At which point logic takes over and states:
“That’s actually not a contradiction because of xyz deterministic system which is abstracted above and beyond YOUR perception, which you believe to be true now that you know it; we are both redeemed.”
-Justhink
Basically, we have one side taking the position:
Redemtion is an illusion (the OP (which contradicts itself to the degree that it revokes its own value of redemtion))
The other side:
Contradiction is an illusion (the counter OP (which contradicts itself by humoring the existence of contradiction to catagorically dismiss the OP))
Then the OP falls back another abstraction layer:
Contradiction and redemtion are both illusions, as the ability to be wrong clearly exists, which suggests that non-contradiction is not absolute, but rather virtualized as an absolute.
At which point the counter OP:
Contradiction and redemtion definately are not illusions, as you couldn’t be expressing this point were your position correct; as existence itself couldn’t ‘move’, but rather be in complete stasis of non-existence. You are declaring that something comes from nothing; an untenable position for any declaration or motion not even taking into account its redemtive value or lack thereof.
-Justhink
At which point the OP pins the counter OP:
Yes, but you are declaring the existence of contradiction; which suggests that humoring non-contradiction as an absolute is mere wishful thinking - and by necessity a delusion utilizing your very own rule.
At which point the counter OP needs to propose a new system.
-Justhink
Well… actually the counter OP could reply:
You are stating the necessity of ‘wishful thinking’ in relation to perception of truth, by undermining the standardization from which this can be determined; effectively rendering the purpose of you even writing the OP as purposeless, as it can equally be inverted as wishful thinking itself when the standardization is removed.
-Justhink
At which point the OP can reply:
You are stating that something purposeless can intentionally be done, you too are equally creating/positing something from nothing, violating the purpose of your very own reply as well.
-Justhink
Wow, Justhink arguing with himself.
Symbolically representing a contradiction isn’t the same as saying that it exists, though. Writing on a piece of paper is just one of the many configurations possible of a deeper system (presumably physics) in which no contradictions (should?) exist.
The OP can finish with:
In order to continue the use of logic, and redeem yourself and your actions as non-contradictory; you are cornered into accepting that no standardization exists; eventhough it appears to exist. Contradiction is required in order for you to make a point, and that is more true as an absurdity; then anything unabsurd which you can propose.
-Justhink
You’re saying that symbolic representation isn’t an existant?
What allows the formulation to occur in the first place?
Does it just come from nothing then? Does contradiction (even virtualized) come from nothing? Is it only an illusion? Where did the patterning to be decieved or mistaken come from? No precidence?
-Justhink
It is, but in a different way.
Is a glass real? The substance making up the glass seems real, but the glass itself is just a configuration of that stuff. More specifically, it’s a category in my mind, and when the stuff’s configuration changes so that it no longer fits into the category, the glass is gone.
The symbol is, but what is represents may or may not be.
A deeper and more valid level of illusion.
Unknown. No thing comes from “nothing” (except by defining it, which defines/creates “something”).
For lack of a better word to describe the ultimate superposition of all things, I call it the “tao”. Any arbitrary verbal label will do.
Is it really gone though? Why did it ever appear in the first place?
If it’s not really gone, then how did it move?
And what allows for that to occur in the first place, with a posited non-contradictory framework?
Then logic = suicide, for anyone with the desire to declare an ego.
How is it possible to perceive nothing, in which to define unless non-contradiction is not absolute?
Tao posits change as value rather than truth as value; quantum logic to be precise. If change itself is value, then why don’t people throw frizbee at the bottom of a lake every once in a while? That certainly is change, no reason not to. Not only that; but change cannot be evidenced to have actually changed if it does not at some point become stasis; at which point stasis never reverts back and collapses all points at all ends indefinately. We have evidence that change does not actually change; to that degree change itself is being virtualized; and the perception of its truth can be seen as meaningless in regards to its stasis of redundancy. It has no discernment or explanitory power or predictive power.
-Justhink
I think I understand your assertion here, which I might restate as: “It’s all well and good to be able to determine the volume of the pan with an integral. . . but apart from the pan and its volume, what does the integral itself mean – if anything?”
Alright. We can certainly agree that meaning does come from the real world – but that’s not the whole of my argument. I’m saying that some meaning comes from the real world (that is, in terms which I can grasp readily) but not necessarily all meaning.
However, maybe my point of view isn’t working too well as a counter-argument because I’m not grasping your original argument very well – which is my failing, not yours.
On the other hand, maybe my argument isn’t meant to run directly counter to yours. I think I do see your dilemma, but perhaps am not as discomfited by it as you? I’m not sure.
Jerevan; another way to pull this into common sense…
1+2=3
+=
OR???
+**=+**
How about:
+=+
Does that mean?
+***
+*
*+
***+
all equal each-other; is the + always implied, or is it more like something coming from nothing?
+*
*+
or something becoming nothing?
+*
*+
If the plus is always implied, then you have a function as a repeating decimal, where the lines themselves are shifted in regards to which part of the repetition is accessed; also you must declare how many values the repetition ‘philosophically’ is supposed to have. Is the sequence +*** or +***+, without a decimal on the other side, how do you express ***+?
++|++|+***+
.+**|+|*+
-Justhink
Sorry, for the very second to last sequence:
+|+.+|+***
…^
Look at where the decimal is, is the plus on either side or not?
Also;
What if it’s not this:
.+**|+|*+|+**|+|*+
But this:
(|+++|)<-----.+++|+++|
-Justhink
well this has certainly degraded, hasn’t it?
anyway…
my point is the fact that you are arguing leads me to believe that you believe in some concept of truth. without this concept of truth, which it is the goal of logic to expose, you cannot make these claims and claim that they are “true”.
consider the meaning of the word “true” without these rules of logic. also, i would suggest that logic is more than a symbology, but the rules themselves.
now, what is “meaning” without the concept of “truth”? and if it is the language that is truly important, please explain to me, in simpler, non-logical terms, what truth is.
-d-squared
So he should use reason to try to disprove reason?
Are you challenging the capacity to redeem consistency in my favor from your perspective. If you accept an untenable gap; then I believe you are siding with the OP with this statement.
-Justhink
If this is a moral question, I would catagorize you as siding with the OP. If this is an ethical question; I’d suggest that he certainly has a right to do this, to the degree that a more efficient system of understanding may come to bear.
I think a more fundamental ethical question might be whether he should share his opinions on this subject; as ‘logic’ states that it would be unecessarily repetitious or delusional of the logic he seemingly exhibits within the framework of the OP.
-Justhink
Good lord, this has gotten crazy. With respect to existence, the Aristotlean model is hardly the only one, and in fact, who the hell uses it any more? Other than here, I mean.
**
We like to think that the glass is a ‘thing’: a discrete and distinctly real object. It isn’t: it’s just a configuration.
The tao is everything that is and everything that isn’t. It allows itself. (Any “ultimate” level of reality will end up having such self-referential properties.)
The ego is an illusion. The absense of the ego is an illusion. The illusionary nature of the ego and its absense is also an illusion. 
The tao contains all things, real and unreal, possible and impossible. (It also contains nothing – the problem is that absolute opposite are always identical. Thus the superposition of all possibilities is completely equivalent to the lack of all possibility.)
We don’t perceive two principles being together because they are contradictory. That’s what contradictory means. Contradiction is actually determined by our nature. Our nature, however, is non-arbitrary.
What explanatory or predictive power can the entire universe have?
To explain or predict, a system must be considered to symbolically reflect or point to something else. Since the universe (cosmos, tao, whatever) is everything, the only thing it can point to is itself.
Change is an illusion. Stasis is an illusion. Neither concept applies to the tao.
(The problem with talking about the tao is that any statement is part of the tao, and no statement is the entirety of the tao. Therefore, everything said about it is both accurate and inaccurate, and neither accurate nor inaccurate. It’s what lies beneath and gives form to logic.)
I’m no ambassador to anything, but this says it all, folks, it aids me quite well.
Response: of course it doesn’t! Which is why (P & (P->Q))->Q is also meaningless. TVAA goes on to say,
I think the hidden assumption here is that if it is a symbol that can be manipulated (used) then it must represent (note I don’t say represent something; we don’t care whether anything exists or not). But this is the very thing I am arguing: a symbol that is able to be manipulated does not necessarily represent. And then to say: logic doesn’t represent; it is meaningless; these symbols (the symbols of logic) do not represent.
Jerevan notes,
[cutting and pasting + laziness = removed emphasis]That’s fine. I would agree to this, as well, as words like “pain” have no reference (RE: previous discussions we’ve had).
Wittgenstein’s tactic (in the dogmatic Tractutus) was this: the world is the totality of facts, and facts are determined by logic. This means that logic is the limit of knowledge, and in a breathtakingly literal way. One couldn’t even say it was the edge, for that implied something was beyond logic, and if logic determines facts, this, too, would be a fact, and so logic would be able to say what was beyond it. Which is nonsense. So logic can then have no sense, it can’t represent anything, because if it did then what it represents is nonsense. The only way to escape the paradox is to remove meaning from logic. (I do not do his argument justice here; everyone interested in logic really should read this book.)
My tactic does not depend on declaring logic as “that which declares facts”, because it doesn’t. We use it for that, but the act of declaring facts is ours, not logic’s. Black holes, some say, pinch off matter from spacetime. Logic is pinched off from sensible speech. I should be able to use logic even in a world where I both have and don’t have eggs for breakfast simultaneously, contrary to Math Geek’s comment. Take the topology of Klein Bottles, or Mobius Strips, for example. Even in first-year calculus one can demonstrate a mathematical beast that has a finite volume but infinite surface area (or maybe it was the other way around, I can’t remember any longer).
Chess would not become more meaningful if we used it to plan real-world battles. The meaning is in those boys dying out there, in those other boys killing out there.
If I am asleep and it is raining, and in my dream I dream of rain, and even if we show a causal connection between the two (say, by monitoring brain activity in some great scientific way), were I to say in my dream, “It is raining,” those words aren’t meaningful. [This isn’t meant to claim that logic is a dream or even a pure fancy, by the way.]