|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 6, 2021 20:32:15 GMT
Thinking is the formation of concepts.
The formation of concepts is the division of phenomenon.
A unified reality is divided through the formation of concepts.
The division of reality is the formation of opposition within reality.
The opposition of reality is contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 9, 2021 20:39:05 GMT
Why the reality is unified? If these concepts are being divided, then either why to mention the phenomenon being divided, or the reality being united?
Those two concepts A and B in the reality are contradicts to each other if there are no other concepts within the reality. Since you're claiming of the opposition within the reality it makes me thinking you know the number of concepts within it.
And I'm not sure the argument is valid: if the opposition of reality isn't a contradiction, nothing happens to those previous premises. All of them can stay assumed as previously.
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jul 10, 2021 5:43:46 GMT
Thinking is the formation of concepts. The formation of concepts is the division of phenomenon. A unified reality is divided through the formation of concepts. The division of reality is the formation of opposition within reality. The opposition of reality is contradiction. Aren't you just contradicting yourself when you say this?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 16:31:45 GMT
Why the reality is unified? If these concepts are being divided, then either why to mention the phenomenon being divided, or the reality being united? Those two concepts A and B in the reality are contradicts to each other if there are no other concepts within the reality. Since you're claiming of the opposition within the reality it makes me thinking you know the number of concepts within it. And I'm not sure the argument is valid: if the opposition of reality isn't a contradiction, nothing happens to those previous premises. All of them can stay assumed as previously. 1. Reality is unified when taken for its totality existing under the one phenomenon of being. 2. To classifying a part of the whole is to make it distinct from the whole thus seperate thereby resulting in a division between the whole and the part.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 16:35:08 GMT
Thinking is the formation of concepts. The formation of concepts is the division of phenomenon. A unified reality is divided through the formation of concepts. The division of reality is the formation of opposition within reality. The opposition of reality is contradiction. Aren't you just contradicting yourself when you say this? Using a contradiction against a contradiction thus negating the contradiction. For example the fallacy of circularity (ie circularity is fallacious because circularity is fallacious) when applied to itself results in the negation of fallacy through the fallacy. The same occurs through the contradiction of a contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 12, 2021 16:52:15 GMT
Why the reality is unified? If these concepts are being divided, then either why to mention the phenomenon being divided, or the reality being united? Those two concepts A and B in the reality are contradicts to each other if there are no other concepts within the reality. Since you're claiming of the opposition within the reality it makes me thinking you know the number of concepts within it. And I'm not sure the argument is valid: if the opposition of reality isn't a contradiction, nothing happens to those previous premises. All of them can stay assumed as previously. 1. Reality is unified when taken for its totality existing under the one phenomenon of being. 2. To classifying a part of the whole is to make it distinct from the whole thus seperate thereby resulting in a division between the whole and the part. There's a mistake in #1. You are able to say that something is unified when taken for its totality existing under some phenomanon or phenomena. But you can't say that 'the reality', it's again an non-law wide or the term. 2. Any class has a subclass that equals to this class. So, how would you classify them?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 17:00:51 GMT
1. Reality is unified when taken for its totality existing under the one phenomenon of being. 2. To classifying a part of the whole is to make it distinct from the whole thus seperate thereby resulting in a division between the whole and the part. There's a mistake in #1. You are able to say that something is unified when taken for its totality existing under some phenomanon or phenomena. But you can't say that 'the reality', it's again an non-law wide or the term. 2. Any class has a subclass that equals to this class. So, how would you classify them? 1. Reality is the classification of all of being under 1 term. 2. A class which is equal to its subclass is a phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 12, 2021 17:06:24 GMT
There's a mistake in #1. You are able to say that something is unified when taken for its totality existing under some phenomanon or phenomena. But you can't say that 'the reality', it's again an non-law wide or the term. 2. Any class has a subclass that equals to this class. So, how would you classify them? 1. Reality is the classification of all of being under 1 term. 2. A class which is equal to its subclass is a phenomenon. To 2. Okay, maybe you have some your explanations, okay. I was asking about that we couldn't do it anyhow except for stating it. There's no other way. It's just a logical way: 2^n - is a number of subclasses in each class. But this formula could be different. For instance, if 2^8 - is a number of subclasses for 8 objects in a class, then 8^2 is a number of pairs in the class. To 1. Again. Okay, you can say that 'reality' is so and so. But you can't say that the true one reality - what we see, hear, taste, etc is the same as what we mentally think about it. Previoulsly you took neurons as an example, but the neurons are the world's fact, not a mind one. So, you have to investigate the whole universe to answer the question about the reality. And since we haven't done it yet, nobody can be sure about what the universe is, and as the inference - what the reality is.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 17:31:51 GMT
1. Reality is the classification of all of being under 1 term. 2. A class which is equal to its subclass is a phenomenon. To 2. Okay, maybe you have some your explanations, okay. I was asking about that we couldn't do it anyhow except for stating it. There's no other way. It's just a logical way: 2^n - is a number of subclasses in each class. But this formula could be different. For instance, if 2^8 - is a number of subclasses for 8 objects in a class, then 8^2 is a number of pairs in the class. To 1. Again. Okay, you can say that 'reality' is so and so. But you can't say that the true one reality - what we see, hear, taste, etc is the same as what we mentally think about it. Previoulsly you took neurons as an example, but the neurons are the world's fact, not a mind one. So, you have to investigate the whole universe to answer the question about the reality. And since we haven't done it yet, nobody can be sure about what the universe is, and as the inference - what the reality is. 1. All mental phenomenon are part of the one reality as they emerge from it. 2. We experience neurons linked to thought given we observe them. For example if a certain part of the brain is stimulated then we have a spiritual experience. One experiences this experiment take place. Thus a thought about thought is a thought and recursion of phenomenon occur. 3. The universe as observed in its totality is the universe observing itself. It observes itself through the repetition of a single source, the point, existing through further phenomenon as multiple points. The universe as the expansion and contraction from a single point is the universe observing itself as observation occurs through the expansion and contraction of phenomena. It observes itself through the point given we as images of the universe observe through points. An object at a distance appears as a point through contraction. Up close it appears as multiple connected points through expansion.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 22:39:07 GMT
1. Reality is the classification of all of being under 1 term. 2. A class which is equal to its subclass is a phenomenon. To 2. Okay, maybe you have some your explanations, okay. I was asking about that we couldn't do it anyhow except for stating it. There's no other way. It's just a logical way: 2^n - is a number of subclasses in each class. But this formula could be different. For instance, if 2^8 - is a number of subclasses for 8 objects in a class, then 8^2 is a number of pairs in the class. To 1. Again. Okay, you can say that 'reality' is so and so. But you can't say that the true one reality - what we see, hear, taste, etc is the same as what we mentally think about it. Previoulsly you took neurons as an example, but the neurons are the world's fact, not a mind one. So, you have to investigate the whole universe to answer the question about the reality. And since we haven't done it yet, nobody can be sure about what the universe is, and as the inference - what the reality is. 1. The universe as self observable necessitates all as observed. It contains the whole through the parts considering the parts are cycles with the universe itself being the summation of these parts as a cycle in itself. It is what it is composed of. We know the universe as a whole is considering we embody this whole through the concept of the "whole". This concept of the whole is the negation of Nothingness as the the contradiction of contradiction (given all concepts are contradictive). 2. We what hear, taste, etc. exists through the mind as memory. 3. To observe all things is to be imprinted by all things. To be imprinted by all things is to not seperate things through filters.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 12, 2021 23:21:37 GMT
>>>3. The universe as observed in its totality is the universe observing itself. It observes itself through the repetition of a single source, the point, existing through further phenomenon as multiple points<<<
Pump the breaks homey that's a bold assumption not a fact and one you probably can't even prove to be other then via some gum bumping lip service wherein you replete the same word way to many times in an attempt to make it seem philosophical .
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 13, 2021 1:10:04 GMT
>>>3. The universe as observed in its totality is the universe observing itself. It observes itself through the repetition of a single source, the point, existing through further phenomenon as multiple points<<< Pump the breaks homey that's a bold assumption not a fact and one you probably can't even prove to be other then via some gum bumping lip service wherein you replete the same word way to many times in an attempt to make it seem philosophical . All phenomenon are composed of forms, these forms are spatial, this space originates from a point given a point is pure space. From a distance all phenomena contract to a point. Up close all phenomena expand into a form which exists as distanced between points. Reality is expansion and contraction of points....prove other wise.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 13, 2021 5:11:55 GMT
>>>3. The universe as observed in its totality is the universe observing itself. It observes itself through the repetition of a single source, the point, existing through further phenomenon as multiple points<<< Pump the breaks homey that's a bold assumption not a fact and one you probably can't even prove to be other then via some gum bumping lip service wherein you replete the same word way to many times in an attempt to make it seem philosophical . All phenomenon are composed of forms, these forms are spatial, this space originates from a point given a point is pure space. From a distance all phenomena contract to a point. Up close all phenomena expand into a form which exists as distanced between points. Reality is expansion and contraction of points....prove other wise. No your confusing opinion with fact All forms originate from a single point? Tell me where exactly is this single point that an apple originates from? You don't have to answer that because it would just be a cat and mouse Chase A given point is pure space? That's subject to interpretation what do you define as pure space an apple? A Gap? It's your opinion simply put. I could just as easily say from a distance all phenomenon Fades into the distance which is the opposite of what you said. I don't think you have yet to see that you let your personal opinion blind you swear you think it's the same thing as absolute truth when it's not it's just your opinion.
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jul 13, 2021 11:51:16 GMT
This thread confuses me. Oh boy
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 13, 2021 17:09:22 GMT
All phenomenon are composed of forms, these forms are spatial, this space originates from a point given a point is pure space. From a distance all phenomena contract to a point. Up close all phenomena expand into a form which exists as distanced between points. Reality is expansion and contraction of points....prove other wise. No your confusing opinion with fact All forms originate from a single point? Tell me where exactly is this single point that an apple originates from? You don't have to answer that because it would just be a cat and mouse Chase A given point is pure space? That's subject to interpretation what do you define as pure space an apple? A Gap? It's your opinion simply put. I could just as easily say from a distance all phenomenon Fades into the distance which is the opposite of what you said. I don't think you have yet to see that you let your personal opinion blind you swear you think it's the same thing as absolute truth when it's not it's just your opinion. 1. It originates from the single point where pollen and the flower fuse together. 2. A point is without form, it is the position where one phenomenon changes into another as the absence of form of the previous phenomenon.
|
|