Negation of Classical Identity Laws Using Classical Identity Laws.

[Gary Childress]

Then apparently you do not believe a line segment composed of line segments and yet belief is not required...they just are, it just is. And the nature? A primitive distinction.

My belief? None. I observe what is distinct.

To be frank, and not to be rude, I really do not care if you believe or do not believe, understand or do not understand.

Tell me...why I should value your approval?

Why should I bother trying to convince you of anything?

I'm just curious how one believes both that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=). Or do you NOT believe both that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=)?

Does the same apply to the word "is"? If I say the building is burning, does that mean the building is both burning and is not burning? And if it means both, then will you evacuate the building or stay there? It's like solipsism. A person can say they believe that they are the only person in the world, and everyone else is an illusion or a robot or something. But can anyone truly believe such a thing and effectively live a decent life in the world with such a belief? Can anyone truly believe that without demonstrating in their ordinary conduct that they don't?

I never said belief. I said observed distinctions. Which leads to the necessary next point.

Truthfully I really do not care about your questions.

You are not someone worth impressing or convincing.

Go back to complaining about the world decaying and your self-pity party.

What has been stated has been stated. If a line segment containing line segments is too deep for you....it is probably because your mind decayed with the world you incessantly complain about....the same world your logic produced.

You can have the last word to save face.

I'll be generous and let you have the last word.

Is the statement that (=)=(=) and (=)=/=(=), "true" or is it "false"?

Or, to pose the question another way, It seems to me that it's "false". Am I incorrect that it's "false"? Yes or no?

[Skepdick]

No error, no externalization, just awareness of the limits of what you claim.

And yet blissfully unaware of your misunderstanding.

A cognitive operation is subject to being a distinction, so is a non-cognitive operation. What remains is the event of distinction.

Then do a different operation. Distinguishing is the wrong one for interpreting me correctly.

You are treating interpretation as boundary-making.
I am treating interpretation as preservation of intended use.
Those are different operations.

Try arguing against distinctions without using them.

I am doing it. That's how unification works.

You keep forcing my words into your distinction-frame, then treating the result as my position. But unification does not proceed by multiplying boundaries. It proceeds by collapsing them.

The conflict (and negation) is manufactured by your misunderstanding.

[Eodnhoj7]

No error, no externalization, just awareness of the limits of what you claim.

And yet blissfully unaware of your misunderstanding.

A cognitive operation is subject to being a distinction, so is a non-cognitive operation. What remains is the event of distinction.

Then do a different operation. Distinguishing is the wrong one for interpreting me correctly.

You are treating interpretation as boundary-making.
I am treating interpretation as preservation of intended use.
Those are different operations.

Try arguing against distinctions without using them.

I am doing it. That's how unification works.

You keep forcing my words into your distinction-frame, then treating the result as my position. But unification does not proceed by multiplying boundaries. It proceeds by collapsing them.

The conflict (and negation) is manufactured by your misunderstanding.

Unification is distinct.

Talking about negation/conflict/etc. is distinct.

Your assertions and skepticism are distinct.

Claiming something indistinct is distinct from distinction thus allows distinction to be distinct by the distinction of 'indistinct'.

Do you have anything else you wish to complain about? Or are you just going to pass off half-played biased skepticism as deep?

[Gary Childress]

Claiming something indistinct is distinct from distinction thus allows distinction to be distinct by the distinction of 'indistinct'.

Is something indistinct "distinct from distinction thus allowing distinction to be distinct by the distinction of 'indistinct'"? Or does your statement only apply to "claiming" that something indistinct is "distinct from distinction thus allowing distinction to be distinct by the distinction of 'indistinct'"? What does all that even mean? Sounds like gobbledygook. If you have to create that much confusion to be consistent about a theory you have, then is the theory worth having? Sounds like a recipe for endless frustration when communicating with others.

[Skepdick]

Unification is distinct.

Talking about negation/conflict/etc. is distinct.

Your assertions and skepticism are distinct.

Claiming something indistinct is distinct from distinction thus allows distinction to be distinct by the distinction of 'indistinct'.

Do you have anything else you wish to complain about? Or are you just going to pass off half-played biased skepticism as deep?

Your inability to comprehend anything is the most distinct phenomenon in this thread.

You have collapsed “distinction” into mere mention. When everything counts as a distinction simply because it can be named, then “distinction” names everything and therefore names nothing.

You are feeding anything I say into your distinction-machine and congratulating yourself when it outputs what it always outputs: “distinction.”. It's unsurprising which is always a good sign it's worthless.

[Eodnhoj7]

Unification is distinct.

Talking about negation/conflict/etc. is distinct.

Your assertions and skepticism are distinct.

Claiming something indistinct is distinct from distinction thus allows distinction to be distinct by the distinction of 'indistinct'.

Do you have anything else you wish to complain about? Or are you just going to pass off half-played biased skepticism as deep?

Your inability to comprehend anything is the most distinct phenomenon in this thread.

You have collapsed “distinction” into mere mention. When everything counts as a distinction simply because it can be named, then “distinction” names everything and therefore names nothing.

You are feeding anything I say into your distinction-machine and congratulating yourself when it outputs what it always outputs: “distinction.”. It's unsurprising which is always a good sign it's worthless.

You provide no comprehensive explanation of what comprehension is outside of hollow tautological assertions.

You fail to see in speaking of comprehension you mediate the distinction of it.

You fail to see that "collapsing" distinction requires the distinction of "collapse" thus you embed distinction within distinction.

You claim I am feeding a machine, and yet over the years fed the machine of your bias and half-hearted skepticism. One who worships lambda calculus of course would project there own narrative onto others.

Distinction means neither everything nor nothing as such things, everything and nothing, are but relative conceptual scales. You you not see by your own logic that that collapse of everything into 'everything' leaves 'everything' meaning nothing...and the inverse by design? So even your refutations have no substance by there own logic.

What remains is recursion as the event of distinction....a self-contained self contrast measured by self-scaling.

So what else are you going to be skeptical about....maybe just be 'skep'(tical) of your 'dick'?

Please by all means continue recursively applying "miscomprehension', 'misunderstand', 'inability' and so forth to weave a coherent story for your own personal narrative of triumph.

Go on...entertain us.