|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 8, 2022 22:11:56 GMT
1. Everything separates.
2. Everything is connected through the same underlying act of separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 10, 2022 18:45:01 GMT
Let's say there was a parallelogram that had been separated into four parts:
∆∆∆∆
If for you these four are parts of the parallelogram, then it is only yours imagination.
Those four ∆∆∆∆ can be just four triangles. It depends on your view.
If you want to accept all of possible constructions of it, then it's impossible for you as a human.
Even if you could do this and you could gather all the possible constructions, it wouldn't prove anything, because which connections should you propose between them?
There are no acts of separations as well as there are no unity. You cannot say
A becomes B or B becomes A
because as you said there's no time without paradoxes, and if it's true, then
A becomes B or B becomes A
are identical or irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 10, 2022 22:16:52 GMT
Let's say there was a parallelogram that had been separated into four parts: ∆∆∆∆ If for you these four are parts of the parallelogram, then it is only yours imagination. Those four ∆∆∆∆ can be just four triangles. It depends on your view. If you want to accept all of possible constructions of it, then it's impossible for you as a human. Even if you could do this and you could gather all the possible constructions, it wouldn't prove anything, because which connections should you propose between them? There are no acts of separations as well as there are no unity. You cannot say A becomes B or B becomes A because as you said there's no time without paradoxes, and if it's true, then A becomes B or B becomes A are identical or irrelevant. If there are neither acts of separation nor unity then the negation is there are acts of separation and unity....and the paradox continues. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 11, 2022 11:52:03 GMT
Let's say there was a parallelogram that had been separated into four parts: ∆∆∆∆ If for you these four are parts of the parallelogram, then it is only yours imagination. Those four ∆∆∆∆ can be just four triangles. It depends on your view. If you want to accept all of possible constructions of it, then it's impossible for you as a human. Even if you could do this and you could gather all the possible constructions, it wouldn't prove anything, because which connections should you propose between them? There are no acts of separations as well as there are no unity. You cannot say A becomes B or B becomes A because as you said there's no time without paradoxes, and if it's true, then A becomes B or B becomes A are identical or irrelevant. If there are neither acts of separation nor unity then the negation is there are acts of separation and unity....and the paradox continues. I think there is no separation, nor unity, but I can't register any paradoxes here? Why is this a paradox? Things can be seen differently as well as a turkey can taste good or bad for different people in different periods of time. The same is about anything. Nobody can state that this is the text, but only to presume that this is the text. If someone, let's say a French artist sees a turkey instead of the text right now, then it is his right, his head, and his situation. It's not impossible. So, to watch separations, lines, unions, factories, manufactures, plants, planes, or anything else - is just what a person sees by himself. A person has rights to see what he sees. Nobody can remove this right from him. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 11, 2022 22:13:36 GMT
If there are neither acts of separation nor unity then the negation is there are acts of separation and unity....and the paradox continues. I think there is no separation, nor unity, but I can't register any paradoxes here? Why is this a paradox? Things can be seen differently as well as a turkey can taste good or bad for different people in different periods of time. The same is about anything. Nobody can state that this is the text, but only to presume that this is the text. If someone, let's say a French artist sees a turkey instead of the text right now, then it is his right, his head, and his situation. It's not impossible. So, to watch separations, lines, unions, factories, manufactures, plants, planes, or anything else - is just what a person sees by himself. A person has rights to see what he sees. Nobody can remove this right from him. And this something, that is seen, someone else might not see. If what is valid is that which someone sees then this "vision" is negated when someone sees something else entirely. So sight is paradoxical. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 12, 2022 5:57:39 GMT
I think there is no separation, nor unity, but I can't register any paradoxes here? Why is this a paradox? Things can be seen differently as well as a turkey can taste good or bad for different people in different periods of time. The same is about anything. Nobody can state that this is the text, but only to presume that this is the text. If someone, let's say a French artist sees a turkey instead of the text right now, then it is his right, his head, and his situation. It's not impossible. So, to watch separations, lines, unions, factories, manufactures, plants, planes, or anything else - is just what a person sees by himself. A person has rights to see what he sees. Nobody can remove this right from him. And this something, that is seen, someone else might not see. If what is valid is that which someone sees then this "vision" is negated when someone sees something else entirely. So sight is paradoxical. Honestly, I don't know why do you call sight paradoxical. One sees "6", while another one sees "9". There is no paradox, it's just a matter of life. A paradox would appear if one person from a precise angle, from one perspective one time saw a right triangle, and next time a square. I don't think it's possible to see a square instead of a triangle, and vice versa. There are limits, but if this limit is broken, then of course paradoxes may appear. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 15, 2022 21:28:19 GMT
And this something, that is seen, someone else might not see. If what is valid is that which someone sees then this "vision" is negated when someone sees something else entirely. So sight is paradoxical. Honestly, I don't know why do you call sight paradoxical. One sees "6", while another one sees "9". There is no paradox, it's just a matter of life. A paradox would appear if one person from a precise angle, from one perspective one time saw a right triangle, and next time a square. I don't think it's possible to see a square instead of a triangle, and vice versa. There are limits, but if this limit is broken, then of course paradoxes may appear. One may observe the square as composed of triangles thus see triangles instead. The fact that one may see 6, and another 9, necessitates conflicting meanings from the same thing, ie "x" and "not x"...one thing may mean several things with these several things not agreeing with eachother. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 16, 2022 6:54:28 GMT
Honestly, I don't know why do you call sight paradoxical. One sees "6", while another one sees "9". There is no paradox, it's just a matter of life. A paradox would appear if one person from a precise angle, from one perspective one time saw a right triangle, and next time a square. I don't think it's possible to see a square instead of a triangle, and vice versa. There are limits, but if this limit is broken, then of course paradoxes may appear. One may observe the square as composed of triangles thus see triangles instead. The fact that one may see 6, and another 9, necessitates conflicting meanings from the same thing, ie "x" and "not x"...one thing may mean several things with these several things not agreeing with eachother. Contradictions are quite delicate, because they are ontological or metaphysical, not logical. We may made a logic with N contradictions, it's our deal. According to your logic, if one sees "6" and the other does "9", then it's a contradiction. I didn't make such a conclusion, taking into account we live in our reality. Because those two observers might be staying in front of each other as like that: (..) 6 (°°) So, if this is a model that satisfies this situation, then by formal definition (Hilbert's) this situation is possible aka it may exist without contradictions. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 21:25:12 GMT
One may observe the square as composed of triangles thus see triangles instead. The fact that one may see 6, and another 9, necessitates conflicting meanings from the same thing, ie "x" and "not x"...one thing may mean several things with these several things not agreeing with eachother. Contradictions are quite delicate, because they are ontological or metaphysical, not logical. We may made a logic with N contradictions, it's our deal. According to your logic, if one sees "6" and the other does "9", then it's a contradiction. I didn't make such a conclusion, taking into account we live in our reality. Because those two observers might be staying in front of each other as like that: (..) 6 (°°) So, if this is a model that satisfies this situation, then by formal definition (Hilbert's) this situation is possible aka it may exist without contradictions. Contradictions point to the separation of things, ie A (the contradiction) leads to B (the separation). Contradiction is necessary for distinction as distinction is one thing contrasting (standing apart from) another. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 1, 2022 12:39:57 GMT
Contradictions are quite delicate, because they are ontological or metaphysical, not logical. We may made a logic with N contradictions, it's our deal. According to your logic, if one sees "6" and the other does "9", then it's a contradiction. I didn't make such a conclusion, taking into account we live in our reality. Because those two observers might be staying in front of each other as like that: (..) 6 (°°) So, if this is a model that satisfies this situation, then by formal definition (Hilbert's) this situation is possible aka it may exist without contradictions. Contradictions point to the separation of things, ie A (the contradiction) leads to B (the separation). Contradiction is necessary for distinction as distinction is one thing contrasting (standing apart from) another. Well, if to view an analytical statement: "If X (whatever it is) is contradiction, then X (somehow) points that there's (in a some way) a separation. Yeah, it might be. And so? I don't believe in total or absolute monism. Plato seemed didn't, and many others. But the separation as an act is something that struggles to be conceived by us. Do you agree with that? Can you tell what the movement is explaining the famous Zeno's paradox? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 19:00:53 GMT
Contradictions point to the separation of things, ie A (the contradiction) leads to B (the separation). Contradiction is necessary for distinction as distinction is one thing contrasting (standing apart from) another. Well, if to view an analytical statement: "If X (whatever it is) is contradiction, then X (somehow) points that there's (in a some way) a separation. Yeah, it might be. And so? I don't believe in total or absolute monism. Plato seemed didn't, and many others. But the separation as an act is something that struggles to be conceived by us. Do you agree with that? Can you tell what the movement is explaining the famous Zeno's paradox? 1. Monism is paradoxical as it results in the dualism of reality and illusion. 2. Dualism is paradoxical as it results in the singular relation of opposites. 3. Both monism and dualism exist and this is a paradox; it is further paradoxical in saying that the opposite, ie neither existing, occurs. 4. Movement is change and change is relative, as relative it is an illusion. However illusions exist as part of reality thus are real. Illusions as real necessitates illusions as lesser truths. |
|
