|
Post by jonbain on May 22, 2019 23:26:19 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective.
How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society?
The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby.
So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives?
And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical?
I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome.
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 12, 2019 20:43:40 GMT
College Is for Coolies. No Wonder We're Letting China Take Us OverYou have really been brainwashed into spouting illogical propaganda if you try to make us believe that not paying tuition is the same as earning a student salary. ... That is as far as I bothered to read. God help you! Life is too short to read rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 13, 2019 20:06:17 GMT
1) Logic is a tool. We shouldn't use wrenches while cooking. 2) Logic will not be an authority for everyone, even if 100% know that it is true. 2.1) Prime religions had been ruling the place of minds as the central dogma, but its influence came to zero; 2.2) There are some different logic systems. 3) Some have rotten souls. And tools are merely extensions of the observer, not things in and of themselves. Logic is strictly definition by nature where "being" itself exists through a process of definition. What do you think about Logic as a normative science? And what about the rest of normative sciences? Our actions are extension of this world, but thoughts, even if they are extensions, are much less extensive than actions, aren't they?
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 13, 2019 21:56:43 GMT
And tools are merely extensions of the observer, not things in and of themselves. Logic is strictly definition by nature where "being" itself exists through a process of definition. What do you think about Logic as a normative science? And what about the rest of normative sciences? Our actions are extension of this world, but thoughts, even if they are extensions, are much less extensive than actions, aren't they? Logic offers a route into positive science more than normative, as it is the means by which facts and evidence may by collated and summarised to to find new conclusions. By contrast normative science is more opinionated and subjective offering answer that ought to be the same, what what is the case. Logic can be used here too, especially in the case of deductions.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 14, 2019 17:22:34 GMT
What do you think about Logic as a normative science? And what about the rest of normative sciences? Our actions are extension of this world, but thoughts, even if they are extensions, are much less extensive than actions, aren't they? Logic offers a route into positive science more than normative, as it is the means by which facts and evidence may by collated and summarised to to find new conclusions. By contrast normative science is more opinionated and subjective offering answer that ought to be the same, what what is the case. Logic can be used here too, especially in the case of deductions. Hmm... Actually, I agree with xxxxxxxxx that logic is something more than just a tool. A. (Some ontological speculations barrier my thoughts that logic is just logic. We can't do nothing rational and more-or-less stable without logic. That's why logic for me - is a tool of a researcher who wants to find something 'stable'. "Stable" here - is... well... maybe the tiniest piece of knowledge ever.) What I don't agree completely here: if we presume deductive logic we'll get just reinterpretations, but, speaking it's more truly, - it won't be something new, but rather something more clear. Summary: deducing is a way of making something clearer. B. Non-deductive logic are not so bright, but as Russell said ("Philosophy of Logical Atomism") that there's no inductive speculations, because in every inductive system of propositions we might find a collective proposition: (1. x1 is A; 2. x2 is A; 3. x3 is A... N-1. That's all x's) -> (N. xn is A) we can't avoid N-1 step; usually we just don't explicit it. C. Variety of modern logic presents us good examples of how we can use it in here and there very successfully. I do agree with you that logic is a great help for summarizing the facts (as the fourth rule of Descartes), and using it we can move not as moles. D. ...So, why then I think that logic is tool seeing that it has a great potential? I think it links to analytic side of it. Logic is a tool, because it is an analytic tool. There's no synthetic abilities in it (at least, they don't appear enough clearly). A painter sees the world in a way he feels. He ought not to use logic. According to Hume's guillotine we can't imply 'ought to' from 'is', and this is another plus to my vision of logic as only an analytic tool.
|
|
|
Post by frumiousb on Jun 16, 2019 16:15:30 GMT
The Nobel prize 2017 was for the claim that gravity moved at light-speed, and it was claimed this gravity was observed emanating form a black-hole binary merger. But the premise of this fake award was that nothing that moves at light-speed can escape the black-hole at all. Not only because of the gravity of the black-hole itself, but also because time is said to stop at the event horizon, so even if gravity moved at 1 million times light-speed it could not escape. Moreover, after the merger, the resultant black-hole was said to be rotating at 0.6 light-speed. But time has stopped for the event horizon, so the black-hole could not possibly rotate. Now you can choose to ignore pure logic and just believe the TV, most people are terrified of being in defiance of 'big brother', so you will be 'comfortable' in your dissonance. Or you can realize that the Nobel prize is just pop culture; and look more deeply at the reality of the logic in the ontology here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htmOr you can just shrug than think that truth does not matter. When it matters more than I can even begin to try and explain. Lord, oh how it matters. This is all a misunderstanding of relativity and the physics of black holes. Gravity doesn't 'escape' from inside the event horizon of a BH. The mass of the BH causes a distortion in spacetime, and when the BH is disturbed so that it moves or its mass changes, the distortion changes, causing ripples in spacetime; these are gravity waves. If gravity somehow had to escape the black hole event horizon, black holes would appear to be massless objects. As far as time and black holes is concerned, relativity is involved, so you need to consider the chosen coordinates. Time stops at the event horizon from the perspective of an observer outside the gravitational field of the BH (i.e. nominally at infinity, but pragmatically taken to be a 'sufficient' distance). For an infalling observer, time continues as normal, although they'll see the rest of the universe slow down to a crawl. From the POV of an external observer, the infaller will slow as they approach the EH, until they seem to freeze on the horizon itself. In practice, this will not actually be observable, as the light reaching the external observer will be progressively red-shifted into the far infra-red, so they'll see the infalling observer fading out of view before they slow significantly. Black holes can rotate just like any other celestial body, and the effects of their rotation can extend beyond the event horizon. As mentioned above, time only slows from the viewpoint of a distant observer, and that observer will be able to see the effects of black hole rotation outside the event horizon.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jun 16, 2019 18:57:09 GMT
The Nobel prize 2017 was for the claim that gravity moved at light-speed, and it was claimed this gravity was observed emanating form a black-hole binary merger. But the premise of this fake award was that nothing that moves at light-speed can escape the black-hole at all. Not only because of the gravity of the black-hole itself, but also because time is said to stop at the event horizon, so even if gravity moved at 1 million times light-speed it could not escape. Moreover, after the merger, the resultant black-hole was said to be rotating at 0.6 light-speed. But time has stopped for the event horizon, so the black-hole could not possibly rotate. Now you can choose to ignore pure logic and just believe the TV, most people are terrified of being in defiance of 'big brother', so you will be 'comfortable' in your dissonance. Or you can realize that the Nobel prize is just pop culture; and look more deeply at the reality of the logic in the ontology here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htmOr you can just shrug than think that truth does not matter. When it matters more than I can even begin to try and explain. Lord, oh how it matters. This is all a misunderstanding of relativity and the physics of black holes. Gravity doesn't 'escape' from inside the event horizon of a BH. The mass of the BH causes a distortion in spacetime, and when the BH is disturbed so that it moves or its mass changes, the distortion changes, causing ripples in spacetime; these are gravity waves. If gravity somehow had to escape the black hole event horizon, black holes would appear to be massless objects. As far as time and black holes is concerned, relativity is involved, so you need to consider the chosen coordinates. Time stops at the event horizon from the perspective of an observer outside the gravitational field of the BH (i.e. nominally at infinity, but pragmatically taken to be a 'sufficient' distance). For an infalling observer, time continues as normal, although they'll see the rest of the universe slow down to a crawl. From the POV of an external observer, the infaller will slow as they approach the EH, until they seem to freeze on the horizon itself. In practice, this will not actually be observable, as the light reaching the external observer will be progressively red-shifted into the far infra-red, so they'll see the infalling observer fading out of view before they slow significantly. Black holes can rotate just like any other celestial body, and the effects of their rotation can extend beyond the event horizon. As mentioned above, time only slows from the viewpoint of a distant observer, and that observer will be able to see the effects of black hole rotation outside the event horizon.
"although they'll see the rest of the universe slow down to a crawl."
This is the part that many get wrong. I even read in a popular scientific book about the relativity theory that, from the perspective of the infalling observer, time in the external universe speeds up towards infinity as he passes the event horizon. But as you point out, it slows down. This is due to that, from the viewpoint of the falling observer, he is not accelerating. He sees those who are not falling as accelerating away from him. And as they pick up speed, their clocks moves slower in relation to his, due to special relativity time dilation. It's those who are suspended over the event horizon who experience that time for those further away moves faster.
|
|
|
Post by frumiousb on Jun 17, 2019 18:13:23 GMT
... It's those who are suspended over the event horizon who experience that time for those further away moves faster. Presumably this is due to gravitational time dilation, where time runs more slowly the deeper you are in a gravitational well, relative to those outside it.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 17, 2019 22:43:41 GMT
And tools are merely extensions of the observer, not things in and of themselves. Logic is strictly definition by nature where "being" itself exists through a process of definition. What do you think about Logic as a normative science? And what about the rest of normative sciences? Our actions are extension of this world, but thoughts, even if they are extensions, are much less extensive than actions, aren't they? Greater than less than "arguments" can be viewed as extensions of set theory (in certain degrees, however I would expect disagreement from other's on this). A > B by default means that A/B in such a manner when B can "fit into" A and as such be viewed as an "element" or "part" of A (however this would be stretching the traditional role of "element" I believe). We have to keep in mind not just the importance but the necessity of "direction" in determining the function of a logical argument. Because of this we are left with the base axiom of "linear space" in determining the form/function of truth while connecting logic to a universal axiomatic base. As simple question such as "which came first x or y" or "A therefore B" (which are foundational aspects of "cause and effect" which set the premise for what logic is: "cause and effect") is grounded primarily in its directional qualities which make analysis primarily what it is: A study of the finite; hence is temporal in nature considering time is finiteness as the relation of parts. Logic and the study of time, at the abstract or empirical everyday level, are inseperable. To understand "logic" one can strictly just observe the nature of time and vice versa. Heidegger, and this is "my" argument, is worth looking into in these regards...at least for inspiration and some clarity on questions, and from Heidegger one can imply Taoist philosophy (as a precursor to Buddhism) as Heidegger was argued as a Western Taoist. So to address your question more specifically with a question: Which came first the Action or the Thought? This comes down to a conceptual problem of definition as to conceive of action within the terms of "definition" or "what defines it?" leaves it effectively as a "concept" hence thought. To argue action comes first effectively makes thought an extension of "action"; hence action in and of itself. Either way you look at it we are left with an isomorphism in stances: Thought first action second, Action First Thought second. This question leads fundamentally to the nature of the questions themselves: Which one is correct? Or rather which one to pick first? Considering both are inversions of eachother, and deal with the nature of thought/action which by default requires to both "think" and "act" in understanding the question the answer can be founded within the form and function of the question (considering the premise of the "linear direction" of logic is inherent within its form/function of "truth") as that of "inversion". This implication of the directional quality of truth is assumed by the nature of the answer itself being dependent upon the direction of the question, hence where the question is assumed...so is the answer...hence "assumption" and "direction" (as all direction is purely assumed as purely axiomatic in nature) are grounded in the point of awareness of the observer. This "point of awareness", which lends grounds to a universal "relativity", allows for an absolute base to our preconceptions and conceptions of truth as "isomorphism" itself as evidence by the directional nature of questions but further necessitating "isomorphism" as point space in itself in which all axioms, as self evident truths, are nothing in themselves except through another axiom (much in the same manner light cannot be observed with darkness and darkness cannot be observed without light) in which the axiom (grounded in the relative conceptual position of the observer) is a "point of inversion". Thought/action exist through inversion where one axiom is effectively multiplied into many axioms though a repitition of symmetry in which the same question/answer is repeated through multiple angles stemming from one source thought is common: a point of awareness or rather a simple "point" in which the nature of truth as "assumed" is grounded in an empty minded state of "no-thought" in which the observer effectively is receptive to reality much in the same manner as the socratic "blank slate" argument to consciousness which is synonymous to the eastern taoist/buddhist heritage of "empty mindnessness". Truth, through assumption under the nature of awareness grounded in point space, shares a dichotomous role which is interpretted isomorphically in western/eastern philosophy but can but united under geometry akin to a barely understood research egyptian metaphysics in which truth is definition through form/function. In simpler terms...all logic and its nature of "plan" or "the word" is a process of definition grounded in the projection of axioms akin to the projection of the "point space" that gives form to reality by a process of definition in which 1 direction (whether that of an object projecting in time or the simple "question/answer" dichotomy observed above) inverts into a dualistic symmetrical state that effectively repeats. I will end it here, I am assuming I was not clear enough (mind is in a fog) or you have questions.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jun 17, 2019 23:26:57 GMT
... It's those who are suspended over the event horizon who experience that time for those further away moves faster. Presumably this is due to gravitational time dilation, where time runs more slowly the deeper you are in a gravitational well, relative to those outside it.
Exactly. It works the same was as for a relativistic acceleration field. If you had a very long spaceship at a constant acceleration, the acceleration would be higher, and time would move slower, in the back, compared to the front. (The mathematics to calculate this would be a bit more complicated for a gravitational field, due to that no gravitational field is uniform.)
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 18, 2019 16:34:10 GMT
The Nobel prize 2017 was for the claim that gravity moved at light-speed, and it was claimed this gravity was observed emanating form a black-hole binary merger. But the premise of this fake award was that nothing that moves at light-speed can escape the black-hole at all. Not only because of the gravity of the black-hole itself, but also because time is said to stop at the event horizon, so even if gravity moved at 1 million times light-speed it could not escape. Moreover, after the merger, the resultant black-hole was said to be rotating at 0.6 light-speed. But time has stopped for the event horizon, so the black-hole could not possibly rotate. Now you can choose to ignore pure logic and just believe the TV, most people are terrified of being in defiance of 'big brother', so you will be 'comfortable' in your dissonance. Or you can realize that the Nobel prize is just pop culture; and look more deeply at the reality of the logic in the ontology here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htmOr you can just shrug than think that truth does not matter. When it matters more than I can even begin to try and explain. Lord, oh how it matters. This is all a misunderstanding of relativity and the physics of black holes. Gravity doesn't 'escape' from inside the event horizon of a BH. The mass of the BH causes a distortion in spacetime, and when the BH is disturbed so that it moves or its mass changes, the distortion changes, causing ripples in spacetime; these are gravity waves. If gravity somehow had to escape the black hole event horizon, black holes would appear to be massless objects. As far as time and black holes is concerned, relativity is involved, so you need to consider the chosen coordinates. Time stops at the event horizon from the perspective of an observer outside the gravitational field of the BH (i.e. nominally at infinity, but pragmatically taken to be a 'sufficient' distance). For an infalling observer, time continues as normal, although they'll see the rest of the universe slow down to a crawl. From the POV of an external observer, the infaller will slow as they approach the EH, until they seem to freeze on the horizon itself. In practice, this will not actually be observable, as the light reaching the external observer will be progressively red-shifted into the far infra-red, so they'll see the infalling observer fading out of view before they slow significantly. Black holes can rotate just like any other celestial body, and the effects of their rotation can extend beyond the event horizon. As mentioned above, time only slows from the viewpoint of a distant observer, and that observer will be able to see the effects of black hole rotation outside the event horizon. Lets just start with the basic logical contradictions in that last paragraph. If, as you say then it would be logically impossible for How in all the sacred blue can you claim to observe a rotation at a place where you cannot observe time moving?The first paragraph is ridiculous. That is so upside-down. Of course gravity must escape if the black-hole is going to have any gravitational effect on any object outside it. If it does not get out, then it has no effect. and It would only appear mass-less if gravity did NOT get out!! So any measurement of its gravity/mass can only occur if that information gets out! If time is said to be observed as having stopped, then nobody outside could observe its effect getting out!!! Lastly. A "gravity wave" is NOT a "gravitational wave", they are completely different concepts entirely. Do some real research in a real book, instead of lazy copy-paste illogical pop-culture. Quel bouffon, pure science des singes.
|
|
|
Post by frumiousb on Jun 19, 2019 15:58:35 GMT
This is all a misunderstanding of relativity and the physics of black holes. Gravity doesn't 'escape' from inside the event horizon of a BH. The mass of the BH causes a distortion in spacetime, and when the BH is disturbed so that it moves or its mass changes, the distortion changes, causing ripples in spacetime; these are gravity waves. If gravity somehow had to escape the black hole event horizon, black holes would appear to be massless objects. As far as time and black holes is concerned, relativity is involved, so you need to consider the chosen coordinates. Time stops at the event horizon from the perspective of an observer outside the gravitational field of the BH (i.e. nominally at infinity, but pragmatically taken to be a 'sufficient' distance). For an infalling observer, time continues as normal, although they'll see the rest of the universe slow down to a crawl. From the POV of an external observer, the infaller will slow as they approach the EH, until they seem to freeze on the horizon itself. In practice, this will not actually be observable, as the light reaching the external observer will be progressively red-shifted into the far infra-red, so they'll see the infalling observer fading out of view before they slow significantly. Black holes can rotate just like any other celestial body, and the effects of their rotation can extend beyond the event horizon. As mentioned above, time only slows from the viewpoint of a distant observer, and that observer will be able to see the effects of black hole rotation outside the event horizon. Lets just start with the basic logical contradictions in that last paragraph. If, as you say then it would be logically impossible for How in all the sacred blue can you claim to observe a rotation at a place where you cannot observe time moving?The first paragraph is ridiculous. That is so upside-down. Of course gravity must escape if the black-hole is going to have any gravitational effect on any object outside it. If it does not get out, then it has no effect. and It would only appear mass-less if gravity did NOT get out!! So any measurement of its gravity/mass can only occur if that information gets out! If time is said to be observed as having stopped, then nobody outside could observe its effect getting out!!! Lastly. A "gravity wave" is NOT a "gravitational wave", they are completely different concepts entirely. Do some real research in a real book, instead of lazy copy-paste illogical pop-culture. Quel bouffon, pure science des singes.Thank you for your comment.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 2, 2019 20:39:05 GMT
What do you think about Logic as a normative science? And what about the rest of normative sciences? Our actions are extension of this world, but thoughts, even if they are extensions, are much less extensive than actions, aren't they? Greater than less than "arguments" can be viewed as extensions of set theory (in certain degrees, however I would expect disagreement from other's on this). A > B by default means that A/B in such a manner when B can "fit into" A and as such be viewed as an "element" or "part" of A (however this would be stretching the traditional role of "element" I believe). Some particles, or some properties, or its combinations (or whatsoever) are taken as one of constituent of its possible attachment, or its possible image, etc. This operation I consider as an elementary step, and this step can be viewed in at least two mods - as its direction and as its content.We have to keep in mind not just the importance but the necessity of "direction" in determining the function of a logical argument. Because of this we are left with the base axiom of "linear space" in determining the form/function of truth while connecting logic to a universal axiomatic base. Kant's CPR had an argument of "for taking something from something there must be a place". Directions suppose some kind of geometry, right? Or directions are the same same states of affairs: a sum of possible movements to something?
As simple question such as "which came first x or y" or "A therefore B" (which are foundational aspects of "cause and effect" which set the premise for what logic is: "cause and effect") is grounded primarily in its directional qualities which make analysis primarily what it is: A study of the finite; hence is temporal in nature considering time is finiteness as the relation of parts. Logic and the study of time, at the abstract or empirical everyday level, are inseperable. To understand "logic" one can strictly just observe the nature of time and vice versa. Heidegger, and this is "my" argument, is worth looking into in these regards...at least for inspiration and some clarity on questions, and from Heidegger one can imply Taoist philosophy (as a precursor to Buddhism) as Heidegger was argued as a Western Taoist. The argument of Heidegger is interesting in Historical aspect, I mean - in revealing of History; in its mapping facts, cases, coincidences to some points at a (mental) map.
What about arguments from an axiom (as some call it) "Existence Exist" (EE) or "The Law of Identity" (LI)? "Nothing", or "Something" must exist through something. Something existing as something has to be something for something else, and so on...
In this "logic" where can we fine any directions? - Actually, I think this question is tied up with your previous works on it, about identities and reflections. I think you answered already on them, but I don't remember them.
Anyway, I would say it would be less obviously to find in EE or Li any directions. If you said that time was that something that we must pay attention on it to look logic, then it would be more relevant to start looking for changing, not for directions. The nature of changing is obviously more prime for directions. Even if directions are some kind of projections, or some kind of potential deities, there must have nature that changes (or at least changing as its own properties). So to address your question more specifically with a question: Which came first the Action or the Thought? This comes down to a conceptual problem of definition as to conceive of action within the terms of "definition" or "what defines it?" leaves it effectively as a "concept" hence thought. To argue action comes first effectively makes thought an extension of "action"; hence action in and of itself. I must say, your philosophical researches are awesome! It doesn't matter what to read; every reading is like to be charged with energy! - So, as you said previously that directions were a part of logic, and the last one was a prerogative of thinking... Either way you look at it we are left with an isomorphism in stances: Thought first action second, Action First Thought second. This question leads fundamentally to the nature of the questions themselves: Which one is correct? Or rather which one to pick first? Considering both are inversions of eachother, and deal with the nature of thought/action which by default requires to both "think" and "act" in understanding the question the answer can be founded within the form and function of the question (considering the premise of the "linear direction" of logic is inherent within its form/function of "truth") as that of "inversion". This implication of the directional quality of truth is assumed by the nature of the answer itself being dependent upon the direction of the question, hence where the question is assumed...so is the answer...hence "assumption" and "direction" (as all direction is purely assumed as purely axiomatic in nature) are grounded in the point of awareness of the observer. I'd say without examples it's hard to answer on this question. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". - I think this example is able to be taken as good one, isn't it? Word = Thought, God = Act.
Act is not only "an act", or even "an action". "Now" is a constant actioning. "Actioning", maybe, is nothing, but a relations, and so on. I consider an action as extension, or a form, or a suit, or identical thing (a thing that requires the law of equality to be actual; a thing that actualizes the law of equality). I don't know what is thought, but as Frege said - it must be either truth, or false. As I understand it, it must have truth-makers, and the last ones are something that suppose some particles, properties... etc.
I apologize that I will stop here.
This "point of awareness", which lends grounds to a universal "relativity", allows for an absolute base to our preconceptions and conceptions of truth as "isomorphism" itself as evidence by the directional nature of questions but further necessitating "isomorphism" as point space in itself in which all axioms, as self evident truths, are nothing in themselves except through another axiom (much in the same manner light cannot be observed with darkness and darkness cannot be observed without light) in which the axiom (grounded in the relative conceptual position of the observer) is a "point of inversion". Thought/action exist through inversion where one axiom is effectively multiplied into many axioms though a repitition of symmetry in which the same question/answer is repeated through multiple angles stemming from one source thought is common: a point of awareness or rather a simple "point" in which the nature of truth as "assumed" is grounded in an empty minded state of "no-thought" in which the observer effectively is receptive to reality much in the same manner as the socratic "blank slate" argument to consciousness which is synonymous to the eastern taoist/buddhist heritage of "empty mindnessness". Truth, through assumption under the nature of awareness grounded in point space, shares a dichotomous role which is interpretted isomorphically in western/eastern philosophy but can but united under geometry akin to a barely understood research egyptian metaphysics in which truth is definition through form/function. In simpler terms...all logic and its nature of "plan" or "the word" is a process of definition grounded in the projection of axioms akin to the projection of the "point space" that gives form to reality by a process of definition in which 1 direction (whether that of an object projecting in time or the simple "question/answer" dichotomy observed above) inverts into a dualistic symmetrical state that effectively repeats. I will end it here, I am assuming I was not clear enough (mind is in a fog) or you have questions. No, you are an absolutely great thinker! I am proud to be able to chant with you! Good luck to you!
|
|