X is Not X Therefore X

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the paradox of "x is not x therefore x" solved when x is defined in one context, where x is x, and in another, where x is not x, with both contexts happening simultaneously, hence the solution to this paradox is context application, where both values of x are purely observations of context?

[Age]

Is the paradox "x is not x therefore x" when x is defined on one context where x is x and in another x is not x, with both contexts happening simultaneously, hence the solution to this paradox is context application where both values of x is purely observations of context?

'This one', here, known as "eodnhoj7", can NOT even just ASK A QUESTION properly, and Correctly, let alone be ABLE TO EXPLAIN what it ABSOLUTELY BELIEVES is true, properly, and Correctly.

[Fairy]

Is the paradox "x is not x therefore x" when x is defined in one context, where x is x, and in another, where x is not x, with both contexts happening simultaneously, hence the solution to this paradox is context application, where both values of x is purely observations of context?

Yes, it is a paradox. And the solution to the paradox is in the contextual activity of the mind observed. The knower can only know itself as a paradox. As a not-knowing known. As a kind of (now you see me) (now you don't) either on or off.

The knowing of (x is not) is simultaneously (x is x) in the exact same instance 'context knowing' arises, one with the knowing, as observed.

[Walker]

Is the paradox "x is not x therefore x" when x is defined in one context, where x is x, and in another, where x is not x, with both contexts happening simultaneously, hence the solution to this paradox is context application, where both values of x is purely observations of context?

The river, not X's real toe, changes with the second dip.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the paradox "x is not x therefore x" when x is defined in one context, where x is x, and in another, where x is not x, with both contexts happening simultaneously, hence the solution to this paradox is context application, where both values of x is purely observations of context?

Yes, it is a paradox. And the solution to the paradox is in the contextual activity of the mind observed. The knower can only know itself as a paradox. As a not-knowing known. As a kind of (now you see me) (now you don't) either on or off.

The knowing of (x is not) is simultaneously (x is x) in the exact same instance 'context knowing' arises, one with the knowing, as observed.

That's the thing, by acknowledging the problem as a paradox we effectively contextualize it and make it rationally relatable. Paradoxes aren't this villian the western mindset makes them out to be.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the paradox "x is not x therefore x" when x is defined in one context, where x is x, and in another, where x is not x, with both contexts happening simultaneously, hence the solution to this paradox is context application, where both values of x is purely observations of context?

The river, not X's real toe, changes with the second dip.

The toe that dips the second time is not the same toe that dipped the first time. Two different contexts and context is interwoven with identity....

[Flannel Jesus]

X isn't X, it's Twitter. Huge branding fail changing that shit to X.

Some people now call it Xitter (pronounced shitter). Tweets became Xits (shits).

[Impenitent]

if X isn't X, the treasure is elsewhere

how many pirates were literate anyway?

-Imp

[Fairy]

Paradoxes aren't this villian the western mindset makes them out to be.

Paradoxes are quintessentially beautiful, actually.

It's like an individuated unit of consciousness cannot know everything. And yet, knows there is only everything. So can only experience a particular experience one frame at a time, in spacetime.


'Knowing' is such a strange paradox. There is without doubt or error ''Knowing'' but there is never any experience of a ''Knower''


A unit of consciousness can only know itself as a part of the aggregate whole, never as the entire aggregate.

That's what I think, but I could be wrong, it's how it feels for me anyway.

[Flannel Jesus]

This is the most profound thing I've ever seen you write. Actually, might be the most, or one of the most, profound things I've ever seen on this forum at all. I think there's something to this. I think that this framing of paradoxes is, if not true, at least touching close to some truths.

[Walker]

Is the paradox "x is not x therefore x" when x is defined in one context, where x is x, and in another, where x is not x, with both contexts happening simultaneously, hence the solution to this paradox is context application, where both values of x is purely observations of context?

The river, not X's real toe, changes with the second dip.

The toe that dips the second time is not the same toe that dipped the first time. Two different contexts and context is interwoven with identity....

The real toe isn’t bound to circumstance. Although cleaner the second time, dirt doesn’t define the real toe. One may not be able to toe dip in the same river twice, but one can toe dip the same toe in a different river.

[Eodnhoj7]

Paradoxes aren't this villian the western mindset makes them out to be.

Paradoxes are quintessentially beautiful, actually.

It's like an individuated unit of consciousness cannot know everything. And yet, knows there is only everything. So can only experience a particular experience one frame at a time, in spacetime.


'Knowing' is such a strange paradox. There is without doubt or error ''Knowing'' but there is never any experience of a ''Knower''


A unit of consciousness can only know itself as a part of the aggregate whole, never as the entire aggregate.

That's what I think, but I could be wrong, it's how it feels for me anyway.

Very true, paradoxes have a translucent quality to them that reflects reality as fundamentally transparent like the winds of a storm or gentle spring day or even the clear water in a small cool brook that refreshes and renews the spirit.

Paradoxes change things, they change perspectives.

The paradox of the self "knowing" points to our known identities as transitional and constantly transforming. The paradox releases us of fixed boundaries, enabling a degree of freedom through change, while renewing the sense of the known by this very same change...this is a paradox within a paradox as a paradox as a spiral necessitates it as inherently rational.

[Eodnhoj7]

The river, not X's real toe, changes with the second dip.

The toe that dips the second time is not the same toe that dipped the first time. Two different contexts and context is interwoven with identity....

The real toe isn’t bound to circumstance. Although cleaner the second time, dirt doesn’t define the real toe. One may not be able to toe dip in the same river twice, but one can toe dip the same toe in a different river.

The toe is completely bound to circumstance for it being able to be dipped in the river allows it to exist through change.

[Walker]

The toe that dips the second time is not the same toe that dipped the first time. Two different contexts and context is interwoven with identity....

The real toe isn’t bound to circumstance. Although cleaner the second time, dirt doesn’t define the real toe. One may not be able to toe dip in the same river twice, but one can toe dip the same toe in a different river.

The toe is completely bound to circumstance for it being able to be dipped in the river allows it to exist through change.

Toe gist ≠ Toe jam

[Eodnhoj7]

The real toe isn’t bound to circumstance. Although cleaner the second time, dirt doesn’t define the real toe. One may not be able to toe dip in the same river twice, but one can toe dip the same toe in a different river.

The toe is completely bound to circumstance for it being able to be dipped in the river allows it to exist through change.

Toe gist ≠ Toe jam

Two different contexts of 'toe' results in two different toes.