nothing wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:48 pmIf you fail to assume what lends itself to being true, it is ignorance either way.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:49 pm False, one can assume something as true and missalign it with some other assumption. I can assume the sky will be blue tomorrow and fail to assume a prediction that it will be stormy weather. I can also fail to assume that it is just a prediction as well. The failure of assuming a possible true lies in failing to assume it is only possible.
It is the same as religious people being given evidence which lends itself
to their belief being not necessarily true, but they still ignore it anyways.
Yes it is ignorance, but all evidence is subject to...well...subjective interpretation.
Space and time are reciprocally related, thus "larger timeline" becomes meaninglessNot from a larger timeline. From my space/time position I may assume one thing, but from a larger position a different timezone appears with different elements within it.
if/when the one assuming knows to factor in the same.
False, from a larger timeline more is seen.
Things appearing differently
in a different timezone are a local constraint that can be transcended. Further,
metaphysical truths transcend space/time such that their wielding renders invariance
concerning the same.
Yet metaphysical truths are expressed through time.
It exists because of it.The suspended state opens up the possibility for belief.
With both sides of a proposition expressed all judgment is up for suspension.
The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
Subjectivity of interpretation is contingent on the discipline of the conscience of the interpreter.
That does not mean they are a function of time, human beings are.Yet metaphysical truths are expressed through time.
Metaphysical truths are time-invariant and always exist.
The attaining to these truths is a function of time, but only relatively so.
I've not a clue what you mean.With both sides of a proposition expressed all judgment is up for suspension.
The initial proposition is naturally the substance of a belief(s) being consciously tried/tested/falsified, thus
the propositional inverse serves as the falsification of the initial, should the initial be 'false'.
There is not judgment nor need for suspension: there is a need for conscience
in the way of asking questions relating to both. Metaphysically, both propositions
are on a set of scales, the goal being to see the gravity of one against the other.
This entails knowing what 'gravity' actually is.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
If you look at the good and the evil, you have to suspend both sides of judgement.nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:55 pmSubjectivity of interpretation is contingent on the discipline of the conscience of the interpreter.
That does not mean they are a function of time, human beings are.Yet metaphysical truths are expressed through time.
Metaphysical truths are time-invariant and always exist.
The attaining to these truths is a function of time, but only relatively so.
I've not a clue what you mean.With both sides of a proposition expressed all judgment is up for suspension.
The initial proposition is naturally the substance of a belief(s) being consciously tried/tested/falsified, thus
the propositional inverse serves as the falsification of the initial, should the initial be 'false'.
There is not judgment nor need for suspension: there is a need for conscience
in the way of asking questions relating to both. Metaphysically, both propositions
are on a set of scales, the goal being to see the gravity of one against the other.
This entails knowing what 'gravity' actually is.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
Therefor, the solution is not to look at anything on those terms, hence
the admonishment of Genesis 2:17 the 'believers' are invariably ignorant of
for being believers:
for 'believing' to know such universal absolutes as so-called good and evil.
Knowing not to "judge" based on such terms is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself.
Two trees planted, needing only a single pentagram with bi-directional rotation.
36x5=180x2=360 which satisfies a unit circle: unity to/from the natural progression,
consciousness/unconsciousness, knowledge/ignorance. Hence the theorem name:
conscious knowledge of ignorance inference theorem.
Two Piscean Fish = 'to Know' and 'to Believe'
are mapped onto the feet of *A
concerning the Daily/Solar/Great Year (25 920 Year) Cycle(s)
thus atemporal to the same degree.
Two Universal Operators = 'All' and 'Not'
are mapped onto the hands of *A
concerning all (or not) space/time
thus ethereal to the same degree.
CKIIT is thus both ethereal (not bound to space) and atemporal (not bound to time)
which is one of the ways I know it is not "mine". It is like a light in the universe I myself see
thus merely reflect it.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:16 pmTherefor, the solution is not to look at anything on those terms, hence
the admonishment of Genesis 2:17 the 'believers' are invariably ignorant of
for being believers:
for 'believing' to know such universal absolutes as so-called good and evil.
It does not admonish beleif, it is a direct command to not eat of the tree..........
Are you actually serious?
Knowing not to "judge" based on such terms is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself.
And this occurs through inversive symmetry, where both the thesis and antithesis are observed simultaeously.
Two trees planted, needing only a single pentagram with bi-directional rotation.
36x5=180x2=360 which satisfies a unit circle: unity to/from the natural progression,
consciousness/unconsciousness, knowledge/ignorance. Hence the theorem name:
conscious knowledge of ignorance inference theorem.
Two Piscean Fish = 'to Know' and 'to Believe'
are mapped onto the feet of *A
concerning the Daily/Solar/Great Year (25 920 Year) Cycle(s)
thus atemporal to the same degree.
Two Universal Operators = 'All' and 'Not'
are mapped onto the hands of *A
concerning all (or not) space/time
thus ethereal to the same degree.
CKIIT is thus both ethereal (not bound to space) and atemporal (not bound to time)
which is one of the ways I know it is not "mine". It is like a light in the universe I myself see
thus merely reflect it.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
The admonishment relates to believing to know good and evil,
as "believers" "believing" to know the same invariably do.
See the "believers" on the planet: they are eaters of this tree.
Only half-serious, but at all times.
So a proper and true measure yields a proper and true lightAnd this occurs through inversive symmetry, where both the thesis and antithesis are observed simultaeously.
the discipline of which yields according to the same
and that displaces the darkness obscuring the concerned.
Therefor, know thy self is necessary such
to remove ones own from any such measure.
Less: one believes to be something
that they are not, and measure not
what is real, but what is distorted by ones own
poorly rooted imagined image of themselves.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:22 pmThe admonishment relates to believing to know good and evil,
Provid quote as to belief, where it says "belief" specifically, otherwise you are pushing your beliefs.
as "believers" "believing" to know the same invariably do.
See the "believers" on the planet: they are eaters of this tree.
Only half-serious, but at all times.
So a proper and true measure yields a proper and true lightAnd this occurs through inversive symmetry, where both the thesis and antithesis are observed simultaeously.
the discipline of which yields according to the same
and that displaces the darkness obscuring the concerned.
Therefor, know thy self is necessary such
to remove ones own from any such measure.
Less: one believes to be something
that they are not, and measure not
what is real, but what is distorted by ones own
poorly rooted imagined image of themselves.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
Not only "belief", but "belief" to know good and evil;
the story draws analogy of eating fruits to nourishment,
thus eating fruits of the "tree" of knowledge
of good and evil
can either cause suffering and death (god)
or result in knowing good and evil (serpent).
Knowing good and evil can not co-exist
without believing to know them instead
and being dead wrong - the same is why
eating from the tree of living such to live forever
while bringing suffering and death into the world
necessitates death: it ceases what would otherwise
be an endless cycle of suffering. Thus knowing all
not to believe ceases suffering both: causing the same,
and caused by the same: absolution-of-belief.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
I ask for a quote where it said belief, not your beliefs.nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:10 amNot only "belief", but "belief" to know good and evil;
the story draws analogy of eating fruits to nourishment,
thus eating fruits of the "tree" of knowledge
of good and evil
can either cause suffering and death (god)
or result in knowing good and evil (serpent).
Knowing good and evil can not co-exist
without believing to know them instead
and being dead wrong - the same is why
eating from the tree of living such to live forever
while bringing suffering and death into the world
necessitates death: it ceases what would otherwise
be an endless cycle of suffering. Thus knowing all
not to believe ceases suffering both: causing the same,
and caused by the same: absolution-of-belief.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
Genesis 2:17
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות
v'm'autz ha'da'ath tob v'ra la t'kel m'minu ki b'yom 'kelek m'minu mot t'mot
Can you read Hebrew?
Last edited by nothing on Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
No but web apps can.
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."
This is a command, not a statement of belief.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
Your statement is itself a statement of belief.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:34 amNo but web apps can.
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."
This is a command, not a statement of belief.
The constituency of it lays in believing the translation is true/accurate. Further,
it presupposes the basis upon which such translations themselves rely, namely,
the religious institutions which have laid claim to their meanings/implications.
I know that the Hebrew language is derived by way of a single rotating form, thus
each rotation, in relation to the ones preceding, indicates a reading rendering such translations
"simplified". In short, the Hebrew expression מות תמות is a definite, and indicates "death over itself"
as in: ongoing. This being a definite, it can definitely be tried for validity such to "know"
if any such Edenic "trees" (if even metaphysical) are valid extrapolations
concerning any possible context(s) relating to any human suffering/death, given
the gravity/magnitude of the implication: death is due to eating from a tree
of so-called knowledge of good and evil, should a dichotomy even be valid.
In any case: god or no god, knowing all not to believe tends towards knowing in/of either state.
In any case: it takes a believer to believe the opposite of what is true, thus relatively invariant.
Re: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
nothing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:19 amYour statement is itself a statement of belief.
Thus your translation is a belief as well.
The constituency of it lays in believing the translation is true/accurate. Further,
it presupposes the basis upon which such translations themselves rely, namely,
the religious institutions which have laid claim to their meanings/implications.
I know that the Hebrew language is derived by way of a single rotating form, thus
each rotation, in relation to the ones preceding, indicates a reading rendering such translations
"simplified". In short, the Hebrew expression מות תמות is a definite, and indicates "death over itself"
as in: ongoing. This being a definite, it can definitely be tried for validity such to "know"
if any such Edenic "trees" (if even metaphysical) are valid extrapolations
concerning any possible context(s) relating to any human suffering/death, given
the gravity/magnitude of the implication: death is due to eating from a tree
of so-called knowledge of good and evil, should a dichotomy even be valid.
In any case: god or no god, knowing all not to believe tends towards knowing in/of either state.
In any case: it takes a believer to believe the opposite of what is true, thus relatively invariant.