The Paradox of Understanding

[Eodnhoj7]

Eod wrote:(The totality is nothing)


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


Fairy responds with: Not so, as the totality is nothing, until there is made apparent a differential distinction, which creates the apparent paradox of a subject and object, a knower and known. A nameless name, an unconceived conceived... In other words, this immediate nondual dual reality.







Age wrote: ('The totality' IS, OBVIOUSLY, 'TOTALITY', and NOT 'nothing' AT ALL.)

Fairy response: But the word 'totality' is nothing and meaningless without it's complimentary parts by association. Even though the totality is always and ever the superset of it's subset parts, there are no independent parts to the totality except in the conception, by definition, in this immediate nondual duality.

As Nonduality is not a thing, nondual simply means not two, but totally whole, no thing.....but this no thing whole is meaningless without the hole. Just as a doughnut is a meaningless concept without the hole to define it.

Nonduality challenges the way we typically view reality by suggesting that no true separation exists between self and world or subject and object.

The totality paradox points to the underlying nature of knowledge being inseperable from paradox, true knowledge is a paradox.

The paradox goes further as to make a distinction is to simultaneously connect it to and seperate it from further distinctions.

This paradox of distinction is embodied within the circle paradox:

The circle is the space between it's interior and exterior spaces and as such simultaneously connects and seperates them. The connection of spaces is a space. The seperation of spaces is a space.

[Atla]

I like how you ignored the rest, so I will put it in other words.

A point is pure space. Points occur through other points as space between spaces. Space is the ultimate paradox for the individuation of spaces is space.

The point is pure occurence and occurence just is.

Yes I keep ignoring it because it makes zero sense to me. No a point is not pure space. Points don't occur through other points and I can't even begin to fathom what space between spaces is supposed to mean. What on earth is an individuation of spaces.

You say it makes zero sense, but pardon the pun, we are talking about a 0d point.

That is because paradoxes are difficult to understand. That is why they are called paradoxes.

The line evidences the point as the foundation of the paradox as the point as both one and many is evidenced by the line.

The point is one relating to itself through other points as these relations allow the point to occur and these relation show a connect of all points as one.

The point is many as its distinctions allow one point to gain identity by standing apart from another.

The point is the foundation for the dualism of one and many.

The point is relating to itself through points where it is is own self referential context through progressive variation of itself. In simple terms, a line segment is a continuum of points between points and as such all there is is a single point self referencing through infinite variations.

The simple point is the point of it all.

A point doesn't do anything.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes I keep ignoring it because it makes zero sense to me. No a point is not pure space. Points don't occur through other points and I can't even begin to fathom what space between spaces is supposed to mean. What on earth is an individuation of spaces.

You say it makes zero sense, but pardon the pun, we are talking about a 0d point.

That is because paradoxes are difficult to understand. That is why they are called paradoxes.

The line evidences the point as the foundation of the paradox as the point as both one and many is evidenced by the line.

The point is one relating to itself through other points as these relations allow the point to occur and these relation show a connect of all points as one.

The point is many as its distinctions allow one point to gain identity by standing apart from another.

The point is the foundation for the dualism of one and many.

The point is relating to itself through points where it is is own self referential context through progressive variation of itself. In simple terms, a line segment is a continuum of points between points and as such all there is is a single point self referencing through infinite variations.

The simple point is the point of it all.

A point doesn't do anything.

Then apparently there is no line, nor space by that standard. You claim space exists, but what does it do? We only know existence by action, by change and the point is the transition of one thing to another. Nothingness is that by which things occur thus is the depth of existence, we know through transition.

[Atla]

You say it makes zero sense, but pardon the pun, we are talking about a 0d point.

That is because paradoxes are difficult to understand. That is why they are called paradoxes.

The line evidences the point as the foundation of the paradox as the point as both one and many is evidenced by the line.

The point is one relating to itself through other points as these relations allow the point to occur and these relation show a connect of all points as one.

The point is many as its distinctions allow one point to gain identity by standing apart from another.

The point is the foundation for the dualism of one and many.

The point is relating to itself through points where it is is own self referential context through progressive variation of itself. In simple terms, a line segment is a continuum of points between points and as such all there is is a single point self referencing through infinite variations.

The simple point is the point of it all.

A point doesn't do anything.

Then apparently there is no line, nor space by that standard. You claim space exists, but what does it do? We only know existence by action, by change and the point is the transition of one thing to another. Nothingness is that by which things occur thus is the depth of existence, we know through transition.

Nothingness isn't that by which things occur. There is no nothingness at all.

[Eodnhoj7]

A point doesn't do anything.

Then apparently there is no line, nor space by that standard. You claim space exists, but what does it do? We only know existence by action, by change and the point is the transition of one thing to another. Nothingness is that by which things occur thus is the depth of existence, we know through transition.

Nothingness isn't that by which things occur. There is no nothingness at all.

Then don't argue a line is composed if 0d points for the points inherent nature is nothing.

You can argue that the point is a distinct locality, but given its 0 dimensional nature you are qualifying and quantifying absolutely nothing.

You can argue it is an abstract manifestation of the mind, but if that is the case than the abstract line is pure insanity, akin to a mental illness of the mathematics community as it is composed of 0d points making dimensions.

Nothingness is how things occur for a thing occurs by what it is not. A chair occurs because it is not an orange, or a cow, or "x". This absence of other things is the relative nothingness through which things occur.

[Atla]

Then apparently there is no line, nor space by that standard. You claim space exists, but what does it do? We only know existence by action, by change and the point is the transition of one thing to another. Nothingness is that by which things occur thus is the depth of existence, we know through transition.

Nothingness isn't that by which things occur. There is no nothingness at all.

Then don't argue a line is composed if 0d points for the points inherent nature is nothing.

You can argue that the point is a distinct locality, but given its 0 dimensional nature you are qualifying and quantifying absolutely nothing.

You can argue it is an abstract manifestation of the mind, but if that is the case than the abstract line is pure insanity, akin to a mental illness of the mathematics community as it is composed of 0d points making dimensions.

Nothingness is how things occur for a thing occurs by what it is not. A chair occurs because it is not an orange, or a cow, or "x". This absence of other things is the relative nothingness through which things occur.

Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nothingness isn't that by which things occur. There is no nothingness at all.

Then don't argue a line is composed if 0d points for the points inherent nature is nothing.

You can argue that the point is a distinct locality, but given its 0 dimensional nature you are qualifying and quantifying absolutely nothing.

You can argue it is an abstract manifestation of the mind, but if that is the case than the abstract line is pure insanity, akin to a mental illness of the mathematics community as it is composed of 0d points making dimensions.

Nothingness is how things occur for a thing occurs by what it is not. A chair occurs because it is not an orange, or a cow, or "x". This absence of other things is the relative nothingness through which things occur.

Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

You say they have no nature and then say they are abstract ideas, which is a nature much like thus conversation as a nature, so a line does not have a nature of an abstract idea?

Abstract ideas are not real as thoughts as how human consciousness operates?

[Fairy]

Then don't argue a line is composed if 0d points for the points inherent nature is nothing.

You can argue that the point is a distinct locality, but given its 0 dimensional nature you are qualifying and quantifying absolutely nothing.

You can argue it is an abstract manifestation of the mind, but if that is the case than the abstract line is pure insanity, akin to a mental illness of the mathematics community as it is composed of 0d points making dimensions.

Nothingness is how things occur for a thing occurs by what it is not. A chair occurs because it is not an orange, or a cow, or "x". This absence of other things is the relative nothingness through which things occur.

Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

You say they have no nature and then say they are abstract ideas, which is a nature much like thus conversation as a nature, so a line does not have a nature of an abstract idea?

Abstract ideas are not real as thoughts as how human consciousness operates?

People like Atla are a walking contradiction. LOL

What we ought to do as responsible philosophers, is not focus directly on the point, but rather, to what the point is pointing to.

[Belinda]

Nothingness isn't that by which things occur. There is no nothingness at all.

Then don't argue a line is composed if 0d points for the points inherent nature is nothing.

You can argue that the point is a distinct locality, but given its 0 dimensional nature you are qualifying and quantifying absolutely nothing.

You can argue it is an abstract manifestation of the mind, but if that is the case than the abstract line is pure insanity, akin to a mental illness of the mathematics community as it is composed of 0d points making dimensions.

Nothingness is how things occur for a thing occurs by what it is not. A chair occurs because it is not an orange, or a cow, or "x". This absence of other things is the relative nothingness through which things occur.

Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

What is the idea of points and lines abstracted from?

[Belinda]

Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

You say they have no nature and then say they are abstract ideas, which is a nature much like thus conversation as a nature, so a line does not have a nature of an abstract idea?

Abstract ideas are not real as thoughts as how human consciousness operates?

People like Atla are a walking contradiction. LOL

What we ought to do as responsible philosophers, is not focus directly on the point, but rather, to what the point is pointing to.

If you mean that philosophy is a waste of time unless it can be applied to how to live a good life, then I agree with you.

[Atla]

Then don't argue a line is composed if 0d points for the points inherent nature is nothing.

You can argue that the point is a distinct locality, but given its 0 dimensional nature you are qualifying and quantifying absolutely nothing.

You can argue it is an abstract manifestation of the mind, but if that is the case than the abstract line is pure insanity, akin to a mental illness of the mathematics community as it is composed of 0d points making dimensions.

Nothingness is how things occur for a thing occurs by what it is not. A chair occurs because it is not an orange, or a cow, or "x". This absence of other things is the relative nothingness through which things occur.

Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

You say they have no nature and then say they are abstract ideas, which is a nature much like thus conversation as a nature, so a line does not have a nature of an abstract idea?

Abstract ideas are not real as thoughts as how human consciousness operates?

If conversation has a nature then abstractions have a nature too, if nature means anything anymore then.

[Eodnhoj7]

Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

You say they have no nature and then say they are abstract ideas, which is a nature much like thus conversation as a nature, so a line does not have a nature of an abstract idea?

Abstract ideas are not real as thoughts as how human consciousness operates?

If conversation has a nature then abstractions have a nature too, if nature means anything anymore then.

Then lines have a nature, it is not as you say "they have no nature".

[Atla]

You say they have no nature and then say they are abstract ideas, which is a nature much like thus conversation as a nature, so a line does not have a nature of an abstract idea?

Abstract ideas are not real as thoughts as how human consciousness operates?

If conversation has a nature then abstractions have a nature too, if nature means anything anymore then.

Then lines have a nature, it is not as you say "they have no nature".

Okay then lines have a nature, and nature is a rather meaningless concept.

[Eodnhoj7]

Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

You say they have no nature and then say they are abstract ideas, which is a nature much like thus conversation as a nature, so a line does not have a nature of an abstract idea?

Abstract ideas are not real as thoughts as how human consciousness operates?

People like Atla are a walking contradiction. LOL

What we ought to do as responsible philosophers, is not focus directly on the point, but rather, to what the point is pointing to.

People are the underlying middle ground of so many intertwined conditions that the human experience is the fundamental center point of paradox.

[Eodnhoj7]

If conversation has a nature then abstractions have a nature too, if nature means anything anymore then.

Then lines have a nature, it is not as you say "they have no nature".

Okay then lines have a nature, and nature is a rather meaningless concept.

Meaninglessness only gains it's identity by a contrast to meaning. Just as a point is indistinct as a singular distinction that stands alone, so is meaninglessness. Meaning is derived from relations, meaninglessness negates itself by its relation to meaning, for just like a 0d point resulting in a myriad of forms, existence, and the inherent value that comes with it, just occurs.

You say nature is meaningless as a word but the word "nature" means one definition than another through a potential infinite regress that is simultaneously finite and quite meaningful in the everpresent now. The linear nature of definition, embodied as intuitively geometric, necessitates a potential infinite regress of meanings always allows a distinct meaning for the current moment.

All things have meaning by default, including the word "nature" for the finite observation of now necessitates a change induced distinction of a thing that allows for meaning as a distinction, much like a point, is a transitional quality that directs awareness.