Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Well, we certainly have wondered way, way off topic, haven't we? Where were we?

Oh, yeah, Doron was telling us about his basic axioms for Doronetics. There were questions about the meaning of some terms, and there where questions of consistency, and there were questions of whether some were even axioms.

Can we return to that topic, please?
Click to expand...

Well, I tried to extract some axioms and definitions out of Doron about his version of the empty set (end of 341 beginning of 342). Unfortunately, that quickly degenerated into absurdities about how the framework of logic cannot "understand" Doronetics.
 
The Man said:
Doron, we have already been exposed to your "Direct Perception" and "OM" nonsense.
Click to expand...
No, you did not exposed to it because you first have to get it.

Add exposed to the list of concepts that your "If I did" noise can't get.
 
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6721262&postcount=13763 is too simple for your noisy reasoning.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
I know HatRack, your Logic, which deals only with existent things ( for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6717098&postcount=13724 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6717681&postcount=13748 ) can't get this:

All members of {} are <>, where <> means exactly that one can't <insert anything here> .
Click to expand...

Why don't you explain to us how "your logic" can deal with non-existent things, and why it's fundamentally different from our logic?
 
doronshadmi said:
No, you did not exposed to it because you first have to get it.

Add exposed to the list of concepts that your "If I did" noise can't get.
Click to expand...

Doron your claim of "you did not exposed to it" clearly exposes that exposed (past tense of expose) is just on the list of things that you, being “directly aware” “without any thoughts about it”, just can not understand.


ETA:

Agian, please get back to us when you actually have any practical applications.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
TDM stands for the ignorance of The Man about TM ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6721600&postcount=13767 ).
Click to expand...
You mean like The Man ignores his initials?

But what if he has a middle name? Look what's in the middle of "miDDle."

It follows that the logical middle names must have initial 'D'. So how come "Doron" is your first name and not your middle name when you invent all kind of logical circuits?

Let me show you a two-step clue to fix the shortcoming:

1. TDM = TranscenDental Meditation => braces => { } => empty set.

2. Let {DORON, SHADMI} = |NAME| = 2

The end of clue.



(And what else is on your Totally Demented Mind, Haldegard?)
:D
 
The Man said:
Doron your claim of "you did not exposed to it" clearly exposes that exposed (past tense of expose) is just on the list of things that you, being “directly aware” “without any thoughts about it”, just can not understand.


ETA:

Agian, please get back to us when you actually have any practical applications.
Click to expand...
It is practical to be directly aware of the source of your thoughts that is not itself a thought. Then you are able to establish theoretical and practical frameworks, which are tuned to precisely express the source of your thoughts without loosing your direct awareness of the source of your thoughts, also at the level of thoughts.

This finest ability to be directly aware of the simplest state of awareness, has a fundamental influence on any chosen framework, and in this thread the chosen framework is Logic and Mathematical Science.

By not loosing the direct awareness of its own simplest state, one is aware of both absolute and relative aspects of it, where the relative aspect is the expressed field of thoughts.

At the first level one gets the simplest state of awareness only at the personal level (I is that), such that the intellectual aspect (analysis or serial thinking) is fulfilled.

At the second level one gets the simplest state of awareness also at the non-personal level (You are that), such that the feeling aspect (Intuition or parallel thinking) is fulfilled.

At the the third level one gets the simplest state of awareness also at the non-personal level of also unaware things (All is that) such that the unity of both intellect and feeling ( (analysis or serial thinking) AND (Intuition or parallel thinking) ) are fulfilled.

Please pay attention that I use AND connective, which is currently understood only in terms to the first level.

A AND ~A is a contradiction only by direct awareness' first level, which is characterized by personal (local) awareness of the simplest state of awareness (I is that).

A AND ~A is not a contradiction by direct awareness' second level, which is characterized also by non-personal (non-local) awareness of the simplest state of awareness (You is that).

A AND ~A is not a contradiction by direct awareness' third level, which is characterized also by non-personal (non-local) awareness of the simplest state of awareness also about unaware things (All is that).

Actually at the third level there is only Unity, which is beyond A;~A and logical connectives, which are first and second levels' concepts.

Furthermore, Unity is beyond any attempt to get it by Logic;Intuition or any distinction that is based A;~A and the intermediate states (serial or parallel) between A;~A.

Moreover, the use of concept like Unity can't capture that is naturally beyond any attempt to define it (it is naturally undefined and also "naturally undefined" can't capture it).

The Man said:
So now your “magnitude of existence” can have a negative value?
Click to expand...
Let us say it that way:

Emptiness is the totality of non-existence.

Fullness is the totality of existence.

Collection is a relative (serial and/or parallel) existence between these totalities.

Unity is beyond any definition, whether it is described totally or relatively.

I hope that this post give some example of the gap of communication between you and me, about the Mathematical Science and the meaning of practical applications during our daily life.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please answer only by "yes" or "No".

Did you practice Transcendental Meditation ( http://www.tm-ireland.org/1.php )?
Click to expand...

In fact, I did... in fact, I am even 'certified' (well, it was one way to get a house quick...and that was in the 'Sidha Village').

In fact, my 'guru' was mentored by the now dead 'Guru Dev'. The dude that started it.

But... the best I can say about these people is that they are friendly hippies that need an excuse for making scandalous amounts of money whilst still being a hippy...

Never met one of them (not even at Veda University in Iowa, Fairfield) that was any good at anything to do with science.

Btw. I have a book called 'Vedic Mathematics', which is actually nothing to do with 'new' maths, but rather putting algorithms in sutra's (verses) so you can easily remember and execute them. But that is besides the point.
 
Ow... and the Maharishi was full of B.S., ending almost each paragraph with (nasal stony voice): "It's a laaaawwww of naaature, hmmmm?", smiling like a child that has just done poopies.

But the thing with the direct perception is that it is nonsense, they even agree to that themselves when asked in person, but hey... it sells books and stuff to schmucks.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us say it that way:

Emptiness is the totality of non-existence.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Emptiness means there is a container that can be empty and the place where it could have been filled contains nothing.

It says nothing about existence; the filling might exist somewhere else, or in a different state.

(I am filling an empty coffee mug right now!)


doronshadmi said:
Fullness is the totality of existence.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

See Emptiness, with the added bonus that Fullness also denotes a maximum of fillage.


doronshadmi said:
Collection is a relative (serial and/or parallel) existence between these totalities.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

For the reason the the previous two were wrong and on account that collection simply means that 'there (may) exist more, but we have at least 0'


doronshadmi said:
Unity is beyond any definition, whether it is described totally or relatively.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Unity denotes at least more than one possible part. The non-unity needing to have dissonant objects.


doronshadmi said:
I hope that this post give some example of the gap of communication between you and me, about the Mathematical Science and the meaning of practical applications of our daily life.
Click to expand...

Yes, you try a new path that has already been travelled by me.

Fun. Let's go li'll Doron, let's go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom