|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 4, 2022 23:35:31 GMT
If it exists it is absolute. The flow of one phenomenon into another makes each phenomenon a grounding fiber that is necessary within the absolute totality of being. Without each phenomenon there is no totality and what exists as the totality is absolute given it is without comparison.
Because each phenomenon is necessary, in that it exists, each phenomenon is absolute.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 7, 2022 6:14:40 GMT
Can you define absolute?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 11, 2022 23:10:32 GMT
Unchanging. Because each phenomenon is part of the unchanging totality, each part is unchanging as their totality (ie all the parts) is unchanging. Change is particulation, ie the creation of parts, but considering each part cannot exist without another part these parts are part of a static whole. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2022 21:36:59 GMT
Unchanging. Because each phenomenon is part of the unchanging totality, each part is unchanging as their totality (ie all the parts) is unchanging. Change is particulation, ie the creation of parts, but considering each part cannot exist without another part these parts are part of a static whole. I would agree with it, but what makes you think that the unchanging doesn't require anything? Don't you know the 1st law of Newton: the balance or the same movement is resulted in contradictory forces? It might be that there are forces to hold that the unchanging in its condition. You cannot say that no changes appear that this doesn't require no forces. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2022 21:39:13 GMT
Unchanging. Because each phenomenon is part of the unchanging totality, each part is unchanging as their totality (ie all the parts) is unchanging. Change is particulation, ie the creation of parts, but considering each part cannot exist without another part these parts are part of a static whole. I would agree with it, but what makes you think that the unchanging doesn't require anything? Don't you know the 1st law of Newton: the balance or the same movement is resulted in contradictory forces? It might be that there are forces to hold that the unchanging in its condition. You cannot say that no changes appear that this doesn't require no forces. The unchanging would require something beyond it and something beyond that so on and so forth. This infinite regress necessitates an obscurity of somethings as the quality and quantity of those somethings are indefinite. This indefinite state cannot be changing as change requires the comparison between one thing and another. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2022 21:43:58 GMT
I would agree with it, but what makes you think that the unchanging doesn't require anything? Don't you know the 1st law of Newton: the balance or the same movement is resulted in contradictory forces? It might be that there are forces to hold that the unchanging in its condition. You cannot say that no changes appear that this doesn't require no forces. The unchanging would require something beyond it and something beyond that so on and so forth. This infinite regress necessitates an obscurity of somethings as the quality and quantity of those somethings are indefinite. This indefinite state cannot be changing as change requires the comparison between one thing and another. If the unchanging require something non-unchanging, then there's a problem: that the unchanging is not unchanging. It is only a fake, or a tulpa. Any regress is not unchanging. Comparison? - No, this is only one way to change. I agree that to change we have to have something spare or extra, but I see absolutely no link between that indefinite and comparison. So what if this is indefinite? It still can change. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2022 22:18:38 GMT
The unchanging would require something beyond it and something beyond that so on and so forth. This infinite regress necessitates an obscurity of somethings as the quality and quantity of those somethings are indefinite. This indefinite state cannot be changing as change requires the comparison between one thing and another. If the unchanging require something non-unchanging, then there's a problem: that the unchanging is not unchanging. It is only a fake, or a tulpa. Any regress is not unchanging. Comparison? - No, this is only one way to change. I agree that to change we have to have something spare or extra, but I see absolutely no link between that indefinite and comparison. So what if this is indefinite? It still can change. Infinite regress leaves everything indefinite; continuous change requires an absence of change because of "continuity". Comparison allows for contrast, contrast allows for distinction, distinction allows for definition; without comparison the phenomenon is indefinite. Totality has no comparison as any distinction must be a part of said totality therefore the distinction negates; the totality is absolute. |
|
