Reference: The Book of Subject Clearing
Executive Summary 2025
Tautology is a needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness. The opposite of tautology is getting a better understanding of an idea by looking at it more closely, and expressing it using simple but richer language. This requires seeing things as they are, as in mindfulness.
Metaphors may satisfy subjective feelings, but to carry critical thinking forward one needs terminology accompanied by simple but precise definitions. What guides one toward increasing refinement is the awareness of CONSISTENCY among all phenomena. This is the essence of the Scientific Method.
Ultimate refinement comes down to the postulates one is reasoning from. The challenge then becomes communicating one’s postulates in the simplest language possible.
.
Tautology
According to the dictionary, tautology is a needless repetition of an idea, especially in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”
In logic, tautology means a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “This candidate will win or will not win.”
In the origin of this word, “tauto-” = same; “-logy” = body of knowledge. Therefore, “tautology” = repetition of something already said.
I have been looking at tautology from the viewpoint of logic. In that sense, it is something all inclusive and comprehensive. Once you have said it then no more needs to be said.
For example, when you say UNIVERSE, then nothing else apart from the universe need be said. Anything that you would say would be inclusive of the universe, especially when you are looking at the universe in the sense of oneness.
If anything proceeds from the universe, then it would not be sequential to the universe. In other words, it would not be linear. It would just contribute to the expansion of the universe itself. In other words, it would only provide a clearer rendition.
Chris Thompson‘s use of the word “tautology” has always mystified me. Now it is becoming clearer. Chris wrote,
“My first definition for tautology is that there are understandings for which there is not yet precise language. Therefore we resort to repetitive simile-metaphors which hopefully “nudge” in a helpful direction but which do not yet describe and move one toward conceptual understandings because unlike existing conceptual understandings, these newer ideas are not yet conceptually understood.”
Chris is right.
Using new terminology that just regurgitates the old ideas does not get us to better understanding. We do not need new words. We must use simple language, making it richer, to explain the new concepts, or to explain the old concepts better.
For example, symbolizing the Unknowable as God, and giving the symbol God the attribute of “Creator” does not make the concept of the Unknowable understood any better. Only contrasting Unknowable from knowable in simple language can make it understood better. Please see The Unknowable.
Symbolizing the Unknowable as God is tautology. It simply means “God is unknowable.” Then calling God the “Creator” is altering the original meaning. Please see The God.
When we have the precise language, the oneness (continuity, consistency and harmony) of all concepts would be very clearly understood. We do it little by little by tweaking up the definitions of various concepts, and then relating those concepts to each other. The idea of resolving anomalies is very helpful here.
Maybe there is a pyramidal structure to these concepts, or it may require generating a network of definitions, or maybe we need both of these approaches.
Anyway, the clarity and oneness of concepts is a project very close to the heart of Subject Clearing.
.
Comments
Thank you Vinay. It is gratifying that you have taken me seriously these past years and continued to try to understand me regardless of my often obtuse style of writing. :)
Chris Thompson, I have now given an example of tautology in the above article as follows:
“For example, symbolizing the Unknowable as God, and giving the symbol God the attribute of “Creator” does not make the concept of the Unknowable understood any better. Only contrasting Unknowable from knowable in simple language can make it understood better. Please see The Unknowable.
“Symbolizing the Unknowable as God is tautology. It simply means “God is unknowable.” Then calling God the “Creator” is altering the original meaning. Please see The God.”
Thank you Vinay. It is gratifying that you have taken me seriously these, now many years and continued to try to understand me regardless of my often obtuse style of writing. 🙂
Your friend forever,
Chris Thompson
irchristo.wordpress.com
The problem of tautology can only be handled by the process of subject clearing that demands precise definitions in simple language.
Something to keep in mind is the insidious tautology which masquerades as understanding, when there is not really anything there to “subject clear” toward.
This tautology insinuates that there is a deficiency in the student, when there is actually in fact a gap in the understanding.
Can you provide an instance of this. I am sure you are going through one right now.
Yes, for instance, spinors do not spin, they rotate.
. . . and spinors are mathematical objects, but spinor fields are real.
My youngest son, who has just graduated from college has needed to inure himself from these discomforts for 4 years of college and 12 years of pre-college. They have all but beaten the curiosity out of him. In his present state, he would be a perfect candidate for subject clearing by you, not me. You would have a reality with him about his education plus an expertise in your subject clearing subject which I won’t have.
One can learn to subject clear oneself easily. For example, let’s take the subject of SPINORS.
You claimed that spinor fields are real. I have no idea about spinor fields so I checked with AI (Perplexity). AI says:
Right away, there is the anomaly of inconsistency (contradictory data) between what you are saying and what AI has determined. I don’t know who is correct. So, I check the definition of REALITY.
From my earlier investigations I came up with the following definition of reality:
So, it comes down to what the postulates underlying “spinor fields” are; and are they consistent with rest of the postulates in the subject of Quantum Physics?
This requires intimate familiarity with the subject of Quantum Physics. So my question to you is,
“What is the basis to your claim that spinor fields are real?”
This gets complicated because I know you do not have that intimate familiarity with Quantum Physics and the mathematics used in it.
.
I just realized that AI’s definition of real is the way it is used to describe “real numbers”. Your definition of “real” appears to be something different.
So, it comes down to the following question:
“What is Chris Thompson’s definition of ‘real’?”
The above is the approach used in subject clearing. It always comes down to clarification in terms of basic definitions.