There are infallible documents

[Eodnhoj7]

Binary code as a language proves otherwise, same with mathemathetics as all natural numbers are merely 1 compounding on itself.

And why do these language prove reality to beotherwise, because these languages are integrated into it.

All reality can be taken as conceptual symbols, thus reality can be equivalent to a language.

Wake up, pure asymmetry does not exist.

No, that's just logocentrism. Get out of Plato's cave already. It's such a Western faux pas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism

You say that with language, on a forum oriented purely on the exhibition and assertion of language and language skills....as a computer programmer on top of it.

Plato's allegory exists because of language, that is what an allegory is...symbolically oriented language.....

.............
.............
.............

[Skepdick]

You say that with language, on a forum oriented purely on the exhibition and assertion of language and language skills....as a computer programmer on top of it.

Plato's allegory exists because of language, that is what an allegory is...symbolically oriented language.....

.............
.............
.............

OK, keep pretending you are a symbol. Keep conflating yourself with the linguistic expression "yourself".

[Eodnhoj7]

You say that with language, on a forum oriented purely on the exhibition and assertion of language and language skills....as a computer programmer on top of it.

Plato's allegory exists because of language, that is what an allegory is...symbolically oriented language.....

.............
.............
.............

OK, keep pretending you are a symbol. Keep conflating yourself with the linguistic expression "yourself".

You are still using language and symbols....

"Self" is a word that symbolizes a point of change through awareness as awareness for we only know the self as awareness.

You can argue all you want against the nature of language not being a the central level of change within reality but if you do so you end in a self refuting paradox.

Your idolization of asymmetry in reality, as your god, is quite boring...I think you fail to see that asymmetry is the pattern of repeated seperation and individuation thus leading to a further paradox within your viewpoint.

[Skepdick]

You say that with language, on a forum oriented purely on the exhibition and assertion of language and language skills....as a computer programmer on top of it.

Plato's allegory exists because of language, that is what an allegory is...symbolically oriented language.....

.............
.............
.............

OK, keep pretending you are a symbol. Keep conflating yourself with the linguistic expression "yourself".

You are still using language and symbols....

"Self" is a word that symbolizes a point of change through awareness as awareness for we only know the self as awareness.

You can argue all you want against the nature of language not being a the central level of change within reality but if you do so you end in a self refuting paradox.

Your idolization of asymmetry in reality, as your god, is quite boring...I think you fail to see that asymmetry is the pattern of repeated seperation and individuation thus leading to a further paradox within your viewpoint.

Stupid is as stupid does...

[Eodnhoj7]

OK, keep pretending you are a symbol. Keep conflating yourself with the linguistic expression "yourself".

You are still using language and symbols....

"Self" is a word that symbolizes a point of change through awareness as awareness for we only know the self as awareness.

You can argue all you want against the nature of language not being a the central level of change within reality but if you do so you end in a self refuting paradox.

Your idolization of asymmetry in reality, as your god, is quite boring...I think you fail to see that asymmetry is the pattern of repeated seperation and individuation thus leading to a further paradox within your viewpoint.

Stupid is as stupid does...

Generally people who argue with people they believe are stupid are stupider than the ones they argue with. Your pure asymmetric approach to identity, I have seen over the years, is a revolving circle of individuation and seperation that paradoxically resorts in an order in qualities it seeks to erradicate.

I have learned that the first who resorts to personal attacks as the only recourse to an argument are generally the ones that have no response and are in fact the stupid ones.

So argue against this, so you don't look stupider than you already are:

Let me make this clear, if you only argue against logocentrism with language than by default you are a logocentrist as you are elevating language as the highest means of dealing with a problem...in this case the question of logocentrism.

If you argue against this, than I am right. If you are silent you concede to my point.

[Skepdick]

Generally people who argue with people they believe are stupid are stupider than the ones they argue with. Your pure asymmetric approach to identity, I have seen over the years, is a revolving circle of individuation and seperation that paradoxically resorts in an order in qualities it seeks to erradicate.

I have learned that the first who resorts to personal attacks as the only recourse to an argument are generally the ones that have no response and are in fact the stupid ones.

So argue against this, so you don't look stupider than you already are:

Let me make this clear, if you only argue against logocentrism with language than by default you are a logocentrist as you are elevating language as the highest means of dealing with a problem...in this case the question of logocentrism.

If you argue against this, than I am right. If you are silent you concede to my point.

The eternal secret to happiness is to never argue with fools.

I am going to exercise this wisdom.

[Eodnhoj7]

Generally people who argue with people they believe are stupid are stupider than the ones they argue with. Your pure asymmetric approach to identity, I have seen over the years, is a revolving circle of individuation and seperation that paradoxically resorts in an order in qualities it seeks to erradicate.

I have learned that the first who resorts to personal attacks as the only recourse to an argument are generally the ones that have no response and are in fact the stupid ones.

So argue against this, so you don't look stupider than you already are:

Let me make this clear, if you only argue against logocentrism with language than by default you are a logocentrist as you are elevating language as the highest means of dealing with a problem...in this case the question of logocentrism.

If you argue against this, than I am right. If you are silent you concede to my point.

The eternal secret to happiness is to never argue with fools.

I am going to exercise this wisdom.

Please do and let me be happy....on that note of wisdom please do not get into a discussion with yourself while you are alone trying to think of something clever to say....it will only make you unhappy and there are enough unhappy people in the world.

Anyhow...


Personally I do not think you have any rational grounds of argument against logocentrism that don't end in paradox hence why you call others fools as a means of hiding your own insecurities.

My point stands:

To argue against logocentrism requires logocentrism. To argue purely experiential grounds results in logocentrism as evidenced by the symbolic nature, of what constitutes the experience, being a meta-language. It can be argued that all of reality is a dialectic.

[Skepdick]

Generally people who argue with people they believe are stupid are stupider than the ones they argue with. Your pure asymmetric approach to identity, I have seen over the years, is a revolving circle of individuation and seperation that paradoxically resorts in an order in qualities it seeks to erradicate.

I have learned that the first who resorts to personal attacks as the only recourse to an argument are generally the ones that have no response and are in fact the stupid ones.

So argue against this, so you don't look stupider than you already are:

Let me make this clear, if you only argue against logocentrism with language than by default you are a logocentrist as you are elevating language as the highest means of dealing with a problem...in this case the question of logocentrism.

If you argue against this, than I am right. If you are silent you concede to my point.

The eternal secret to happiness is to never argue with fools.

I am going to exercise this wisdom.

Please do and let me be happy....on that note of wisdom please do not get into a discussion with yourself while you are alone trying to think of something clever to say....it will only make you unhappy and there are enough unhappy people in the world.

Anyhow...


Personally I do not think you have any rational grounds of argument against logocentrism that don't end in paradox hence why you call others fools as a means of hiding your own insecurities.

My point stands:

To argue against logocentrism requires logocentrism. To argue purely experiential grounds results in logocentrism as evidenced by the symbolic nature, of what constitutes the experience, being a meta-language. It can be argued that all of reality is a dialectic.

https://tenor.com/search/point-and-laugh-gifs

[Eodnhoj7]

The eternal secret to happiness is to never argue with fools.

I am going to exercise this wisdom.

Please do and let me be happy....on that note of wisdom please do not get into a discussion with yourself while you are alone trying to think of something clever to say....it will only make you unhappy and there are enough unhappy people in the world.

Anyhow...


Personally I do not think you have any rational grounds of argument against logocentrism that don't end in paradox hence why you call others fools as a means of hiding your own insecurities.

My point stands:

To argue against logocentrism requires logocentrism. To argue purely experiential grounds results in logocentrism as evidenced by the symbolic nature, of what constitutes the experience, being a meta-language. It can be argued that all of reality is a dialectic.

https://tenor.com/search/point-and-laugh-gifs

My points stand...you cannot escape paradox.

[Skepdick]

My points stand...you cannot escape paradox.

https://tenor.com/search/point-and-laugh-gifs

[Eodnhoj7]

My points stand...you cannot escape paradox.

https://tenor.com/search/point-and-laugh-gifs

I am glad you agree, laughter is the healthiest way to view the absurdity...specifically the absurdity of being a computer programmer, working to trap reality in the language of code, and then arguing against logocentrism. Lol.

[Skepdick]

I am glad you agree, laughter is the healthiest way to view the absurdity...specifically the absurdity of being a computer programmer, working to trap reality in the language of code, and then arguing against logocentrism. Lol.

Lol. Idiot.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am glad you agree, laughter is the healthiest way to view the absurdity...specifically the absurdity of being a computer programmer, working to trap reality in the language of code, and then arguing against logocentrism. Lol.

Lol. Idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself, computer programmers like you enable this forum.

[Skepdick]

I am glad you agree, laughter is the healthiest way to view the absurdity...specifically the absurdity of being a computer programmer, working to trap reality in the language of code, and then arguing against logocentrism. Lol.

Lol. Idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself, computer programmers like you enable this forum.

You don't even know what programming is. Be harder on yourself till you figure it out.

[Eodnhoj7]

Lol. Idiot.

Don't be so hard on yourself, computer programmers like you enable this forum.

You don't even know what programming is. Be harder on yourself till you figure it out.

Of course I do, it is what enables me to throw you through never ending loops on this forum. You create the forums so you can portray yourself as an idiot.