The Everything/Some Thing Paradox

[Age]

1. Fourth post down.

2. I all is one then I am the one as I am connected to the one. Given one only exists in contrast to the many the one and being one is contradictory.

False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

'I' am NOT connected to the so-called 'one'. 'I' AM thee One.

1. And for one to be one it must be relative to other one's thus is not "the one".

LOL But there are NO actual so-called "other ones". There is ONLY One.

2. If you are "thee one" then all things are one through you therefore the differences, ie multiplicity, of our perspectives are your own.

But saying or claiming 'you' are "thee one" is just absolutely OXYMORON.

The word 'you' means or refers to "an other", and since there is NO 'other' as there is ONLY 'I', 'thee One', what is being said here under the label "eodnhoj7" is just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

This conversation necessitates you disagreeing with yourself and as such you are not "the one".

LOL In what part of Thee did this IDIOTIC IDEA 'arise'?

Thee answer IS VERY OBVIOUS, by the way.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

'I' am NOT connected to the so-called 'one'. 'I' AM thee One.

1. And for one to be one it must be relative to other one's thus is not "the one".

LOL But there are NO actual so-called "other ones". There is ONLY One.

2. If you are "thee one" then all things are one through you therefore the differences, ie multiplicity, of our perspectives are your own.

But saying or claiming 'you' are "thee one" is just absolutely OXYMORON.

The word 'you' means or refers to "an other", and since there is NO 'other' as there is ONLY 'I', 'thee One', what is being said here under the label "eodnhoj7" is just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

This conversation necessitates you disagreeing with yourself and as such you are not "the one".

LOL In what part of Thee did this IDIOTIC IDEA 'arise'?

Thee answer IS VERY OBVIOUS, by the way.

1. Then "other ones" is an illusion and thus is separate from the truth. As existing as an illusion, and this illusion is seperate from the one, there is a multiplicity of existences.

2. If there is only "I" then you are having an argument with yourself.

3. No it is not obvious.

[Age]

1. And for one to be one it must be relative to other one's thus is not "the one".

LOL But there are NO actual so-called "other ones". There is ONLY One.

2. If you are "thee one" then all things are one through you therefore the differences, ie multiplicity, of our perspectives are your own.

But saying or claiming 'you' are "thee one" is just absolutely OXYMORON.

The word 'you' means or refers to "an other", and since there is NO 'other' as there is ONLY 'I', 'thee One', what is being said here under the label "eodnhoj7" is just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

This conversation necessitates you disagreeing with yourself and as such you are not "the one".

LOL In what part of Thee did this IDIOTIC IDEA 'arise'?

Thee answer IS VERY OBVIOUS, by the way.

1. Then "other ones" is an illusion and thus is separate from the truth. As existing as an illusion, and this illusion is seperate from the one, there is a multiplicity of existences.

2. If there is only "I" then you are having an argument with yourself.

3. No it is not obvious.

I am NOT arguing/fighting for ANY thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

LOL But there are NO actual so-called "other ones". There is ONLY One.


But saying or claiming 'you' are "thee one" is just absolutely OXYMORON.

The word 'you' means or refers to "an other", and since there is NO 'other' as there is ONLY 'I', 'thee One', what is being said here under the label "eodnhoj7" is just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.



LOL In what part of Thee did this IDIOTIC IDEA 'arise'?

Thee answer IS VERY OBVIOUS, by the way.

1. Then "other ones" is an illusion and thus is separate from the truth. As existing as an illusion, and this illusion is seperate from the one, there is a multiplicity of existences.

2. If there is only "I" then you are having an argument with yourself.

3. No it is not obvious.

I am NOT arguing/fighting for ANY thing.

Yet you disagree with me, which is ie "you" considering you are "thee one".

[Age]

1. Then "other ones" is an illusion and thus is separate from the truth. As existing as an illusion, and this illusion is seperate from the one, there is a multiplicity of existences.

2. If there is only "I" then you are having an argument with yourself.

3. No it is not obvious.

I am NOT arguing/fighting for ANY thing.

Yet you disagree with me, which is ie "you" considering you are "thee one".

LOL This has NEVER even been considered, let alone EVER mentioned. So, 'that' exists solely in your OWN imagination.

[Sculptor]

1. In saying "everything" we summate to a "something".
2. In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

1. no
2. no

[Sculptor]

In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

In saying "something" we refer to some part(s) of "everything" (i.e. all things, or all 'somethings').

Yes. SO, not "summate"

[Eodnhoj7]

In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

In saying "something" we refer to some part(s) of "everything" (i.e. all things, or all 'somethings').

Yes. SO, not "summate"

Yet the term "something" is so broad and general that it equates to everything.

[Sculptor]

In saying "something" we refer to some part(s) of "everything" (i.e. all things, or all 'somethings').

Yes. SO, not "summate"

Yet the term "something" is so broad and general that it equates to everything.

Duh. No.
What you are saying just does not add-up.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes. SO, not "summate"

Yet the term "something" is so broad and general that it equates to everything.

Duh. No.
What you are saying just does not add-up.

Of course it is not suppose to "add-up"...it is a paradox.

[Sculptor]

Yet the term "something" is so broad and general that it equates to everything.

Duh. No.
What you are saying just does not add-up.

Of course it is not suppose to "add-up"...it is a paradox.

NO.
A paradox has to make sense.

[Eodnhoj7]

Duh. No.
What you are saying just does not add-up.

Of course it is not suppose to "add-up"...it is a paradox.

NO.
A paradox has to make sense.

Paradox:

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

https://www.google.com/search?q=paradox ... e&ie=UTF-8

[Sculptor]

Of course it is not suppose to "add-up"...it is a paradox.

NO.
A paradox has to make sense.

Paradox:

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

Neither of your premises are remotely "acceptable".

So there is not paradox here.

1. In saying "everything" we summate to a "something".
2. In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

Both BS

[Eodnhoj7]

NO.
A paradox has to make sense.

Paradox:

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

Neither of your premises are remotely "acceptable".

So there is not paradox here.

1. In saying "everything" we summate to a "something".
2. In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

Both BS

1. "Everything" applies as a thing considering it is a singular expression.
2. "Something" applies to all things considering it references a multiplicity.

[Sculptor]

Paradox:

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

Neither of your premises are remotely "acceptable".

So there is not paradox here.

1. In saying "everything" we summate to a "something".
2. In saying "something" we diverge to "everything".

Both BS

1. "Everything" applies as a thing considering it is a singular expression.
2. "Something" applies to all things considering it references a multiplicity.

I'd hate to be inside your head.