P =/= P

[nothing]

Actually if they are real. A point at a distance may in fact be car upon closer inspection or some obtuse assumption we take for granted.

They are unfolding space, fundamentally.

A car is not a point. To assume points exists is an assumption taken for granted.

"Unfolding space" is not a point: it is proximity.

The point, line and circle are one.

Thus they cancel one another out in any meaningful summation - the rest is theoretical masturbation.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually if they are real. A point at a distance may in fact be car upon closer inspection or some obtuse assumption we take for granted.

They are unfolding space, fundamentally.

A car is not a point. To assume points exists is an assumption taken for granted.

Actually it is from a distance...and it is composed of point particles too.

"Unfolding space" is not a point: it is proximity.

proximity is distance, as one approaches a point in space forms unfold from it.
This occurs empirically and within the pscyhe.

The point, line and circle are one.

Thus they cancel one another out in any meaningful summation - the rest is theoretical masturbation.

Not really.

A line is 1 one dimensional circle considering the begging and end are the same.
The circle is infinite lines in all directions.
All are composed of points and exist as points from a distance.

This is the cheap definition...and can go much much longer.

All is form...get over it.

[nothing]

Actually it is from a distance...and it is composed of point particles too.

It is not a point, and neither are particles.

proximity is distance, as one approaches a point in space forms unfold from it.
This occurs empirically and within the pscyhe.

Same answer.

A line is 1 one dimensional circle considering the begging and end are the same.
The circle is infinite lines in all directions.
All are composed of points and exist as points from a distance.

This is the cheap definition...and can go much much longer.

All is form...get over it.

So if one circles around the same single point ad infinitum would their existence be pointless otherwise?

There is no point.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually it is from a distance...and it is composed of point particles too.

It is not a point, and neither are particles.

proximity is distance, as one approaches a point in space forms unfold from it.
This occurs empirically and within the pscyhe.

Same answer.

A line is 1 one dimensional circle considering the begging and end are the same.
The circle is infinite lines in all directions.
All are composed of points and exist as points from a distance.

This is the cheap definition...and can go much much longer.

All is form...get over it.

So if one circles around the same single point ad infinitum would their existence be pointless otherwise?

There is no point.

All negation require a positive definition of what a point is...but I can see you are implying nihilism now.

[nothing]

All negation require a positive definition of what a point is...but I can see you are implying nihilism now.

I propose then the following definition of "point":
unreal abstraction indefinitely approached by way of mathematical construct esp. relating to infinitesimals and limits.

A point has no physical correlation: by throwing a dart at a dartboard, any given possible "point" is comprised of a real volume which, if any less than itself, can not produce the "point" in the first place.

The point being: any/all "points" ultimately point to something that is pointedly not-a-point.

Re nihilism: it presupposes no "real" intrinsic value to human life, and in knowing the body is electric, thus energetic, thus is definitely made of 'energy' (if even taking it as unknown phenomena) nihilism is fundamentally severed from such a basic root that it is not different than the similar sentiment of religious fanaticism: nothing else matters but imposing the "real" religion of god.

[Eodnhoj7]

All negation require a positive definition of what a point is...but I can see you are implying nihilism now.

I propose then the following definition of "point":
unreal abstraction indefinitely approached by way of mathematical construct esp. relating to infinitesimals and limits.

A point has no physical correlation: by throwing a dart at a dartboard, any given possible "point" is comprised of a real volume which, if any less than itself, can not produce the "point" in the first place.

The point being: any/all "points" ultimately point to something that is pointedly not-a-point.

Re nihilism: it presupposes no "real" intrinsic value to human life, and in knowing the body is electric, thus energetic, thus is definitely made of 'energy' (if even taking it as unknown phenomena) nihilism is fundamentally severed from such a basic root that it is not different than the similar sentiment of religious fanaticism: nothing else matters but imposing the "real" religion of god.

So you are a point of awareness to define another point of awareness....good luck you will end in a tautology.

[nothing]

So you are a point of awareness to define another point of awareness....good luck you will end in a tautology.

Nobody is a "point of awareness" - not sure how you derived it.

[Eodnhoj7]

So you are a point of awareness to define another point of awareness....good luck you will end in a tautology.

Nobody is a "point of awareness" - not sure how you derived it.

We word it that way intuitively: "point of view", "I see your point', etc..

Why? All awareness is assumptive by nature. We assume phenomenon based on a state of emptiness. This emptiness, psychologically a boundless field, is no different than a single point as all points are inherently boundless fields when observed as singular entities.

[nothing]

We word it that way intuitively: "point of view", "I see your point', etc..

It is still not a "point of awareness". The problem is...

Why? All awareness is assumptive by nature.

...this. Your "awareness" may be assumptive. A bigger problem yet exists: awareness is not the same as consciousness. A person can be absolutely aware of their physical surroundings, but be generally unconscious and have no knowledge of who/what they are, thus limited to/by themselves. This happens with "belief" and is +A in ckiit. Knowledge negates such self-imposed limitations via attaining to -A which are the two real conjugate roots of *A: to believe one is something they are not, or to know not to believe one is something they are not. The first fundamental knowledge/ignorance possible is thus local.

We assume phenomenon based on a state of emptiness. This emptiness, psychologically a boundless field, is no different than a single point as all points are inherently boundless fields when observed as singular entities.

I don't know who the "we" is in there, but I'll leave it to the same - regardless, again there is no real point. If space can not contain a mass, the mass will collapse in on itself: not to a "point", but as defining a real circumference which transitions into "counter-space".

[Eodnhoj7]

We word it that way intuitively: "point of view", "I see your point', etc..

It is still not a "point of awareness". The problem is...

Why? All awareness is assumptive by nature.

...this. Your "awareness" may be assumptive. A bigger problem yet exists: awareness is not the same as consciousness.
Consciousness is assumed as we are aware of it.

A person can be absolutely aware of their physical surroundings, but be generally unconscious and have no knowledge of who/what they are, thus limited to/by themselves.
And they can just not be aware of who, even when they are, when subject to time and circumstance.

This happens with "belief" and is +A in ckiit. Knowledge negates such self-imposed limitations via attaining to -A which are the two real conjugate roots of *A: to believe one is something they are not, or to know not to believe one is something they are not. The first fundamental knowledge/ignorance possible is thus local.

Define knowledge without using knowledge and going in circles.

We assume phenomenon based on a state of emptiness. This emptiness, psychologically a boundless field, is no different than a single point as all points are inherently boundless fields when observed as singular entities.

I don't know who the "we" is in there, but I'll leave it to the same - regardless, again there is no real point. If space can not contain a mass, the mass will collapse in on itself: not to a "point", but as defining a real circumference which transitions into "counter-space".

If a point is a definer, it is knowledge, thus is "real" according to your stance.

[nothing]

Consciousness is assumed as we are aware of it.

Consciousness is not assumed, it is a given.

It would take assumption to move from a state of consciousness to unconsciousness
-A -> +A

And they can just not be aware of who, even when they are, when subject to time and circumstance.

...incoherent

Define knowledge without using knowledge and going in circles.

Absence of belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death to self and/or others.

If a point is a definer, it is knowledge, thus is "real" according to your stance.

Wait a minute, who said a point is a definer? I just explained a point doesn't exist.

Anyways: knowing the properties of any event horizon (ie. circumference) is certainly knowledge, as it is a product of the collapsed matters.

The problem is: people can "believe" there is a matter(s) thus act accordingly despite being dead wrong. Isn't the cosmic joke obvious yet?

[Eodnhoj7]

Consciousness is assumed as we are aware of it.

Consciousness is not assumed, it is a given.

Actually, as self evident, it forms a self assuming loop.

It would take assumption to move from a state of consciousness to unconsciousness
-A -> +A

And they can just not be aware of who, even when they are, when subject to time and circumstance.

...incoherent

People who are aware of themselves, do so within a specific time and space until a new change comes along and they have to readapt.

Define knowledge without using knowledge and going in circles.

Absence of belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death to self and/or others.

Suffering is a subjective state, and you are left with point of view.

If a point is a definer, it is knowledge, thus is "real" according to your stance.

Wait a minute, who said a point is a definer? I just explained a point doesn't exist.

You said it was a mathematical object....so math does not define?

Anyways: knowing the properties of any event horizon (ie. circumference) is certainly knowledge, as it is a product of the collapsed matters.

The problem is: people can "believe" there is a matter(s) thus act accordingly despite being dead wrong. Isn't the cosmic joke obvious yet?

I know, your self contained brilliance is the current joke.

[nothing]

Actually, as self evident, it forms a self assuming loop.

It is not self-evident to most/all. That is a part of the problem CKIIT addresses for the ignorant who know not.

Do you actually "believe" you are 100% fully conscious right now? I know not to believe that of you, neither myself. Such would be ignorant (!).

Only such a belief is the very self-assuming loop you speak of. You keep getting it backwards, though it is duly contingent to your own loopy-loop (as expected).

People who are aware of themselves, do so within a specific time and space until a new change comes along and they have to readapt.

There is no specific "time" - time is a human construct. There is nothing to "adapt" to except ones own immediate surroundings: else is projection.

I had a dream last night (as a product of trying to find a simpler way to render the problem-solution: I do such activities in half-sleep half-waking states) wherein I tried to find a practical example of the problem, which lead to the imagination that you secretly lead an underground cult of people who just spin around in circles on-the-spot repeating "void voids void... void voids void..." like a mantra.

It lead to the hamster-wheel idea. Not to suggest that you are a hamster on a wheel - just that void voids void is the same thing as belief-based ignorance voids life - people suffer it, instead of enjoying it. They suffer, and look for someone/something to blame. Adam did the same: he tried to blame his own iniquity on the woman. See the women wearing the hijab? They wear the iniquity of the man. That is the 'state' of the fall viz. 'the accuser is the accused'. It is the mark of belief-based monotheistic ideology: to blame another for ones own crimes.

Which ignorant belief-based ideology claims to be the "original religion of Adam"?
Do they "know" the religion of Adam is getting kicked out of Eden?

Suffering is a subjective state (!), and you are left with point of view.

Are you insane?

So, do you, like, rape women and tell them their suffering is subjective and merely a point of view?
Muhammadans do that: they tell the non-Muslim women it is because they "deserve" it for being "whores".
The same whine and squeal for being called out as patriarchal pig swine who worship the same.

You said it was a mathematical object....so math does not define?

Math does not define, math models.
A point is a mathematical construct. I said this.
A model is a construct. Do you understand?

I know, your self contained brilliance is the current joke.

The joke is truly on you: I neither claimed nor contain "brilliance".

CKIIT does. I am not that - CKIIT is much more infallible than I am. I know this because I learn from CKIIT despite it having come to me.

For example the more people whine and squeal, the more I learn about emotional immaturity and how it relates to a break-down of cognition and default to rage. I thus subtly poke and provoke to test - especially if/when needing to prove something is true/false.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually, as self evident, it forms a self assuming loop.

It is not self-evident to most/all. That is a part of the problem CKIIT addresses for the ignorant who know not.

So pretty much only you understand the truth...I am not seeing lines rush up to your defense.

Do you actually "believe" you are 100% fully conscious right now? I know not to believe that of you, neither myself. Such would be ignorant (!).

Do you actually believe that is the right question to ask?

Only such a belief is the very self-assuming loop you speak of. You keep getting it backwards, though it is duly contingent to your own loopy-loop (as expected).

P=P is a loop, and that identity property is required for you belief system to work.

People who are aware of themselves, do so within a specific time and space until a new change comes along and they have to readapt.

There is no specific "time" - time is a human construct. There is nothing to "adapt" to except ones own immediate surroundings: else is projection.

So you know what will happen tomorrow with 100 percent certainty and how you will react to it?

I had a dream last night (as a product of trying to find a simpler way to render the problem-solution: I do such activities in half-sleep half-waking states) wherein I tried to find a practical example of the problem, which lead to the imagination that you secretly lead an underground cult of people who just spin around in circles on-the-spot repeating "void voids void... void voids void..." like a mantra.

So you dream of me, how sweet...sorry to break the bubble...no cult or followers.
Have a few people who agree and disagree with me everyonce in a while...that is it.

It lead to the hamster-wheel idea. Not to suggest that you are a hamster on a wheel - just that void voids void is the same thing as belief-based ignorance voids life - people suffer it, instead of enjoying it.
They suffer, and look for someone/something to blame.
You mean like the religions you are blaming?

Adam did the same: he tried to blame his own iniquity on the woman. See the women wearing the hijab? They wear the iniquity of the man. That is the 'state' of the fall viz. 'the accuser is the accused'. It is the mark of belief-based monotheistic ideology: to blame another for ones own crimes.

And the woman blamed it on the "snake" (see the phallic symbolism behind that).

Which ignorant belief-based ideology claims to be the "original religion of Adam"?
Do they "know" the religion of Adam is getting kicked out of Eden?

Is that what you feel..."kicked out"? Alienated?

Suffering is a subjective state (!), and you are left with point of view.

Are you insane?

So, do you, like, rape women and tell them their suffering is subjective and merely a point of view?
Muhammadans do that: they tell the non-Muslim women it is because they "deserve" it for being "whores".
The same whine and squeal for being called out as patriarchal pig swine who worship the same.

Dont forget communist atheists and capitalist frat parties as well.

You said it was a mathematical object....so math does not define?

Math does not define, math models.
A point is a mathematical construct. I said this.
A model is a construct. Do you understand?

And all models are definitive in nature. Take for example the model of a theme park before it is constructed. It defines what will be constructed. To construct something ie to take a form and inverted it into another form....ie define one form through another, such as clay defined into a pot.

I know, your self contained brilliance is the current joke.

The joke is truly on you: I neither claimed nor contain "brilliance".



CKIIT does. I am not that - CKIIT is much more infallible than I am. I know this because I learn from CKIIT despite it having come to me.
I see, then you must feel alot of guilt for failing the messenger...


For example the more people whine and squeal, the more I learn about emotional immaturity and how it relates to a break-down of cognition and default to rage. I thus subtly poke and provoke to test - especially if/when needing to prove something is true/false.

There you go projecting again. All I am saying, and the silence of the forum speaks volumes, is that CKIIT is just word salad.

[nothing]

So pretty much only you understand the truth...I am not seeing lines rush up to your defense.

It doesn't follow.

Do you actually believe that is the right question to ask?

No - I know it is, because you evaded it - answering in the negative would have proved my point, which is invariably true.

P=P is a loop, and that identity property is required for you belief system to work.

P=P is belief-based ignorance. Time is a loop, P is variable whose identity relies on its being in time.

So you know what will happen tomorrow with 100 percent certainty and how you will react to it?

...it doesn't follow.

So you dream of me, how sweet...sorry to break the bubble...no cult or followers.
Have a few people who agree and disagree with me everyonce in a while...that is it.

"void voids void... void voids void..."

You mean like the religions you are blaming?

I don't suffer others and/or blame others for my suffering. Believers do that.

And the woman blamed it on the "snake" (see the phallic symbolism behind that).

Islam is phallic worship - patriarchal swinery viz. Allah is Muhammad's "thing".

Dont forget communist atheists and capitalist frat parties as well.

Neither compare.

And all models are definitive in nature. Take for example the model of a theme park before it is constructed. It defines what will be constructed. To construct something ie to take a form and inverted it into another form....ie define one form through another, such as clay defined into a pot.

The definition is limited to its own construct.

I see, then you must feel alot of guilt for failing the messenger...

Lol what would I feel guilty for? I have no guilt to try to scapegoat onto others.

There you go projecting again. All I am saying, and the silence of the forum speaks volumes, is that CKIIT is just word salad.

The silence of the forums allows you to believe what you want to be true - enmity is like a parasite that needs feeding.