|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 6, 2022 21:37:17 GMT
Everything is beyond form thus a void; it is beyond form as it has no comparison because comparison would require something beyond everything thus everything is not everything. Thingness is a void of void thus also a void. In conceptualizing everything we conceptionalize nothing, but in conceptionalizing nothing we conceptionalize an absence and this absence is a negative limit thus a thing. Everything is both no-thing and a thing and neither no-thing nor a thing, thus everything is a contradiction. As a contradiction it exists as a contradiction, thus exists as contradictions exist.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 10, 2022 21:51:41 GMT
A reflection is repetition of form, we see this in the nature of pictures. The picture of a person is the repetition of certain underlying forms, ie arms, face, legs, in a new state. Mirroring is repetition. Reflection Is Not Repetition, Reflection Is In An Image, Repetition Is Not In An Image, It Is In Imitation That Is Not Reflecting, But Repeating Without Its Own Identity, I.E Shadow / Reflection Is Not The Person, And A Person's Picture Is Not The Person, Whereas Cloning Someone Is Repeating By Imitation, Not Reflection As There Is No Natural Parallel In Place For It To Be So.A shadow is the repetition of certain forms within the form of that which causes the shadow. In a reflection certain underlying forms repeat: a circle and a shadow of a circle shows the circle repeat through the shadow.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 11, 2022 20:54:46 GMT
Reflection Is Not Repetition, Reflection Is In An Image, Repetition Is Not In An Image, It Is In Imitation That Is Not Reflecting, But Repeating Without Its Own Identity, I.E Shadow / Reflection Is Not The Person, And A Person's Picture Is Not The Person, Whereas Cloning Someone Is Repeating By Imitation, Not Reflection As There Is No Natural Parallel In Place For It To Be So. A shadow is the repetition of certain forms within the form of that which causes the shadow. In a reflection certain underlying forms repeat: a circle and a shadow of a circle shows the circle repeat through the shadow. You Are Proving My Point. The Circle And The Circle's Shadow Are Not A Repeat, But A Reflection; Two Different Similar Things Do Not Make Them The Same Thing.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 16, 2022 21:28:03 GMT
A shadow is the repetition of certain forms within the form of that which causes the shadow. In a reflection certain underlying forms repeat: a circle and a shadow of a circle shows the circle repeat through the shadow. You Are Proving My Point. The Circle And The Circle's Shadow Are Not A Repeat, But A Reflection; Two Different Similar Things Do Not Make Them The Same Thing.Two different things are connected through their similarities.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 17, 2022 2:12:54 GMT
You Are Proving My Point. The Circle And The Circle's Shadow Are Not A Repeat, But A Reflection; Two Different Similar Things Do Not Make Them The Same Thing. Two different things are connected through their similarities. Not In The Way You Suggested, That's Just Immutably Incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 17, 2022 22:13:09 GMT
Two different things are connected through their similarities. Not In The Way You Suggested, That's Just Immutably Incorrect.In different terms but with the same message: Similarities necessitate a common quality underlying two or more distinct things. This common quality is a connector as the same thing exists in multiple states.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 17, 2022 23:29:32 GMT
Not In The Way You Suggested, That's Just Immutably Incorrect. In different terms but with the same message: Similarities necessitate a common quality underlying two or more distinct things. This common quality is a connector as the same thing exists in multiple states. Anyone That Spends Their Time On A Philosophy Board Philosophizing After Writing "Everything Is A Paradox" Clearly Doesn't Believe In Their Own Wanton Circulatory Circus. ...Similarity Does Not Apply To An Object And Its Reflection / Shadow.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 17, 2022 23:52:44 GMT
In different terms but with the same message: Similarities necessitate a common quality underlying two or more distinct things. This common quality is a connector as the same thing exists in multiple states. Anyone That Spends Their Time On A Philosophy Board Philosophizing After Writing "Everything Is A Paradox" Clearly Doesn't Believe In Their Own Wanton Circulatory Circus. ...Similarity Does Not Apply To An Object And Its Reflection / Shadow.The paradoxical reality of the senses, both abstract and physical, necessitates reality as beyond what can be observed.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 18, 2022 0:32:53 GMT
Anyone That Spends Their Time On A Philosophy Board Philosophizing After Writing "Everything Is A Paradox" Clearly Doesn't Believe In Their Own Wanton Circulatory Circus. ...Similarity Does Not Apply To An Object And Its Reflection / Shadow. The paradoxical reality of the senses, both abstract and physical, necessitates reality as beyond what can be observed. The More You Blame Reality And Not Your Naivety, The Less You Will Understand The Intelligence Of The Universe And I.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 23, 2022 18:26:52 GMT
The paradoxical reality of the senses, both abstract and physical, necessitates reality as beyond what can be observed. The More You Blame Reality And Not Your Naivety, The Less You Will Understand The Intelligence Of The Universe And I.Reality is beyond observation.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 24, 2022 17:37:38 GMT
The More You Blame Reality And Not Your Naivety, The Less You Will Understand The Intelligence Of The Universe And I. Reality is beyond observation. My Formulas For PI, Euler And The Golden Ratio Are Clearly Opposing Your False Statements, For Reality Works Intelligibly, And Many Do Not Bother To Comprehend Its Intelligibility, However Some Of Us Have Done The Impossible To Prove It Is Possible, But It Takes Unspeakable Endurance.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 1, 2022 21:38:08 GMT
Reality is beyond observation. My Formulas For PI, Euler And The Golden Ratio Are Clearly Opposing Your False Statements, For Reality Works Intelligibly, And Many Do Not Bother To Comprehend Its Intelligibility, However Some Of Us Have Done The Impossible To Prove It Is Possible, But It Takes Unspeakable Endurance.If reality works intelligibly and you provide a definition that opposes another definition, with these definitions being part of reality, then reality results in contradiction and is beyond intelligence. That and irrational numbers provide an irrational base to reality.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 2, 2022 5:04:45 GMT
My Formulas For PI, Euler And The Golden Ratio Are Clearly Opposing Your False Statements, For Reality Works Intelligibly, And Many Do Not Bother To Comprehend Its Intelligibility, However Some Of Us Have Done The Impossible To Prove It Is Possible, But It Takes Unspeakable Endurance. If reality works intelligibly and you provide a definition that opposes another definition, with these definitions being part of reality, then reality results in contradiction and is beyond intelligence. That and irrational numbers provide an irrational base to reality. This Statement You Made Is Purely Comical And Only Demonstrates Your Inability To Discuss On A Genuine Level. That Is Not How Definitions Work, You Don't Get To Say A Definition Exists Therefore Its Stated Value Also Exists, Even When It's Blatantly False. The Same Way If Someone's Definition Is Something Exists, But It Doesn't Exist Outside Of Their Mind, They Can't Say "It Does, Inside My Mind It Does". You Don't Play Those Word Salad Games With Me, I Cut Down To The Pure Context Of Aspects.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 8, 2022 22:42:56 GMT
If reality works intelligibly and you provide a definition that opposes another definition, with these definitions being part of reality, then reality results in contradiction and is beyond intelligence. That and irrational numbers provide an irrational base to reality. This Statement You Made Is Purely Comical And Only Demonstrates Your Inability To Discuss On A Genuine Level. That Is Not How Definitions Work, You Don't Get To Say A Definition Exists Therefore Its Stated Value Also Exists, Even When It's Blatantly False. The Same Way If Someone's Definition Is Something Exists, But It Doesn't Exist Outside Of Their Mind, They Can't Say "It Does, Inside My Mind It Does". You Don't Play Those Word Salad Games With Me, I Cut Down To The Pure Context Of Aspects.If it exists then there is some degree of truth in it given existence is truth.
|
|