Essence is Absence

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the essence of things merely occurence as change, where distinctions spontaneously occur and dissolve into nothing thus resulting in the continual absence of things, as one thing is defined by the absence of another as necessitated by comparison, where the absence of absence is the thing itself by which experience is the perpetual unfolding of nothingness by distinction alone as founded in absence?

[Age]

'Essence' IS essence.And,

'Absence' IS absence.

Absence IS NOT essence, just like 'essence' IS NOT absence.

[Impenitent]

the essence of teeth are dentures

-Imp

[Fairy]

Is the essence of things merely occurence as change, where distinctions spontaneously occur and dissolve into nothing thus resulting in the continual absence of things, as one thing is defined by the absence of another as necessitated by comparison, where the absence of absence is the thing itself by which experience is the perpetual unfolding of nothingness by distinction alone as founded in absence?

Nothing is absent.

Everything known is known via association to something else, not via it's absence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the essence of things merely occurence as change, where distinctions spontaneously occur and dissolve into nothing thus resulting in the continual absence of things, as one thing is defined by the absence of another as necessitated by comparison, where the absence of absence is the thing itself by which experience is the perpetual unfolding of nothingness by distinction alone as founded in absence?

Nothing is absent.

Everything known is known via association to something else, not via it's absence.

By association to a tree a car is absent to a tree for a car can only occur as a car if it is not a tree and a tree can occur as a tree if it is not a car.

Contrast is an association.

By an association to a thing a thing is determined by what it is not.

[Fairy]

Is the essence of things merely occurence as change, where distinctions spontaneously occur and dissolve into nothing thus resulting in the continual absence of things, as one thing is defined by the absence of another as necessitated by comparison, where the absence of absence is the thing itself by which experience is the perpetual unfolding of nothingness by distinction alone as founded in absence?

Nothing is absent.

Everything known is known via association to something else, not via it's absence.

By association to a tree a car is absent to a tree for a car can only occur as a car if it is not a tree and a tree can occur as a tree if it is not a car.

Contrast is an association.

By an association to a thing a thing is determined by what it is not.

Nothing knows every concept.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nothing is absent.

Everything known is known via association to something else, not via it's absence.

By association to a tree a car is absent to a tree for a car can only occur as a car if it is not a tree and a tree can occur as a tree if it is not a car.

Contrast is an association.

By an association to a thing a thing is determined by what it is not.

Nothing knows every concept.

The assertion that "nothing knows..." makes "nothing" a concept as "nothing" or rather "no-thing" is an absence.

Reality is purely absence by both absence and the absence of absence.

[Fairy]

By association to a tree a car is absent to a tree for a car can only occur as a car if it is not a tree and a tree can occur as a tree if it is not a car.

Contrast is an association.

By an association to a thing a thing is determined by what it is not.

Nothing knows every concept.

The assertion that "nothing knows..." makes "nothing" a concept as "nothing" or rather "no-thing" is an absence.

Reality is purely absence by both absence and the absence of absence.

Nothing is absent.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nothing knows every concept.

The assertion that "nothing knows..." makes "nothing" a concept as "nothing" or rather "no-thing" is an absence.

Reality is purely absence by both absence and the absence of absence.

Nothing is absent.

By what reasoning? I have noticed you just make assertions and claim them true without reason. If that is the case than I can say quite literally anything and be true as well.

But I will reason, given this is a philosophy forum.

"No-thing" is absence by absence of things as there is no thing. Negation is a form of absence.

[Fairy]

The assertion that "nothing knows..." makes "nothing" a concept as "nothing" or rather "no-thing" is an absence.

Reality is purely absence by both absence and the absence of absence.

Nothing is absent.

By what reasoning? I have noticed you just make assertions and claim them true without reason. If that is the case than I can say quite literally anything and be true as well.

But I will reason, given this is a philosophy forum.

"No-thing" is absence by absence of things as there is no thing. Negation is a form of absence.

This all mental. What is a mind? A mind would mean there's something outside of the mind.

Consider there is no movement, what you perceive as movement or time, as something happening, consider nothing is happening.

[popeye1945]

Is the essence of things merely occurence as change, where distinctions spontaneously occur and dissolve into nothing thus resulting in the continual absence of things, as one thing is defined by the absence of another as necessitated by comparison, where the absence of absence is the thing itself by which experience is the perpetual unfolding of nothingness by distinction alone as founded in absence?

The essence of all things is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, processed through biological consciousness.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nothing is absent.

By what reasoning? I have noticed you just make assertions and claim them true without reason. If that is the case than I can say quite literally anything and be true as well.

But I will reason, given this is a philosophy forum.

"No-thing" is absence by absence of things as there is no thing. Negation is a form of absence.

This all mental. What is a mind? A mind would mean there's something outside of the mind.

Consider there is no movement, what you perceive as movement or time, as something happening, consider nothing is happening.

Those are distinctions and they are defined by what they are not, what they contrast too, this their absence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the essence of things merely occurence as change, where distinctions spontaneously occur and dissolve into nothing thus resulting in the continual absence of things, as one thing is defined by the absence of another as necessitated by comparison, where the absence of absence is the thing itself by which experience is the perpetual unfolding of nothingness by distinction alone as founded in absence?

The essence of all things is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, processed through biological consciousness.

If the essence of everything is energy/frequency/vibration, then by default biological consciousness is these things thus reality becomes holographic energy/frequency/vibration.

[popeye1945]

Is the essence of things merely occurence as change, where distinctions spontaneously occur and dissolve into nothing thus resulting in the continual absence of things, as one thing is defined by the absence of another as necessitated by comparison, where the absence of absence is the thing itself by which experience is the perpetual unfolding of nothingness by distinction alone as founded in absence?

The essence of all things is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, processed through biological consciousness.

If the essence of everything is energy/frequency/vibration, then by default biological consciousness is these things thus reality becomes holographic energy/frequency/vibration.

Reality becomes subjective, perhaps holographic; you will need to explain that one to me.

[Eodnhoj7]

The essence of all things is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, processed through biological consciousness.

If the essence of everything is energy/frequency/vibration, then by default biological consciousness is these things thus reality becomes holographic energy/frequency/vibration.

Reality becomes subjective, perhaps holographic; you will need to explain that one to me.

The "Non-Linear Single Axiom Holographic Logic" thread argues holography to the T.

In simple terms all that exists are distinctions and these distinctions occur through further distinction this making reality holographic. That is the way over-simplified version.