|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 8, 2022 22:14:17 GMT
1. Unity is the connection of parts. 2. Parts necessitate a separation.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 10, 2022 16:01:27 GMT
And where's the paradox?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 10, 2022 22:26:46 GMT
Unity is a connection of individuals but for there to be connected individuals the individuals must be separated as they are individuals otherwise they would not be individuals and therefore could not connect. It is like seeing two lines as one line, ie one line with a point at each respective end and one in the middle (one line between each end point and two lines resulting from the end point to the middle point).
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 10, 2022 23:19:45 GMT
Unity is a connection of individuals but for there to be connected individuals the individuals must be separated as they are individuals otherwise they would not be individuals and therefore could not connect. It is like seeing two lines as one line, ie one line with a point at each respective end and one in the middle (one line between each end point and two lines resulting from the end point to the middle point). This Is Out-Dated Levels Of Thinking Right Here At Full Display. You Are Like An Apple Mac Computer Trying To Argue Against A Super Quantum Computer; Your Brain Is Trying To Create A BINARY Assessment In A NON-BINARY Universe (Started Out Binary, But Expanded Since Then) -- 100% Truth, Your Brain Is Stuck In 1-D, Because You Refuse To See You Are Wrong.
Just Because In GENERAL, We Perceive People As Individuals (Separate Of A Whole), Doesn't Mean That Is How The UNIVERSE Perceives It By DESIGN, Hence "Atoms", "Subatomic Particles", "Neuron Networks", How Separate Pieces Interact By DESIGN To Create A WHOLE Interaction. Not To Mention The Universe Often Finds People With Obscure Connections To Connect, And Not To Mention PETS Have Been Documented To Look Like The Person Taking Care Of Them; How Plants Communicate With Each Other In The Same Language, As Well As Planets. That Has NOTHING To Do With "Individual" Just Because Others Say It.
Your Way Of Thinking Just Doesn't Work, It's Not Black And White, Your Mind Is Like A Xerox Machine And A Zebra Having An Offspring. Your Mind Is Off Base, So Off Base, People That Never Agree On Anything Are In Agreement That You Don't Make Sense, And We Told You WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, By The Way. You Just Have No Accountability For Your Bad Points. We Can't Have A REAL Discussion With You, Until You Become A REAL Philosopher.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 11, 2022 22:32:50 GMT
Unity is a connection of individuals but for there to be connected individuals the individuals must be separated as they are individuals otherwise they would not be individuals and therefore could not connect. It is like seeing two lines as one line, ie one line with a point at each respective end and one in the middle (one line between each end point and two lines resulting from the end point to the middle point). This Is Out-Dated Levels Of Thinking Right Here At Full Display. You Are Like An Apple Mac Computer Trying To Argue Against A Super Quantum Computer; Your Brain Is Trying To Create A BINARY Assessment In A NON-BINARY Universe (Started Out Binary, But Expanded Since Then) -- 100% Truth, Your Brain Is Stuck In 1-D, Because You Refuse To See You Are Wrong.
Just Because In GENERAL, We Perceive People As Individuals (Separate Of A Whole), Doesn't Mean That Is How The UNIVERSE Perceives It By DESIGN, Hence "Atoms", "Subatomic Particles", "Neuron Networks", How Separate Pieces Interact By DESIGN To Create A WHOLE Interaction. Not To Mention The Universe Often Finds People With Obscure Connections To Connect, And Not To Mention PETS Have Been Documented To Look Like The Person Taking Care Of Them; How Plants Communicate With Each Other In The Same Language, As Well As Planets. That Has NOTHING To Do With "Individual" Just Because Others Say It.
Your Way Of Thinking Just Doesn't Work, It's Not Black And White, Your Mind Is Like A Xerox Machine And A Zebra Having An Offspring. Your Mind Is Off Base, So Off Base, People That Never Agree On Anything Are In Agreement That You Don't Make Sense, And We Told You WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, By The Way. You Just Have No Accountability For Your Bad Points. We Can't Have A REAL Discussion With You, Until You Become A REAL Philosopher. If things cannot reduced to binaries then your example of a Mac vs quantum computer contradicts yourself as you are reducing things to binaries.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 11, 2022 22:44:57 GMT
Unity is a connection of individuals but for there to be connected individuals the individuals must be separated as they are individuals otherwise they would not be individuals and therefore could not connect. It is like seeing two lines as one line, ie one line with a point at each respective end and one in the middle (one line between each end point and two lines resulting from the end point to the middle point). This Is Out-Dated Levels Of Thinking Right Here At Full Display. You Are Like An Apple Mac Computer Trying To Argue Against A Super Quantum Computer; Your Brain Is Trying To Create A BINARY Assessment In A NON-BINARY Universe (Started Out Binary, But Expanded Since Then) -- 100% Truth, Your Brain Is Stuck In 1-D, Because You Refuse To See You Are Wrong.
Just Because In GENERAL, We Perceive People As Individuals (Separate Of A Whole), Doesn't Mean That Is How The UNIVERSE Perceives It By DESIGN, Hence "Atoms", "Subatomic Particles", "Neuron Networks", How Separate Pieces Interact By DESIGN To Create A WHOLE Interaction. Not To Mention The Universe Often Finds People With Obscure Connections To Connect, And Not To Mention PETS Have Been Documented To Look Like The Person Taking Care Of Them; How Plants Communicate With Each Other In The Same Language, As Well As Planets. That Has NOTHING To Do With "Individual" Just Because Others Say It.
Your Way Of Thinking Just Doesn't Work, It's Not Black And White, Your Mind Is Like A Xerox Machine And A Zebra Having An Offspring. Your Mind Is Off Base, So Off Base, People That Never Agree On Anything Are In Agreement That You Don't Make Sense, And We Told You WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, By The Way. You Just Have No Accountability For Your Bad Points. We Can't Have A REAL Discussion With You, Until You Become A REAL Philosopher. And how am I creating a Binary when one thing results in and is dependent on its opposite? That is what a paradox is: a unified contradiction but a contradiction nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 11, 2022 22:47:47 GMT
Unity is a connection of individuals but for there to be connected individuals the individuals must be separated as they are individuals otherwise they would not be individuals and therefore could not connect. It is like seeing two lines as one line, ie one line with a point at each respective end and one in the middle (one line between each end point and two lines resulting from the end point to the middle point). This Is Out-Dated Levels Of Thinking Right Here At Full Display. You Are Like An Apple Mac Computer Trying To Argue Against A Super Quantum Computer; Your Brain Is Trying To Create A BINARY Assessment In A NON-BINARY Universe (Started Out Binary, But Expanded Since Then) -- 100% Truth, Your Brain Is Stuck In 1-D, Because You Refuse To See You Are Wrong.
Just Because In GENERAL, We Perceive People As Individuals (Separate Of A Whole), Doesn't Mean That Is How The UNIVERSE Perceives It By DESIGN, Hence "Atoms", "Subatomic Particles", "Neuron Networks", How Separate Pieces Interact By DESIGN To Create A WHOLE Interaction. Not To Mention The Universe Often Finds People With Obscure Connections To Connect, And Not To Mention PETS Have Been Documented To Look Like The Person Taking Care Of Them; How Plants Communicate With Each Other In The Same Language, As Well As Planets. That Has NOTHING To Do With "Individual" Just Because Others Say It.
Your Way Of Thinking Just Doesn't Work, It's Not Black And White, Your Mind Is Like A Xerox Machine And A Zebra Having An Offspring. Your Mind Is Off Base, So Off Base, People That Never Agree On Anything Are In Agreement That You Don't Make Sense, And We Told You WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, By The Way. You Just Have No Accountability For Your Bad Points. We Can't Have A REAL Discussion With You, Until You Become A REAL Philosopher. A connection is an individual as it is a distinction, it stands in contrast to that which is not connected. Considering all Connections are relative, one thing is connected under one context but not in another.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 11, 2022 23:08:36 GMT
This Is Out-Dated Levels Of Thinking Right Here At Full Display. You Are Like An Apple Mac Computer Trying To Argue Against A Super Quantum Computer; Your Brain Is Trying To Create A BINARY Assessment In A NON-BINARY Universe (Started Out Binary, But Expanded Since Then) -- 100% Truth, Your Brain Is Stuck In 1-D, Because You Refuse To See You Are Wrong.
Just Because In GENERAL, We Perceive People As Individuals (Separate Of A Whole), Doesn't Mean That Is How The UNIVERSE Perceives It By DESIGN, Hence "Atoms", "Subatomic Particles", "Neuron Networks", How Separate Pieces Interact By DESIGN To Create A WHOLE Interaction. Not To Mention The Universe Often Finds People With Obscure Connections To Connect, And Not To Mention PETS Have Been Documented To Look Like The Person Taking Care Of Them; How Plants Communicate With Each Other In The Same Language, As Well As Planets. That Has NOTHING To Do With "Individual" Just Because Others Say It.
Your Way Of Thinking Just Doesn't Work, It's Not Black And White, Your Mind Is Like A Xerox Machine And A Zebra Having An Offspring. Your Mind Is Off Base, So Off Base, People That Never Agree On Anything Are In Agreement That You Don't Make Sense, And We Told You WHY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, By The Way. You Just Have No Accountability For Your Bad Points. We Can't Have A REAL Discussion With You, Until You Become A REAL Philosopher. And how am I creating a Binary when one thing results in and is dependent on its opposite? That is what a paradox is: a unified contradiction but a contradiction nonetheless. Because The Moment Your Argument Is Based On Semantics Like What Makes Something An "Individual Part" From A Whole, Which Is Based On Hearsay, And Subjective Interpretations Based On Other People's Ignorance, That Is Displayed Completely When You Realize How Disconnected People Are From The "Whole", To Understand What "Part" Means To Begin With, It's A Logical Fallacy. The Entire Philosophical Foundation Has Been Eroded With These Semantic Arguments On "Individual" Vs. "Whole", And It's Based On Semantics, Rather Than Logical Statements. To The Point, ANYONE That Argues From This Point Will Inevitably Contradict Themselves.
Here's The Thing, It's Very Often That Someone With Circular Arguments Think They Are Winning Against Someone That Is Running Circles Around Them (I.E You Vs. Me), And By Running Circles, I Mean Using Very Little Effort To Challenge Your Stance Because It's Not A Durable Stance On Your Part.
Your Argument Keeps Going Back To Your Subjective Interpretation Of A Word, Just Like "Paradox", You Are Misusing Labels, And Trying To Patch Your Philosophical Ship With Unreliable Patches (I.E Saying Something Is "Individual", But Showing No Real Proof That Is How The Universe Intends It).
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 15, 2022 21:37:21 GMT
And how am I creating a Binary when one thing results in and is dependent on its opposite? That is what a paradox is: a unified contradiction but a contradiction nonetheless. Because The Moment Your Argument Is Based On Semantics Like What Makes Something An "Individual Part" From A Whole, Which Is Based On Hearsay, And Subjective Interpretations Based On Other People's Ignorance, That Is Displayed Completely When You Realize How Disconnected People Are From The "Whole", To Understand What "Part" Means To Begin With, It's A Logical Fallacy. The Entire Philosophical Foundation Has Been Eroded With These Semantic Arguments On "Individual" Vs. "Whole", And It's Based On Semantics, Rather Than Logical Statements. To The Point, ANYONE That Argues From This Point Will Inevitably Contradict Themselves.
Here's The Thing, It's Very Often That Someone With Circular Arguments Think They Are Winning Against Someone That Is Running Circles Around Them (I.E You Vs. Me), And By Running Circles, I Mean Using Very Little Effort To Challenge Your Stance Because It's Not A Durable Stance On Your Part.
Your Argument Keeps Going Back To Your Subjective Interpretation Of A Word, Just Like "Paradox", You Are Misusing Labels, And Trying To Patch Your Philosophical Ship With Unreliable Patches (I.E Saying Something Is "Individual", But Showing No Real Proof That Is How The Universe Intends It).Given reality manifests itself through our observations all subjective realities exist as objective from another context. This other context is the fact that subjective realities repeat through themselves, and as repeatable have form, this form allows for objectivity to exist.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 15, 2022 23:14:33 GMT
Because The Moment Your Argument Is Based On Semantics Like What Makes Something An "Individual Part" From A Whole, Which Is Based On Hearsay, And Subjective Interpretations Based On Other People's Ignorance, That Is Displayed Completely When You Realize How Disconnected People Are From The "Whole", To Understand What "Part" Means To Begin With, It's A Logical Fallacy. The Entire Philosophical Foundation Has Been Eroded With These Semantic Arguments On "Individual" Vs. "Whole", And It's Based On Semantics, Rather Than Logical Statements. To The Point, ANYONE That Argues From This Point Will Inevitably Contradict Themselves.
Here's The Thing, It's Very Often That Someone With Circular Arguments Think They Are Winning Against Someone That Is Running Circles Around Them (I.E You Vs. Me), And By Running Circles, I Mean Using Very Little Effort To Challenge Your Stance Because It's Not A Durable Stance On Your Part.
Your Argument Keeps Going Back To Your Subjective Interpretation Of A Word, Just Like "Paradox", You Are Misusing Labels, And Trying To Patch Your Philosophical Ship With Unreliable Patches (I.E Saying Something Is "Individual", But Showing No Real Proof That Is How The Universe Intends It). Given reality manifests itself through our observations all subjective realities exist as objective from another context. This other context is the fact that subjective realities repeat through themselves, and as repeatable have form, this form allows for objectivity to exist. There You Go Again, Forcing Logical Fallacies And Pretending They Are Objective Arguments When They Are Not. If You Would Slow Down And Observe The Way You Use Words, You Would See That Your Words Are Subjective And Circulatory, You Are Incapable Of Responding With Objective And Tempered Statements Based On Facts, Yet. You Could Change That By Listening.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 21:11:55 GMT
Given reality manifests itself through our observations all subjective realities exist as objective from another context. This other context is the fact that subjective realities repeat through themselves, and as repeatable have form, this form allows for objectivity to exist. There You Go Again, Forcing Logical Fallacies And Pretending They Are Objective Arguments When They Are Not. If You Would Slow Down And Observe The Way You Use Words, You Would See That Your Words Are Subjective And Circulatory, You Are Incapable Of Responding With Objective And Tempered Statements Based On Facts, Yet. You Could Change That By Listening.Objectivity is the repetition of the subjective as objectivity is that which has form and that which as form repeats. If subjectivity repeats it is objective.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 29, 2022 22:34:14 GMT
There You Go Again, Forcing Logical Fallacies And Pretending They Are Objective Arguments When They Are Not. If You Would Slow Down And Observe The Way You Use Words, You Would See That Your Words Are Subjective And Circulatory, You Are Incapable Of Responding With Objective And Tempered Statements Based On Facts, Yet. You Could Change That By Listening. Objectivity is the repetition of the subjective as objectivity is that which has form and that which as form repeats. If subjectivity repeats it is objective. No, Repetition Does Not Turn Subjectivity Into Objectivity, Solution Does. A Math Problem With A Solution Is What Makes It Objective.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 22:43:43 GMT
Objectivity is the repetition of the subjective as objectivity is that which has form and that which as form repeats. If subjectivity repeats it is objective. No, Repetition Does Not Turn Subjectivity Into Objectivity, Solution Does. A Math Problem With A Solution Is What Makes It Objective.Yet it is solved through your own calculations (which are subjective given not everyone agrees with them). The fact that multiple subjective angles can align results in objectivity. For example multiple people seeing a cow makes the subjective view of the cow an objective one. The lack of order in a singular subjective experience becomes ordered when this experience is repeated.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 29, 2022 22:52:11 GMT
No, Repetition Does Not Turn Subjectivity Into Objectivity, Solution Does. A Math Problem With A Solution Is What Makes It Objective. Yet it is solved through your own calculations ( which are subjective given not everyone agrees with them). The fact that multiple subjective angles can align results in objectivity. For example multiple people seeing a cow makes the subjective view of the cow an objective one. The lack of order in a singular subjective experience becomes ordered when this experience is repeated. My PI Formula And Euler's Function (The Only Working Ones On Planet Earth To Date) Are Perfect Objectivity, People Not Knowing How They Work Doesn't Make Them Subjective If They Objectively Work.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 22:53:59 GMT
Yet it is solved through your own calculations ( which are subjective given not everyone agrees with them). The fact that multiple subjective angles can align results in objectivity. For example multiple people seeing a cow makes the subjective view of the cow an objective one. The lack of order in a singular subjective experience becomes ordered when this experience is repeated. My PI Formula And Euler's Function (The Only Working Ones On Planet Earth To Date) Are Perfect Objectivity, People Not Knowing How They Work Doesn't Make Them Subjective If They Objectively Work.Yet I don't see people objectively using them.
|
|