|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 21, 2023 17:46:08 GMT
1. To make something clear, through rhetoric or rather the use of words, is to make something transparent in the respect that it is now "see through" as its definition allows one to see connections that go beyond said thing. This "seeing through" allows the now clear thing to no longer be a barrier to understanding as its limits become transparent as a result of its perceived connections.
2. The observation of change is the observation of transparency as the phenomenon changing into another is the phenomenon being seen through another thus showing a vacuous yet clear, or rather 'see through', nature to being.
3. It is difficult to rationalize the Truth as rationalization requires the dividing up of said Truth, through definitions, with this division resulting in hindrances as the fine lines of definitions now become barriers.
4. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require a distinction. A distinction requires a standing apart of one thing from another. This "standing apart" results in contradiction. Order is contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 21, 2023 19:59:28 GMT
And effect is an extension of the cause thus only one thing is really observed. Impossible. You offer to conceptualise the inner contradictory object this means for any objects of such to have parts. How are you supposed to see one object that is cause and reason at the same time? The continuity of the quality known as "being" across all things observes this quality as being both cause and effect. The cause of a blade of grass results in further effects in there being further blades of grass (reproduction). The continuity of the blade of grass observes the blade and grass form being its own cause and effect.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 22, 2023 20:08:22 GMT
Impossible. You offer to conceptualise the inner contradictory object this means for any objects of such to have parts. How are you supposed to see one object that is cause and reason at the same time? The continuity of the quality known as "being" across all things observes this quality as being both cause and effect. The cause of a blade of grass results in further effects in there being further blades of grass (reproduction). The continuity of the blade of grass observes the blade and grass form being its own cause and effect. You mean cause and effect simultaneously?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 28, 2023 19:55:30 GMT
22. The totality of being is formless as it has no comparison, with comparison being required for form to occur through contrast (i.e. a standing apart), otherwise if it were to have comparison it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. Comparable, or rather contrasting (i.e. standing apart), only to itself it is self-divided thus contradictory. Being formless it is translucent as the formlessness necessitates an absence of barriers and distinctions that would otherwise result in an inability to see through it. As one without comparison with nothing being beyond it, yet paradoxically self-divided through self-comparison, it is seen only through itself thus is radiant with any self-contrast through self-division occurring radiantly considering definition only occurs where light is present.
23. There is space inside a circle. There is space outside a circle. The inner and outer space is divided through the form of the circle with this form being space itself. Space is divided by space with this division being space itself; space is self-contradicting. The division of one space by another necessitates space as seen through another thus necessitating space as both transparent and illuminated. One form, i.e. space, seen through another is the standing apart of forms, i.e. spaces, that allows definition to take place. This "standing apart" necessitates a transparency in being as one thing cannot be seen except through another while dually the "standing apart" necessitates a radiance which is definition of forms in itself.
|
|
rexa
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Likes: 16
|
Post by rexa on Jul 28, 2023 23:03:48 GMT
22. The totality of being is formless as it has no comparison, with comparison being required for form to occur through contrast (i.e. a standing apart), otherwise if it were to have comparison it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. Comparable, or rather contrasting (i.e. standing apart), only to itself it is self-divided thus contradictory. Being formless it is translucent as the formlessness necessitates an absence of barriers and distinctions that would otherwise result in an inability to see through it. As one without comparison with nothing being beyond it, yet paradoxically self-divided through self-comparison, it is seen only through itself thus is radiant with any self-contrast through self-division occurring radiantly considering definition only occurs where light is present. 23. There is space inside a circle. There is space outside a circle. The inner and outer space is divided through the form of the circle with this form being space itself. Space is divided by space with this division being space itself; space is self-contradicting. The division of one space by another necessitates space as seen through another thus necessitating space as both transparent and illuminated. One form, i.e. space, seen through another is the standing apart of forms, i.e. spaces, that allows definition to take place. This "standing apart" necessitates a transparency in being as one thing cannot be seen except through another while dually the "standing apart" necessitates a radiance which is definition of forms in itself. IM GONNA CALL THE COPS!! MAN. Quit this senseless bandwagon
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 29, 2023 15:50:36 GMT
22. The totality of being is formless as it has no comparison, with comparison being required for form to occur through contrast (i.e. a standing apart), otherwise if it were to have comparison it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. Comparable, or rather contrasting (i.e. standing apart), only to itself it is self-divided thus contradictory. Being formless it is translucent as the formlessness necessitates an absence of barriers and distinctions that would otherwise result in an inability to see through it. As one without comparison with nothing being beyond it, yet paradoxically self-divided through self-comparison, it is seen only through itself thus is radiant with any self-contrast through self-division occurring radiantly considering definition only occurs where light is present. 23. There is space inside a circle. There is space outside a circle. The inner and outer space is divided through the form of the circle with this form being space itself. Space is divided by space with this division being space itself; space is self-contradicting. The division of one space by another necessitates space as seen through another thus necessitating space as both transparent and illuminated. One form, i.e. space, seen through another is the standing apart of forms, i.e. spaces, that allows definition to take place. This "standing apart" necessitates a transparency in being as one thing cannot be seen except through another while dually the "standing apart" necessitates a radiance which is definition of forms in itself. IM GONNA CALL THE COPS!! MAN. Quit this senseless bandwagon Insulting members is prohibited. But this time it's okay, seems your own comment is self-insulting.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 9, 2023 22:20:42 GMT
24. A previous order has to disintegrate so that a new order may occur with this new order being the adaptation of the old due to the introduction of new contexts and/or problems. It is this introduction of new contexts/problems that shows the previous order as having very little footing other than its strict existence as an appearance, in the respect it is observed 'just as is', with the new order having this same nature considering it will have to eventually dissolve under the necessity of further adaptation. The dissolution of an order for another order shows a certain spontaneity in which change of context, resulting in the aforementioned change of order, manifests as change producing further change in which order just emerges from randomness and that is it. It is spontaneous and thus as randomly occuring as the randomness from which it comes. Order becomes mere appearance as this emergent quality is its only observable grounding. In observing order we relegate it to nothing more than appearance or image; this nature shows order as fundamentally being flat or shallow as one order/appearance results in another, then another, so on and so forth with no end in sight as order becomes a self-referential string looped upon itself as order changes to further order. Order, under these terms, is meaningless. This loop of order changing into further order is just a meta-order that spontaneously appears thus grounding order in a quality of 'emergence' that is spontaneous and random considering it just occurs...and that is it; 'it' just occurs.
Order requires adaptation with adaptation existing only if something is introduced randomly for order cannot adapt to further order unless there was first a gap between said orders that first requires a contradiction or rather absence of order. Change separates one order from another thus making each order distinct from the other with this distinction of orders resulting in a level of assymetry between them which is synonymous to randomness and spontaneity. No two orders are exactly the same thus necessitating the groundings of order in 'disorder' and a paradox ensues from this. Order and disorder effectively blend as one, in the macro context, due to their co-dependent relationship thus leaving us with absurdity; yet in acknowledging this absurdity we rationalize an order definition of things, by calling them "absurd", thus it is absurd that there is absurdity. By pointing to disorder in things we only bring order to them by defining them under the term "disorder"; by pointing to order within things we only bring disorder to them by leaving the definition of "order" open ended in the respect that is requires self-evidence thus fundamentally subjective and subject to a multitude or interpretations that are distinctly different (what is 'ordered' to one individual is not always 'ordered' to another).
The spontaneity and randomness of order appearing can be evidenced by a series of square objects sharing the same form of the square with the square just appearing from nothing, it just appears; even in things with shared forms the general form just appears spontaneously. Order being grounded in further order results in an infinite regress where the succession of order just appears and as such is spontaneous and random thus contradicting its own nature at the meta-level. To believe order underlies all things is to make order meaningless as it has no compare to allow it to be distinct (thus no longer can 'order' be said to exist because of this indistinctness, and with this occurring to 'disorder' as well); to say order does not underlie all things is to result in a contrast of disorder and order that results in truth being grounded in contradiction and with it 'order' and 'disorder' as well.
25. In everything being different everything is the same by sharing the quality of 'standing apart' or rather 'distinctness'. In everything being the same everything is different as sameness requires multiplicity (i.e. a thing cannot be the same as itself without there first being multiple states which equate) and with this multiplicity comes distinctness due to differences in time and space, thus there is neither sameness nor difference.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 18, 2023 19:33:16 GMT
26. The order of an event is ascribed only after the event occurs and as such it, i.e. the observation of order or the order itself, cannot be differentiated as either an actual objective state or a subjective interpretation. This reverse nature to order necessitates it as a projective quality with this projective quality coming from a spontaneous emergence from the observers in the respect it 'just appears'. Even from the perspective that this observation of order is not spontaneous, considering we measure one order relative to another, the nature of perception just "clicking", i.e. suddenly seeing the order, still necessitates a deeper spontaneity considering this "clicking" just emerges from nowhere the is perceptible. We only observe order from the observation of other orders, with orders beyond that and so forth, and yet order in its totality 'just appears' spontaneously, this spontaneity necessitates order as rooted in randomness. Ultimately any rational explanation is rooted in a subjective state that is irrational as drives and impulses, as well as subjective memories, influence it. This grounding in randomness, or spontaneity, and rationality makes order fundamentally transparent in the we respect we see order emerging from the observation of other orders (for example we see why x event occurred because of other similar events occuring and one event is seen through another. Another example is of the observation of the order the the sun rising and setting is through the other observations of times of the sun rising and setting). In other words the spontaneous emergence of order necessitates a transparent quality to order as one order is seen through another.
27. The space inside the circle is empty. The space outside the circle is empty. The circle itself is the emptiness between spaces. This is the nature of all forms.
28. With the highest of pleasures comes nothing beyond it but itself thus it is a state of meaninglessness.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 1, 2023 18:38:40 GMT
29. All order occurs through symmetry and symmetry occurs through repetition with this repetition being the foundations of a cycle. All order is grounded in cycles with this cyclicality being a 'prison', in the most abstract of terms, as it 'contains' or rather is a 'container'.
30. All extremes in actions allows a person to stand apart as the imbalance, of the extremism, creates an asymmetry in which there is no similarity between that person an another. This extremism is the condition for a fragmentation of being, or rather observers, as said 'standing apart' results in a multiplicity of states as there is no unity through commonality. Only through balance, with balance occurring through moderation, does a person become transparent and without a self as this balance allows an embracement of the whole of all possible actions thus negating an identity with any one thing that stand apart but rather results in an identity with all things thus effectively nothing; the transparency of a person, through moderation, is the person being able to be seen within all facets of life as balance allows for all things to occur. The transparency of balance is the emptiness of being as balance results in a state of evenness in which one thing does not rise above or fall below another thus there is no 'standing apart' or distinguishment.
31. To master a thing is to make it indistinguishable from the self. This oneness of the person and the action is emptiness as the said lack of distinguishment is an absence of boundaries between the action(s) and the person. To master an action is to result in a state of emptiness where things occur with little to no hindrance.
32. The self is limited when one's happiness is conditioned upon things that require further conditions, in order to exist, as all conditioned things have a beginning and an end thus are limited.
33. To achieve balance is to achieve a state of emptiness as all things and there opposites neither rise above nor fall below eachother thus preventing any assymetry or 'standing apart'. This emptiness of balance allows the spontaneous emergence of all things as there is no distinctions or hindrances within it to prevent anything from occurring. Balance allows for all possibilities as well considering a thing and its opposite must occur; with all possibilities manifesting comes a transparent emptiness of things as one thing is seen through another as one thing is dependent upon another. Balance is emptiness as one thing does not stand apart from another thus negating distinctions.
|
|