|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 9, 2021 23:42:26 GMT
If all is One then all is connected, this means even the most obscure phenomenon are connect to further obscure phenomenon. Under these terms a form of universal equivocation occurs.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 21, 2021 8:29:02 GMT
Back in the Pythagorean/Plato days scienc was just a small part of philosophy and any educated man was considered a philosopher in his own right and a scientist as well. I'm not sure what your point is about the animals ? No, not about the animals. I said The animals /i.e. the Darwin's monkeys/ and average persons do simple things. Our daily practice in most aspects is similar – we want to satisfy our hungry, to be in warm, etc. Even work and money are more complex methods, but mainly it comes from our animal life /i.e. when we were animals/.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 21, 2021 17:10:15 GMT
Are* you mean are animals
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 21, 2021 18:32:29 GMT
Are* you mean are animals Yes
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 22, 2021 22:24:31 GMT
I agree with what your saying however Aren't you just assuming that there is a void/nothing? Because the only thing you can observe is a something That would mean that you have a concept in your head and you call that concept "void/nothing" and assume where/how it is in relation to all the somethings you observe Void is the absense of unity and this absence of unity is observe through multiplicity where multiplicity is the absence of some relationship to another.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 23, 2021 0:02:00 GMT
I agree with what your saying however Aren't you just assuming that there is a void/nothing? Because the only thing you can observe is a something That would mean that you have a concept in your head and you call that concept "void/nothing" and assume where/how it is in relation to all the somethings you observe Void is the absense of unity and this absence of unity is observe through multiplicity where multiplicity is the absence of some relationship to another. Everything can't be in relation with everything because there wouldn't be any way of defining the difference between anything something being in relation with a certain thing and not with another certain thing in no way points to they're being a "no-thing" It's all you're doing is recognizing the possibility of different relationships and how they are not what is the reality in front of you and this is in no way the same thing as evidence for no-thing
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 23, 2021 0:10:43 GMT
Void is the absense of unity and this absence of unity is observe through multiplicity where multiplicity is the absence of some relationship to another. Everything can't be in relation with everything because there wouldn't be any way of defining the difference between anything something being in relation with a certain thing and not with another certain thing in no way points to they're being a "no-thing" It's all you're doing is recognizing the possibility of different relationships and how they are not what is the reality in front of you and this is in no way the same thing as evidence for no-thing All is a variation of a common source. For example the number one exists in a variation as two. Two is composed of one yet is not one. Everything can exist as connected through a common source. There is no evidence for nothing as nothing cannot be proven. To speak of nothing is to speak of an absence of being, hence the absence of unity of being considering all comes from a common source, thus multiplicity. We see absence of being through relationships of being considering that which relates is empty in itself.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 23, 2021 4:36:21 GMT
Know what we see is something that is different than another thing and that differentiation does not conclude in between the one in the two is this thing called nothing. Differentiation is not conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 23, 2021 22:28:30 GMT
Know what we see is something that is different than another thing and that differentiation does not conclude in between the one in the two is this thing called nothing. Differentiation is not conclusion. Differentiation is the absence of one thing in another therefore a void of said phenomenon. Dually the differentiation of said phenomena necessitates a seperation, therefore gap, between phenomenon. This gap is void as the absence of being. This absence of being can only be observed through the relationships between beings where said beings differ.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 25, 2021 2:34:22 GMT
Know what we see is something that is different than another thing and that differentiation does not conclude in between the one in the two is this thing called nothing. Differentiation is not conclusion. Differentiation is the absence of one thing in another therefore a void of said phenomenon. Dually the differentiation of said phenomena necessitates a seperation, therefore gap, between phenomenon. This gap is void as the absence of being. This absence of being can only be observed through the relationships between beings where said beings differ. There's not a void in that gap between two beings because the other being is different than the first being there for as a differentiation and the differentiation is not no-thing . You are confusing differentiation with your concept of no-thing
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 29, 2021 23:23:27 GMT
Differentiation is the absence of one thing in another therefore a void of said phenomenon. Dually the differentiation of said phenomena necessitates a seperation, therefore gap, between phenomenon. This gap is void as the absence of being. This absence of being can only be observed through the relationships between beings where said beings differ. There's not a void in that gap between two beings because the other being is different than the first being there for as a differentiation and the differentiation is not no-thing . You are confusing differentiation with your concept of no-thing The gap between A and B is the absence of A and B. Void between A and B occurs.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 30, 2021 8:47:46 GMT
There's not a void in that gap between two beings because the other being is different than the first being there for as a differentiation and the differentiation is not no-thing . You are confusing differentiation with your concept of no-thing The gap between A and B is the absence of A and B. Void between A and B occurs. No that is your imagination creating this "void" . if A is A and B is B then A being A just means that it is not B and same goes for B there is no void just like there is no void between me and you because between me and you is space and all the other things that go along with that. Once again you are incapable of realizing that your concepts don't actually apply to shared reality and only exist in your head.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 30, 2021 16:43:26 GMT
The gap between A and B is the absence of A and B. Void between A and B occurs. No that is your imagination creating this "void" . if A is A and B is B then A being A just means that it is not B and same goes for B there is no void just like there is no void between me and you because between me and you is space and all the other things that go along with that. Once again you are incapable of realizing that your concepts don't actually apply to shared reality and only exist in your head. No it is your imagination where there is no absence of being. Pure Absence Of Being Cannot Be Imagined As One Would Be Imagining Nothing, Thus No Imagination At All. A is absent of B and B is absent of A. The space between A and B, as absent of A and B, is void of A and B. Void is the absence of a phenomenon and this absence is formlessness. Space is void as space is not a thing. You cannot point to space without pointing to a relationship where one being is absent of another. Once again, in English, void is the absence of a phenomenon (in this case A and B). A cup which is empty of water is void of water. Void cannot be proven as to prove void is to prove nothing thus no proof occurs. You are mistaking void for a thing. Only existence exists. If the grand unity of being exists as one, the negation of this being through the voiding of said being results in multiplicity considering only being exists. To negate this unity of being is to result in multiplicity of said being. Being which is voided is being as multiple beings. Void is the negation of said unity of being thus void can only be observed through multiplicity where one being is absent of another considering relationships require multiplicity and multiplicity necessitates differentiation where one being is absent of another.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 31, 2021 1:16:56 GMT
No that is your imagination creating this "void" . if A is A and B is B then A being A just means that it is not B and same goes for B there is no void just like there is no void between me and you because between me and you is space and all the other things that go along with that. Once again you are incapable of realizing that your concepts don't actually apply to shared reality and only exist in your head. No it is your imagination where there is no absence of being. Pure Absence Of Being Cannot Be Imagined As One Would Be Imagining Nothing, Thus No Imagination At All. A is absent of B and B is absent of A. The space between A and B, as absent of A and B, is void of A and B. Void is the absence of a phenomenon and this absence is formlessness. Space is void as space is not a thing. You cannot point to space without pointing to a relationship where one being is absent of another. Once again, in English, void is the absence of a phenomenon (in this case A and B). A cup which is empty of water is void of water. Void cannot be proven as to prove void is to prove nothing thus no proof occurs. You are mistaking void for a thing. Only existence exists. If the grand unity of being exists as one, the negation of this being through the voiding of said being results in multiplicity considering only being exists. To negate this unity of being is to result in multiplicity of said being. Being which is voided is being as multiple beings. Void is the negation of said unity of being thus void can only be observed through multiplicity where one being is absent of another considering relationships require multiplicity and multiplicity necessitates differentiation where one being is absent of another. I understand your concept completely in fact I held the same concept and opinion a few years ago so it's not a hard one for me to grasp But what you can't seem to comprehend is that it is only a concept and how your mind tries to understand the world you live in But you fail to see that it's only a concept and it's your brains best explanation for how life works and im sorry but life can and probably a lot more complex then you are capable of comprehending and that goes for probably every person alive. As for the grand unity of the universe is concerned it is most definitely not all one But that's an even more complex topic then this one so i don't have much faith in that being a productive conversation given limitations of understanding you currently possess
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 2, 2021 8:16:32 GMT
All is One when One is two. All is three when all is all. Do you want to say: 'All' = 1, if 1 = 2? Or 'All' R 1, if 1 = 2? (Where 'R' is some other relation, than '='.) And: 'All' = 3, or 'All' R 3, when 'All' = 'All'?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 2, 2021 10:20:53 GMT
Well, 'is' means a sign of alterity, and 'when', a sign of process. Then 'All' alters to 1, if and only if 1 equals 2. And: 'All' alters to 'All', if and only if 1 equals 3?
|
|