Reciprocity

[Phil8659]

One of the items you can prove Geometrically, is that the literal, the arithmetic, and the metaphorical, the geometric, are reciprocally related.
What does that mean?

It means that people believe that they can render metaphor in any number of ways, it is not true. What it does mean, is what the metaphor stands for has one, and only one literal meaning or exactly the same definition.

That is how you render metaphor, not by pulling anything you want out of your ass, but by the ability to find the reciprocal literal which examples exactly the same definition.

[SpheresOfBalance]

One of the items you can prove Geometrically, is that the literal, the arithmetic, and the metaphorical, the geometric, are reciprocally related.
What does that mean?

It means that people believe that they can render metaphor in any number of ways, it is not true. What it does mean, is what the metaphor stands for has one, and only one literal meaning or exactly the same definition.

That is how you render metaphor, not by pulling anything you want out of your ass, but by the ability to find the reciprocal literal which examples exactly the same definition.

I won't abuse you, but as stated, using the English language, you're incorrect.

[Phil8659]

One of the items you can prove Geometrically, is that the literal, the arithmetic, and the metaphorical, the geometric, are reciprocally related.
What does that mean?

It means that people believe that they can render metaphor in any number of ways, it is not true. What it does mean, is what the metaphor stands for has one, and only one literal meaning or exactly the same definition.

That is how you render metaphor, not by pulling anything you want out of your ass, but by the ability to find the reciprocal literal which examples exactly the same definition.

I won't abuse you, but as stated, using the English language, you're incorrect.

There you go again idiot. Language us Universal and Intelligible, Grammar is Particular and Perceptible.
English Language is an oxymoron A member of a class is not the class of which it is a member.

[SpheresOfBalance]

One of the items you can prove Geometrically, is that the literal, the arithmetic, and the metaphorical, the geometric, are reciprocally related.
What does that mean?

It means that people believe that they can render metaphor in any number of ways, it is not true. What it does mean, is what the metaphor stands for has one, and only one literal meaning or exactly the same definition.

That is how you render metaphor, not by pulling anything you want out of your ass, but by the ability to find the reciprocal literal which examples exactly the same definition.

I won't abuse you, but as stated, using the English language, you're incorrect.

There you go again

idiot.
Thank you!

Language us Universal
"Language us Universal", really?

and Intelligible, Grammar is Particular and Perceptible.
English Language is an oxymoron A member of a class is not the class of which it is a member.
I'm sorry Phil.

[JamesIan]

Are you suggesting it's the equivalent of a thesaurus?

Using alternative wording and phrasing to express the same word (or in this case, symbolism and concepts).

Might have misunderstood this here.

[Phil8659]

Now, if you had understood Plato's demonstration of definition by division it goes,

Language is perceptible and intelligible.
therefore.
the Intelligible produces binary in four specific categories.
Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry.

I.e.

So it would be English Common Grammar, not English Language.

[Phil8659]

Are you suggesting it's the equivalent of a thesaurus?

Using alternative wording and phrasing to express the same word (or in this case, symbolism and concepts).

Might have misunderstood this here.

Information management is binary, as all grammars are.
They are also standards of behavior.
There is no dictionary today with demonstrates any such standardization, but you can learn how, using Geometry as Plato and the Bible both note. I does not allow the misuse of binary recursion and you are forced to maintain your naming convention.
Look at it this way, you have a limited number of methods to measure, i.e., define any thing. We recursively use them, but tend to rename each particular use and end up only confusing ourselves into thinking that a difference in name is a real physical difference of measure.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Are you suggesting it's the equivalent of a thesaurus?

Using alternative wording and phrasing to express the same word (or in this case, symbolism and concepts).

Might have misunderstood this here.

Information management is binary, as all grammars are.
They are also standards of behavior.
There is no dictionary today

with demonstrates
"with demonstrates", really phil?

any such standardization, but you can learn how, using Geometry as Plato and the Bible both note.

I does not allow
"I does not allow", really phil?

the misuse of binary recursion and you are forced to maintain your naming convention.
Look at it this way, you have a limited number of methods to measure, i.e., define any thing. We recursively use them, but tend to rename each particular use and end up only confusing ourselves into thinking that a difference in name is a real physical difference of measure.
So not to pick at you, but is English your first language? Your English grammar isn't quite making it Phil.

[Phil8659]

Are you suggesting it's the equivalent of a thesaurus?

Using alternative wording and phrasing to express the same word (or in this case, symbolism and concepts).

Might have misunderstood this here.

Information management is binary, as all grammars are.
They are also standards of behavior.
There is no dictionary today

with demonstrates
"with demonstrates", really phil?

any such standardization, but you can learn how, using Geometry as Plato and the Bible both note.

I does not allow
"I does not allow", really phil?

the misuse of binary recursion and you are forced to maintain your naming convention.
Look at it this way, you have a limited number of methods to measure, i.e., define any thing. We recursively use them, but tend to rename each particular use and end up only confusing ourselves into thinking that a difference in name is a real physical difference of measure.
So not to pick at you, but is English your first language? Your English grammar isn't quite making it Phil.

Fantastic, good show, now you are groveling with typos.
What does the phrase chit chat mean? Shit for brains.
You lick the bottom of the can like a pro.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Information management is binary, as all grammars are.
They are also standards of behavior.
There is no dictionary today

with demonstrates
"with demonstrates", really phil?

any such standardization, but you can learn how, using Geometry as Plato and the Bible both note.

I does not allow
"I does not allow", really phil?

the misuse of binary recursion and you are forced to maintain your naming convention.
Look at it this way, you have a limited number of methods to measure, i.e., define any thing. We recursively use them, but tend to rename each particular use and end up only confusing ourselves into thinking that a difference in name is a real physical difference of measure.
So not to pick at you, but is English your first language? Your English grammar isn't quite making it Phil.

Fantastic, good show, now you are groveling with typos.
What does the phrase chit chat mean?

Shit for brains.
Thank You!

You lick the bottom of the can like a pro.
Those two errors are in fact not typos. A typo is when you hit a wrong key, "with" is an actual word, which has nothing in common with "which," which would have made your statement correct.
And leaving out a word or words isn't a typo either.

Obviously your problem is knowledge or simply proof reading your message before sending, which is what I do.

[Phil8659]

Fantastic, good show, now you are groveling with typos.
What does the phrase chit chat mean?

Shit for brains.
Thank You!

You lick the bottom of the can like a pro.
Those two errors are in fact not typos. A typo is when you hit a wrong key, "with" is an actual word, which has nothing in common with "which," which would have made your statement correct.
And leaving out a word or words isn't a typo either.

Obviously your problem is knowledge or simply proof reading your message before sending, which is what I do.

Really? Then how did you miss your original oxymoron?
lying sack of shit.
And exactly how do you proof read a non standard system of words? I think everyone would like that piece of bull shit.

[Fairy]

Information management is binary, as all grammars are.
They are also standards of behavior.
There is no dictionary today

with demonstrates
"with demonstrates", really phil?

any such standardization, but you can learn how, using Geometry as Plato and the Bible both note.

I does not allow
"I does not allow", really phil?

the misuse of binary recursion and you are forced to maintain your naming convention.
Look at it this way, you have a limited number of methods to measure, i.e., define any thing. We recursively use them, but tend to rename each particular use and end up only confusing ourselves into thinking that a difference in name is a real physical difference of measure.
So not to pick at you, but is English your first language? Your English grammar isn't quite making it Phil.

Fantastic, good show, now you are groveling with typos.
What does the phrase chit chat mean? Shit for brains.
You lick the bottom of the can like a pro.

You are poo throwing again. Call yourself an evolved man, oopsie daisy, your calibre meter is dipping quite significantly.

[Phil8659]

Fantastic, good show, now you are groveling with typos.
What does the phrase chit chat mean? Shit for brains.
You lick the bottom of the can like a pro.

You are poo throwing again. Call yourself an evolved man, oopsie daisy, your calibre meter is dipping quite significantly.

I promise, I will let you fish it out of the toilet when I am done.
You will never have to say nobody took you fishing again.

That reminds me of a true story.
In Vermont, when very very young, me and my sister set out fishing on a wood boot. I did the rowing and I asked her to throw the anchor in.

She did.
We fished for a while, and when I looked up, the shore was about a half a mile away.
I asked her to toss in the anchor, which she did. She forgot to mention it was not attached to the rope.
We did not catch any fish, being out that far, but we did liberate an anchor.
We were so far out, we did not even hear the people on the shore yelling to call us in.
I cannot fathom why, anyone would leave an anchor in a boat, not tied to its rope.
Nor could I imagine anyone tossing it in the water without one. My imagination is truly limited.