Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > I found the following on the web, where Gödel's incompleteness theorem > is described: > > http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html > > " You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers > within a system by going _outside_ the system in order to come up with > new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger > system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that > _all_ logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; > each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it > can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules. " -- > From " An Incomplete Education " by Jones and Wilson > > Maybe this theorem directly can be applied to the meaning of the word > 'is'. We can never say what anything is with total accuracy using > logic, including the word 'is' itself. > > /AL The word " is " must be linked with something else. So, right away, you have a duality. Which requires a something else, upon which " is " is confered as a state. Also, " is " often is a connector between a subject and a quality. So, one has a something which experiences changing qualities associated with it, but which remains the same -- or which is, in some cases, defined by a quality which is so strongly associated with it as to define it. And, it's worth noting that the word " is " has meaning by virtue of contrast with " is not. " It's worth looking into these aspects of words, because it helps reveal the assumptions involved, not just with linguistics, but with neural structuring, which is how words can be used meaningfully - because they fit with our structured processing of information. Yes -- it's well worth cutting beneath the assumptions involved in " is " - which is so basic to our language usage and our view of self, other, world, things, and qualities. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > I found the following on the web, where Gödel's incompleteness > theorem > > is described: > > > > http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html > > > > " You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about > numbers > > within a system by going _outside_ the system in order to come up > with > > new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger > > system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that > > _all_ logical system of any complexity are, by definition, > incomplete; > > each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements > than it > > can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules. " -- > > From " An Incomplete Education " by Jones and Wilson > > > > Maybe this theorem directly can be applied to the meaning of the > word > > 'is'. We can never say what anything is with total accuracy using > > logic, including the word 'is' itself. > > > > /AL > > The word " is " must be linked with something else. > > So, right away, you have a duality. > > Which requires a something else, upon which " is " > is confered as a state. > > Also, " is " often is a connector between > a subject and a quality. So, one has > a something which experiences changing > qualities associated with it, but which > remains the same -- or which is, in some cases, > defined by a quality which is so strongly associated > with it as to define it. > > And, it's worth noting that the word " is " has meaning > by virtue of contrast with " is not. " > > It's worth looking into these aspects of words, because > it helps reveal the assumptions involved, not just > with linguistics, but with neural structuring, which > is how words can be used meaningfully - because they > fit with our structured processing of information. > > Yes -- it's well worth cutting beneath the assumptions > involved in " is " - which is so basic to our language > usage and our view of self, other, world, things, and > qualities. > > -- Dan In nondual logic the word " is " and the concept " is not " are both parts of existence. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.