> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk
>>> > But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the
>>> > subjective truth of a universal number thinking about "1+1=2". So, if
>>> > you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense.
>>> I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical
>>> don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer.
>>> still true, just not independently of us. The reason is that 1+1=2 makes
>>> sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a subject
>>> that intuits what truth is.
>>> This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for somebody
>>> but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego)
>>> My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness / "I
>>> am-ness" and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well,
>>> of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of 1+1
>>> itself as 2.
>>> This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as it
>>> The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just
>>> of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it is,
>>> never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations, seeing
>>> itself through explanations.
>> Would you say that e^*(2 * Pi * i) is exactly equal to 1, rather than
>> approximately equal to 1?
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> If you believe that it is, you are believing in the independent existence
>> infinitely long numbers e and Pi, numbers which have never been fully
>> grasped by any human, and potentially never grasped by any conscious
>> anywhere (due to their infinite nature).
> I don't believe they exist independently. We don't need to grasp numbers
> to be the fundament to their existence. We can't grasp ourselves. Yet here
> we are. So the same goes for numbers.
> Even 1+1=2 is not graspable, because we can't grasp what 1 is. There are
> infinitely many possibilities what 1 may be, dependent on various
> I don't think anything can fully grasped. The most simple things cannot be
> grasped because they have infinite contexts (and they cannot be taken out
> of context, eg a square just exists because there is space that it exists
> in). The more complex cannot be grasped because of the same reason and
> because they are... well, to complex to grasp.
> We can describe / put labels on reality and make good theories, but we
> can't grasp any part of it in an ultimate way. It all grows and melts as
> soon as we become aware of it.
> So, with your argument, everything has independent existence (as a whole).
> Which actually makes sense, so I am okay with that.
> I am just opposed to the notion that parts of truth are totally seperate /
> independent from *each other*. If they were, there would be no truth that
> connects them, but there is, if it is only the truth that they both exist.
To put it in another way: Consciousness (=God) is everything (and nothing),
but it doesn't know and can't know everything, because what it is cannot be
completely known, as it is absolutely infinite. God *is* everything, yet
infinitely ignorant about everything.
Which doesn't mean that nothing is known, just that all knowledge is always
incomplete. It doesn't matter what the knowledge is about, since all
knowledge is contextual, and the context ultimately is everything.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at