The Accuser is Accused.

[Eodnhoj7]

The "accuser is accused" is the cycling of reasoning, through a circular reciprocity, where the accusation of one person references their own state thus is a projection. It is this circularity which necessitates all reasoning as grounded in a cyclical form inseperable from rationality itself. Reasoning is circular in these regards and falls under the fallacy of circularity.

[nothing]

The "accuser is accused" is the cycling of reasoning, through a circular reciprocity, where the accusation of one person references their own state thus is a projection.

Yes: if/when 'the accuser is the accused' =TRUE,
psychological projection is implied as corollary.

It is this circularity which necessitates all reasoning as grounded in a cyclical form inseperable from rationality itself. Reasoning is circular in these regards and falls under the fallacy of circularity.

No: the condition 'the accuser is the accused' is a definite condition, thus is definitely either =TRUE or =FALSE.
All definite premises implicitly/explicitly concerns a/the definite {IS+∞-NOT} binary, thus (and hence)
the condition concerned =TRUE (is) or =FALSE (not). It follows that any/all circularity has a definite beginning
if/when =TRUE, however this circularity is local to the one accusing, hence their own internal fallacy.

Accusing others of what one is themselves accountable for is the same as 'scapegoating'
and reflects their own internal inability to account for / reconcile ones own nature
for ever-searching for it in others, such to focus-shift the accountability of the same.

[Eodnhoj7]

The "accuser is accused" is the cycling of reasoning, through a circular reciprocity, where the accusation of one person references their own state thus is a projection.

Yes: if/when 'the accuser is the accused' =TRUE,
psychological projection is implied as corollary.

It is this circularity which necessitates all reasoning as grounded in a cyclical form inseperable from rationality itself. Reasoning is circular in these regards and falls under the fallacy of circularity.

No: the condition 'the accuser is the accused' is a definite condition, thus is definitely either =TRUE or =FALSE.

It can be both true and false. For example one may accuse another of heresy, while projecting his own heresy. The second person may be guilty of heresy as well so that both people are guilty of heresy. Thus while the projection is correct, as projecting heresy, it is also false as being heretical. The accuser is accused thus necessitates a simultaneously truth and false value.


All definite premises implicitly/explicitly concerns a/the definite {IS+∞-NOT} binary, thus (and hence)
the condition concerned =TRUE (is) or =FALSE (not). It follows that any/all circularity has a definite beginning
if/when =TRUE, however this circularity is local to the one accusing, hence their own internal fallacy.


Truth/falsity is a false dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=29072

Accusing others of what one is themselves accountable for is the same as 'scapegoating'
and reflects their own internal inability to account for / reconcile ones own nature
for ever-searching for it in others, such to focus-shift the accountability of the same.

Thus accusing others of ignorance because of beliefs is to accuse oneself of ignorance. Belief and believers are thus a scapegoat for your own suffering.

[nothing]

It can be both true and false. For example one may accuse another of heresy, while projecting his own heresy. The second person may be guilty of heresy as well so that both people are guilty of heresy. Thus while the projection is correct, as projecting heresy, it is also false as being heretical. The accuser is accused thus necessitates a simultaneously truth and false value.

No, it can not. 'True' discretely excludes false in such conditions as 'the accuser is the accused' else it is not definite by construct.

In your example:

For example one may accuse another of heresy, while projecting his own heresy

Thus =TRUE

The second person may be guilty of heresy as well so that both people are guilty of heresy.

Still =TRUE,

If both are guilty of heresy, whoever accuses the other of the same is flagged =TRUE.
The only way to allow this =FALSE is if one of them is not guilty of the same and accuses
and/or no accusation is made, hence no accuser, hence no substance, hence undefined.

This is why 'judge not lest ye be judged' is a valid precept.
A heretic should not judge others of heresy before seeking the same in themselves,
and would not lest they wish to conceal their own heresy by diversion,
consciously or unconsciously, knowingly or unknowingly.

Thus while the projection is correct, as projecting heresy, it is also false as being heretical. The accuser is accused thus necessitates a simultaneously truth and false value.

Accusing someone else of what one is themselves guilty of is never =false re: the condition concerned.
If the substance of the accusation reflects the accuser, such to be a projection,
'the accuser is the accused' is true regardless of if the accusation itself is true or not re: the accused.
The accused is definitely irrelevant, only the accuser is of concern in the parameters set out by the condition.

Truth/falsity is a false dichotomy

No it's not: it's an isolated dichotomy. True/false value relies on a definite parameter(s), such as a postulate, proposition or premise.
You can't designate a true/false dichotomy as 'false' if autonomous and/or isolated from some such context.

Thus accusing others of ignorance because of beliefs is to accuse oneself of ignorance. Belief and believers are thus a scapegoat for your own suffering.

i. Undermining belief as a viable basis for any state, individual and/or otherwise, is not an accusation against anyone,
ii. The constituency of a being is not their belief: if identifying as a belief(s), the same is the problem that belief presents,
iii. I don't suffer on account of others, knowing I suffer not on account of, thus have nobody to blame/accuse for my suffering

[Eodnhoj7]

It can be both true and false. For example one may accuse another of heresy, while projecting his own heresy. The second person may be guilty of heresy as well so that both people are guilty of heresy. Thus while the projection is correct, as projecting heresy, it is also false as being heretical. The accuser is accused thus necessitates a simultaneously truth and false value.

No, it can not. 'True' discretely excludes false in such conditions as 'the accuser is the accused' else it is not definite by construct.

Truth as grades results in truth existing through falsity. For example "the goodest good" necessitates some goods as more than others. One good is less than another good thus resulting in a deficiency of good as evil. The same applies for the "truest truth", a series of grades of truth occur resulting in one truth as less than another resulting in falsity.


In your example:

For example one may accuse another of heresy, while projecting his own heresy

Thus =TRUE

The second person may be guilty of heresy as well so that both people are guilty of heresy.

Still =TRUE,

If both are guilty of heresy, whoever accuses the other of the same is flagged =TRUE.
The only way to allow this =FALSE is if one of them is not guilty of the same and accuses
and/or no accusation is made, hence no accuser, hence no substance, hence undefined.
The premise necessitates one projecting his falsity onto another and being correct, yet even under a state where his projection of himself is rooted in a falsity. His projection is correct his roots are false, yet the accusation is both true an false. It is true in the respect he correctly projected his opponent as wrong, it is false in the respect the projection is false.

One can project and still be correct while being wrongl





This is why 'judge not lest ye be judged' is a valid precept.
A heretic should not judge others of heresy before seeking the same in themselves,
and would not lest they wish to conceal their own heresy by diversion,
consciously or unconsciously, knowingly or unknowingly.

Thus while the projection is correct, as projecting heresy, it is also false as being heretical. The accuser is accused thus necessitates a simultaneously truth and false value.

Accusing someone else of what one is themselves guilty of is never =false re: the condition concerned.
If the substance of the accusation reflects the accuser, such to be a projection,
'the accuser is the accused' is true regardless of if the accusation itself is true or not re: the accused.
The accused is definitely irrelevant, only the accuser is of concern in the parameters set out by the condition.

See above.

Truth/falsity is a false dichotomy

No it's not: it's an isolated dichotomy. True/false value relies on a definite parameter(s), such as a postulate, proposition or premise.
You can't designate a true/false dichotomy as 'false' if autonomous and/or isolated from some such context.

Truth existing through grades necessitates the dichotomy as false.

Thus accusing others of ignorance because of beliefs is to accuse oneself of ignorance. Belief and believers are thus a scapegoat for your own suffering.

i. Undermining belief as a viable basis for any state, individual and/or otherwise, is not an accusation against anyone,
You stated elsewhere "believers/unbelievers". The belief and/or knowledge is an extension of the perspective of the observer thus is the observer.


ii. The constituency of a being is not their belief: if identifying as a belief(s), the same is the problem that belief presents,
Knowledge possesses a degree of self negation through the nature of categorization where one category eventually replaces another. For example Pluto was once deemed as a Planet, then it regressed to "Not Planet". All knowledge, as categorical is subject to change. Knowledge as definitive is knowledge as categorical.



iii. I don't suffer on account of others, knowing I suffer not on account of, thus have nobody to blame/accuse for my suffering

You accuse belief, hence believers, as the root of suffering. Your stance is a projection of belief on your part where your theorem, and it is a theorem, points the way to complete and total knowledge when the evidence is either not there or points to the contrary.
Belief as acceptance, acceptance as assumption, assumption as imprinting necessitates all knowledge as justified (repitition of a of a phenomenon across a phenomenon) belief.

[nothing]

Truth as grades results in truth existing through falsity. For example "the goodest good" necessitates some goods as more than others. One good is less than another good thus resulting in a deficiency of good as evil. The same applies for the "truest truth", a series of grades of truth occur resulting in one truth as less than another resulting in falsity.

i. truth exists through falsification(s) of (false) beliefs (part. commonly held)
ii. I don't eat from that tree viz. "good" and/or "evil"
iii. true and false are discretionary if/when concerning definite parameters

The premise necessitates one projecting his falsity onto another and being correct, yet even under a state where his projection of himself is rooted in a falsity. His projection is correct his roots are false, yet the accusation is both true an false. It is true in the respect he correctly projected his opponent as wrong, it is false in the respect the projection is false.

One can project and still be correct while being wrongl

What qualifies the condition 'the accuser is the accused' as true or false is whether or not the condition is met.
If yes, it is true. If not, it is false. If the one accusing is projecting their own substance onto/as another, the condition is met.

No further consideration need be made in the scope of the condition concerned.

Truth existing through grades necessitates the dichotomy as false.

Truth depends on the parameters, not on arbitrary "grades".

You stated elsewhere "believers/unbelievers". The belief and/or knowledge is an extension of the perspective of the observer thus is the observer.

A person is not what they believe. This is the same as identifying as a belief(s). The same is lunacy.

Knowledge possesses a degree of self negation through the nature of categorization where one category eventually replaces another. For example Pluto was once deemed as a Planet, then it regressed to "Not Planet". All knowledge, as categorical is subject to change. Knowledge as definitive is knowledge as categorical.

Categories do not constitute knowledge. Pluto is not a planet, it is a name. It comes from a Disney character.
The object given the name Pluto is a body orbiting the sun.

You accuse belief, hence believers, as the root of suffering.

No not 'hence believers' as a person is not what they believe. To identify as a belief is the same as attachment to an idol.

Your stance is a projection of belief on your part where your theorem, and it is a theorem, points the way to complete and total knowledge when the evidence is either not there or points to the contrary.

My theorem adopts known properties of the physical universe: that space and time are naught but reciprocal aspects of motion.
I acknowledge this is not acknowledged by mainstream science, but this lends itself to my "stance" even mainstream science
is rooted in "belief". In particular: that space can bend and/or light has a "speed". I know not to believe such.

Again: the theorem does not place knowledge as the be-all end-all. Knowledge only serves to negate belief-based ignorance.
The vehicle to be concerned with is the conscience, hence conscious knowledge of ignorance.

Belief as acceptance, acceptance as assumption, assumption as imprinting necessitates all knowledge as justified (repitition of a of a phenomenon across a phenomenon) belief.

What you are describing is the same process for Nazi-like indoctrination, except replace 'knowledge' with 'dogma'.

It is clear to me you do not have the means to discern 'knowledge' from any/all else. Because of this,
it is clear to me you further miss the implicit antithetical nature of knowledge and belief:
to know all... approaches all-knowing, which must entail knowing all: not to be believed...
to believe all... captures any/all possible belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death.

Knowledge and belief are counter-posed as in a 180°plane: bi-directional.
The pentagram (√5) contains 2 possible directions from the apex, hence 2π,
hence 1+√5/2 implies discretion concerning π+π√5/2π.

The laws of nature are contained in Φ.

[Eodnhoj7]

Truth as grades results in truth existing through falsity. For example "the goodest good" necessitates some goods as more than others. One good is less than another good thus resulting in a deficiency of good as evil. The same applies for the "truest truth", a series of grades of truth occur resulting in one truth as less than another resulting in falsity.

i. truth exists through falsification(s) of (false) beliefs (part. commonly held)
ii. I don't eat from that tree viz. "good" and/or "evil"
iii. true and false are discretionary if/when concerning definite parameters

False, all truths are grades of a center truth with this gradation occuring through an absence of unity. One truth inverted to many results in gradation.

The premise necessitates one projecting his falsity onto another and being correct, yet even under a state where his projection of himself is rooted in a falsity. His projection is correct his roots are false, yet the accusation is both true an false. It is true in the respect he correctly projected his opponent as wrong, it is false in the respect the projection is false.

One can project and still be correct while being wrongl

One can also project and be correct.

What qualifies the condition 'the accuser is the accused' as true or false is whether or not the condition is met.
If yes, it is true. If not, it is false. If the one accusing is projecting their own substance onto/as another, the condition is met.

And what condition must be met exactly? All truths are simultaneously true and false given an expanding context.

No further consideration need be made in the scope of the condition concerned.

Truth existing through grades necessitates the dichotomy as false.

Truth depends on the parameters, not on arbitrary "grades".

Parameters are grades. Cow exists within the parameter of mammal. The cow exists through different grades. These grades exist through the parameter and the parameter is composed of grades.

You stated elsewhere "believers/unbelievers". The belief and/or knowledge is an extension of the perspective of the observer thus is the observer.

A person is not what they believe. This is the same as identifying as a belief(s). The same is lunacy.

False, a person is what and how they perceive reality. This perception occurs through knowledge and belief.

Knowledge possesses a degree of self negation through the nature of categorization where one category eventually replaces another. For example Pluto was once deemed as a Planet, then it regressed to "Not Planet". All knowledge, as categorical is subject to change. Knowledge as definitive is knowledge as categorical.

Categories do not constitute knowledge. Pluto is not a planet, it is a name. It comes from a Disney character.
The object given the name Pluto is a body orbiting the sun.

[[b]color=#FF0000]Pluto is a body orbiting the sun. It was once a planet, now it is just a body. Knowledge, as categorization, is subject to change as the categories which form knowledge are determined through group agreement.[/color]
[/b]

You accuse belief, hence believers, as the root of suffering.

No not 'hence believers' as a person is not what they believe. To identify as a belief is the same as attachment to an idol.

Idols are projections of the psyche.

Your stance is a projection of belief on your part where your theorem, and it is a theorem, points the way to complete and total knowledge when the evidence is either not there or points to the contrary.

My theorem adopts known properties of the physical universe: that space and time are naught but reciprocal aspects of motion.
I acknowledge this is not acknowledged by mainstream science, but this lends itself to my "stance" even mainstream science
is rooted in "belief". In particular: that space can bend and/or light has a "speed". I know not to believe such.

The accuser is accused.

Again: the theorem does not place knowledge as the be-all end-all. Knowledge only serves to negate belief-based ignorance.
The vehicle to be concerned with is the conscience, hence conscious knowledge of ignorance.

And define consciousness using only knowledge and no beleif oriented statement.

Belief as acceptance, acceptance as assumption, assumption as imprinting necessitates all knowledge as justified (repitition of a of a phenomenon across a phenomenon) belief.

What you are describing is the same process for Nazi-like indoctrination, except replace 'knowledge' with 'dogma'.

The accuser is accused.

It is clear to me you do not have the means to discern 'knowledge' from any/all else. Because of this,
it is clear to me you further miss the implicit antithetical nature of knowledge and belief:
to know all... approaches all-knowing, which must entail knowing all: not to be believed...
to believe all... captures any/all possible belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death.

The accuser is accused.

Knowledge and belief are counter-posed as in a 180°plane: bi-directional.
The pentagram (√5) contains 2 possible directions from the apex, hence 2π,
hence 1+√5/2 implies discretion concerning π+π√5/2π.

The laws of nature are contained in Φ.

Knowledge is justified belief. As to charts, those are made up to fit your position. Which as an unproven theory is negatable paradoxically by it's own nature. You cannot prove your theory as valid, proof is necessary for knowledge according to the theory, thus your theory is invalid.

Still waiting for that link. I want to see what others see, in order to see if I am missing anything.