You can never represent a thing having no equivalence in you. Is this a correct statement?

Question

A THING CAN NEVER REPRESENT ANOTHER THING IF THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE IN THEM.

You can never represent a thing having no equivalence in you.

Answer 1

Dear Samlyn,

I decided to answer this question because you look beautiful in Saree. That is God's Beauty.

There is one more question like yours just below your question.

My answer to your question is.

There is no error in both the statements. I have read Swami Vivekananda's "Gyan Yoga". There was a similar Idea in that book.

What I understood from that book is as follows.

Your first statement is a fundamental truth. It applies to evalution of Human Wisdom. We can not know any idea unless it is already within us. When We come across a new thing or idea or information we categorise it according to our previous experince or knowledge. Unless we do not categorise it we can not say that we knew it. Thus everthing which we consider new is to be understood ( you used word "represented" here) in context of a similar old idea (in our mind). Otherwise that new thing or idea can not be said to be known to us. this applies to all human knowledge. This also implies that everything to be known or represented is already know to us.

I still doubt that I have made my point clear. There are several other statements like this.

1. For any thing to be there at present it must have existed before ( always). in some or other form.

2. Two thing can not be limitless together. ( for example between space and time one thing must be limited to make another thing endless)

If you try to read your both the statements in light of my above mentioned paragraphs. I hope my idea has been represented by an idea in your mind.

Yes Samlyn your second statement infact makes me confident of my views. One thing can be known ( represented) only if there is an equivalent idea in your mind.

I shall be glad if your ideas can be represented by My ideas and My ideas can be represented by you ideas.

Off the context never mentioned anything. Everything in this world is interlinked or interchained.


So again It is nice to read such a question from a beautiful godess

Answer 2

An individual person will never be equivalent to anyone or anything else. However, a person can represent many things. Anything that person does or is involved in is something they represent.

Answer 3

Yes it is a very correct statement.But it is a very heavy thing the equivalence.Why? Because i can not answer to the question:"why we need military ?"-there is the top of equivalence,so how to i dare to be equivalanced?So if i represent something,i lay down .

Answer 4

I tend to disagree, I believe non-equivalent items/beings/etc. are indeed able to represent other items/beings/etc. which bear no similarity nor importance to them/it. In some forms of art for example, a peson may use themselves to represent inanimate objects, such as a rock. The human and the rock are not equivalent, but one is representing the other.

Answer 5

Refridgerator is to Toe Jam as Toe Jam is to ?? If A differs from B in that B is is selfless at the same time as A is selfish, both A and B encompass relative quantities of selfishness and selflessness: A has X volume of Selfishness and 0 selflessness, at the same time as B is visa versa. notwithstanding, you are able to't say A differs from B in that A has a refridgerator at the same time as B has a toe jam subject. both are inequivilent for comparison. exciting paradox.

Answer 6

Yes, the statement is correct. Even the 'set theory' of mathematics would support this.

Answer 7

unless you are contrasting them. "Like the feeling of not being hit with a brick." When things are going great.

Answer 8

Nothing's absolute in this Universe!!!

Ciao.....John-John.

Answer 9

yes, that is how i think humans come together to love each other.