Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:40 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:46 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:07 pm The negation of space effectively results in further space.

Negation? I didn't talk about any "negation", whatever that means.

"If there is no space" is a negation of space. If one is to take the stance that there is no space, therefore logic cannot accords with it, we are still left with space being an axiom because of the nature of logic stemming from three spatial axioms grounded in the Munchhausen trillema.
1. All axioms as assumed, required a mindless acceptance where no thought hence no definition is given. The assumption of all axioms requires in simple terms a "blankness" where the axiom exists as it. It effectively becomes a point of awareness and we are left with an element of point space being the foundation of all axiom by the nature of "awareness" as "empty mindnessness" required in the nature of all assumptions.
2. All axioms exist through a linear regress...again this regression requires a linear nature of one axiom effectively projecting to another.
3. All axioms exist through a circularity...all axioms in projecting to further axioms effectively exist through cycles.
The nature of logic, and its grounding in the trillema, requires "space" as a foundation that even if cancelled out still results in space as a foundational "form" to logic.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:40 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:46 pm
Negation? I didn't talk about any "negation", whatever that means.

"If there is no space" is a negation of space. If one is to take the stance that there is no space, therefore logic cannot accords with it, we are still left with space being an axiom because of the nature of logic stemming from three spatial axioms grounded in the Munchhausen trillema.
1. All axioms as assumed, required a mindless acceptance where no thought hence no definition is given. The assumption of all axioms requires in simple terms a "blankness" where the axiom exists as it. It effectively becomes a point of awareness and we are left with an element of point space being the foundation of all axiom by the nature of "awareness" as "empty mindnessness" required in the nature of all assumptions.
2. All axioms exist through a linear regress...again this regression requires a linear nature of one axiom effectively projecting to another.
3. All axioms exist through a circularity...all axioms in projecting to further axioms effectively exist through cycles.
The nature of logic, and its grounding in the trillema, requires "space" as a foundation that even if cancelled out still results in space as a foundational "form" to logic.

I meant if there is no real space... Real, actual, physical space.
The "space" you're talking about here is not the actual physical space.
Hence, I have no idea what you're talking about.
EB

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:05 pm And what is "real" exactly? Empirical senses observe space. The flow of emotion, the rise and fall of "feeling"...the same. All intellection is the connection and seperation of formless assumptions.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:44 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:05 pm And what is "real" exactly? Empirical senses observe space. The flow of emotion, the rise and fall of "feeling"...the same. All intellection is the connection and seperation of formless assumptions.

Taking refuge into the embrace of solipsism?
The question never was of the nature of the real, but of what we mean by the word "space", because this is what decides whether what we say means anything at all. And I happen to have little time or space for no meaning at all.
EB

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:22 am

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:44 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:05 pm And what is "real" exactly? Empirical senses observe space. The flow of emotion, the rise and fall of "feeling"...the same. All intellection is the connection and seperation of formless assumptions.

Taking refuge into the embrace of solipsism?
The question never was of the nature of the real, but of what we mean by the word "space", because this is what decides whether what we say means anything at all. And I happen to have little time or space for no meaning at all.
EB

False because space is beyond "self" as the foundation for empty mind and "reality".

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:22 am

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:44 pm
Taking refuge into the embrace of solipsism?
The question never was of the nature of the real, but of what we mean by the word "space", because this is what decides whether what we say means anything at all. And I happen to have little time or space for no meaning at all.
EB

False because space is beyond "self" as the foundation for empty mind and "reality".

?