Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 5:10 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 4:57 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 4:55 pm

Then lines have a nature, it is not as you say "they have no nature".

Okay then lines have a nature, and nature is a rather meaningless concept.

Meaninglessness only gains it's identity by a contrast to meaning. Just as a point is indistinct as a singular distinction that stands alone, so is meaninglessness. Meaning is derived from relations, meaninglessness negates itself by its relation to meaning, for just like a 0d point resulting in a myriad of forms, existence, and the inherent value that comes with it, just occurs.

You say nature is meaningless as a word but the word "nature" means one definition than another through a potential infinite regress that is simultaneously finite and quite meaningful in the everpresent now. The linear nature of definition, embodied as intuitively geometric, necessitates a potential infinite regress of meanings always allows a distinct meaning for the current moment.

All things have meaning by default, including the word "nature" for the finite observation of now necessitates a change induced distinction of a thing that allows for meaning as a distinction, much like a point, is a transitional quality that directs awareness.

Ok, I'll leave you to your word salads.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 12:28 pm People like Atla are a walking contradiction. LOL

What we ought to do as responsible philosophers, is not focus directly on the point, but rather, to what the point is pointing to.

Let's see if you can explain why I'm a walking contradiction.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 5:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 5:10 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 4:57 pm
Okay then lines have a nature, and nature is a rather meaningless concept.

Meaninglessness only gains it's identity by a contrast to meaning. Just as a point is indistinct as a singular distinction that stands alone, so is meaninglessness. Meaning is derived from relations, meaninglessness negates itself by its relation to meaning, for just like a 0d point resulting in a myriad of forms, existence, and the inherent value that comes with it, just occurs.

You say nature is meaningless as a word but the word "nature" means one definition than another through a potential infinite regress that is simultaneously finite and quite meaningful in the everpresent now. The linear nature of definition, embodied as intuitively geometric, necessitates a potential infinite regress of meanings always allows a distinct meaning for the current moment.

All things have meaning by default, including the word "nature" for the finite observation of now necessitates a change induced distinction of a thing that allows for meaning as a distinction, much like a point, is a transitional quality that directs awareness.

Ok, I'll leave you to your word salads.

Considering how mentally constipated you are you might need the fiber.

Kids, this is what happens when you take drugs and things go wrong and you can no longer tell your thoughts apart from external physical objects.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 5:42 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 12:28 pm People like Atla are a walking contradiction. LOL

What we ought to do as responsible philosophers, is not focus directly on the point, but rather, to what the point is pointing to.

Let's see if you can explain why I'm a walking contradiction.

The I is fully consciously aware of it’s own nonexistence.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 1:02 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:11 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 12:15 am

Coordinates are distinctions....anyhow:

Considering coordinates are purely space and space manifests through space, as evidenced by the nature of linear form in this thread, space dividing space as space is a paradox or points through points as points is the paradox.

Nothing manifests, space just exists. I still have no idea where you see a paradox and why. How could humans exists if their distinct "atoms" wouldn't be spatially arranged, in a world that's spatially arranged? They couldn't exist. Abstract space is an abstract reflection of that. Abstract points in abstract space are abstract coordinates. They don't do anything.

Maybe 'paradox' is not quite the exact word . Broadly there are two opposing views. One view, commonly referred to as atomism ,holds that there are minimal, indivisible units or building blocks. The other view holds that there is a continuum with no fixed points. The so-called paradox is that atomism , while it's necessary for quantifying reality, is unlike the idea of flux .

Change happens.

However atomists view change as happening between one fixed point and another, whilst other believers view change as flux and continuum.

ACTUALLY, there is and can ONLY EVER BE 'flux and continuum', ONLY. However, because of 'the way' you human beings see, comprehend, learn, and understand, exactly, the brain creates a PERCEIVED, or ILLUSORY, 'separation', which makes an APPARENT 'one fixed point and another'. Although there are NO ACTUAL 'separate units', 'they' were DEVISED, by the brain, to 'quantify' and 'qualify', as it are 'these things' that help you human beings to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND where you have FOUND "yourselves".

Oh and by the way, the word 'paradox', itself, HAS two OPPOSING VIEWS and DEFINITIONS.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:47 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:11 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 12:15 am

Coordinates are distinctions....anyhow:

Considering coordinates are purely space and space manifests through space, as evidenced by the nature of linear form in this thread, space dividing space as space is a paradox or points through points as points is the paradox.

Nothing manifests, space just exists. I still have no idea where you see a paradox and why. How could humans exists if their distinct "atoms" wouldn't be spatially arranged, in a world that's spatially arranged? They couldn't exist. Abstract space is an abstract reflection of that. Abstract points in abstract space are abstract coordinates. They don't do anything.

And what is the distinction of space that allows space to exist? Points through points. We only know existence by distinctions.

Some of 'us' KNOW 'existence', itself, solely because of JUST EXISTING, itself, and/or solely from just BEING AWARE OF 'Existence', Itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:47 pm The paradox is grounded in the basic line, and all other forms by default: points exists through points where points become there own relational context. The line as a continuum of points between points makes the point self referential through variations of itself.

The point is empirical through one pointed attention on a form. Paying attention to the the center of a thing, or a single location of an edge is to make the distinction of a point.

The point is purely transitional, to pay attention to anyone point leads to another. To see anyone one form composed of points is to observe one point lead to another as the form itself. The relative nature of the point is the potentiality of form.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:57 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 1:02 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:11 am
Nothing manifests, space just exists. I still have no idea where you see a paradox and why. How could humans exists if their distinct "atoms" wouldn't be spatially arranged, in a world that's spatially arranged? They couldn't exist. Abstract space is an abstract reflection of that. Abstract points in abstract space are abstract coordinates. They don't do anything.

Maybe 'paradox' is not quite the exact word . Broadly there are two opposing views. One view, commonly referred to as atomism ,holds that there are minimal, indivisible units or building blocks. The other view holds that there is a continuum with no fixed points. The so-called paradox is that atomism , while it's necessary for quantifying reality, is unlike the idea of flux .

Change happens.

However atomists view change as happening between one fixed point and another, whilst other believers view change as flux and continuum.

You are definitely correct with the atomist/continuum paradox. I actually never thought of it until now. But now I realize that is just another way of viewing the particle/wave dynamic of quantum mechanics.

But in regards to the first portion of what you said, paradox is the word as the line segment is this atomist/continuum paradox:

The two points is the point as atomic, to reduce the point is to keep the point through other points, this it is never truly reducible. In other words the reduction of the point to further points necessitates the point as never really changing.

The line is the point as a continuum where the point manifest by its self contextualization of itself, through others, as form.

The line observes the point as a self maintained context of points through points where this can be described as a self referential variation.

There is NOTHING you SAY, WRITE, and CLAIM, here, that WILL PROVE your BELIEF that 'Nothing is ALL that exists'. And, you are CERTAINLY NEVER going to formulate A sound AND valid argument for your BELIEF, here, no matter what words you FIND and 'TRY TO' USE, here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:16 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:13 pm

I like how you ignored the rest, so I will put it in other words.

A point is pure space. Points occur through other points as space between spaces. Space is the ultimate paradox for the individuation of spaces is space.

The point is pure occurence and occurence just is.

Yes I keep ignoring it because it makes zero sense to me. No a point is not pure space. Points don't occur through other points and I can't even begin to fathom what space between spaces is supposed to mean. What on earth is an individuation of spaces.

You say it makes zero sense, but pardon the pun, we are talking about a 0d point.

That is because paradoxes are difficult to understand. That is why they are called paradoxes.

LOL you do NOT EVEN KNOW what the 'paradox' word ACTUALLY MEANS and IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2025 6:23 pm The line evidences the point as the foundation of the paradox as the point as both one and many is evidenced by the line.

The point is one relating to itself through other points as these relations allow the point to occur and these relation show a connect of all points as one.

The point is many as its distinctions allow one point to gain identity by standing apart from another.

The point is the foundation for the dualism of one and many.

The point is relating to itself through points where it is is own self referential context through progressive variation of itself. In simple terms, a line segment is a continuum of points between points and as such all there is is a single point self referencing through infinite variations.

The simple point is the point of it all.

AGAIN, as can be VERY CLEARLY SEEN, here, people would seek out just about ANY set of words and 'TRY TO' USE them in AN order, which they HOPED would back up and support their BELIEF. But, some BELIEFS just can NEVER be backed up and supported.

As 'this one' is SHOWING and PROVING, here.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 9:33 am Eod wrote:(The totality is nothing)


Age wrote: (Saying 'this' would be like 'trying to' CLAIM that 'the 'ce cream' and/or 'the elephant' is nothing.)


Fairy responds with: Not so, as the totality is nothing, until there is made apparent a differential distinction, which creates the apparent paradox of a subject and object, a knower and known. A nameless name, an unconceived conceived... In other words, this immediate nondual dual reality.







Age wrote: ('The totality' IS, OBVIOUSLY, 'TOTALITY', and NOT 'nothing' AT ALL.)

Fairy response: But the word 'totality' is nothing and meaningless without it's complimentary parts by association.

BUT there are NO ACTUAL 'parts'.

They ALL EXIST IN just IMAGINATION, ONLY. As they are ALL just AN ILLUSION, created by the brain, which has CONCEPTUALIZED A 'separation', and which has PLACED MADE UP 'separate' NAMES and LABELS ONTO Falsely PERCEIVED different or separated 'things'.

AGAIN, 'TOTALITY', ITSELF, is NOT 'nothing' AT ALL, as 'TOTALITY' IS the one and ONLY One EXISTING. 'TOTALITY' is ALSO NOT 'meaningless' AT ALL.

OBVIOUSLY, you human beings NEEDED TO PRODUCE and CONCEPTUALIZE 'parts' and 'association' in order to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND ALL-OF-THIS 'TOTALITY'. But, 'TOTALITY' IS, EXACTLY, what 'It' IS, and THAT IS; the One.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 9:33 am Even though the totality is always and ever the superset of it's subset parts, there are no independent parts to the totality except in the conception, by definition, in this immediate nondual duality.

As Nonduality is not a thing, nondual simply means not two, but totally whole, no thing.....

AGAIN, what is 'it' WITH you people like "fairy" AND "eodnhoj7" who BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, and who KEEP INSISTING that 'the One', 'Everything', IS ACTUALLY 'Nothing'?

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 9:33 am but this no thing whole is meaningless without the hole. Just as a doughnut is a meaningless concept without the hole to define it.

BUT 'it' IS, STILL, 'dough', thus SOME 'thing', and therefore NOT 'no thing' AT ALL.

And, let 'us' NOT forget that it is you human beings who PUT or PLACE 'meaning', itself, ONTO 'things', and/or SEE 'meaning' IN 'things'.

Now, if one, STILL, can NOT SEE the MEANING IN ALL-OF-THIS One and ONLY 'Thing', then okay, but for the rest of 'us' 'we' can SEE, CRYSTAL CLEARLY, what the MEANING OF (this One) 'Life' IS, EXACTLY, and ALREADY.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 9:33 am Nonduality challenges the way we typically view reality by suggesting that no true separation exists between self and world or subject and object.

Okay, but 'these things' DO EXIST, as even you just gave 'them' NAMES and LABELS. So, WHY, ALSO, 'TRY TO' SAY And CLAIM that 'they' DO NOT EXIST, and that 'they' are ABSOLUTELY 'NOTHING' AT ALL?

What IS the ACTUAL PURPOSE FOR DOING 'this'?

Age wrote: “There is NOTHING you SAY, WRITE, and CLAIM, here, that WILL PROVE your BELIEF that 'Nothing is ALL that exists'”



———————-


That’s another paradox.

The paradox of claiming there is nothing known as a you, that can say, write, claim, prove, believe that nothing is all that exists.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 2:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 2:39 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 2:30 am
Then don't argue a line is composed if 0d points for the points inherent nature is nothing.

You can argue that the point is a distinct locality, but given its 0 dimensional nature you are qualifying and quantifying absolutely nothing.

You can argue it is an abstract manifestation of the mind, but if that is the case than the abstract line is pure insanity, akin to a mental illness of the mathematics community as it is composed of 0d points making dimensions.

Nothingness is how things occur for a thing occurs by what it is not. A chair occurs because it is not an orange, or a cow, or "x". This absence of other things is the relative nothingness through which things occur.

Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

You say they have no nature and then say they are abstract ideas, which is a nature much like thus conversation as a nature, so a line does not have a nature of an abstract idea?

Abstract ideas are not real as thoughts as how human consciousness operates?

you MENTION and TALK ABOUT ALL of 'these things', but then ALSO 'TRY TO' SAY and CLAIM that there are ABSOLUTELY 'NO things' AT ALL, AS WELL.

What IS the ACTUAL PURPOSE FOR DOING 'this'?

——-


Because language is paradoxically both some thing and not a thing.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 12:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 2:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 2:39 am
Points and lines don't exist, other than as abstract ideas. Their nature isn't even nothing, they have no nature. A thing doesn't occur by what it is not. Dimensions are abstract ideas too.

You say they have no nature and then say they are abstract ideas, which is a nature much like thus conversation as a nature, so a line does not have a nature of an abstract idea?

Abstract ideas are not real as thoughts as how human consciousness operates?

People like Atla are a walking contradiction. LOL

What we ought to do as responsible philosophers, is not focus directly on the point, but rather, to what the point is pointing to.

GREAT. So, what are 'points', words, names, or labels POINTING TO, EXACTLY?

Either 'they' ARE POINTING TO:

1. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL?

2. ACTUAL SEPARATED 'things'? Or,

3. One 'Thing', and One 'Thing' ONLY, but which has GOTTEN 'separated', UP INTO 'smaller things', but IN CONCEPTION, ONLY?

So, which ONE IS 'IT', EXACTLY?

And, REMEMBER if 'IT' is NOT one of these three, then you are MORE THAN FREE to ADD the True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct 'one', HERE.

“AGAIN, what is 'it' WITH you people like "fairy" AND "eodnhoj7" who BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, and who KEEP INSISTING that 'the One', 'Everything', IS ACTUALLY 'Nothing'?”


———-

What’s with; is simple intelligence. Fairy and Eodnhoj7 are just a humble pious couple of smarty pants. That’s what’s with.