|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2021 0:25:11 GMT
Nothingness cannot be observe except through the multiplicity of phenomenon. Under the experiment of observing complete void only the self is observed thus necessitating the subjective state of the "I" observing the subjective state of the "I" therefore two or more "I's" being observed: the "I" observing and the "I" being observed . Nothing is observed through being and this being is observe through multiplicity.
Dually under a void, where only the "I" is observed, the "I" in multiple subjective states necessitates the "I" as repeating itself through new forms, thus one "I" is observed. Under these terms the multiplicity of "I's" is a dualistic state to the one "I" existing through variation. The "I" is thus both one and many leading to a dualism of not being and nothing but rather one being and multiple beings.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2021 16:37:59 GMT
I guess this is the side effect of an under developed imagination in today's society Because society is full of grown adults that are completely unaware of the line between reality and imagination and are completely unaware of when there perspective of life has been hijacked by a bord imagination. Truly troubling . The common rule of an debate is the first to resort to ad hominums has ran out of responses and cannot keep up with conversation as they have reached their mental limits. You might want to drop out of the conversation and go back to making pots. Nothingness cannot be observed except through multiple phenomenon where one phenomenon is absent of the other. This absence is void. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 18, 2021 17:07:12 GMT
Nothing is the pre being, the anterior consequence which is the mother of ten thousand things. Thus nothing is potentiality with potentiality being the absence of actuality hence the absence of being. So, the form of nothing is the absence of meaning? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2021 18:17:23 GMT
Thus nothing is potentiality with potentiality being the absence of actuality hence the absence of being. So, the form of nothing is the absence of meaning? Nothing is absent of meaning except as the centerpoint to further being. Being changing through void into further being necessitates nothing as a center point between beings. Being revolves around nothing with this revolution being "being" through being. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 21, 2021 4:27:45 GMT
I guess this is the side effect of an under developed imagination in today's society Because society is full of grown adults that are completely unaware of the line between reality and imagination and are completely unaware of when there perspective of life has been hijacked by a bord imagination. Truly troubling . The common rule of an debate is the first to resort to ad hominums has ran out of responses and cannot keep up with conversation as they have reached their mental limits. You might want to drop out of the conversation and go back to making pots. Nothingness cannot be observed except through multiple phenomenon where one phenomenon is absent of the other. This absence is void. ad hominem reasoning /discussing facts about the other person is relative to the value of a given discussion so sorry i hope i didn't hurt your feelings , last thing we need is for you to make 30 more new topics . and yes like i have stated you are incapable of telling me why you come to the conclusion that you do because nothing in the real world points to that and you don't seem to realize that you are brainwashed into the opinion you have and hold and you don't have a reason why your conclusion is what it is and so the conversation cannot go any further |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2021 17:05:16 GMT
ad hominem reasoning /discussing facts about the other person is relative to the value of a given discussion so sorry i hope i didn't hurt your feelings , last thing we need is for you to make 30 more new topics . and yes like i have stated you are incapable of telling me why you come to the conclusion that you do because nothing in the real world points to that and you don't seem to realize that you are brainwashed into the opinion you have and hold and you don't have a reason why your conclusion is what it is and so the conversation cannot go any further If you read the other posts I have already stated: Nothingness cannot be proven as to prove nothing results in nothing proven. At best Nothingness can be observed as strictly behind an axiom as the point of change from one axiom to another. As to the rest it is a projection on your part as you have not proven how an environment with multiple entities does not have voids. Void is multiplicity as one being is absent of another thus a void results. Your ad hominums only point out how your point of view is threatened. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 26, 2021 14:45:01 GMT
ad hominem reasoning /discussing facts about the other person is relative to the value of a given discussion so sorry i hope i didn't hurt your feelings , last thing we need is for you to make 30 more new topics . and yes like i have stated you are incapable of telling me why you come to the conclusion that you do because nothing in the real world points to that and you don't seem to realize that you are brainwashed into the opinion you have and hold and you don't have a reason why your conclusion is what it is and so the conversation cannot go any further If you read the other posts I have already stated: Nothingness cannot be proven as to prove nothing results in nothing proven. At best Nothingness can be observed as strictly behind an axiom as the point of change from one axiom to another. As to the rest it is a projection on your part as you have not proven how an environment with multiple entities does not have voids. Void is multiplicity as one being is absent of another thus a void results. Your ad hominums only point out how your point of view is threatened. This isn't my personal point of view this is just a philosophical exercise I promise you. And so you want me to prove something does not exist that you have yet to prove exists?. Right. Let's not forget to just because the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy says that had a homonym is a fallacy doesn't fundamentally mean that every scenario it is considered a fallacy because the individual themselves does affect the information individual gifts I don't care how robotic a person tries to be and their own personal life like situations perspective and opinion shape and affect the way that they give information and receive information. Furthermore it was not directed at to you it was directed at the society where you came from so it's technically not an ad hominem but that's beside the point And just picture all the things you've said to me except take out the conclusions you made where you can cluded that it meant nothing and just add in Multiplicity and there you go. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 31, 2021 16:13:47 GMT
If you read the other posts I have already stated: Nothingness cannot be proven as to prove nothing results in nothing proven. At best Nothingness can be observed as strictly behind an axiom as the point of change from one axiom to another. As to the rest it is a projection on your part as you have not proven how an environment with multiple entities does not have voids. Void is multiplicity as one being is absent of another thus a void results. Your ad hominums only point out how your point of view is threatened. This isn't my personal point of view this is just a philosophical exercise I promise you. And so you want me to prove something does not exist that you have yet to prove exists?. Right. Let's not forget to just because the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy says that had a homonym is a fallacy doesn't fundamentally mean that every scenario it is considered a fallacy because the individual themselves does affect the information individual gifts I don't care how robotic a person tries to be and their own personal life like situations perspective and opinion shape and affect the way that they give information and receive information. Furthermore it was not directed at to you it was directed at the society where you came from so it's technically not an ad hominem but that's beside the point And just picture all the things you've said to me except take out the conclusions you made where you can cluded that it meant nothing and just add in Multiplicity and there you go. You are avoiding: "As to the rest it is a projection on your part as you have not proven how an environment with multiple entities does not have voids. Void is multiplicity as one being is absent of another thus a void results." Prove how multiplicity does not have voids as absence of one thing in another. |
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on May 31, 2021 18:55:42 GMT
I see XXXXXXXXX is still trying to sound like he is deeply intelligent and must have the last word on any subject he writes on. His unwillingness to have a genuine dialog is frustrating to the point that others just quit trying. He will dominate any thread with his use of gobbley-gook logic and his over dependence on using pseudo-philosophical language. He seems to think that he is being deep and enlightening, but he is just being irritating and boring. He will never agree or admit that he may be wrong, and he will never explain what it is he is trying to say, because he does not know what the heck he is saying. He just repeats words that together make no sense. Such as his last statement, "Thus nothing is potentiality with potentiality being the absence of actuality hence the absence of being." This is the main reason I quickly quit trying to have any intelligent philosophical conversations on this forum, and I see nothing has changed. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 31, 2021 19:57:57 GMT
I see XXXXXXXXX is still trying to sound like he is deeply intelligent and must have the last word on any subject he writes on. His unwillingness to have a genuine dialog is frustrating to the point that others just quit trying. He will dominate any thread with his use of gobbley-gook logic and his over dependence on using pseudo-philosophical language. He seems to think that he is being deep and enlightening, but he is just being irritating and boring. He will never agree or admit that he may be wrong, and he will never explain what it is he is trying to say, because he does not know what the heck he is saying. He just repeats words that together make no sense. Such as his last statement, "Thus nothing is potentiality with potentiality being the absence of actuality hence the absence of being." This is the main reason I quickly quit trying to have any intelligent philosophical conversations on this forum, and I see nothing has changed. Good luck! If you had anything to offer you would have offered it considering this forum has multiple threads which are not my own. I don't see a long list of your contributions to these other threads or even a high response to any thread you started prior. Start another thread yourself, noone is stopping you, see what results. If anything you are projecting your own issues simply because you could have spent all that time writing that response to either offer your own perspective, or assertion, or start a thread to contribute. If anything you come off as a whiny iintellectual beta Male pretending to be an alpha. Use paragraphs, it is easier to read. If you do not understand something then ask a question or better yet I challenge you to start a thread yourself. Let's see what you know rather than hearing your complaints. Anyhow to further explain what I wrote above: 1. A potential state is that which may be. 2. That which may be is unactualized thus void of form. 3. Potentiality is void of form thus is void. 4. Void and potentiality can be viewed as synonymous. |
|
