The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

[Phil8659]

Gosh, I wish I would have though of using part of a definition of a thing to divide a thing against itself. That is high level shit man.

That is a very creative way to form a self-referential fallacy.

Every member of a class is a member of that class in accordance with the definition of that class, Any member of a class can differ from any other member of a class only in magnitude, or in name only.

[popeye1945]

Eodnhodj wrote:

"Experience just occurs."

But experience does not pertain to inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are not subjects of experience.

Indeed the defining attribute of a subject of experience is that the subject of experience knows (from privileged access to specific feelings )what he experiences. Memories may be false, and Descartes' hypothetical demon may deceive, but the subject and only the subject, is subject to experiences.

(NB subject is not coterminous with self. )

That is your experience and it is contradictory as your experience occurs because of objects. Your experience of the objects makes them an extension of you.

These two sentences contradict each other. Either objects are reality, or the mind is reality.

Objects are reality for life forms as apparent reality, but the ultimate reality is energy, frequency, and vibrations, or a place of no things.

[popeye1945]

If we cannot escape subjective experiences then how can you say biology is the measure of all things without speaking only for yourself?

A subjective perspective is the only way that we know anything; we do not sense what is out there, we sense how what is out there affects/alters our standing biology. We can say that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, because our everyday reality/apparent reality is a biological readout. Think of it this way, the world, the cosmos, is energy, and that energy plays upon our biology as if it were an instrument. The melody energy plays upon us as an instrument is apparent/everyday reality. The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. From our experiences, we derive meanings relevant to our standing biology, which we then bestow/attribute to what we perceive to be out there. Subjectivity is the only way we know a world, and even the objective world of objects is a subjective creation. We do not truly experience what is out there, only how what is out there affects us, giving us experience through changes in our biological natures. An added thought, meaning, knowledge is the property of the conscious subject and never the property of the object; life, humanity bestows meanings to what it experiences, for experience is knowledge.

If subjective experience is the only way "we" know anything, and that is your subjective experience than how can use say "we" without making subjective experience a paradoxical objective reality.

To me, you are an object in my outer world, just as my body is an object in my outer world. This is my subjective experience; whatever meanings I derive from these experiences is my subjective knowledge of you, or my body. I then bestow that subjective knowledge on objects out there.

[Eodnhoj7]

A subjective perspective is the only way that we know anything; we do not sense what is out there, we sense how what is out there affects/alters our standing biology. We can say that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, because our everyday reality/apparent reality is a biological readout. Think of it this way, the world, the cosmos, is energy, and that energy plays upon our biology as if it were an instrument. The melody energy plays upon us as an instrument is apparent/everyday reality. The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. From our experiences, we derive meanings relevant to our standing biology, which we then bestow/attribute to what we perceive to be out there. Subjectivity is the only way we know a world, and even the objective world of objects is a subjective creation. We do not truly experience what is out there, only how what is out there affects us, giving us experience through changes in our biological natures. An added thought, meaning, knowledge is the property of the conscious subject and never the property of the object; life, humanity bestows meanings to what it experiences, for experience is knowledge.

If subjective experience is the only way "we" know anything, and that is your subjective experience than how can use say "we" without making subjective experience a paradoxical objective reality.

"subjective experience" ain't you got no grammar?
is experience divided by the intelligible, or by actual sense organs?

There is experience of the individual (subjective) and experience of the group (objective).

If subjective experience is a faulty grammar according to you, then by your own terms your grammar is faulty as "subjective perspective" is follows that same dynamic as perspective is always subjective and perspective is also always an experience.

What sense organs allow you to see that you are seeing?

[Eodnhoj7]

Someone please refute the statement that "the foundation of everything is occurence".

[Eodnhoj7]

Occurence occurs through another occurence as occurence results in an inherent recursive structure reflected through the nature of forms premised in geometry: as a line segment occurs through another line segment as a line segment given a line segment is both a part of and contains line segments thus resulting in an ever present line segment regardless of how the line segment is viewed with this ever present line segment revealing an inherent recursive nature to the nature of experience.

This occurence is simultaneously premised in non-geometric forms: a tree occurs through another tree where the common form is a tree within and through the seperate trees as the relationship of trees thus relagating form as both a static occurence, the individual trees, and form as an observation of relationships between thing which unites them, ie the commonality amidst these trees as "tree", thus revealing a layer of recursion where a form is merely repeatable qualities across forms that allow them to occur as a relational cycle.

Occurence is the act of form itself for with the recursive nature of form, as mentioned above, the form takes on a dual static nature of what is repeated, therefore giving a percievable structure, and the act of repetition itself, therefore giving a transitional quality, thus revealing occurence is an inherent order of transformation where a form is repeated in infinite variation that justifies its singularity (line segment within and without a line segment as a perpetual line segment, or a tree occurs through other trees as a cyclically occurring tree) as a specific thing that occurs across the vastness of experience in a manner where a past or future appearance is not only in the present but results in an interwoven process of looping between past, present and future where temporality and finiteness merely becomes the act of distinction within the form and function of the quality of transformation.

In these respects, and under these terms, the foundational nature of occurence within reality, being the presence of experience, as reality necessitates transformation as a foundational law where change gives the impression of absolute law by the process of recursion that enable cyclical maintenence of percievable distinctions while embodying a linear quality to these very same distinctions by process of progressive variation within a given context.

The foundational term of "occurence", in many respects, becomes synonymous to the term "transformation" thus further relegating, or at least implying, that reality is a process of negation where the justification of a distinction's occurence is the negation of both a prior or potential occurence by justification of its current existence. The spontaneity of these distinctions implies occurence ex nihilio where any percievable gap within two distinct states is merely a process of dissolution of one into the other where the percievable negation of one distinction thing is the absence by which the new distinction arises. In these respects the occurence of reality, as experience, is a process by which things occur without grounds as a transitory cycle of appearances that individually lack any percievable substance not only due to the necessity of there relationship but dually by nature of the spontaneity of change or rather it's unpredictability.

[Eodnhoj7]

Gosh, I wish I would have though of using part of a definition of a thing to divide a thing against itself. That is high level shit man.

That is a very creative way to form a self-referential fallacy.

Every member of a class is a member of that class in accordance with the definition of that class, Any member of a class can differ from any other member of a class only in magnitude, or in name only.

A Class within a class makes distinct classes that are inherently seperate by nature of distinction thus no class is inherently the same and any appearance of being interwoven is contradicted by individual locality where one class and another are distinct as one class and another.

Example: B exists in A. B is distinct from A as a part of A that is not truly A as A contains more than B. As B is not A, considering A contains more than B thus B is deficient of qualities that make A what it is, B is the absence of A and as such results in a paradoxical seperation from A even though B is a part of A.

There is another paradox about distinction that addresses this from another angle:

1. There is a circle.

2. There is space inside the circle and space outside the circle.

3. The circle divides the interior space from the exterior space as a space between these spaces.

4. Space divides space with this division being space.

5. The singularity of space contradicts itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

The purest occurrence is space as nothing can be added or taken from it without the thing being composed of the very same nature of space it exists within and it is by and through which things occur.

[Age]

The purest occurrence is space as nothing can be added or taken from it without the thing being composed of the very same nature of space it exists within and it is by and through which things occur.

How are you sending the word 'space', here, exactly?

[Belinda]

The purest occurrence is space as nothing can be added or taken from it without the thing being composed of the very same nature of space it exists within and it is by and through which things occur.

How are you sending the word 'space', here, exactly?

It's the context of the word 'occurrence' that escapes me. Can an occurrence occur without a subject or object of occurrence? E.g the leaf falls: the man coughs: the dog bites a bone: the carpet was hoovered by the maid: Hitler invaded Poland:
The drones were sent by Putin.
Each of the above is an occurrence . Nobody except Eodnhodj says occurrences occur.

[Eodnhoj7]

The purest occurrence is space as nothing can be added or taken from it without the thing being composed of the very same nature of space it exists within and it is by and through which things occur.

How are you sending the word 'space', here, exactly?

It's the context of the word 'occurrence' that escapes me. Can an occurrence occur without a subject or object of occurrence? E.g the leaf falls: the man coughs: the dog bites a bone: the carpet was hoovered by the maid: Hitler invaded Poland:
The drones were sent by Putin.
Each of the above is an occurrence . Nobody except Eodnhodj says occurrences occur.

The context of the word "occurrence" is an occurrence, the context "just is"...regardless of the context used.

The leaf occurs relative to the occurrence of the tree and this relationship occurs. We only know things, internal or external, by them occuring with this knowledge occuring as well.

The relationship of occurrences is how we know them, this relationship is an occurrence that occurs relative to other relationships that occur thus leaving reality as paradoxical: occurrence relative to another occurrence with this relationship being an occurrence.

An occurrence can be observed synonymously to the term "just is" or word "is".

The simple truth about reality is that it "just is".

[Age]

The purest occurrence is space as nothing can be added or taken from it without the thing being composed of the very same nature of space it exists within and it is by and through which things occur.

How are you sending the word 'space', here, exactly?

It's the context of the word 'occurrence' that escapes me.

In case it was not yet known the 'sending' word, in my question about, here. was meant to be the 'defining' word.

Can an occurrence occur without a subject or object of occurrence? E.g the leaf falls: the man coughs: the dog bites a bone: the carpet was hoovered by the maid: Hitler invaded Poland:
The drones were sent by Putin.
Each of the above is an occurrence . Nobody except Eodnhodj says occurrences occur.

"eodnhoj7" is only trying to argue that the foundation of absolutely every thing is 'occurrence', and nothing else really.

Now, and obviously, it can be just as easily and simply argued that the foundation of absolutely every thing is 'existence', and really nothing would change. However, when "eodnhoj7" forms a belief, it becomes absolutely closed, and so can only 'see' what it does, and then it 'tries' its hardest to get everyone else to 'see' and believe exactly what it does.

[Age]

How are you sending the word 'space', here, exactly?

It's the context of the word 'occurrence' that escapes me. Can an occurrence occur without a subject or object of occurrence? E.g the leaf falls: the man coughs: the dog bites a bone: the carpet was hoovered by the maid: Hitler invaded Poland:
The drones were sent by Putin.
Each of the above is an occurrence . Nobody except Eodnhodj says occurrences occur.

The context of the word "occurrence" is an occurrence, the context "just is"...regardless of the context used.

The leaf occurs relative to the occurrence of the tree and this relationship occurs. We only know things, internal or external, by them occuring with this knowledge occuring as well.

The relationship of occurrences is how we know them, this relationship is an occurrence that occurs relative to other relationships that occur thus leaving reality as paradoxical: occurrence relative to another occurrence with this relationship being an occurrence.

An occurrence can be observed synonymously to the term "just is" or word "is".

The simple truth about reality is that it "just is".

If one changed the 'occurrence' word above, here, with the 'existence' word, then essentially nothing at all changes.

Anyway, the fact that 'we' can end up with, ' The simple truth about reality' is that it 'just is' ', is nothing new, nor even exciting.

But, the issue is some people are just not satisfied with 'it just is', and so they seek out and want to learn, and/or know, more.

Which, by the way, can ALL be explained, that is, if people just want to have a Truly open and honest discussion, here.

[Belinda]

How are you sending the word 'space', here, exactly?

It's the context of the word 'occurrence' that escapes me. Can an occurrence occur without a subject or object of occurrence? E.g the leaf falls: the man coughs: the dog bites a bone: the carpet was hoovered by the maid: Hitler invaded Poland:
The drones were sent by Putin.
Each of the above is an occurrence . Nobody except Eodnhodj says occurrences occur.

The context of the word "occurrence" is an occurrence, the context "just is"...regardless of the context used.

The leaf occurs relative to the occurrence of the tree and this relationship occurs. We only know things, internal or external, by them occuring with this knowledge occuring as well.

The relationship of occurrences is how we know them, this relationship is an occurrence that occurs relative to other relationships that occur thus leaving reality as paradoxical: occurrence relative to another occurrence with this relationship being an occurrence.

An occurrence can be observed synonymously to the term "just is" or word "is".

The simple truth about reality is that it "just is".

Not so. Existence is not an attribute.

[Eodnhoj7]

It's the context of the word 'occurrence' that escapes me. Can an occurrence occur without a subject or object of occurrence? E.g the leaf falls: the man coughs: the dog bites a bone: the carpet was hoovered by the maid: Hitler invaded Poland:
The drones were sent by Putin.
Each of the above is an occurrence . Nobody except Eodnhodj says occurrences occur.

The context of the word "occurrence" is an occurrence, the context "just is"...regardless of the context used.

The leaf occurs relative to the occurrence of the tree and this relationship occurs. We only know things, internal or external, by them occuring with this knowledge occuring as well.

The relationship of occurrences is how we know them, this relationship is an occurrence that occurs relative to other relationships that occur thus leaving reality as paradoxical: occurrence relative to another occurrence with this relationship being an occurrence.

An occurrence can be observed synonymously to the term "just is" or word "is".

The simple truth about reality is that it "just is".

Not so. Existence is not an attribute.

Existence occurs relative to another existence thus is the attribute that occurs by nature of a percieved relationship between phenomena that allow them to be.

Existence is an attribute within an attribute as an existing tree gives the relative leaf to it the quality of also existing with these existences merely being a conceptual distinction that occurs through a recursive fractal process of applied distinctions: this gains existence from that existence and that existence gains existence from another existence. To speak of existence, through existing things (such as words, symbols and concepts) is merely philosophical bootstrapping where the observation of attributes is inseperable from the form and function of existence.

Dually "existence" is an empty term, as it applies to all things and has no contrast and yet the term is a distinction resulting in a paradox where this empty term translates to a context that stands apart from itself. In other words, all things exist and yet each thing is a distinct existence that is absent of some other distinction of existence another thing has thus resulting in a paradox where existence is absent of meaning, it is an absence, and yet A true absence is absence of absence thus leading to a clear distinction.

In pure contradiction anything arises and what is possible occurs with this expansive infinite possibility being effectively nothing until a distinction contracts it into something sensible.