only) flat view, the actuality of The trunk is a fantasy, so you can't sell your "both ways" argument if one the "players" is a fantasy by your flat notion.

You don't get that Silence is the foundation of any sound, and the full value of a given sound is known only from the level of Silence.

On the contrary Silence can’t be known from the level of some particular sound, because sound is a one of many thing (a particular thing), where Silence is not a one of many thing (it is the common base ground of every possible and particular sound, including any possible linkage among sounds).

 

[The Man]

The man -- you do realize what you're trying to do makes emptying the sea with a teaspoon seem like a positively reasonable idea, don't you?

Oh absolutely and certainly more reasonable than trying to empty the sea with a fork (as Doron is attempting).

 

[The Man]

You can’t see a brunch from the level of The trunk if you are not at the level of The trunk, simply because The trunk is the foundation of a branch, and not vice versa.

Again if you can “see a brunch from the level of The trunk” then you can see “The trunk” from the “level” of that branch.

By your flat reasoning you do not get the hierarchy of dependency of a branch upon The trunk.

Actually I specifically pointed out that “hierarchy of dependency”.

Quite the contrary, a branch is an offshoot of a main stem. Thus knowledge of the main stem is required in order to “know” a branch to in fact be a branch.

The trunk does not depend on any branch.

Which is why as I said…

“from the level of the trunk” there need not be any branching. It is only with (at the “level” of) branching that branching can be “known”. Whether it be branching from a trunk or from some other branch.

A trunk does not infer or require branching thus branching can only be know at the “level” of, well, a branch. A branch however requires some main stem to be an offshoot of, so does infer and require a main stem or ‘trunk’ (of some form).

You are the only one that does “not get hierarchy of dependency”.

Any branch depends on The trunk, but your flat brach-only (thought-only) reasoning can’t get it.

You really don’t understand what “hierarchy” or ‘dependence’ means, do you? I’ve tried to make it as simple for you as I can above, but I doubt you will understand it since you simply want to assume and imagine your own thoughts are some trunk and the “foundation of thoughts”

Since your flat reasoning is stacked at the level of branches (thoughts) then also The trunk is no more than another branch (thought) by your flat reasoning, and you miss The trunk as the foundation of any branch (thought).

Doron your thoughts about “foundation of any branch” are still just your thoughts. That you simply want to claim them as some “direct perception” or the foundation of anything is also just your thoughts and fantasies.

Y works both ways only if the actuality of both levels is not hidden by each other,

As I said...

It works both ways Doron if you can see or “know” a branch from the “level of the trunk” then you can see and “know” the trunk from “from the level of a branch”.

but by your branch-only (thought-only) flat view, the actuality of The trunk is a fantasy,

Have you forgotten about “hierarchy” and ‘dependence’ already Doron? A branch requires some main stem or ‘trunk’, while a trunk does not require or infer any branching.

so you can't sell your "both ways" argument if one the "players" is a fantasy by your flat notion.

“can’t sell” it? You just agreed with it, remember…

Y works both ways only if the actuality of both levels is not hidden by each other,

You don't get that Silence is the foundation of any sound, and the full value of a given sound is known only from the level of Silence.

Silence is not the foundation of any sound, silence is specifically the lack of any sound. The foundation of any sound is a transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration (the source of the sound). Lacking one or both of them all you can have is silence; with both you do not have silence

On the contrary Silence can’t be known from the level of some particular sound, because sound is a one of many thing (a particular thing), where Silence is not a one of many thing (it is the common base ground of every possible and particular sound, including any possible linkage among sounds).

Silence can absolutely be known “from the level of some particular sound” and in fact can only be known by knowing what constitutes and is required for sound. Sound however can never be known from silence as one or both of the specific elements that are required for sound are lacking in silence. So you’re just going to completely ignore that “hierarchy of dependency” you mentioned before?

 

[doronshadmi]

You are the only one that does “not get hierarchy of dependency”.

Again, since trunk and branch are thoughts by your flat view, you do not get that The trunk as the foundation of any thought, which is not itself a thought.

As long as The trunk is some thought for you, you have nothing to sell, which is related to hierarchy.

Silence is not the foundation of any sound, silence is specifically the lack of any sound. The foundation of any sound is a transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration (the source of the sound). Lacking one or both of them all you can have is silence; with both you do not have silence

Your flat view is shown also here.

Silence is the base ground (the foundation) of any sound, which is not itself a sound.

“A transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration” are not the source of sound, but they are already a sound, which is derived from Silence.

The Man, you have no hierarchy in both cases, because in both cases you get things only by one level, as follows:

By your limited view, you get trunk and branch in terms of thoughts, and you get silence and sound in terms of sound.

You are living in a fantasy The Man since by your one-level reasoning there is no hierarchy.

 

[The Man]

Again, since trunk and branch are thoughts by your flat view, you do not get that The trunk as the foundation of any thought, which is not itself a thought.

As long as The trunk is some thought for you, you have nothing to sell, which is related to hierarchy.

Once again Doron you miss the point, your “trunk” or “foundation of any thought” is just some thought of yours that you simply want to claim “is not itself a thought”.

Your flat view is shown also here.

Silence is the base ground (the foundation) of any sound, which is not itself a sound.

“A transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration” are not the source of sound, but they are already a sound, which is derived from Silence.

The actual quote…

Silence is not the foundation of any sound, silence is specifically the lack of any sound. The foundation of any sound is a transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration (the source of the sound). Lacking one or both of them all you can have is silence; with both you do not have silence.

Again silence is specifically the absence of sound. Sound is “derived” from a source (a vibration) and a transmitting media as sound is specifically a longitudinal pressure wave that is specifically not silence. In case you have not caught on yet, sound and silence are mutually exclusive.

The Man, you have no hierarchy in both cases, because in both cases you get things only by one level, as follows:

Doron you have absolutely no understanding of what you want to talk about and simply want to claim that some thought of yours “is not itself a thought.” and “the foundation of any thought”.

By your limited view, you get trunk and branch in terms of thoughts, and you get silence and sound in terms of sound.

You are living in a fantasy The Man since by your one-level reasoning there is no hierarchy.

You’re still not understanding the differences Doron. A branch and trunk are not mutually exclusive nor are they mutually dependent, even though a branch is dependent on some main stem or “trunk”. Silence and sound are mutually exclusive; one depends specifically on the absence of the other. Whatever your thoughts are about “trunks” “branches”, “sound” and/or “silence”, “thoughts” and/or “the foundation of any thought” they are still just your thoughts. Claiming they are not themselves thoughts or trying to attribute them as some “direct perception” and/or “the foundation of any thought” simply confirms your lack of understanding or lack of acceptance of yourself as the source of your own thoughts. Also it clearly shows how naive and demonstrably false your notions are.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again Doron you miss the point, your “trunk” or “foundation of any thought” is just some thought of yours that you simply want to claim “is not itself a thought”.

Once again The Man your lack of self-awareness as the source of your mantel activity is your personal problem.

You take your personal problem and force it on other persons, simply because your awareness is stacked at the level of thoughts.

The rest of your reply and your reasoning ability is based on your lack of self-awareness as the source of your mantel activity (experienced by you as thoughts).

You can get the Truck/branches or Silence/sounds only by direct perception of self-awareness of your mental activity, and it can be done by practicing mental trainings like Transcendental Meditation, which is a tool that enables you to follow after your mental activity back to its silent origin, and then to be aware of how your mental activity is born from this fundamental level of unbounded awareness.

As long as you have no direct perception of that unbounded awareness, and how it is the silent origin of any level of your mantel activity, all you get is at the level of your already active thoughts.

By practicing TM, for example, only the levels of your mental activity are followed, where the content or the meaning of that activity is at the background, during the practice.

Because of this fine mental training, your ability to be aware of finer levels of your mantel activity is developed, and the content or meaning of your mental activity is developed as well, and enables to get things from more profound levels of your mental activity.

For the past 30 years a lot of scientific researches where done about several mantel training techniques, and more and more scientific evidences (that are based on controlled and carful scientific methods) clearly show that balanced mental training techniques are resulted by better brain functioning, and better physical and mental health that is derived from better brain functioning.

In other words The Man, your ignorance (both by practice and by knowledge) is a direct result of your choice to ignore anything about this scientific research area.

Doron you have absolutely no understanding

The Man you are ignorant by practice and by knowledge of the real value of "under-standing".

In case you have not caught on yet, sound and silence are mutually exclusive.

A typical reply of a complex system that uses only indirect perception.

There is an OR concretive between sound and silence. You get it by direct perception where both unbounded or bounded awareness are simultaneously perceived by direct perception, yet the unbounded is the foundation (the "under-") of the bounded (the "stending").

Your indirect perception can't deal with the OR connective between Non-locality and Locality, can't deal with
Non-locality as "belongs NXOR does not belong", etc … (WYSIWYG).

 

[The Man]

Once again The Man your lack of self-awareness as the source of your mantel activity is your personal problem.

You take your personal problem and force it on other persons, simply because your awareness is stacked at the level of thoughts.

No Doron, once again that is simply you..

The rest of your reply and your reasoning ability is based on your lack of self-awareness as the source of your mantel activity (experienced by you as thoughts).

You can get the Truck/branches or Silence/sounds only by direct perception of self-awareness of your mental activity, and it can be done by practicing mental trainings like Transcendental Meditation, which is a tool that enables you to follow after your mental activity back to its silent origin, and then to be aware of how your mental activity is born from this fundamental level of unbounded awareness.

Again, so you think. This is simply your tanscendental meditative nonsense, that shows, since your were still aware of your thoughts, that you weren’t even doing that right. Instead you just take a shortcut and try to pawn off what you were thinking in your meditative attempt as simply not your own thoughts.

As long as you have no direct perception of that unbounded awareness, and how it is the silent origin of any level of your mantel activity, all you get is at the level of your already active thoughts.

You continue to just try to pawn off your own thoughts as anything but your own thoughts including as some “unbounded awareness”.

By practicing TM, for example, only the levels of your mental activity are followed, where the content or the meaning of that activity is at the background, during the practice.

Because of this fine mental training, your ability to be aware of finer levels of your mantel activity is developed, and the content or meaning of your mental activity is developed as well, and enables to get things from more profound levels of your mental activity.

No, Doron it apparently just gets you to profess the trivial as profound. What exactly is it that you have actually done again with such “fine mental training”? Other than just fantasizing about saving our civilization from your own “L value outcome” fears that you’re own notions find to be both logical, ethical and perhaps even necessary to enact that outcome.

For the past 30 years a lot of scientific researches where done about several mantel training techniques, and more and more scientific evidences (that are based on controlled and carful scientific methods) clearly show that balanced mental training techniques are resulted by better brain functioning, and better physical and mental health that is derived from better brain functioning.

Please sight such research papers and we can discuss them. You do realize that actual problem solving (not just fantasizing) is a ‘mental training technique’, don’t you (one with some actual practical uses)?

In other words The Man, your ignorance (both by practice and by knowledge) is a direct result of your choice to ignore anything about this scientific research area.



The Man you are ignorant by practice and by knowledge of the real value of "under-standing".

I have done more “by practice and by knowledge” than any of your transedental meditative fantasies.

A typical reply of a complex system that uses only indirect perception.

There is an OR concretive between sound and silence. You get it by direct perception where both unbounded or bounded awareness are simultaneously perceived by direct perception.

Your indirect perception can't deal with the OR connective between Non-locality and Locality,

So you just don’t understand what mutually exclusive means? For your edification it means (logically) ‘Silence XOR Sound’. What you 'got' "by direct perception” has failed you once again just as your “awareness” remains entirely “bounded” by your own, apparently deliberate, ignorance.

can't deal with Non-locality as belongs NXOR does not belong, etc …

Doron your claim was “belongs AND does not belong”. NXOR is not the same as AND. FALSE AND FALSE is FALSE. While FALSE NXOR FLASE is TRUE. Are you now changing your “Non-locality” ascription claim?

 

[Apathia]

Doron,

I see an opportunity to continue in the context of meditation culture and cultivating the "Enlightened Mind."

Some years ago a Japanese Shingon priest who heads a temple in Sacramento, California explained to me (in part to impress upon me that it was unnecessary for a non-Japanese person to become involved in Japanese Buddhism) that there were two ways of approach to breaking through the deluded mind to the Enlightened Mind.

1.) Via Negitivia. This is the my self is not this or that approach.
I am not this body. I am not these fleeting thoughts. I am not this ego identity. I am not any thing. I am no thing. I have no inherent reality.
I am not even nothing!
When this track of meditation comes to its fruition, Wisdom emerges from emptiness.

2.) Via Positivia. This is the approach of my self is also this or that. What I really am is more than this body, these fleeting thoughts and feelings, this separate ego, and so on till I am one with everything, because I have no inherent identity of my own.
The fruition of this meditation is that Compassion emerges from the awareness of solidarity with all and from the emptiness of a metaphysically separable self.

The point I must make right away is that both of these are approaches or perspectives, not ontological states we are supposed to achieve.

And when both approaches break through to "Enlightenment," they find each other as complementary truths.
This is possible for the root of both isn't some single metaphysical substance, or ontological principle, but the absence of a metaphysical self.
Because there is no real self behind the appearance of self, self can be experienced as everything, nothing, and some intermediary states of consciousness.

Self is Nothing. This is self as the blue sky upon which the clouds come and go, while it has no features of its own. Or the mirror having nothing of itself within, just the reflections of everything else.

Self is Everything. This is self as the panoply of changing appearances, some that persist for years, others that pass away immediately. It's the weather in the sky and the images in the mirror.

Our base sense of being selves and transcending those selves include the action of both these perspectives.
I am that and I am not that; and I am both that and not that; and I am neither that nor am that, is the dance of our self-awareness.

Again it is a matter of perspectives, not of ontological principles.
A fixed metaphysical self would make the dance of Awareness impossible or have one stepping on hir own feet.

Both these perspectives contributing to Awareness enables us to speak and think in terms of individual egos.
I can be aware of you as a separate person and also aware that we are integral to each other without Awareness being a contradiction.

Here in the USA the National Census is in progress. We do this once every ten years as required by the Constitution.
One of the census questions regards race.
People are counted as members of racial groups, such as Asian, African American, Hispanic, or White.
This is where we use numbers, counting people as objects of certain classes.
There's nothing wrong in doing this.
I'm a Caucasian myself. (There was no category of Irish-American to check.)
The wrong of course is when we discriminate or mistreat people because of their racial categories.
The wrong is when we forget that a person is more than a number or a particular of a racial category.

But Awareness means that when we focus on individualities we see not just countable objects but persons who are more than, or transcend, categories such as race.
You are more than a particular object, more than "a Jew."
This is because of your nothingness and everythingness. And your emptiness of a fixed metaphysical identity.

Of course you are going to immediately fit this into the X/Y Complements Frame.
And I'm expecting you to do that.
What I'm suggesting here is that this is not a matter of ontological "atoms" or fundamental principles of being.
It's a matter of perspective and relation.
I also again suggest the obvious: that these perspectives are not without each other.
You say they are branches of the same trunk.
I simply assert that that trunk is No-Self.

 

[doronshadmi]

Apathia your last post is a “state of the art” reply.

You say they are branches of the same trunk.
I simply assert that that trunk is No-Self.

No-self (The trunk) is the state that enables any particular manifestation (some id) to fully be expressed and be developed in the presence of other ids, such that the difference between the ids does not lead to any tendency to eliminate the diversity of present ids.

That has no id is the transparent base ground, that enables the optimal terms for different ids to be developed as different ids, without suppressing each others ids, exactly because the no-self is the common base ground of any id.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again, so you think. This is simply your tanscendental meditative nonsense, that shows, since your were still aware of your thoughts, that you weren’t even doing that right. Instead you just take a shortcut and try to pawn off what you were thinking in your meditative attempt as simply not your own thoughts.

The Man is an example of a complex system, that is aware only about the personal and fragmented mantel activity of his mind, and forces this fragmented awareness on others, by claiming that there is no common (and non-personal) base ground for any mental activity.

Since this is the case with The Man, he has no choice but to use indirect methods that are characterized by agreements that are done at the level of thoughts, with other persons that are also get things only at the level of thoughts.

As a result we get a community of persons, which are characterized by the lack of any non-personal base ground as the realm of their communications abilities.

Indirect communication that is done only at the level of thoughts, actually misses the infinitely many finer levels of the thought activity, by forcing on it categorical deductive context dependent frameworks that have no real common base ground (“branches” without “trunk”).

There cannot be real communication between a person that is locked under his thoughts’ activity and uses indirect communication methods, and a person that is not locked under his thoughts’ activity as uses direct communication methods, that can’t be valued by a person that is locked under his thoughts’ activity.

Communities that are based on indirect communication are going to be developed into communities that are based on direct communication.

Some of the nonsense of today is the reasoning of tomorrow, and specially the current “nonsense” that is derived from direct perception.

You do realize that actual problem solving

Do you realize that what is considered as a problem is changed if your mantel skills are changed?

Do you realize that the most important problem of our spices is the imbalanced skills between Ethics and Logic\Technology?

 

[Apathia]

Apathia your last post is a “state of the art” reply.

No-self (The trunk) is the state that enables any particular manifestation (some id) to fully be expressed and be developed in the presence of other ids, such that the difference between the ids does not lead to any tendency to eliminate the diversity of present ids.

That has no id is the transparent base ground, that enables the optimal terms for different ids to be developed as different ids, without suppressing each others ids, exactly because the no-self is the common base ground of any id.

Excellent!
I can move from my post to a more artful expression of some of my previous questions and concerns.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please sight such research papers and we can discuss them.

Some very few examples:


The TM program:

http://www.tm.org/research-on-meditation


Meditation: An Introduction

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/meditation/overview.htm


Brain Waves and Meditation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100319210631.htm


Meditation and Brain Health

http://www.brain-fx.com/2005/11/meditation_and_.html


Meditation can alter brain structure and reduce stress:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3554215.ece


Brain Scans Reveal Why Meditation Works:

http://www.livescience.com/health/070629_naming_emotions.html


How meditation boosts brain health:

http://www.canadianliving.com/health/prevention/how_meditation_boosts_brain_health.php


The Benefits of Meditation:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation


Meditation and Brain Function: A Review

http://www.eubios.info/EJ141/ej141j.htm