integral

1x1=1 or 1x1=2 Terrence Howard

41 posts in this topic

image (38).png


StopWork.ai - Voice Everything Browser Extension

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we say that reality or God is ONE, is that just a human invention? A symbolic thing? Or is ONE something deeper? And if ONE is something deeper then what about 2? And the rest?

Things for ya'll to contemplate.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When we say that reality or God is ONE, is that just a human invention? A symbolic thing? Or is ONE something deeper? And if ONE is something deeper then what about 2? And the rest?

Things for ya'll to contemplate.

"ONE" as a concept might arise from our need to simplify and unify complex realities. Humans seek patterns and coherence, so the idea of "ONE" as the ultimate truth could be a way to address the mystery of existence .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I didn't say that.

I understand reality from an absolute level, not in all its detail and endless forms.

I knew this, I was just confirming. You can't know all the endless forms.

You said that sentence in a different sense in that video. 

♥️

This discussion made me go into existential investigation and solipsism (I'm feeling as if it was pointless talking to you bcz I am being conscious and somewhere I know you are imaginary and I am alone.) 

and I realise I should write only after enough contemplation. I'll come back later. I'm not going to leave this thread untill it's resolved. 

 

Edited by Candle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kairos said:

"ONE" as a concept

Is ONE just a concept or something more?


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man... I wish I could do mathematics.

For those following my forum drama for the past year.

 


أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن ليو رسول الله

Translation: I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Leo [Gura] is the messenger of Allah.

"Love is the realization that there no difference between anything. Love is a complete absence of all bias". -- Leo Gura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Is ONE just a concept or something more?

It's an abstract representation of a single unit or quantity and it organizes and connects various ideas and experiences related to singularity, unity and individuality.So yeah it is a concept .

You tell than what else it is ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Man... I wish I could do mathematics.

For those following my forum drama for the past year.

Let it go, bro. Let it go.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kairos said:

It's an abstract representation of a single unit or quantity

But what about the underlying unit or quantity? What is that?


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But what about the underlying unit or quantity? What is that?

The underlying unit or quantity that ONE represents is a fundamental notion in physics, mathematics or philosophy .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently teaching myself Calculus I with textbooks. 

Calculus I for Dummies and Calculus I for Dummies Workbook, for those curious.


أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن ليو رسول الله

Translation: I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Leo [Gura] is the messenger of Allah.

"Love is the realization that there no difference between anything. Love is a complete absence of all bias". -- Leo Gura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the living creatures that most of us consider ourselves to be, we tend to think of ourselves as one. If a person considers themselves to be more than one, or less than one, a western doctor might diagnose this as a disorder.

As a concept, this might seem to be necessary, at least at some stage of functionality, especially in communication. I'd be interested to hear if any cultures use numbers less or differently.

As/if we seem to grow, we may relax the distinction, increasingly recognizing ourselves as, in some sense, "more" than one... perhaps.

Edited by Dan502

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But what about the underlying unit or quantity? What is that?

Yes, I see that Math is actually happening and not just a representation. 

But how do I approach this question? Is it okay to go into metaphysics to find the answer? 

I was contemplating but I reached a dead end. I don't know how to approach it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

But what about the underlying unit or quantity? What is that?

Oh so you mean "the actual singular , indivisible entity that exists independently in reality " 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Candle said:

Yes, I see that Math is actually happening and not just a representation. 

But how do I approach this question? Is it okay to go into metaphysics to find the answer? 

I was contemplating but I reached a dead end. I don't know how to approach it. 

People have been contemplating this question over 2000 years. Of course you won't figure it out in 1hr.

What is math? is ultimately a metaphysical question.

I don't fully understand what math is. It's an area that I need to contemplate more.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What is math? is ultimately a metaphysical question.

I don't fully understand what math is. It's an area that I need to contemplate more.

Maybe you find this interesting:

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

"Ostensibly a work of formal mathematics and philosophy, LoF became something of a cult classic: it was praised by Heinz von Foerster when he reviewed it for the Whole Earth Catalog.[5] Those who agree point to LoF as embodying an enigmatic "mathematics of consciousness", its algebraic symbolism capturing an (perhaps even "the") implicit root of cognition: the ability to "distinguish". LoF argues that primary algebra reveals striking connections among logic, Boolean algebra, and arithmetic, and the philosophy of language and mind."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Water by the River said:

Maybe you find this interesting:

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

"Ostensibly a work of formal mathematics and philosophy, LoF became something of a cult classic: it was praised by Heinz von Foerster when he reviewed it for the Whole Earth Catalog.[5] Those who agree point to LoF as embodying an enigmatic "mathematics of consciousness", its algebraic symbolism capturing an (perhaps even "the") implicit root of cognition: the ability to "distinguish". LoF argues that primary algebra reveals striking connections among logic, Boolean algebra, and arithmetic, and the philosophy of language and mind."

I've heard of it before but it was too technical for my interests. I may even own the book, can't recall.

This YT guy has a whole 15-part course on it:

 

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no expert in formal logic, but my own metaphysical understanding wants to call BS on Laws of Form.

It is way too discrete and absolute in its basic assumptions.

All distinctions can be subdivided infinitely, so it is impossible to ever totally define a distinction without calling on an infinite chain of sub-distinctions.

It also rests within a materialist worldview. It assumes distinctions are observer-independent and stable. Quantum mechanics and idealism both challenge this assumption.

To demonstrate the issue; consider that math is a system that formalizes distinctions.

When we say '1', we also mean to say:

0.5 + 0.5

or

0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25

And so on forever. 

Laws of Form suggests these are all the same distinction fundamentally. But it fails to recognise the infinite sub-distinctions as unique distinctions in themselves, so I see flaws in it.

Edited by Staples

God and I worked things out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In multiplication one number represents the value, the other represnts the repeating. And you always start from zero (that's the concept). 

1x1 means you are repeating 1 one time so the answer is one. It is like you have a box full of ones.. and you are taking one 1 from that box and put it in your pocket..so you have 1 in your pocket.

1x0 means you have a box full of ones but you are repeating the process 0 times.. so no ones will go inside your pocket.. zero.

0x1 means you have a box full of zeros and you are taking a 0 one time from that box into your pocket .. so you got 0 in your pocket, even if you repeated the process 1000 time your pocket will remain empty. 0x1000=0. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Candle said:

No baby.

 

 

Don't talk about university profs cz they are not philosophers. 

Multiplication is nothing but counting.

To indicate things, we use symbols like *. 

10 * 10 = 100 . It's about memorizing that 10 * 10 is 100. Bcz this is true when you actually COUNT. It's nothing but memorization and knowledge. It's nothing else. 

 

So all forms of symbolism are a form of self-referentiality, where the 'self' here contextual. 'Referentiality' is necessitated by how our consciousness creates existence in the interrelationship between awareness and memory. 'Good symbolism' vs 'bad symbolism' in this context is merely that language of symbolism, be it a quantitative (math) or qualitative (i.e. english) language, which is better, higher or 'good' at accurately aligning awareness with perception through memory, so its a subject of efficacious reading over moral standing. 'Higher' languages exist to help remove bias and enhance resolution on what we're measuring is consistently there. Chimps communicate just as well as many people on this subject for example, as even they don't deny that they're speaking something when they speak it. 

If you negate mathematics with the english language, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You may be able to incorrectly infer and through bias successfully persuade others that you're not performing mathematics in your generation of a qualitative sentence but you can't also simultaneously successfully get away with the fact that you're right now using symbolism to deny symbolism altogether, 'because that's just what I feel bro' even though your feeling in order for you to even perceive it let alone articulate it, is reliant on those same meta-structures we try to build through quantitative and qualitative languages that improve and evolve our ability to communicate both within and between one another as a step towards higher resolution. 

As for Terrence, he just didn't research multiplication enough its not that he was wrong, its that his interpretation of the purpose of the original definition was incorrect. Terrence is far from unintelligent, his epistemological arrogance just went too much to his head that he didn't research the actual meanings before assuming that 'We've got math wrong!' as he flushed all of academia down in one fowl swoop of centuries of 'expertise' down the drain.

I haven't had the chance to listen to the whole podcast, maybe I will down the line. Still, there's little value in trying to bigfoot oneself in these situations which is just meeting the 'grandiosity equivalence error' that brought this as the major conversational point of the podcast altogether, and therefore an insensitive bias then for why the rest of what Terrrence says can also be easily dismissed. We're all here to learn, progress and evolve. Continuing to belittle Terrence beyond what is necessary, is just a timestamp on the de-evolution of topics like these rather than having the maturity to open them up to greater levels. 

My own progress in these subjects have come by understanding that there's a meta-language to meta-rationality that goes beyond and underpins meta-awareness in itself, its led to me when I have the time to much more deeply introspect on the nature of both mathematics and any spoken language like english. Any mere sentence now becomes its own fascinating self-referential talking point on how sentience understands and creates sentience, and sometimes in our case here... Denying its own existence through dissociative discarding of higher languages like mathematics and their native or second hand tongue. 
 

Reflect more deeply. Encourage forum mutual learning. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now