What is " false " ?

[Ian Goddard]

At 05:35 PM 7/18/96 GMT, egodust wrote:

 >> IAN: Hmmm. How do we define "false" ? That which does not conform
 >> to physical fact, or observed reality (?).
 >>
 >> Exactly what is the crystalized Advaita measure of the "false" ?
 >>
 >
 > Anything 'asserted' as being true, without considering its integral
 > 'denial' counterpart is mayavic.

IAN: That is it. Yes! You've hit the nail on the head. Sweet.

What this means is that nothing is false -- for everything contains by
its relational identity its complement -- except those * thoughts *
which *assume* a separation of A and not-A. And yet an analysis of
those thoughts reveal that even they contain their complement
by the relation from which they are derived. Thus there is
no deviation from the true unified identity. As there is
thus 100% "true identity," there is 0% "true identity"
which means the true identity, the Self, is without
location or specific identity, and cannot be grasped.


 > Sankara's advaitic formula [which, in boolean code, is: A = (A + ~A)]
 > resolves it definitively.

IAN: Western Aristotelian "A is A not both A and not-A" logic is
on its last legs. Fuzzy multivalent logic and now the absolute
unification of A and not-A via relational identity should
pave the way for Eastern wisdom to reign supreme in the
societal mind of philosophical inquiry.



Law of Identity: A is A, relative to not-A. A = (A + ~A)

Law of Nonidentity: If there is 100% A, there is 0% A. A = ~A

absolute reality: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/reality.html