The Contradiction of Existence

[Eodnhoj7]

1. A line is divided by a line.

2. The lines divided by a line are in turn divided by a line.

3. Each line is a space thus space divides space.

4. The division of a space by another space is further a space.

5. Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing.

6. All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory.

7. If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory.

[Dontaskme]

1. A line is divided by a line.

2. The lines divided by a line are in turn divided by a line.

3. Each line is a space thus space divides space.

4. The division of a space by another space is further a space.

5. Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing.

6. All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory.

7. If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory.

Very good explanation of why contradiction is necessary when claiming to know thyself.

[Harbal]

1. A line is divided by a line.

2. The lines divided by a line are in turn divided by a line.

3. Each line is a space thus space divides space.

I don't think a line in this context is space. A telephone line or a train line would be space, but I think your line is a hypothetical boundry, or a representation of division. It is notional, and therefore occupies no space.

Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say this is meaningless rubbish. Consequently, what you say next is complete codswallop:

6. All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory.

7. If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory.

You should team up with Veritas Aquatas; what you could achieve in colaboration would be truly wonderful.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. A line is divided by a line.

2. The lines divided by a line are in turn divided by a line.

3. Each line is a space thus space divides space.

I don't think a line in this context is space. A telephone line or a train line would be space, but I think your line is a hypothetical boundry, or a representation of division. It is notional, and therefore occupies no space.

Space is contradictory as it is simultaneously self-negating and self-progressing.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say this is meaningless rubbish. Consequently, what you say next is complete codswallop:

6. All forms are composed of space thus all forms are contradictory.

7. If it exists it has form, thus all existence is contradictory.

You should team up with Veritas Aquatas; what you could achieve in colaboration would be truly wonderful.

1. A line is the space between any two points.
2. If a line divides a line the line is multiplied and divided simultaneously, it progresses and regresses. A line is a space.
3. I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or insult...I will resign to neither.

[Eodnhoj7]

Harbal's and Dontaskme's difference in responses are only further proof of how contradictory reality can be.

One thing can be observed in a multitude of ways which contradict eachother.

[Harbal]

1. A line is the space between any two points.
2. If a line divides a line the line is multiplied and divided simultaneously, it progresses and regresses. A line is a space.
3. I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or insult...I will resign to neither.

Abstract concepts don't occupy space, so it must be assumed that your points, and the line that spans the space between them, are physical objects. Let's start by establishing the dimensions of the points and line -including its thickness- and the material from which they are constructed. Next, we will investigate in what respect an identical line to the original line would both devide and multiply the original line by being placed across it.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. A line is the space between any two points.
2. If a line divides a line the line is multiplied and divided simultaneously, it progresses and regresses. A line is a space.
3. I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or insult...I will resign to neither.

Abstract concepts don't occupy space, so it must be assumed that your points, and the line that spans the space between them, are physical objects. Let's start by establishing the dimensions of the points and line -including its thickness- and the material from which they are constructed. Next, we will investigate in what respect an identical line to the original line would both devide and multiply the original line by being placed across it.

Yes they do as they are forms and forms cross both the abstract and the empirical.

Space exists prior to the senses and through the senses.

Examples:

1. I am in a vacuum where I sense nothing. In sensing nothing I only sense space. Or I am not in a vacuum but have no senses; in sensing nothing I sense only empty space.
2. I see a car thus I see the space around the car and the space which composes the car.

However let us say points/lines are physical objects. As physical objects they can be sensed. The simple point can be observed anywhere where we look at an object up close and see it as composed of multiple points or where we see an object at a distance and observe it as a point.

But your analysis contradicts itself as by resorting to what dimensions the physical line/points result in is to apply abstractions as real entities as the dimensions are points and lines. In other terms, to apply abstractions is to make the abstraction real.

As to multiplication/division. If I cut a line in half the line is multiplied into two lines. In the line shrinking it effectively multiplies. Dually to multiply lines is to divide lines as the line multiplied is the line as a ratio, i.e. a fraction or number of parts which fit into another, of the other lines to which it relates.

In multiplying lines we divide the line into fractions of the original. In dividing the line we multiply it as well into individual entities. This is considering a line is a line and to multiply or divide a line is to still result in the form of a line.

[Harbal]

But your analysis contradicts itself as by resorting to what dimensions the physical line/points result in is to apply abstractions as real entities as the dimensions are points and lines.

I don't understand what you are saying.

[Eodnhoj7]

But your analysis contradicts itself as by resorting to what dimensions the physical line/points result in is to apply abstractions as real entities as the dimensions are points and lines.

I don't understand what you are saying.

I know, which is why I see your arguments as pointless if you don't know what you are arguing against.

I will break it down further.

You said that we would have to apply dimensions to a physical line/point in order to understand it. These dimensions, i.e. length/height/width, are the result of abstract lines and points. In applying abstract lines and points to physical lines and points we are measuring the empirical through the standard of the abstract thus making the abstract the standard of what is real as we are using the abstract as the focal point through which we compare things.

The contradiction is that you claim the abstractions of the line and point are not real and yet you are using them as the standard of measurement to what is real.

[Harbal]

But your analysis contradicts itself as by resorting to what dimensions the physical line/points result in is to apply abstractions as real entities as the dimensions are points and lines.

I don't understand what you are saying.

I know, which is why I see your arguments as pointless if you don't know what you are arguing against.

I will break it down further.

You said that we would have to apply dimensions to a physical line/point in order to understand it. These dimensions, i.e. length/height/width, are the result of abstract lines and points. In applying abstract lines and points to physical lines and points we are measuring the empirical through the standard of the abstract thus making the abstract the standard of what is real as we are using the abstract as the focal point through which we compare things.

The contradiction is that you claim the abstractions of the line and point are not real and yet you are using them as the standard of measurement to what is real.

Okay, let's ditch all the abstract stuff, and do an experiment with physical points and lines. We could attach ping pong balls (points) to the end of knitting needles (lines), and lay one knitting needle across the other, thus proving one way or the other whether there is existence.

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't understand what you are saying.

I know, which is why I see your arguments as pointless if you don't know what you are arguing against.

I will break it down further.

You said that we would have to apply dimensions to a physical line/point in order to understand it. These dimensions, i.e. length/height/width, are the result of abstract lines and points. In applying abstract lines and points to physical lines and points we are measuring the empirical through the standard of the abstract thus making the abstract the standard of what is real as we are using the abstract as the focal point through which we compare things.

The contradiction is that you claim the abstractions of the line and point are not real and yet you are using them as the standard of measurement to what is real.

Okay, let's ditch all the abstract stuff, and do an experiment with physical points and lines. We could attach ping pong balls (points) to the end of knitting needles (lines), and lay one knitting needle across the other, thus proving one way or the other whether there is existence.

But we cannot ditch abstractions as we would still have to apply them if we use the dimensions of length/height/width to measure something. Length/height/width are ratios and as such are abstractions.

Dually physical points and lines are composed of further physical points and lines and as such an infinite regress occurs that corresponds to the same nature of abstract points and lines.

The point is abstract and physical as it is the beginning and/or end of something. The line is abstract and physical as it is composed of multiple points. The abstract and physical is a false dichotomy in this respect and are also a false dichotomy in the respect both abstract and physical forms are composed of space.

Finally laying a piece of yarn over another piece of yarn is not cutting the yarn in half, it is laying a piece over another piece.

[Harbal]

But we cannot ditch abstractions as we would still have to apply them if we use the dimensions of length/height/width to measure something. Length/height/width are ratios and as such are abstractions.

Dually physical points and lines are composed of further physical points and lines and as such an infinite regress occurs that corresponds to the same nature of abstract points and lines.

The point is abstract and physical as it is the beginning and/or end of something. The line is abstract and physical as it is composed of multiple points. The abstract and physical is a false dichotomy in this respect and are also a false dichotomy in the respect both abstract and physical forms are composed of space.

Finally laying a piece of yarn over another piece of yarn is not cutting the yarn in half, it is laying a piece over another piece.

I still don't follow you, but I suspect it all adds up to us being stuck with existence.

[Dontaskme]

HERENOW / NOWHERE there are only concepts. Every known concept owes it's reality to a word. Which is made of sound, and sound is made of silence.


What exists is space and the conceptual contents of space inseparable from space in which they are housed.
Or we could say what exists are conceptual objects inseparable from the space which defines them into being.
Both the physical and non-physical are the same one reality, the seeming difference is an illusion, but the contradictory nature of existence is necessary. For without space there is no object, and without object there is no space.


Space can/not be divided, except by itself (contradictory)

Space both can / and not be divided, (more contradiction)

Self is just another word for space, and space is what every object is housed in inseparable from the space in which it is housed.

Here now. Nowhere, there is only this one infinite space. Space being full only of itself.

Space cannot cross itself to get a peek up it's own skirt because space is everywhere all at once. This immediate one infinite zero reality...aka NO REALITY.

[Eodnhoj7]

But we cannot ditch abstractions as we would still have to apply them if we use the dimensions of length/height/width to measure something. Length/height/width are ratios and as such are abstractions.

Dually physical points and lines are composed of further physical points and lines and as such an infinite regress occurs that corresponds to the same nature of abstract points and lines.

The point is abstract and physical as it is the beginning and/or end of something. The line is abstract and physical as it is composed of multiple points. The abstract and physical is a false dichotomy in this respect and are also a false dichotomy in the respect both abstract and physical forms are composed of space.

Finally laying a piece of yarn over another piece of yarn is not cutting the yarn in half, it is laying a piece over another piece.

I still don't follow you, but I suspect it all adds up to us being stuck with existence.

In measuring something we make the abstracts of the point and line as empirically real....

[Eodnhoj7]

HERENOW / NOWHERE there are only concepts. Every known concept owes it's reality to a word. Which is made of sound, and sound is made of silence.


What exists is space and the conceptual contents of space inseparable from space in which they are housed.
Or we could say what exists are conceptual objects inseparable from the space which defines them into being.
Both the physical and non-physical are the same one reality, the seeming difference is an illusion, but the contradictory nature of existence is necessary. For without space there is no object, and without object there is no space.


Space can/not be divided, except by itself (contradictory)

Space both can / and not be divided, (more contradiction)

Self is just another word for space, and space is what every object is housed in inseparable from the space in which it is housed.

Here now. Nowhere, there is only this one infinite space. Space being full only of itself.

Space cannot cross itself to get a peek up it's own skirt because space is everywhere all at once. This immediate one infinite zero reality...aka NO REALITY.

Everything is space. Every 'thing' is space. Even the division of space is a space.