Change cannot happen at now

[Eodnhoj7]

Any change contains two states of affair cause and effect (before and after). There is the moment of decision between cause and effect that happens at now. All these, cause, decision, and effect, cannot lay at one point.

The cause is a static state. The effect is a static state. Now is the point of inversion from one static state into another as the emptiness of the form between one state and another. Change is emptiness of form.

[Age]

Any change contains two states of affair cause and effect (before and after). There is the moment of decision between cause and effect that happens at now.

If 'now' is any given, separated and unchanging, moment, then, obviously, change is NOT happening at that 'now'.

All these, cause, decision, and effect, cannot lay at one point.

If ANY cause, decision, and effect, lasts longer than an individual and separated moment/point, then obviously theses things cannot lay at that one point.

'now' does not even actually lay at one individual and separated point. 'Now', itself, is in a constant state of flux. 'Now' is a flowing moment.

[Eodnhoj7]

Any change contains two states of affair cause and effect (before and after). There is the moment of decision between cause and effect that happens at now.

If 'now' is any given, separated and unchanging, moment, then, obviously, change is NOT happening at that 'now'.

All these, cause, decision, and effect, cannot lay at one point.

If ANY cause, decision, and effect, lasts longer than an individual and separated moment/point, then obviously theses things cannot lay at that one point.

'now' does not even actually lay at one individual and separated point. 'Now', itself, is in a constant state of flux. 'Now' is a flowing moment.

Now is the formless gap between past and present static forms and as such is formless in nature. Change is the inversion from one static state to another thus is grounded in void. Void is beyond being as it is the absence of being in and of itself.

[Age]

Any change contains two states of affair cause and effect (before and after). There is the moment of decision between cause and effect that happens at now.

If 'now' is any given, separated and unchanging, moment, then, obviously, change is NOT happening at that 'now'.

All these, cause, decision, and effect, cannot lay at one point.

If ANY cause, decision, and effect, lasts longer than an individual and separated moment/point, then obviously theses things cannot lay at that one point.

'now' does not even actually lay at one individual and separated point. 'Now', itself, is in a constant state of flux. 'Now' is a flowing moment.

Now is the formless gap between past and present static forms and as such is formless in nature.

Okay, if you say so.

Change is the inversion from one static state to another thus is grounded in void. Void is beyond being as it is the absence of being in and of itself.

Okay, if you say so.

But what is YOUR POINT?

To me, you are just CLAIMING there are "static" forms, like 'past' and 'present', with a "gap" between which you call "now". Now, IF this was True, then OBVIOUSLY, by definition, 'change cannot happen at now'.

To me, 'you' are just defining words, in a way, which you HOPE paint a PERFECT 'picture' of 'Life', Itself. I could, however, now say that 'you' are FAILING, but this appeared to trigger some 'thing' within 'you' last time I said this, so I will NOT say this, now.

[Eodnhoj7]

If 'now' is any given, separated and unchanging, moment, then, obviously, change is NOT happening at that 'now'.



If ANY cause, decision, and effect, lasts longer than an individual and separated moment/point, then obviously theses things cannot lay at that one point.

'now' does not even actually lay at one individual and separated point. 'Now', itself, is in a constant state of flux. 'Now' is a flowing moment.

Now is the formless gap between past and present static forms and as such is formless in nature.

Okay, if you say so.

Change is the inversion from one static state to another thus is grounded in void. Void is beyond being as it is the absence of being in and of itself.

Okay, if you say so.

But what is YOUR POINT?

To me, you are just CLAIMING there are "static" forms, like 'past' and 'present', with a "gap" between which you call "now". Now, IF this was True, then OBVIOUSLY, by definition, 'change cannot happen at now'.

To me, 'you' are just defining words, in a way, which you HOPE paint a PERFECT 'picture' of 'Life', Itself. I could, however, now say that 'you' are FAILING, but this appeared to trigger some 'thing' within 'you' last time I said this, so I will NOT say this, now.

Change is the inversion of one static form into another through the formlessness of said phenomenon, this formlessness is void. An example of this is one line changing into another through a 0d point.

Now is fundamentally formless with this formlessness being change.

Again you are failing to produce an adequate argument.

[Age]

Now is the formless gap between past and present static forms and as such is formless in nature.

Okay, if you say so.

Change is the inversion from one static state to another thus is grounded in void. Void is beyond being as it is the absence of being in and of itself.

Okay, if you say so.

But what is YOUR POINT?

To me, you are just CLAIMING there are "static" forms, like 'past' and 'present', with a "gap" between which you call "now". Now, IF this was True, then OBVIOUSLY, by definition, 'change cannot happen at now'.

To me, 'you' are just defining words, in a way, which you HOPE paint a PERFECT 'picture' of 'Life', Itself. I could, however, now say that 'you' are FAILING, but this appeared to trigger some 'thing' within 'you' last time I said this, so I will NOT say this, now.

Change is the inversion of one static form into another through the formlessness of said phenomenon, this formlessness is void. An example of this is one line changing into another through a 0d point.

Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, "static form"?

What are these 'lines' here, which 'you' appear to be 'trying to' claim/argue 'change' from one, so called, "static form" into another ["static form" or another "line"] at some IMAGINED "0d point"?

The deeper or MORE I LOOK INTO this the MORE you appear to be CONTRADICTING "your" 'self'.

Now is fundamentally formless with this formlessness being change.

So, which one is 'it': Can 'change' happen at 'now', or, 'change' cannot happen at 'now'?

If, as 'you' propose now, that 'now' is 'fundamentally formless', and that this 'formlessness' being 'change', then this appears to completely contradict your previous CLAIM that 'change cannot happen at now'.

Again you are failing to produce an adequate argument.

I am, supposedly and alleging, FAILING to produce a, so called, "adequate argument" for 'what', EXACTLY?

I am just 'trying to' get 'you' to SEE your views, BELIEFS, and CLAIMS, for what they REALLY ARE.

I am also just expressing some of my views.

What did you think or believe that I am 'trying to' produce an "adequate argument" for, EXACTLY?

By the way, that 'failing' word really appears to be A TRIGGER, for 'you'.

Have 'you' been criticized or ridiculed for FAILING previously?

[Eodnhoj7]

Okay, if you say so.



Okay, if you say so.

But what is YOUR POINT?

To me, you are just CLAIMING there are "static" forms, like 'past' and 'present', with a "gap" between which you call "now". Now, IF this was True, then OBVIOUSLY, by definition, 'change cannot happen at now'.

To me, 'you' are just defining words, in a way, which you HOPE paint a PERFECT 'picture' of 'Life', Itself. I could, however, now say that 'you' are FAILING, but this appeared to trigger some 'thing' within 'you' last time I said this, so I will NOT say this, now.

Change is the inversion of one static form into another through the formlessness of said phenomenon, this formlessness is void. An example of this is one line changing into another through a 0d point.

Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, "static form"?

It is a form which either changes at a slower rate than another form, thus appearing at a relative stillness or a concept which does not change.

What are these 'lines' here, which 'you' appear to be 'trying to' claim/argue 'change' from one, so called, "static form" into another ["static form" or another "line"] at some IMAGINED "0d point"?

The deeper or MORE I LOOK INTO this the MORE you appear to be CONTRADICTING "your" 'self'.

All phenomenon result in points from a distance or appear as composed of points upon closer inspection, the point is the potentiality of a phenomenon change into another phenomenon. This potentiality is vividness considering what is potential is unactualized.

A line is the distance between one point and another, thus the distance between points is always linear.

Now is fundamentally formless with this formlessness being change.

So, which one is 'it': Can 'change' happen at 'now', or, 'change' cannot happen at 'now'?

Now is formless as this formlessness is the change of one phenomenon into another. Now is a median of change, and this change occurs through void.



If, as 'you' propose now, that 'now' is 'fundamentally formless', and that this 'formlessness' being 'change', then this appears to completely contradict your previous CLAIM that 'change cannot happen at now'.
I am claiming change happens now, you have to provide page, paragraph and sentence number where I made such a claim that change does not happen now. You are confusing the argument from the current thread starter with my own.

Again you are failing to produce an adequate argument.

I am, supposedly and alleging, FAILING to produce a, so called, "adequate argument" for 'what', EXACTLY?

I am just 'trying to' get 'you' to SEE your views, BELIEFS, and CLAIMS, for what they REALLY ARE.

I am also just expressing some of my views.

What did you think or believe that I am 'trying to' produce an "adequate argument" for, EXACTLY?

By the way, that 'failing' word really appears to be A TRIGGER, for 'you'.

Have 'you' been criticized or ridiculed for FAILING previously?

You seem to be hooked on the word "triggered", it appears you are triggered by this conversation. Your continued ad hominums only point to the weakness and obscurity of your own stance.

[Age]

Change is the inversion of one static form into another through the formlessness of said phenomenon, this formlessness is void. An example of this is one line changing into another through a 0d point.

Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, "static form"?

It is a form which either changes at a slower rate than another form, thus appearing at a relative stillness or a concept which does not change.

LOL Are you even AWARE that you are now contradicting YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIMS and thus are PROVING "yourself" WRONG?

So, to you now, a 'static form' is a form which either:
CHANGES at a SLOWER RATE than another form, which is just a 'contradiction in terms, itself', which the CONTRADICTION ITSELF is backed up and supported by your own following words of; APPEARING at a RELATIVE stillness.

Or,

A concept which does not change. YET, besides the fact that ALL concepts, themselves, CHANGE, a concept OF "static form" does NOT mean that there is IN ACTUALITY an ACTUAL 'static form'.

So, I will ask the question AGAIN:
Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, "static form"?

What are these 'lines' here, which 'you' appear to be 'trying to' claim/argue 'change' from one, so called, "static form" into another ["static form" or another "line"] at some IMAGINED "0d point"?

The deeper or MORE I LOOK INTO this the MORE you appear to be CONTRADICTING "your" 'self'.

All phenomenon result in points from a distance or appear as composed of points upon closer inspection, the point is the potentiality of a phenomenon change into another phenomenon. This potentiality is vividness considering what is potential is unactualized.

A line is the distance between one point and another, thus the distance between points is always linear.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' are NOT LOOKING DEEP ENOUGH into this.

You are OBVIOUSLY ONLY LOOKING as far or as deep as will align with YOUR ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true and what is not true.

So, which one is 'it': Can 'change' happen at 'now', or, 'change' cannot happen at 'now'?

Now is formless as this formlessness is the change of one phenomenon into another. Now is a median of change, and this change occurs through void.

So, although there is NO ACTUAL 'static form' of 'now' NOR could there EVER be ANY ACTUAL 'static form' in the sense of 'now', you are STILL going to INSIST that there is. Is this correct?

If, as 'you' propose now, that 'now' is 'fundamentally formless', and that this 'formlessness' being 'change', then this appears to completely contradict your previous CLAIM that 'change cannot happen at now'.
I am claiming change happens now,

BUT, if as you CLAIM now, 'now' is a 'static form', then HOW could CHANGE happen at or in a 'static form'?

you have to provide page, paragraph and sentence number where I made such a claim that change does not happen now.

I do NOT have to because you have now CLAIMED that CHANGE happens 'now'. Which is PERFECT for 'me'.

So, what EXACTLY IS, and where is EXACTLY is, 'now'?

Also, is 'now' a 'static form', to 'you'?

You are confusing the argument from the current thread starter with my own.

Okay.



How many times have I used the word 'triggered' since I have been in this forum?

And, how many times do someone have to do or say something before you say they "seem to be hooked on 'that'"?

it appears you are triggered by this conversation.

EVERY conversation that I respond to is a VERY STRONG INDICATION and SIGN that I have ACTUALLY been 'triggered' by that conversation.

Your continued ad hominums only point to the weakness and obscurity of your own stance.

What does 'ad hominums' actually mean, to 'you'?

By the way, you ONCE AGAIN did NOT answer my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to 'you'.

LOOK, you CLAIM some things to be ABSOLUTELY True in this thread. I am just SHOWING and PROVING how they are NOT true, at all.

I have lost some of your words and my replies trying to FIX UP your inability to quote correctly. I am NOT going to amend any further here now.

[Eodnhoj7]

Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, "static form"?

It is a form which either changes at a slower rate than another form, thus appearing at a relative stillness or a concept which does not change.

LOL Are you even AWARE that you are now contradicting YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIMS and thus are PROVING "yourself" WRONG?

So, to you now, a 'static form' is a form which either:
CHANGES at a SLOWER RATE than another form, which is just a 'contradiction in terms, itself', which the CONTRADICTION ITSELF is backed up and supported by your own following words of; APPEARING at a RELATIVE stillness.

False dichotomy, it is not "either/or" but rather "both/and" of the same thing occuring under different respects. The use of "or" is in reference to one distinct state existing in one context and one state which exists under another context. It is the same thing expressed through a variety of contexts. The word "and" can suffice as well.

Water dripping from a roof makes the roof appear as still even though the roof is moving at a slower rate. One rate of movement makes the other appear as still. Stillness is the relation of movements where one is slower than another. Movement is the gap between one form and another. Thus series of gaps contains another series of gaps.



Or,

A concept which does not change. YET, besides the fact that ALL concepts, themselves, CHANGE, a concept OF "static form" does NOT mean that there is IN ACTUALITY an ACTUAL 'static form'.

The concept of 1 does not change as it exists self referentially through a series of numbers. Self referentiality through multiple forms is the same thing expressed through a variety of forms.

So, I will ask the question AGAIN:
Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, "static form"?

From the perspective of everything existing at one moment above time all movements are parts of a single unchanging form. This moment is past, present and future.
Each form is an approximation of the unchanging whole and as such are static extensions of the static whole. The change of one form to another is the change of one still form to another. This change is the gap between one form and another form as the absence of form. Multiplicity acts as a veil to unity. Each form as a static whole is composed of further static parts thus is composed of infinite change much in the same manner a line is composed of infinite lines as infinite lengths between infinite 0d points. Stillness is thus composed of infinite change as no change thus the total whole is infinite change as no change. Change is the formless gap between one form and another. The totality of being encapsulates nothingness through form.

What are these 'lines' here, which 'you' appear to be 'trying to' claim/argue 'change' from one, so called, "static form" into another ["static form" or another "line"] at some IMAGINED "0d point"?

The deeper or MORE I LOOK INTO this the MORE you appear to be CONTRADICTING "your" 'self'.

All phenomenon result in points from a distance or appear as composed of points upon closer inspection, the point is the potentiality of a phenomenon change into another phenomenon. This potentiality is vividness considering what is potential is unactualized.

A line is the distance between one point and another, thus the distance between points is always linear.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' are NOT LOOKING DEEP ENOUGH into this.

You are OBVIOUSLY ONLY LOOKING as far or as deep as will align with YOUR ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true and what is not true.

Now is formless as this formlessness is the change of one phenomenon into another. Now is a median of change, and this change occurs through void.

So, although there is NO ACTUAL 'static form' of 'now' NOR could there EVER be ANY ACTUAL 'static form' in the sense of 'now', you are STILL going to INSIST that there is. Is this correct?

BUT, if as you CLAIM now, 'now' is a 'static form', then HOW could CHANGE happen at or in a 'static form'?



I do NOT have to because you have now CLAIMED that CHANGE happens 'now'. Which is PERFECT for 'me'.

So, what EXACTLY IS, and where is EXACTLY is, 'now'?

Also, is 'now' a 'static form', to 'you'?

[Age]

Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, “static form”?

It is a form which either changes at a slower rate than another form, thus appearing at a relative stillness or a concept which does not change.

LOL Are you even AWARE that you are now contradicting YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIMS and thus are PROVING "yourself" WRONG?

So, to you now, a 'static form' is a form which either:
CHANGES at a SLOWER RATE than another form, which is just a 'contradiction in terms, itself', which the CONTRADICTION ITSELF is backed up and supported by your own following words of; APPEARING at a RELATIVE stillness.

False dichotomy, it is not "either/or" but rather "both/and" of the same thing occuring under different respects. The use of "or" is in reference to one distinct state existing in one context and one state which exists under another context. It is the same thing expressed through a variety of contexts. The word "and" can suffice as well.

Thank you for CLEARING this up and for the CLARITY. This works even BETTER now. HOWEVER, your use of this now BEFORE I used the ‘Or’ word only confuses this more. As it was ACTUALLY ‘you’ who used the ‘either’ AND the ‘or’ words here when ‘you’ said:
“It is a form which either changes at a slower rate than another form, thus appearing at a relative stillness or a concept which does not change.”

So, either you choosing to write what you did here BEFORE I used the ‘Or’ word, which I ONLY USED so as to stay aligned with what you have ACTUALLY written, you did as a PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION, a MISTAKE made by ‘you’, some thing that you have COMPLETELY MISSED, OR just some thing that you have gotten confused about.

OBVIOUSLY, what I wrote above is a ‘both/and’, which can be CLEARLY SEEN as I NEVER used the word ‘or’ anywhere. The ‘either’ word I did use was backed up AND supported by my use of the ‘Or,’ word, which follows LATER.

Water dripping from a roof makes the roof appear as still even though the roof is moving at a slower rate. One rate of movement makes the other appear as still. Stillness is the relation of movements where one is slower than another. Movement is the gap between one form and another. Thus series of gaps contains another series of gaps.

The words 'and', 'or', NOR 'either' have NO REAL bearing on what I was actually getting at and saying, in THAT PART, which was:

"Moving at a SLOWER rate" is OBVIOUSLY NOT a 'static form'. "APPEARING to be still" is ALSO OBVIOUSLY NOT a 'static form'.

'Appearances' are NOT necessarily what ACTUALLY IS. Therefore, if some 'thing' just APPEARS to be still, then this does NOT mean that that 'thing' is actually 'still', NOR actually in 'static form', at all.

'Relative' to an individual perspective is ALSO NOT necessarily what ACTUALLY IS. Therefore, if some 'thing', again, just APPEARS to be still from some RELATIVE perspective, then this does NOT mean that that 'thing' is actually 'still, NOR actually in 'static form', at all.

NO matter what MAKES some 'thing' APPEAR 'still', that 'thing' is OBVIOUSLY NOT 'still' AT ALL. So, YOUR "water dripping from a roof" example is just ANOTHER ATTEMPT at you 'trying' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your ALREADY gained and strongly held onto BELIEF.

Now, here comes the ‘Or,’ PART.

Or,

A concept which does not change. YET, besides the fact that ALL concepts, themselves, CHANGE, a concept OF "static form" does NOT mean that there is IN ACTUALITY an ACTUAL 'static form'.

The concept of 1 does not change as it exists self referentially through a series of numbers.

This is true, in a sense, but this concept of 1 CAN change. That is; whenever I want to make that concept change. I have just changed the concept of 1 to some thing that you could NOT even imagine right 'now'.

The concept of 1 only exists within human beings, and some human beings do not have this concept at all and for those that do, then human beings do change, and so that concept will also eventually change.

Also, the concept of 1 does NOT exist in 'static form' as concepts themselves are fleeting and thus are ALWAYS changing ALL of the time.

Self referentiality through multiple forms is the same thing expressed through a variety of forms.

If you say so, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

But I am not sure what this has to do with whether 'change' can happen at 'now' or not, and REALLY I could not be bothered in trying to work out what you are REALLY saying and meaning here.

So, I will ask the question AGAIN:
Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, "static form"?

From the perspective of everything existing at one moment above time all movements are parts of a single unchanging form. This moment is past, present and future.

But this unchanging 'moment' does NOT actually exist.

This “unchanging moment, above time” is just a concept or perception that 'you' have. It is NOT an ACTUAL ‘thing’ that ACTUALLY exists.

Also, is "above time" a REAL, ACTUAL 'thing'?

If yes, then what does "above time", actually mean, to 'you'?

Each form is an approximation of the unchanging whole and as such are static extensions of the static whole.

OBVIOUSLY the FACT that 'CHANGE', itself, is CONSTANT, or happens CONSTANTLY, this has NO bearing at all on YOUR CLAIMS here.

You wrote:
Now is (fundamentally formless with this formlessness being) change.

The change of one form to another is the change of one still form to another.

But as I KEEP REMINDING you, there is NO ACTUAL 'still form'. OF COURSE there is the APPEARANCE of a 'still form', which is OBVIOUSLY RELATIVE to the observer, but APPEARANCE and RELATIVITY to just SOME is NOT EVIDENCE NOR PROVE of what ACTUALLY IS.

This change is the gap between one form and another form as the absence of form.

But there is NO ACTUAL 'gap', other than in YOUR IMAGINATION ONLY.

Multiplicity acts as a veil to unity. Each form as a static whole is composed of further static parts thus is composed of infinite change much in the same manner a line is composed of infinite lines as infinite lengths between infinite 0d points. Stillness is thus composed of infinite change as no change thus the total whole is infinite change as no change.

Do you PURPOSELY MEAN to be CONTRADICTORY and/or CONTROVERSIAL?

Change is the formless gap between one form and another. The totality of being encapsulates nothingness through form.

Let us now say that; This is True.

What would this ACTUALLY effect, or 'change'?

Also, will you please learn how to quote so as to make this more user, and reader, friendly?

[Eodnhoj7]

Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, “static form”?

It is a form which either changes at a slower rate than another form, thus appearing at a relative stillness or a concept which does not change.

LOL Are you even AWARE that you are now contradicting YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIMS and thus are PROVING "yourself" WRONG?

So, to you now, a 'static form' is a form which either:
CHANGES at a SLOWER RATE than another form, which is just a 'contradiction in terms, itself', which the CONTRADICTION ITSELF is backed up and supported by your own following words of; APPEARING at a RELATIVE stillness.

False dichotomy, it is not "either/or" but rather "both/and" of the same thing occuring under different respects. The use of "or" is in reference to one distinct state existing in one context and one state which exists under another context. It is the same thing expressed through a variety of contexts. The word "and" can suffice as well.

Thank you for CLEARING this up and for the CLARITY. This works even BETTER now. HOWEVER, your use of this now BEFORE I used the ‘Or’ word only confuses this more. As it was ACTUALLY ‘you’ who used the ‘either’ AND the ‘or’ words here when ‘you’ said:
“It is a form which either changes at a slower rate than another form, thus appearing at a relative stillness or a concept which does not change.”

So, either you choosing to write what you did here BEFORE I used the ‘Or’ word, which I ONLY USED so as to stay aligned with what you have ACTUALLY written, you did as a PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION, a MISTAKE made by ‘you’, some thing that you have COMPLETELY MISSED, OR just some thing that you have gotten confused about.

OBVIOUSLY, what I wrote above is a ‘both/and’, which can be CLEARLY SEEN as I NEVER used the word ‘or’ anywhere. The ‘either’ word I did use was backed up AND supported by my use of the ‘Or,’ word, which follows LATER.

Water dripping from a roof makes the roof appear as still even though the roof is moving at a slower rate. One rate of movement makes the other appear as still. Stillness is the relation of movements where one is slower than another. Movement is the gap between one form and another. Thus series of gaps contains another series of gaps.

The words 'and', 'or', NOR 'either' have NO REAL bearing on what I was actually getting at and saying, in THAT PART, which was:

"Moving at a SLOWER rate" is OBVIOUSLY NOT a 'static form'. "APPEARING to be still" is ALSO OBVIOUSLY NOT a 'static form'.

'Appearances' are NOT necessarily what ACTUALLY IS. Therefore, if some 'thing' just APPEARS to be still, then this does NOT mean that that 'thing' is actually 'still', NOR actually in 'static form', at all.

'Relative' to an individual perspective is ALSO NOT necessarily what ACTUALLY IS. Therefore, if some 'thing', again, just APPEARS to be still from some RELATIVE perspective, then this does NOT mean that that 'thing' is actually 'still, NOR actually in 'static form', at all.

NO matter what MAKES some 'thing' APPEAR 'still', that 'thing' is OBVIOUSLY NOT 'still' AT ALL. So, YOUR "water dripping from a roof" example is just ANOTHER ATTEMPT at you 'trying' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your ALREADY gained and strongly held onto BELIEF.

Now, here comes the ‘Or,’ PART.

Or,

A concept which does not change. YET, besides the fact that ALL concepts, themselves, CHANGE, a concept OF "static form" does NOT mean that there is IN ACTUALITY an ACTUAL 'static form'.

The concept of 1 does not change as it exists self referentially through a series of numbers.

This is true, in a sense, but this concept of 1 CAN change. That is; whenever I want to make that concept change. I have just changed the concept of 1 to some thing that you could NOT even imagine right 'now'.

The concept of 1 only exists within human beings, and some human beings do not have this concept at all and for those that do, then human beings do change, and so that concept will also eventually change.

Also, the concept of 1 does NOT exist in 'static form' as concepts themselves are fleeting and thus are ALWAYS changing ALL of the time.

Self referentiality through multiple forms is the same thing expressed through a variety of forms.

If you say so, then it MUST BE SO, correct?

But I am not sure what this has to do with whether 'change' can happen at 'now' or not, and REALLY I could not be bothered in trying to work out what you are REALLY saying and meaning here.

So, I will ask the question AGAIN:
Since WHEN was there, and HOW could there even be, an ACTUAL, so called, "static form"?

From the perspective of everything existing at one moment above time all movements are parts of a single unchanging form. This moment is past, present and future.

But this unchanging 'moment' does NOT actually exist.

This “unchanging moment, above time” is just a concept or perception that 'you' have. It is NOT an ACTUAL ‘thing’ that ACTUALLY exists.

Also, is "above time" a REAL, ACTUAL 'thing'?

If yes, then what does "above time", actually mean, to 'you'?

Each form is an approximation of the unchanging whole and as such are static extensions of the static whole.

OBVIOUSLY the FACT that 'CHANGE', itself, is CONSTANT, or happens CONSTANTLY, this has NO bearing at all on YOUR CLAIMS here.

You wrote:
Now is (fundamentally formless with this formlessness being) change.

The change of one form to another is the change of one still form to another.

But as I KEEP REMINDING you, there is NO ACTUAL 'still form'. OF COURSE there is the APPEARANCE of a 'still form', which is OBVIOUSLY RELATIVE to the observer, but APPEARANCE and RELATIVITY to just SOME is NOT EVIDENCE NOR PROVE of what ACTUALLY IS.

This change is the gap between one form and another form as the absence of form.

But there is NO ACTUAL 'gap', other than in YOUR IMAGINATION ONLY.

Multiplicity acts as a veil to unity. Each form as a static whole is composed of further static parts thus is composed of infinite change much in the same manner a line is composed of infinite lines as infinite lengths between infinite 0d points. Stillness is thus composed of infinite change as no change thus the total whole is infinite change as no change.

Do you PURPOSELY MEAN to be CONTRADICTORY and/or CONTROVERSIAL?

Change is the formless gap between one form and another. The totality of being encapsulates nothingness through form.

Let us now say that; This is True.

What would this ACTUALLY effect, or 'change'?

Also, will you please learn how to quote so as to make this more user, and reader, friendly?

I will make a numbered list to make quoting easier:

1. There exists one singular moment of being that is above past, present and future. This moment is the totality of being.

2. Now is a perpetual change between moments, these moments are multiple successive static forms. These static forms are parts or rather approximations of the whole. Void is the gap between phenomenon, void acts as a veil. Each static form is composed of further static forms.
Multiplicity is the veil of being as multiplicity is change.

3. Stillness exists as change at an infinite rate much in the same manner a single line is composed of infinite lines.

4. Appearance is being as appearance is the approximation of some deeper reality. Appearance is a fractal of reality, thus a grade, and therefore real.

[Age]

I will make a numbered list to make quoting easier:

1. There exists one singular moment of being that is above past, present and future. This moment is the totality of being.

Is this an ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE FACT, or just what you think or believe is true?

What does 'above past, present and future' actually mean, to you?

And, how EXACTLY could the, so called, "totality of being" be "above past, present and future"? This appears to be a CONTRADICTION IN TERMS as the term 'totality of being' appears that it would INCLUDED 'past, present' and future'.

How could a 'totality of being' be above absolutely ANY thing?

2. Now is a perpetual change between moments, these moments are multiple successive static forms.

Is this an ACTUALITY and therefore an ACTUAL and irrefutable FACT?

Are there ACTUAL 'moments', with a 'between', besides just within conceptual thought?

Is there REALLY, so called, "multiple successive static forms"?

If yes, to any or all of these clarifying questions, then HOW could these, alleged, "static forms" ACTUALLY EXIST.

What is 'it' that 'triggers' some supposed and alleged "moment of static form" to move or change into another "moment of static form"?

These static forms are parts or rather approximations of the whole. Void is the gap between phenomenon, void acts as a veil. Each static form is composed of further static forms.

So, are you now suggesting that there is a 'void' between these alleged 'moments of static forms', and each 'void' is a 'veil', which implies this 'void or veil' is hiding or covering some 'thing' up?

Also, HOW EXACTLY could one supposed "moment of static form" be "composed of further static forms"?

By definition they would all have to be separated "moments of static forms"?

Or, are you attempting to define things differently here?

Multiplicity is the veil of being as multiplicity is change.

Why do you write things in such an apparent convoluted and confusing way?

3. Stillness exists as change at an infinite rate much in the same manner a single line is composed of infinite lines.

To me a constant-change exists, eternally. And it is just that SIMPLE. The word 'stillness' to me OPPOSES this. As there is NO 'stillness' but actually just a 'change', which is constant.

4. Appearance is being as appearance is the approximation of some deeper reality. Appearance is a fractal of reality, thus a grade, and therefore real.

I do NOT see what bearing this has on ANY thing here.

You CLAIM that there are, so called, "moments of STATIC form".

And I have YET to SEE you SHOW how this could even possibly be.

Just maybe you do have some EVIDENCE or PROOF for this CLAIM of YOURS, but until you PROVIDE some EVIDENCE or that PROOF then I do NOT see what you do here.

[Eodnhoj7]

I will make a numbered list to make quoting easier:

1. There exists one singular moment of being that is above past, present and future. This moment is the totality of being.

Is this an ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE FACT, or just what you think or believe is true?

What does 'above past, present and future' actually mean, to you?

And, how EXACTLY could the, so called, "totality of being" be "above past, present and future"? This appears to be a CONTRADICTION IN TERMS as the term 'totality of being' appears that it would INCLUDED 'past, present' and future'.

How could a 'totality of being' be above absolutely ANY thing?

2. Now is a perpetual change between moments, these moments are multiple successive static forms.

Is this an ACTUALITY and therefore an ACTUAL and irrefutable FACT?

Are there ACTUAL 'moments', with a 'between', besides just within conceptual thought?

Is there REALLY, so called, "multiple successive static forms"?

If yes, to any or all of these clarifying questions, then HOW could these, alleged, "static forms" ACTUALLY EXIST.

What is 'it' that 'triggers' some supposed and alleged "moment of static form" to move or change into another "moment of static form"?

These static forms are parts or rather approximations of the whole. Void is the gap between phenomenon, void acts as a veil. Each static form is composed of further static forms.

So, are you now suggesting that there is a 'void' between these alleged 'moments of static forms', and each 'void' is a 'veil', which implies this 'void or veil' is hiding or covering some 'thing' up?

Also, HOW EXACTLY could one supposed "moment of static form" be "composed of further static forms"?

By definition they would all have to be separated "moments of static forms"?

Or, are you attempting to define things differently here?

Multiplicity is the veil of being as multiplicity is change.

Why do you write things in such an apparent convoluted and confusing way?

3. Stillness exists as change at an infinite rate much in the same manner a single line is composed of infinite lines.

To me a constant-change exists, eternally. And it is just that SIMPLE. The word 'stillness' to me OPPOSES this. As there is NO 'stillness' but actually just a 'change', which is constant.

4. Appearance is being as appearance is the approximation of some deeper reality. Appearance is a fractal of reality, thus a grade, and therefore real.

I do NOT see what bearing this has on ANY thing here.

You CLAIM that there are, so called, "moments of STATIC form".

And I have YET to SEE you SHOW how this could even possibly be.

Just maybe you do have some EVIDENCE or PROOF for this CLAIM of YOURS, but until you PROVIDE some EVIDENCE or that PROOF then I do NOT see what you do here.

1. This is starting a point of measurement where all being exists at one moment above time and space.

2. The alleged static forms exist as approximations of a singularity. They exist as fractals. The repeatability of a phenomena necessitates the same thing existing in multiple states. Void is the barrier that prevents us from seeing the singularity, yet the singularity exists the phenomena of multiplicity is empty in itself considering there is no fractal being which exists on its own terms.
Multiplicity is a veil of static forms, it is the barrier to seeing the one in its totality given multiplicity is the change of one form into another.

3. One static form can be composed of further static forms much in the same manner a line is composed of further lines. The form of a car is composed of an engine, the engine is composed of parts, the parts are composed of particles.

4. The phenomena of stillness emerges from reality thus has a degree of truth in it by existence alone. Constant change is a phenomena which does not change thus necessitating a stillness in an unchanging principle.

5. There is no proof everything changes either given "everything changes" is a constant principle through its repetition. The repetition of a form, such as a circle, necessitates certain forms as above change. The form of a circle, existing through multiple circles, necessitates the form as static and unchanging. Dually void does not change, formlessness is a constant which occurs beyond being.

6. The most universal static form is the: •
This is considering all phenomenon break down to a point from a distance and are composed of points upon closer inspection. The point repeats itself through the point. The point repeats itself through the point thus necessitating the point as a static form.

[Age]

I will make a numbered list to make quoting easier:

1. There exists one singular moment of being that is above past, present and future. This moment is the totality of being.

Is this an ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE FACT, or just what you think or believe is true?

What does 'above past, present and future' actually mean, to you?

And, how EXACTLY could the, so called, "totality of being" be "above past, present and future"? This appears to be a CONTRADICTION IN TERMS as the term 'totality of being' appears that it would INCLUDED 'past, present' and future'.

How could a 'totality of being' be above absolutely ANY thing?

2. Now is a perpetual change between moments, these moments are multiple successive static forms.

Is this an ACTUALITY and therefore an ACTUAL and irrefutable FACT?

Are there ACTUAL 'moments', with a 'between', besides just within conceptual thought?

Is there REALLY, so called, "multiple successive static forms"?

If yes, to any or all of these clarifying questions, then HOW could these, alleged, "static forms" ACTUALLY EXIST.

What is 'it' that 'triggers' some supposed and alleged "moment of static form" to move or change into another "moment of static form"?

These static forms are parts or rather approximations of the whole. Void is the gap between phenomenon, void acts as a veil. Each static form is composed of further static forms.

So, are you now suggesting that there is a 'void' between these alleged 'moments of static forms', and each 'void' is a 'veil', which implies this 'void or veil' is hiding or covering some 'thing' up?

Also, HOW EXACTLY could one supposed "moment of static form" be "composed of further static forms"?

By definition they would all have to be separated "moments of static forms"?

Or, are you attempting to define things differently here?

Multiplicity is the veil of being as multiplicity is change.

Why do you write things in such an apparent convoluted and confusing way?

3. Stillness exists as change at an infinite rate much in the same manner a single line is composed of infinite lines.

To me a constant-change exists, eternally. And it is just that SIMPLE. The word 'stillness' to me OPPOSES this. As there is NO 'stillness' but actually just a 'change', which is constant.

4. Appearance is being as appearance is the approximation of some deeper reality. Appearance is a fractal of reality, thus a grade, and therefore real.

I do NOT see what bearing this has on ANY thing here.

You CLAIM that there are, so called, "moments of STATIC form".

And I have YET to SEE you SHOW how this could even possibly be.

Just maybe you do have some EVIDENCE or PROOF for this CLAIM of YOURS, but until you PROVIDE some EVIDENCE or that PROOF then I do NOT see what you do here.

1. This is starting a point of measurement where all being exists at one moment above time and space.

2. The alleged static forms exist as approximations of a singularity. They exist as fractals. The repeatability of a phenomena necessitates the same thing existing in multiple states. Void is the barrier that prevents us from seeing the singularity, yet the singularity exists the phenomena of multiplicity is empty in itself considering there is no fractal being which exists on its own terms.
Multiplicity is a veil of static forms, it is the barrier to seeing the one in its totality given multiplicity is the change of one form into another.

3. One static form can be composed of further static forms much in the same manner a line is composed of further lines. The form of a car is composed of an engine, the engine is composed of parts, the parts are composed of particles.

4. The phenomena of stillness emerges from reality thus has a degree of truth in it by existence alone. Constant change is a phenomena which does not change thus necessitating a stillness in an unchanging principle.

5. There is no proof everything changes either given "everything changes" is a constant principle through its repetition. The repetition of a form, such as a circle, necessitates certain forms as above change. The form of a circle, existing through multiple circles, necessitates the form as static and unchanging. Dually void does not change, formlessness is a constant which occurs beyond being.

6. The most universal static form is the: •
This is considering all phenomenon break down to a point from a distance and are composed of points upon closer inspection. The point repeats itself through the point. The point repeats itself through the point thus necessitating the point as a static form.

As you can only REPEAT the same words over and over again, then, to you, they MUST BE ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct, correct?

However, your complete INABILITY in being able to clarify and further explain what you say just SHOWS how much you Truly KNOW and do NOT YET KNOW.

Also, you now using my words and DISTORTING and TWISTING them in the way that you have here, just SHOWS your INABILITY to LOOK AT ANY thing else from a Truly OPEN perspective. You are showing that you can only see things from only your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

The fact that the constantly changing Universe is UNCHANGING does NOT mean that It is STILL, like with STILLNESS. The 'unchanging' word just refers to the fact that the Universe does NOT 'change' from Its continually CHANGING state. Thee Universe, Itself, is NOT STILL and NEVER could be still, this is because It is ALWAYS MOVING and CHANGING.

There is NO unchanging, nor still, 'point' anywhere, and there NEVER could be. This is because of the way the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS and HAS TO ACTUALLY WORK. Just like NO one has yet been able to explain how the, so called, "singularity" (the said beginning/start of the Universe) could possibly CHANGE from that form into the current constant-changing form, you also have NOT YET been able to explain how one of YOUR "static (point) forms" could possibly CHANGE from that form into any other form.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is this an ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE FACT, or just what you think or believe is true?

What does 'above past, present and future' actually mean, to you?

And, how EXACTLY could the, so called, "totality of being" be "above past, present and future"? This appears to be a CONTRADICTION IN TERMS as the term 'totality of being' appears that it would INCLUDED 'past, present' and future'.

How could a 'totality of being' be above absolutely ANY thing?



Is this an ACTUALITY and therefore an ACTUAL and irrefutable FACT?

Are there ACTUAL 'moments', with a 'between', besides just within conceptual thought?

Is there REALLY, so called, "multiple successive static forms"?

If yes, to any or all of these clarifying questions, then HOW could these, alleged, "static forms" ACTUALLY EXIST.

What is 'it' that 'triggers' some supposed and alleged "moment of static form" to move or change into another "moment of static form"?



So, are you now suggesting that there is a 'void' between these alleged 'moments of static forms', and each 'void' is a 'veil', which implies this 'void or veil' is hiding or covering some 'thing' up?

Also, HOW EXACTLY could one supposed "moment of static form" be "composed of further static forms"?

By definition they would all have to be separated "moments of static forms"?

Or, are you attempting to define things differently here?



Why do you write things in such an apparent convoluted and confusing way?



To me a constant-change exists, eternally. And it is just that SIMPLE. The word 'stillness' to me OPPOSES this. As there is NO 'stillness' but actually just a 'change', which is constant.



I do NOT see what bearing this has on ANY thing here.

You CLAIM that there are, so called, "moments of STATIC form".

And I have YET to SEE you SHOW how this could even possibly be.

Just maybe you do have some EVIDENCE or PROOF for this CLAIM of YOURS, but until you PROVIDE some EVIDENCE or that PROOF then I do NOT see what you do here.

1. This is starting a point of measurement where all being exists at one moment above time and space.

2. The alleged static forms exist as approximations of a singularity. They exist as fractals. The repeatability of a phenomena necessitates the same thing existing in multiple states. Void is the barrier that prevents us from seeing the singularity, yet the singularity exists the phenomena of multiplicity is empty in itself considering there is no fractal being which exists on its own terms.
Multiplicity is a veil of static forms, it is the barrier to seeing the one in its totality given multiplicity is the change of one form into another.

3. One static form can be composed of further static forms much in the same manner a line is composed of further lines. The form of a car is composed of an engine, the engine is composed of parts, the parts are composed of particles.

4. The phenomena of stillness emerges from reality thus has a degree of truth in it by existence alone. Constant change is a phenomena which does not change thus necessitating a stillness in an unchanging principle.

5. There is no proof everything changes either given "everything changes" is a constant principle through its repetition. The repetition of a form, such as a circle, necessitates certain forms as above change. The form of a circle, existing through multiple circles, necessitates the form as static and unchanging. Dually void does not change, formlessness is a constant which occurs beyond being.

6. The most universal static form is the: •
This is considering all phenomenon break down to a point from a distance and are composed of points upon closer inspection. The point repeats itself through the point. The point repeats itself through the point thus necessitating the point as a static form.

As you can only REPEAT the same words over and over again, then, to you, they MUST BE ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and Correct, correct?

However, your complete INABILITY in being able to clarify and further explain what you say just SHOWS how much you Truly KNOW and do NOT YET KNOW.

Also, you now using my words and DISTORTING and TWISTING them in the way that you have here, just SHOWS your INABILITY to LOOK AT ANY thing else from a Truly OPEN perspective. You are showing that you can only see things from only your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

The fact that the constantly changing Universe is UNCHANGING does NOT mean that It is STILL, like with STILLNESS. The 'unchanging' word just refers to the fact that the Universe does NOT 'change' from Its continually CHANGING state. Thee Universe, Itself, is NOT STILL and NEVER could be still, this is because It is ALWAYS MOVING and CHANGING.

There is NO unchanging, nor still, 'point' anywhere, and there NEVER could be. This is because of the way the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS and HAS TO ACTUALLY WORK. Just like NO one has yet been able to explain how the, so called, "singularity" (the said beginning/start of the Universe) could possibly CHANGE from that form into the current constant-changing form, you also have NOT YET been able to explain how one of YOUR "static (point) forms" could possibly CHANGE from that form into any other form.

You wanted my argument and I presented it for you to refute which you did not. You repeat yourself again and again saying I do not know and am making assumptions, so who is the one projecting? You are.


Perpetual change establishes an unchanging principle of change thus a law which is still and constant remains. An unchanging law necessitates a principle of stillness occuring thus a secondary form of stillness occurs. Considering there are two forms of stillness, the principle and the phenomenon of stillness, two manifests itself as a constant. Now there are three still phenomena: the principle, the phenomenon of stillness, and the numbers 2. From this four then five then six, ad infinitum degrees of stillness occur.


If stillness does not exist then where do we get it as a phenomenon?

And what way is it the universe "actually works" and "has to work"?

The point negates itself into a form, much in the same manner a point negates into a line or circle. The new form is composed of points thus changes into further forms. The point is the means of change from one form into another thus is ever present and unchanging.