|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 31, 2021 16:43:58 GMT
To say something comes from a prior being is to say one thing results in the variation of another thing. Being from being is variation where the new phenomenon is a variation of the prior. This variation necessitates one phenomenon as having something another phenomenon lacks. This lack, as an absence, necessitates a void between phenomena. This void appears prior to the new phenomena as that which seperates it from the old, thus these new changes result in being coming from nothing at the same time being comes from being.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 1, 2021 12:27:45 GMT
To say something comes from a prior being is to say one thing results in the variation of another thing. Being from being is variation where the new phenomenon is a variation of the prior. This variation necessitates one phenomenon as having something another phenomenon lacks. This lack, as an absence, necessitates a void between phenomena. This void appears prior to the new phenomena as that which seperates it from the old, thus these new changes result in being coming from nothing at the same time being comes from being. The variation occurs due to incompleteness of the prior being. (Perhaps the prior being equals or barely equals to chaos.) The incompleteness of the prior being might be evidence of a more complex composition of that being, and in turn that the prior being isn't a simple thing, or more highly possible that that being is not a usual thing, but the things. But, at the same time, I doubt the prior being has as chaotic structure so nothing-structure, or that it lacks anything. The prior being is a perfect Triade, while its 'nothingness' comes only because of the will of that plain-complex-balanced being. New phenomena comes from the same reasons if and only if we're talking about the Prior Being. When we're dealing with a prior being, then it is necessary that, because a prior being doesn't have something, that something might be separated from it as a new phenomena. The ordinary not Perfect Beings play their entropy role to change to Nothing, so that's why it may be that Nothing isn't prior, bit posterior than the phenomena. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 1, 2021 16:18:18 GMT
To say something comes from a prior being is to say one thing results in the variation of another thing. Being from being is variation where the new phenomenon is a variation of the prior. This variation necessitates one phenomenon as having something another phenomenon lacks. This lack, as an absence, necessitates a void between phenomena. This void appears prior to the new phenomena as that which seperates it from the old, thus these new changes result in being coming from nothing at the same time being comes from being. The variation occurs due to incompleteness of the prior being. (Perhaps the prior being equals or barely equals to chaos.) The incompleteness of the prior being might be evidence of a more complex composition of that being, and in turn that the prior being isn't a simple thing, or more highly possible that that being is not a usual thing, but the things. But, at the same time, I doubt the prior being has as chaotic structure so nothing-structure, or that it lacks anything. The prior being is a perfect Triade, while its 'nothingness' comes only because of the will of that plain-complex-balanced being. New phenomena comes from the same reasons if and only if we're talking about the Prior Being. When we're dealing with a prior being, then it is necessary that, because a prior being doesn't have something, that something might be separated from it as a new phenomena. The ordinary not Perfect Beings play their entropy role to change to Nothing, so that's why it may be that Nothing isn't prior, bit posterior than the phenomena. 1. All being occurs through mirroring, this mirroring is the repetition of said being as one continuous form. 2. The absence of mirroring is the variation of said mirroring. This absence of mirroring is the phenomenon mirroring void. This Is The Absence Of A Continuous Form. 3. A phenomenon mirroring void causes a variation of the original being, this variation is the original form in a new form. For example a line mirroring itself results in one continuous line. As soon as a 0d point is inserted a new line occurs considering the line is now mirroring void thus resulting in a variation. 4. The original phenomenon exists through the new phenomenon but is not the new phenomenon as the new phenomenon lacks the unity of the original phenomenon. The posterior being lacks the completeness of the prior being, thus a variation occurs. Void is prior to the posterior being thus the posterior being both comes from being and from void. 5. The original being with an underlying repeated form, ie 2 or 3 composed of 1, observes being coming from being. 6. The variation is being coming from void given this variation observes a seperation. A void occurs prior to this variate being as it is the original being reflecting nothing prior to the creation of the different being. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 1, 2021 19:22:23 GMT
The variation occurs due to incompleteness of the prior being. (Perhaps the prior being equals or barely equals to chaos.) The incompleteness of the prior being might be evidence of a more complex composition of that being, and in turn that the prior being isn't a simple thing, or more highly possible that that being is not a usual thing, but the things. But, at the same time, I doubt the prior being has as chaotic structure so nothing-structure, or that it lacks anything. The prior being is a perfect Triade, while its 'nothingness' comes only because of the will of that plain-complex-balanced being. New phenomena comes from the same reasons if and only if we're talking about the Prior Being. When we're dealing with a prior being, then it is necessary that, because a prior being doesn't have something, that something might be separated from it as a new phenomena. The ordinary not Perfect Beings play their entropy role to change to Nothing, so that's why it may be that Nothing isn't prior, bit posterior than the phenomena. 1. All being occurs through mirroring, this mirroring is the repetition of said being as one continuous form. 2. The absence of mirroring is the variation of said mirroring. This absence of mirroring is the phenomenon mirroring void. This Is The Absence Of A Continuous Form. 3. A phenomenon mirroring void causes a variation of the original being, this variation is the original form in a new form. For example a line mirroring itself results in one continuous line. As soon as a 0d point is inserted a new line occurs considering the line is now mirroring void thus resulting in a variation. 4. The original phenomenon exists through the new phenomenon but is not the new phenomenon as the new phenomenon lacks the unity of the original phenomenon. The posterior being lacks the completeness of the prior being, thus a variation occurs. Void is prior to the posterior being thus the posterior being both comes from being and from void. 5. The original being with an underlying repeated form, ie 2 or 3 composed of 1, observes being coming from being. 6. The variation is being coming from void given this variation observes a seperation. A void occurs prior to this variate being as it is the original being reflecting nothing prior to the creation of the different being. Any new form has the original (in it) through the repetition act(s). That's why '1' is presented in '2', '3', etc. The same is about '0', while '0' is presented in as '1' so, perhaps, '0'. I don't really know is '1' presented in '1' (it seems to be it), and I am sure '0' is 0. It can't be different: '0' is a unit masked by its lacks of anything. In other words, '0' is what doesn't accept anything, but itself, or it balances something: f(x)=0 only when either x=O, or algebraic x=y+–y+z+–z+...+w+–w=0. However, the emptiness and 0 aren't the same. It makes only when the correspondence truth is here. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 1, 2021 20:35:34 GMT
1. All being occurs through mirroring, this mirroring is the repetition of said being as one continuous form. 2. The absence of mirroring is the variation of said mirroring. This absence of mirroring is the phenomenon mirroring void. This Is The Absence Of A Continuous Form. 3. A phenomenon mirroring void causes a variation of the original being, this variation is the original form in a new form. For example a line mirroring itself results in one continuous line. As soon as a 0d point is inserted a new line occurs considering the line is now mirroring void thus resulting in a variation. 4. The original phenomenon exists through the new phenomenon but is not the new phenomenon as the new phenomenon lacks the unity of the original phenomenon. The posterior being lacks the completeness of the prior being, thus a variation occurs. Void is prior to the posterior being thus the posterior being both comes from being and from void. 5. The original being with an underlying repeated form, ie 2 or 3 composed of 1, observes being coming from being. 6. The variation is being coming from void given this variation observes a seperation. A void occurs prior to this variate being as it is the original being reflecting nothing prior to the creation of the different being. Any new form has the original (in it) through the repetition act(s). That's why '1' is presented in '2', '3', etc. The same is about '0', while '0' is presented in as '1' so, perhaps, '0'. I don't really know is '1' presented in '1' (it seems to be it), and I am sure '0' is 0. It can't be different: '0' is a unit masked by its lacks of anything. In other words, '0' is what doesn't accept anything, but itself, or it balances something: f(x)=0 only when either x=O, or algebraic x=y+–y+z+–z+...+w+–w=0. However, the emptiness and 0 aren't the same. It makes only when the correspondence truth is here. The distinction of forms, ie that which is different from a prior form (ie change of forms), necessitates void behind and in front of the form as this void allows for the seperation necessary for distinction. 0 is the quantitative way of saying qualitative nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 2, 2021 15:46:27 GMT
Fellows, philosophers have the reputation of being very impractical people, and you are a case in point. In fact, you deal with the issue whether something comes from nothing or not, whereas practical people deal with ways of getting something out of nothing. The latest  an Italian artist sold (auctioned off) an INVISIBLE sculpture for $18,000 -- fair and square -- www.newsweek.com/italian-artist-sold-invisible-sculpture-more-18000-1596608Apparently in the past, invisible paintings, shoes, and other articles have been sold for real money. Have a nice day. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 3, 2021 18:38:22 GMT
Fellows, philosophers have the reputation of being very impractical people, and you are a case in point. In fact, you deal with the issue whether something comes from nothing or not, whereas practical people deal with ways of getting something out of nothing. The latest an Italian artist sold (auctioned off) an INVISIBLE sculpture for $18,000 -- fair and square -- www.newsweek.com/italian-artist-sold-invisible-sculpture-more-18000-1596608Apparently in the past, invisible paintings, shoes, and other articles have been sold for real money. Have a nice day. Long ago, maybe three years ago, I asked Eodnhoj7 (x 9 now) about his style. I was indeed impressed how in details and how filigree his development (the development!) in logic (mostly, ontology+metaphysics) had been advanced. And I tried, but I could not get how to even comment him... Probably, these conversations had been lasted somewhere in this forum. After a while x 9 told me that I just should try to answer how I could do it. And I tried. The attempts were lousy and smoothy. Maybe even these comments are not good. I can't be sure. I just try. I'm glad year by year some of the x 9 ideas became clear, and that's good. Surely, Joustos, you're right that this talks are probably "no talks" or "nothing talks about nothing". However, what's our life? Many things I had previous in life I had been thinking as good appeared evil. That's it. Anyway, your idea of the invisible things is very becoming. I mean it. OOO movement (Quentin Meillassoux, Gram Harman, etc) is a powerful thing. I also started to read books or articles of them (mostly Harman's; he's a Lovecraft fan as me). And they also search it, But! - the invisibility is our privilege human vision of it. Things are enough in themselves. They can cooperate or even investigate. By the way, that last thing, I guess, had come from H. Putnam's realism with human face conception of the meaning. Putnam proclaimed the original idea that the meaning is a part of externalists reference, i.e. completely extensional, not intentional (and because of this, the meaning is out of any mental life). Reducting of the mental resulted in thing-to-thing possibility of interaction between things. The invisibility - is how we see them. I am invisible for you now; and you are invisible for me. I don't even see an avatar or yours. I may think you're a bot... =) |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 7, 2021 17:54:24 GMT
Fellows, philosophers have the reputation of being very impractical people, and you are a case in point. In fact, you deal with the issue whether something comes from nothing or not, whereas practical people deal with ways of getting something out of nothing. The latest an Italian artist sold (auctioned off) an INVISIBLE sculpture for $18,000 -- fair and square -- www.newsweek.com/italian-artist-sold-invisible-sculpture-more-18000-1596608Apparently in the past, invisible paintings, shoes, and other articles have been sold for real money. Have a nice day. Philosophy addresses questions of higher being after all practical needs have been met. The human condition in its pursuit of experience pursues questions of being as part of this experience. Practicality eventually becomes impractical as money can only solve so much in the question of what it means "to be". In pursuing deeper questions of meaning comes experiences that are deeper within the fabric of being. |
|
an Italian artist sold (auctioned off) an INVISIBLE sculpture for $18,000 -- fair and square --