Is Logic True?

[Truth Addict]

Is a map the territory?

[tsuki]

8 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Is a map the territory?

Logic is a map that maps maps.

38 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

I'd call it more like using concepts so that you can imagine an experience. You are predicting. As in a claim of an experience that should occur. This hinges on consistency.

It is a curious property of experience that we can imagine outcomes, but to attach oneself to an outcome via a 'should' is a fatal mistake.
Time does not exist, consistency is illusory.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

Logic is a map that maps maps.

And a map is a territory within a territory

[Shadowraix]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

Logic is a map that maps maps.

It is a curious property of experience that we can imagine outcomes, but to attach oneself to an outcome via a 'should' is a fatal mistake.
Time does not exist, consistency is illusory.

Be careful when mixing around the absolute and relative perspectives. 

Everything is illusory. But in the relative perspective that doesn't really mean much. Seeing the strings doesn't mean they aren't still doing their thing. Real and illusion collapse. So illusion doesn't mean to discard it. 

Don't look too deep into the should. It's just language jargon. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Shadowraix

[Truth Addict]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And a map is a territory within a territory

Well, that's deep but I don't quite get it.

Could you please explain it?

[tsuki]

19 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Well, that's deep but I don't quite get it.

Could you please explain it?

I think your avatar explains it perfectly.

Edited April 27, 2019 by tsuki

[tsuki]

33 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

Everything is illusory. But in the relative perspective that doesn't really mean much. Seeing the strings doesn't mean they aren't still doing their thing. Real and illusion collapse. So illusion doesn't mean to discard it. 

It's impossible to discard something that does not exist.
Illusion is appearance without substance. 

32 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

Be careful when mixing around the absolute and relative perspectives. 

Absolute vs relative is a duality. There is no duality between duality and nonduality.

Edited April 27, 2019 by tsuki

[Truth Addict]

36 minutes ago, tsuki said:

I think your avatar explains it perfectly.

❤️

I still don't quite get it.

My avatar is saying that you can't point to the territory. It's impossible.

A symbol is anything except the thing that it points to.

A thing is just itself.

Infinity is just infinity.

A map is just a map.

Etc...

Edited April 27, 2019 by Truth Addict

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

A symbol is anything except the thing that it points to.

Actually, all symbols are just territory. There are maps proper. A map is what you get when you confuse part of the territory for another part of the territory.

To make this real clear: if you draw a map of Florida in the sand on a beach in Florida, your map is literally Florida. There isn't a map + Florida. There is only Florida, which includes within it a smaller version of itself drawn in the sand. So what it means for Florida to be Florida is that is has drawings of itself within itself.

Notice the fractal nature of how this works.

Now expand this out to reality itself. A thought/image/symbol of reality is itself a part of reality. Such that all you have in the end is reality. All you have is the territory. So in fact: the map is the territory!

Strange loops are not a bug here, they are a feature. They arise due to the self-reference problem: when you have only one thing in existence, how can it point to itself? There cannot be a duality between map/territory. Symbols cannot stand outside reality because they are within reality and because there is nothing outside reality. Inside and outside are of course one.

[tsuki]

17 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

❤️

Okay I'll try from a different angle.

Logic is an attempt to formalize rules of thought. To describe with language what are its rules.
Its purpose is to stop ancient philosophers from trying to kill each other in debates. Of course, nobody ever succeeded in stopping a philosopher from debating, so instead of discussing how to live one's life well, they started debating the rules of thought. Then, they built another formalism on top of that and BOOM, 2000 years later we have academic philosophy that nobody understands.

The prank is that the proper way to use language is to say 'pass me the salt, please' as long as the other person does not question the meaning of salt.
You can also say 'please use modus tollens to prove this theorem' but you need to both be in the same territory to use the same map.
You cannot have a language that describes what language is. That is because you can always use language to question the rules.

There is, however, a practical application of philosophy. You can understand the metaphysics under which you operate and it gives you the access to the top-most language you are operating under. It is the Matrishka to be open/broken. Once you do that, it cascades down to the most mundane of things and transforms reality you experience. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by tsuki

[Truth Addict]

@Leo Gura

Ahh, now I get it, thank you Leo ❤️

All we have is a territory without a map, we can't have a map without a territory.

Illusion is included inside of Truth, there's nothing but the truth, but still delusion can happen by mistaking some part of the truth for some other parts.

Delusion is just the misidentification of Truth.

[Truth Addict]

@tsuki

Thanks, although somehow you made things seem more complicated to me.

I'm not much of a reader, maybe that's why.

But really, I appreciate that you tried.

❤️

[Leo Gura]

@Truth Addict Yes, now you get it.

It's sort of like trying grab one part of a blanketing using another part of the same blanket because all you have to grasp with is blanket itself. The blanket is oneness. Oneness is trying to grasp itself but can't ever succeed in total. How can a blanket grasp itself totally? It can only grasp itself partially. To grasp itself totally is must simply be itself (without any grasping). And that is enlightenment.

The moment you realize that it's impossible to grasp yourself, you've grasped yourself

The Nongrasping Grasp. The Gateless Gate. The Groundless Ground. The Selfless Self.

The self-licking ice cream cone.

[tsuki]

14 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

But really, I appreciate that you tried.

And I appreciate that you asked.

I explained a map that maps maps, and Leo explained a territory that maps territory .
They are the same thing, really.

[hyruga]

Your logic is only based on your intellectual knowledge at this point and your logic may be wrong.

For example, you see a brown bear in the woods and your logic tells you that brown bear is cute and friendly so you go out there to play with it. Little did you know that the brown bear also can attack you with sharp claws and that's it for you.

Edited April 27, 2019 by hyruga

[mandyjw]

Everything is only what is is for you the perceiver, in this moment. It's never fixed. There are no rules, no absolute truths. The way you feel about someone or something all depends on what it does for you. Logic is an attempt to disassociate with feeling. It's the illusion that you have the power to tell it the way it is for everyone across the board.  That requires a fundamental misunderstanding of one's self. 

 

[Nahm]

If there is something I need to, or should  “get”, I miss the experience is itself the ‘point’, the “getting”.  The pointless point. ?

[mandyjw]

@Nahm

[Nahm]

@mandyjw My son just tore the tag off his shirt, and said it came off so easy, they did a bad sewing job on the tag. 

[mandyjw]

@Nahm I'm a few french fries short of a Happy Meal. I guess french fries aren't really good for you anyway.