|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 9, 2020 21:09:56 GMT
Contrast necessitates a continual divergence of forms. Contrast comes from a center point of Nothingness thus is twofold. One form in contrast to another not only necessitates form as contrasting to another form but form as contrasting to Nothingness.
This can be observed within the contrast of a bird against a tree and that of Nothingness. In observing the fundamental forme of the bird and the tree a curvature of the phenomena, as in the curves which forms the phenomena, exists as the means of distinction between the bird and the tree. These curves which contrast the phenomena are fundamentally empty in themselves except through further curvature.
Dually the birds existing in contrast to Nothingness is a series of curves which are composed of further curves given the bird, as a singular entity within the contrasting void, is composed of further parts. The distinction occurs through the curvature from which the phenomena are composed.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 10, 2020 11:19:16 GMT
Contrast necessitates a continual divergence of forms. Contrast comes from a center point of Nothingness thus is twofold. One form in contrast to another not only necessitates form as contrasting to another form but form as contrasting to Nothingness. This can be observed within the contrast of a bird against a tree and that of Nothingness. In observing the fundamental forme of the bird and the tree a curvature of the phenomena, as in the curves which forms the phenomena, exists as the means of distinction between the bird and the tree. These curves which contrast the phenomena are fundamentally empty in themselves except through further curvature. Dually the birds existing in contrast to Nothingness is a series of curves which are composed of further curves given the bird, as a singular entity within the contrasting void, is composed of further parts. The distinction occurs through the curvature from which the phenomena are composed. But when I observe the bird I don't come to the conclusion that the bird is in contrast with the tree as a singular entity within a void of nothingness. I see a bird that is made of something and is interacting with other things made of something. So where are you finding/seeing/justifing this conclusion of yours? Or is it all in your imagination ?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 11, 2020 16:48:45 GMT
Contrast necessitates a continual divergence of forms. Contrast comes from a center point of Nothingness thus is twofold. One form in contrast to another not only necessitates form as contrasting to another form but form as contrasting to Nothingness. This can be observed within the contrast of a bird against a tree and that of Nothingness. In observing the fundamental forme of the bird and the tree a curvature of the phenomena, as in the curves which forms the phenomena, exists as the means of distinction between the bird and the tree. These curves which contrast the phenomena are fundamentally empty in themselves except through further curvature. Dually the birds existing in contrast to Nothingness is a series of curves which are composed of further curves given the bird, as a singular entity within the contrasting void, is composed of further parts. The distinction occurs through the curvature from which the phenomena are composed. But when I observe the bird I don't come to the conclusion that the bird is in contrast with the tree as a singular entity within a void of nothingness. I see a bird that is made of something and is interacting with other things made of something. So where are you finding/seeing/justifing this conclusion of yours? Or is it all in your imagination ? The bird is formed of forms, these forms are composed of curves. In an absolute void the bird is defined by that which composes it. Dually the bird is defined by the phenomenon beyond it. These phenomenon are composed of forms, thus are composed of curves. The forms, as curves, which form the bird allow for the distinction of the bird. The forms which exist outside the bird, as curves, contrast to the curves which form the birds thus resulting in the phenomenon of the bird as appearing distinct from a back drop.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 11, 2020 19:55:53 GMT
None of that in any way shows or validates your theory of nothingness
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 14, 2020 4:01:35 GMT
None of that in any way shows or validates your theory of nothingness The line in a glass between water and air is fundamentally void. It is this line which allows the distinction of one phenomenon from another. All is composed of curves, which allows for distinction, with these curves being fundamentally empty upon further inspection.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 14, 2020 22:44:54 GMT
None of that in any way shows or validates your theory of nothingness The line in a glass between water and air is fundamentally void. It is this line which allows the distinction of one phenomenon from another. All is composed of curves, which allows for distinction, with these curves being fundamentally empty upon further inspection. And how are they found to be empty?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 14, 2020 23:13:37 GMT
The line in a glass between water and air is fundamentally void. It is this line which allows the distinction of one phenomenon from another. All is composed of curves, which allows for distinction, with these curves being fundamentally empty upon further inspection. And how are they found to be empty? Tell me what composes the space between the water and the air.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 15, 2020 5:15:37 GMT
And how are they found to be empty? Tell me what composes the space between the water and the air. You tell me I asked you how you found it to be empty
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 15, 2020 17:44:27 GMT
Tell me what composes the space between the water and the air. You tell me I asked you how you found it to be empty Upon closer inspection the line between the air and water is empty. Nothing is there.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 16, 2020 3:10:07 GMT
You tell me I asked you how you found it to be empty Upon closer inspection the line between the air and water is empty. Nothing is there. Really ? And how did you observe this? Because I do believe there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can recreate how you observed this .
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2020 16:41:28 GMT
Upon closer inspection the line between the air and water is empty. Nothing is there. Really ? And how did you observe this? Because I do believe there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can recreate how you observed this . Simple observe the line and see what it is composed of. Upon closer inspection what do you see the line composed of?
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 17, 2020 1:39:55 GMT
No you're not answering my question I asked you how did You observe this
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 17, 2020 3:57:34 GMT
No you're not answering my question I asked you how did You observe this I did answer it, you just don't like the answer. Observing the line between the water and the air and what it is composed of is nothing...not air, not water, not the glass it is in.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 17, 2020 6:06:39 GMT
No you're not answering my question I asked you how did You observe this I did answer it, you just don't like the answer. Observing the line between the water and the air and what it is composed of is nothing...not air, not water, not the glass it is in. No your telling me that you did observe it And i know you say you did but what im asking is HOW did you observe it.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 17, 2020 16:13:33 GMT
I did answer it, you just don't like the answer. Observing the line between the water and the air and what it is composed of is nothing...not air, not water, not the glass it is in. No your telling me that you did observe it And i know you say you did but what im asking is HOW did you observe it. By seeing the absence of reflection between the water and the air. The line is absent of water and air. This is observed visually.
|
|