Transcendence

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no full transcendence if one cannot transcend above the phenomenon of transcendence; dually if one transcends above the phenomenon of transcendence there is no transcendence. Transcendence is relative and as relative is nothing in its totality.

[trokanmariel]

There is no full transcendence if one cannot transcend above the phenomenon of transcendence; dually if one transcends above the phenomenon of transcendence there is no transcendence. Transcendence is relative and as relative is nothing in its totality.

I take it, that what you mean by the statement, is that dually part is about the irony of the phenomenon being a physics. Indeed, physics is a problem, because of the conflation between all datas, the premise of the problem status of physics being that the trade of identities between physics and philosophy was supposed to be a status relationship.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no full transcendence if one cannot transcend above the phenomenon of transcendence; dually if one transcends above the phenomenon of transcendence there is no transcendence. Transcendence is relative and as relative is nothing in its totality.

I take it, that what you mean by the statement, is that dually part is about the irony of the phenomenon being a physics. Indeed, physics is a problem, because of the conflation between all datas, the premise of the problem status of physics being that the trade of identities between physics and philosophy was supposed to be a status relationship.

Transcendence is an irony because if it is within one's nature to transcend then can one fully transcend at all?

[Angelo Cannata]

I think your error consists in assuming that you have got a clear idea of a lot of concepts implied in your statements, but actually they are not clear at all:

- do we humans have an exact idea of what "relative" means?
- how can we criticize transcendence as bound to relativity, if we don't know what exactly "relative" means?
- if transcendence is impossible, then it never existed, then, when we say "transcendence", what are we talking about? What is this thing that is impossible?
- if transcendence is impossible because of its relativity, this means that we are saying it from inside our being immersed in relativity as well. Then, how can we state that transcendence does not exist, since our statement is limited inside relativity?
- since everything is relative, how can we be sure that our reasoning is correct and our statements are true?

[trokanmariel]

There is no full transcendence if one cannot transcend above the phenomenon of transcendence; dually if one transcends above the phenomenon of transcendence there is no transcendence. Transcendence is relative and as relative is nothing in its totality.

I take it, that what you mean by the statement, is that dually part is about the irony of the phenomenon being a physics. Indeed, physics is a problem, because of the conflation between all datas, the premise of the problem status of physics being that the trade of identities between physics and philosophy was supposed to be a status relationship.

Transcendence is an irony because if it is within one's nature to transcend then can one fully transcend at all?

You've reached a paradox without a means, but the paradox still stands. The paradox, of the ending - can one fully transcend at all - having no means, because there is nothing offensive about the middle, "within one's nature to transcend".

Is it a logical hypothesis, that paradox be based upon offensiveness?

Transcendence:
the inevitability of biological differences, being a pragmatic science, can't be a logical authority of deities (living beings who look human), meaning that it is proven, that the environment comes before life.

The environment:
the geography of non-living status

[Eodnhoj7]

I take it, that what you mean by the statement, is that dually part is about the irony of the phenomenon being a physics. Indeed, physics is a problem, because of the conflation between all datas, the premise of the problem status of physics being that the trade of identities between physics and philosophy was supposed to be a status relationship.

Transcendence is an irony because if it is within one's nature to transcend then can one fully transcend at all?

You've reached a paradox without a means, but the paradox still stands. The paradox, of the ending - can one fully transcend at all - having no means, because there is nothing offensive about the middle, "within one's nature to transcend".

Is it a logical hypothesis, that paradox be based upon offensiveness?

Transcendence:
the inevitability of biological differences, being a pragmatic science, can't be a logical authority of deities (living beings who look human), meaning that it is proven, that the environment comes before life.

The environment:
the geography of non-living status

"Environment coming before life" is a relative stance as the environment is the fixed point of measurement. To reverse it and say life comes before environment, given life determines environment by enacting changes, is dually valid. Another point to be made is the continual self-reflection, or rather repetition, as the totality of being existing through itself. This self-reflection necessitates the relative environment as aware thus life cannot be separated from environment.

As to transcendence:

If it is within the nature of one to transcend, and they transcend in some relative point, then they did not transcend above their nature to transcend. However if they do transcend above their nature to transcend then they do not transcend at all as transcendence negates itself. Either way there is no complete non-relative transcendence unless one observes each facet of being as being an absolute given it is part of the whole of being which is absolute.

[trokanmariel]

Transcendence is an irony because if it is within one's nature to transcend then can one fully transcend at all?

You've reached a paradox without a means, but the paradox still stands. The paradox, of the ending - can one fully transcend at all - having no means, because there is nothing offensive about the middle, "within one's nature to transcend".

Is it a logical hypothesis, that paradox be based upon offensiveness?

Transcendence:
the inevitability of biological differences, being a pragmatic science, can't be a logical authority of deities (living beings who look human), meaning that it is proven, that the environment comes before life.

The environment:
the geography of non-living status

"Environment coming before life" is a relative stance as the environment is the fixed point of measurement. To reverse it and say life comes before environment, given life determines environment by enacting changes, is dually valid. Another point to be made is the continual self-reflection, or rather repetition, as the totality of being existing through itself. This self-reflection necessitates the relative environment as aware thus life cannot be separated from environment.

As to transcendence:

If it is within the nature of one to transcend, and they transcend in some relative point, then they did not transcend above their nature to transcend. However if they do transcend above their nature to transcend then they do not transcend at all as transcendence negates itself. Either way there is no complete non-relative transcendence unless one observes each facet of being as being an absolute given it is part of the whole of being which is absolute.

You seem to be saying, that you cannot transcend supernaturally if the force transcending does so as part of a symbiosis.

Symbiosis and uncondition (the basis of the transcendence) do seem to be antithetical natures.

Would you concur with this, that symbiosis and uncondition are antithetical?


Symbiosis = an aristocracy of dependency

Uncondition =


I left the uncondition part blank.


In your mind, what is a "living" meaning of being transcendent? For example, would one still be able to write?

In the 2005 movie King Kong, why do you think Kong worships the sun?

[Eodnhoj7]

You've reached a paradox without a means, but the paradox still stands. The paradox, of the ending - can one fully transcend at all - having no means, because there is nothing offensive about the middle, "within one's nature to transcend".

Is it a logical hypothesis, that paradox be based upon offensiveness?

Transcendence:
the inevitability of biological differences, being a pragmatic science, can't be a logical authority of deities (living beings who look human), meaning that it is proven, that the environment comes before life.

The environment:
the geography of non-living status

"Environment coming before life" is a relative stance as the environment is the fixed point of measurement. To reverse it and say life comes before environment, given life determines environment by enacting changes, is dually valid. Another point to be made is the continual self-reflection, or rather repetition, as the totality of being existing through itself. This self-reflection necessitates the relative environment as aware thus life cannot be separated from environment.

As to transcendence:

If it is within the nature of one to transcend, and they transcend in some relative point, then they did not transcend above their nature to transcend. However if they do transcend above their nature to transcend then they do not transcend at all as transcendence negates itself. Either way there is no complete non-relative transcendence unless one observes each facet of being as being an absolute given it is part of the whole of being which is absolute.

You seem to be saying, that you cannot transcend supernaturally if the force transcending does so as part of a symbiosis.

Symbiosis and uncondition (the basis of the transcendence) do seem to be antithetical natures.

Would you concur with this, that symbiosis and uncondition are antithetical?


Symbiosis = an aristocracy of dependency

Uncondition =


I left the uncondition part blank.


In your mind, what is a "living" meaning of being transcendent? For example, would one still be able to write?

In the 2005 movie King Kong, why do you think Kong worships the sun?

What I am saying is that you cannot fully transcend, only relatively transcend, if transcendence is part of your nature already.

[trokanmariel]

"Environment coming before life" is a relative stance as the environment is the fixed point of measurement. To reverse it and say life comes before environment, given life determines environment by enacting changes, is dually valid. Another point to be made is the continual self-reflection, or rather repetition, as the totality of being existing through itself. This self-reflection necessitates the relative environment as aware thus life cannot be separated from environment.

As to transcendence:

If it is within the nature of one to transcend, and they transcend in some relative point, then they did not transcend above their nature to transcend. However if they do transcend above their nature to transcend then they do not transcend at all as transcendence negates itself. Either way there is no complete non-relative transcendence unless one observes each facet of being as being an absolute given it is part of the whole of being which is absolute.

You seem to be saying, that you cannot transcend supernaturally if the force transcending does so as part of a symbiosis.

Symbiosis and uncondition (the basis of the transcendence) do seem to be antithetical natures.

Would you concur with this, that symbiosis and uncondition are antithetical?


Symbiosis = an aristocracy of dependency

Uncondition =


I left the uncondition part blank.


In your mind, what is a "living" meaning of being transcendent? For example, would one still be able to write?

In the 2005 movie King Kong, why do you think Kong worships the sun?

What I am saying is that you cannot fully transcend, only relatively transcend, if transcendence is part of your nature already.

When you say "transcendence is part of your nature already", are you including within that identity the capacity to move? I used the concept of movement, instead of writing and thinking, and will ask what you make of that?

[Dontaskme]

There is no full transcendence if one cannot transcend above the phenomenon of transcendence; dually if one transcends above the phenomenon of transcendence there is no transcendence. Transcendence is relative and as relative is nothing in its totality.

This is pointing to a truth, that in context is accurate...which I can personally interpret as saying...That which appears to transcend never transcends.

Or put another way..that which appears to be transcending never transcended.

[Eodnhoj7]

You seem to be saying, that you cannot transcend supernaturally if the force transcending does so as part of a symbiosis.

Symbiosis and uncondition (the basis of the transcendence) do seem to be antithetical natures.

Would you concur with this, that symbiosis and uncondition are antithetical?


Symbiosis = an aristocracy of dependency

Uncondition =


I left the uncondition part blank.


In your mind, what is a "living" meaning of being transcendent? For example, would one still be able to write?

In the 2005 movie King Kong, why do you think Kong worships the sun?

What I am saying is that you cannot fully transcend, only relatively transcend, if transcendence is part of your nature already.

When you say "transcendence is part of your nature already", are you including within that identity the capacity to move? I used the concept of movement, instead of writing and thinking, and will ask what you make of that?

Transcendence is movement as one identity changes to another when something transcends. If something continually moves it never changes from the state of movement thus paradoxically does not move. Writing and thinking, as the formulation of concepts, is movement.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no full transcendence if one cannot transcend above the phenomenon of transcendence; dually if one transcends above the phenomenon of transcendence there is no transcendence. Transcendence is relative and as relative is nothing in its totality.

This is pointing to a truth, that in context is accurate...which I can personally interpret as saying...That which appears to transcend never transcends.

Or put another way..that which appears to be transcending never transcended.

In short terms, yes.

[trokanmariel]

What I am saying is that you cannot fully transcend, only relatively transcend, if transcendence is part of your nature already.

When you say "transcendence is part of your nature already", are you including within that identity the capacity to move? I used the concept of movement, instead of writing and thinking, and will ask what you make of that?

Transcendence is movement as one identity changes to another when something transcends. If something continually moves it never changes from the state of movement thus paradoxically does not move. Writing and thinking, as the formulation of concepts, is movement.

I'll grasp onto the "If something continually moves it never changes" aspect, despite the cut off.
This concept, gets me to contemplate daylight, as an automatic trigger system.

Do you perceive daylight this way: as a system of stagnancy due to never stopping?

[Eodnhoj7]

When you say "transcendence is part of your nature already", are you including within that identity the capacity to move? I used the concept of movement, instead of writing and thinking, and will ask what you make of that?

Transcendence is movement as one identity changes to another when something transcends. If something continually moves it never changes from the state of movement thus paradoxically does not move. Writing and thinking, as the formulation of concepts, is movement.

I'll grasp onto the "If something continually moves it never changes" aspect, despite the cut off.
This concept, gets me to contemplate daylight, as an automatic trigger system.

Do you perceive daylight this way: as a system of stagnancy due to never stopping?

Repetition is the continuity of being with this continuity of being, at the meta-level, being the formulation of being; repetition is continuity, continuity is form, form is being.

[trokanmariel]

Transcendence is movement as one identity changes to another when something transcends. If something continually moves it never changes from the state of movement thus paradoxically does not move. Writing and thinking, as the formulation of concepts, is movement.

I'll grasp onto the "If something continually moves it never changes" aspect, despite the cut off.
This concept, gets me to contemplate daylight, as an automatic trigger system.

Do you perceive daylight this way: as a system of stagnancy due to never stopping?

Repetition is the continuity of being with this continuity of being, at the meta-level, being the formulation of being; repetition is continuity, continuity is form, form is being.

You give me hope: the Lego reality can be created by its own visual; I apply algebra to anything, and am sometimes preoccupied with language being a visual framework.

The oneness can be a unit.

Next, I'll apply a different ideology:

The first part, of your response, is the standard. This means that you made the extra effort, to publish, as the universe operates on a level of effort vs obvious.

In other words, saying the obvious when it comes to complex is difficult (this was Cam's - who is Cam?)


Cam is Jodi Lynn O'Keefe's forebearer. Jodi was in H20, the Jamie Lee Curtis film, which is exonerated from metaphor vs history due to . . .


Any deep within the effort leads to the same source.

What does this mean?
What does this mean?
What does this mean?

I need you to believe me: the What does this mean? repeat wasn't because of foreknowledge, as in based on the deep sentiment's well analogy framework.


To be more forthcoming:
Cam, is an honest attempt at ideas vs logistics. She is a delegate, of a supernatural body glamour organization, called White Vo, whose ideology of existence is the make-believe's own Danny Roman bravery, from The Negotiator.

For Kevin Spacey