|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 14, 2019 19:13:07 GMT
1) All phenomena which have similarities effectively observe the repetition of constant limits where a phenomena such as a square/triangle or orange/apple maintain similarities because of the limits they share (lines/angles for square/triangle or approximation of sphere, stem, seeds, color, etc. for orange and apple).
2) This similarity of limit effectively is a repetition of limit where the perceivably separate phenomena exist through a constant repeating set of limits.
3) This repetition of limit, through "similarity", observes the repetition of the same limit as a connector where the limit existing through phenomena A and phenomena B connects A and B. In these respects all percievably seperate phenomena exist through the repetition of limits as a mirror effect where one phenomena is directed through another and effectively observes a connection because of this circular directive nature as a constant median which encapsulates nothingness through pure being. Under these terms, Reflectivity as a mirror effect, is the foundation of all limit as both movement and no-movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 18, 2019 18:56:35 GMT
1. Yeah. There's no reasonable objection to it.
2. But why we need to repeat our imagining of some shape figure (a triangle or a square) to gain their similarity? If I have some hesitation about some figure I'll try to determinate it through some proof.
For example, I want to answer on the question: "Whether or not any line of the Egypt Triangle go through (or lay on, or touch?) the center of a circumcircle?". I've been trying to figure it out, but I haven't yet. Anyway, this situation concerns to limits too.
I emphasized this situation above, because if we're dealing with Phenomenology, as I guess, we need to choose in what area we'll be in. As in my opinion, perceiving the pure triangle or a square needs some techniques, and it is not the start point of our mind imagination.
But, speaking honestly, all these passages of yours are awesome. Your ideas are breakthrough the elder walls of philosophical views.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 20, 2019 21:41:21 GMT
1. Yeah. There's no reasonable objection to it. 2. But why we need to repeat our imagining of some shape figure (a triangle or a square) to gain their similarity? If I have some hesitation about some figure I'll try to determinate it through some proof. For example, I want to answer on the question: "Whether or not any line of the Egypt Triangle go through (or lay on, or touch?) the center of a circumcircle?". I've been trying to figure it out, but I haven't yet. Anyway, this situation concerns to limits too. I emphasized this situation above, because if we're dealing with Phenomenology, as I guess, we need to choose in what area we'll be in. As in my opinion, perceiving the pure triangle or a square needs some techniques, and it is not the start point of our mind imagination. But, speaking honestly, all these passages of yours are awesome. Your ideas are breakthrough the elder walls of philosophical views. The repetition of one phenomena into another observes the phenomena, as reflective my nature mirroring "void". 1. One phenomena, as existing, is directed towards none existence. 2. Because "nothing" does not exist, the phenomena is directed to itself through a multiplicity of the phenomena as an inherent variation. 3. This variation, through multiplicity, is being reflecting nothingness where this "variation" observes a common axiom (at its root "point space") being replicated in infinite variations. 4. These infinite variations are a replication of a constant underlying symmetry, into further symmetries. 5. This replication of symmetry (the point) is in itself symmetry (lines/curves(quantum angles hence lines), circles) that replicates through itself; hence the act of replication is an inherent self-maintenance relative to nothingness where all being exists through directed movement as itself through itself. 6. This reflective property of reality, observed primarily in it's apex as "man", observes a socratic notion of the soul: He begins by briefly proving the immortality of the soul. A soul is always in motion and as a self-mover has no beginning. A self-mover is itself the source of everything else that moves. So, by the same token, it cannot be destroyed. Bodily objects moved from the outside have no soul, while those that move from within have a soul. Moving from within, all souls are self-movers, and hence their immortality is necessary.[Note 20] where man exists as inherently a divine process of reasoning through the creator as a creator. 7. Thus we create the reality we are judged by, as an extension of the creator, as evidence by space and the golden rule exists as the foundation of all morality as an extension of "the One" through which "the One" exists. |
|
|
|
Post by serenelynonchalant on Feb 28, 2019 20:20:09 GMT
err...mirrored similiarity,yeah...not bad.doesnt the idea that a complimentary pair,and the vase shilouette mode,also function likewise,render this incomplete,thus not correct?transmission of information,utilizing mirrored likeness only,collapses before producing a true flag,or finds fixation within less then 3 operations proceeding,or reaches the binary state of NOop (no operation) and cessation immediately ensues?exclusive values,ie one,will always pass true flags when mirrored,whatsoever operation is proceeding,or whatsoever operandt is inclusive.no function,consisting of an argument conditioned within(mirrored)can be had,any where after the fact,even unto infinity,that cant be had in the first operation exclusively......any other measures used return false flags,and nullify the query.from 3 base,semicomplex modes of rendering,....i tell you,a world of variation can be had. please educate me.....thanking you, ray.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 2, 2019 18:48:57 GMT
err...mirrored similiarity,yeah...not bad.doesnt the idea that a complimentary pair,and the vase shilouette mode,also function likewise,render this incomplete,thus not correct?transmission of information,utilizing mirrored likeness only,collapses before producing a true flag,or finds fixation within less then 3 operations proceeding,or reaches the binary state of NOop (no operation) and cessation immediately ensues?exclusive values,ie one,will always pass true flags when mirrored,whatsoever operation is proceeding,or whatsoever operandt is inclusive.no function,consisting of an argument conditioned within(mirrored)can be had,any where after the fact,even unto infinity,that cant be had in the first operation exclusively......any other measures used return false flags,and nullify the query.from 3 base,semicomplex modes of rendering,....i tell you,a world of variation can be had. please educate me.....thanking you, ray. Observing the nature of a complementary pair, we will use man and woman for the example:
1. A base isomorphism is observed where key elements (the angulature of the shoulders of the man relative to the hips of a woman observe inverse properties in not just "position" (height) but also form (angle vs curve), the male genitals as a projective form and female as a receptive void, etc.)
2. While elements (head, arms, etc.) exist through a replication, this replication exists through a constant variation because of this isomorphism. So the replication of symmetry observes a constant nature but exists through the variation of "isomorphism" as an inversion.
3. The synthesis, joining, of these isomorphisms (ie through sex) results in the continual replication of these symmetries (children) as well as the replication of isomorphism (the child may be male or female, even in hermaphrodites there is always a state in which one set of genitals are active and the other is not) as subject to a "symmetry" in and of itself (replication of dualisms).
4. The isomorphism (male and female), while replicated through joining still observes a quality of repitition in and of itself. The male and female genitals, while inverse, observe a linear form where one is represented through an active state and another through a passive (receptive void) state.
5. Isomorphism is the grounding of observing 1 form through many forms beginning fundamentally with a dualistic state.
6. This dualism, as "many", observes that the repetition of a phenomenon cancels out this separation in one respect (as the male/female dichotomy exists through the replication of children) through a continual repetition of a constant form (human) as "1" chain of movements but simultaneously allows for the dualism to be maintained (replication of male and female) in which isomorphism occurs through recurssion.
7. This isomorphism and recurssion (repitition) exists as the nature of "mirroring" where symmetry is maintianed through time as the constant repetition of one symmetry through many variations.
|
|
