|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 12, 2023 23:38:39 GMT
A perfectly balanced life is effectively nothing as one extreme is counterbalanced by another extreme. This equilibrium results in a self negation of the qualities involved and as such observes a state of no-thingness, i.e. the absence of thingness. From this it may be implied that a morality of balance is a morality promoting a state of cessation of form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 14, 2023 21:03:25 GMT
However, I guess that perhaps I am not so sure about philosophy and some things also is when it is about morality. I guess I intuitively feel something. Ot I believe, and that's why cognitive side perhaps becomes not the strongest.
I think that what you're saying is very close to Husserl's and Heidegger's thoughts on phenomenology, and reduction practice in particular.
But usually Husserl and Heidegger are my foes mostly, and I'd better apology toward science (in a good sense of this word), then something else.
So, I think that there's a great danger in that void or emptiness. Maybe the emptiness is balanced, but I doubt that balance to be humanistic. Vice versa it looks like the cold death – no light, no sound, no nothing.
And you know, I think I see a contradiction in your version of non-thingness balance. So what kind of paradox is it? – No art and creativity. The balance is a certain image or design. If there are no design, how can we be sure in that :: there is enough of non-thingness? We have to measure how many things there must be to balance them.
Okay, even if no-things is balanced is in itself, but what about that that is thingness? Seems that if there are NO things, then somewhere there ARE things. Hence, why balance is only placed in non-thingness, but not is in the area of thingness? It's not completely balanced for the balance to participate only one side.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 19, 2023 21:39:46 GMT
However, I guess that perhaps I am not so sure about philosophy and some things also is when it is about morality. I guess I intuitively feel something. Ot I believe, and that's why cognitive side perhaps becomes not the strongest. I think that what you're saying is very close to Husserl's and Heidegger's thoughts on phenomenology, and reduction practice in particular. But usually Husserl and Heidegger are my foes mostly, and I'd better apology toward science (in a good sense of this word), then something else. So, I think that there's a great danger in that void or emptiness. Maybe the emptiness is balanced, but I doubt that balance to be humanistic. Vice versa it looks like the cold death – no light, no sound, no nothing. And you know, I think I see a contradiction in your version of non-thingness balance. So what kind of paradox is it? – No art and creativity. The balance is a certain image or design. If there are no design, how can we be sure in that :: there is enough of non-thingness? We have to measure how many things there must be to balance them. Okay, even if no-things is balanced is in itself, but what about that that is thingness? Seems that if there are NO things, then somewhere there ARE things. Hence, why balance is only placed in non-thingness, but not is in the area of thingness? It's not completely balanced for the balance to participate only one side. The fact that something is balanced necessitates two extremes negating eachother. Imbalance is something as one thing stands apart from another, and this 'standing apart' allows said thing to have form and a relative existence. The contradictions go deeper as 'somethingness' and 'nothingness' are relative extremes and as such balance each other out thus resulting in the extreme of no-thingness (if the opposites negate eachother). Under these terms the act of balancing paradoxically negates itself for its opposite. It also negates itself further as the act of balancing is an extreme as well, in light of its opposite: 'imbalance'. From these examples we end in absurdity. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 28, 2023 19:00:37 GMT
However, I guess that perhaps I am not so sure about philosophy and some things also is when it is about morality. I guess I intuitively feel something. Ot I believe, and that's why cognitive side perhaps becomes not the strongest. I think that what you're saying is very close to Husserl's and Heidegger's thoughts on phenomenology, and reduction practice in particular. But usually Husserl and Heidegger are my foes mostly, and I'd better apology toward science (in a good sense of this word), then something else. So, I think that there's a great danger in that void or emptiness. Maybe the emptiness is balanced, but I doubt that balance to be humanistic. Vice versa it looks like the cold death – no light, no sound, no nothing. And you know, I think I see a contradiction in your version of non-thingness balance. So what kind of paradox is it? – No art and creativity. The balance is a certain image or design. If there are no design, how can we be sure in that :: there is enough of non-thingness? We have to measure how many things there must be to balance them. Okay, even if no-things is balanced is in itself, but what about that that is thingness? Seems that if there are NO things, then somewhere there ARE things. Hence, why balance is only placed in non-thingness, but not is in the area of thingness? It's not completely balanced for the balance to participate only one side. The fact that something is balanced necessitates two extremes negating eachother. Imbalance is something as one thing stands apart from another, and this 'standing apart' allows said thing to have form and a relative existence. The contradictions go deeper as 'somethingness' and 'nothingness' are relative extremes and as such balance each other out thus resulting in the extreme of no-thingness (if the opposites negate eachother). Under these terms the act of balancing paradoxically negates itself for its opposite. It also negates itself further as the act of balancing is an extreme as well, in light of its opposite: 'imbalance'. From these examples we end in absurdity. Let's say everything became frozen completely, so no movement is possible then. It's balance, but it has things. This balance is thing-ness balance. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2023 19:37:04 GMT
The fact that something is balanced necessitates two extremes negating eachother. Imbalance is something as one thing stands apart from another, and this 'standing apart' allows said thing to have form and a relative existence. The contradictions go deeper as 'somethingness' and 'nothingness' are relative extremes and as such balance each other out thus resulting in the extreme of no-thingness (if the opposites negate eachother). Under these terms the act of balancing paradoxically negates itself for its opposite. It also negates itself further as the act of balancing is an extreme as well, in light of its opposite: 'imbalance'. From these examples we end in absurdity. Let's say everything became frozen completely, so no movement is possible then. It's balance, but it has things. This balance is thing-ness balance. If no movement occurs then nothing results. Empirically a frozen world still has the movement of atoms. Absolute freezing results in a cessation of the movement of atoms thus no atom. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 29, 2023 5:53:06 GMT
Let's say everything became frozen completely, so no movement is possible then. It's balance, but it has things. This balance is thing-ness balance. If no movement occurs then nothing results. Empirically a frozen world still has the movement of atoms. Absolute freezing results in a cessation of the movement of atoms thus no atom. If frozen atoms are shaking, then their cycles are waving, let's say from approximately .0001 to 0. So, in the peaks of 0 atoms should disappear, which is impossible. Besides, being completely frozen atoms should disappear, but that cannot be since the amount of energy is constant always. I guess the frozen atoms have problems with registration of their presence, not with their ontological status. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 3, 2023 18:44:11 GMT
If no movement occurs then nothing results. Empirically a frozen world still has the movement of atoms. Absolute freezing results in a cessation of the movement of atoms thus no atom. If frozen atoms are shaking, then their cycles are waving, let's say from approximately .0001 to 0. So, in the peaks of 0 atoms should disappear, which is impossible. Besides, being completely frozen atoms should disappear, but that cannot be since the amount of energy is constant always. I guess the frozen atoms have problems with registration of their presence, not with their ontological status. If there is movement then there is not a complete freezing. A complete freezing would result in the cessation of being. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 4, 2023 12:32:16 GMT
If frozen atoms are shaking, then their cycles are waving, let's say from approximately .0001 to 0. So, in the peaks of 0 atoms should disappear, which is impossible. Besides, being completely frozen atoms should disappear, but that cannot be since the amount of energy is constant always. I guess the frozen atoms have problems with registration of their presence, not with their ontological status. If there is movement then there is not a complete freezing. A complete freezing would result in the cessation of being. Imgaine a frozen reality and a non-frozen one. Let's say that a certain atom or atoms now at the moment in the frozen reality. So, when they are there - in that frozen one - there are no movement, and there are no being. However, as soon as non-being is such a deity that must be it if and only if this deity is identical to itself. Otherwise, if a non-being is a deity, and then it is not that deity then that non-being is changing, so that is a violation of the conceptual understanding of that being. So, for a deity to be itself there must be something that confirms or upholds that status of that deity. But to do this there must be spotted some other elements - some alternative deities - thus, that non-being is just a being within some other beings. Since that it's impossible for absolute beings to be frozen. Therefore, there are no non-movement (or there are no freezing; or everything is changing), but as soon as it happens there must be something that provides or sustains the process of changing, but it's only possible if there's something non-changeable or frozen. Such an element, since we've assumed for that element to be only a part of that process, is important, or maybe it's the leading one - some kind of a center. However, such a center is impossible to imagine a primary or leading, since this element is only a secondary - because the other elements cannot participate with that element, nor to interact with it. The center must be passive, that is why such an element cannot sustain the whole system if that system is over it. That's all goes to the paradox. That's why no movement, and no freezing is possible, so no balance is possible either, since balance should provide changes, but there are no changes, and freezings. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 18:13:56 GMT
If there is movement then there is not a complete freezing. A complete freezing would result in the cessation of being. Imgaine a frozen reality and a non-frozen one. Let's say that a certain atom or atoms now at the moment in the frozen reality. So, when they are there - in that frozen one - there are no movement, and there are no being. However, as soon as non-being is such a deity that must be it if and only if this deity is identical to itself. Otherwise, if a non-being is a deity, and then it is not that deity then that non-being is changing, so that is a violation of the conceptual understanding of that being. So, for a deity to be itself there must be something that confirms or upholds that status of that deity. But to do this there must be spotted some other elements - some alternative deities - thus, that non-being is just a being within some other beings. Since that it's impossible for absolute beings to be frozen. Therefore, there are no non-movement (or there are no freezing; or everything is changing), but as soon as it happens there must be something that provides or sustains the process of changing, but it's only possible if there's something non-changeable or frozen. Such an element, since we've assumed for that element to be only a part of that process, is important, or maybe it's the leading one - some kind of a center. However, such a center is impossible to imagine a primary or leading, since this element is only a secondary - because the other elements cannot participate with that element, nor to interact with it. The center must be passive, that is why such an element cannot sustain the whole system if that system is over it. That's all goes to the paradox. That's why no movement, and no freezing is possible, so no balance is possible either, since balance should provide changes, but there are no changes, and freezings. 1. Two extremes negate each other into nothingness. 2. Nothingness is an extreme to Thingness. 3. As extremes they negate each other out. 4. Nothingness negated is thingness, thingness negated is nothingness. 5. A continuation of opposites occurs and with it a continuation of negation into balance. 6. This results in the extremes of balance and imbalance. 7. The logic of points 3 and 4 occurs with the phenomenon of balance/imbalance instead. 8. We end in absurdity if we choose to end here; ending here is not necessary as the argument can continue, it is necessary to end here because it will just repeat itself again. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 5, 2023 19:17:37 GMT
Imgaine a frozen reality and a non-frozen one. Let's say that a certain atom or atoms now at the moment in the frozen reality. So, when they are there - in that frozen one - there are no movement, and there are no being. However, as soon as non-being is such a deity that must be it if and only if this deity is identical to itself. Otherwise, if a non-being is a deity, and then it is not that deity then that non-being is changing, so that is a violation of the conceptual understanding of that being. So, for a deity to be itself there must be something that confirms or upholds that status of that deity. But to do this there must be spotted some other elements - some alternative deities - thus, that non-being is just a being within some other beings. Since that it's impossible for absolute beings to be frozen. Therefore, there are no non-movement (or there are no freezing; or everything is changing), but as soon as it happens there must be something that provides or sustains the process of changing, but it's only possible if there's something non-changeable or frozen. Such an element, since we've assumed for that element to be only a part of that process, is important, or maybe it's the leading one - some kind of a center. However, such a center is impossible to imagine a primary or leading, since this element is only a secondary - because the other elements cannot participate with that element, nor to interact with it. The center must be passive, that is why such an element cannot sustain the whole system if that system is over it. That's all goes to the paradox. That's why no movement, and no freezing is possible, so no balance is possible either, since balance should provide changes, but there are no changes, and freezings. 1. Two extremes negate each other into nothingness. 2. Nothingness is an extreme to Thingness. 3. As extremes they negate each other out. 4. Nothingness negated is thingness, thingness negated is nothingness. 5. A continuation of opposites occurs and with it a continuation of negation into balance. 6. This results in the extremes of balance and imbalance. 7. The logic of points 3 and 4 occurs with the phenomenon of balance/imbalance instead. 8. We end in absurdity if we choose to end here; ending here is not necessary as the argument can continue, it is necessary to end here because it will just repeat itself again. What is stronger when they are striking each other: the absolutely powerful bullet, or the absolutely bulletproof vest? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 19:45:21 GMT
1. Two extremes negate each other into nothingness. 2. Nothingness is an extreme to Thingness. 3. As extremes they negate each other out. 4. Nothingness negated is thingness, thingness negated is nothingness. 5. A continuation of opposites occurs and with it a continuation of negation into balance. 6. This results in the extremes of balance and imbalance. 7. The logic of points 3 and 4 occurs with the phenomenon of balance/imbalance instead. 8. We end in absurdity if we choose to end here; ending here is not necessary as the argument can continue, it is necessary to end here because it will just repeat itself again. What is stronger when they are striking each other: the absolutely powerful bullet, or the absolutely bulletproof vest? Both negate each other into nothing as they are completely opposite extremes. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 5, 2023 20:26:03 GMT
What is stronger when they are striking each other: the absolutely powerful bullet, or the absolutely bulletproof vest? Both negate each other into nothing as they are completely opposite extremes. But I would say that such a situation is impossible: there is a contradiction, because either there are no absolute powerful bullet, or no absolutely bulletproof vest. If you put, let's say, gods there the contradiction will be increased: the absolutely powerful god1 vs absolutely powerful god2 There must be only the one of them, or none of them. Those 'gods' doesn't result in nothing. Your version, as far as I can assume (I might be wrong also) that both those gods might exist, while logic says it's impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 20:38:33 GMT
Both negate each other into nothing as they are completely opposite extremes. But I would say that such a situation is impossible: there is a contradiction, because either there are no absolute powerful bullet, or no absolutely bulletproof vest. If you put, let's say, gods there the contradiction will be increased: the absolutely powerful god1 vs absolutely powerful god2 There must be only the one of them, or none of them. Those 'gods' doesn't result in nothing. Your version, as far as I can assume (I might be wrong also) that both those gods might exist, while logic says it's impossible. Up and down exist and even though both are relative their existence within certain contexts, due to said contexts, is absolute...yet both exist. Up is absolute within a given context (i.e. the starting point of the ground pointed away from it). Down is absolute within another context (i.e. the starting point of the sky pointed away from it). Both exist as absolute within a context yet are complete opposites. Absolutes may be opposites. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 6, 2023 6:33:09 GMT
But I would say that such a situation is impossible: there is a contradiction, because either there are no absolute powerful bullet, or no absolutely bulletproof vest. If you put, let's say, gods there the contradiction will be increased: the absolutely powerful god1 vs absolutely powerful god2 There must be only the one of them, or none of them. Those 'gods' doesn't result in nothing. Your version, as far as I can assume (I might be wrong also) that both those gods might exist, while logic says it's impossible. Up and down exist and even though both are relative their existence within certain contexts, due to said contexts, is absolute...yet both exist. Up is absolute within a given context (i.e. the starting point of the ground pointed away from it). Down is absolute within another context (i.e. the starting point of the sky pointed away from it). Both exist as absolute within a context yet are complete opposites. Absolutes may be opposites. Sorry, but no. "up & down" are irrelevant as well as North & South, or "right vs left". To be relevant your "ups" or "downs" should be the absolute ups or the absolute downs. There are no absolute dominance of the ups or downs. They co-exist. The simplest example is balance in Galileo sense. (From his definition on movement.) |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 7, 2023 19:02:38 GMT
Both negate each other into nothing as they are completely opposite extremes. But I would say that such a situation is impossible: there is a contradiction, because either there are no absolute powerful bullet, or no absolutely bulletproof vest. If you put, let's say, gods there the contradiction will be increased: the absolutely powerful god1 vs absolutely powerful god2 There must be only the one of them, or none of them. Those 'gods' doesn't result in nothing. Your version, as far as I can assume (I might be wrong also) that both those gods might exist, while logic says it's impossible. I guess you havent seen the 4-BAR its a single shot T-rex rifle that shoots a 2225g led slug thats 1" wide and to give you an idea of how powerful it is A 12 gauge with +P buck shot has a 35lb shoulder recoil whereas the 4-BAR has 212 lb shoulder recoil and that 2000 plus grain bullet will go through 8 cinder blocks side by side from 100 yards away and is said to have 4x the take down power of a 50-BMG sniper rifle . |
|
