The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

[Eodnhoj7]

Occurence and the four laws of identity result in a bridge between east and west as the laws give absolutes while allowing a purely relativistic awareness to occur. In otherwords absolutism and relativism are two sides of the same coin.

I would have reservations with "two sides of the same coin" since the "single coin" could end up as an absolutely "Absolute".

I started with Eastern Philosophy which is more flexible and dynamic against the very rigid base, i.e. philosophical realism of Western Philosophy.
Since philosophical realism is an evolutionary default, it was also prevalent in the East but some philosophical savants from the East had understood its limitations and advanced to sound philosophical-antirealist theories and practices.
This is the reason why 99% of posters I encountered in this forum cannot understand [not agree with] most of the Eastern grounded views I presented.

Btw, there is the "Septemlemma" i.e. 7 modes of truths from Jainism to reflect on. Cannot find the precise link, here something on it;

Anekāntavāda (Sanskrit: अनेकान्तवाद, "many-sidedness", Tamil: பல்லுரை) is the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India.[1] It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex and has multiple aspects and viewpoints.
According to Jainism, no single, specific statement can describe the nature of existence and the absolute truth. This knowledge (Kevala Jnana), it adds, is comprehended only by the Arihants. Other beings and their statements about absolute truth are incomplete, and at best a partial truth.[3] All knowledge claims, according to the anekāntavāda doctrine must be qualified in many ways, including being affirmed and denied.[4] Anekāntavāda is a fundamental doctrine of Jainism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantav ... dv.C4.81da

Note, >500BCE;

The origins of anekāntavāda can be traced back to the teachings of Mahāvīra (599–527 BCE), the 24th Jain Tīrthankara, and the predecessor Tirthankars.[5]

It is the ignorance of the above and ancient sophisticated and advanced philosophies, that propelled arrogant blockheads like FDP & gang to claim they are so superior to impose their bastardized and corrupted philosophy [based on cheapo classical logic] on me and others who do not agree with them.

Nothingness is unchanging, as there is nothing to change. Absolutes are unchanging. "Absolute" may strictly be defined as another term for nothingness within certain contexts of language.

From another respect the inherent cyclical and linear nature of experience may also be absolute as these intuitive geometric processes are continual within consciousness.

An absolute truth may exist but it's simplicity would be so subtle that it may not have any percievable use in a practical senses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Occurence and the four laws of identity result in a bridge between east and west as the laws give absolutes while allowing a purely relativistic awareness to occur. In otherwords absolutism and relativism are two sides of the same coin.

I would have reservations with "two sides of the same coin" since the "single coin" could end up as an absolutely "Absolute".

I started with Eastern Philosophy which is more flexible and dynamic against the very rigid base, i.e. philosophical realism of Western Philosophy.
Since philosophical realism is an evolutionary default, it was also prevalent in the East but some philosophical savants from the East had understood its limitations and advanced to sound philosophical-antirealist theories and practices.
This is the reason why 99% of posters I encountered in this forum cannot understand [not agree with] most of the Eastern grounded views I presented.

Btw, there is the "Septemlemma" i.e. 7 modes of truths from Jainism to reflect on. Cannot find the precise link, here something on it;

Anekāntavāda (Sanskrit: अनेकान्तवाद, "many-sidedness", Tamil: பல்லுரை) is the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India.[1] It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex and has multiple aspects and viewpoints.
According to Jainism, no single, specific statement can describe the nature of existence and the absolute truth. This knowledge (Kevala Jnana), it adds, is comprehended only by the Arihants. Other beings and their statements about absolute truth are incomplete, and at best a partial truth.[3] All knowledge claims, according to the anekāntavāda doctrine must be qualified in many ways, including being affirmed and denied.[4] Anekāntavāda is a fundamental doctrine of Jainism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantav ... dv.C4.81da

Note, >500BCE;

The origins of anekāntavāda can be traced back to the teachings of Mahāvīra (599–527 BCE), the 24th Jain Tīrthankara, and the predecessor Tirthankars.[5]

It is the ignorance of the above and ancient sophisticated and advanced philosophies, that propelled arrogant blockheads like FDP & gang to claim they are so superior to impose their bastardized and corrupted philosophy [based on cheapo classical logic] on me and others who do not agree with them.

Nothingness is unchanging, as there is nothing to change. Absolutes are unchanging. "Absolute" may strictly be defined as another term for nothingness within certain contexts of language.

From another respect the inherent cyclical and linear nature of experience may also be absolute as these intuitive geometric processes are continual within consciousness.

An absolute truth may exist but it's simplicity would be so subtle that it may not have any percievable use in a practical senses.

There is the 2D loop [theory and logica] and 3D spiral [+ time and practice].

From the more advanced Eastern philosophical perspective, the question of an absolutely 'Absolute' or 'nothingness' is diverted to a question of psychology which is real to human beings as being-humans.

Buddhism-proper is very precise with that where the ultimate is putting the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Paths into practice.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Even Kant alluded to the involvement of psychology:

They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

[Eodnhoj7]

I would have reservations with "two sides of the same coin" since the "single coin" could end up as an absolutely "Absolute".

I started with Eastern Philosophy which is more flexible and dynamic against the very rigid base, i.e. philosophical realism of Western Philosophy.
Since philosophical realism is an evolutionary default, it was also prevalent in the East but some philosophical savants from the East had understood its limitations and advanced to sound philosophical-antirealist theories and practices.
This is the reason why 99% of posters I encountered in this forum cannot understand [not agree with] most of the Eastern grounded views I presented.

Btw, there is the "Septemlemma" i.e. 7 modes of truths from Jainism to reflect on. Cannot find the precise link, here something on it;



Note, >500BCE;


It is the ignorance of the above and ancient sophisticated and advanced philosophies, that propelled arrogant blockheads like FDP & gang to claim they are so superior to impose their bastardized and corrupted philosophy [based on cheapo classical logic] on me and others who do not agree with them.

Nothingness is unchanging, as there is nothing to change. Absolutes are unchanging. "Absolute" may strictly be defined as another term for nothingness within certain contexts of language.

From another respect the inherent cyclical and linear nature of experience may also be absolute as these intuitive geometric processes are continual within consciousness.

An absolute truth may exist but it's simplicity would be so subtle that it may not have any percievable use in a practical senses.

There is the 2D loop [theory and logica] and 3D spiral [+ time and practice].

From the more advanced Eastern philosophical perspective, the question of an absolutely 'Absolute' or 'nothingness' is diverted to a question of psychology which is real to human beings as being-humans.

Buddhism-proper is very precise with that where the ultimate is putting the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Paths into practice.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Even Kant alluded to the involvement of psychology:

They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

Psychology is an occurence, it is subject to the law of occurence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Psychology is an occurence, it is subject to the law of occurence.

I find your above hanging on air and going nowhere.

My comment to AI
Everything of reality is an occurrence, it happened. So psychology is obviously an occurrence. As such to introduce the concept of occurrence is moot. As such, occurrence is something like 'exist' which must be predicated to have meaning.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT
Your response effectively highlights the issue with introducing "occurrence" as a concept without further clarification or a meaningful predicate. Here's a potential elaboration you could add to deepen your critique and clarify your stance:

Response to the Interlocutor's Statement
Occurrence is Universal in Reality
If we agree that "psychology is an occurrence," it follows that everything within empirical reality is also an occurrence—this includes physical phenomena, biological processes, and even metaphysical musings insofar as they manifest in human thought and action. Thus, stating that psychology is subject to the "law of occurrence" adds no substantive insight, as the same can be said of any empirical phenomenon.

The Moot Nature of 'Occurrence'
The concept of occurrence functions analogously to the concept of "existence." Just as existence requires something to exist (a predicate), occurrence requires something to occur. Therefore, invoking "occurrence" without specifying what it entails or implies does not advance the discussion meaningfully. In this case, pointing out that psychology is an occurrence is trivially true and does not engage with the broader implications of your thesis about metaphysics or its practical role in human life.

Redirecting to the Thesis
My thesis concerns the unresolvability of metaphysics as "real" from the empirical perspective and its utility within the practical sphere (e.g., moral psychology). To address this, the focus should be on whether metaphysical concepts, though not empirically resolvable, serve a vital regulative or functional role in guiding human thought and action. Simply labeling psychology as an occurrence neither challenges nor advances this thesis.

This approach reaffirms your thesis while critiquing the interlocutor's response as failing to engage substantively with your argument. It also provides a clear path to redirect the discussion back to the core issues you raised.

[Eodnhoj7]

Psychology is an occurence, it is subject to the law of occurence.

I find your above hanging on air and going nowhere.

My comment to AI
Everything of reality is an occurrence, it happened. So psychology is obviously an occurrence. As such to introduce the concept of occurrence is moot. As such, occurrence is something like 'exist' which must be predicated to have meaning.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT
Your response effectively highlights the issue with introducing "occurrence" as a concept without further clarification or a meaningful predicate. Here's a potential elaboration you could add to deepen your critique and clarify your stance:

Response to the Interlocutor's Statement
Occurrence is Universal in Reality
If we agree that "psychology is an occurrence," it follows that everything within empirical reality is also an occurrence—this includes physical phenomena, biological processes, and even metaphysical musings insofar as they manifest in human thought and action. Thus, stating that psychology is subject to the "law of occurrence" adds no substantive insight, as the same can be said of any empirical phenomenon.

The Moot Nature of 'Occurrence'
The concept of occurrence functions analogously to the concept of "existence." Just as existence requires something to exist (a predicate), occurrence requires something to occur. Therefore, invoking "occurrence" without specifying what it entails or implies does not advance the discussion meaningfully. In this case, pointing out that psychology is an occurrence is trivially true and does not engage with the broader implications of your thesis about metaphysics or its practical role in human life.

Redirecting to the Thesis
My thesis concerns the unresolvability of metaphysics as "real" from the empirical perspective and its utility within the practical sphere (e.g., moral psychology). To address this, the focus should be on whether metaphysical concepts, though not empirically resolvable, serve a vital regulative or functional role in guiding human thought and action. Simply labeling psychology as an occurrence neither challenges nor advances this thesis.

This approach reaffirms your thesis while critiquing the interlocutor's response as failing to engage substantively with your argument. It also provides a clear path to redirect the discussion back to the core issues you raised.

Of course it is hanging in the air, occurence is transitional. The psyche is transitional.

More specifically this thread is about all things being grounded in occurence. The reality of the psyche, and it's diversity internally and externally, is grounded in the simple truth that it just happens. It comes and it goes.

[Eodnhoj7]

If all exists through and as occurence does occurence connect all things as it is the absolute perpetual context of all thing justified by its perpetual self-evidence, as being the foundation, through self-evidence being inseperable from occurence itself thus necessitating absolute truth is occurence as occurence is universal and the unchanging nature of existence?

[Eodnhoj7]

Occurence occurs through occurence as an occurence thus leaving the foundations of existence being synonymous to paradox.

Things just happen, that is all one needs to know...philosophy has failed to observe the obvious.

[Atla]

There is only occurence. Thoughts, emotions, sensations, physical and abstract things are occurences. Existence is an occurence. All is an occurence. What one experiences as consciousness is an occurence with subjectivity and objectivity being rooted in occurence.

The basic assertion of "I think therefore I am" is rooted in the occurence of thought as a sense of self but may be broadened to a deeper more holistic statement of "occurence through occurence as occurence just is" where all aspects of experience are rooted in occurence.

Question for AI (copy and paste):

If all is occurence and the reduction of all is an occurence, thus necessitating occurence is recursive alternation of occurence where occurence is simultaneously transitional of one occurence to another as an occurence, does this necessitate occurence as a universal law of existence that is self evident for self evidence is an occurence and nothing can be reduced to anything more foundational and universal than the absolute nature of occurence with any definition of occurence being an occurence?

Well since you asked me to try to troll "occurence". The above just looks like another manifestation of your main cognitive error: you see recursion everywhere even though usually there isn't any.

Occurence doesn't mean anything other than existence. It's not recursive and it's not a foundation of anything. Occurence is just existence, existence just is, things just are.

Also, I'll point out that it's spelled occurrence, not occurence.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is only occurence. Thoughts, emotions, sensations, physical and abstract things are occurences. Existence is an occurence. All is an occurence. What one experiences as consciousness is an occurence with subjectivity and objectivity being rooted in occurence.

The basic assertion of "I think therefore I am" is rooted in the occurence of thought as a sense of self but may be broadened to a deeper more holistic statement of "occurence through occurence as occurence just is" where all aspects of experience are rooted in occurence.

Question for AI (copy and paste):

If all is occurence and the reduction of all is an occurence, thus necessitating occurence is recursive alternation of occurence where occurence is simultaneously transitional of one occurence to another as an occurence, does this necessitate occurence as a universal law of existence that is self evident for self evidence is an occurence and nothing can be reduced to anything more foundational and universal than the absolute nature of occurence with any definition of occurence being an occurence?

Well since you asked me to try to troll "occurence". The above just looks like another manifestation of your main cognitive error: you see recursion everywhere even though usually there isn't any.

Occurence doesn't mean anything other than existence. It's not recursive and it's not a foundation of anything. Occurence is just existence, existence just is, things just are.

Also, I'll point out that it's spelled occurrence, not occurence.

All repeated patterns are recursion. The repetition of a tree is recursion, the repetition of color x is recursion. All repetition as recursion is a cycle. What we know as patterns is symmetry and symmetry is the recursion of specific qualitative that allows order to take place.

Given occurrence repeats it occurs as recursion as occurence of occurrences is a meta-occurence. Occurrence occurs within occurence.

[Atla]

The repetition of a tree is recursion, the repetition of color x is recursion.

They obviously aren't. You won't even find two identical trees in the natural world, so there can't be a recursion. Maybe you'll find two or more identical colors in the natural world, but two or more occurrences of the same color at different spacetime coordinates still doesn't constitue a recursion.

All repeated patterns are recursion.

If you deliberately repeat abstract patterns, then you may have an abstract recursion. Not much relevant to the natural world since it's abstract.

We call recursive computer algorithms recursive, but when implemented in a computer, there is no "metaphysical" recursion going on there either, it's just physics playing out and eventually the program stops.

[Eodnhoj7]

The repetition of a tree is recursion, the repetition of color x is recursion.

They obviously aren't. You won't even find two identical trees in the natural world, so there can't be a recursion. Maybe you'll find two or more identical colors in the natural world, but two or more occurrences of the same color at different spacetime coordinates still doesn't constitue a recursion.

All repeated patterns are recursion.

If you deliberately repeat abstract patterns, then you may have an abstract recursion. Not much relevant to the natural world since it's abstract.

We call recursive computer algorithms recursive, but when implemented in a computer, there is no "metaphysical" recursion going on there either, it's just physics playing out and eventually the program stops.

Branching repeats, bark repeats, foliage repeats, roots repeat, etc.. All of these qualities repeat. If they do not then there is only one tree in the world.

The nature of form is simultaneously empirical, because of the senses, and abstract, because of memory and thought.

Repetition of distinctions is recursion and we experience the world through distinction.

[Impenitent]

3 sequential "O" currences without an intervening "X" currence gets a tic tac toe

-Imp

[Atla]

The repetition of a tree is recursion, the repetition of color x is recursion.

They obviously aren't. You won't even find two identical trees in the natural world, so there can't be a recursion. Maybe you'll find two or more identical colors in the natural world, but two or more occurrences of the same color at different spacetime coordinates still doesn't constitue a recursion.

All repeated patterns are recursion.

If you deliberately repeat abstract patterns, then you may have an abstract recursion. Not much relevant to the natural world since it's abstract.

We call recursive computer algorithms recursive, but when implemented in a computer, there is no "metaphysical" recursion going on there either, it's just physics playing out and eventually the program stops.

Branching repeats, bark repeats, foliage repeats, roots repeat, etc.. All of these qualities repeat. If they do not then there is only one tree in the world.

The nature of form is simultaneously empirical, because of the senses, and abstract, because of memory and thought.

Repetition of distinctions is recursion and we experience the world through distinction.

You won't find identical branches, barks, foliages, roots in the natural world, so they don't repeat. Why can't you see the obvious?

"form" belongs to some confused ancient Platonic and/or Buddhist philosophy. And you still have no idea what the abstract means, that's your other main cognitive error.

[Eodnhoj7]

They obviously aren't. You won't even find two identical trees in the natural world, so there can't be a recursion. Maybe you'll find two or more identical colors in the natural world, but two or more occurrences of the same color at different spacetime coordinates still doesn't constitue a recursion.


If you deliberately repeat abstract patterns, then you may have an abstract recursion. Not much relevant to the natural world since it's abstract.

We call recursive computer algorithms recursive, but when implemented in a computer, there is no "metaphysical" recursion going on there either, it's just physics playing out and eventually the program stops.

Branching repeats, bark repeats, foliage repeats, roots repeat, etc.. All of these qualities repeat. If they do not then there is only one tree in the world.

The nature of form is simultaneously empirical, because of the senses, and abstract, because of memory and thought.

Repetition of distinctions is recursion and we experience the world through distinction.

You won't find identical branches, barks, foliages, roots in the natural world, so they don't repeat. Why can't you see the obvious?

"form" belongs to some confused ancient Platonic and/or Buddhist philosophy. And you still have no idea what the abstract means, that's your other main cognitive error.

You say nothing is self evident, in previous conversations, so how can abstract have any self-evident meaning?

So if all of the above are not identical in any way, ie there is no similarity at all, than there is only one branch, one bark, one piece of foliage, one root etc in the world....this is considering if one tree is completely different than the other tree then the other tree is not a tree as there are no similarities for there to be another tree....at all.

Forms are repeated distinctions...get over it. The distinction of 'tree' repeats. Each word you use to troll with has a repeatable distinction to it.

...you really are a desperate troll....I am half tempted to just put you in the 'ignore' category with Age because you are completely useless. You get one more try and if this is the best you can do you can just mindlessly troll me, like Age, and I will not respond.

[Atla]

You say nothing is self evident, in previous conversations, so how can abstract have any self-evident meaning?

That's not what I said. For example it's pretty agreed upon what people mean by a tree, even you know roughly what a tree is. The meaning of the abstract is somewhat less agreed upon, and then there are some people (like you or Skepdick) who get it completely wrong. Maybe you just can't process the abstract, dunno, don't really care.

So if all of the above are not identical in any way, ie there is no similarity at all, than there is only one branch, one bark, one piece of foliage, one root etc in the world....this is considering if one tree is completely different than the other tree then the other tree is not a tree as there are no similarities for there to be another tree....at all.

I said that they aren't identical, not that there is no similarity at all.
ffs

Forms are repeated distinctions...get over it. The distinction of 'tree' repeats. Each word you use to troll with has a repeatable distinction to it.

Those are cognitive distinctions, not distinctions inherent in the external world.

...you really are a desperate troll....I am half tempted to just put you in the 'ignore' category with Age because you are completely useless. You get one more try and if this is the best you can do you can just mindlessly troll me, like Age, and I will not respond.

But I'm not desperate in the slightest. I genuinely think you're a fool who uses his 150 IQ at like 100 level. Please go ahead and put me on ignore.