Philosophy Now Forum

nothing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:51 pm

Negation is suffering and death.

Negative: negation is knowing of suffering and death.

Gravity fallacy. Complexity is chaos.

Ignorance fallacy: order can appear as chaos from a relatively ignorant perspective.

Order as spontaneous is order as chaotic.

False they exist through eachother, as an assumption is assumed and to assume is an assumption.

It is a revolving context, the moment you observe a context is changes state.

And there are two distinctly different ways of assuming: knowledgeably (ie. conscious) and ignorantly (ie. unconscious). If one is conscious, they "revolve" upwards as a spiral: discerning any/all not to believe. If one is unconscious, they "revolve" downwards, lacking the same discernment. Hence: *P must have a freedom of movement allowing for both directions according to the (un)consciousness of the being. A spiral can move about from any point clock-wise or anti-wise, and each has its own signature relationship(s) to other surrounding forms.
But there are an infinite number of ways of making distinctions.

And negating the present one results in a new form and loop.

You can't negate the present unless you "believe" it doesn't exist, which is an ignorant form/loop.

If I negate (A-->A) with (-A-->-A) I create a new loop as ((-A-->-A)-->(B-->B))

No you don't: you default back to whatever came before A.
B would arise if you believe A is negated if/when in fact not.

Nothing came before A, it is the void of void.

You have to negate a loop with a loop and this requires one loop to turn to many.

The loop of belief-based ignorance is negated by the loop of knowledge. This is not an existential phenomena, it is a local one that reveals the existential to the same degree(s) *P knows itself in relation to.

Form is inevitable for both, thus both are justified through form as form is being and being is justification.

If I cut a 2d circle in half with a 1d line, I still use a loop as the 1d line have both the same beginning and end points (0d point).

Fold the loop, then. It gives the 2D circle-now-cut-in-half a positive/negative pole that will conform to any antithetical dichotomy in the same dimension.

A positive and negative pole are both lines, a line has the same ending and beginning...it is a loop.

I know....see how we project our enemies on other's?

If I was a real Christian I would warn him out of brotherly love his ignorant blasphemy is leading him to destruction.

No I am just going to tear his BS apart.

Projection is a product of enmity; not owing to a particular religion, rather religion is owing to institutionalized justification of enmity.

I know, stop projecting your beliefs

The religion thing is old...you ignore the stats about atheism. You are projecting enmity towards religion.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:44 pm

upsurgent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:26 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:33 pm
Spinoza is dead, but worse spinoza is boring and sucks dictum.

No, I am negating you through determination...what you are not subject to your own laws?

upsurgent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:44 pm

upsurgent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:26 pm

No, I am negating you through determination...what you are not subject to your own laws?

You yourself are essentially dead, in the sense that you are a mere blowhard, entirely lacking formal collegiate education, exhibiting your abysmal ig'nance
You are apparently ignorant about "ig'nance"...it is "ignorance".

via every single absolutely nonsensical/absurd/confused post you posit. Your absolute confusion is a total waste of everyone's time...you are so radically inverse and reverse that your silly silly conversation is entirely unintelligible to a normal mind !

So if I am unintelligible to a normal mind...and I am unintelligible to you (implying this), then you are just a normal mind and your insights are not deep?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:22 am

upsurgent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:44 pm
No, I am negating you through determination...what you are not subject to your own laws?

You yourself are essentially dead, in the sense that you are a mere blowhard, entirely lacking formal collegiate education, exhibiting your abysmal ig'nance
You are apparently ignorant about "ig'nance"...it is "ignorance".

via every single absolutely nonsensical/absurd/confused post you posit. Your absolute confusion is a total waste of everyone's time...you are so radically inverse and reverse that your silly silly conversation is entirely unintelligible to a normal mind !

So if I am unintelligible to a normal mind...and I am unintelligible to you (implying this), then you are just a normal mind and your insights are not deep?

"No education"...ROFl!!!!

Bachelor's degree and tutored for 6 months under a Harvard professor who worked under the White House. Add in trade school, for real life "experience", as well as experience in security, nuclear industry, sales, farming, hospice, restaurant work, working with homeless, screen play writing, master level yoga/calisthenics, martial arts....blah, blah, blah....

Oh and drilling your mother on the side...had to throw that one in...that one came the easiest . And she did "come" the easiest.


So...honestly I just can't take you serious. You are another blowhard academic with a cause and no life experience trying to do...well whatever it is you do....I don't even think you are determined enough to figure that one out.

Regardless, ad hominums aside (I had fun):

All laws must effectively reference themselves, otherwise a dependency on further outside laws alone nullifies them as the law is intrinsically empty in and of itself.

Your "negation through determination" effectively negates itself no different than a fallacy can be applied to another fallacy to negate it. Real simple argument.

It is dangerous to build a house on one supporting beam...knock the beam out and the floor caves in.

Inversion is a law, as inversion causes one form to effectively turn into another. I cover this somewhere in the math section.

upsurgent wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:22 am

upsurgent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:23 pm
You yourself are essentially dead, in the sense that you are a mere blowhard, entirely lacking formal collegiate education, exhibiting your abysmal ig'nance
You are apparently ignorant about "ig'nance"...it is "ignorance".

via every single absolutely nonsensical/absurd/confused post you posit. Your absolute confusion is a total waste of everyone's time...you are so radically inverse and reverse that your silly silly conversation is entirely unintelligible to a normal mind !

So if I am unintelligible to a normal mind...and I am unintelligible to you (implying this), then you are just a normal mind and your insights are not deep?

"No education"...ROFl!!!!

Bachelor's degree and tutored for 6 months under a Harvard professor who worked under the White House. Add in trade school, for real life "experience", as well as experience in security, nuclear industry, sales, farming, hospice, restaurant work, working with homeless, screen play writing, master level yoga/calisthenics, martial arts....blah, blah, blah....

Oh and drilling your mother on the side...had to throw that one in...that one came the easiest . And she did "come" the easiest.


So...honestly I just can't take you serious. You are another blowhard academic with a cause and no life experience trying to do...well whatever it is you do....I don't even think you are determined enough to figure that one out.

Regardless, ad hominums aside (I had fun):

All laws must effectively reference themselves, otherwise a dependency on further outside laws alone nullifies them as the law is intrinsically empty in and of itself.

Your "negation through determination" effectively negates itself no different than a fallacy can be applied to another fallacy to negate it. Real simple argument.

It is dangerous to build a house on one supporting beam...knock the beam out and the floor caves in.

Inversion is a law, as inversion causes one form to effectively turn into another. I cover this somewhere in the math section.

Okay, fine, nuff said. Please, your rambling confusion is so radically nauseating, in ongoing fashion, that I am begging you to refrain from participating within any of the threads of inquiry which I post herein. You are clogging my threads with so much ig'nant nonsense, that I find it unbearably ruinous. Each of your sentences is so strangely twisted, that it is simply too painful to peruse your babbling...You clearly covet the notion that, by merely stringing series of big words into idiosyncratic sentences, you can sham/mislead persons into engaging the illusion that you are thinking about philosophy.
Goodbye.