Nothing Is Known

[Fairy]

Everything comes from everything, and everything is made out of everything, and everything returns into everything.

[Impenitent]

that's just what everyone says...

-Imp

[Walker]

One cannot imagine nothing, but no one can imagine nothing.

[Walker]

Everything comes from everything, and everything is made out of everything, and everything returns into everything.

Nothing comes from violence and nothing ever could
For all those born beneath an angry star

[Impenitent]

nothing is not known by the lawn gnome

-Imp

[iambiguous]

Philosophy?

See, nothing to it.

[Ben JS]

Awareness exists.

It can verify itself.

The very attempt to verify it,
verifies it.

If anything is known,
it is is known.
And it is known.

Good talk!

[Phil8659]

Everything comes from everything, and everything is made out of everything, and everything returns into everything.

I see you are having a hard time following your own posted topic line.
Explain to everyone how A = -a.

How is nothing a thing?

Try this: A thing is defined by its two elements, the limit and the relative difference between the limits, therefore, the parts of a thing are not a thing, but to make a thing, you have to combine two nothing's. or its elements.

Aristotle explained this, perhaps you did not read Aristotle.
It is called an intelligible operation.

From which arouse the saying that no one can know the ding an sich, or the thing in of itself. No sense system abstracts the thing in of itself, but only either its form or its material difference.

It comes under the heading of information parsing, as your body does it in the perceptible, so too the mind in the intelligible.

[Phil8659]

Damn, I should not have said that. I was not suppose to reveal the solution to the so called body mind paradox.

Just because the really mentally lame actually believes that it is a great mystery.

How to you tell an idiot that the topic is claiming that knowledge is ignorance? Better keep all this to myself.

Kind of reminds me of the old program with the intro when the line on a tv collapses into a point. Not really a twilight zone at all.

What two types of identity are there? is not one them to the perceptible as the other is to the intelligible? And if one does not apply, than the other does, unless the statement is pure gibberish?

Is it not pure gibberish to apply the wrong identity in a sentence?

[Age]

Everything comes from everything, and everything is made out of everything, and everything returns into everything.

I see you are having a hard time following your own posted topic line.
Explain to everyone how A = -a.

How is nothing a thing?

Try this: A thing is defined by its two elements, the limit and the relative difference between the limits, therefore, the parts of a thing are not a thing, but to make a thing, you have to combine two nothing's. or its elements.

If you do NOT provide examples of the parts of a thing, which you want to CLAIM, here, are NOT 'a thing', then you are just SPEAKING and WRITING MORE GIBBERISH, here.

So, let the readers, here, SEE IF you can and WILL PROVIDE ACTUAL examples, here, now.

Again, if you do NOT, then you are making MORE False CLAIMS, and thus are just SPEAKING MORE GIBBERISH.

Aristotle explained this, perhaps you did not read Aristotle.
It is called an intelligible operation.

From which arouse the saying that no one can know the ding an sich, or the thing in of itself. No sense system abstracts the thing in of itself, but only either its form or its material difference.

It comes under the heading of information parsing, as your body does it in the perceptible, so too the mind in the intelligible.

[Phil8659]

Wonderful moon out, hear those wolves?

[Age]

Damn, I should not have said that. I was not suppose to reveal the solution to the so called body mind paradox.

LOL 'not supposed to', in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

IMAGINE being what is called and referred to as, 'so full of yourself' that you ACTUAL BELIEVE that you are, suppose, to NEVER reveal 'solutions', to others. And, worse still IMAGINE SAYING and WRITING 'this' SO that others can and WILL SEE and HEAR it.

And then LOOK AT 'the rest' if what 'this one' SAYS and CLAIMS. IMAGINE BELIEVING that you were DO SUPERIOR TO others that you WOULD ACTUALLY SAY and WRITE what 'this one' has, here, below.

Just because the really mentally lame actually believes that it is a great mystery.

How to you tell an idiot that the topic is claiming that knowledge is ignorance? Better keep all this to myself.

Kind of reminds me of the old program with the intro when the line on a tv collapses into a point. Not really a twilight zone at all.

What two types of identity are there? is not one them to the perceptible as the other is to the intelligible? And if one does not apply, than the other does, unless the statement is pure gibberish?

Is it not pure gibberish to apply the wrong identity in a sentence?

[Phil8659]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7bMxP-q2jM

[Age]

xx

[Age]

Wonderful moon out, hear those wolves?

So, OBVIOUSLY 'this one', ONCE AGAIN, has just PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, that it is SPEAKING Falsehoods AND GIBBERISH, here, AGAIN.

IMAGINE JUST BELIEVING, let alone SPEAKING and WRITING 'out aloud', that 'the parts' of A 'thing' are NOT A 'thing', themselves.

And, IMAGINE NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE JUST HOW FOOLISH, STUPID, and ILLOGICAL 'this' REALLY IS.