The United Way

@MJA,

The Tao states that nothing is equal.. Everything just is.

As soon as you define what it is to be beautiful, you also define what it is to be ugly. The Universal Way has no words or forms. It is the true nature without word or thought.

What we are discussing here is dipping into the realm of existentialism.
My word is one and one is truly me
I = one...

I = phone booth

That doesn't make it true. Truth does not come from communication and truth is not something we can find through words. Truth is something beyond language or description and

@MJA,

The Tao states that nothing is equal.. Everything just is.

As soon as you define what it is to be beautiful, you also define what it is to be ugly. The Universal Way has no words or forms. It is the true nature without word or thought.

What we are discussing here is dipping into the realm of existentialism.
My word is one and one is truly me
I = one...

I = phone booth

That doesn't make it true. Truth does not come from communication and truth is not something we can find through words. Truth is something beyond language or description and is

@Icon,

One can only try to share One's truth One sees.
Tao, unity equality, or One is me.

=
MIA

@MJA,

Quote:

Wow, you seem so negative to the thought of equality.
You wouldn't be the first.
Look what they did to King!

Nope, not being negative to the thought of equality, just wanting you to clarify as usual.

Quote:

And if I take away the equal sign from nature that would leave us without the measuring equations of physics or life without measure and then where would One be?

You answered your own question: One would just be. (Without our consciousness rationalizing). And your point was?

Quote:

Well if you don't mind my help: Emperically equal of course.

How can something be empirical if we aren't experiencing...?

Quote:

One can only try to share One's truth One sees.

Share yours? Please?

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

One can only try to share One's truth One sees.
Tao, unity equality, or One is me.

=
MIA

No sir... Tao = universal oneness. Not one is me. One is everything.

The principle teaching of the Tao is to escape "Me" and become "All".

@Icon,

"Come Together: I is me and me is you and we are all together" Thanks John, I miss you and see Oneness too.

=
MJA

@Icon,

A droplet in the sea and a sea in the droplet..

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Nope, not being negative to the thought of equality, just wanting you to clarify as usual.

You answered your own question: One would just be. (Without our consciousness rationalizing). And your point was?

How can something be empirical if we aren't experiencing...?

Share yours? Please?

One = One
And equal is the point of truth.

One can never base truth on measure, for measure has no certainty at all.
I'm not the only One with this idea, it was Heisenberg I think too.
QM is the uncertainty of science, and were science only probably or problematically is today.
But there in lies the dice problem of The Professors'.
But this uncertainty principle was only the tip of the berg you see, the tip of the flaw was measure itself.
Truth is: nature is truly immeasureable.
Once any uncertainty is removed from an equation = is all that remains.
Try it and you'll see.
E = mc2
If one measures energy and mass, or even the speed of light, as proven by physics there is no certainty in them at all.
To simplify an equation then, any equation is to remove the uncertainty and only the clear solution will remains.
And 2 + 2 = 4 2 what? 2 trees? Are you certain there are only 2 trees?
Perhaps you should count the trees again, and again and again...
= is the single unifying infinite point of truth, the unifying truth Einstein could not find. Imagine that.
In real life, nonmathematical life, in empirical life, it is that truth, the truth of equality that will set us free.
In democracy, justice, in Happiness and in health, in mathematics, and in religion or God, truth, equality is the light that lights the united Way.
Follow the light!

Does that help?

@MJA,

For things to be that simple, we would have to not exist. As long as something exists, at least another thing exists wich is not the same, for one thing that exists alone has no meaning to anything else.

@MJA,

MJA;50062 wrote:

My word is One and One is truly me.
And I am true because I am One.
I = One
Truth

=
MJA

That's playing games.

My word is Three, and Three is truly me, myself, and I.
And we are true because we are Three.
Me, myself, and I = Three
Truth

=
MMMJJJAAA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

But this uncertainty principle was only the tip of the berg you see, the tip of the flaw was measure itself.

How is measure a flaw? Are you telling me you don't utilize means of measurement within your daily life? While these objective methods of reasoning (mathematics) may not display the *truth* you desire, I don't feel they are a 'flaw'. On the contrary, they're extremely beneficial. Would you like me to cite some examples?

Quote:

Truth is: nature is truly immeasurable.

If this is what you believe then why do you keep throwing around "=" signs? You're aware that symbol invokes measurement, right?

Quote:

Once any uncertainty is removed from an equation = is all that remains.
Try it and you'll see.

How in the world would I try this? A better question: How do you try this?

Remember, "=" alone has no meaning. It has to carry something before and after the symbol to denote meaning. If you're saying Everything=Everything, that is one of the broadest tautologies I've seen, and I'm very curious how you apply this to a worldview.

Quote:

In real life, nonmathematical life, in empirical life, it is that truth, the truth of equality that will set us free.
In democracy, justice, in Happiness and in health, in mathematics, and in religion or God, truth, equality is the light that lights the united Way.
Follow the light!

Again, please tell me how you apply this sense of equality in your every day life. Equality is not always the key from what I can see. In fact, some things cannot function with equality. Equality, in my opinion, is overrated -- a mystical stigma is attached to this notion. Equality does not always mean *better*, or *good*. It can in the context of equal "rights" to humans, but this doesn't nearly encompass all that is.

Aedes wrote:

That's playing games.

My word is Three, and Three is truly me, myself, and I.
And we are true because we are Three.
Me, myself, and I = Three
Truth

=
MMMJJJAAA

I literally spit out my soda when I read this.

I'm dying.

@manored,

manored wrote:

For things to be that simple, we would have to not exist. As long as something exists, at least another thing exists wich is not the same, for one thing that exists alone has no meaning to anything else.

True Meaning

Simplicity is were the truth is.
And the existing infinite universe is the Oneness of that truth.
Unless of course you can show me another.
Then it would be twoniverse right?
Is there another universe and doesn't uni truly mean One?
Tell us about another if you can.

=
MJA

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I literally spit out my soda when I read this.

I'm dying.

Don't die yet you got Way, The Way to far to go.:bigsmile:
How does One live equitably in a world so divided, as equally as One can.
One can only try, and equality is the truly right thing to try.

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

True Meaning

Simplicity is were the truth is.
And the existing infinite universe is the Oneness of that truth.
Unless of course you can show me another.
Then it would be twoniverse right?
Is there another universe and doesn't uni truly mean One?
Tell us about another if you can.

=
MJA

Take a gander:

Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How do you account for your *truth* in other universes that may not carry the same laws of physics (or/and otherwise) as we have here?

Disclaimer: Not saying this theory is conclusive. Of course it's not, I'm just curious as to your response.

Quote:

Don't die yet you got Way, The Way to far to go.:bigsmile:

=
MJA

I really wish I could see inside that head of yours, MJA.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Take a gander:

Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How do you account for your *truth* in other universes that may not carry the same laws of physics (or/and otherwise) as we have here?

Disclaimer: Not saying this theory is conclusive. Of course it's not, I'm just curious as to your response.

I really wish I could see inside that head of yours, MJA.

So we might be living in a twonivere, are we?
I think you need to lie down on the couch for a while.
Tell me alittle about your childhood.:perplexed:
So Just when I figured out not the laws of One but the true freedom of One Universe, Your telling me there theoretically might br two.
I think we should simplify and get rid of that uncertainty straight away, don't you.
Don't call me Doctor OK, I'm Just trying to help.
Lets figure out the universe first before we venture into twoniverse land shall we.
That twoniverse is way two far down the rabbit hole for Alice is me.

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

So we might be living in a twonivere, are we?
I think you need to lie down on the couch for a while.
Tell me alittle about your childhood.:perplexed:
So Just when I figured out not the laws of One but the true freedom of One Universe, Your telling me there theoretically might br two.
I think we should simplify and get rid of that uncertainty straight away, don't you.
Don't call me Doctor OK, I'm Just trying to help.
Lets figure out the universe first before we venture into twoniverse land shall we.
That twoniverse is way two far down the rabbit hole for Alice is me.

=
MJA

Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't think your *truth* is any better than anyone else's. I believe in reevaluation, and constant consideration. Perhaps instead of being so adamant in believing you've "figured it all out", you should consider you might be wrong? Or not. Maybe you do have all the answers -- everything really is that simple.

If nature is immeasurable, why are you trying to "figure" out the universe? And of course things can't really be simple or complex in this case, right? The emotions and logic you're applying to this understanding are inherently flawed by your human foibles, so I don't think we've "Found it!". We're all in the same boat here, each looking out our own window. Are you not meaning to contradict yourself... am I just misinterpreting you entirely?

You keep citing E=mc^2, yet it's only outlined that simply for illustration purposes. It can be highly complex if you can rationalize it all...(This is in a Taylor series)

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj73/Zetherin1/emc.png

Not to mention, the symbols like m, could be expressed in highly complex manners, such as:

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I really wish I could see inside that head of yours, MJA.

Take a gander:

YouTube - SQUIRREL RUNNING IN HIS CAGE

=
MJA

PS: And Thanks for trying Z, I think it good and right that we all do simply that.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't think your *truth* is any better than anyone else's. I believe in reevaluation, and constant consideration. Perhaps instead of being so adamant in believing you've "figured it all out", you should consider you might be wrong? Or not. Maybe you do have all the answers -- everything really is that simple.

If nature is immeasurable, why are you trying to "figure" out the universe? The emotions and logic you're applying to this understanding are inherently flawed by your human foibles, so I don't think we've "Found it!". We're all in the same boat here, each looking out our own window. Are you not meaning to contradict yourself... am I just misinterpreting you entirely?

You keep citing E=mc^2, yet it's only outlined that simply for illustration purposes. It can be highly complex if you can rationalize it all...

Complexity killed the cat, Schrodinger's Cat and Einstein unfortunaetly too. But oh did they ever try.
They didn't go the wrong Way you see, it was only a part of the path along the Way.
The evolution to Truth is straight ahead.
=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Complexity killed the cat, Schrodinger's Cat and Einstein unfortunaetly too. But oh did they ever try.
They didn't go the wrong Way, it was only a part of the path along the Way.
The evolution to Truth.
=
MJA

But Einstein would never have come upon E=mc^2 without taking that more complex route. Even without overcomplicating things, there's still complication. At least from the high-level mathematical functions you seem to enjoy. Imagine if he just stopped at "=" and called it a day. LOL!

And it didn't necessarily kill Schrodinger's Cat. Well, it did and didn't, from what I understand.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

But Einstein would never have come upon E=mc^2 without taking that more complex route. Even without overcomplicating things, there's still complication. At least from the high-level mathematical functions you seem to enjoy. Imagine if he just stopped at "=" and called it a day. LOL!

And it didn't necessarily kill Schrodinger's Cat. Well, it did and didn't, from what I understand.

Well done Z,

Einstein reduced the universe to the simplicity of e = mc2 in his search to unify not only energy, but all things. While the solution to unity, the universe lay in plain view of him as well as us all, he as well as we went the other way. He died complicating his own, our own, universally beautiful simplictic truth. = my friend is nature's simple truth.
The Way is The United Way, equal unites All!

=
MJA

Philosophy Forum

The United Way

Quick Links

My Account

able2know