The Paradox of Understanding

[Eodnhoj7]

It may console you, Age, that I too can't understand Eodnhoj .

That is because I focus on paradox. Some mindsets get it and some don't....which lends itself to a further paradox.

For example, using this thread theme:

'Observing that a line composed of points between points is a self referential context of points where the points contain themselves as points due to a comparative relation with themselves' shows symbolically the paradoxical nature of monism when reducing all to anyone thing...in this case a point.

To simplify it further, there is nothing to understand upon the deep enough analysis of a concept. Conceptualization is a transitional element of consciousness.

[Atla]

The line is composed of points thus you end up with a self referential paradox of the point dividing itself through points as the line. The points are manifesting points. It's a self referentiality loop.

A line is a given abstract 1d object. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need the dividing/manifesting/self-referring of abstract 0d points to manufacture a line. Yes wherever you look on the line, there is a point.

Also, why don't the infinitely many points on a line have to do a battle royal until only one is left, thus the line creating the point?

[Belinda]

It may console you, Age, that I too can't understand Eodnhoj .

That is because I focus on paradox. Some mindsets get it and some don't....which lends itself to a further paradox.

For example, using this thread theme:

'Observing

l nature of monism when reducing all to anyone thing...in this case a point.

To simplify it further, there is nothing to understand upon the deep enough analysis of a concept. Conceptualization is a transitional element of consciousness.

I think I do understand that paradox, Eodinhoj. In order to do so I needed to edit your paragraph as follows:

"A line composed of points is points where the points contain themselves as points; a comparative relation . "

The paradox lies in the lines' aspect as a series of point and also its aspect as a continuum.

[Eodnhoj7]

It may console you, Age, that I too can't understand Eodnhoj .

That is because I focus on paradox. Some mindsets get it and some don't....which lends itself to a further paradox.

For example, using this thread theme:

'Observing

l nature of monism when reducing all to anyone thing...in this case a point.

To simplify it further, there is nothing to understand upon the deep enough analysis of a concept. Conceptualization is a transitional element of consciousness.

I think I do understand that paradox, Eodinhoj. In order to do so I needed to edit your paragraph as follows:

"A line composed of points is points where the points contain themselves as points; a comparative relation . "

The paradox lies in the lines' aspect as a series of point and also its aspect as a continuum.

Yes, to some degree or another. Philosophy is a language game, for better or for worse, so if you need to edit than have at it.

The heart of the paradox is that the point contains itself through its relations to points and the point is thus both one and many. The quality of the point is its own context as each point is distinct while simultaneously being the same as a point. The point is the foundation of finitude and infinity.

It is the foundation of all forms and intuitively observed distinctions. Even trying to see the "point" of this thread shows there are intuitively geometric qualities to consciousness.

[Eodnhoj7]

The line is composed of points thus you end up with a self referential paradox of the point dividing itself through points as the line. The points are manifesting points. It's a self referentiality loop.

A line is a given abstract 1d object. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need the dividing/manifesting/self-referring of abstract 0d points to manufacture a line. Yes wherever you look on the line, there is a point.

Also, why don't the infinitely many points on a line have to do a battle royal until only one is left, thus the line creating the point?

There needs to be a minimum of two distinct points for a line to occur. A single point would not be distinct, it would be a literal and metaphorical experience of void. The negation of void through distinction allows form to occur. The negation of a single point, as many points, gives rise to a basic form such as a line.

To void is to negate, to negate negation results in a positive, in this case a form.

[Belinda]

The line is composed of points thus you end up with a self referential paradox of the point dividing itself through points as the line. The points are manifesting points. It's a self referentiality loop.

A line is a given abstract 1d object. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need the dividing/manifesting/self-referring of abstract 0d points to manufacture a line. Yes wherever you look on the line, there is a point.

Also, why don't the infinitely many points on a line have to do a battle royal until only one is left, thus the line creating the point?

There needs to be a minimum of two distinct points for a line to occur. A single point would not be distinct, it would be a literal and metaphorical experience of void. The negation of void through distinction allows form to occur. The negation of a single point, as many points, gives rise to a basic form such as a line.

To void is to negate, to negate negation results in a positive, in this case a form.

I too enjoy and admire the language of Euclid. Measuring / quantifying is however not the only aspect of how the world appears to us.

[Atla]

The line is composed of points thus you end up with a self referential paradox of the point dividing itself through points as the line. The points are manifesting points. It's a self referentiality loop.

A line is a given abstract 1d object. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need the dividing/manifesting/self-referring of abstract 0d points to manufacture a line. Yes wherever you look on the line, there is a point.

Also, why don't the infinitely many points on a line have to do a battle royal until only one is left, thus the line creating the point?

There needs to be a minimum of two distinct points for a line to occur. A single point would not be distinct, it would be a literal and metaphorical experience of void. The negation of void through distinction allows form to occur. The negation of a single point, as many points, gives rise to a basic form such as a line.

To void is to negate, to negate negation results in a positive, in this case a form.

Negation, distinction and cognizing forms seem to be abstract human activities, nothing to do with true void.

[Eodnhoj7]

A line is a given abstract 1d object. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need the dividing/manifesting/self-referring of abstract 0d points to manufacture a line. Yes wherever you look on the line, there is a point.

Also, why don't the infinitely many points on a line have to do a battle royal until only one is left, thus the line creating the point?

There needs to be a minimum of two distinct points for a line to occur. A single point would not be distinct, it would be a literal and metaphorical experience of void. The negation of void through distinction allows form to occur. The negation of a single point, as many points, gives rise to a basic form such as a line.

To void is to negate, to negate negation results in a positive, in this case a form.

I too enjoy and admire the language of Euclid. Measuring / quantifying is however not the only aspect of how the world appears to us.

Measurement is an experience and the world manifests itself as experience.

[Eodnhoj7]

A line is a given abstract 1d object. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need the dividing/manifesting/self-referring of abstract 0d points to manufacture a line. Yes wherever you look on the line, there is a point.

Also, why don't the infinitely many points on a line have to do a battle royal until only one is left, thus the line creating the point?

There needs to be a minimum of two distinct points for a line to occur. A single point would not be distinct, it would be a literal and metaphorical experience of void. The negation of void through distinction allows form to occur. The negation of a single point, as many points, gives rise to a basic form such as a line.

To void is to negate, to negate negation results in a positive, in this case a form.

Negation, distinction and cognizing forms seem to be abstract human activities, nothing to do with true void.

You say that and then use points as distinctions and then say these distinctions are composed of points. This is human understanding and it is a paradox, as the thread title claims
Using geometric axioms as example one can see existence is grounded in paradox.

The further paradox arises where a line segment is the simultaneous connection and seperation of points where this connection and seperation is distinction as relation.

The point is paradoxical as the void as a point can be likened to this paradox:

1. There is the one totality by which nothing is beyond it for if there where it would not be the totality, thus it has no comparison.

2. We know things by comparison as that is what allows distinction to occur for it to be a thing

3. The totality is nothing, thus all things as one are nothing. 1=0 under this quantification, 1 0d point is the same as saying 0 is quantifiable as 1. Locality is the distinction of 1, and 0 dimensionality is observation of 0.

4. The point is a paradox.

[Age]

It may console you, Age, that I too can't understand Eodnhoj .

i would say with each and EVERY one of 'us', here, that there are some things, which all others say, that 'we' agree with, disagree with, and can NOT understand. So, not understanding this one, sometimes, is NOT some thing at all that i would need to be 'consoled' for, nor from.

[Age]

It may console you, Age, that I too can't understand Eodnhoj .

That is because I focus on paradox.

'What' is, supposedly, because you focus on 'paradox'?

If the 'that' word, here, is referring to "belinda" not being able to understand 'you', "eodnhoj7", then HOW does you, supposedly, 'focusing on paradox' RELATE, EXACTLY?

Some mindsets get it and some don't....which lends itself to a further paradox.

Some 'mindsets', supposedly, get 'what', exactly?

Will you EVER EXPRESS how 'you' are DEFINING the 'paradox' word, here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

For example, using this thread theme:

'Observing that a line composed of points between points is a self referential context of points where the points contain themselves as points due to a comparative relation with themselves' shows symbolically the paradoxical nature of monism when reducing all to anyone thing...in this case a point.

ONLY IF some one like 'you' CHOOSES to 'look at' and 'see' things, in 'that way'. But, OBVIOUSLY, MOST CHOOSE NOT TO.

To simplify it further,

To simplify 'what', further?

If 'it' is that incomprehensible string of words that you just presented, then PLEASE DO SIMPLIFY 'it'.

there is nothing to understand upon the deep enough analysis of a concept.

Okay. So, to "eodnhoj7" anyway, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe to 'understand', 'upon the deep enough analysis of concept'.

Just out of curiosity are you SURE that 'this' is SIMPLIFYING, FURTHER, 'it'?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

Also, and by the way, WHEN does one KNOW, for sure, if they have REACHED 'upon the deep enough' 'analysis of a concept', EXACTLY?

Conceptualization is a transitional element of consciousness.

If you say and BELIEVE SO, then okay.

[Age]

It may console you, Age, that I too can't understand Eodnhoj .

That is because I focus on paradox. Some mindsets get it and some don't....which lends itself to a further paradox.

For example, using this thread theme:

'Observing

l nature of monism when reducing all to anyone thing...in this case a point.

To simplify it further, there is nothing to understand upon the deep enough analysis of a concept. Conceptualization is a transitional element of consciousness.

I think I do understand that paradox, Eodinhoj. In order to do so I needed to edit your paragraph as follows:

"A line composed of points is points where the points contain themselves as points; a comparative relation . "

The paradox lies in the lines' aspect as a series of point and also its aspect as a continuum.

Just out of curiosity, are you two AWARE that the word 'paradox' has two DIFFERENT meanings, which, literally, OPPOSE EACH OTHER?

If yes, or no, then I suggest to START, and to OBTAIN, 'understanding', itself, WHICH DEFINITION of THE 'words', that are being USED in A discussion, are FIRST EXPRESSED, and REVEALED, so that A True and FULL UNDERSTANDING can be GAINED, by ALL involved.

So, WHAT IS THE ACTUAL DEFINITION of the 'paradox' word, which you two are USING, here, EXACTLY?

[Age]

That is because I focus on paradox. Some mindsets get it and some don't....which lends itself to a further paradox.

For example, using this thread theme:

'Observing

l nature of monism when reducing all to anyone thing...in this case a point.

To simplify it further, there is nothing to understand upon the deep enough analysis of a concept. Conceptualization is a transitional element of consciousness.

I think I do understand that paradox, Eodinhoj. In order to do so I needed to edit your paragraph as follows:

"A line composed of points is points where the points contain themselves as points; a comparative relation . "

The paradox lies in the lines' aspect as a series of point and also its aspect as a continuum.

Yes, to some degree or another. Philosophy is a language game, for better or for worse, so if you need to edit than have at it.

To others, 'philosophy', itself, is NOT a so-called 'language game', AT ALL.

But then, if this one wants to define the 'philosophy' word as; A numbers game, then it is absolutely FREE to do so.

The heart of the paradox is that the point contains itself through its relations to points and the point is thus both one and many. The quality of the point is its own context as each point is distinct while simultaneously being the same as a point. The point is the foundation of finitude and infinity.

Okay. If you say and BELIEVE SO, but is what you are SAYING, here, lead TO ANY ACTUAL 'thing'?

It is the foundation of all forms and intuitively observed distinctions. Even trying to see the "point" of this thread shows there are intuitively geometric qualities to consciousness.

REALLY?

To others, some might SAY that just 'trying to' SEE 'the point' of this thread is nothing more than a COMPLETE WASTE.

By the way, if there is an 'actual point', to this thread, then what is 'it', EXACTLY?

[Age]

The line is composed of points thus you end up with a self referential paradox of the point dividing itself through points as the line. The points are manifesting points. It's a self referentiality loop.

A line is a given abstract 1d object. I see no reason whatsoever why we would need the dividing/manifesting/self-referring of abstract 0d points to manufacture a line. Yes wherever you look on the line, there is a point.

Also, why don't the infinitely many points on a line have to do a battle royal until only one is left, thus the line creating the point?

There needs to be a minimum of two distinct points for a line to occur. A single point would not be distinct, it would be a literal and metaphorical experience of void.

BUT, OBVIOUSLY 'the way' 'the Universe' IS, EXACTLY, A 'single point' IS EXTREMELY 'distinct'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN FROM and BY absolutely EVERY thing AROUND 'it'.

The negation of void through distinction allows form to occur. The negation of a single point, as many points, gives rise to a basic form such as a line.

Do MANY 'points' HAVE TO give rise to the basic form of 'a line'? Or, could MANY POINTS give rise to the basic form of a 'circle', for example? Or, even give rise to the basic form of A 'hospital', with the basic form of 'human beings', within, doing 'brain surgeries on say the basic form of 'brains', for example, as well? Or, do MANY POINTS NOT give rise to these VERY 'basic forms', as well?

To void is to negate, to negate negation results in a positive, in this case a form.

Okay. But 'this' does look like a VERY UNNECESSARY 'double negative', or a 'negative negative', which, OBVIOUSLY, WAS, and IS, Truly just 'you' 'TRYING' your VERY HARDEST to get others to ACCEPT and BELIEVE what you BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT, here.

[Age]

There needs to be a minimum of two distinct points for a line to occur. A single point would not be distinct, it would be a literal and metaphorical experience of void. The negation of void through distinction allows form to occur. The negation of a single point, as many points, gives rise to a basic form such as a line.

To void is to negate, to negate negation results in a positive, in this case a form.

Negation, distinction and cognizing forms seem to be abstract human activities, nothing to do with true void.

You say that and then use points as distinctions and then say these distinctions are composed of points. This is human understanding and it is a paradox, as the thread title claims
Using geometric axioms as example one can see existence is grounded in paradox.

What you say, here, above, and, here, below is a paradox, as the thread title claims.

And, for those that do not understand, and do understand, here, now, then they know that 'it' is a paradox.

With an even 'further paradox' arising, here, next.

The further paradox arises where a line segment is the simultaneous connection and seperation of points where this connection and seperation is distinction as relation.

The point is paradoxical as the void as a point can be likened to this paradox:

But, the sentence, itself, is not paradoxical. However, the paradox, still, exists. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and NOTICED, here.

1. There is the one totality by which nothing is beyond it for if there where it would not be the totality, thus it has no comparison.

Wow, way to go. Could you make a more OBVIOUS CLAIM?

2. We know things by comparison as that is what allows distinction to occur for it to be a thing

Wow, ANOTHER VERY OBVIOUS CLAIM, for the first part.

However, the 'Thing' Universe does NOT have A COMPARISON, YET DISTINCTION STILL OCCURS, for the Universe to be A 'Thing'.

3. The totality is nothing,

Saying 'this' would be like 'trying to' CLAIM that 'the 'ce cream' and/or 'the elephant' is nothing.

'The totality' IS, OBVIOUSLY, 'TOTALITY', and NOT 'nothing' AT ALL.

thus all things as one are nothing.

So, this one BELIEVES that it just HAS TO SAY and CLAIM, 'The totality is nothing', for ''then to be, a THEREFORE' OF, 'ALL things as one ARE NOTHING'.

Would you like to EXPLAIN to the readers, here, HOW, EXACTLY, the CLAIM, 'The totality is nothing', could even be CLOSE to being REMOTELY true?

1=0 under this quantification, 1 0d point is the same as saying 0 is quantifiable as 1. Locality is the distinction of 1, and 0 dimensionality is observation of 0.

ONCE AGAIN, as I have PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED, this one WILL 'TRY' just about ANY WORD and ANY COMBINATION of THOSE WORDS, in the HOPE that it could, SOMEHOW, get others to ACCEPT and BELIEVE its ABSOLUTELY BELIEF that EVERY thing is NOTHING AT ALL.

4. The point is a paradox.

Is A circle A paradox, AS WELL?

In fact is it A PARADOX pointing out that SAYING, 'The point is NOT a paradox', is ACTUALLY A PARADOX, while SAYING, 'The point is a paradox', is NOT A 'paradox', AT ALL?

Also, would this be a GREAT TIME to POINT OUT that you have NOT YET INFORMED the readers of what the word 'paradox' even MEANS, TO you?

FROM 'the way' you SPEAK and WRITE, here, you appear to NOT HAVE A CLUE of THE DEFINITIONS, and MEANINGS, OF the 'paradox' word, AT ALL.